19 November 2009

Harry Brown

The new Michael Caine film, in which he plays the eponymous Harry Brown, is some what confused. In Taxi Driver De Niro spoke the line "One day a rain will come that will wash all the scum off the streets". He then sets about becoming that rain and we watch as it costs him his sanity, his soul and his ideals. By looking to do away with sickness, he only serves to perpetuate it. Harry Brown (the film, as opposed to the titular character) looks like it's doing a lot of moralising and has the appearance of good artistic sensibilities, but its message is essentially that the way forward is to go over the heads of the failed justice system and blow away the criminal element. It is by this means that Harry Brown (the titular character, as opposed to the film) finds peace and justice for himself and his community.

The best term i've heard used to classify the film is 'chavsploitation'. The South London estate Harry lives on is plagued by a gang completely devoid of any morality. They are, classically, raised by single mothers (fathers absent by either death, non-commitment or imprisonment), armed, connected with serious and organised criminal activity, drug-dealing, turf-conscious, violent, remorseless, wild and chaotic scum bags from your nightmares. These characters are set-up to be completely beyond redemption and vile to the core so when they get what's coming we're in no doubt about what a good thing is happening. These characters are also set-up to be associated in your mind with those kids round where you live.



The film seems to use the 'from bad stock' argument as further reason to write them off, rather than as reason to consider exploring cycles of abuse.

What's confused is that Harry and the film gradually see more and more of this underworld and how systemic and far reaching its culture, and its causes and effects, are. Yet, by the end, one man and one man's murders have solved the problems of his estate. With all that in mind it's not surprising that the Daily Mail writer says "Finally a film that really matters". The idea of wiping out a class of people as a solution completely disregards the filling of the void that would remain and the fact that the problems are symptomatic of deeper ills in society.

One of the things that was most disturbing about the film was its conviction of the unchangeable, unrepentant nature of the villainous characters. This is disturbing because it portrays our freedom of choice as a much more limited thing than we might like. Abuse and cycles of destruction in culture and through generations have enormous power, and to suggest that our individual freedom of choice is enough to counter it is probably very naive. Enter God's power into the fray! Except in my experience (which adds to my disturbed state) even 'saved' and baptised people are held by culture, addiction and patterns of old and of character.

So i think i'm left with unproven faith, my stupid hope and love.

11 comments:

Glen Marshall said...

Fascinating review Andy. A rather different perspective to The Wire then? Not sure now whether to see it or not.

andy amoss said...

It is peculiar because it looks and feels right, but the message is essentially 'The old timers were hard but gentile, you don't know you're born, you keep going the way you are and they'll rise up and kill you. Finally we can all get some peace then and go back to the way things should be.'

I think it is worth watching (though it is a very tough watch), Caine's performance is exceptional and heart-rending, and the questions it asks about how compelled people are by their nature are worth listening to. It's just the moral of the story i can't go along with.

tim f said...

This review confirms other reviews I've seen; I shan't be watching it. I'm desperate for Thirst to show at a cinema near me, but looks as if I may have to wait for it to come out on DVD.

Dick Davies said...

A bit chilling when you read in the context of the current demonisation of Obama by the American religios right.

see: http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/religious-right-insanity-evangel.html

andy amoss said...

Yup. Both cases of what is extremely irresponsible propoganda. I was going to use the word 'potentially' (as in "potentially extremely irresponsible...") in accordance with the idea that its potential is only fulfilled if someone acts in the vein of these ideals. I then realised that the irresponsibility is NOT dependent on consequences, but rather on their own inherent being.

Kez said...

I don't share your take on the film. I say this hesitantly and with some trepidation, but I didn't read the film in quite the same way as you. I thought that at the end we're not asked to go along with the idea that Harry's way is the best way. We are asked to sympathise with the female police officer and she is not for Harry. My emotions were to like Harry but not to root for him. That made the whole situation feel complicated and whilst some of the yobs were seemingly unreachable, there is a scene with 'Marky' that leaves you liking him and feeling extreme pity for him as a real victim from all angles. I like the film for its complexities.

