Alea Ford

If a film is bad, who do you blame? Chances are you blame the director because we believe he is the leader on set and that it is his vision behind the camera. Before the success of Sherlock Holmes, British director and screenwriter Guy Ritchie was first known for Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). In examining his older films, I have seen how his earlier works have influenced what some claim to be his second worst film Revolver. Revolver is hard to understand because it is filled with a lot of details such as subtext, cluttered scenes, and multiple storylines. Using film noir and auteur theory, I examine Guy Ritchie’s film Revolver.

Coined by French film critics, “film noir” refers to a list of American movies made between the 1940s-1960s, starting with John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon and ending with Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil. Literally meaning “black film,” film noir is the subject of much academic debate as a genre because its conventions are deconstructed and reconstructed in today’s films as “neo-noir.” Academic Lee Horsley mentions this debate on his website when he writes, “This widening of the term, of course, complicates one of the questions that critics continue to debate. That is, what kind of classification is ‘noir’? Is it a visual style, a tone, a genre, a cycle, a series – or just a helpful category?” (crimeculture.com). On the other hand, Bruce Crowther, author of Film Noir: Reflections in a Dark Mirror, offers that the “mood” is why “some observers assert that film noir is not a true genre” (8). According to him, the mood is “pessimistic and one of foreboding; a peculiarly intense anxiety; obsession, usually sexual; and above all a tension created by fear and violence and the inevitability of death” (Crowther, 8). However, Crowther discounts the claim that noir is not a genre when he writes, “There is no sound reason for denying its instantly recognizable characteristics. Mood is, after all, just as much a part of film-making as any other more tangible quality” (8-9). I agree with him because genre can be defined as both text based or audience based (Orr, 21). Text based refers to the dominant traits across a body of works in the same category whereas audience based refers to how the people view and engage with the work (Orr, 21). The audience based definition applies here as film noirs were meant to be entertainment for the general public (Crowther, 9), and it employed popular actors and actresses to star in these films including Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, and Burt Lancaster (Crowther, 9). With that said, film noir is best understood as two categories. Classic noir refers to the movies made in the 40s-60s era whereas neo-noir refers to those made 70s to the present day.

        Influenced by German expressionism and documentary realism, classic noirs are stylish crime dramas featuring plots around murders, heists, con games, and innocent men and women wrongly accused of crime. Flashbacks, flash forwards, and narration, half the time unreliable, often complicates the plot but work to tie the story together. Because of the Hays Code which promoted social morality in the film industry, risqué behavior such as nudity and excessive violence are implied, happening off screen (tvtropes.org).  The endings are usually complete, leaving no loose ends, but they are morally ambiguous. Women are portrayed as mysterious, seductive, and often dangerous femme fatales whereas men played anti-heroes or characters that are “alienated from society, suffering an existential crisis” as he faces “morally ambiguous decisions and battles with a world that seems like it is out to get him or those closest to him” (tvtropes.org). These characters include cops, detectives, and gangsters. Besides the anti-hero, the city also becomes a character (Jiménez, 4), featuring “clustered, claustrophobic or dark interiors” (Jiménez, 12) such as bars, nightclubs, and casinos. Lighting and camera angles give it its look. Classic noirs are known for their chiaroscuro or dark, hard lighting, flat contrast, and monochrome coloring. Additionally, unbalanced camera composition and creative camera angles (i.e. Dutch) serve to add tension and atmosphere (tvtropes.org). All of this reinforces the “subject matter” such as the “dark side of human relationships, the decadence and corruption permeating the world the characters inhabit” and the “attitude of its director” (Jiménez, 5). Film noir empowers the director as an author or auteur which will be discussed later in this essay. Ultimately, noir is psychological in nature because it is concerned with human behavior, favoring slow atmosphere over action (Jiménez, 7). Now that classic noir has been thoroughly explained, the next paragraph explains neo-noir.

