How far do representations of UK/ Hollywood gangsters present a glamorous and attractive lifestyle?

“Being a gangster was better than being President of the United States.” (Ray Liotta as Henry Hill in Goodfellas)

How far do representations of UK/ Hollywood gangsters present a glamorous and attractive lifestyle?

The Liotta statement clearly outlines how organised crime has been represented in the American film industry in the last ten years. The statement followed a close narration of Hill’s life and at its peak, he had extreme power of his community that represented the power of the president as every institution from the post office to taxi firms were under his “family’s” control. This statement is key to answering the question as to whether British and American institutions represent crime in a glamorous light and whether it differs between them. There is a clear argument to state that the American organised crime rings are portrayed in a positive manner as opposed to that of the British ones, and several examples can support this theory. This study aims to decipher between the common representations of organised crime of the American and British film institutions and assess several different examples in terms of this.

The “gangster” genre was spawned from the earlier “Film Noir” genre that depicted the underbelly of society, crime and espionage and gradually developed as the mafia became more prolific and influential. The mafia has various connotations throughout society from ruthless, violent criminal to the successful entrepreneur. It’s the accompaniment of this ‘myth’ that the mafia creates and the excessive violence that the vast audiences flock to see films like Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs and Swordfish. Although a lot of films throughout the 1990s did not allow their characters to evade the law or other severe losses, they still presented the lifestyle itself positively. The British institutions tend to present the organised crime scene in a less glamorous light than that of the American ones. Council estates, “greasy spoon” cafes and run-down warehouses contribute to the unprofitable lifestyle of the British organised criminal and almost completely juxtapose the representations in the American films. The Long Good Friday, Lock, Stock and two Smoking Barrels and, more recently Snatch are all good examples of how British institutions represent the gangster scene.

Glamour in Hollywood has always been controlled since 1920s. The early 20s saw an increase in salacious content in Hollywood film and it was feared that the mass audience would be swayed away from such content through censorship. With the increase of Hollywood scandal, censorship was essential to regulate the industry, so the Motion Picture Producers Association of America (MPPAA) was established in 1922. They guaranteed to the public that the industry could be controlled through the document entitled “Don’ts and Be Carefuls.” In 1925 through research of common omissions in all American states. The “Don’ts” contained eleven items that could not be shown in Hollywood cinema such as white slavery, sexual perversion and ridicule of the clergy. The “Be Carefuls” outlined the subjects that required extreme caution when being represented including international relations, murder, arson and excessive and lustful kissing. In theory, this system could be successful, but in practice the Association’s chairman Will Hays regarded an enforcing body as “repugnant” so cried for voluntary cooperation. Religion had a huge influence on the development of Hollywood censorship. Martin Quigley, a catholic and writer of the Motion Picture Herald and Daniel A. Lord, a Jesuit priest developed Hays’ ideas and produced the Motion Picture Code in 1930 which was supported by Hays who urged members of the MPPAA to adopt it. This time it was enforced by the Studio Relations Committee that worked directly with producers from writing scenes to final editing. Between 1932-33 the post Wall-Street (1929) depression was at its worst. Films’ content was becoming more and more explicit, however and the question was begged: Was the Production Code a reflection of the public’s demands? The Catholic Church was most outraged and formed the Legion of Democracy in 1934 in an attempt to boycott offensive pictures until the code was adequately enforced. The LOD’s membership peaked at eleven million, which led to economic pressure due to loss of box office numbers caused by the boycotts. It was crippling the industry so they had to act. On 1st July 1934 Will Hays produced the new Production Code and the Production Code Administration to enforce it. Subsequently all pictures had o meet the code and would achieve Hays’ seal of approval. Without it, studios would receive a twenty-five thousand dollar fine. This resulted in the church easing off their protests and allowed Hollywood a second chance to self-censorship. Tony Balio believes that “The Code was a moralistic document, yet defeated its own purpose by making it impossible for pictures to treat sex naturally and honestly.” This was also relevant to the crime aspects as Hollywood did not have the freedom to represent gangsters in a realistic for. I.e. they were not allowed to evade the law as crime was not allowed to “pay” according to the code. This did not stop glamour being a feature of the gangster’s lifestyle, for example Scarface (1936)

