Martin Neužil

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Martin Neužil

Violence and humour in In Bruges and The Guard Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph. D.

2018

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Martin Neužil

I would like to thank my supervisor, Stephen Paul Hardy, for his unending patience and guidance. Also huge thanks to my family and friends for their support and encouragement.

Table of Contents Page

Introduction ...... 5

Irish Movie Industry ...... 7

In Bruges ...... 10

The Guard ...... 20

Comparison ...... 30

Conclusion ...... 40

Works Cited ...... 41

Resumé ...... 45

Introduction

Art is a reflection of culture and society, and as such can give invaluable insight into the underlying struggles that are present. Thus, this thesis aims to compare two contemporary movies of Irish film industry, film being an indisputable part of art, in hopes of finding topics and issues relevant in today’s Irish society. The movies chosen for closer inspection are In Bruges, directed by Martin McDonagh, and The Guard, directed by his brother John Michael McDonagh. Both movies abound with the presence of violence and humour, and it is through these aspects that the movies will be examined and compared in order to discover their possible influence on society.

The thesis is structured into four chapters with a conclusion at the end. First chapter is the shortest, as it only briefly describes the Irish movie industry and gives some details regarding the Irish Film Board and each of the directors, how they gained fame, what awards have they won and what inspiration they had for their respective movies. The second chapter examines the movie In Bruges, starts with general information about the movie and its brief plot summary. Afterwards, the thesis explores various recurring themes and topics in the movie and the role of violence and humour in them. The third chapter examines the movie The Guard in the same manner, the fourth chapter providing a comparison of the two. In the fourth chapter, the comparison focuses on themes and topics shared by both movies, giving detail to their different, or similar, approach to them. Finally, conclusion includes the identified themes present and their relation to violence and humour, as well as the nature of violence and humour itself.

The most important secondary sources include Laura Canning’s article “'Not in front of the American': place, parochialism and linguistic play in John Michael 5

McDonagh's The Guard (2011).” Laura Canning is a doctoral candidate and a lecturer at the School of Communications, Dublin City University, and in her article, she mostly criticizes the movie for its narrowminded portrayal of rural Ireland. The article itself is very short, but gives a different perspective on the movie, a welcome perspective considering the rarity of material covering the movie itself. Another important article is

“Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges: Theological Stirrings in Generation X.” from Charles

Hampton, a pastoral psychologist. The article gives a much needed insight regarding the theological topics present in the movie, such as the question of freedom or redemption.

Lastly, Angelo M. Codevilla’s article “The Rise of Political Correctness,” traces back the origin of political correctness to the various communist parties in 1930’s, however, more importantly it covers the implications of the contemporary use of political correctness as a tool of a ruling class, Codevilla being a senior fellow of the Claremont

Institute and professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston University.

Irish Movie Industry

Before this thesis examines its two movies, this chapter will briefly cover the

Irish film industry, Irish Film Board in particular, and the directors of the two movies, brothers Martin McDonagh and John Michael McDonagh.1

Ireland has in recent years become one of the most attractive environments when it comes to film production due to a tax incentive and a great number of writers and directors, and over time Irish film has won most international awards from Academy

Awards to Cannes Film Festival Awards, alongside many others, such as Golden

Globes or BAFTA Awards. Ireland itself has proven very popular among directors the world over with its beautiful scenery and compelling architecture. However, it is not only the Irish Film Industry that has become popular, but the Irish art as a whole, this being due to the fact, as Richard Kearney, a professor in Philosophy at Boston

University that has written over 20 books on European philosophy and literature, argues in his book, Postnationalist Ireland : Politics, Culture, Philosophy, that Irish culture re- discovers itself through encounters with other cultures, and points out its international success: “The Internationalization of Irish art is now a common phenomenon: theChieftains, Van Morrison, Sinéad O’Connor, U2 in music; Jordan and Sheridan in cinema; Heaney, Muldoon, Banville in literature; Friel or Riverdance on stage. Each of these cultural forms has shown how the most indigenous of materials can be combined with an innovative cosmopolitanism,” (Kearney, 81).

1 Majority of the information contained in this chapter comes from the official website of the Irish Film Board and the IMDB webpages of Martin McDonagh and John Michael McDonagh, these websites thus being contained in the Works Cited section of the thesis. 7

Irish Film Board

Irish Film Board is Ireland’s national film agency funding the development of

Irish film, television drama, documentary and animation, their mission being the promotion of said media through fostering Irish artistic talent and attracting investors and filmmakers from abroad. Its mission is to generate inward investment by promoting

Ireland as a filming location, as well as promoting Irish film to foreign markets. It is also committed to distributing Irish feature films to wider audiences and engaging with

European counterparts on mutually beneficial policy initiatives. Lastly, its vision for

2020 is focus on leadership, gender & diversity, and building audiences for film, television and animation.

Martin McDonagh

Martin McDonagh is a writer and director born in March 1970 in London, famous for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, In Bruges, and Seven

Psychopaths. He is known to frequently integrate dark comedy into his films and for his extensive cooperation with the actor Brendan Gleeson. He is also known for his rapid dialogue, presence of foul language, realistic and gory violence, and frequent mention of Vietnam War, all of which is present in In Bruges. He has won several awards, including an Oscar in the category Best Short Film, Live Action for his movie Six

Shooter. Other awards include for instance, Golden Globes Awards and BAFTA

Awards. Patrick Lonergan, a lecturer in English at National University of Ireland,

Galway, in his book, The Theatre and Films of Martin McDonagh, mentions

McDonagh’s inspiration for In Bruges: “I went on a little weekend away … to Bruges, not really knowing anything about the town … So I booked into a hotel, started walking

8 around and was surprised and stunned by how beautiful it was. At the same time, after two or three hours I started to get bored. So it’s like two sides of my brain were arguing with me: one finding this place so stunningly attractive, and the other… being bored out of my head,” and argues that McDonagh turned those two perspectives into the two protagonists of the movie, pointing out that such a duo is often seen in his other works,

(Lonergan, 143). His inspiration can also be found in Harold Pinter’s The Dumb Waiter, based on the pseudonyms Cranham and Blakely taken from the television adaptation of

Pinter’s work. A self-referenced inspiration can also be found within the movie itself, it being Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now, a work with a similar motif of a death of a child and the protagonists visiting a city full of canals, in Roeg’s case Venice.

John Michael McDonagh

The older of the two McDonagh brothers, John Michael, a writer and director as well, was born in 1967 in London. He is known for The Guard, Calvary, and War on

Everyone. He also adapted the screenplay for Ned Kelly. His work has been nominated for several awards, including the BAFTA awards, and has won others, such as at the

Irish Film and Television Awards, or Berlin International Film festival. His work, and

The Guard in particular, is inspired by the American director Quentin Tarantino, as well as John Millington Synge, an Irish playwright, as Canning points out: “Owing more to the theatricality of Synge than it does to any cinematic antecedents, despite its subTarantinian litany of cultural references, it is primarily the intensity of its desire for an extreme ‘localisation’ of the genre that marks it out,” (Canning, 206).

In Bruges

The first movie that will be inspected in this thesis is In Bruges. This chapter starts with general information about the movie and a brief plot summary and continues with the exploration of different themes and topics recurring throughout the film and their relation to the underlying presence of violence and humour.

In Bruges is a British comedy drama written and directed by Martin McDonagh and starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes. It was released in 2008, the official length is 107 minutes and has the R rating for restricted access to audiences younger than 17. The movie grossed over thirty-three million dollars and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Writing in the Original Screenplay category. It received and won several other awards, including the Golden Globes Awards, where

Colin Farrell won the category Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture and

Brendan Gleeson was nominated, BAFTA Awards, British Independent Film Awards and others. It was well received by public, scoring user ratings of 7,9 on IMDB, 87% on

Rotten Tomatoes, with user score of 67 on Metacritic being slightly lower. The movie was praised for its dark humour and deft dialogue.

