Year: 2015
Director: Brian Helgeland
In my final years at school, the non official text of choice was ‘The Profession of Violence’ by John Pearson, the semi-official biography of The Kray Twins.
Pearson, it seems, was given the nod by Ron and Reg to tell their story around the time they were finally banged up, fully aware a long term was about to be worked up them, courtesy of an establishment keen to be perceived as still fully in the political driving seat of late 1960’s Britain.
The author however, exceeded his brief by delivering a book that successfully perpetuated the Kray myth by putting their rise in a sociological context without wholly kowtowing to the glamorous image the twins apparently craved. Despite its ambiguous, slightly diffident, possibly aleatory comedic tone, the book became the undisputed bible for all Kray aficionados.
For example, Pearson’s quirky timbre is perfectly, wantonly, echoed in the Monty Python tale of The Piranha Brothers, one of whom (Dinsdale) used violence whilst the other (Doug) favoured sarcasm: ‘he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire …’
‘Legend’, a truly awful title which in and of itself provides an instant review on how terrible this movie is, is apparently based on ‘The Profession of Violence”.
And, having read the book at least 4 times, I can confirm this is indeed true, and in fact can tell you which part of the book, Writer/Director Brian Helgeland has indulged himself by using.
Every time someone gets punched – which is nearly always Jack’ The Hat’ McVitie, you’ll know it’s him because he’s wearing a hat – he’s in the process of accepting a light for his cigarette.
Why?
Because, as John Pearson revealed, Ronnie Kray reckoned that the moment a smoker draws in his first gasp, his jaw is suitably relaxed as to be ripe for a nice clean fracture when delivered of a tasty right hander.
This happens to Jack twice in the movie. The third time, in a little nod to Pearson’s book, or possibly to people like me who can quote it, he declines a light, saying, Actually, I gave up smoking, recently…’
Apart from that, I don’t think Helgeland could be arsed. Maybe the book was too long.
As you’ll know, young actor Tom Hardy, in a casting decision that was clearly motivated by the novelty possibilities of green screen compositing, plays the twin roles of Ron and Reg and he tries hard to differentiate.
Hopelessly handsome and all hearts and flowers as the relatively level headed Reggie, as Ron, Hardy spends the entire film socialising with rent boys whilst outwardly communing with the ghost of Spiney Norman.
As mad, bad and dangerous to watch Tom Hardy is as Ron, in some ways you feel it’s not his fault.
No actor shines here, a big call considering the film boasts the normally reliable Kevin McNally and David Thewlis – neither of whom convince – not to mention a turn from old ham John Sessions who, in the immortal words of Bob Monkhouse, deserves, on this showing, to be glazed and be given pineapple rings to wear as cufflinks.
I don’t think I can remember a film that gets it as perfectly and consistently wrong as ‘Legend’.
It’d be laughable if it wasn’t so unfunny; a tender, lovelorn Reg is torn away from Frances, the love of his life and erstwhile wife by his guilt driven commitment to the maniacal Ronnie, an interpretation which bears no resemblance whatsoever to Pearson’s courageous assertion that the slightly less mad Kray was a controlling mysogynist who’d never actually consummated the marriage and indeed might himself have been gay.
Chaz Palminteri wanders in a couple of times as a mafia capo de capo, telling Reg the mob think he has plenty of potential but that to step up, he must ditch the scenery slavering Ronnie, who, as the film goes on (and it goes one) starts to exhibit all of the naked paranoia of Viz magazine’s Big Vern.
There’s plenty of fake gore and mayhem in this movie but nothing in terms of insight, insight and most tellingly – humour.
In fact, Legend’ is so far removed from Pearson’s ethos of the twins and the distinct way the book imposed Ron and Reg in the British consciousness, you wonder if claiming ‘The Profession of Violence’ as a source is no more than an marketing ploy.
Of course a movie which is almost unrecognisable from the book is hardly a unique phenomena, but in this case, it seems to be deliberate, as the longer ‘Legend’ runs, the more ludicrous and frankly, shoddy, it becomes.
Not only is the script wooden and – at times – embarrassingly trite – but the soundtrack is unimaginative and really quite boring.
As Reggie and Frances are wed, we hear, surprise, surprise, ‘Going to the Chapel’ by The Shirelles.
Or possibly not, since all of the songs featured sound like they’ve been re-recorded, a minor detail perhaps, but one that certainly grated with me.
