I knew there would come a point in my mission to educate myself in classic film where I would watch a film and not be able to believe that it’s in my ‘never got around to see’ pile.
The Full Monty is definitely one of those films. Now, it’s not actually placed in the IMDB Top 250, but it certainly should be. The general atmosphere of most British films really appeal to me – personally, I can’t see the Full Monty working as an American film. The British humour is what makes it fantastic in my opinion, and British films always seem so much more real to me. Does anyone else feel that way? Or is it just because I am British and therefore have more experience and knowledge about that which the director is trying to portray?
While The Full Monty is placed clearly in the comedy bracket, it deals with topical issues such as unemployment, depression and fathers’ rights within a working class community. Set in Sheffield, it follows the story of six unemployed men who decide to go ‘the Full Monty’, i.e, strip for money, after seeing the crowds that the Chippendale dancers attract. They believe they can go one better than the Chippendales – because they plan to go the whole way!
The best bit in the entire film is this gem of a scene when the lads queue at the Job Centre (annoyingly, the only copy I could find was the Spanish dub, but the dialogue is not important) :
Amazing film.
Oh, love this film!
For me, the more ‘realistic’ feeling to British films is just that the overall ‘look’ of the film (ie colours, film stock used, post production processes) is different to the US where they seem to prefer a much more polished finish to their films but then I worked in television for many years and I tend to look at the technical side of things rather than the creative. I prefer our look to that of the US for most films, particularly ones that are based on real stories, but I have to admit that sometimes the polish works too!
Ohmygod that is BEYOND helpful. That is EXACTLY what I mean, but I wasn’t really sure how to describe it. It always seems that much ‘grittier’ to me, and that would be why! The film, for me, that always springs to mind when I think of this difference is 28 Days Later – despite being a staunch no horror girl (I’ll do a post on this someday), I can deal with zombie (though they’re not zombies here technically…) films, and 28 Days Later to me was all the more interesting because of this grittiness, because it seemed so much more realistic. Compare this with the Dawn of the Dead remake (doesn’t hold a candle to the original), and you’re seeing something more polished and therefore just… meh.
I find that the difference is also there in television, don’t you think? Ooh I may have to do actually do a post on this on day!
A lot of the US’ major dramas are actually filmed on film, unlike our dramas which are filmed on DigiBeta. It’s all about the rate of frames per second and often, when you look at the difference between say, ER to Casualty, is actually down to the type of stock used to film on and the lighting requirements inherent in using that stock. For example, HD needs to be lit very very carefully because the cameras will pick up a lot more detail than when filming in standard DigiBeta. Film needs to be lit differently again because of the way the stock picks up light in the set. I’m getting a little too technical now I think but basically, budgets in the States are bigger which generally means film cameras and stock which results in a different look to their dramas … and I’ll shut up now