        Simply put, neo-noir refers to the “films from the 1970s to the present which renew the film noir style” (Jiménez, 3). In other words, they emulate the visual style, themes, archetypes and plots of noir. This can be done in a multiple ways. One way is through combining it with another genre such as romance (i.e. American Beauty), animation (i.e. Cool World and Who Framed Roger Rabbit), and comedy or parody (i.e. The Big Lebowski and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). Often times, neo-noirs do not hit most of the genre’s hallmarks, but they do have the same atmosphere: “alienation, pessimism, moral ambivalence, and disorientation” (Conrad, 2). According to author Mark Conrad, because the “term film noir was applied retroactively,” the filmmakers of that period cannot impact the genre like their contemporary counterparts can today (2). Additionally, with new more lax censorship laws, contemporary filmmakers have more freedom to express their ideas than those in the past (Conrad, 2). This means new opportunities for filmmakers, especially directors. For example, when neo-noirs are presented in the classic style, they can act as escapism and/or engage us with the historical period it represents and the issues that are of contemporary importance (crimeculture.com).  Also, because of these new opportunities, new themes enter the genre and these include: “identity crisis, memory issues, subjectivity, and technological problems and their social ramifications” (Jiménez, 32). The next paragraph explores more instances of directors impacting the neo-noir genre through the auteur theory.

        The auteur theory asserts that the director is essentially the “author of a film,” giving its “distinctive quality” (Sarris, 561). Like film noir, critics and academics struggle to define this term. In this case, it is because film production involves a lot of people working together as a team to complete it. Furthermore, power is usually concentrated in the hands of the top people: studio executives, financiers, and producers. Despite those limitations, auteurs have existed under the strict studio system of the past and still continue to exist today. Examples include Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, and Alfred Hitchcock (Jiménez). According to the critic Andrew Sarris, directors as auteurs must meet three criterion, and those are: “technical competence, distinguishable personality, and interior meaning” in films (562). Technical competence means knowing the tools of cinema and using it to tell a coherent story. Having a distinguishable personality refers to having distinct “recurrent characteristics” (Sarris, 562) of style over a body of works. The director’s attitude is reflected in the film. Therefore, he has a relationship with it. Typically, the more roles a director has (i.e. producer, screenwriter, actor, etc.), the more control he has over the final product which serves to strengthen the bond even more. This directly relates to how cynical a noir can be. Therefore, the auteur theory can relate to the film noir and neo-noir genres. The genres have several auteur directors including Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsese (Jiménez).  Finally, the interior meaning refers to the “part” imbedded in the “stuff of cinema [that] cannot be rendered in noncinematic terms” (Sarris, 562). In other words, this is implied meaning found in subtext. To Andrew Sarris, auteurism is a “pattern theory in constant flux” (563) meaning a director’s auteur status can evolve (or the opposite) with each film. Like Quentin Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, director and screenwriter of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, and Revolver has a distinct directing and storytelling style. He’s often compared to Tarantino because their movies share similar themes, tone, and style. For example, both have clever and funny dialogue, use violence as means of telling a story, and have non linear plot lines. Part of this may be due to working in the same genre neo-noir. However, Ritchie does differentiate himself, breaking out of Tarantino’s shadow, with Revolver, his fourth film. Before discussing Revolver, the next paragraph will demonstrate how Ritchie established himself as an auteur.

