Thread: Mr. Madonna
View Single Post
Old 09-19-2007, 06:30 PM   #1
Out fart the hottie!
sickbadthing's Avatar
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
Posts: 24,323
Default Mr. Madonna

by snr_alejandro_sosa (Sat Mar 17 2007 16:50:38)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply

It's great that there's people thinking they have resolved the movie and what's going on. Although none of them seem to be able to answer all the questions.

The answer to the movie is incredibly simple. The fun is figuring it out. But if you want to know the real answer.

You, the viewer are being conned.

The answer is not in the movie. The more you look the more you will invest the less you will like to admit you were wrong. Nobody likes to do that. We all want to protect our investment no matter if we beleive right nr wrong, once we've decided on it.

The answer is in your head.

The last place you would look.

It hides behind fear.

Jake is in Prison in soliatry.

Everything is going on in his head.

For exmple. this is why the place is like a dreamland, it doesn't exist, it's right in front of your eyes, but you wanted to belieive it.

Jake never left prison.

There's still plenty to watch the film for again and again, including figuring which chess peices are which people. Noticing the hourglasses and clocks next to the sun's. Noticing Maccas skin. Defining what each character is representing.

One of my favourite movies of all time.

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator

by lucanaoe (Thu Mar 22 2007 08:38:25)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Thu Mar 22 2007 08:47:52
The way you began with an air of arrogance and drew it on with your individual lines and spaces inbetween is incredibly pretentious. Your message read almost as if you've thought you've solved a complicated masterpiece of a puzzle, and are just begging for a cookie, or a gold star, some kind of pat on the head. Unfortunately, explaininging a poorly directed movie's aim is like winning the special olympics. To be proud that you figured out a badly made and therefore confusing film that is in all definitions of the term "bad taste" and trying to hob-nob as if you're somehow clever, and should explain to them, so very benevolently, with your asinine lines of answering makes you an ass. An ass dumber than those who didn't get it. Theres a word for that: Dumb-ass.

Now, you said "The answer is not in the movie," but if it isn't in the movie, doesn't that mean you pulled your answer out of your ass? Ok, we all get that you're no genius, and don't know how to express what you want to say, but, to contradict you again, infact the answer IS in this movie, obscurly desguised do to bad directing and poor taste. And to contradict you even further, you shouldn't say the answer's not there, and down 7-8 sentences say "here's the answers." And on the contrary to what you say are the supposed answers, the clues are not any of the ones you've mentioned, not even close. It's not "figuring which chess peices are which people." Nor "Noticing the hourglasses and clocks next to the sun's." Nor "Noticing Maccas skin." And again not "Defining what each character is representing."(which you already mentioned)

To the people snr_alejandro_sosa was talking to: There was nothing deep, nothing meaningfully intelligent. It's just fun & cool & poorly directed & of much bad taste, and if you didn't get it, that's ok, it wasn't your fault, it was the movie's fault.

Movies should be cohesive,(arthouse cinema excluded) like books they shouldn't be presented in magazine clipout font with bits and pieces from other pages spliced in. Ignoring the countless errors from flawed direction & editing, and the annoying tongue-in-cheek dialogue, any movie that has classical pieces like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata background to an erection holding, supposed cool & nonchalant montage of violence is the SUREST GIVEAWAY of really bad taste. Once is a mistake, twice(the restaurant scene wasn't the only clasical montage) is evidently conscious poor judgement. A couple dozen let's put it in because it's cool scenes & details are all over this movie. Let's spend 5,000 to air brush JAPANESE yakuza tatoos on actors portraying CHINESE mafia. Yeah. It's cool. Let's do it. Those last four "sentences" could even define this movie far better than "it was all in his head."

