Big Screen Peter: Snatch and Lock, Stock

Editor’s note: Peter Lewis has agreed to use whatever it is you call his writing style to provide some measure of analysis to those folks who still go to a theater to see a movie.

review by Peter Lewis

In many ways, with the advent of streaming technologies and on demand movie channels, we’ve been ushered into a golden age of cinematic consumption.  While nothing can replace the feeling of a darkened theater, it’s often wise to step back and reflect on the pleasures of home viewing.

In that spirit, I forsook the recent spat of cinematic offerings to bask in the simple pleasures of Guy Ritchie’s sophomore effort: “Snatch.”

The film, set amongst the low to mid-level criminals of greater London, is highly stylized. The characters are funny, fast-paced and foul mouthed. To further embed the idea of brashness, Ritchie makes full and frequent use of what one might call machine-gun jump cuts to highlight a particular aspect of an object within the film. The camera work seems intent on invoking a comparison to the dangerously fast pace of life for the hustlers and runners of London.

Though many doubted the worthiness of the film, this elan, perhaps coupled with the presence of Hollywood darling, Brad Pitt, helped push Snatch towards a lasting cinematic popularity upon its release.

Of course, many simply saw it as a rehashed film, yesterday’s mashed potatoes so to speak. From the cheeky wit to the setting and on up to the plot, “Snatch” is, in most ways, just a formulaic refinishing of Ritchie’s first film, “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.” Thematically, the films line up to create a sort of British noir twist on the classic picaresque form in which the audience is offered a rough-around-the-edges protagonist, surviving amidst corruption and deceit.

In the first effort, it’s Eddie, a genius with a knack for card play, that gets duped by a crime boss. In “Snatch,” it’s Turkish, a well meaning boxing promoter and small-time gambling hall owner, that gets crosswise with Brick Top on account of a wily gypsy.

These fashionable, confident — if not slightly downtrodden — young men, are thrown in amongst a free-wheeling plot structure that’s heavy on the style and often a bit lacking in substance. While both offer memorable characters, what separates the two lies in the depth of those characters portrayed. “Snatch” drips with empty sarcasm. And perhaps rightfully so. The movie is one of displaced power. As each scene progresses, so to does the balance of power between the intricately connected characters. The film brings to life Gene Forrester’s realization in “A Separate Peace,” “It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak.”

Yet, despite its effect on one’s superficial enjoyment of the film, the sarcasm seems to put the characters at an arm’s reach. Whereas Lock, Stock had affecting and obvious relationships beneath the chirpy dialogue, “Snatch” largely seems devoid in retrospect.  It seems adrift without anchor.  As appealing as that detachment can be at times, it’s what separates the truly great (Lock, Stock) from the appealing, but otherwise mediocre (Snatch).

Feedback
Feel free to contact Peter Lewis at [email protected]

You can also track Peter at his website.