As director and screenwriter, Guy Ritchie’s first breakout role was Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). The neo-noir, crime thriller was a critical success winning thirteen awards and grossing $3,650,677 in the USA and £7,198,005 in the UK (IMDB). Today, it ranks high on Rotten Tomatoes earning a 92% rating (rottentomatoes.com) and on IMDB earning an 8.2 rating (IMDB). Starting with Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (shortened to Barrels), many themes, characters, plotlines, aesthetics, dialogue, etc. seen here are carried over into Snatch and Revolver. Some are developed and used as plot points or motifs whereas others are discarded. Barrels is set in London’s East End and follows four British small time crooks who must pay back the gangland porn lord Hatchet Harry (P.H. Moriarty) or risk dismemberment and death. First, yellow is the dominant color. Throughout the movie, we see yellow in different hues, saturation, and lightness, ranging from dark gold tone to a pale subtle yellow. Besides color, Ritchie employs chiaroscuro lighting and a film grain for a gritty, dark feel. The film still retains a gritty, underground London and noir feel despite the comedy he employs through music, dialogue, and camera work. Like noir, narration and multiple plot lines complicate the story. An omniscient narration from an unknown character weaves in and out of the story, introducing characters and filling in gaps. Furthermore, the plot is complicated featuring multiple characters and their storylines weaving into the main storyline (the four men trying to raise 500,000 pounds). Additionally, the story is told out of order. Through flashbacks and flash forwards, we see events happen in the past, present, and future, but in the end, it all makes sense. Ramping and freeze frames are used throughout the movie. For example, it is used as a stylish time compression device in the gambling scene where the protagonist Eddy (Nick Moran) loses 500,000 pounds (Ritchie, 1998). The montage starts from an establishing shot where the camera circles slowly around the table then speeds up. Afterwards, quick shots show players including Hatchet Harry tossing cards in medium shots or medium close-up shots. The frame pauses as the cards or chips are in midair and then unfreeze showing them landing on the table or out of frame. Other quick cuts reveal the players smoking (MS), looking at cards (EXU), and laughing and talking (CU) until one player is thrown out. Shortly after that player leaves, Eddy loses to Hatchet Harry which sets the film in motion. Eddy’s lost is shown in a trombone shot accompanied with a whoosh sound effect for emphasis and comedic effect. Afterwards, he grabs his coat, and in a discomforting long take, we see a disoriented Eddy in a drunken, double vision camera shot until he leaves the gambling “ring”(which is literally a boxing ring) and throws up outside. He has been figuratively knocked out of the ring. This style of montage including the drunken camera feel is later replicated and again justified in the celebratory drinking scene when Eddy and his friends successfully pull of their heist.

Besides the visuals, characters and plot points from Barrels are reused in later films. The movie title and his characters always seem to have meaningful names, and some of these are for comedic effect whereas others are more serious in tone. In the movie Barrels, Barry the Baptist (Lenny McLean) earned his name by interrogating and subsequently drowning victims in water. Also, the villain Hatchet Harry earned his name through dismembering and killing people. Besides meaningful names, Ritchie is fond of axe crazy characters, Mexican standoffs, heists, and killing most of his cast because he does this in Snatch and Revolver. Usually these deaths occur because of a misunderstanding, a coincidence, and/or the character’s vice or stupidity. Other times, like in Snatch and Revolver, it is part of a character’s master plan. Again, most of these elements are found in Snatch.

Snatch (2000) was Guy Ritchie’s second movie. Like Barrels, Snatch was a commercial and critical success earning four awards and grossing $30,093,107 in the U.S. and £12,137,698 in the U.K. (IMDB). Today, it has a high rating on both rottentomatoes.com and imdb.com. Snatch is essentially a shaggy dog story that follows the whereabouts of a stolen diamond. What makes Snatch instantly different is that the color grading is more subtle or normal here whereas in Barrels every scene was yellow. Similar to Barrels, the film’s British setting and origin are emphasized. However, it is done differently as the film takes place in New York and London. To establish New York, a generic “I [heart] NY” coffee mug and on screen text give audience cues to change in scenery. For London, the British flag is prominently featured on Tyrone’s (Ade) car and Avi (Dennis Farina) cousin’s socks. Also, the quick montage where Avi leaves his office, boards a plane, get his passport stamped, and steps into a cab is a funny transition to show how Avi implausibly leaves New York and arrives in London quickly. Outside of the accent, there is less British slang and topics discussed in this movie. Finally, some characters have British or in Mickey’s (Brad Pitt) case a mixture of accents. Mickey’s strange accent is played for laughs as he is a gypsy, called derogatively a “Pikey.” The characters inside the story and the audience outside it have a hard time understanding him. According to IMDB’s trivia on Snatch, this is a direct callback to the heavy cockney accent bartender in Barrels (IMDB). Likewise, the boxing ring from the last film is used more overtly here.

