erin_broadley

This week will see the release of Revolver, the latest cinematic neckbreaker from 39-year-old British helmer Guy Ritchie. His previous gangster films, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and its follow-up, Snatch, were hailed as major events on both sides of the pond upon their release, and today are seen as cornerstones of a new film genre -- the heightened-reality, super-kinetic gangster film, in which the most gruesome toughs and unlikely hoods imaginable all conspire in a near-comical, circle-jerk fashion to outdo each other and rack up the most impressive body count.

Another thing Ritchie's films are recognized for is introducing Jason Statham to a worldwide audience, and Statham has returned for the lead in the director's latest. Although much in the style of Lock, Stock and Snatch, Revolver is also a different, more cerebral animal, chock-full and spilling over with metaphysical brain-teasers and philosophical queries asked but not readily answered. In other words, a real mind-fuck. Statham stars as Jake Green, a con man who gets out of jail and is conned by two low-level cons, who may or may not have learned the secret mathematical equation of the "con of all cons"-- I'm not being cute, that's the plot. Also, Ray Liotta appears in very tight Speedos. SuicideGirls recently sat down with Ritchie to talk about Revolver.



Ryan Stewart: What are you working on today?

Guy Ritchie: I am working on finishing up a film that we finished some time ago, but we've locked picture a couple days ago and now are thinking about unlocking it. Boring, technical filmy stuff.

RS: RocknRolla. I'm looking forward to that one.

GR: It's fun. It's fun and simple and accessible.

RS: What release date are you aiming for?

GR: We're not quite sure -- I don't want to come up against something vast in the ol' summer blockbuster department. It will either be spring or autumn of next year.

RS: Gamekeeper, the one based on your comic book, is next, right? Are you scripting that now?

GR: No, we've commissioned a couple of people to write it, but that hasn't started yet because of the strike. That won't be my next thing, but I will do that in a couple of years, I'm sure. I'm keen on doing a war movie. I'm not sure if that will happen, but that's what I'm planning on doing now.

RS: Do you already know what war?

GR: No. Actually, I do, but I'm not going to tell you. The reason I'm not going to tell you is I don't want things to go tits-up on that.

RS: Do you think between your films and others like Smokin' Aces, the "outlandish gangster movie'"genre you pioneered is starting to run its course?

GR: Well, it's a genre and like all genres it can sort of ... it's a genre. I'm not sure. It's a sensible question, but one I don't really know the answer to. My intention is to keep making movies in that vein until someone says 'that's enough,' because I just like it, you know? Those are the kind of movies I like to see. So when I'm exhausted of making them and people are exhausted of seeing them, then I think we'll call it a day, but my intention is, like with the RocknRolla series, which is slightly different in its approach, if they're popular I'll keeping making them.

RS: I've noticed that everyone seems to respond well to Mark Strong's character in Revolver. People love nerdy hitmen -- what is that?

GR: Funny thing. I don't know, I think they like the juxtaposition of someone being really lethal and really nerdy, simultaneously. I think that's why I was attracted to the concept. I think that's what it is. By the way, when this film came out in the U.K., people were interested in a Sorter movie. And he's got one of the lead roles in RocknRolla, Mark Strong. He's great in that -- really good.

RS: Did you write the gangster plot of Revolver first and then add in all the metaphysical layers, all the theory and con games, on top of it?

GR: Originally, I was interested in the con. I was interested in the con and by default that sort of leads you into the world that we ended up in. I like the idea of it being sort of an intellectual gangster film that had infinite kind of interpretations. I wanted it to be what it is, I think. I wanted it to be challenging and to provoke thought. And again, I sort of rather like a nerdy hitman. I like the juxtaposition of it being sort of an intellectual film within a gangster world. It doesn't usually lend itself to that. It isn't sort of an intellectual genre. So it doesn't usually lend its way to that side. But I like the idea that it's not academic in the traditional sense, but it's kind of got the smarts of a con man and it's those smarts I was really interested in.

Modern psychiatry and actually older, more spiritual traditions, see the negative aspects of our personality, or "the devil" or what they call ego now, as a trickster. I always found that very attractive, conceptually. You can have this kind of a world and you can be dealing with a rather ambitious subject that's ubiquitous in its scope. The micro and the macro, in the respect that you have a small-time con and then the [question of] why Jake Green didn't get it. Because it's just so vast and so applicable on so many different levels. I found that pretty attractive and I think the mind boggles with that. The mind struggles with trying to accept that.

RS: Do you think there are people in the real world that attempt these kinds of super-elaborate confidence games and cons?

