The Lovable Rouge ;) ...

When i have been researching for crime being glamourised in film and articles on this matter, a point that has been raised is on the topic of...

THE LOVABLE ROUGE!

This is the concept of how again criminals are portrayed in film to make the audience somehow admire them or think they are cool. I know from my own point of view that this is case in many films as im sure like me, there are many people whod love to have the "the one punch machine gun" stuck on the end of their name to impress the lads...or lasses!

On www.eyeforfilm.co.uk the review on Richies lagtest film states what Richies fans love, 

"Ritchie seems to have realised what his public really want, so why not give us more? More fast paced, fast edited action set in a London full of lovable rogue gangsters with names like Mumbles, One Two and Tank, a plot full of scams and double crossing and a sexy, chain smoking accountant."

Which is true, but does this mean that glamourised crime is appealing to the general public as a means of influence or just as a means of pleasurable viewing. In one way you could argue that glamourising crime is wrong and that it will influence people who watch it, but you could also argue that a normal person would not be influenced to commit crime and that they are just watching because they want to watch a good film.

Anyway back to the lovable rouge...

Guy Ritchie films always have one,

Lock Stock: 

Jason Flemyngs - Tom

Dexter Fletcher - Soap

Nick Moran- Eddie

Jason Statham - Bacon

Snatch: Mickey "The One Punch Machine Gun" O'Neil

Rock n Rolla: The Wild Bunch

Gerard Butler - One Two

Idris Elba - Mumbles

Tom Hardy - Handsome Bob

Toby Keddell - Jonny "Rockstar" Quid

These characters throughout the films are always finding themselves in tricky, danegrous situations that realistically they should not be able to get out of with out getting seriously hurt or maybe killed. But this threat is erased or hidden may be a better word by the humor surrounding it again going back to desensitisation through humor. This is what makes these rogues so lovable. 

Ritchie chooses his actors carefully, most of these "Lovable Rogues" will not be the ugliest men youv ever seen a perfect example of this being Brad Pitt in Snatch. The fine tuned pikey bare knuckle boxing KO machine is instantly admired with his chipper irish accent and scruffily handsome looks. Does this distract some viewers, especially female viewers away from the story and whats going on and just focusing on his greased up six pack?... maybe!

Other examples of these handsome rogues are Gerard Butler and Jason Statham.

Also another thing that makes these rogues likeable is there misfortune.

Even though these people are scavangers, low lives and thieves that would more often than not be frowned upon, the things that happend to them in these films makes the viewer sympathise with them.

A great example of this is Micky in Snatch (Brad Pitt)

This guy is a thieveing, fighting conn artist. Through hospitalising the Turkishes (Jason Statham) boxer he gets dragged into fighting for Turkish in an underground boxing match. The match is rigged for Micky to go down in the 4th round. Now Micky could just knock the guy out first punch but due to the high stakes and people involved and the fact that hes doing the fight to get a new caravan for his mum means he has to let the guy smash his face in for 3 and a bit rounds. In the end his pride takes over and he KO's the guy.

In return the gangsters involved set his mums caravan on fire... with her in it.

A highly emotional scene created with a bit of slow motion and a well played fake cry from Brad Pitt instantly makes you sympathise. The audience now wants him to have his revenge.

So does this mean that the events in the film influence the audience in the way that they now think that he should have his revenge by killing the gangsters? 

Which in respect is totally wrong, however in the context of the film does not seem quite the same. Which it isnt and this is the main point of crime films.

The material in them is fictional! And most viewers understand this and would never dream of thinking like this outside the context of the film. So when films are getting slated from the media for influencing people to commit crime this is not necessarily  true. Most people would leave that viewing or finish watching the film thinking either that was good or that was bad not ok im going to go out and try rob 7,000,000 of an unknown person.

This puts me more toward the side that is against these articles saying that films are glamourising crime and in turn influencing people. Yes they maybe glamourising crime but i do not think that a normal person would be directly influenced by this. They maybe slightly influenced but then they could be influenced by something they seen in Eastenders the same night however no ones pointing the finger at Phil Mitchell for glamourising crime are they?