 In Barrels, the boxing ring Eddy plays and loses is used metaphorically as he was literally knocked out of the ring due to his gambling habit. However, in Snatch, Turkish (Jason Statham) is an illegal boxing coach who is forced to fix a game for Brick Top (Alan Ford).  In a deal gone wrong, Mickey now has to fight on Turkish’s behalf or face death and the death of his entire gypsy community. In the final boxing match, Ritchie employs psychological symbolism that becomes the main element of Revolver.

In the boxing match, Mickey gets hit hard and in a wide medium shot, we see him fall back in slow motion. His body is straight and perpendicular to the floor. He falls out of frame and into water. In a double vision shot, similar to the gambling scene from Barrels, we see Mickey swimming around, but when he looks up, the camera cuts to a flash forward showing Mickey winning the fight. The water scene is a deep blue. This is a psychological scene where we see Mickey figuratively and literally struggling to get back up and fight. Coming out of the water can also symbolize a new beginning, similar to being born or baptized. When he does get back up and fights, he hits the other boxer hard. In an unbalanced composition where the boxer head twists directly facing the camera (MCU), the frame freezes and the cheering crowds and all other sound fades out. The camera cuts between a still Turkish (MS) and the boxer. Turkish says in a voice over, “Now we are fucked” (Ritchie, 2000). The voice over, camera composition, and timing is humorous yet instills the same horror Turkish feels into the audience. We know Mickey, his friend, and he will die as soon as they leave the building because Mickey did not lose. Ironically, Turkish will not have to worry about Brick Top. Mickey’s friends and family dispatches him and his gang. Turkish’s narration acts as book ends for the entire film because he relates the entire story to an unknown figure. In the end, it is revealed to be an acquaintance of Avi’s.

Ritchie’s mark as an auteur is clear in the first two films. He uses the conventions of film noir and neo-noir such as lighting, plot, characters, and aesthetics to tell a cohesive story that has subtext and depth. From my observation, Ritchie is a fan of details and a master of mise-en-scene. All of his scenes are cluttered with background information relating place, action, and plot relevance. He explains some of his methods, especially the role of violence and why it sometimes happens off screen when he says, “My approach to violence is that if it’s pertinent, if that’s the kind of movie you’re making, then it has a purpose” (shadows.wall.net). Following the box office disaster Swept Away, Revolver hit British theaters in 2005. Critics and fans alike hoped this would be a return to form, but they were wrong (nytimes.com).

Guy Ritchie’s fourth film Revolver (2005) follows an ex-convict named Jake Green (Jason Stratham) as he gets released from jail. Jake seeks revenge on his ex-boss, now casino owner Dorothy Macha (Ray Liotta) through gambling. When Jake wins, Macha orders a hit on him. Soon after, Jake is saved by two mysterious loan sharks named Avi (Andre Benjamin) and Zach (Vincent Pastore). Jake’s release from prison and first attempt to get revenge sets the plot in motion. The movie failed miserably both in the U.K. and United States. Today, it earns poor ratings on both rottentomatoes.com and imdb.com, and one critic sums it up best when he writes, “In attempting to meld his successful previous formulas with philosophical musings, Guy Ritchie has produced an incoherent misfire” (rottentomatoes.com). People hated Revolver because it is so different from Ritchie’s earlier films Barrels and Snatch. Unlike the earlier films, Revolver is a psychological thriller and crime drama that forces audiences to think long and hard about the narrative, piecing all the elements including the characters, dialogue, mise-en-scene, etc. in order to comprehend it, and worse, there is no pay off. Much of this is uncovered on multiple screenings, and upon multiple screenings, you will uncover problems or in the spirit of the film perceived problems.