Again, I'll say it: the movie was terribly of bad taste. Don't get me wrong, I liked the restaurant's kitchen scene with Sorter, but that scene, ending as soon as he stepped out the kitchen door into the alley,(yeah, im referring to a very short scene) was the best thing in the movie. Everything else about the movie is some snip-it from other movies or tv. I can see why it's one of your "favourite" movies.

by ghiro_in_rome (Sat Mar 24 2007 19:03:11)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Lucanaoe's criticism of snr_alejandro_sosa, of his opinion and of the film itself is merely a hypocritical and unjustifiably vituperative series of semantic, lexical, grammatical, orthographic, typographic and punctuational errors. I don't agree with his opinion of the film, either.

Though snr_alejandro_sosa's solution is impossible to refute, I find it rather simplistic and unsatisfactory. Perhaps there is no 'explanation'; maybe Besson and Ritchie just chose to create an enigmatic story. It works quite well, though.

cogito ergo sum atheos

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator

by jackcage-1 (Wed Apr 11 2007 16:03:05)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Wed Apr 11 2007 16:05:00
I hope you burn in *beep* hell for using U instead of You, you *beep* a**hole.

by lucanaoe (Wed Apr 18 2007 05:12:22)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Wed Apr 18 2007 05:19:31

Oh gee Im sorry, I didn't know someone was gonna be grading me on something I typed in a message board, on the internet. Ill be sure to put my messages through the spell/grammar checker next time. Does that make ya happy? Ya little whiney bytch.

Next time you try to flame me, try not to use for all of your words. K? thanks!

the special olympics
by gray_silva (Wed Mar 28 2007 11:56:59)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I'd like to quote this horrible excuse for a human being (lucanaoe), "explaining a poorly directed movie's (revolver) aim is like winning the special olympics."

Do you realise that any athelete whether fully abled or not, trains to their highest ability. Take any one of them and have them compete with you, i'm sure you'd lose. How shamefull that you belittle what these atheletes do.

I dare you to attend the next special olympics and repeat your comment (we'll see what those super fit wheelchair baketball players (and many others) do to you)!!

Re: the special olympics
by johanneeskins (Mon Apr 2 2007 15:56:18)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
who cares what u think?

Re: the special olympics
by lucanaoe (Wed Apr 18 2007 05:45:41)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Wed Apr 18 2007 06:02:15
Ill go slow just for you <3

Oh yes... BBall players in wheel chairs scare the crap out of me. Because certainly... there would be no way to escape wheel chair bound BBall players. I mean... where am I gonna find handicap unaccessible buildings... or stairs... or a stick... NOWHERE! And if I were to fight them... I couldn't just... lock their wheels and push them into traffic... that would be just plain unfair.

"Take any one of them and have them compete with you, i'm sure you'd lose." -gray silva
Ill take the overweight kid with Down Syndrome.

Hey... a question... Im not trying to be mean or anything... well... no... that's not true... anyways: When you go to these Special Olympics... do you go to just watch... or compete?

Re: the special olympics
by keenanfinkelstein (Mon Apr 30 2007 13:49:27)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
did you seriously just try to make yourself look like an e-thug by stating you could run away from/beat with a stick a guy in a wheel chair?

by johanneeskins (Mon Apr 2 2007 15:59:35)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
best attack on another persons words ever

by talbot12 (Sun Mar 25 2007 10:36:57)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
You all means that this all story in Revovler wasn't real. That all film story was Jake's dream and it's all what happend uring the film was mad man ilussion. I really can't believe it what are you all saying. Film is about that Jake left the Asylum where he learned so much from genious people. Who escaped from Asylum and then met Jake to resolve the true. And make believe Jake that he was part of Sam Gold. What makes people believe in in and became other you. But Jake bit Gold in sine him. That Ray Liota's charecter couldn't so he shoot himself. But Jake later became free man and lived peacefuly and rich, Later... Who knows maybe it was liek you all said... But maybe not!!! From where you get it out that all strory didn't happen and that was only in his head. Tell me!!