There is only really one perfect example of how crime can be represented glamorously in the contemporary American film industry. Swordfish (2001) is a film where the narrative centres on a group of terrorists led by Gabriel Shear (John Travolta). Shear, an extremely wealth criminal, enlists the help of convicted hacker Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman) to hack into a bank’s computer to extract nine billion dollars. Stanley is however forbidden to even touch a computer, by law, but is allured by the promise of enough money to legally gain custody of his daughter and get his life back on track. Meanwhile, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“How did Harry Houdini make an elephant disappear in front of a live theatre audience? Misdirection.” It also explains why throughout the films Travolta speaks as though he is wearing false teeth: he is. His real teeth were fitted to a dummy that was placed in the exploding helicopter while he escaped, leaving the dental records to prove his death.

Glamour is a frequent theme throughout this movie’s portrayal of computer crime. Straight from the offset it is clear that Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) lives a life of glamour through his expensive suit and detailed analysis of Hollywood cinema. He smokes a cigar, uses a stylish lighter and presents himself as a well-respected member of the media through an archetypal “goatee” beard and long hair. However, Shear is a terrorist, uses extremely high-tech bombs to threaten the authorities and further emphasises the theme of money and glamour. The narrative then focuses on Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman), a convicted hacker now living in a trailer in Texas, away from Internet ports and computers. Stanley represents the other side of crime, (i.e. those who have been caught) and is a stark contradiction to Shear’s lifestyle. These comparisons are emphasised by the appearance of Ginger (Halle Berry), one of Shear’s associates, rallying for Stanley’s help for a high-profile hack. Two quotes emphasise the differences between the two:

“This is not a nice place you got here Stanley,” outlines the drab, deprived lifestyle of Stanley whereas Shear’s is also exposed through Ginger’s confident remarks: “He’ll pay you a hundred grand just to meet you”. Stanley’s attire is also juxtaposed with Ginger’s. While Ginger drives a top of the range, soft top Jaguar, wears expensive silk clothing and has an aura of class on-screen, Stanley, on the other hand has a dead end jobs maintaining oil pumps, wears jeans and a t-shirt and plays golf in a towel on the roof of his trailer.

The intense representation of glamour in Swordfish is emphasised by a quote from the film:

“He lives in a world beyond your world. What only fantasise, he does. He lives a life where nothing is beyond him” (Finnish Hacker)

This is a narration to images of Gabriel Shear pulling up to a nightclub (full of attractive, well dressed people and the latest bar technology) in his high-class TVR car. This scene alone sums up the glamour that has been created from Internet crime through Shear’s “sub-contractors”. Shear’s Hollywood mansion represents everything the American Film Industry has formerly portrayed in films of the same genre such as Goodfellas. The latest technology runs riot in the house, attractive women drink at the home bar and swim in the large swimming pool. This proves there is a positive side of terrorism in terms of Hollywood crime and the theme of large amounts of money continually features from beginning to end from the lifestyle portrayed by Shear and Ginger and the final crime itself. The film ends with both Stanley and Shear maintaining their original status (with a twist). Stanley still lives out of a trailer, although it’s the best trailer money could buy, accompanied by an expensive four-wheel drive car, the open road and the custody of his daughter. This clearly indicates that even though Stanley returns to his roots, it’s a more glamorous version of his former life. Shear and Ginger on the other hand escape to Monte Carlo continuing their former existence of glamour and crime, fighting international terrorism.

On the whole, glamour features throughout Swordfish even juxtaposing with the lower classes of society at the start. However, some critics would argue that the film presented too much of the glamour and not enough of the narrative. This is true to an extent with the contemporary crime genre as a whole. While the glamour and expensive lifestyle is represented feverishly throughout a film and the special effects are breathtakingly unavoidable, the narrative suffers as a result.

There have been many historical texts that represent glamour in gangster films, Goodfellas being the prime example. A groundbreaking movie directed by Martin Scorsese in 1989. It tells the true story of Henry Hill, a child born in Brooklyn, who observed the exploits of the local gangster community. He began running illegal errands for them in a part time job that later flourished into a full time one and progressed to right-hand man of Paul Cicero and Jimmy Conway (Paul Sorvino and Robert De Niro respectively). The film features narration from Henry Hill as an adult, tracking his life as a Gangster, (which adds a air of realism focussing on the “true” element of the narrative) personally explaining the significance of each event. The glamour in Goodfellas forms the majority of the film and is even incorporated into the gratuitous violence of Joe Pesci. The “president” statement alone epitomises the film in terms of the mob’s glamorous reputation and suggests that the mafia has more power than president of the U.S.A. Although to Henry Hill, the power he had over his small borough was more than the president. Whichever analysis is considered, the mob is represented positively and glamorously in Goodfellas up until the last half hour. The film industry very rarely has criminals succeeding from their exploits at the end of the film as not to give the wrong representation (However in Swordfish, Travolta uses his intelligence and technology to evade the law and fake his own death). This seems contradictory when throughout the film they have profited from crime and live a life of luxury.