First, there are many plot holes. For example, Sorter (Mark Strong) shoots Macha’s top man French Paul (Terence Maynard) and then kills the rest of Macha’s crew when they threaten to hurt an innocent girl. In an action packed montage, where frames slide in like slides on a projection then once in place, the screen bumps out, we see Sorter dispatch each member of the crew. He does get shot, but it is in his shoulder, and he is still able to shoot afterwards, but we never see him again. According to tvtropes.org’s page on Revolver, Sorter died (tvtropes.org). However, I think he lived. Furthermore, we do not know what happens to the little girl or her father, Jake’s brother Billy (Andrew Howard). Again, we do not see any of them, and they were not mortally wounded. Are any of them alive? On another note, the film opens with Jake getting out of prison after seven years but instantly skips two more years where we now see a successful and cold, detached Jake ready to take down Macha. Question, how did Jake Green amass so much money in two years? We later learn in the movie that he got smarter in prison through learning and developing a “formula” with his neighbors, both of whom he has never seen. Also, his savings were stolen by the very same neighbors while he was in jail. So, did he use the “formula” or just his intuition to earn his money? According to a Facebook post to the group, ”We Understood Guy Ritchie best film ‘Revolver,’” purple, the winning color Jake plays against Macha, is supposed to represent his strong intuition (Facebook). Besides plot holes, the movie has issues in delivering its messages.

The movie is pretentious and preachy because it repeats itself to the annoyance of audience members. Additionally, it lifts psychology terms, especially the Ego, and pastes it into the movie. We see psychologists and academics talk as the credits roll. Sadly, the same sound bites we hear are replicated in the movie either said by a character in dialogue or narration or seen on screen in a title card. Seeing this feels insincere and lazy. To demonstrate this, I will analyze the opening scene. As Jake Green goes in and out of prison (MS), we see black title cards appear on full screen. The first card says, “The Greatest enemy will hide in the last place that you will ever look. -Julius Cesar, 750 BC” (Ritchie, 2005). The next one states “The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent. –Fundamentals of Chess, 1883” (Ritchie, 2005), and the third one says, “First rule of business, protect your investment. – Etiquette of the banker, 1775” (Ritchie, 2005). Finally, the last one says, “There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of your enemy. – Niccolo Machiavelli, 1502” (Ritchie, 2005). Once the last card fades off screen, we see Jake Green standing in the rain (MCU). The scene is a dark ocean blue. In a voice over, we hear his thoughts, “One thing I’ve learned in the last seven years; in every game and con there’s always an opponent, and there’s always a victim. The trick is to know when you’re the latter, so you can become the former” (Ritchie, 2005). From this scene, we learn little information about Jake. One, he’s been in jail for seven years, and two, he has learned his lesson and has become a smarter man for it at least according to him. However, from this point onward, we see that Jake is not really free. His greed and thirst for vengeance gets him in trouble, and he becomes controlled by Avi and Zach. Under Avi and Zach’s tutelage, we hear the same four principles repeated over again to the point that we know the identity of the mysterious “Mr. Gold,” a bait and switch plot point similar to The Usual Suspects. Unlike The Usual Suspects, Ritchie gives too much information away early on, spoiling the movie.

Finally, anyone can read too much into the movie as Ritchie has not offered much explanations on what the film is about.  Essentially, Ritchie has given us a film with no manual as to how to decode it when he talks about symbolism in Revolver and the purpose it serves. He says the following in an interview on the subject,

“I think it’s fun that films have depth. I’ve left a whole snail trail of clues and symbols for those who care to indulge themselves. But is it integral to your enjoyment of the film? I think not. There are simply different levels that the film tries to serve” (shadows.wall.net).

However, if that is the case, then why not just stick to replicating the earlier films? They have action, interesting storylines and characters, and some depth. One critic Matt Seitz echoes this sentiment when he writes, “Yet the movie has so much more on its mind than escapism that viewers may demand, ‘Who is this director, and what has he done with Guy Ritchie?’” (nytimes.com). Fans who were looking for an escapist movie instead got a “DVD” that “could plausibly be filed under ‘action,’ ‘mystery,’ ‘religion,’ and ‘self help:’ the first metaphysical lad-mag movie” (nytimes.com). So what is this film really about? In Guy Ritchie’s words, the movie is about battling inner demons the ego when he says, “The film starts off with a jailbreak and ends with a jailbreak because all the skullduggery going on inside his head didn’t allow him to know he was still incarcerated. That’s what the film is about” (shadows.wall.net). However, on a positive note, multiple interpretations means there is no one correct interpretation and the viewer can interpret the film as he or she chooses (deconstructingrevolver.webs.com). With that said, I’ll explore the symbols and themes in the following paragraphs.