The movie tells the story of a pair of hitmen that are ordered to go hide in

Bruges after a botched mission that ends with the death of an innocent child. It details the psychological journey of Ray (Colin Farrell) trying to come to terms with the murder, all the while stuck in a place he hates with every fibre of his being. This proves to be very ironic when his partner Ken (Brendan Gleeson) is contacted once again by their boss Harry Waters (Ralph Fiennes) and told that the whole journey was to give

Ray one last happy memory before death. Ken is supposed to put his partner down for the little boy’s death, however, as he is about to confront him, Ray tries to commit

10 suicide. This leads Ken to disobey the boss’ orders and he commands Ray to flee and start his life anew. Circumstances do not allow Ray to run away, however, and he is forced to return to Bruges where he encounters Harry who was there to punish Ken for disobedience. After a wild chase and being gravely wounded, Ray is being carried to an ambulance while narrating. If he survives, he decides to confront his past and face the mother of the child, resolved to accept whatever punishment she chooses.

As Peter Beech, the reviewer of the movie for The Guardian, puts it: “Bruges is really the fourth name on the cast list here.” The titular city feels ever present with the abundance of shots of its streets, canals, swans, and old historical buildings and churches that create a very appealing image. It is very ironic that such a gorgeous place is verbally thrashed in several instances. Ray’s distaste of Bruges is apparent from the outset, being oblivious as to its general whereabouts at first and calling it a “shithole” on several occasions afterwards. This sentiment is reinforced when he compares Bruges, a city that would only impress him if he was retarded, to his beloved Dublin or when comparing Belgium to a proper country and to a proper hiding place, the United

Kingdom and Coventry respectively. However, his hatred for the city can be explained by the role it plays in terms of his psychological development, the role being a place where he has to repent for his crimes, a purgatory. His partner Ken on the other hand loves Bruges and wholly identifies himself with the role of a tourist, a pretence under which they have been sent there, and is the only person out of the three hitmen without an opinion deteriorated by prejudice or indifference. His constant clashes with Ray over the matter, whether it comes to Ken having to teach Ray what sightseeing is, or Ray being called “the worst tourist in the whole world,” after refusing to go on top of the belfry, are a much-needed source of comedic relief amidst Ray’s constant despair.

Another person to criticize Bruges, even if not the city proper, rather its location in general, is Harry when he muses the following: “It's just a shame it's in Belgium, really. But then you figure if it wasn't in Belgium, if it was somewhere good, there'd be too many people coming to see it. It would spoil the whole thing.” This line, apart from drawing some similarities in Harry’s and Ray’s way of thinking in regard to Belgium, serves to show Harry’s disapproval of an often portrayed notion – globalization. Other examples can be found throughout the movie, for instance Harry’s reaction to Ken pointing out that the Pizza Hut in Bruges is the same as in England: “Well, that’s globalization, isn’t it,” the situation being all the more absurd considering the fact that

Ken comes up with the lie only to hide the true reason why they were absent during

Harry’s call. Or consider the prevalence of English language throughout Europe, as can be seen from Ray’s remarks: “Do you speak English? Yes, you do. Everybody does,” or: “That's one thing I like about Europe, though. You don't have to learn any of their languages.” These viewpoints are ironic when taking into account Ray’s confession regarding his English skills: “Sure, I can hardly do English,” making him a hypocrite in a way, expecting other nationalities to learn English even though he, himself a native- speaker, can barely manage, and Harry can be seen as the embodiment of the very same globalization that he detests, a tourist complaining about other tourists ruining the experience for him. Globalization is also tied to another of the topics appearing in the movie and is closely linked with the country that it spreads from, political correctness and the United States of America.

The United States, and Americans in general are portrayed in a very negative light. Their first appearance is a family of three consisting of stereotypically obese people that approach Ray and start asking him about the belfry and the view. After Ray loses his patience explaining why it is a bad idea for them to climb to the top, a hilarious

12 scene follows where the father of the family tries to chase Ray for his perceived insult, his weight being the reason why he is unable to do so. Clutching at his heart he is lead away by his daughter and wife, however, disregarding Ray’s advice, well-intentioned or not, one of them has a heart attack later on as a result of climbing the bell tower.

Another American is Jimmy (Jordan Prentice) who suffers from short stature. Apart from being an important plot device at the end, Jimmy is an actor in the movie that is being shot in Bruges at the time, prefers to be called a dwarf, takes outrageous amount of drugs and is a racist. When confronted in short succession by Ken and Ray about being American, his response in both cases is: “Yeah. But don’t hold it against me,” suggesting that purely being American is an inherent offence to be apologetic for and

Ken and Ray respond in a threatening manner, Ken mentioning other stereotypes about

Americans with: “Just try not to say anything too loud or crass,” and Ray positioning himself into the role of a judge: “Well, that's for me to decide, isn't it?” Ray’s prejudice against Americans even leads to a physical conflict in a restaurant where he mistakes a

Canadian for an American, after the man remarks in an infuriated manner about Ray’s date Chloe (Clémence Poésy). Ray is quick to act upon his assumption about the man and delivers a comment about “the Vietnamese” with the intention to hurt the man’s feelings with the reference to the American loss of the Vietnam War. This having no effect ultimately leads to Ray punching the man in the head, knocking him down with the force and exclaiming: “That's for John Lennon, you Yankee fucking cunt,” and thus, being American warrants either a laugh or a violent reaction. This resentment stems from the dissatisfaction with the ever-present phenomenon of political correctness that has spread from the United States to most of the Western World due to globalization.

The influence of political correctness can be traced throughout the movie and can be seen in already mentioned instances. Ray’s confrontation with the obese

Americans for instance, is due to them not being able to grasp what Ray is trying to say, after mentioning that the belfry has a lot of windy stairs: “What exactly am I trying to say? You are a bunch of fucking elephants!” While Ray’s choice of words may seem drastic, his message is finally understood and is perceived as a verbal offence, disregarding Ray’s possibly good intention. When Ken comes down from the bell tower and is passing the group, his definitely well-intentioned remark: “Hey, guys, I wouldn't go up there. It's really narrow,” is only met with hostility. This instance is among the first in the film that shows the difference between Ray and Ken’s character in regard to political correctness. Ray is portrayed as uncultured, showing no interest in history or architecture, and foul-mouthed, without any qualms about his choice of vocabulary, this all usually being characteristic of someone form the lower-class. Ken on the other hand is a stark contrast to Ray, erudite, interested in learning, appreciative of art and culture and averse to racism on the basis that his deceased wife was black. This is why, during

Jimmy’s blatantly racist speech propagating a race-war between the black and white people, Ken is offended by Jimmy and leaves. Jimmy himself is the personification of the problem with political correctness, namely the debate as to what to call people. “He doesn't like being called a midget. He prefers dwarf,” says Chloe to Ray during their first encounter, which is ironic given that both options have very negative connotations.

Ray even goes as far as inquiring directly with Jimmy about whether he has ever considered killing himself for being called a midget, a symbolic question regarding the gravity of verbal offence and the consequences thereof, and while no answer is given, the practical reason for Ray’s inquiry is much simpler. He is contemplating suicide.