Really one of my favourite films and Jason Statham best role ever.

by lesprock (Mon Mar 26 2007 04:04:46)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
this was a fairly confusing film. i watched it for the third time last night. not because i like it but because i have no idea what the hel its about. maybe im missing something, but it seems as if richie was trying to make the ultimate psychological masterpiece. which intrigued me to find out exactly what its about. i have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely pants (if im right about the meaning of it that is). i think that snr_alejandro_sosa is right to a certain extent and that it is just all in his head. i dont think there was anyone else in the cells on either side of him, i think it was jake that came up with the "ultimate con" himself, and his choice of 7 years solitary drove him mad enough to create a false reality so he could play out his fantasy. there are a lot of things in this film that still doesnt make any sense to me. but theres one thing for sure, i will NEVER watch it again. ive given it too many chances. good day sirs.

by shivitrehan (Sun Apr 8 2007 11:05:25)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
come on guys.the film isnt that complicated. heres my take on it.. read between the lines if ya didnt get the film. "the greatest enemy hides where you would look last" and where is that??? WITHIN YOU. if ya didnt get it watch the elevator scene again. jakes pain becomes his instinct. what the movie is tryin to tell you is that the little voice in your head which you believe to be you isnt you.thats why avi says durin the last game of chess 'if you try to save them from him(the opponent) they'll destroy you' that voice which you believe is you, which you believe is your best friend is driven by your fears and your arrogance in the guise of foolish pride. if you can control the opponent that hides within you you can control the one in front of you thats why macha loses in the end. "the greatest enemy hides where you would look last" just remember this line nd watch the movie again and then maybe you'll get it. although i must admit that the film does leave a few questions unexplained. the biggest one being sam gold. got any ideas???

My take on the explanation
by steve-3574 (Fri Apr 27 2007 18:57:18)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I am not 100% sure of what the explanation is, but I see it one of two ways. Either, it is all in Jake's head, in which case I am making a major leap to believe that as the movie gave little proof or sure indication that this was the case (and if it "is" the case then I think there is a fault in the directing). The other way that I see it is that it could be completely real and the two guys from Jake's surrounding cells were trying to help him overlook his ego (in which case there was some misleading directing there aswell).

So in conclusion, I think that the plot has some holes in it (unless the purpose of the film is to misdirect and confuse you and that there is no real answer; in which case the while is extremely witty), but all and all I thought it was a fantabulous movie.

Side note: I love "everything" that Strathom has been in. Pure coincidence.

by snr_alejandro_sosa (Wed Mar 28 2007 16:59:43)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Wed Mar 28 2007 17:07:53
Basically it follows the supposed rules and formula of the con.

The formula is pointed out soon as the film starts. Then it's repeated over and over with the quotes shown again.

It's making us experience the con even though we know it's happening (like the main character).

The more time we invest the less likely we are to beleive it's a con, the more embarassed or fearful of looking stupid or whatever we are likeley to be and part of us (our own Avi? or our own voice the one we listen to most) helps protect the con. This is why some people hate the movie because they can't beleive even when it's pointed out quite plainly towards the end that they have been conned, just in case we didn't notice that the place they are in doesn't exist or that they know impossible things ect.

Guy Ritchie says in one interview about the rukl of protecting your investment: whether it be a wrong, right dumb or clever opinion or thought, the fact that you hold it hand have held it in your mind for a period of time means you will more likley to protect it. Also when you have invested time in doing something, when the con man merely says "look at this {movie}" you're already investing your time in it soon as you look. We all protect our investments whether we like it or not. Buy the time we know we're being conned we reason that it's too obvious and too simple and we are not that stupid (it hides the last place you will look, in our own head behind fear).

Whats coolest is Guy knew this because it's the effect he was trying to create yet he still made the movie knowing he'd get some bad reactions from people, so respect to him.

