Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

What does the film 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (Ritchie, 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain, in the 1990s?

The film Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is about the criminal underworld in London. The film shows different gangs of males that are all after the same things, money and power. The males in this film are represented as violent, ruthless and unemotional.

Guy Ritchie has a lot to do with the making of this film, as he was the director. He believes that "men should be more powerful than this". Magazines such as FHM and Loaded are thought to communicate the idea of ‘new laddism’, which emerged in the 90’s as a backlash to feminism. In 2000 "The Sunday Times" stated that this film was 'sexist' and 'fascist', he also thought that the film influenced the people of Britain with the amount of violence that happens in this film. He believed that Guy Ritchie had 'polluted the British film industry' and created a stereotype of men in Britain.

As Lock Stock is based on gangsters in the 90's I feel that the male gaze has much to do with this film. Laura Mulvey suggested that in certain films she had noticed that we see a lot more women than men; this film is a perfect example as we see mainly men and hardly any women. Mulvey also states that women are made to appear as objects of desire rather than herself. The male gaze theory argues that there is never a female protagonist in films, because females only have passive roles and that the active protagonist is always a man. There is a few women in this film but rather than actually being characters in the film they come across more as objects rather than actual roles in the film. Although this film is trying to portray that men are tough and violent there is a scene in this film where another gang in their own home is attacking the four men, after fighting for a while suddenly a woman appears with a rifle and shoots the intruders. The woman has saved them with a gun, although she did not say a word. The only man left standing in the room punches her in the face without a second thought. She would still count as a character in the film but this isn't a main role, as we do not get to know her and she does not speak. This shows that the males feel their identity should top the women's identity and it is more important. There is another scene in this film, which involves a woman but no words from her; she is a lap dancer in a club where the men are having a meeting. She is in the background of the shot dancing making it hard to focus on the men, as she is a distraction whilst they are trying to have a serious conversation.

Adorno and Fiske’s theories fit into context also with this film. Adorno would argue that because there is a lot of violence and laddism in this film that everyone would watch the film then decide this is the way they should be as he feels everyone will soon have the same identity due to the popular culture of today. Whereas Fiske would argue that everyone has a different opinion on film and therefore no identities would clash, as everyone is their own person. Adorno stated that because we were all watching the same things and learning nothing new we would gradually all become the same people. In the film Lock Stock it is portrayed that all men are violent and unemotional so Adorno would argue that this is what we will learn, that young men will watch this film, the many gangster films that followed until 2001, and get the same messages from the lad mags of the time, and grow up thinking that this is how they should act, Fiske argues that although this is what the public are viewing media is always updating itself with new cultures and ways of life. He says that we won't all be the same and we aren't all learning the same things as people would always have a different opinion on the film, therefore they would not all act in the same way after seeing this film. In this case I agree with Fiske as after watching this film and learning about when it was made and how London's culture was back then I could see that now there has been a change, stories like Lock Stock may still happen behind the scenes but its not as obvious as it was when the film was made, also nowadays with the way we have to take care and listen to health and safety none of what happened in this film would be allowed, the only way this would still be happening would be if it was all happening illegally. Many theorists agree that whether it be true or not, the film makes a comment about masculinity. At the time that this film was made British gang culture was very much about being a gangster and competing with other gangs of the same nature for the same thing, which was usually money.

I have decided this film is gangster light as it is a violent film but the violence has been turned into humor. There is no real violence in this film, there are fights, gun attacks and stabbing but we don't see any of this in detail. There is a part of the film where a man is getting beaten up and his head is hanging out of a car door, one of the male protagonists is beating him, we don't actually see his head in the door or any blood. We just hear him being beaten up. I feel that this has been created like this as the film is trying to show that although the male identity is meant to be above everyone else (in this film) that even though the male protagonist is beating up another male his identity is still the same, even though he is not beating a woman.

There is a debate about this film affecting male identity as it can only be an opinion and does not actually have a correct answer but I think that the gangster light style of this film makes the violence seem funny and also it is made out to look like there is no consequences of their actions. People may feel that it may have a negative impact on the formation of identity in young males, as they will follow the men in this film thinking that what the do is right.

Overall I think Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is a great film and personally I don’t see a problem with it. People see it as a bad influence on young males identity suggesting that they will follow people in the film, as violence is not taken seriously. The male gaze shows a lot in this film as it is mainly male cast with few women, the only women in this film are seen as distracting objects rather than people. I think Guy Ritchie was trying to portray a message due to the gang culture at the time that this film was made. Men in this film are seen as violent and ruthless, they are all competing for the same thing, which in this case, is money. I think he was trying to show that men are powerful and strong, although the problem was that not everyone see’s this film in this way.