Looking for some high-voltage gangster action along with world-class performances and genuine thematic breadth? You'll find all that and more in John MacKenzie's 1980 winner featuring breakthrough performances by Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren.

Historical Background: Director John MacKenzie was born in 1932 in Edinburgh, Scotland. As a filmmaker, he's worked extensively in television and less frequently on feature films for the big screen. After three modest feature films made in the early seventies, MacKenzie scored big with the gripping crime drama The Long Good Friday (1980), aided substantially by magnificent performances from Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren. MacKenzie has never fully duplicated the quality of that effort.

The Story: The story begins with a number of interrelated gangland episodes of violence, during which Colin (Paul Freeman) is murdered at a pool, after his homosexual pick-up and his chauffeur had been previously dispatched. Meanwhile, the police or a British Army unit take captive three men to whom Colin had delivered a suitcase full of money.

Back in London, gangland boss Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) and his classy, blond wife Victoria (Helen Mirren) dispatch Harold's mother (Ruby Head) to Good Friday mass in a Rolls Royce chauffeured by Eric (Charles Cork). Shand is in the midst of organizing a business deal that will be one of the largest real estate undertakings in English history. He envisions a complete renovation and modernization of the London docks that will make England the envy of its Common Market allies. Shand will be entertaining a mafia bigwig from America, Charlie Gamatzi (Eddie Constantine), along with mafia lawyer Tony (Stephen Davies). Charlie is prepared to invest big money in the London project if the deal looks sound. Spearheading the presentation of the particulars will be Shand's assistant, Jeff (Derek Thompson), and London Councilman Harris (Bryan Marshall), who Shand has in his hip pocket. Shand also has an invaluable asset in Victoria. She's savvy and sophisticated and knows how to put guests at ease.

The last thing that Harold wants, under the circumstances, is gangland trouble, but it comes his way anyway. The Rolls Royce driven by Eric is blown to smithereens by a car bomb, while Harold's mother is partaking of the sanctity of the church. Word also arrives of Colin's murder. Harold carefully keeps the news of these events from his guests and heads off with them to the tavern he owns, the Lion and the Unicorn. As they are approaching the place, a massive bomb erupts. Later, another bomb is discovered at Shand's Mayfair casino, though it failed to detonate. These attacks are not only threatening Harold's deal with the mafia, but the worst of it is that he has no idea who may have initiated the warfare.

Harold tries desperately to gain control of the situation. He puts his entire organization to work trying to uncover leads. Harold and his bodyguard Razors (P.H. Moriarty) slice up a black pusher named Erroll (Paul Barber) but are unable to extract any useful information. Five mobsters that Harold suspect might possibly be involved are hauled in and suspended on meat hooks, to be tortured for information. Fortunately for them, the policeman, Parky (Dave King), whom Harold has on his payroll, arrives in the nick of time, with the first real lead. The bombs are the type used by the IRA. Meanwhile, Victoria tries to hold things together with the mafia representatives.

Bit by bit, Harold begins to piece two and two together. Harold locates the irate mother of Colin's murdered chauffeur and discovers that his death had occurred in Belfast. Colin, it seems, had been sent to Belfast, without Harold's knowledge, to deliver a payoff to the IRA from Councilman Harris, who employs numerous Irish workers. The story is now set up for a series of violent confrontations, but I'll add no more concerning the particulars. The film's ending is absolutely terrific. The last few frames are even on a par with the great final scene in The Third Man (1949).

Themes: Few gangster films have the thematic breadth of this one (excepting, of course, the Godfather sequence). The themes generally cluster into three categories: a penetrating character study, religious associations, and sociopolitical references. Harold Shand is a complex and fascinating character, especially as portrayed by Hoskins. On the one hand, he's a hard, evil man with a sadistic streak. On the other hand, he visibly shrinks when his wife raises her voice. During one particularly stressful moment, Shand rests his head on Victoria shoulder, in the backseat of their chauffeured vehicle, seeking comfort like a young boy might from his mother. Shand kids around with some neighborhood juvenile delinquents but hangs his rivals upside down on meat hooks for questioning. He can be a tender lover and genuinely grieves when an old friend is killed, but has no qualms about organizing a machine gun massacre. He displays a mix of bigotry and compassion for the poor blacks in a rundown neighborhood and offers an income to the embittered mother of a murdered employee. This is a man who is used to being in control and maintaining it through vicious intimidation, so he is understandably freaked out when violence and terror come at him from an unknown direction. His enemy is invisible. At heart, Shand's a peacemaker who resorts to violence only as a means of keeping the peace.