It is this contemplation of suicide that drives Ray’s character development in the first half of the movie, to the point where he does indeed try to commit it, his timing coinciding with that of Ken’s who is about to kill Ray on Harry’s orders. Ridden with

14 guilt, Ray’s psychological journey throughout the movie is underlined with a substantial amount of religious symbolism and influence, such as memento mori paintings, blood of Jesus Christ in the Basilica of the Holy Blood, and most importantly architecture,

Bruges being the most well preserved mediaeval city in Belgium constantly reminds the audience of the mediaeval times, a historical period where religion was dominant in all spheres of life. Joan Dean, a film and drama teacher at the University of Missouri,

Kansas City, in her article about the movie argues the following: “Whatever Irish dimension exists in In Bruges is inextricably linked to its moral, specifically Catholic, dimension of guilt, forgiveness and redemption,” (Dean, 167). This can be seen on more than one occasion, when Ray tries to discuss topics regarding sin, guilt, heaven, hell, and purgatory with Ken and it is during one of these discussions when Ken mentions his

Catholic upbringing: “The things you're taught as a child, they never really leave you, do they,” tying the film to its Irish roots. Another thing to point out in this scene is

Ken’s inability to reach out to Ray because their experiences differ, as Hampton points out in his article: “In McDonagh's understanding, atonement is only possible when there is a shared consciousness of sin. Ken's feeble efforts to help Ray with dimly remembered religion are of no avail. Not until he too is forced to become a killer once more does he become an effective friend,” referring to Ken’s resolve to carry out

Harry’s orders, (Hampton, 304).

It is through the lenses of religious importance that the parallel between Bruges and purgatory for Ray is drawn. While visiting the Groeningemuseum the duo inspects three paintings in particular – Death and the Miser by Jan Provoost, Flaying of

Sisamnes by Gerard David, and The Last Judgment by Hieronymus Bosch. Death and the Miser shows a greedy man trying to get money from Death, a symbolic painting relating to Ray’s job as a hitman, and Flaying of Sisamnes portrays a corrupt judge

15 being flayed alive, which could be related to the perceived unfairness of Harry’s judgment for Ray, however, Harry himself cannot be seen as the corrupt judge because he strictly abides by his own moral code, which results in his death at the end. The most important painting, The Last Judgment, is a painting full of bizarre creatures and sights portraying the last day of mankind on Earth awaiting their judgment and it is this painting that comes to mind during the finale of the movie, when Ray staggers onto the filming set where all the actors are wearing masks and costumes, evoking the painting and signalizing that the time of Ray’s judgment has arrived. It is also during the inspection of this painting that Ray mentions purgatory for the first time.

The purgatory, then, is the central motif of the movie and the city of Bruges has such function for Ray, a place where he must repent for his sins, his violent occupation and the murder, even though inadvertent, of the boy. It is no wonder then, that Ray hates the place so much, given it holds such a dire symbolic meaning to him. He cannot escape the place either, when on a train heading to the unknown, Ray is identified by police, arrested and sent back because of the incident with the Canadian, and so, must endure the purgatory until the end and is trapped together with Ken and Harry in a violent situation stemming from guilt, as Hampton argues: “The violence is contained within a narrative of guilt and punishment that spares none of its perpetrators,”

(Hampton, 303). Ray comes to terms with this guilt and his past in three steps. The first one is his conversation with Ken just after the museum visit and the inspection of The

Last Judgment painting, where he hints at his next course of action: “I will always have killed that little boy. That ain't ever going away. Ever. Unless... Maybe I go away,” desperate, unable to see any other option he contemplates suicide and is promptly scolded by Ken for such thoughts. The second instance is during their conversation after

Ray’s suicide attempt, where Ken reminds him that Ray killing himself will not help

16 anyone and that it will not bring the boy back. Rather than that, Ray should “save the next one,” change his life and try to correct the wrongs that he had committed. The last instance is during his narration at the end of the movie, where he resolves to face the consequences of his actions and repent. Through all these significant moments, despite the gravity of the topic discussed, the movie alleviates some of the tension by Ray’s quips such as: “And he'll never be here again. I mean here in the world, not here in

Belgium,” during the first serious conversation, or: “What am I gonna be, a doctor? You need exams,” after Ken suggests saving the next boy. This shows that not only the motif of purgatory is ever-present, but that humour also plays an important role in the movie’s structure and storytelling.

The movie is full of comedic scenes and is present in all the previously mentioned topics, be it verbal battering of Bruges and constant conflict with Ken regarding that matter, for instance during breakfast after missing Harry’s call, Ray is eager to go on a date in the evening and tries to persuade Ken that only one of them has to stay for the call and Ken acting surprised, thinking he did not like the place. Ken’s call with Harry itself is full of absurd moments that arise due to Ken pretending that

Ray is in the bathroom, Harry’s odd interest in whether he is there for a wee or a poo followed by Ken’s ridiculous act to send an absent Ray on an errand, all of these escalate the comedy only for the scene to massively change in tone after Harry says:

“I'm glad we were able to give him something. Something good and happy. Because he wasn't a bad kid, was he,” and Ken’s face starts contorting in pain after the realization of what is going to be asked of him. This tonal shift is typical of the movie’s usage of comedy, so much so that it often seems out of place. For instance, after the confrontation in the restaurant, where Ray knocks the Canadian pair unconscious, he prosaically states: “We’re leaving,” as a response to Chloe’s shocked look, relieving

17 significant amount of tension. Even during the final narration, where his chances at survival are bleak and the gravity of the situation becomes almost unbearable, there is such comedic situation when Ray realizes the following: “But then, like a flash, it came to me, and I realized, “Fuck, man, maybe that's what Hell is. The entire rest of eternity spent in fucking Bruges,” creating a bizarre contrast in tone. This contrast is often contributed to by the violent nature of the humour in the movie, ranging from Ray karate chopping Jimmy to the latter’s very surprise referencing previous scene in which

Ken and discuss deadly weapons, Ken theoretically counting bare hands as one, to

Ray’s dark joke about Belgium: “What's Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse. And they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids,” just after saying he would have the sense not to joke about such thing. As such, this violent nature of humour in the movie might be controversial for some audiences.

Violence itself, however, is not only utilized in conjunction with humour, but also as a standalone presence from the very beginning, as can be seen from Ray’s introductory monologue that starts with the phrase: “After I killed them,” hinting at the movie’s nature, as well as the last sound before Ray’s final narration being the gunshot that marks Harry’s suicide. There is the already mentioned restaurant incident followed by the scene where Chloe’s former boyfriend Eirik (Jérémie Rénier) threatens Ray with a gun. During the encounter, Ray proves to be competent when it comes to violence, disarming Eirik first and then dispatching him using blank ammunition when Eirik comes at him with a knife. Tied to the theme is the significant abundance of drugs and explicit drug use, presence of firearms, especially in the scene where Harry comes to choose his weapon from a wide variety of all kinds of weapons, shotguns, assault rifles and even an Uzi, the presence of which is mocked by Harry saying: “I'm not from South

Central Los fucking Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot 20 black I want a normal gun

18 for a normal person,” commenting on the grim nature of urban crime in the United

States. An emphasis is put on realism of the gunfights. Hand guns have a limited ammunition capacity, forcing characters to reload several times at opportune moments,

Ken’s plan to save Ray by shooting Harry from the top of the belfry is ruined by a simple fog obscuring the vision and the desperate attempt to at least deliver a gun to

Ray by jumping down from the top fails because the gun breaks on impact. Wounds appear serious with huge amounts of blood being displayed and the maimed bodies are fully on camera, whether it is the little boy with a gaping wound in the head collapsing after being shot by Ray, Ken’s body after his fall from the bell tower, or Jimmy’s decapitated body, his head exploding from Harry’s expanding bullet ammunition. Even then, violence is also used together with humour, creating absurd situations such as the one where the hotel co-owner Marie (Thekla Reuten) blocks Harry’s path to Ray, aptly describing them both in the ensuing bizarrely comedic situation as crazy.

Violence, then, is ever present, whether in its pure explicit form or the more subtle one that accompanies the daily life of a man with a brutal occupation and it shows the psychological trauma inevitably tied to it. Violence can also be found in the nature of humour that is also one of the key elements of the movie, the two often combining in order to create absurd, extremely tense moments interwoven with comedic elements as a way of temporarily releasing tension. The film comments on the issue of globalization and the spread of English language, albeit ironically, and it also notes resentment towards the United States of America that stems from the spread of political correctness and its restrictions on the way people are forced to express themselves. The movie abounds with religious symbolism and explores the question whether one’s sins can be forgiven and the mental resolve necessary. It is also through religion that the movie claims its Irish heritage.