        First, the names of the characters and film are significant. First, Mr. Gold and Mr. Green can refer to wealth they each have. However, the color gold also signifies luxury, majesty, divinity, and masculine power (buzzle.com). Gold is also associated with gods and the devil (buzzle.com). Finally, it can represent greed and pride (nytimes.com). Likewise, beyond wealth, Jake’s last name Green can mean “newness” as he “ultimately experiences an epiphany, a reinvention (or recognition) of who he is on the inside” (deconstructingrevolver.webs.com), hence the constant refrain, “Wake up, Mr. Green” (Ritchie, 2005). Finally, Dorothy Macha is something of an enigma. I am not sure if he is gay or a metrosexual. He tans, wears eyeliner and bikini briefs, and has a feminine name. In one scene, we see him tanning with a woman, and that is the only woman we ever see him with. On the other hand, there are few women in the movie, and when we see them, they are either dangerous and in charge or decoration, much like the femme fatales of classic noir. In fact, Macha is plagued by two femme fatales, Lilly Walker (Francesca Annis), an associate of Mr. Gold, and Lord John’s assassin. In the end, I think Macha is vainly trying to become Mr. Gold because he is a greedy, decadent, and an insecure sadist who wishes to expand his casino business. In one scene, his fate is intertwined with Mr. Gold’s, when he says, “Sam Gold is the one I find myself chained to. Mr. Black Magic. Mr. I-Run-This-Game-Gold.” (Ritchie, 2005). Gay characters are not new to the noir genre as there were gay characters in the classic noirs (Dyer). Ritchie has played with the subject before in his earlier works. For example, in Barrels, Hatchet Harry beats a man to death with a rubber penis sitting on his desk, and in a monologue, Tom (Jason Flemyng) suggests a scheme where they take out an ad in a gay magazine to pay back Hatchet. In Snatch, when Turkish asks Brick Top if he wants sugar in his coffee, he responds, “No thank you, Turkish; I'm sweet enough” (Ritchie, 2000). This is a clever and subtle way to let the audience know that he is gay. Ritchie writes an overtly gay person into his fifth film Rock N Rolla (tvtropes.org). Regardless of what Dorothy Macha’s status, he is a complex yet weak villain character. Besides the character’s names, the title’s name is significant.

Much like the Snatch, Revolver can mean two things: a handgun and a circle, and circles mean infinity and immortality. Both definitions are reinforced throughout the movie through violence, religion, and cultural beliefs. Unsurprisingly, problems are often solved with guns in the movie. When people cannot pay, Zach and Avi shoot them, and Macha orders his crew to kill Jake. Next, religion and cultural beliefs are present throughout the film. First, religion and cultural beliefs can be extrapolated from the film’s color grade. The film noticeably contains the three primary colors: red, blue, and yellow. However, most of the film is different shades of blue and dark yellow (gold). According to buzzle.com, blue means immortality in China (buzzle.com), and it is also the color of Lord Krishna’s skin in Hindu mythology (buzzle.com). On the other hand, red can mean death, mourning, and the afterlife in some cultures (buzzle.com). Lord John (Tom Wu), a rival gang, is always shown with having a red background. This is a double edged sword for him because it can refer to his Chinese heritage, where it is seen as good luck (buzzle.com), and his impending death. Lord John and his gang die later in the film. Finally, the gold grading relates to Mr. Gold. Beyond color and characters, other symbols exist in the film.

Most symbols reflect the Judeo-Christian religion. We see crosses and images relating to Jesus. Macha wears a cross, and one man is tied to a metal slab with his arms spread out into a “T’ shape. Billy gets a long nail hammered into his hand when he refuses to give up Jake’s whereabouts. Finally, numerology is important, and it often relates back to the Judeo-Christian religion. Twelve is a significant number in the Bible as Jesus had twelve disciples. Jake brings Avi and Zach twelve dollar bills. Thirteen is an interesting number. Jake faces his inner demons, his Ego in the elevator on the thirteenth floor. From literature and other media, we believe that thirteen is an unlucky number and often associate it with demons. However, according to Guy Ritchie, it is not an unlucky number. Guy Ritchie explains why Jake faces his demons on the thirteenth floor rather than on the twelfth floor when he says, “Mythologically, it’s the luckiest number, it’s the number of liberation. From a point of view of Jake’s incarceration, what better place to liberate yourself than floor 13, which doesn’t even exist in an elevator” (shadows.wall.net). Indeed, Macha coincidentally stopped the elevator stopped between floors.