The formula and movie is simple, but it would be boring unless it was presented with so much metaphor and action and style. Awesome film.

by talbot12 (Mon Mar 26 2007 08:01:30)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Who knows. Maybe yust real Guy Ritchie. He was film director and he knowed that all this story is real or only in Jake's mind. In WEB isn't any rewiev made by Ritchie or something like that. What can tell the true.

by snr_alejandro_sosa (Wed Mar 28 2007 17:09:03)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Hi, yes there is if you search google: type in guy richie interview or revolver interview. Enjoy!

by hazzabean (Mon Mar 26 2007 11:03:20)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
you are as pretentious as the film.

by talbot12 (Tue Mar 27 2007 06:46:45)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Maybe who knows. But I'd really like to know the truth about this film. I think Ritchie knows is it story real or just In Jake mind...

by snr_alejandro_sosa (Mon Apr 2 2007 18:36:41)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Straaaange these people who don't like a film and take the time to go on the internet and find a forum about it. One day I'll figure that out, but it's pretty entertaining to me to see someone does that. Lonlieness, envy, misplaced agression or attention seeking?


by martin_033 (Fri Apr 6 2007 12:34:16)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
man snr_alejandro_sosa I cant believe you dont get it! You've got it all wrong!

You see Jake never went to jail, we were conned into thinking that Jake even went to jail in the first place. When jake shot the guy that he beat in the card game and then there was a gun fight Jake actually went into a massive deep sleep and dreamed all the events from there. snr_alejandro_sosa your own mind has fooled you and now you are too proud to reject your own investment.

by snr_alejandro_sosa (Tue Apr 17 2007 13:08:54)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Heheh I had considered that but in the film Jake later turned out to be lying about that story to con someone.

PS Was pretty funny when the guy disses him and gets bleeped out, and he says I've got a funny one for you too...

by talbot12 (Sun Jun 10 2007 12:30:04)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
This explains all
Director Guy Ritchie back with a bang and discussing his most violent film to date. Lock and load - the auteur on Revolver...

Q. Where did the inspiration for Revolver come from?
Guy Ritchie: It was a culmination of concepts really, but a germ got stuck in my mind about one particular concept: the con of all cons. I’m fascinated by how you can trick the mind and the individual, and this concept was so audacious, so radical, that I was attracted to say the least. The formula of the con is quite simple – you seduce people by their own greed. We can all be conned but at what point do we realize that we’re being conned and to what point do we allow ourselves to be conned. There was a famous book called The Big Con, which works on the formula that it is impossible to con an honest man. I was attracted to that idea too. The great challenge then was to take an intellectual concept and clothe it in an exciting, action-packed narrative because concepts are not necessarily interesting to look at. It’s important that the film delivers on an entertaining level. What you want in the cinema is entertainment but I like to be intellectually titillated while being sensorially stimulated. It took me three years to write this film whereas Snatch took me three months. Fundamentally, it’s not a very complicated film, it’s actually quite simple, but to clothe it within a narrative was quite complicated.

Q. Why did you call it Revolver?
Guy Ritchie: I’ve always been surprised that no other movie has ever been called Revolver because it just sounds cool. So I like the name but I also like the concept that, if you’re in a game, it keeps revolving until you realize that you are in a game and then maybe you can start evolving. The film is based on the formula of a game: where does the game start, where does it stop and who’s conning who.

Q. Is it a film with a message?
Guy Ritchie: I don’t think there is a message in the movie. The idea is that that there is no such thing as an external enemy. Jake Green is playing against Jake Green. That’s quite a hard concept to get your head around initially – of course, if there is only an internal enemy, he wouldn’t want you to get your head around it. So it’s based on the formula that you can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent. Who is the ultimate opponent? Yourself. Then comes the principle that your enemy will always hide in the last place that you would ever look. The last place you would look is inside your head and the last place you would look inside your head is behind fear. I’m not saying that formula’s correct, it’s just a formula and I’m interested in formulas. In this particular instance, the only opponent Jake Green has to challenge is himself by doing exactly what he doesn’t want to do.