The Guard

The other movie to be inspected, The Guard, is covered in this chapter of the thesis and is structured very similarly to the previous chapter. Within, there is going to be general information about the movie and a brief summary and, again, discussion of different themes and topics recurring throughout the movie and their ties to the ever- present motifs of violence and humour.

The Guard is an Irish comedy thriller written and directed by John Michael

McDonagh and starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. It was released in 2011, the official length is 96 minutes and has the R rating for restricted access to audiences younger than 17. The movie was a box-office success, grossing over nineteen million dollars worldwide, and received critical acclaim. It won several awards, especially at the

Irish Film and Television Awards in 2017, and received several award nominations, for instance at Golden Globes and the BAFTA Awards. It was also well-received by general audience, scoring user ratings of 7,3 on IMDB, 81% on Rotten Tomatoes and 78 on Metacritic and mostly being praised for its witty dialogue and actors’ performances.

The movie takes place in the County of Galway in the west of Ireland and revolves around a pair of detectives trying to catch a gang of drug smugglers. The main character, Sergeant Boyle (Brendan Gleeson), gets involved in a large-scale operation to catch a gang of dangerous criminals who operate in the area and plan to smuggle a significant amount of cocaine. The local Guard cooperates with the FBI and despite

Sergeant Boyle’s demeanour, he and FBI agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) start working together. Thanks to Sergeant Boyle’s resourcefulness the pair uncovers tracks leading to the criminals who bribe the Guards and give false lead to the FBI in retaliation. Everett goes with the rest of his agents to investigate the false lead but

20 decides to return and help Sergeant Boyle after the criminals try to assassinate him and in the final confrontation the pair succeeds in eliminating the remaining members of the gang. However, Sergeant Boyle is wounded and is last seen on a burning ship that explodes afterwards. His body is never recovered, and his fate is unknown.

The pairing of Gleeson and Cheadle, according to The Guardian’s review, creates a mismatched buddy-cop movie where nothing is quite as it appears. This theme is suggested to be true in the very beginning, where the audience is introduced to the movie with the track about posing called “Rock Star” by the American hip hop and rock band N.E.R.D blaring from the radio of a speeding car full of drunk young people. The start also introduces Sergeant Gerry Boyle to the audience, the personification of the theme. From the outset, Boyle is portrayed as an unorthodox police officer and is best encapsulated by Wendell’s remark: “You know, I can't tell if you're really motherfucking dumb or really motherfucking smart,” referencing Boyle’s two sides contrasted in many scenes. For instance, one moment he is playing Connect the dots with child-like glee, the next he proves his knowledge by naming occultists, he does not appear in a great physical condition, yet his swimming ability “looked pretty impressive.” Following the inevitable accident of the previously mentioned car, unhinged, Boyle surveys the site and, upon finding a satchel full of drugs on one of the youngsters, proceeds to use one of the LSD papers and with his statement: “What a beautiful fucking day,” neatly presents what to expect from the rest of the movie, namely subversion of expectations, violence and black humour and it is through Boyle’s character that the movie explores these themes and different related topics.

One of the first issues to appear is a clear divide between the rural Irish setting and that of big cities, especially Dublin. Boyle’s new aide Aidan McBride (Rory

Keenan) is waiting for him next to a murder site and Boyle’s reaction upon hearing that

21 he has just been transferred from Dublin is sarcastic: “Big city boy, huh? And me just a lowly country nobody,” which indicates the kind of assumptions that townspeople might have regarding the rural citizens and Boyle pre-emptively retaliates. This issue is dropped in a moment, however, when for the sake of comedy McBride mistakes

“lowly” for “lonely,” rapidly changing the mood of the situation as a way of releasing tension. This technique is used throughout the movie in both directions, not only as a means of releasing tension but also to create one, switching from periods of levity to violent scenes in an instant. The topic of rural/town divide is further present in other scenes throughout the movie, them being Boyle’s verbal conflict with another detective, telling him to “Fuck off back to Dublin, you,” or Inspector Stanton (Gary Lydon) telling

Gabriela McBride (Katarina Cas) that Aidan “was from Dublin after all.” All these instances have one thing in common, big cities are seen as undesirable. People living there are suggested to be prone to corruption and violence, as can be inferred from

Boyle’s remark: “You’d have to head down to Limerick for that sort of excitement,” when expressing doubt regarding Gabriela’s worries as to what might have happened to her husband. Boyle’s local connections and unorthodox methods prove to be more effective during the investigation than Everett’s access to modern technology and strict adherence to procedures, so much so that when he helps Everett prove that the smugglers are really operating in the area, he is furious when he sees “the big city boys” arrive in his office. Every scene containing this topic serves one of two purposes, either to serve as a joke, as is the case of Boyle having only himself to blame after sleeping with a girl from Dublin, or in order to escalate tension into verbal conflict or even a fight, such as the scene with the “Fuck off back to Dublin,” where the detective the comment was aimed at, Jimmy Moody (Darren Healy), immediately stands up and rushes to Boyle only to be stopped by his colleagues.

Tied to Everett’s strict adherence to procedures and initially to his character is susceptibility to verbal offence, especially from Boyle. He is baffled by Boyle’s demeanour, his offensive language and manners being so different from Everett’s politically correct behaviour. During their first encounter, Everett is visibly irritated by

Boyle disrupting his lecture and his “racist slurs.” Everett cannot comprehend why

Boyle does not take the subject at hand seriously. Boyle remains unhinged by the accusation of racism, instead he endorses it as part of his culture and continues to argue with the FBI agent about the “street value” of drugs, further expressing his contempt for officialities. This contrast serves two main purposes. Firstly, Boyle’s endless jabs at

Everett serve as a crude comedy relief form of bonding, generally consisting of racial and other stereotypes, for instance when Boyle mentions: “I thought black people couldn’t ski. Or is that swimming?” Canning, argues that: “…language functions primarily as display, or masculine challenge given and accepted. Boyle’s racist play with words forms a paradoxical bonding activity; male friendship solidified by the kind of verbal abuse that, we are to infer, only a ‘real’ Irishman can deliver,” and Everett’s reaction, in this case sarcastic “Ha…ha,” shows his gradual adaptation to Boyle’s sense of humour, as well as the ability to withstand it, (Canning, 208). Secondly, it puts

Everett into the role of a foil to Boyle’s character, demonstrating the superiority of

Boyle’s character and methods, unbound by the constraints of social norms and tell-it- like-it-is attitude. Boyle’s lack of scruples cannot, however, be always seen as a positive, especially when it comes to his interaction with Gabriela during the investigation of Aidan’s disappearance when he insults Aidan’s intelligence while expressing doubt about Aidan’s alleged suicide. He is taken aback by Gabriela saying that Aidan is in fact a homosexual, confessing that he “just didn’t realize.” It is unclear, whether his regret stems from the fact that there is something he does not know,

23 because throughout the movie he clearly enjoys proving others wrong, or whether he regrets his behaviour around the corpse of a handsome young man in Aidan’s presence, during which Aidan doubts the appropriateness of Boyle’s actions. Boyle at that point expresses his annoyance and unwillingness to submit to political correctness and retorts:

“Ah, would you fuck off back to America with your appropriate, fucking Barrack

Obama,” pointing out the undesirability of political correctness that is seemingly spreading from the United States of America.

Political correctness is not the only influence the United States seem to have.

