I could argue that ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ reflects the culture and masculinity of this time, however other people can argue that it is ‘just a film’ for entertainment only. For some film theorists, the film is thought to reflect the moment of ‘new laddism’, Professor of European Cinema, Dr Mary Wood (2007) says it is 'representing an aggressive reaction to feminism, anxieties over male roles and the glorification of consumer culture’. So it appears that some believe the film communicates an important message about how British Males were feeling about their role in society at the time. When any media text is thought to contain a powerful message that might influence behaviour, a moral panic often ensues. But how much power can a film actually have over the behaviour of its adult male audience?the question and sets up your argument]When the film came out in the 1990’s the reception from people differed considerably as a film like this had not been presented to the public before. People either thought that it was a great representation of the culture in Britain at this time or people thought that it could in fact influence people to behave like the characters. For example, through my research I found from the BBC, it shows that the film was a great hit in the US, with a critic from the New York Post saying “It’s an utterly original, funny, exuberant and unpretentious crime caper with perfectly pitched performances”. However other critics thought differently, such as Total Film, with their critics saying “it is little more than sound and fury” and arguing that the British film industry is “entering into a state of rude health”.
‘Lock, Stock…’ is known as a Gangster light film, (Steve Chiball (2008) this means that is an easy going, and enjoyable story line because it is so exaggerated and unrealistic. Gangster heavy films are where the characters are more realistic and the storyline is believable, it also creates the depth of feeling, which ‘Lock Stock…’ most definitely doesn’t. This witty film makes the storyline funny and we know that it is exaggerated. The masculinity within the film is also exaggerated which makes people think that is funny and not serious. An example of this is when the women gets punched in the face by the man, in any other film that is more realistic the audience would find this quite horrifying that a man could do that with no care in the world. However because the film makes the men so exaggerated and violent the audience can find it funny and don’t have to take it seriously.Although it was made to be a funny and unrealistic film, some people could find it offensive and disagreed that the ‘new lad style’ was any good. For example, in the Sunday Times a writer called Bryan Appleyard complained that the film was ‘sexist and fascist’ and he thinks that the film caused a rise in violent crime.However, this raises the question, did ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ rise crime in Britain and make Britain more violent or was the film in fact a representation of what Britain was like already? I personally think that Ritchie was exaggerating what Britain was like already, not to make people violent but to make a good, enjoyable film that is easy to watch.Since films have began masculinity has played a very important role, especially in the earlier years, ladies were hardly used in film, only for the male gaze or for the man to save to show his masculinity. Writing in the 70s, Laura Mulvey argued that cinema was set up for men. Films were made with a male viewer in mind so the star had to be a man that a male audience would want to identify with and the male star would be the protagonist, the active character that drives the story forward. The woman would be in the film as a love interest or someone who had to be rescued or both, but she was nearly always a passive character, she had to be good to look at but didn't drive the story. In ‘Lock Stock…’ it is very much a film set up for a male audience; the masculinity is defined through the violence, lack of emotion and the lack of women. There is in fact only three women in the film who all play very small roles. There is the pole dancer who is shown in the background of one of the scenes, which is very much used for the male gaze, there is also the card dealer, who is women who clearly has authority over the men, but is only in it for a short scene and then there is the drugged out girl with one of the men. She is insignificant in the film and shows masculinity as she has to be looked after by the men. For example, she gets punched by one of the men, which shows the care free emotion of the ‘gangsters’ in the film. This film shows that women were insignificant in films in the 1900’s which also supports Laura Mulvey’s theory.Laura Mulvey is a theorist that believes women are only used in film for the male gaze she insists all the women are passive and films and are used as ‘objects’, whereas the men are active. Her theory suggests that all the women are vulnerable and need the men to come along and help them. ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ also suggest this theory, as the pole dancer is for the male gaze, and is looked upon as an ‘object’ and all the women are very much insignificant in the film. The film also brings up the argument of ‘Nature vs Nurture’, is it the nature of the environment that has made the characters gangsters or was it how they were brought up? In the film one of the main characters called Big Chris, who is played by Vinnie Jones has a son called Little Chris. Through the relationship they have, Big Chris always guides Little Chris of how he is a gangster and tries to teach him his way, Guy Ritchie tries to portray the idea that to be a gangster it comes from the nurture. However I also feel that it tries to get the point across that because all the people are within the environment of gangsters, it is there nature to be one.In conclusion I feel that ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ represent the male identity in Britain in the 1900’s through the violence and masculinity. I think that Guy Ritchie tries to make the point that men should be free to be masculine and more ‘laddish’ rather than some of the ideas that some of the new theorists. ? I think it represents the British culture in the 1900’s through the gangsters, however it shows it through a funny and unrealistic story line.
What does the film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Ritchie 1998) tell us about male identity in