Finally, three is a significant number in the movie. In the Bible, it is the number of times Peter denounces Jesus, the number of coins Judas takes to betray Jesus, and the number of days before Jesus rose and ascended into Heaven. Jake learns that he is going to die of a mysterious illness in three days. Avi and Zach tell him first. However, Jake seeks two more opinions before letting the truth sink in. However, on the third day, he finds that he is fine. Also, in the first assassination attempt, Sorter misses Jake three times. Finally, Jake, Zach, and Avi form a trio. Some decipher this as a direct reference to the Kabbalic faith where Avi, Zach, and Jake are named after the three patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and represent one of the pillars of Kabbalah (tvtropes.org). However, Ritchie claims that there is no correlation between the religion his ex-wife Madonna practiced and the movie when he says, “There aren’t any Kabbalah references. At one stage somebody called it a Kabbalah script, which was a mystery to me” (deconstructingrevolver.webs.com). Perhaps, he internalized and used it without knowing it. In any case, I think this is a plausible theory because of the numerous references to the Jewish faith in his earlier films. For instance, in Snatch, the thieves dress as Hassidic Jews in order to gain entry and steal the diamond in the opening scene. Furthermore, in Barrels, kosher is discussed. In any case, even if they are not the pillars of the Jewish faith, Jake, Zach, and Avi can still represent the Trinity from Christianity. If they do, that explains Avi and Zach’s mysterious rescues and Mr. Gold.

For instance, Jake meets Zach right after he wins against Macha. Jake hates the elevator because it makes him feel trapped so he decides to take the stairs. In the noir tradition, stairs are “signals of catastrophe” (Jiménez, 43). Before he reaches the stairs, Zach stops him (MCU) and hands him a card saying, “You’re in trouble, Mr. Green. We can help” (Ritchie, 2005). We do not see what is written on the card. Jake stares at the elevator before deciding to take the stairs. In a medium shot, we see him coming in through the door and making his way to the first step. Classical, operatic music filled with incomprehensible Latin words plays. Shortly after he reads the card, he becomes ill. The slow motion starts as he faints (MCU), falling off screen. Next, a high angle tracking shot reveals him tumbling down the stairs. Two brief cuts in between reveal Zach smoking a cigar in the hallway (MCU) as if nothing is happening. Finally, the camera tracks in from a high angle shot and cuts to a eyelevel shot as Jake narrates what is happening to him. As the camera zooms in on the card, which simply says “Take the Elevator,” he says, “It was the man [Zach] with the card. How did he know what you couldn’t know?” (Ritchie, 2005). In a later scene, Jake walks out down a few front stairs when the scene suddenly cuts to a stylish flash forward. The flash forward reveals Jake getting hit by a speeding car and dying in excruciating slow motion, emphasizing every detail. However, Jake was saved from that fate because Avi called him, and he happened to stop in time to take the call. Both these scenes can be related to intuition and destiny, but I think it is best thought of as divination.  

Besides numerology, religious symbols, and meaningful names, psychological symbols exist in Revolver. Jake fears physical tight spaces such as elevators probably because he has been in solitary confinement for seven years (deconstructingrevolver.webs.com), and his mind represents an internal prison (deconstructingrevolver.webs.com). Money can also represent another prison as Jake is forced to give it up and suffers for it, not realizing that this is for his benefit (deconstructingrevolver.webs.com). In the end, Jake finally breaks free of his mind in the end, but it took Avi and Zack’s tutelage for him to realize this.

