Reviews

Small Time and Where’s The Money Ronnie!

There is a particular pleasure in returning to the early work of an artist when one knows that the potential evident in their work has already been realised.


Where's The Money Ronnie!

Director: Shane Meadows
Cast: Shane Meadows, Mat Hand, Dena Smiles, Gena Kawecka, Jimmy Hynd, Dominic Dillon, Paul Anderson
Distributor: BFI [UK]
Rated: 18
Year: 1996
Release Date: 2010-10-18

Reviewing a promising new work from a promising new filmmaker can be unexpectedly uncomfortable. There are all manner of anxieties: it often feels as if each piece of praise needs to be qualified with some mention of what could be achieved if the talent under discussion develops as one hopes it will.

Simultaneously, each criticism is accentuated by the concern that the highlighted failing will extend into future work. The review ends up being not a review of the film in front of us, but of films that may come, or fail, to be. There is, however, a particular pleasure in returning to (or discovering) the early work of an artist when one knows that the potential evident in it has already been realised.

Subsequently, it's an ideal time to consider Shane Meadows’s debut feature, Small Time (and Where’s The Money Ronnie!, the early short paired with it, here), because we can do so without hope, or fear, for his later work. We know that -- in masterly films like Dead Man’s Shoes and This Is England -- the absurd black comedy became characteristic; the unmistakable Englishness grew to incorporate comment on Britain itself; the perpetual threat of violence that crackles under every scene was extended into stories that incorporated true tragedy; and that the characters grew deeper and fuller, darker and funnier. As such, we are free to luxuriate in a fine early movie, without fretting that the potential it demonstrates will go unrealised.

Meadows plays ‘Jumbo’, an inept and ultra-small time crook whom, if his gossiping girlfriend -- Gene Kawecka’s Ruby -- is to be believed, merits that nickname in the same way Little John merits his. With Jumbo unable to satisfy her sexually (‘There’s little things you don’t do… that a woman appreciates,’ she tells him. ‘Like having a bath [or] cleaning your teeth’), Ruby begins what is essentially a furtive affair -- with a vibrator.

It is a sustained subplot that’s illustrative of the film:it's ostensibly saucy, funny and inconsequential but contains seeds of the unsettling. If Jumbo discovers her, we know, there will be violence. (The couple frequently give each other ‘kickings’.)

One of Meadows’ finest talents, as a screenwriter, a director and even as an actor, is to present worlds that are both comically stylised and yet harshly realistic. Often in comedy we allow ourselves to laugh because the characters presented to us are kindhearted, childlike and sanitized (or else, in the case of gangster films for example, sufficiently glamorous to override their un-palatability).

Here, it is demonstrated, a funny thing may be done, and a laugh elicited by, an appalling, irredeemable and unsexy character who is quick to violence and slow to self-knowledge. In Small Time, as in much of the work of Shane Meadows, we frequently want to laugh but feel we shouldn’t -- which is, of course, so often the situation in life.

The thrust of the film, if a film so thinly plotted can be thought to have a thrust, concerns Jumbo’s best friend and ‘business partner’, Malc (Mat Hand) and the efforts he and his girlfriend (Dena Smiles’s Kate) make to escape the rancid quagmire of their lives.This isn’t the story of a good man struggling to free himself from bad circumstances, though, and there’s no inspiration to be taken from it. Malc has no talent he needs just one opportunity to demonstrate, and no attractiveness of character that makes us want him to succeed: he is simply slightly more tolerable than the sub-mental losers with whom he hangs around.

Indeed, this isn’t really a story at all. Meadows knows that life generally has no plot, and he doesn’t attempt to squeeze his observational material into one. The ‘story’ that emerges -- the gang members attempt to rob a New Age establishment with weapons including toy guns and a rolled up newspaper -- appears not because Meadows feels his character’s lives need narrative drive, but because they do. Their actions throughout the film are simply an effort to persuade themselves they are alive, so ‘small time’ are they, both as criminals and people.

The plans for the robbery are just the most obvious manifestation of this desire to announce their existence. The scheme gives them an opportunity to sit and talk of how they will spend the money they will steal; of how their lives will be different once this final heist is pulled off; of the future they can create because of it. That, once events are afoot, Meadow resolves the action so quickly, and in such contrast to the slow-developing character-centric scenes that have preceded it, underlines his lack of concern with his ‘story’.

Where’s The Money Ronnie!, a ultra-low budget, 12-minute black and white short, is inspired by Rashomon. A robbery and double murder has taken place on a Midlands street and, while being interviewed by the police, four of those involved relate their version of what occurred.

The film is interesting not for its content or style, but because of the presence of Meadows, who plays the titular money-lender. He leers into the camera, artless but smug, bristling with energy and ideas. Where’s The Money Ronnie! is the purest expression of the overwhelming impression given by Meadows’s early work: that his is a major talent that cannot be ignored or forgotten.

Each of these films is a loud call for the attention Meadows has clearly always felt he deserves -- and it’s a pleasure to watch them now, when we know he has fully received it.

6

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image