James McAvoy's Performance Fuels 'Filth's' Fury

Without him, a movie like Filth would fail to find any real value whatsoever. With him, it carries on past the problems to be a somewhat worthwhile experience.


Director: Jon S. Baird
Cast: James McAvoy, Jamie Bell, Eddie Marsan, Imogen Poots, Jim Broadbent
Rated: Not Rated
Studio: Lionsgate
Year: 2013
US date: 2014-05-30 (Limited release)
UK date: 2013-10-04

Why isn't James McAvoy a bigger star? He's been part of Oscar winning efforts (The Last King of Scotland), mainstream blockbusters (Wanted, X-Men: First Class) , and quirky indie efforts (The Last Station, Trance) and yet he's still considered a bit of a B-lister. He doesn't open a film, he's not automatically assumed for the lead in upcoming prestige productions, and while giving great performance after great performance, he seems stuck in the same subpar career arc as Clive Owen and Jude Law (read: good looking guys -- god-awful script choices). Filth, his latest effort, will be viewed as yet another foray into confused career territory. McAvoy himself is terrific in the film, giving the kind of tour de force turn that would normally land one an Oscar nod. Instead, the rest of Jon S. Baird's adaptation of Irvine Welsh's novel undermines the very power his onscreen personality is generating.

McAvoy is Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson, a harrowing hedonistic nightmare of debauched behavior and psychological schisms. He is addicted to various drugs, drinks way too much, curses like a sailor, is patently racist, and suffers from a stunted sexuality that sees him eager to bed anything that will give him the time of day. Desperate for a promotion he hopes will save his marriage, he undermines the rest of his law enforcement workmates through various "games", each one crafted to corrupt and destroy them. When he is put in charge of the murder of a young Japanese man, Robertson instantly recognizes a chance to get in good with his boss (John Sessions). On the other hand, his out of control actions, including the tormenting of his best buddy Clifford (Eddie Marsan) may end up destroying everything he's worked so hard to achieve.

With a fragmented narrative that frequently falls in and out of fantasy and a storyline that suffers from the needs of a last act denouement, Filth wouldn't fly without McAvoy. Unlike the similarly styled Dom Hemingway (featuring another handsome devil -- the aforementioned Mr. Law -- going the gratuitous scum slumming route) from a couple of weeks back, there's no real desire on the part of writer/director Baird to give Welsh's work the detail it needs. Instead, he lets his actors do all the heavy lifting and they come up trumps. While McAvoy takes the lead (he is in every scene in the film), he gets great supporting help from Marsan, Sessions, Jamie Bell (as a rookie cop/junkie aiming for the same promotion), Imogene Poots, Brian McCardie, Emun Elliot and Gary Lewis. Even with his minimal time onscreen (and oddball Terry Gilliam-esque make-up design during some energy-sapping hallucinations) Jim Broadbent is terrific.

So the question becomes, why is the film so underwhelming? Why don't we connect with Robertson and his personal dilemma? At first, the answer seems obvious. He's a flaming asshole. He's an awful man doing awful things. The character is clearly conceived as the kind of anti-hero you hate to love, and thanks to the bravado McAvoy brings to it, you can't help but find favor in his unrepentant evil. Even when he's acting very badly, we're in. So how are we supposed to then shift our sensibilities and sympathize when Robertson goes all soft and blubbery, when he lets his vulnerabilities show through and attempts to sway our already made up mindset? You see, we like this jerk. We don't like the whiny little whelp he becomes. During a confrontation with Poots, McAvoy breaks down, stressing the sorry state of his life with a desire to do better...and we don't buy it. When he's snorting coke and screwing his co-workers' wives, we're onboard. When he's making obscene phone calls, we're fine. All the stuff about his dead brother and MIA wife? As Robertson would say, it's bollocks.

Thus the problem facing relative neophyte Baird. All Trainspotting temptations aside (we waited to see if you recognized Welsh's name before offering up this reference point), material like this can't be grounded in reality. Danny Boyle got this. Paul McGuigan (The Acid House) and Rob Heydon (Ecstasy) didn't. Only one of these men made a masterpiece, and he's the only one with an Oscar sitting on his mantle. True, Filth is the only one of the also-rans that comes closest to matching Boyle's buoyant vision, but here it feels like copycatting. Instead of discovering his own muse, he simply borrows from his betters. That means we get occasional mash cut, weird asides, lots of motion sickness inducing zooms, camera effects, and a soundtrack with song selections so painfully obvious both Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino are wincing in artistic agony.

Besides, Baird can match his main character's chutzpah. He doesn't want to dive too deeply into the various perversions on display. Instead, he plays at keeping a weird distance even as Robertson is masturbating to newspaper pin-ups and photocopying his penis. This filmmaker never lets us experience the highs that the character is indulging in. Instead, we are supposed to be shocked, then sympathetic, and then sickened by what we see. That's supposed to be enough, and yet, it isn't. Robertson is a surreal center for a film like this, and since there are mysteries to be unraveled as well, there has to be service to the storyline and the resolution. Trainspotting didn't have such a structure. It's day in the life designs helped support, not stifle, the problematic pleasure-seeking.

And yet we continue to stick with things long after anything emotionally effective could conceivably occur. By the time we've figured out that the mirage of his marriage (and the hyper-stylized versions of his "wife") is nothing more than a figment of his failing imagination, as we see his plans backfire and blister, as we recognize the pointlessness of everything involved, we still root for Robertson...and it's because of McAvoy. Without him, a movie like Filth would fail to find any real value whatsoever. With him, it carries on past the problems to be a somewhat worthwhile experience.


The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

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

​'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

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

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
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

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