Q. To that extent, are his experiences an allegory for life?
Guy Ritchie: It’s funny, I never expected as a writer-director to end up talking about high-falutin’ concepts. I got into filmmaking because I was interested in making entertaining movies, which I felt there was a lack of. Jake Green isn’t just Jake Green. Jake represents all of us. The color green is the central column of the spectrum and the name Jake has all sorts of numerical values. All things come back to him within the film’s world of cons and games. Jake’s on a journey of how to play the game. He’s very good at playing games and he’s done very well out of playing by a certain formula but he didn’t realize how big and consistent that formula is. He only saw the formula in its microscopic form and didn’t realize that it could be macroscopic.

Q. How does he get drawn into the game?
Guy Ritchie: One of the first rules of business is to protect your investment. I like the idea that we do the same with our personal philosophies. Once we have decided what’s right, irrelevant of whether we are right or wrong, the more energy we will invest to protect that. Which is basically how conmen work. They get you to invest a little bit, then a bit more. They never tell you to buy something, just take a look. Even looking’s an investment. Once you’ve contributed some of your energy to looking - appraising a certain article - then a small investment has been made. From a small investment comes a larger investment, from a larger investment comes a greater investment until eventually you’ve invested so much that you can’t be wrong. Because if you are wrong, it must mean you’re stupid and nobody can admit that they’re stupid.

Q. Jake is prompted to invest to counteract the threat of a fatal disease that’s hanging over him…
Guy Ritchie: The only way to handle this concept within an hour and 45 minutes of film is to cut to the chase, and there’s nothing quite like death looming on the horizon to precipitate events. Let’s get the party started, and the only way that can happen is the imminent threat of death.

Q. If Jake Green represents all of us, what do the other characters represent?
Guy Ritchie: The other characters all represent a certain human characteristic. Jake, Avi and Zack represent one characteristic. Then there’s Dorothy Macha, Lily Walker and Lord John, who represent another aspect of our nature, different aspects of vice, of which there are lots of ingredients so I wanted to be specific about which character represents which vice.

Q. Does that mean Jake, Zack and Avi are on the side of good and the others on the side of evil?
Guy Ritchie: I hesitate to use the words good and evil because this is not a story about morals and ethics, this is simply a story about the game and there is no right or wrong. It’s about whether you win and how quickly you can win. Jake, Zack and Avi represent players who have decided to win in this game, and that leads into the slightly more radical concept of how to win the game. We’re all players within our own little games, so we embody all of these characters, we embody all the aspects of vice, we also embody all the aspects of competition, wanting to play the game and succeed in the game. All of the characters represent aspects of ourselves. For example, Sorter represents the aspect of our character in which we have taken a left-turn somewhere and later on decide that the right-turn might have been the better idea. He represents the u-turn within us when we think we’ve gone the wrong way or when we’ve decided to take a different path than the one we’ve been on, which is of course a terribly difficult thing to do.

Q. And who is Sam Gold?
Guy Ritchie: I like the idea that Sam Gold is a collective hallucination. He doesn’t really exist but he does exist. He has no power of his own, he only has the power that you give him. He’s as real as you believe him to be. In the context of the film, he is the opponent, the force that the individual in the movie has to overcome. Is Sam Gold evil or is he good? That’s up to the individual to understand. I love the concept that if this was all a game, evil may not actually be evil. That if there is such a thing as the devil, the devil’s only job is to be smarter so that we can become smarter. I have no idea if this holds water philosophically or theologically, but it’s a very slick concept. That’s basically what inspired the film: that the devil isn’t a bad guy, the devil is just a very clever guy, and the idea that Sam Gold is really just a very smart opponent.

Q. Where is the film set?
Guy Ritchie: The movie is set in no-man’s land. It’s a kind of transatlantic destination that is really supposed to be illustrative of East meets West somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. In fact, we shot most of it in London and the Isle of Man, which isn’t quite the middle of the Atlantic but it’s going that way.