There are dozens of references to popular American culture, ranging from Boyle’s wish to visit Tupelo, Mississippi, birthplace of Elvis Presley, which further serves as a bonding moment between him and Everett because the agent’s wife comes from

Jackson, to a plethora of American TV show phrases, such as the term to “get whacked”, a gangster phrase popularised in the show The Sopranos, a fact that Everett is familiar with, judging from his negative reaction when Boyle uses it, or “putting out an APB,” or “John Doe.” It is unclear, however, what message is the film trying to convey regarding the usage of such phrases. On one hand, there is the obvious bashing of Americanisms, such as can be seen in the verbal exchange between two of the drug barons, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington (Liam Cunningham) and Clive Cornell (Mark

Strong). Sheehy, delighted at the smoothness of the progress of their smuggling operation states: “Tomorrow night so, we’re good to go,” to which Cornell declares that he hates Americanisms like that. Another example can be found in the interrogation of

Billy Devaney (Owen Sharpe), where Aidan McBride, upon hearing Boyle’s command remarks: “I’m on it, Serge!” To which Boyle’s disgusted response after McBride’s departure from the scene is: “He thinks he’s in fucking Detroit.” It is this incongruence in Boyle’s behaviour, berating others for using these phrases while using them himself,

24 that is ironic, however, the expression to get whacked might be just another tool in

Boyle’s verbal repertoire to defy conventional standards and deliver another jab at

Everett. Less ambiguous message is conveyed regarding the English.

When it comes to anything English, it is immediately met with antipathy and verbal abuse. It is first encountered during the scene introducing the trio of main antagonists - Sheehy, Cornell and Liam O’Leary (David Wilmot). They are quoting the works of famous philosophers and upon Cornell’s, Cornell himself being English, mention of Bertrand Russell, Sheehy gets irritated saying: “The fucking English.

Everything has to be fucking English. Name your favourite philosopher and lo and behold he’s fucking English,” putting forward that the prevalent sentiment towards the

English is enmity. This sentiment is shared among all the Irish in the movie, being true for the rural Irish who respond to Everett’s inquiry in Gaelic saying: “This is Ireland.

Go over to England if you want to speak English,” and even for the big city investigators, who, during the scene where they get bribed by Cornell and make fools of themselves in front of him, go on to say: “Somebody got out of the bed the wrong side this morning. Fucking Brits,” completely oblivious to the fact that Cornell’s anger at them was justified. Ironically, the only time when the United Kingdom seems to be mentioned in a positive way is during Boyle’s conversation with the IRA member

Colum Hennessey (Pat Shortt), where the British security service MI5 is portrayed as competent, but even then, the IRA was able to infiltrate it by using homosexuals as their means of entry.

The interaction with the IRA member marks a turning point of Boyle’s use of violence, even though the movie does not linger on the implications of Boyle’s support of the organization, even going as far as berating them saying: “It's not as if you lads were ever that keen on getting in close for a scrap, now, is it. Blowing up Australians by

25 mistake from a distance was more your modus operandi,” referring to the incident in the

Netherlands while making the IRA seem cowardly. It is, however, yet again Boyle’s use of verbal abuse that makes him succeed in keeping aside some of the weapons from the discovered cache that Boyle gives to Colum, which makes the final confrontation with the criminals possible. Up to this point, the violence present in the movie is mostly verbal in the form of insults and verbal abuse, especially from Boyle. Canning argues:

“Distinctive, too, is the way in which The Guard uses transgression, and specifically transgressive language play, as a source of humour. Provocation is emphasised, with references to bestiality, a paraplegic described as a ‘spastic’, and Boyle mockingly asking McBride if he has “interfered” with a corpse before,” which not only shows the political incorrectness of Boyle’s behaviour, it also portrays the violent nature of the humour present, (Canning, 207). There are two exceptionsw where explicit violence appears in to movie before the interaction with the IRA agent, those being the murder in

Lettermore in the beginning, only the body is portrayed here, not the act itself, and the scene where Aidan McBride gets murdered in cold blood by O’Leary. There is no ceremony, no miraculous escape, just a swift death and the movie does not dwell on it, immediately switching from the viciousness of the moment to another act of comedy, having Sheehy complimenting Aidan’s resolve and, continuing in the spirit of the debate the criminals were having just before that, O’Leary stating that he was very philosophical about it. The entire gag is punctuated by Cornell refusing to help with the body, stating that when he applied for the job of an internation drug trafficker there were no requirements regarding manual labour.

It is this jarring shift in tone that underlines the structure of the whole movie.

Violence is used to propel the plot forward. The murder in Lettermore in the beginning drags Boyle into the whole smuggling investigation process when it turns out the

26 murdered person is James McCormick (Declan Mannlen), the fourth member of the gang of drug traffickers. Verbal abuse serves not only comedic purpose but, as was previously mentioned, it is also a form of bonding between Boyle and Aidan in the beginning, Aidan being unable to withstand it very well, and especially between Boyle and Everett. Aidan’s death makes the whole matter personal for Boyle and, after an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Boyle by O’Leary, all of this ultimately leads to the final confrontation on the pier. The confrontation itself is unlike how most gunfights in other shows are portrayed. There is no endless shooting from behind cover without aim or infinite ammunition, no protagonist avoiding injury by miracle. The confrontation is swift and methodical, Boyle and Everett managing to dispatch most of the newly recruited henchmen in a quick succession, mostly thanks to Everett and his covering fire. Sheehy flees to the boat and tries to escape while Cornell stays behind to enjoy the action, but is killed by Boyle, who then, after reloading and checking up on

Everett, proceeds to jump on the leaving boat and confront Sheehy, seriously wounding him in the end. And even though the confrontation ends with a big explosion, the main protagonist is not portrayed walking away from it unscathed. In fact, Boyle’s fate remains uncertain.

Yet it is even through these moments of extreme violence that the movie retains its format of drastically shifting the severity of the moment. One moment Boyle and

Everett are discussing how much does getting shot hurt in a serious manner, both preparing for the confrontation ahead, the next moment Boyle jokes at Everett’s expense again, telling him to only pin a medal to his body, like with the lads coming home from Iraq, after being asked whether Everett should call someone in case anything happens. Another example is Cornell’s theatrical: “Good shot,” after having been dealt a fatal blow by Boyle just before collapsing to the ground. The few exceptions to this

27 dynamic are Boyle’s moments with his mother Eileen (Fionnula Flanagan) who has been placed to an asylum, suffering from an unspecified disease, presumably depression. The gravity of the situation is introduced with a melancholic soundtrack and

Boyle’s serious talk with the doctor, stating that he only wants her to be comfortable.

The talk with his mother that follows that scene is, however, yet again held in a gleeful manner, Eileen commenting on the boringness of the other inmates.

It is through violence and humour then, that the movie explores all the different issues present and portrays a contemporary image of Ireland, drawing a parallel between the rural West and the Wild West of old, referencing this portrayal by Boyle alluding to the 1992 Irish movie Into the West during one of his verbal exchanges with Everett as a means to welcome him to the new Wild West. The rural Ireland is portrayed as a violent place with barfights and drugs, yet not as dangerous as some big towns where people are corrupt, riddled with disease and murder is commonplace. Gaelic serves as a source of pride and as a sign of resistance to the English. Political correctness and other

American influence is deemed undesirable and racism is endorsed as a part of rural Irish culture. Violence is used in both its forms, verbal and physical, with the emphasis on verbal abuse as a source of humour and bonding. Jokes are crude, often alluding to stereotypes and employing insults to a great degree. Most of the issues present and the movie’s stance on those are never examined deeper, as Canning states: “This winking feint-and-parry style is employed throughout, with McDonagh approaching each tendentious point close enough to deliver an obvious gag without exploring further,”

(Caning, 206). It is important to note, however, that humour itself is a subjective matter.

What one person considers funny, another might find offensive and it is this line that

McDonagh’s humour treads and his portrayal of Ireland should be viewed as slightly ironic, made to deliver said obvious gag. Were he to explore these issues further and

28 take a stance, it would stop being a gag and turn into propaganda. It all goes back to the idea of subverting expectations and the movie’s ending, where Everett recalls the line about Boyle being dumb or smart and realizes just which of the two it really is.

