Le Cineclub with Emma and Lauren: Green Street Hooligans

Today Emma and I saw Green Street Hooligans:

Emma: OK. So: Green Street Hooligans - how did you like it?

Lauren: It was one of those films, where the things that I LOVED, I really, really loved, and the things that I HATED made me want to walk out.

Emma: Intriguing! What did you hate?

Lauren: First, I want to hear how you felt overall!

Emma: Sure. I, actually, really enjoyed it. But naturally it's a little hard for me to separate my London-nostalgia from an objective assessment of the film's merits. I found the premise to be an original one - an innocent American plunged into the craziness of English football hooligan culture; and I appreciated the way it seemed as if a genuine attempt had been made at authenticity. Those hooligans' outfits were accurate down to the very labels they wore.

Lauren: Wow. That's so cool - I definitely was curious how the film felt to a native Londoner living in America. I guess that it's the familiar, of course, that we notice first. I didn't like how it seemed as though Matt Bruckner (Elijah Wood) was so obviously "slumming." And that the high stakes for others were a vacation to him. There was a certain amount of privilege that he thought he carried so effortlessly or could disavow, but that was precisely what set him apart.

Emma: I know what you mean, but what I found more striking than Matt's apparent slumming was his mixture of awe, fear, and fascination with the testosterone drenched macho dynamic of the gang.

Lauren: Yes! It was amazing how erotically charged it was for a film with no sex scenes.

Emma: Totally! That had to be intentional.

Lauren: It made me think later about whether it's intuitive or learned to associate sex with violence in instances where it seems like an obvious subtext. I mean, they played makeout music during the fight scenes...

Emma: Right. I think it's natural, and then the temptation is to play it up, as clearly happened here. But getting back to what you said you didn't like, about Matt's slumming: I saw it less as his vacation than his search for some kinship or meaning to his life after getting fucked over so royally by his Harvard croney. I don't think he necessarily felt he had much to return to.

Lauren: I definitely agree with that take. But it seemed like, at every crucial point in the film where it was obvious to me as a viewer that there was a (a) less violent or (b) more violent outcome, his careless behavior upped the ante for everyone but him. He's in less danger than anyone else in every scene. And I felt that was because he was a rich kid on holiday.

Emma: You're right - I did notice that, and wondered what we were to make of it - because certainly at those crucial moments you mention, the camera would linger on his face and the temptation was to consider if he felt guilt, or was questioning the sometimes catalystic role he played in creating drama.

Lauren: Wow - that's a stellar observation. I definitely felt like the tight scenes that focused on his eyes were key, but I couldn't have articulated it quite that perfectly. But other than his rich white boy complex, there was quite a lot to like about the film.

Emma: Complex is a key word! Because although what you say is absolutely true - he was careless, with less to lose - his behaviour stemmed as much from carelessness as a desperate desire to win approval and belonging to the 'firm'. And that idea: how poignantly, recklessly desiring humans (but especially young men) can be to connect with others, is very emotionally resonant.

Lauren: I love that word - desire - and I think it's at the core of the story.

Emma: Definitely. Somehow the visceral, brutal violence depicted emphasized that.

Lauren: Absolutely. Having blood smeared across one's face = oddly sexy, especially if you are a drunk, hard-bodied, football fan in his '20s. Besides desire, the film did an intriguing exploration of 'family,' and all of the different contexts in which it can have meaning in our lives.

Emma: Yes. One of the plot elements that really pulled the film together for me was the fact of the older brother, Matt's brother in law, being the 'major', from the old days, and having vowed to give up leadership of the firm for his wife and child. And when he was briefly pulled back into the violence and loyalty to the firm, you felt his genuine conflict, against expectation that you would.

Lauren: The brother in law, Steve, was a really powerful presence in the film. Matt's sister, Shannon (Claire Forlani) was more of an enigma. I found it disappointing that the only female character in the film was frankly, a witless cunt.

Emma: Thanks - I was just about to say I think enigma is a polite way of putting it! She was fairly underdeveloped, wasn't she - and reacted in predictable ways to everything. Women certainly were conspicuous in their absence. But that was one of the main points, I guess - we were being treated to a slightly voyeuristic glance at one of the more perverse directions male energy can go.

Lauren: Yeah. If there were a major female character, she would have been like Lady Sovereign or something... But seriously, his sister was so annoying! Every single thing she did seemed to endanger other people's lives, which is also another thing about the film that stands out. The heightened dramatic tension was unusually sustained from the first frame until the last, and that's impressive.