The story of Reggie and Ronnie is so well known to people of a certain age that the only conclusion you can reach is that this version is intended for the younger filmgoer, one who, prior to buying his ticket, had never heard of them before.
Fair enough, but really, whats the point? None, if you ask em.
If I had to find one word to sum up ‘Legend’, it’d be boring, which given the subject material on offer, is, well, criminal.
I remember being disappointed in the previous big screen appearance of the twins, as portrayed by Spandau Balladeers Gary and Martin Kemp, but compared to ‘Legend’, The 1990 Krays is a work of some substance.
And come on, you really can’t say much harsher than that.
Might appeal to people who enjoyed:
…who enjoyed the fact they’d never read ‘The Profession of Violence’ or knew about the Krays or The Piranha Brothers.
But I doubt it
James Blast says
James Blast says
Sorry @garyjohn meant to say Excellent Review!
H.P. Saucecraft says
Superb review!
Johnny Concheroo says
Good review Gary.
I also went to see Legend yesterday and had half-drafted a review in my head. So thank you for saving me the effort.
I enjoyed the movie a little more than you did I think, but perhaps I expected less.
It’s always great to see London in the 60s and the reconstruction of Soho was brilliantly done, with lines of Jags, Rovers and Humbers lining the brightly-lit, bustling streets.
Needless to say the cops drove worse cars than the gangsters. Reggie’s massive Lincoln Continental looked especially ostentatious alongside Sgt. “Nipper” Read’s (played by Christopher Eccleston) 50s Ford Anglia. Although I felt an actor of Eccleston’s calibre was somewhat under-utilised, spending most of the film doing little but looking pissed-off as the twins slipped from his clutches yet again.
Which brings me to the music. I didn’t notice any re-recordings (and I have a sharp ear for such things) but I did spot a clumsy audio visual link which was almost certainly lost on most punters. As the Hide-Away club in pre-Chinatown Gerrard Street comes into view, guess what music we hear? That’s right, it was Hideaway from “The Beano Album” by John Mayall with Eric Clapton. Then it cuts to an interior shot and the club band is also playing a rather wooden version of Hideaway. So, two versions of the Freddie King instrumental in the space of five minutes all for the sake of a link which I suspect hardly anyone would get.
I thought Tom Hardy was pretty good playing both parts, although perhaps he over egged it a little with Ronnie. Surely he wasn’t quite THAT mental?
I really enjoyed the political scandal sequence (John Sessions is always good value) and the Harold Wilson character had the voice down pat, if not the look.
The seriously attractive Emily Browning was excellent as Ron’s love interest and her accent was impeccable despite the fact she hails from Melbourne (I’m amazed the Aussie media haven’t been trumpeting that one, or perhaps they have?)
Speaking of accents, it was wall to wall cockney for 130 mins, most of which was done well and, it being the 60s, absolutely everyone smoked all the time.
To sum up. I was completely lost in 60s London for over two hours and at the end walked, blinking, into the bright Aussie sunlight which suddenly reminded me where I was. Such escapism is worth the price of admission, surely?
Johnny Concheroo says
Sorry that should read, “Emily Browning was excellent as Reggie’s love interest”. As we’re often reminded in the film, “Ron prefers boys”
Archie Valparaiso says
“A shoo’-airt, roi’, is a shoo’ airt. Loik a Westinnnn.”
The clips I’ve seen sound a bit dodgy. Cockney today is quite different from mid-century Cockney, which was – to use a boxing metaphor – much lighter on its feet. When doing a period piece, why go to so much effort to get the cars right if you’re going to get the voices wrong?
Judge for yourselves. Here are the real Ronnie (R) and Reggie (L):
Johnny Concheroo says
“How much has this trial cost you?”
Ronnie: “It’s cost us roughly eight farsand parnd”
Archie Valparaiso says
Ha, yes. But what I had in mind – and I don’t think Tom Hardy quite got – was that now-sounds-a-bit-prissy-and-not-at-all-like-Ray-Winstone “I’d like to be left alone” from Ron at the end.
garyjohn says
Fantastic clip. Sharp suits and softly spoken, the twins, I’m sure, saw themselves as ‘businessmen’. In a similar vein, ‘Big’ Arthur Thomson, the Glasgow enforcer of the 1970’s was always, but always referred to in the Scottish media as ‘ Mr A. Thomson, a Businessman’. My editor told me that he ‘insisted’ on it.