A stark comparison to Goodfellas and Swordfish is Guy Ritchie’s Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels; dubbed as the new “Pulp Fiction”. Lock, Stock represents the less glamorous side of the gangster genre. The narrative includes four friends who bet one hundred thousand pounds on a card game that “can’t lose Eddie” enters that has been rigged by the local heavies. The friends find themselves five hundred thousand pounds in debt to “hatchet “ Harry who is the least glamorous gang boss imaginable and owns a sex shop in East London. Attempting to acquire the five hundred thousand, Eddie and friends discover their neighbours plan – a heist on some cannabis dealers – and rob them the minute they return. This then leads to various mishaps involving stolen money, shot guns and several heavies including Vinnie Jones as “Big Chris” incorporated various forms of violence in front of his son, “Little Chris”. It’s a complicated web of various connections revolving around money that ends up with most of the characters dead, Eddie and friends getting off scot-free and Big Chris five hundred thousand pounds better off.

The cinematography of this film is the only glamorous element it contains. The setting is similar to that of Eastenders and Stanley Jobson’s living conditions at the start of Swordfish and summed up by a quote from Eddie: “It’s like the bird: cheap.” Lock, Stock does not present the overall glamour similar to Goodfellas or Swordfish, but represents a mild form of British reality. From the start, Guy Ritchie advances that crime is not a glamorous business, as Eddie and Bacon sell stolen goods on a street corner. They manage to acquire one hundred thousand pounds to compete in a card game raised by various means while one member “Soap” gains his through hard work as a chef. However, unlike Goodfellas and similar to Swordfish the main characters get off owing no money and evading the law. The Gangster is generally portrayed glamorously in America rather than the U.K due to prevalent wealth and influence of the American Mafia, and could be regarded as a fair representation. Due to the glamour in American films, the criminals can not get away with it, but as the crimes in Lock, Stock are fairly innocuous they are allowed to. The only character to profit in Lock, Stock is Big Chris, probably the most violent of the characters, although he does have a young son that contributes to his success, therefore his morals lie in family life and being a hit-man is merely part time.

In conclusion, it is fair to say that the American crime genre has a more glamorous representation in film than that of British institutions. This is largely due to the presence and influence of the mafia. Where the mafia is a large, influential organisation throughout the cities of America, there is less influence in Britain. The gangster scene still exists but at a much smaller scale. However, in Swordfish terrorism is more prominent in the activities of Shear and comrades and features in many British crime films. The problems in Northern Ireland have a large affect on the content of such films, as terrorism is a constant threat in Britain even during ceasefires. The representation of drugs also reflects this comparison, as in Lock, Stock it is largely cannabis that is consumed, whereas in Goodfellas large amounts of cocaine are utilised by Henry Hill and his wife towards the end of the film. Despite the establishment of the Production Code in the 1930s, crime has offered an attractive image throughout the film industry. The code has been modified, altered and rewritten to adhere to social change, public demand and the success of the industry. There is censorship, but categories have been developed to censor certain age groups from viewing a movie. However, this has not stopped them watching them on video or television. The attraction of crime/gangster lifestyle will never be lost, neither in the British or American industries, as the macho image and intense violence will continue to appeal to the male audience. Hollywood blockbusters are not “infomercials” and are not trying to portray a realistic image. Their sole purpose is to make money and the popular image of the gangster denotes large audiences and making money.

Bibliography

The American Film Industry – Tony Balio, Wisconsin, 1985

Crime Movies – Carlos Clarens, Foster Hirsch, 1997

British Crime Cinema (British Popular Cinema), Steve Chibnall, Robert Murphy, 1999

Born to Lose: The Gangster Film in America – Eugene Rosone, 1978.