Emma: That's definitely one of the things I liked about it. But with Shannon it was almost as if they didn't know what to do with her. They could have done better, at least given her opinions beyond the most obvious.

Lauren: I felt that she became archetypal in her stupidity. Like a Biblical Eve.

Emma: Well, her husband did say "she's my angel", and definitely her role was nothing beyond the stereotypical nurturing, sensitive female presence.

Lauren: Exactly. And she had no history, whereas no one else could escape his.

Emma: Right! Now, you said that you found some of the accents almost incomprehensible - was this a problem?

Lauren: At first it took me a moment to grasp the words, and then occasionally, later, I missed the meaning of certain exchanges that happened quickly. Especially if they were "slangy". What did you think of Bover (Leo Gregory)? His betrayal seemed inevitable from the first scene between him and Matt in the mens room at the pub, where he grabs his cheek and intimidates him.

Emma: The accents/slang: Well, at one point you asked me what someone said, and I didn't know the meaning! Something about "on deck". D'you think subtitles would help, like in Trainspotting?! 

I enjoyed the character of Bover - mainly because it was such a devastatingly convincing performance. As you say, he was a bubbling threat from the get go. And his attitude was a likely combination of jealously, xenophobia and insecurity.

Lauren: I think subtitles would have been a little over the top (a la Kept and Jerry Hall!), and also hard to add to the scenes with that highly specific to this film style of blurred, tightly framed shots.

Emma: I agree. As you know, the main flaw overall for me, though, was how painfully bad Charlie Hunnan's London accent was. It was excruciatingly, horribly bad.

Lauren: Hilarious. I love that you hated his faker accent (which of course, I didn't pick up). You mentioned thinking the film might be set in the late '80s at first, but later Pete (Charlie Hunnan) mentions the early '90s as ancient history. Did timing affect the story at all from your perspective?

Emma: They certainly seemed to take poetic licence when it came to the likelihood of events. For example, the brilliant central scene where they're travelling down to Manchester to the Man. United/Westham match, and the Manchester firm are waiting for them at the station: such calamitous confrontations, as far as I know, don't really happen anymore as so many police would be deployed to keep the groups apart. So a train station on match day would be crawling with coppers. But it didn't bother me, really. Even though the kind of passionate violence depicted was commonplace in the eighties and is rare today.

Lauren: True. What did you think about Pete as a central character?

Emma: Pete (Charlie Hunnan) was something of a caricature, I felt (even accent aside). Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed his macho swagger and heartfelt camaraderie - but it was a little overacted. I would have liked to have seen more about his other life, as a teacher. Because as it was, the fact that he was a teacher was too quickly passed over to be believable.

Lauren: Right - it was a punchline, and then the basis for a short "culture clash" scene.

Emma: Right - I think also we were supposed to see that football hooligans are not necessarily stupid. Just violent!

Lauren: I did like that idea, that it was possible to separate one's hooliganism from one's regular life, even though no one seemed to do it well. Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the fact that Steve bribed Pete to take Matt to a football game? It seems like such a fucked-up proposition by the film's end.

Emma: Oooh, excellent question! Indeed a fucked up proposition, and one I'd forgotten about by the film's end. There are several ways to look at it: he was being selfish, because he wanted his wife's brother out of the way for romantic night he'd planned; or that he didn't conceive of Matt's susceptibility to the life of a football hooligan; or that he misguidedly trusted Pete to keep himself and Matt of out trouble. Whaddya reckon?

Lauren: I think it's a combination of all of those things, but it seemed innocuous at the time, because you know so little about the characters and their relationships. But when it becomes apparent that Steve is himself a reformed hooligan - sort of obvious from the beginning, anyway, and aggressively more so as the story progresses - it's harder to believe that he couldn't have imagined the potential consequences.

Emma: OK: the conclusion, where Matt has 'grown' and learned from his experiences. Cliched or touching?

Lauren: Great question! The last scene left me feeling cold. It just didn't feel real. The revenge fantasy wasn't even realized.

Emma: I have to disagree! It worked for me. My only problem was that the voiceover as Matt travels back from London, where he reflects upon the impact of his trip, was a little bit "I would never be the same again after that summer", you know?

Lauren: Totally. Maybe that's when I turned off. I guess it didn't convey enough to me about the outcome. It was definitely "everything has changed," but I didn't see how much in concrete terms. Although he does care more, so I guess it's effective in that sense since his passivity is utterly striking as the story begins.