Comparison

Both movies explore various themes and topics through the use of violence and humour and some of these are shared between the two. As both are contemporary films with ties to the tradition of Irish cinematography, a comparison of their approach to the shared themes and topics is in order, so that certain patterns or trends may be made apparent regarding the contemporary Irish film production. Having explored both movies in detail in previous chapters, this thesis is now going to focus on this comparison and the recurring themes across the two movies including the rural/big city division, American influence, phenomenon of political correctness, and the use of violence and humour intrinsically tied to these.

The first topic to be discussed is the previously mentioned rural/big city divide.

This issue is more apparent in The Guard with its frequent verbal thrashing of Dublin.

“Big city boys” are corrupt and prone to violence as can be seen from Moody’s animosity towards Boyle or the acceptance of bribe by Stanton. Prostitutes from Dublin are bound to have STD, based on O’Leary’s remark: “Sure, Dublin. You've only yourself to blame,” after inquiring Boyle where were the prostitutes from. Local knowledge is emphasized over and over during the investigation with Boyle being more successful because of his connections that prove to be more impactful than Everett’s by- the-book methods. The rural Ireland is outwardly portrayed as clearly better, standing up to the croaching influence of big cities and accompanying phenomena, such as politcal correctness, an issue that is going to be covered later. No such clear division is seen in In Bruges, however, a parallel can be drawn between the rural/big city division of The Guard and the big country/small country or big city/small city division, the

United Kingdom/Belgium, London/Bruges respectively, that can be seen in In Bruges.

Belgium and Bruges are mocked on several occasions by Ray, Harry, and even Harry’s wife who asks: “Why would anybody have to go to Belgium,” upon being informed where Bruges is. There is a clear indifference towards the place, so much so that it can be argued that London, Dublin, and, more importantly the United Kindom itself, are seen as superior to Bruges in every aspect and Ray’s attitude affirms this. Him calling

Bruges a “shithole” while citing Croydon or Coventry, places possibly more deserving of such branding in comparison to Bruges, as better alternatives in a “proper country” creates an ironic view in which this notion should be understood. Without any consideration of subtext, The Guard’s and In Bruges’ may appear to conflict, the former valuing the rural environment, whereas the latter praises big cities, however, both movies work with a substantial amount of irony in this context, and thus the points of view cannot be taken at face value. Instead, they should be viewed in context of violence and humour that they both work with. In The Guard’s context, this divide serves as a source of crude humour, as is the case with the mention of STD, or to create or escalate conflict, for instance Stanton’s poisonous remark to Gabriela about her missing husband’s place of origin, Dublin, the remark deliberately angering Gabriela in order to hamper Everett’s investigation of the matter. In In Bruges, the divide points out

Harry’s hypocrisy, tourists ruining Bruges for him, and is generally more tied to the theme of globalization in the movie.

Globalization, then, can be observed in In Bruges in several previously mentioned instances, such as Harry’s comment on Bruges’ Pizza Hut being the same as the one in England, or Ray’s remarks on the spread of English language: “Do you speak

English?... Yes you do. Everybody does,” and: “That's one thing I like about Europe, though. You don't have to learn any of their languages.” These instances in a way show

31 the spread of English influence and, albeit slightly ironic given the hypocrisy involved, are not portrayed in utterly negative light, which is in stark contrast with The Guard’s approach to the English influence. In The Guard anything English is met with hostility, be it Cornell’s mention of Bertrand Russell, the true Welsh origins being disregarded by

Sheehy afterwards anyways, Moody’s reacting to Cornell’s aggravation by: “Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning. Fuckin' Brits,” Cornell’s behaviour in this case being justified, thus, making Moody’s statement ironic. Another symbolic example may be seen in the Irish family responding to Everett’s inquiry in Gaelic, telling him:

“This is Ireland. Go over to England if you want to speak English.” As such, globalization and the sentiment towards the English, while being mentioned and portrayed in In Bruges, it does not serve any greater purpose other than as a cheap joke.

In contrast, The Guard dwells on the question of the origin of its characters, as Canning argues: “All are defined through their presumed geographic origins or genealogy, whether a suspect incensed at being called “a fucking Italian”, a murdered Garda’s widow mistaken for a Romanian,” (Canning, 206). If the origin is English or, to a certain extent, American, the person is condemned and elicits a verbally violent reaction.

When it comes to American origin, the previous statement only applies to a certain extent because not everything is seen as inherently wrong. In the chapter about

The Guard this thesis has covered the incongruency in Boyle’s behaviour regarding the use of Americanisms, for instance mocking McBride: “He thinks he's in fuckin'

Detroit,” upon using the phrase “I’m on it, Serge,” while Boyle himself uses phrases such as “to get whacked,” or “put out an APB,” and the critique of such phrases can be seen in Cornell’s reaction to Sheehy’s “good to go.” However, the movie is riddled with references to popular American culture, such as the mention of Disney World, Tupelo,

32 the birthplace of Elvis Presley, or the discussion about the meaning of Bobbie Gentry’s

“Ode to Billie Joe” where Boyle, Sheehy and one of the prostitutes sit in a Route 66 style café and guess what the thing that got thrown off the Tallahatchie Bridge was, and in none of these instances is there any sign of negative connotations, the cultural references serving as a means of bonding between Boyle and Everett, and even Sheehy, during the café scene, indirectly praises the Americans as being uncorruptible: “Who's...

Oh, the Yank? No, I decided that discretion was the better part of valour there. You know what the Americans are like with their fuckin' ideals,” in response to Boyle’s question whether they have bribed the FBI agent as well. Same cannot, however, be said about In Bruges’ attituted towards the United States. Americans are stereotypically portrayed as obese and slow to understand, for instance during Ray’s incident with the family in front of the belfry, or obsessed with race and racism, as can be inferred from

Jimmy’s speech during the cocaine party. Merely being American, the fact being apparently an inherent offence, warrants open hostility and prejudice, and Jimmy has to apologize twice, to Ken and Ray respectively, so that they do not hold him being an

American against him. Not to mention that even presumably being American warrants hostility, as is the case with the Canadian couple in the restaurant whom Ray mistakes for being American, and while the Canadian’s behaviour was absurd, complaining about smoking in a smoking section of a restaurant, it is the presumption of him being

American that drives Ray to punch the man, accusing him, and collectively all

Americans, for the murder of John Lennon. In both movies, however, the main offender that is connected to the American influence is political correctness.

In his essay “The Rise of Politcal Correctness” Codevilla traces the origins of the notion of political correctness to the various Communist parties in the 1930s,

(Codevilla, 37). He argues that the American Left has gradually adopted political

33 correctness since the 1960s in order to cleanse the United States of their original sin of racism, sexism and genocide of the natives and has branded their opponents as such, and in order to retain power it keeps creating new demands for politically correct behaviour, as can be seen in his statement: “Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself,” (Codevilla, 42). The party in power has failed, however, in completely removing politically incorrect behaviour from society, rather it has only repressed it, and thus there is a “majority of Americans— realizing that the Constitution and the laws have ceased to protect them from unending injuries to their way of life; aggravated by being insulted as “irredemable” and “deplorable” racists, sexists, etc.,” (Codevilla, 42). This view is also supported by the statement of Joan F. Marques, co-founder of the Business

Renaissance Institute, in her SWOT analysis of political correctness: “But even so, a paranoid level of exerting PC can lead to a high level of hypocrisy within a society in which people no longer dare to speak up for their own opinion but rather withhold themselves from stating the truth as they perceive it,” (Marques, 265). And it is exactly this type of behaviour of people disgruntled by the ever-growing politically correct code of conduct that the two movies openly challenge through the use of language.

