Ryan McNeil
Runtime
72 minutes
Up for Discussion
1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY– Q& A with this week’s guest, Simon Columb (2:25)
3. COME TALK TO ME – Fielding listener feedback on trashy films (12:41)
4. THE NEW SLANG – Review and reaction to KINGSMAN; THE SECRET SERVICE (23:45)
5. THE OTHER SIDE pt I – Simon spins LAYER CAKE (48:39)
6. THE OTHER SIDE pt II – Ryan spins LUCY (59:34)
Thoughts from your host…
Nineteen-for-Twenty-Four; how’d your Oscar ballot turn out?
Part of me would love to post pics and gifs of what went down at last night’s ceremony, but all the same, I feel like Oscars is all we’ve talked about for two months now. If I’m a betting man, y’all also have at least two weeks of think pieces to look forward to on what Oscar got wrong by choosing BIRDMAN. So if it’s all the same, I’m going to press forward.
I decided to call an old friend this week and it was just like old times. Even though the film up for discussion might not have been as meaty as some of the ones we’ve talked about in the past, it was still a subject that brought up some interesting points of discussion – especially when seen through English eyes.
So while you get into your working week, while you close the book on 2014 at the movies once and for all, and while you sift through angry rants about how Linklater was robbed, throw on the headphones and enjoy a reunion of The Film Locker team
Thanks for tuning into episode one-hundred-thirty-two.
Simon’s Twitter feed can be found here. You can subscribe to the Matineecast via iTunes or RSS
Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.
Enjoy!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
I have to disagree with Simon. The thing you get worked up about is the lack of diversity within the Kingsmen. This is part of the point. Harry/Galahad recruits Eggsy to prove that a working class person can make it. It was mentioned that his farther was from a similar background and that his “experiment” in recruiting a working class Kingsman had failed. Galahad saw it as a success as Eggsy’s fathers selfless valour, this being the reason that he was so keen for Eggsy to prove him right. Furthermore all the upper-class people fail. Arthur does what he does at the end, all the recruits fail except the one sympathetic one. And ultimately Eggsy almost single handedly saves the world. For this outsider storyline to work the original Kingsmen have to lack diversity in their ranks. If anything the film is poking fun at posh privileged people, Galahad is the only posh person who doesn’t come across as a twit.
Although one scene at the end is very close to the mark, I struggle to see the the film as misogynist. It is a little light on female characters and Eggsy’s mother is a very poorly written character. There is also a bit of an issue with Roxy, on a positive note, she is the one who ultimately passes the test and becomes a Kingsman, this is tempered a little by the fact she is largely sidelined in the final battle. The Swedish princess is possibly a misunderstood character, firstly, she is one of the few who refuses to take part in Valentines plot. At the end, in the aforementioned scene she is in control, and not being coerced by a male character.
As for my thoughts on the movie, I loved it. I come to it with the baggage of being a big Bond fan. For all its faults, it gets away with it because it is so much fun. To answer your original question, I don’t think it can live on its own merits. You have to watch it in the context of all the films that it is parodying.
Ryan, your comment about Matthew Vaughn as a hired gun. My understanding is the opposite. Most of his films including Kingsman are independently financed. He only takes them to a studio for distribution. The exception being X-men.
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my criticisms.
I think that, whether or not this is the case regarding the plot, the issues remains with regard to the choices made in casting and production crucially. And, if you are right, and this is a narrative against the class system then why does the simplistic ‘manners maketh the man’ become the motto to ‘take down’ sociological problems? Imagine Colin Firth walking into an over-crowded inner-city flat and, when spoken to rudely, simply says ‘Manner Maketh Man’, I think its an embarrassing, and revealing, ‘hook’ they have used here. Manners, a nice suit is all you need to be successful – at the cost of cultural background? at the cost of artistic expression? (Nb, Eggsy does change his accent by the end, so should we all change our accents? etc)
If I’m honest, all the issues regarding sexism and pro-capitalism all feeds into this stance. The situation with Roxy is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it scenario. Yes she passes the test (definitely a positive start) but she is sidelined for the finale completely. Surely a plot involving both kicking ass would’ve set a better example.
I don’t think an active ‘point’ is being made here or anything – I think it is the natural consequence of the script and director taking the film to their logical conclusion. Without realising their own prejudices filtering through.
Honestly Andy, thanks for taking the time to reply so eloquently.
You make an interesting point about not making an active point, but the directors own prejudices filtering through. I totally agree with you but think it goes a stage further, are we as viewers bringing our own baggage to the table in our reading of the film? As such are you reading too much into “Manner Maketh Man” as a philosophical viewpoint and in context is it really much different to “Be excellent to each other”? And is he quoting the motto of countless posh schools or Sting lyrics?
Doesn’t the terrible politics about gender and representation and the lack of a care about the make up of the Super Secret Spy Organization, also play as part as the winking nodding and joking at James Bond the perennial franchise example of those traits.
In 2015, I don’t think. If so, at least make a clear ‘wink’ to it – “e.g. “haven’t you noticed that all of us are white/old/men?” otherwise it plays as just another white, wealthy male character, again, leading a major motion picture. Vaughn argued that the joke at the end was a reference to 007 … clearly he either doesn’t understand subtlety or homage. Because ti plays as neither, and instead comes across as crass and sexist.