Emma: In a way I think it was brave: the film aimed to show the positive impact on an innocent protagonist of kinship with a violent disfunctional gang. Tall order! The fact that it was just about achieved, is, I think, pretty impressive.

Lauren: I agree. It is an extraordinary film in several regards. The intense violence often overshadows a very well crafted, original story.

Emma: And this is not a sentence I would expect to hear myself utter, but the fight scenes were quite beautifully choreographed.

Lauren: It was a sexy, brutal film.

Emma: Agreed!

Le Cineclub Rating:

  

(four out of a possible five peonies)

Comments

[david]

This film was probably the worst attempt ever at trying to educate North Americans of the so called "English Disease"

I suggest that you try and get a copy of "The Firm" starring Gary Oldman. This is a film made back in the 80's about a gang of thugs from London (who, surprise surprise, support West Ham). I am not saying that this film is any more realistic that the one you are talking about above but believe me when In say that Oldmans portrayal of the psychotic estate agent Becksy is absolutely fantastic!

Green Street Hooligans was/is an absolute turkey of a movie, none of it is right, the accents, the clothing - which was a bit out of date really, their age (far too young to be running a firm of lads). This is just a really bad movie!! Another alternative would be the Football Factory - not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination but at least it is slightly better than the appalling Green Street!

[paddy]

u 2 are so full of sh*t its scary, its a poor attempt by a german to understand the hooligan problem in this country, it doesnt even come close.
The simple fact is, that its a social issue that has never been tackled in this country, its pushed to the side and heavy legislation is thrown at it rather than tyring to find out why, so many young men i nthis country want to fight.
Its full of bad cliches, bad acting, bad scripts and poor dialogue.
Instead of using words like desire, sexually charged etc u should really take a deep look at yourselves and then take a look at the world we really live in.
Get a grip!
ps
as someone who was once in that scence, trust me, that film IS NOT realistic!

[leanne]

LEO GREGORY (BOVER) IS WELL FIT!!!!

[dannyboy]

the film is fuking top draw ur all cunts . . . go drink tea with ur mums u tree huggers

[jake gardiner]

i think it was gd film, but the main blokes accent did my head in, very bad choice of actor, football factory was 10 times betta, but green street not bad lol

[jakeyboy]

hahahahaha gd shout dannyboy, but tommy johnson is fuckin lege

[Amy]

Well yeh i agree you to do chat a load of fucking bollocks, lol. You 2 don't know nothing about the streets of London, or the people who inhabit them, so just stop trying to sound brainy and get a life.
Now that thats over with, the lads in the film were very real from a londoners point of view, the accents were excellent except charlie hunnams, but he only slipped up on a few words and phrases, like when he went american all of a sudden, with a little bit of australian thrown in there. Mate that made me cringe, But overall i think the film was fuckin sweet mate, seriousily it was a quality film in my eyes.

[jessica]

i absolutely love green street i ave watched it 23 times i no it a bit over the top but it is so good i fink the violence is cool because even tho the lads in dis film are very violent they are stil nice guys who have jobs the main reason i watched th film is because i fink pete (charlie hunnam) is so sexy he is fit and i carnt stop talkin bout him he is really nice. and i no hes acent is rubbish but haway least he tried a mean dont u fink it make him look sexyier

[iLoveCharlieHunnam01]

YO mate really? im from LONDON and yo haha thats the most loaded pack of tom i ever heard! really i am from West Ham and this si all bunch of bollocks !

[raffa]

GREEN STREET GREAT FILM.I THOUGHT THE FILM AND THE CAST MADE YOU FEEL A PART OF IT.PETE'S ACCENT WAS THE ONLY DOWNSIDE TO IT THOUGH.THE ENDING WAS VERY STRONG AND THE MUSIC MADE IT EVEN BETTER BECAUSE IT WENT SO WELL WITH THE SCENE.EVEN IF I DID HAVE A LUMP IN MY THROAT.

[Rebecca]

I would just like to point out the fact that you called Charlie Hunnams english accent fake. It isn't fake actually he lives in England, and even if it was fake I thought he sounded sexy.

[Emily]

Well charlie hunnam is a babe and he is from newcastle and who cares if hes accent was a bit shoddy if u seen any of his other work you would know he has a british accent so there could be another reason why his acccent is dodgy maybe the directors wanted it like that ??
who cares charles is well fit and id watch him anyday

[Laura]

I agree Pete's accent was appalling! Is he Australian?

As for year film was set in well I did see a glimpse of the millenium dome in one scene..............