THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN

UK, 1960, 116 minutes, Black and white.
Jack Hawkins, Nigel Patrick, Roger Livesey, Richard Attenborough, Bryan Forbes, Kieron Moore, Terence Alexander, Norman Bird, Robert Coote, Nanette Newman.
Directed by Basil Dearden.

The League of Gentlemen was talked about as a comedy. However, in retrospect it is far more serious. The comedy is in the irony, the sardonic characterisation as well as the crisp dialogue.

The film is ironic in its presentation of a disillusioned major, played by Jack Hawkins, getting some revenge on the Establishment by inviting to lunch a whole range of disgruntled ex-officers with all kinds of moral, immoral and amoral backgrounds. They are a star-studded list in the sense of the top actors, character actors, of British cinema from the old days like Roger Livesey, from the immediate past like Nigel Patrick and up-and-coming stars like Richard Attenborough and Bryan Forbes – who had adapted the novel for the screen was a performer in a lot of films but made his name principally as a director.

The film spends a lot of time focusing on the characters and their interactions, the difficulties that the characters have with one another as they plan a robbery. Part of the film is devoted to the execution of the robbery – with military precision.

However, in films, crime doesn’t pay. However, the film is very strong in its cinematic qualities and very interesting as a reflection of comedy at the end of the 1950s, the era of the kitchen-sink drama, the end of the Ealing comedies and socially the beginning of the 60s and the disintegration of the British Empire.

The British comedy team with its outrageous parody took its name, The League of Gentlemen, from this film.

1. This film was highly praised by critics. Do you agree? Why?

2. Some considered it a comedy. Was it? How much humanity was there - in the treatment of human foibles?

3. Others considered it as more serious. Was it a serious film? The focussing of attention on criminals, the different and perverse backgrounds of these criminals,, the workings of the criminal mind? How ugly was the tone of this presentation of criminals and their work? Or how much sympathy did these men elicit for the audience? Did this carry over into their crimes or exploit it?

4. Was the technique of introducing each character by an incident successful? Did it arouse audience curiosity and interest? Comment on the visual techniques for varying this introduction to each character. How important was dialogue in these introductions? In subsequent portrayal of character?

5. The irony of the mention of gentlemen? What did the film say about gentlemen and their styles? Their conventions and behaviour? Gentlemen and the effects of the Army in civilian life? Hyde’s resentment about his treatment? The implications of the film for the degeneration of English standards for gentlemen?

6. Were the characters interesting in themselves? In their ordinary lives? The criminal aspect of their background, their need for money? Which .members of the League made the most impression? The Major with his
Heartiness and his relationship to his girlfriend? The man who was a failure with his wife supporting him and her reaction to him with a lover? The timid man with the talkative wife and the father watching the TV? The coach and his homosexual background? Race and his woman? The padre and his conmanship?

7. How did the film retain interest in the plans and phases of preparation? The styles of meeting, dinners, lectures etc.? The conviviality and dependence?

8. The value of having a crime planned as an operation?

9. How well executed was the robbery? All the preparations? the banter and humour of the mistakes? The robbery of the arms and the risks with the police?

10. How well executed was the robbery itself? How well filmed, its brevity and force?

11. How well did the film portray the accidents and mistakes? Did the film need a moral ending? Did the moral ending fit in well with the film?

12. What was the point of having money arrive in the last moments of the film? The hilarity counterpointing the tension – the humorous last line?

13. How successful was this 1960 crime-drama comedy compared with similar films now? How did it keep its interest? How enjoyable was it? How much an exploration of values of modern society and crime?