In Bruges

‘In Bruges’ is a film that I had only heard good things about before I actually saw it. Experience has taught me that this is rarely a good thing. Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘Borat’ was universally praised by critics and my friends alike, but by the time I finally got round to viewing it, a good three months after everyone else in the world, I was left with a mighty sense of disappointment. Of course it was funny, but I was expecting it to be, and all of the best jokes I had already overheard via my loud-mouthed fellow students. I did not find the naked wrestling scene funny, for example, because I had already heard it described in excruciating detail and it was therefore not as shocking as it must have been for the unsuspecting cinema-goer. Similarly I recently saw the stag-do comedy ‘The Hangover’ at the cinema. Whilst I did think that it was a very good film, the sheer hype that had grown up around it, as well as the brilliance of the trailer, meant that despite laughing almost constantly throughout it I came out of the Brixton Ritzy trying to pretend I wasn’t just a little bit disappointed it hadn’t been better. But maybe I’m just fussy.

With ‘In Bruges’ however, I found it to be a case of the film bettering my expectations. Everyone I knew that had seen it encouraged me to do likewise, and with good reason. The story follows two Irish hit men, played brilliantly by Colin Farrell (of Ballykissangel fame) and Brendan Gleeson, who hideout in the Belgian city of Bruges after a job in London. The cockney boss baddie is played by Ralph Fiennes (who you may know as the uncle of the child who plays young Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) with what struck me as a slightly over-the-top accent, in nonetheless a good performance.

The film provides many funny moments, despite its heavy use of swearing and graphically violent nature. Farrell is at the heart of all of the best parts, from his wide-eyed amazement at the sight of a movie about midgets being filmed, to his violent reaction to being threatened by a bottle-wielding Canadian woman. The plot cleverly weaves its way through a multitude of little incidences, many which have greater significance towards the end of the film, all the while using the picturesque Belgian city as a backdrop. The relationship between the two leads is particularly amusing, and is highly reminiscent of a typical family holiday as one character (Gleeson) attempts to soak in the medieval culture, whilst the other (Farrell) spends most of his time childishly complaining.


It is indeed the characters that make the film so watchable. Despite their murderous natures you find yourself warming to all of them, even Fiennes’ ‘Harry’. Director Martin McDonagh (whom I must admit I had never heard of before) relates his comic-book characters to ordinary life in a sophisticated manner that, despite who they represent, allows the viewer to relate to them. One moment that sticks out is Harry’s anger at finding out that Gleeson’s Ken has not killed Farrell’s Ray. As he slams down his phone repeatedly his wife reminds him that it is just an “inanimate object”, to which he instantly retorts, “You’re a fucking inanimate object!”, before apologising moments later. Such a confrontation, irrespective of what triggered it, could easily be an argument in any family’s house.

The film is not just a comedy, but deals with issues of guilt and redemption. Farrell’s character, we learn, accidentally killed a child in the botched assassination that has led them to Bruges, and this provides both the drive of the plot (the gangster boss orders him to be killed by Gleeson), and the surprisingly touching moments that litter the film. Farrell is plagued by sadness, but McDonagh does not allow the film to become overly sentimental. When Ken raises the issue early on in the film for example, an obviously-distraught Farrell remarks “Why the fuck did you have to bring that up?” And the subject is not raised again for a while. The most touching moment of the film, and also one of its funniest, occurs when Ken is walking up behind Ray to shoot him in the back of the head. However when he is about the pull the trigger Ray raises his gun to his own head, prompting Ken to prevent him from killing himself. The rest of the film concerns Ken’s attempts to help the suicidal Ray, despite all the obstacles.

The characters are weird and wonderful, yet to a certain degree believable, the setting seems apt and indeed plays an important role in the story, and the humour throughout the film provides ample entertainment. What makes the film really great however is the love of the characters, especially Ken’s towards Ray. We later find out that Ken holds a debt to Harry, yet he forgoes it to help the young, misguided man. It is haunting to watch Ken, bleeding at the top of the church tower, reach into his pockets for the four Euros ninety cents (that he had earlier attempted to pay for his visit to the medieval building) before dropping them down through the mist below to clear the way for his hurtling body, all in an attempt to save Ray’s life. I cannot wait to watch this film again.