The religious associations begin with the film's title. It's no coincidence that the story takes place over Easter weekend (it actually extends from Good Friday into Saturday). Shand refers to the betrayer within his organization as a Judas and viewers gradually get the sense that Shand perceives himself as a victim of persecution. A witness is discovered nailed to the floor in a crucifix position. A car bomb destroys the Rolls Royce in which Shand's mother had been conveyed to Church for mass. One of Shand's associates, Colin, is murdered at a swimming pool (ritual immersion?) while initiating a casual homosexual encounter (sins of the flesh?).

The sociopolitical references are perhaps the most diverse and relate directly to some of the issues that were pressing in England in 1980, when the film was released. The politics of the country were dominated by Margaret Thatcher's conservative view, providing unprecedented opportunity for capitalist exploitation and windfall profits but increasing economic disparities among the social classes. Furthermore, England was facing a grave choice between a primary allegiance with America, with which it shared language and some elements of culture, or to mainland Europe and the Common Market. Though Shand is a gangster and a thug underneath, he dresses and talks like a businessman. Shand represents England, to an extent, being overtly patriotic (he named his tavern the Lion and the Unicorn and boasts about England's future). His wife's name is even Victoria. He's wining and dining representatives of the American mafia, hoping to coax investment from them to modernize the London docks. This is not a deal about drug trafficking, but one about economic development. Shand is well connected with the police and a city councilman. The outbreak of gangland style warfare is especially problematic for Shand because it threatens to disrupt his impending deal with the Americans.

Thus, Shand stands for good old capitalism as much as for gangsterism. He's greedy (like a good capitalist), not satisfied with his luxury yacht, limousines, Rolls Royce, and trophy wife. He refers to his organization as "The Corporation." He bemoans the poverty of the ghetto with an empty compassion, not realizing that his accumulation of gaudy wealth and the poverty of the lower class are interrelated issues. MacKenzie makes evident that there is little difference, in some respects, between "legitimate" governments and corporations versus organized crime. Both groups engage in violence, intimidation, and control through power. In many respects, governments are simply the biggest gangs, with the largest contingent of enforcers (police and armies). Governments sometimes seem to have a legitimacy conferred by the democratic process, but the electoral process is easily manipulated by wealth and power. The parallel between gangland activities and those of political organizations is made explicit in The Long Good Friday when Shand's adversary is revealed as the Irish Revolutionary Army (IRA), which exhibits both gang-like qualities and aspects of a political organization.

The Long Good Friday was disturbing to a British audience in 1980 because it seemed to suggest that the war against IRA terrorism was unwinnable. Shand wants to "crush them like beetles," as he has every other opponent in the past. Parky, who has a more realistic perspective, responds, "Kill ten of them, twenty, and they keep coming back, like an army of ants!" Even the resources of the entire British Army had been insufficient to root out the IRA. What chance would Shand's organization have? The lessons this film intends to convey in relation to terrorism are twofold: (1) organizations driven by political ideals and hatred generally trump ones driven by mere greed; and (2) the side of a conflict with the greater capital interests to defend is more vulnerable than the rebellious have-nots with no visible assets. The latter point is the main reason why the Roman Empire ultimately fell to the barbarians. Shand wanted to overcome his opponent by tightening his grip and by violent response, just as he always had in the past. Those tactics might prove ineffective against an organization like the IRA.

Britain and America could both learn a lot from the idea that you can't simply overwhelm insurgents and terrorists by sheer force, partly because of their inherent invisibility. The side with the bulk of the existing assets will inevitably lose the most in a war of attrition. Does that mean that there is no successful strategy for dealing with terrorism or insurgency? Not at all! America provides not only a model for what doesn't work, but also a model for what can work. American's domestic society is relatively stable and free of large-scale violent unrest, despite having tremendous diversity, precisely because a large fraction of the populace (from the working class on up) has at least a piece of the action. Once a person has a home or a car or a family or a job, they have something tangible to lose and the incentive for armed insurrection is substantially negated. Terrorism will always exist and will be insurmountable so long as there are people with nothing to lose beyond bleak lives. The only effective response to terrorism is the combination of (1) firm resistance to it and (2) co-opting the population base that supports the terrorism by ensuring that they have reason to be invested in the society at large. A society that was more egalitarian, worldwide, both socially and economically, would also be one with far less violence. The greedy brand of capitalism represented by Margaret Thatcher or George Bush isn't going to get the job done.