Q. How did you create that transatlantic atmosphere? Did you use a lot of special effects?
Guy Ritchie: Unlike my previous movies, there’s quite a lot of studio work on this one because of the very nature of the fact that I wanted an environment that’s transcontinental. Because of that we had to revert to green screen. I don’t care whether I use special effects or not. My principal job is to make interesting and entertaining films, and I’m not proud of which format or which particular technique I use. I just wanted the film to look good and that was about the only request I had of my DP. We wanted it to be slightly over the top in terms of photography. What I liked about American movies when I was a kid was that they’re sort of larger than life and I think I’m still suffering from that reaction. Tim, the DP, was completely unbridled by me. The cheekier he got, the more I applauded him. He’s his own boss in that department.

Q. So you don’t fit the stereotype of the dictatorial filmmaker?
Guy Ritchie: If somebody has a better idea than me, I’ll take it if it surpasses what we have on the page because at the end of the day, it’s me that takes the credit anyway! I’ve been working with lots of these guys for ten years now and I’ve become very aware of how much the team has to do with the creative process. I’m not under too much of an illusion of how smart or un-smart I am because filmmaking ultimately is about teamwork. I enjoy the process and I’ve usually done quite a lot of preparation before I arrive on set so I’m not a touchy filmmaker and I’m not an anxiety-ridden filmmaker, at least while I’m shooting the film. If you enjoy things, it tends to quell your negative traits.

Q. You’ve also worked with Jason Statham on almost all your films…
Guy Ritchie: Apart from the fact that I don’t like him, don’t trust him and have no respect for him as a chess player, Jason and I work quite well together. Actually, Jason forced me into using him. He threatened me with violence. The rest of the cast I have more affection for. Andrť was a pleasure to work with. In fact, 95% of the people in my films have been nothing less than a pleasure to work with. That goes for Jason, too. I like him and because I like him, it’s much easier to work with him. He’s a very capable actor and he embodies what I want to see when I go to the cinema. I’ve been a big fan of Ray Liotta’s for a long time and been desperate to use him in something. He wasn’t very keen about being put into spandex pants and Speedos but once he got into the spirit of things it was hard to get him out of them.

Q. What freedom do you give the actors to improvise?
Guy Ritchie: I like to think that we’ve got a plan, so let’s stick to it. That said, once we’ve stuck to it, we’re allowed as much improvisation as anyone cares to indulge themselves in. You’d be surprised how little indulging one wants to undertake once you’ve stuck to the plan. We always have a take that’s “one for fun”, so once you’ve got what you need, you can do what you like. Something does occasionally pop out of that tree. I’m always open to ideas.

Q. Does chance exist?
Guy Ritchie: I don’t believe chance exists, no. I don’t know whether it does but personally I don’t believe in it. Either there’s order in the universe or there’s chaos. Either everything is predetermined or, by the definition of free choice, you can determine it but there’s still no element of chance. Or there’s the other way of thinking, that it’s all chaos and there’s absolutely no order and it’s all chance. You either subscribe to one or the other. I subscribe to the idea that there is order although it may look like total chaos, but I’ve no idea if I’m right. In the film, Jake’s niece is a good example. She represents innocence and I liked the idea that she could ride a roller-coaster that’s collapsing all around but still land on a bed of cotton wool against all the odds because innocence protects her. There are infinite examples, of course, where innocence is not nurtured or cared for, but it all comes back to chance. Do you believe in chance or not? Do you believe that the universe is fair or unfair?

Q. What’s the role of violence in your films?
Guy Ritchie: My approach to violence is that if it’s pertinent, if that’s the kind of movie you’re making, then it has a purpose. There’s quite a lot of violence in this film but I like to think that it serves the story, that it illustrates the point we’re trying to convey. Jason doesn’t take his shirt off and beat anyone up, which would seem to be the kind of thing that Jason would do as he’s quite good at it, because it didn’t seem to serve his character and the narrative. I quite like the idea of Jason keeping his shirt on anyway.