The most obvious sign of this is the incessant swearing that permeates both movies, more so in In Bruges where it gets an ironic self-referential remark from Ray after he reads Harry’s letter: “Jeez, he swears a lot, doesn't he?” In Bruges expresses its dissatisfaction with political correctness in previously mentioned instances, such as the incident in front of the belfry, where both Ray and Ken end up offending the American family despite, at least on Ken’s part, their good intentions, which portrays the inherent problem with political correctness, the problem being the assumptions about the intent of the speaker. Words often have more than one meaning and it is difficult to gauge the

34 true intention of the speaker/writer, as Hugh M. Curtler, a retired academic who taught philosophy and Humanities at Southwest Minnesota State University in Marshall,

Minnesota, points out in his article regarding political correctness and its impact on great literature: “[The reader] must be sensitive to every subtle nuance of meaning, because only then can we determine what he has in fact said and not what we presume he has said,” (Curtler, 274). This issue is so apparent in the movie, that when Ray approaches Jimmy and his hired prostitute, upon finding out she is from Amsterdam and

Ray mocking Amsterdam as a place full of prostitutes, and her responding: “That's why

I came to Bruges. I thought I'd get a better price for my pussy here,” Ray stands still, dumbfounded that she has not taken offence, and exclaims that the pair is weird. It is

Jimmy’s preference to be called a ‘dwarf’ instead of a ‘midget’, both expressions becoming perceived as pejorative, that points out the difficulty of truly expressing oneself and mocks the fact that the movie might be perceived racist over time due to the change of perception of different words, much like what happened with Joseph

Conrad’s Heart of Darkness’ use of the word ‘nigger’, as Curtler points out: “To be sure, the careless use of this term has become ugly to us of late, as well it should; but this was not so in Conrad’s day,” (Curtler, 272). The Guard on the other hand takes a slightly different approach to this issue. Instead of pointing out the underlying problems associated with the phenomenon, it depicts a symbolic resistance, unwillingness to submit to these arbitrarily imposed social standards, and it uses Boyle to achieve this.

His character is without scruples, thus being able to derive amusement from things others find offensive, such as him messing with the corpse of McCormick in the beginning that results in McBride being offended, and it is Boyle’s remark: “I'm only messing with ya. Lighten up, for fuck sake,” that points out the subjectiveness of humour and the ease with which people get offended by a joke.

There are other motifs in the movies that are worth mentioning, such as religion, soundtrack. Religion and religious symbolism in particular is a central motif in In

Bruges, Bruges representing purgatory for Ray where he must repent for his sin, and although his repentance is a long and arduous process, Catherine O’Brien, a supervisor for a doctorate on religion at the Kingston Faculty of Art, London, whose research encompasses intersection between film and religion, argues that there are signs of transformation of Ray as he gets ready to leave Bruges by train: “When Ray gets on the train to escape from Bruges, in the background on the station platform there is a poster for an art exhibition of Flemish Primitives, illustrated by Rogier van der Weyden's portrait of Philippe de Croy. The pious man in the painting, holding rosary beads in his hands and depicted in prayerful pose, is a visual representation of everything that Ray is not. But there are signs of transformation in Ray's life, as he gives Ken his stash of drugs and leaves without carrying a gun,” (O’Brien, 102). Apart from Ray’s psychological journey, religion links the movie to its Irish roots, and as such is one of the most important themes of the movie. The Guard’s connection to religion is almost non-existent. There is Eileen’s confessional scene in the church and Boyle is waiting for her. Upon finishing her confession, Eileen immediately says to Boyle: “He was no use,” and starts talking about missing out on drugs and orgies. The scene’s primary function is to show Boyle’s care for his mother and secondary one is to create a comedic moment when the priest overhears them talking and leaves in disgust.

The soundtrack also plays an important role in both movies, often symbolizing deeper meanings in a given situation. In The Guard this can be seen in multiple instances. N.E.R.D.’s already mentioned song “Rock Star” symbolizes the movie’s subversive nature, or “Bourbon in a Jar” by Calexico melancholically introduces Eileen to the movie, foreshadowing the fact that she is dying. “The Parting Glass” by Liam

Clancy playing in the bar after Everett’s hard day of fruitless investigation when he is joined by Boyle and after having a few drinks and an evening of bonding, the song symbolizes their falling out right after that when Everett tosses Boyle aside and continues the investigation with a newly arrived team from Dublin. Chet Baker’s

“Everything Happens to Me” plays during O’Leary’s assassination attempt that follows

Eileen’s death and Everett’s departure, symbolizing Boyle’s loneliness, and the credit song “Leaving on a Jet Plane” by John Denver hints at the possibility of Boyle’s survival. In Bruges’ soundtrack mostly highlights the melancholic mood in various parts of the movie, for instance Franz Schubert’s “Der Leiermann.” Of particular importance is “On Raglan Road” performed by The Dubliners. A well-known Irish song based on a poem by Patrick Kavanagh, this piece plays during Ken’s ascent of the bell tower after being shot by Harry, trying to save Ray, the song ends just as Ken jumps down to his death. The text reminisces of a long-lost love, an apt choice considering Ken’s deceased wife who was avenged by Harry, creating a mournful moment. Not only does is it create ironic contrast, Harry being the person that both avenged Ken’s wife and shot Ken, but it is also yet another tie to Irish culture in the movie. All these motifs point at the underlying presence of violence and humour, either in the way these motifs are employed to create a comedic or melancholic effect, contrasting the otherwise violent tone of the scene, or to point at the violent nature of the humour itself.

Thus, violence and humour combine to create a compelling narrative. The tonal shift of any given scene, present in both movies, is created by this combination, the humorous moment gaining its comedic effect by profiting on the violence present. In

The Guard this can be seen throughout the movie, for instance when Boyle arrives at a café and the prostitute that he has previously paid for is waiting for him with a broken lip, and upon seeing her he asks: “You've been in the wars, huh,” seemingly dismissing

37 the implications of what she must have experienced in order to create brief moment of levity. Immediately afterwards, when Sheehy comes in, Boyle’s behaviour changes and he challenges Sheehy: You know what gives me the creeps? Cunts who beat up women,” in a threatening manner, shifting the tone of the scene again. Or Stanton’s question to Everett about the meaning of the term ‘liquidate’: “But does it mean they've actually been turned into liquid?” This produces a moment of amusement for Everett who thinks that Stanton must be joking, even though the nature of the term is usually not a joking matter, and upon realizing that Stanton is serious, the tone of the scene shifts to a serious one. There are plenty other examples, during the final conversation between Boyle and Everett, both getting ready for the confrontation with criminals,

Boyle’s remarks produce laughter, if only for an extremely brief moment, or a scene with an ominous start where Cornell waits for Stanton and Moody to bribe the Guard, the foreboding moment shattered the moment Stanton greets Cornell with a the phrase:

“Like a donkey fucking a hippopotamus, it's party time,” which turns out to be Sheehy’s invention aimed to make the Guard look like fools. Lastly, in a scene that is almost morbidy violent, the inspection of McCormick’s corpse in a morgue, Boyle is playing with the McComrick’s frozen toes, even sniffing his fingers aftwerards, to the shock of

Stanton and Everett that are also present.

In Bruges has a very similar approach in its use of violence and humour, clearly seen for instance in the scene where Eirik ambushes Ray with a gun full of blank ammunition. After blinding Eirik, who then starts sobbing, Ray starts lamenting about not having a sexual intercourse in months, completely contrasting the violence that has just occurred and its consequences. Eirik’s injury creates another comedic effect when

Harry comes for his gun that is supposed to kill Ken. A dramatic scene is dispelled in an instant by Harry’s comment on Eirik’s eyepatch that he has to wear now: “Aye-aye,”

38 mocking him for looking like a pirate, only for the scene to revert back to its serious tone afterwards. It is also Harry’s question regarding the nature of Ray’s bathroom visit that sharply contrasts the dreadful tone which is expected from the call, only for the dreadful tone to re-emerge in a moment, a child-like language used to deliver an order to execute Ray: “He wasn't a bad kid, was he?” The movie also works with this theme of humour stemming from violence in its very beginning and ending, where narrating

Ray introduces the movie by confessing to killing someone and stating the instructions that they received: “‘Get to Bruges,’ I didn't even know where Bruges fucking was. It's in Belgium,” and ends it by: “But then, like a flash, it came to me, and I realized, ‘Fuck, man, maybe that's what Hell is. The entire rest of eternity spent in fucking Bruges!’ And

I really, really hoped I wouldn't die,” creating comedic effect inherently tied to violence, the murder of the kid in the beginning and Ray’s struggle for survival in the end.