Production Values: The script for this film, written by Barrie Keefe, is powerful and features realistic dialog. As the story progresses, the dialog becomes increasingly elevated in its poetic quality, emulating the ideas one usually associates with epic tragedies. The film keeps gaining additional layers as it progresses. The most dramatic scenes of the film are exceptionally well developed and MacKenzie's pacing is flawless. The film's one substantial weakness, however, is the opening fifteen minutes or so, during which time numerous characters are paraded before viewers without dialog or other devices to identify who they are or why they are significant. Viewers are left searching for the protagonist and the plot thread. This opening narrative approach was especially troublesome for me, as a viewer, because my weakest capacity as a film viewer is recognizing faces and identifying the various characters as the story begins. This film's difficulties, as it first unfolds, become much less important during a second or subsequent viewings, but it causes serious difficulty during a first viewing.

The cinematography for this film features a lot of gritty, dark shots, in keeping with the film's narrative tone. The squalor of the slaughterhouse, docks, racetrack, and ghetto streets are contrasted with the opulence of Shand's yacht and a fancy restaurant where Victoria takes the mafia guests. Cameraman Phil Meheux uses a lot of close-ups to help viewers see into the minds of Harold and Victoria. The film's final sequence is brilliant in both the camerawork and Bob Hoskins's expressiveness. The soundtrack, by Francis Monkman, consists mainly of some discordant synthesized riffs that effectively heighten the tension.

That still leaves us with what is most important about this film; namely, the performances by Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren. Both deliver brilliant work. I'd have to give the edge to Hoskins, simply because his part is more conspicuously significant, but Mirren is as good as an actress could possibly be in her role. For Hoskins, this was his breakout performance. He should have received an Oscar Nomination for it. It's as fine a performance as a gangster as you'll ever find. Hoskins does "incensed" and "pained" about as well as any actor. He's got a real physical presence, despite being a barrel-chested fireplug of a man with something of a mutt face. Hoskins's other work has included Pink Floyd – The Wall (1982), The Cotton Club (1984), Brazil (1985), Mona Lisa (1986), The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne (1987), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), Hook (1991), Nixon (1995), Felicia's Journey (1999), Last Orders (2001), and Maid in Manhattan (2002).

As for Helen Mirren as Victoria, she's sexy and strong and tough and classy. Her final moment in the film is almost as gripping as Hoskins's. She's smarter than her husband and more psychologically robust. She genuinely loves him, both maternally and otherwise. Her other work has included parts in O Lucky Man! (1973), Excalibur (1981), The Mosquito Coast (1986), The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989), The Comfort of Strangers (1991), The Madness of King George (1994), The Prince of Egypt (1998), The Pledge (2001), Gosford Park (2001), and Last Orders (2001). Off my present experience with Mirren, I'll definitely be checking out her work again. Viewers of this film will want to keep their eye out for the likes of Eddie Constantine and Pierce Brosnan.

Bottom-Line: Apparently there is a Region 2 DVD that is loaded with special features, but Region 1 viewers will have to settle for the featureless Criterion DVD. Well, almost featureless. It does include the British and American trailers. There is no commentary track or subtitles for the hearing impaired. It seems odd to use the phrase "settle for" and "Criterion" in the same sentence, but this DVD is from their early days (#26). The digital transfer, at least, is top notch and the sound is, as well.

This is one of the finest gangster films I've ever come across. The British Film Institute ranks it as the twenty-first best British film all-time, so apparently I'm not alone in holding it in high regard. Besides the strong action- and tension-packed script, the two lead performances are world class. The film's only significant weakness is some poorly constructed exposition during the first fifteen minutes, but that difficulty will disappear with repeat viewings. If you like gangster films, you'll love this movie!

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age