Archie Valparaiso says
In Manchester the villains of the period were always referred to in the press as “a company director”.
garyjohn says
Interesting JC – I thought the detail wasn’t bad although there were a couple of moments that didn’t add up for me. I didn’t like all the boys greeting each other with big hugs as they met in the club – my memory of the 60’s isn’t as clear as yours (you’re older!) but working class men of my dad’s generation wouldn’t, I don’t think, have been quite that tactile. A manly handshake would have been the limit, surely.
I also disliked like the constant reference to ‘gangsters’ which again from Pearson’s book and my memory I don’t think would have been a word in such common usage. What’s more the twins would never have used it to describe themselves, much preferring the highly ambiguous ‘businessman’.
I bow to your superior knowledge on the soundtrack – but something wasn’t quite right. I thought the music chosen was pretty poor throughout really and the sub-Scorsese camera panning was another trick that got right on my thruppennies.
You think John Sessions was good huh? TBH I’ve never liked him much and thought the acting throughout was diminished by poor direction. Emily Browning was okay and Hardy as Reg was passable but as Ronnie was too nutty to be true and really was there any point in having him play both parts?
I don’t know how much Aussies know about The Krays – very little if my companion is anything to go by but the cinema was almost empty at our showing which would suggest there’s not much local interest in the film or Emily B.
(I didn’t think she was particularly attractive either, but hey different strokes…)
Johnny Concheroo says
With his comedy background I agree it’s hard to take John Sessions seriously in a straight role. But that aside, I thought he portrayed the overblown character of Lord Boothby very well.
I agree about the men hugging as they entered the club. It was all bit Italian/American Mafioso, wasn’t it, and probably didn’t happen quite like that.
Apart from the Hideaway link, most of the music was fairly generic, as you say.
All that said, I can live with a bit of poetic license and 50 years on, the Krays have long since entered 60s folklore.
Junior Wells says
Oh that’s disappointing. Not the review ,which is as good as any I’ve read either in this place or elsewhere (loved the weave of Python into it) but I was really looking forward to this movie.
Read in the Australian how one of the Krays last surviving standover men was on the set and started shaking when Hardy approached him and spoke such was the similarity.
I think some Australians say over 55 might know of the Krays but few under that age.
Johnny Concheroo says
This icon famous picture of the Krays was taken by none other than David Bailey (he did the early Stones LP sleeves). Bailey’s name appears in the film credits (as a character), but I don’t recall seeing him in the movie.
Johnny Concheroo says
I mean “iconic picture” (I think)
Junior Wells says
2 sides of the face very different
Junior Wells says
Re soundtrack ,this may be of interest….or not
http://www.gigwise.com/blogs/102632/legend-tom-hardy-movie-kray-twins-soundtrack-review
Johnny Concheroo says
Here’s a guide to The Kray’s London.
The Bind Beggar pub in E1 is still there although their website makes no mention of the Kray connection.
Cedra Court in Stoke Newington also still exists. Ronnie and Reggie both had apartments there and arranged orgies for government officials (it’s featured in the movie and looks almost exactly the same today).
The Hide-Away Club in Gerrard St changed its name to El Morocco, but no longer exists.
http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/attractions/a-guide-to-the-kray-twinss-london-legendary-spots-featured-in-new-tom-hardy-film-a2917101.html
Kaisfatdad says
Excellent review. This film was not exactly on my must see list. Now I won’t touch it with a ….tentpole.
Johnny Concheroo says
Tentpole asks that you give it a chance
SixDog says
I thought the Kemp brothers version was a pretty good stab (pardon the pun).
Billie Whitelaw and Gary Kemp in particular were superb.
garyjohn says
Agree about Billie Whitelaw in particular. And the 1990 version focused on the twins relationship with Violet, their mum, which, again according to Pearson, was a critical element in their upbringing and criminal emergence.
garyjohn says
Whereas, in ‘Legend’, all she does is bake cakes.
dai says
Why the fascination in UK culture with these pathetic thugs?
Vulpes Vulpes says
I think it’s bound up with both the class distinctions we make, or made, in the UK, and the news culture of the time in which they operated. Back in the day, certainly in the provinces where I grew up, the toughest of working class attitudes to the Krays was tinged with an element of admiring envy at their perceived ability to give The Establishment the finger, alongside a relief that they lived and thieved in specific areas of London, well away from most people’s lives. At the same time the aspirant working class and lower middle class reviled their cavalier ignoring of the rules that everyone else relied upon to make their own way in the world, even though those same rules were so skewed in favour of the upper classes; it wasn’t fair that criminals should be able to place themselves above the law when honest working people were not. In a time when the supply of information about the world was trickled out through newsprint and grainy black & white TV, the Krays were basically celebs.