Q. Does Jason still do all his own stunts?
Guy Ritchie: Jason’s game to do all his own stunts. I wouldn’t allow him to because if he broke his leg or something I’d be screwed for eight weeks. He’s as game as a train to throw himself down flights of stairs. I am not so enthusiastic, so I threw other people down the stairs.

Q. Is there any limit to how violent a scene can be?
Guy Ritchie: I think there’s a natural system in your own head about how much violence the scene warrants. It’s not an intellectual process, it’s an instinctive process. I like to think it’s not violence for the sake of violence and in this particular film, it’s actually violence for the annihilation of violence. It’s about not letting the internal enemy, the real enemy, have his way because the more he does the stronger he becomes. The film’s about the devastating results that can manifest from the internal enemy being unbridled and allowed to unleash chaos.

Q. As a writer-director, which aspect of filmmaking do you enjoy most?
Guy Ritchie: You get a different kick out of all aspects of filmmaking. I suppose directing on set is the most fun because it’s a good crack and you feel you’re on the battlefield whereas writing is a fairly solitary undertaking. It’s not easy to strap yourself down to a desk and bash on a keyboard when you know you can direct lots of films, because directing films is fun and interactive and gregarious. Writing isn’t. It’s very solitary and you need to exercise a great deal of discipline to do it. I think it’s in the exercise of disciplining yourself to do it that the most profit lies. I love dialogue and I suppose writing dialogue is certainly the most fun.

Q. Of the various formulas that make up the rules of the game, do you have a favorite?
Guy Ritchie: I suspect my favorite line is, “You can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.” My next one would be, “The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look.” The third one would be, “The harder the battle, the sweeter the victory.” My fourth would be, “Always protect your investment” which would become, “Always protect your investment whether it’s in your interest or not.”

Q. Besides Jake’s name, there is an abundance of symbols in the film. What purpose do they serve?
Guy Ritchie: I think it’s fun that films have depth. I’ve left a whole snail trail of clues and symbols for those who care to indulge themselves. But is it integral to your enjoyment of the film? I think not. There are simply different levels that the film tries to serve.

Q. Chess is a prime example…
Guy Ritchie: The rules in chess are consistent with the rules of all cons. I like the idea that the characters could all be different pieces on a chess board. I think we all embody the attributes of pawns, bishops, knights and castles, kings and queens. It’s just a question of do we decide to be a pawn or do we decide to be a queen. I didn’t choose to be the latter particularly but there are different aspects to our personality and nature that the chess board represents, which is maybe why chess is such a popular and ancient game. I’m a very bad chess player, by the way. Jason Statham has probably been blowing his own trumpet about what a qualified chess player he is. In fact, he’s an appalling chess player.

Q. And the fact that the face-off between Jake and himself, his internal enemy, takes place on the 13th floor?
Guy Ritchie: The elevator starts at 32 and stops between 14 and 12. In America, buildings still don’t have a 13th floor. 13’s a curious number. Quite how it got its unpopular reputation is a mystery and one I would quite like to have solved. Mythologically, it’s the luckiest number, it’s the number of liberation. From a point of view of Jake’s incarceration, what better place to liberate yourself than floor 13, which doesn’t even exist in an elevator. It just seemed like the perfect environment in which to meet your demon. A number that doesn’t exist that is also the number of liberation.

Q. That scene is one of the most impressive in the whole movie…
Guy Ritchie: It’s my favorite scene in the film and I actually shot it three times. It initially had four lines written for it. When we got in there, we spent two hours messing around, trying to draw as much as I could out of Jason. I realized we’d got into something that was very interesting and in the end I could probably have filmed 45 minutes of him screaming at himself in there.