Overall, perhaps the film does not deserve to be hated and ignored. Personally, I do not dislike the film, but I do not love it either. I still think it is a “bad” film because it is incoherent in parts, but I think this is also the type of film that can grow on other people and me the more we watch it. Furthermore, I think Revolver has the hallmarks of becoming a cult hit or an art house film because there are groups like “We understood Guy Ritchie best film ‘Revolver’” on Facebook that are devoted to interpreting every line and character from the film (facebook.com). In conclusion, Guy Ritchie is an auteur who gambled with Revolver and lost. However, this proves to not be a bad experience for him. Through auteur theory and the noir genre, we can see references to Revolver and his earlier works in the Sherlock Holmes movies. In Game of Shadows, chess and psychology are explored. Furthermore, the stylish boxing scenes came from Mickey’s fights in Snatch, and London’s gritty look came from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Though Revolver was a commercial and critical flop, Guy Ritchie is still a masterful auteur who has a record of using cinematic tools to tell a coherent story and add depth to his films. We can see his humor and personality in each of his films. Finally, noir heavily influences his work through color grading, dark lighting, and complex storylines.

Works Cited

Capozzi, Robert. "Deconstructing Revolver." Deconstructingrevolver.webs.com. Robert Capozzi, 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://deconstructingrevolver.webs.com/>.

Cline, Rich. "Into the Mind of Revolver." Shadows.wall.net. Shadows on the Wall, 2005. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://shadows.wall.net/features/sw-rev2.htm>.

Conrad, Mark. The Philosophy of Neo Noir. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 2007. Books.google.com. Google Inc. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en>.

"Film Noir." Tvtropes.org. TV Tropes, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FilmNoir>.

"Film: Rock N Rolla." Tvtropes.org. TV Tropes, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/RockNRolla?from=Main.RockNRolla>.

"Film: Revolver." Tvtropes.org. TV Tropes, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Revolver?from=Main.Revolver>.

Horsley, Lee. "An Introduction to Neo-Noir." Crimeculture.com. Lee Horsley and Kate Horsley, 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/NeoNoir.html>.

Jiménez, Myrna M. "Film Noir and Neo Noir." Edublogs.org. Edublogs, 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Dir. Guy Ritchie. Perf. Jason Flemying, Dexter Fletcher, and Nick Moran. Universal Studios, 1998. DVD.

"Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels." IMDb.com. Internet Movie Database, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120735/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>.

Orr, Christopher. Genre Theory in the Context of the Noir and Post-Noir Film. N.p.: n.p., n.d. PDF.

"Revolver (2005)." Rottentomatoes.com. Rotten Tomatoes, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/revolver2005/>.

Revolver. Dir. Guy Ritchie. Perf. Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, and Vincent Pastore. Europa Corp, 2005. Hulu. Hulu.com. Web. 17 Mar. 2013. <http://www.hulu.com/watch/356509>.

"Revolver." IMDb.com. Internet Movie Database, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365686/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>.

Richard, Dyer. "Homosexuality and FIlm Noir." Jump Cut 16 (1977): 18-21. Ejumpcut.org. Jump Cut. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC16folder/HomosexFilmNoir.html>.

Seitz, Matt Z. "From Jail to Dreamland, With Its Sadist in Briefs." Nytimes.com. New York Times, 7 Dec. 2007. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/movies/07revo.html?_r=0>.

Salla, Prerna. "The Power of Colors and Their Meanings." Buzzle.com. Buzzle.com, 07 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-13-2005-64166.asp>.

Snatch. Dir. Guy Ritchie. Perf. Benicio Del Toro, Dennis Farina, and Vinnie Jones. Columbia Pictures Industries Inc, 2000. DVD.

"Snatch." IMDb.com. Internet Movie Database, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208092/?ref_=tt_rec_tti>.

Sarris, Andrew. "Notes on Auteur Theory." N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://dramaandfilm.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2011/06/Sarris-Notes-on-the-Auteur-Theory.pdf>.

"We Understood Guy Ritchie Best Film 'Revolver'" Facebook.com. Facebook, 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. <http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-understood-Guy-Ritchie-best-film-Revolver/338527568167>.