Junior Wells says
Criminals and violence have always held the interest of the general populace and so in turn the movies.
garyjohn says
Exactly JW – which explains the continuing popularity of TV cop shows. However, I would argue that the best of the crime genre – e.g. The Godfather – also says something about society.
Jackthebiscuit says
I enjoyed it.
Johnny Concheroo says
I bet Jackthehat wouldn’t feel the same
H.P. Saucecraft says
*muted, slightly resentful, applause*
Johnny Concheroo says
Shut it, you slaaaagg!
H.P. Saucecraft says
*tauntingly: number one … number one … number one …*
Vim Fuego says
Quite by coincidence I watched the Kemp brothers film the other day. I like it as a film, although I would have liked to see more about Nipper etc and more of the social context. wghat came across most strongly though is how utterly appalling Violet and her family/mates were. Stupid cod east end “wisdom” of the worst possible sort.
deramdaze says
It’s a film on the Krays so I’ll be swerving it big time.
Is this the season for people from the 60s who least represented the era?
The Krays in 1965 looked at least 40 years out of date and Ted Hughes, whose impact was less than that of one (any one) Beatles b-side, has recently been all over BBC Four.
Art Vandelay says
Why did the Krays look 40 years out of date in 1965?
Mid sixties working class London boys would have always worn a tailored suit. The more expensive the better.
Archie Valparaiso says
Yes, I was a bit puzzled by that too. The Krays were aged 30 in 1965. They were grown-ups. Theirs was a world of whisky and gambling and nice motors and night clubs, not coffee and milk bars and Vespas and jukeboxes.
ianess says
I have it on absolutely impeccable, very, very close, insider authority that Reggie was also an iron.
That is all.
H.P. Saucecraft says
“very, very close … insider information …”
*ulp*
TMI, Ian.
ianess says
I’m no grass, me. Never in a million years, guv. He had it coming to him.
Johnny Concheroo says
This is true it seems. There’s a very good documentary on YouTube called something like “The Final Interview” where Reggie’s last wife (who he married in jail) discusses his sexuality in some detail.
That’s another strange phenomena: respectable (and sometimes posh) women who form relationships and often marry violent murderers in jail. I’m thinking McVicar here, also
H.P. Saucecraft says
For those not “au fait” with “gangster lingo” – “iron” here is rhyming slang:
Iron (Man) = removals van = turns up late = pearly gate = pearly = great big girlie
Sewer Robot says
= girlie mag = post office blag.
” be sure to bring the Dell computers” = sawn off shooters..
mikethep says
Cops and robbers = celebrity hobnobbers.
Some excellent stuff here from Another Nickel in the Machine.
http://www.nickelinthemachine.com/2009/02/no1-eaton-square-lord-boothby-and-ronnie-kray/
Sniffity says
Reggie was a removals van?
Archie Valparaiso says
Pickfords pantechnicon = homeosexicon.
Gatz says
One of the best things I have ever seen on TV was Judy Finnegan on This Morning interviewing Kate Kray. Reasonably enough Judy asked why she had married Ronnie, given that he was gay, insane, a murderer and never going to be released from his secure hospital. KK shot back, ‘Why does anybody marry anybody? Why did you marry Richard?’ To which Judy calmly and loyally responded, ‘Because he wasn’t behind bars in a maximum security institution for the criminally insane.’
ianess says
To which, KK responded “not yet, he ain’t”.
garyjohn says
Fantastic find JC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNAJKNnSMIU
Even on his deathbed Reggie is at far removed as you can imagine from Tom Hardy’s romantic portrayal. Better soundtrack too.
Johnny Concheroo says
I love how any mention of jail time is referred to as “going away”.
garyjohn says
And you notice there’s no mention of ‘gangsters’. Instead, the much more authentic, ‘villains’.
Johnny Concheroo says
And there’s Reggie on his death bed, a shadow of his former self and virtually unrecognisable. So what does he do? He lights up a fag.
garyjohn says
Can you think of any reason why you wouldn’t?
Johnny Concheroo says
True, but who has the balls to light up in a hospital these days?
Johnny Concheroo says
Sherbet-dabbed = stabbed
Might as well post this I suppose:
http://i.imgur.com/6IAQAkn.jpg
Junior Wells says
funny how you guys were commenting about strange pronounciation, slang ,expressions down here when this stuff was off the dial in a part of your capital city.
not knocking it – think its great.