Q. The film opens with Jake Green getting out of jail. Would you say that it ends with him enjoying another kind of liberation?
Guy Ritchie: The film starts off with a jailbreak and ends with a jailbreak because all the skulduggery going on inside his head didn’t allow him to know he was still incarcerated. That’s what the film is about, the ultimate jailbreak and the radical actions one needs to undertake to liberate oneself from this jail. It tells the story of the skulduggery and trickery and head-trickery that accompanies Jake on his journey, and the seemingly unlikely actions our hero has to undertake to break out of his jail.

by carlosdoughty101 (Thu Apr 19 2007 14:06:48)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Q to Guy Richie on

Q. The film opens with Jake Green getting out of jail. Would you say that it ends with him enjoying another kind of liberation?
...Thatís what the film is about, the ultimate jailbreak...

Jake escapes prison in his mind

by Sam_Collins99 (Thu Apr 26 2007 03:15:01)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply

by AhearnePaul (Sat Apr 28 2007 05:17:36)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
It's a mind bender of a film.

You take away what you want from any film. At the end of this one, I took away my thoughts and tried to reassemble them into a coherent story.

I believe Trying to understand this film is not an exact science.
My own personal view-point is that it's a film about liberation.
I interpreted the film to be about the mind of Green and his inner turmoil.
I think he battles to free his mind and the idea is that you the viewer do the same.(The fact that people are still discussing itís meanings years later is surely a reflection of this?)

I think that the majority of people expected another formulaic gangster flick from Richie (not that I didnít love Lock Stock or Snatch), but were disappointed and didnít make an effort to understand his lofty aim. Not that Iím saying I did because I could be way off the markÖ.

Half of problem of understanding this film is of the film makers doing. It wasnít exactly marketed as a Ďdeep thinkingí film and the audience probably turned up hoping for some glib scriptery and some decent action. Which really covers the other half of the problem, unless you completely open your mind and have no preconceptions then you will probably go away unfulfilled. Itís film that requires a lot of audience participation in the decision making process.

So Do I think this is a great film? No, it seems a little too contrived and leaveís a little too much to the audienceís determination. However, I would rather see a film maker be overambitious and fall a little short of his aim rather than have no ambition in the first place.

Lastly the notion passed me that Jake Green is actually a metefore for Money?
Did anyone else ponder this?


by nbent (Sun Apr 29 2007 19:31:35)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I had to watch this film a few times. I came to this conclusion. Which is kind of similar to other peoples opinion.

But, I think it was about Avi and Zach braking out to be the crime lords of the city and control everything. And to do this, they created an entity known as Sam Gold. I think someone said in the movie, that Sam Gold wouldn't even touch Avi and Zach. Maybe to sway off attention from them. Anyways, when they were back in prison along came Jake Green with these wads of cash. And he was a smart guy. But the problem was, he was cocky and arrogant.

Avi and Jake needed Jake's money. Also, they wanted Jake to be part of Sam Gold. But Jake couldn't be a part unless he got rid of his ego. So when he got out of prison, Avi and Zach protected him for his money. And Jake the whole time believing he was conned. But in a sense, Avi and Zach were helping him, so he could join them.

Now, as you can see I have invested a lot of time in my answer, and if any of you disagree with me, I will hunt you down. Because I have a mega huge ego and I want to inflate it more. Mwu ha ha ha.

by lukehaggett (Thu May 3 2007 17:03:52)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
Jake Green i would say is a metaphore for Money yes, i can't help but think the last name has to have some connection.

by Danibanger (Fri Sep 7 2007 07:02:25)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
It was a dream alright, but it was Ritchie's. A huge, megalomaniac, pretentious, nonsensical, illogical piece of bullcrap dream. And we were the ones who had the misfortune to watch it.

"Love and bruises"

by carlburger 4 days ago (Fri Sep 14 2007 21:28:50)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
That's your ego talking.

by Danibanger 1 day ago (Tue Sep 18 2007 08:27:25)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
No, it's not. I've killed my Mr.Gold a long time ago, lol!

"Love and bruises"

sickbadthing is offline