This comparison shows how the two movies manage topics of rural/city divide, anti-English and anti-American sentiments, religion, political correctness, and others, and that they do so through the use of violence and humour, the latter often stemming from violent situations depicted throughout the movies. These combined create jarring shifts of tone in many different scenes which serve as a source of entertainment, the extent of which depends on each individual viewer due to the inherent subjectiveness of humour.

Conclusion

This essay has covered the movies In Bruges, by Martin McDonagh, and The

Guard, by John Michael McDonagh in the context of violence and humour present, separately at first, then comparing the movies with each other. It has discovered the underlying themes recurring in both movies, such as rural/big city divide, anti-English and anti-American sentiments, religion, ties to the Irish culture, and most importantly political correctness. It has been found, that both movies approach the themes in a similar fashion, although sometimes a drawing parallel is necessary due to the lack of direct discussion of the topic, such as the rural/big city divide not being completely obvious in In Bruges. The only significant difference has been discovered with their approach to religion, where the theme is central to In Bruges, but only playing a minor role in The Guard. Violence and humour has been proven to be intertwined in both movies, humour often stemming from the violence of any given situation, and also an apparent tonal shift has been observed when mixing the two together. Due to the subjective nature of humour, a common antagonist has been found in the form of political correctness. Both movies use their language wordplay and vulgar language to challenge the problematic constrains imposed on the freedom of expression, especially regarding the naming conventions. With these issues proving to be quite topical due to recent political developments in the United States and Canada, a broader study on the presence of the topic of political correctness in Irish cinematography could be conducted to confirm, or deny, whether the Irish are concerned when it comes to political correctness.

Works Cited

Primary Sources

In Bruges. Martin McDonagh, Focus Features, Universal Pictures International,

2008.

The Guard. John Michael McDonagh, Reprisal Films, Element Pictures, 2011.

Secondary Sources

Beech, Peter. “My favourite film: In Bruges.” Review of In Bruges, directed by

Martin McDonagh. The Guardian, 18 November 2011. www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/nov/18/my-favourite-film-in-bruges

Accessed 14 May 2018

Canning, Laura. “'Not in front of the American': place, parochialism and linguistic play in John Michael McDonagh's The Guard (2011).” Estudios Irlandeses -

Journal of Irish Studies. Annual. 2012 Issue 7: 206-208. Literature Resource Center. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.284754783&lang=cs&site=eds- live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

Codevilla, Angelo M. “The Rise of Political Correctness.” Claremont Review of Books.

Vol. 16, Issue 4. Fall, 2016: 37-43. Literature Resource Center. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.472268058&lang=cs&site=eds- live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

Curtler, Hugh M. “Political correctness and the attack on great literature.”

Modern Age. Vol. 51, Issue 3. Summer-Fall 2009: 272-279. Literature Resource Center. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.220411836&lang=cs&site=eds- live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

Dean, Joan. “In Bruges (2008).” Estudios Irlandeses - Journal of Irish Studies.

Annual. 2009 Issue 4: 166-169. Literature Resource Center. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.197991030&lang=cs&site=eds- live&scope=site Accessed 14 May 2018

Hampton, Charles. “Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges: Theological Stirrings in

Generation X.” Practical Theology. 3 no 3 December 2010: 297-310. ATLA Religion

Database with ATLASerials. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001818953&lang=cs&site=eds- live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

IMDb - Movies, TV and Celebrities – IMDb. Amazon. www.imdb.com

Accessed 14 May 2018

Irish Film Board. www.irishfilmboard.ie Accessed 14 May 2018

Kearney, Richard. Postnationalist Ireland : Politics, Culture, Philosophy. Taylor

& Francis e-Library, 2005. eBook Academic Collection. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=e000xww&AN=84988&lang=cs&site=eds-live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

Lonergan, Patrick. Theatre and Films of Martin McDonagh. London: Methuen

Drama, 2012. EBSCO eBook. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=e000xww&AN=436719&lang=cs&site=eds-live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

Marques, Joan F. “How Politically Correct Is Political Correctness?: A SWOT

Analysis of This Phenomenon.” Business and society : a journal of interdiscipl. exploration. Vol. 48, Issue 2. June 2009: 257-266. Sage Publications. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=edb&AN=39666120&lang=cs&site=eds-live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

O’Brien, Catherine. “‘In Bruges’: Heaven or Hell?” Literature and Theology.

Vol. 26, Issue 1. March 2012: 93-105. JSTOR. ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=ip,cookie,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.23927536&lang=cs&site=eds- live&scope=site

Accessed 14 May 2018

Rose, Steve. “The Guard – review.” Review of The Guard, directed by John

Michael McDonagh. The Guardian, 18 August 2011. www.theguardian.com/film/2011/aug/18/the-guard-review

Accessed 14 May 2018

Resumé

This thesis examines two contemporary Irish films In Bruges, by Martin

McDonagh, and The Guard, by John Michael McDonagh, in the context of violence and humour present.

In Bruges’s prevalent topics include themes of globalization, pronounced anti-

American sentiment in regards to political correctness, and a central religious theme of narration driven by guilt and the path to redemption. The titular city functions as a purgatory for Ray and the movie details his psychological struggle for redemption.

Violence and humour are intertwined, humour often stemming from a violent situation, and combined they create jarring shifts of tone, that ultimately create a compelling narration.

The Guard’s topics include rural Irish/Dublin divide, anti-English sentiment, spread of American influence and the distaste for Americanisms, a plethora of cultural references, and an anti-political correctness stance. Violence is often in the form of verbal abuse, however, scenes with explicit violence are found in several instances.

Humour is violent in nature and the two combined work in the same way as is the case with the previous movie.

The chapter on comparison points out the differences between the approaches of each movie and make clear the anti-political correctness sentiment found in both.

Resumé

Tato práce se zabývá dvěma současnými irskými filmy, a to V Brugách, režiséra

Martina McDonagha, a Pomáhat a chránit, režiséra Johna Michaela McDonagha. Tyto filmy jsou zkoumány v kontextu násilí a humoru, jenž se v nich nachází.

Témata, jež převažují v V Brugách, jsou globalizace, patrně záporný postoj vůči

Spojeným státům kvůli politické korektnosti, a centrální náboženské téma příběhu hnaného pocitem viny a cestou ke spáse. Město, které figuruje v názvu, má funkci očistce pro Raye a tento film podrobně zachycuje jeho psychologický boj o spásu.

Násilí a humor jsou propleteny do sebe, kdy humor často pochází z násilí v dané situaci, a dohromady tyto prvky vytvářejí drastickou změnu v závažnosti situace, což celkově dodává tomuto příběhu působivost.

Témata v Pomáhat a Chránit zahrnují rozdělení mezi irským venkovem a

Dublinem, záporný postoj vůči Angličanům a angličtině, šíření amerického vlivu a odporu vůči americkým frázím, hojnost kulturních odkazů a odpor vůči politické korektnosti. Násilí je zobrazeno většinou formou verbálního týraní, ale existují také scény neskrývaného násilí. Humor je v povaze násilný a dohromady tyto prvky fungují stejně jako v předešlém případě.

Kapitola porovnávající oba filmy poukazuje na rozdíly mezi přístupy jednotlivých filmů a vyjasňuje záporný postoj vůči politické korektnosti, jenž se nachází v obou filmech.