Sniffity says
Back to the movie – I am geographically ignorant…are all inner London roads so narrow? Most of the time it looked like they were driving around back streets and alleyways (easier to dress up as period locations, one supposes).
mikethep says
Well, most London streets are two vehicles wide, once cars are parked on both sides. Unless I was a black cab driver (the cabs have the turning circle) I wouldn’t dream of doing a U-turn in any street I’ve ever lived in. (How do you spell u-ey, like that?)
Johnny Concheroo says
The opening shot of the film (in the car) is supposed to be Gerrard Street in the West End. It’s known as Chinatown now and has since been pedestrianized. Most of the streets in the West End are narrow, except the main thoroughfares like Regent Street and Piccadilly .
Even Oxford Street is quite narrow for such a famous street. Although I suspect it used to be wider than it is now and the pavements have been widened to cope with the volume of tourists/shoppers.
There are big sweeping boulevards in London of course (Knightsbridge, The Mall, Whitehall, Embankment etc) but the West End and east London (where the Krays were based) are made up of narrow streets.
I find the lanes and back streets of Melbourne to be similarly narrow, although they tend to be straight and part of a grid.
Johnny Concheroo says
“pedestrianised” sorry for the Americanism – spell check, don’t you know.
dai says
at least you didn’t say “sidewalk”
Junglejim says
Further to Foxy’s observations higher up the thread – it can indeed be seen as a manifestation of certain sociological post war phenomena. The brothers wanted a bit of that aspirational action, & obviously were not inclined to go the square john , hard graft/ mortgage route, seeing as grabbing it with both hands was so much more direct & speedy. There was something credible in the regard they were held in initially. They had helped rid the east end of the hated Maltese mobsters & for all their obvious reactionary traits were never identified as racists IIRC, quite unusual for those in their line of work.
As climbers, the clobber was de rigeur & their passion for the George Raft look & being ‘ faces’, itself a very 60s east end notion, probably helped undo them in the end. If they’d been more low profile or not obviously encroached ‘up west’ on establishment territory, they may have had longevity, but that would have required real smarts, which they lacked. On the end they believed their own image, felt untouchable & were essentially destroyed for their temerity by their ‘betters’ after overreaching themselves.
Image or ‘style’ is often essential when creating a legend & they were undeniably stylish. Real substance is another thing & other quieter firms probably benefitted from the distraction.
It seemed as a youngster that every other pub in east or south east London had a resident BS merchant a la Paul Whitehouse’s ‘ hardest game in the world’ saddo who’d ‘ done some driving for the twins’, & was reflecting in the notoriety. 99% drivel of course, but people love to mythologise & then movies get made.
ianess says
God forbid they were ‘racists’.
Junglejim says
That’s racists, as opposed to ‘racists’.
Compare and contrast with the proclivities of Charles Richardson & co., active in the same era.
ianess says
So, the Krays were murderers, extortionists, torturers, pimps, thieves, thugs. Thank God they weren’t waycist as well. That wpuld be too much to bear.
H.P. Saucecraft says
They didn’t mind who they murdered, tortured, beat up, pimped out or stole from. Their non-discriminatory approach re-imagined the hidebound societal mores of their generation; something for which they are too infrequently given credit.
niscum says
Yeah I heard Reggie was always interested in boys too.
In fact, they were both involved with pimping underage boys to those that indulged. Apparently it was almost normal in those days. Shame the film didn’t play down the cock er nee geezer gangster chic a bit and play up the seedy paedophilia some ..
I have it on from very good authority too that in Broadmoor Ronnie, rather ironically, was coprophobic – he’d stick his head between the barred windows gasping for breath at the mere sight …
ianess says
Agree that it would be more interesting to focus on that area and also their links with slebs and politicians.
Jackthebiscuit says
I always believed that Iron was short for Iron Hoof – Poof.
Johnny Concheroo says
And in the film Ronnie was at great pains to point out that he was a “giver, not a receiver” as if that somehow made him less of an “Iron”
H.P. Saucecraft says
In prison, you’re only considered “gay” if you’re the passive side of the arrangement. No “stigma” of “gayness” attaches to those who do the buggering. This has been my experience, anyway.
Junior Wells says
passive and consenting presumably
Gatz says
Channel hopping just now, and a doc on the Kray Twins has just started on London Live (Freeview 8, I’m guessing London area only).
dai says
Their viewing figures just doubled…