What does the film Lockstock and 2 Smoking Barrels (Guy Richie 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990’s?

This essay will look at Lock Stock as a cultural product, which reflects what was happening in British society in the 1990s. Some critics argue that the film reflects the ‘crisis’ in British male identity while others would say that the film is just a film, made by a director with an interest in the gangster lifestyle and who was influenced by the work of Tarantino.

Steve Chibnall (2008) Lock Stock is a gangster light film, which means that it is unrealistic and has no depth into the characters. This is done through the plot being over the top to support its comedic side to a dark plot of money, drugs and murder. I believe that the director got his inspiration from the typical 'British' gangster, being blunt, sarcastic and emotionless however there are not many people like that. I think that the director had his characters be like this to show that men are not easily fazed by gruesome murder scenes and that men who watched the film should be inspired in a way to be a typical man, not the 'lovey dovey' man of the men in most 90's films. This supports the view of 'Mary Wood' who said " The film, 'reflects the moment of 'new laddism', representing an aggressive reaction to feminism,". This is a negative view on the film as she is saying that the director is showing an aggressive approach to the recent feminist change in the film industry. To support this view there are only three women in this film who play a passive role, which supports 'Laura Mulveys' theory of the 'male gaze' in film. The female parts in this film are, a pole dancer, card dealer and a drug addict. These parts for women are partly degrading as they are being used as 'objects' such as the half naked pole dancer in the background being stared at by two men. This shows that women are in the film to only look good and attract the men, however I believe that this is been done as the films target audience is men and not women. The pole dancer character I believe to support Mary Wood' view on the film of the aggressive approach towards feminism as it shows a women back in the role of pleasing a man and his desires. The card dealer in this film i believe to have a less passive role than the other two women in the film as she seems to be in-charge of the men around the table with her at the start of the card game saying for them not to her muck around! This gives her a more dominant persona, as it seems like how a mother would tell her child to stop mucking around. This I think goes with the cultural identity at the time, as I believe that older women in the 90's where more respected by most types of men and would be listen to. This does not support 'Laura Mulveys' idea of the 'male gaze' as she is still playing a passive role but she is not there for the men to look at but more for the men to obey and listen to, this shows the female dominance of the time and the cultural change in the film industry and reality and how women have become more self reliant rather than the view of women relying on men to be the dominant sex.

This i believe goes against 'Mary Wood' remark of the film being aggressive towards feminism. The third women in this film is the drug addict who I believe does and doesn't support 'Laura Mulveys male gaze' theory because, the first time she appears in the film she is needing support from a man to just help her stand up. This show male dominance as the man is looking after the women, the cultural side to this is that men have been made to think that they are the protectors of women, this scene also shows women to be the weaker sex as she is having to have help for the male character. I believe this to be for 'Mary Woods' statement of an aggressive approach towards feminism as it puts females in a bad view and a weak view.

In the nature vs. nurture argument it says that people are either born with their own identity, which is the nature aspect of this debate, but in the nurture part of the argument it is said that the media and people around you form your identity and not yourself. I think that the film Lock Stock can be compared with this argument as the men in is this film seem to show the ideal way to be without the gangster violence bit. This means that the audience especially men might try to change their own identity to fit in with what the film is saying men should be like. This proves that the media has an effect on someone’s identity and how the act towards others. This could also effect little changes in things like, clothing style and hairstyle as people in the film are dressed in smart suits and they seem to be respected by others.

This film i believe to be able to support Adornos view on the media having the power over the people. This i believe because this film shows masculinity in its extreme form and a normal audience member watching this would think that how masculinity is portraid in the film is how it should be in everyday life. This means that they would be changing their identity to what the think is the correct way in which to act. However it does also supports Fiske's view of people having a choice in wether the copy what they see or be complete different and dismay the masculine trait in the film. I believe that most people would look at how the characters are in the film and know that in real life it is un-likely to find people with that type of character, but there is people like it in the world. This means that the film has not changed the identity of the viewer but has given them an insite of what gangsters in Britain are like. I believe that the film was not influenced by society and that it didn't influence the behaviour at the time because, there are some people that would change their identity after watching this film because they may think that it is the way men should be like, however i believe that the majority had believed that it was just another comedy with a gangster theme to it. Society at the time was not like this as many men respected women and treated them equally so i believe that the film was the inspiration of the director.

The film show masculinity to be very blunt, un-emotional and sarcastic in serious situations. This I believe is not what the director wanted to show masculinity but he felt like he had to, to make the film funny. I believe that the message of male identity is minimal in this film as it is a comedy and not to be taken seriously and that i believe people to be looking to much into the film rather than just to watch and enjoy it.