Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Ever since Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels UK film makers especially of a certain type have tried to be in with the homies and produce a film that recreates ‘real life’ as they see it. The only problem is that these ‘seekers of truth’ tend to not have a clue about the subject that they are filming about.
Although Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels looked good and was funny the glaring omission of the film was that it featured no South Asian people at all! Now if you’ve been in the East End of London in any capacity what so ever you will come across people who’s family originated from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. To have a film in which no one, not even the extras, came from these regions is so stupid that it could never be forgiven.
It would be like a film based in Harlem which had no African Americans or a film set in Boston without no Irish Americans. Possible, but extremely unrealistic.
The film however was enjoyable in a cartoonish manner. But this has led to allsorts of weird and wonderful films written and directed by victims of surburban overspill who have a strange idea of working class culture and habits. Films such as Green Street which glamourised violence in a silly unrealistic way. These films clearly showed that living and going to expensive private schools was not a way to learn about the sedier side of life. Yes if you want to know what is really going down, then you have to get down. To give it’s posh name it is called qualitative research.
This brings me to a subject that I am interested in. I was offered to sponsor a film about one of my short story (Playing With Fire On A Green Baize <1>, <2>, <3>). There were going to be changes obviously, but then came the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard. There was going to be a scene in which the main protagonist would throw away 3 threes in a game of brag!
Now to anyone who has played brag will know that 3 threes is the highest hand possible. Why would you throw away 3 threes? Apparently according to this director it is so the player can win more money later on! As you can tell that this is not a sensible argument and regretefully I had to pull out because I do not want to be associated with a idiotic act that no one in the world would do.
Why would you throw away 3 threes? If you want to hustle you would bluff that you have 3 threes and get your opponent to see your ‘bluff’ and call you thereby get them to think they can read you. If they do not get the hint then you just keep on taking their money off them. QED! You would not voluntarily throw away 3 threes.
Yet this numbskull of a director would not have it because it would spoil his artistic interpretation of a bluff. What an idiot! To make it worst I introduced him to a guy who gambles without fear and this gambler decided to wind the director up and consequently tickled the directors stomach to make him think that what he was saying was correct and had merit. The director lapped it up like a kitten drinking milk laces with arsenic.
When it was pointed out to him that the director was making fun out of him, he would not listen and went away thinking that any gambler who knows how to play brag would throw away 3 threes. Absolute horror show!
So if you see a film in which a guy throws away 3 threes please do not laugh too much as it will spoil the fun for the non gamblers who think it is sensible to throw away 3 threes.