The Firm

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

A re-make of the 1988 TV play with Paul Anderson taking over Gary Oldman's original role as Bex, the property agent whose buzz in life is being the head boy of The West Ham Firm. Young upstart Dom (Calum McNab) and his friend try to challenge his authority in a nightclub, but are soon put on the spot and made to issue a grovelling apology. But Bex takes a shine to Dom and invites him to join his army...but as events go on, it becomes more and more clear how Bex's drive for his 'buzz' has pushed him over the edge.

I'd been expecting an adaptation of The Sweeney to be Nick Love's next filmic venture, but instead this re-make of Alan Clarke's original TV film has arrived. It's still set in the 80s but nostalgia for that era is the main decent thing you take away from this film.

There's no drive to this version of The Firm, no 'oompth' or real wow factor. It may be that the 'football hooligan' movie has been done to death and everything's a bit too predictable, but the tracksuits the main characters wear are the most colourful thing about the film. It's like a joyless version of The Football Factory, with nowhere near as much energy or real raw power to it. The clashes between the rival firms, separated as best as they can by the police on patrol, have a realistic air of disorder and lack of control to them but there's no really juicy bust ups to any of it. The film sort of just ambles along with no real narrative flow or direction, and with a distinct lack of fun or excitement to the proceedings.

Performances wise, rising star Daniel Mays feels wasted as Bex's sworn enemy Yeti, whilst as the man himself Anderson gives no real power to the role. He must have known he'd have to pull off a miracle to deliver anything even close to Oldman's raw intensity, but even if you don't expect too much you feel short changed.

The one thing it can boast is a reliably decent 80s soundtrack. But you get the feeling Love might be starting to take himself a bit too seriously and could end up alienating the fan boys who first got him noticed. **

Nick Love's films are not about football violence, they are about men. They ask the question, how do boys become men in a world where the men around them are dysfunctional, often abused and abusive, or in the case of our public figures, corrupt? His films often use the back drop of the football tribe (gang), where it is understood, you can at once lose yourself and find an instant identity, but at what cost? The men in Nick Loves films are always flawed & struggling to find their place in a world that regards their attitude and energies as irrelevant, and as a result they are drawn, by the perceived excitement and glamour, into the bosom of the street gang.

At the core of many of our social ills are dysfunctional men, failing themselves & us on a daily basis. This self hatred, often intensified by drink or drugs, is channelled back at society in many forms, often violent. Nick Love's films open up this world of male adversarial culture and expose it to the sun light. With an uncompromising swagger and flare, he addresses often distasteful issues that are very present, to a greater or lesser degree, all around us and many young men have to face on a daily basis. In fact one of the reasons Nick Loves films manage to gain finance, is that he is always aware of his audience and as a result has built a loyal following that feel understood by a British film maker.

It is lazy not to understand the themes Nick Love is trying to explore, and too easy to join the band wagon of criticism, which in many ways mimics the criticism boys & men face through out their life, as their energies are misunderstood. Far better to welcome the maturing of a talent, and to support and celebrate a British film maker, who is still managing to use the canvas of film to explore themes that are universal, and as relevant today as they were in the 1980s.

Nick Love however, is not Alan Clarke and his subjects, although similar, are very different. Alan Clarke's main thesis was political and his original film was written in a time that saw the working class being remodelled along Thatcherite principles. Clarke & Hunter perceived the football 'thugs' as an extension of the selfish yuppie, that became detached from the traditional community and was looking for a home and found football. While it cannot be denied that the political pressures and unrest of the Thatcher period were profound, and gave rise to a number of dispossessed subcultures, Nick Love's film operates in a world of the personal, not political. His film feels written from the inside out, not the other way round. Gone are the endless scenes debating the rights and wrongs of football violence, which felt heavy with the hand of the filmmaker, and in comes a confident understanding of the world of the story. Free from this pressure to explain the terms of the genre, Love's film becomes about belonging, about the excitement and rituals of the tribe. Whether thematically this is better or worse is one of personal preference, suffice to say, it would have been deeply misguided for Love to have attempted to voice Clarkes themes, which although potent, feel redundant from this point in history.

One could argue that Clarke & Hunters original film failed to fully understand the subculture they used as their political vehicle. In one of the final scenes of the original 'Firm', a minor characters says to a documentary crew,''..its not about the football, we would organize around darts if we could'' .. this has been shown through study to be incorrect. No other sport has thrown up such a subculture as 'Football Hooligans'. It is tribal and deeply rooted, as in the case of Milwall & West Ham, in years and years of territorial and geographical rivalry. Football violence existed long before Clarke or Love, what happened in the 1980s, is it became highly organized, and as Love correctly identifies in his film, it became 'fashionable'. Nick Love's 'The Firm' understands this and in many ways is a truer representation of this phenomenon.

There are a handful of British film makers working today, that are able to explore issues which go to the heart of our culture, within a global multiplex environment . Like it or loath it, Nick Love reaches out and provides a voice to a disaffected , often working class audience, and does this against enormous odds, not least, the middle class critical establishment.

The film offers a glimpse into the world of hooligans, a world I personally can't comprehend. Why someone would find enjoyment in beating up rival fan groups remains a mystery to me, and unfortunately, the film doesn't provide any answers. Still, it's well-crafted and keeps the viewer engaged with its tight narrative structure.

Despite the plot being entirely predictable and simple, the film manages to maintain suspense throughout its 1 hour and 30-minute runtime. There are no dull moments or instances where the pace falters. The film succeeds in delivering a gritty portrayal of its world, even if it doesn't delve deeply into the motivations behind it. For this solid entertainment, I give the film 6/10.

There are two major factors that separate Nick Love's reimagining of his football hooligan film The Firm from Alan Clarke's original 1988 television play: the first is a perspective change from the point of view of the repulsive yet compelling character Bex (played in this version by Paul Anderson, who does a fair job of imitating Gary Oldman but doesn't bring anything new to the table), to that of whiny, annoying, dry-lunch Dom who just appears to exist in every scene he's in. The second difference is that it's not very good. Love's direction is the epitome of style over substance, opting for an over-stylised imagining of 1980s Britain complete with neon lights, a nostalgic soundtrack, and a never-ending slew of tracksuits that look like they were produced in a Haribo factory. The script is also significantly lighter with several comic relief moments scattered around an otherwise dark story. While this may make for a more visually appealing and accessible film, it loses the savagery and sense of urgency that Clarke's original had. It also doesn't help the film that Love seems to be aware that his screenplay is inferior to the source material, with key scenes from the original being replicated seemingly beat for beat and inserted clumsily into the narrative when it begins to falter. Aside from Paul Anderson's Bex, none of the performances are particularly standout, with Daniel Mays completely wasted as Bex's rival, Yeti, who is more or less completely side-lined throughout the film. Overall, Love's remake is an ambitious attempt to update a somewhat dated story for a contemporary audience which ultimately hits the goalposts.

So far, the film is a bit clichéd and over the top but there is a good deal of warmth and humour love brings to the film. Though I have not seen the original, nick love efforts should not go unnoticed as a director.