GR: There are and there isn't. I mean, the idea is that Jake has the idea he's a con man that's smart. And cons all work upon a formula -- they say it's impossible to con an honest man. I like that principle. Of course, con men are not honest men, so inevitably they fall for their own tricks. So, what is it that they fall for?

RS: Flattery?

GR: Well, all of these things. I mean, the idea is that Sam Gold [a Keyser Soze-like boss of bosses who is often mentioned but never appears in the film] is a euphemism for flattery. Or vanity or self-enhancement within the physical domain, right? There are seven deadly sins in Christianity, there's ego enhancement in psychiatry, it's a sense of false identity which becomes so vast that it eventually comes back to bite you on the ass. But how does it happen? It happens by a series of confidence tricks. What it does is it separates the product from the price. But the thing is, your mind is doing it. That's what I think is so interesting -- your mind is conning you, no one else is. Even within a con man.

RS: What got you so interested in these kinds of intellectual musings?

GR: Well, I think it's just so pertinent. To life. It's a big question. Fundamentally, it's simple. We're all struggling with ourselves, but what aspects of ourselves are we struggling with? I didn't want to be ambiguous about that. I think another thing that makes us stand out in psychology is that the mind wants to remain ambiguous about it. It doesn't want to be definitive. It doesn't want to understand it. And that sets off a series of confidence tricks in order to avoid you understanding it. There's no question that we've got a negative side, and really, the film is just an exploration into that. Because I've got a negative side too. So, inevitably, just from a sort of practical point of view, I was interested in the subject. When someone tries to explain the concept to me, I've found that my mind was not accepting the simplicity of the concept. Then, when I thought even longer, I realized that my mind was playing a trick. Then I became excited, because I realized my hold-up -- what's happening is there's a trickster in my noggin. I think that's a big moment for anyone in anyone's life, when they actually find out they're deluding themselves intentionally. Most films are about the conscious mind and this film is really about the unconscious mind.

RS: Did you have to take Jason Statham down this winding path in order for him to get into character properly, or did he find his own way?

GR: I think it was a bit of both. Jason was sympathetic towards the film conceptually, anyway, and I think that's why we ended up doing it together. We both liked the idea of it and we both understood it But sometimes I've found, with acting, it's better if they don't overthink it -- if actors don't overthink something. If they do it really spontaneously. So I think there's a bit of both involved in that. I remember Hitchcock talking about how actors are paid to 'act' so they don't necessarily need to understand what it is they're doing. Now, some of that's true and some of it isn't. I think sometimes actors do need motivation in order to induce an interesting and impressive performance, but sometimes they don't. I think with Jason, it was a bit of both.

RS: You guys must have your own shorthand anyway, after all these years.

GR: Yeah, yeah. And I think he trusts me.

RS: Is that how you got Ray Liotta to put on those tiny Speedos?

GR: [Laughs] He needed to trust me too. That was a series of conversations, but I suppose it was coming back to the irony of this chap that ran the most important casino and losing everything that he had, while standing in his underpants. He was supposed to be a symbol of power and a symbol of ineptitude and silliness, simultaneously, so I like the contrast.

RS: By the way, why the choice to switch to animation during that big, climactic scene -- was that to soften the violence down, or just a stylistic choice?

GR: Well, originally, the voice-over, which is the ego in this case, was going to be illustrated by a cartoon character. We replaced that because we found that a voice-over was more efficient. I like the idea that people trust the voice-over in the beginning and then gradually it transpires that the voice-over is Sam Gold, and that's the enemy that everyone's been looking for and of course no one can see him because he's controlling your mind. So that we found a more efficient vehicle for doing it, but we kept the animation sequence because of the gas that was being pumped into that scene, [turned it into] an alternate reality. So for a couple of reasons and one was creative, cause I wanted to do some animation, and one was a hangover from what we had previously. Also, I like the idea that the gas or the drugs contaminated the consciousness of what was taking place.

RS: Did it piss you off that so many in the British press wanted to pick this movie apart for Kabbalah references?

GR: Yeah, I thought it was just inappropriate. It was just inappropriate. There are certain things I can defend and certain things I can't defend. If someone starts talking about -- I don't know if you've ever had an argument with someone where they said, "You said I was a bad person!" and then they start defending the fact that you said they were a bad person, but you never said it in the first place. They're the one who said they were a bad person, and then they're defending the position that they've just thrown in your face. That was the position I found myself in. All of a sudden they announced that it was a Kabbalah movie, and then they went on to say, "How dare he make a Kabbalah movie?" I never said it was a Kabbalah movie.

RS: How's the missus?

GR: Good as gold, thank you. Love the missus very much and very happy to be with her. Good as gold.

Revolver lands in theaters December 7th.