It is bleak but Frampton and Harry are both people were are asked to lean towards and they are from opposing moral stand points. No real answers are offered (although admittedly he does get to walk under his subway)but we are offered differing ideologies and approaches to the bleakness.

Really worth a view.

andy amoss said...

Hello Kez.
I appreciate your hesitance and trepidation (in fact i'm enjoying it a little bit). In other circumstances i would crush you (a la Die Hard), but i'm open to being wrong about this, largely because i did find it quite compelling in parts. I am also really glad that you in particular have seen it.

Here is my counter, though as i've said, it's reasonably loosely held.

(potential spoilers)

Marky - You've talked about "some" of the yobs being "seemingly" unreachable and offered Marky as an example of the film's 'broad and inclusive' perspective on youth. Yes, Marky is clearly a victim from all angles, but he is the ONLY young character who perhaps isn't entirely condemnable - and even he has to be tortured before giving up info on Leonard's murder. Info which it turns out is the actual event recorded on his phone for entertainment purposes. Everyone else is completely written off.

Frampton - We are asked to like her, but let's not forget, the title at least makes it clear this is Harry's film, so i don't think there's an 'opposite-sides-of-the-same-coin' thing going on. She represents the law, that's her interest and her motivator 'who's breaking the law?'. She perhaps even represents the law at it's best: caring, professional and right. But one of her foremost qualities is her gender.

The interrogation scenes particularly demonstrate her vulnerablility (over that of her male counterpart) and clearly suggest we should feel uncomfortable that a young, pretty woman should have to hear such filth. She may come away from that encounter on top mentally and intellectually, but by the end the threats are being exacted, she is helpless and who has to save her? Harry. Thus, the law won't work (ampilfied by her boss - one of the film's real bum-notes - who can only be described as a nincompoop) and the saviour we really need is Harry.

Harry - One of the things i loved about the film was the slow build up of Harry's eventual response and his character. I also appreciated that he never had to become a super hero; there were no punch-ups and he remained wheezy and prone to collapse. I felt there was respect paid through all that. As you rightly point out though, he does walk through his cleaned up tunnel all self satisfied, and that closing montage shows a trouble free estate and makes reference to the suffering silent (and absent) majority.

I also think the film is worth watching, but could do with a quite different third act.

Kez said...

OK, so I sat here for a bit wondering if I should respond again but you know I never know when to quit so here is a last ditch response.

You have a point. A good one too. I thought it was a shame that Frampton was a woman and that her vulnerability was so evident. In the end though it wasn't Harry who saved her, it was the fact that she'd called for back up. It's also worth noting that she didn't seem to represent the police. In fact quite the oposite. She stood on her own and the other officers sought to distance themselves from her and her approach.

Marky was an interesting scene because even though all you say is true I still wasn't OK with him being tortured. Not in a 'I don't like it when folk are mean' sort of way but in a 'he didn't need to do that' sort of way. Harry was out of order here. He picked on the vulnerable in this scene, even if the vulnerable was a toe rag.

The ending I thougt was much bleaker. Frampton walks out, betrayed by police who are not functioning well. Harry walks under his subway but those faceless houses are either of victims or perpetrators but with no hope for a good outcome and no sign of good community.

I think you're right in that the film does lean more to Harry, but I don't think it upholds him fully.

andy amoss said...

I think a much better alternative ending would be Frampton walking out of the briefing and out of the station. Out front is Harry on a motorbike, they kiss, she climbs on, they growl off into the distance - roll end credits.

Kez said...

Damn you, you've managed to undermine me completely by not engaging with a damn word I said. You're good Amoss!

andy amoss said...

Ok, you want engagement? Let's see.

At best then, what we can derive as the films message is that the way forward for society is a combination of Harry Brown's form of justice and action, and the very best from the police, with the balance in Harry's favour.

Thanks, but i still don't buy it.