Where Mob Meets Mod
|Photo by Michael Wildsmith|
British novelist Jake ArnottsThe Long Firm
could drive any bookstore lackey around the bend. Where does one shelve the tale of Harry Starks, a charming, gay, Jewish gangster in 60s London who is bipolar, tortures insubordinates with a white-hot poker and is hopelessly in love with Judy Garland? Under Crime? Gay/Lesbian? Historical novels? Judaica? On March 6 at 10 p.m., the first of four consecutive Sunday-night installments of the critically acclaimed television adaptation ofThe Long Firm
will air on BBC America. Back in December, the 43-year-old Arnott a one-time mortuary technician, construction worker and artists life model who is now being called the British James Ellroy stopped fumbling with a Rubiks Cubelike silver tea strainer in an ornate, noisy London restaurant and chose his own category. I wouldnt mind being seen as noir fiction, he suggested. He went on to talk about East End thugs, mummy shortages, the trouble with Geezer Chic, and what bugs him about Guy Ritchie.
L.A. WEEKLY: How did you come up with a character like Harry Starks?
He was partly based on Ronnie Kray, who was a real homosexual gangster. Ronnie Kray had just died. I thought one of his boyfriends was going to come out and sell his story. I thought, Thats the story I want to read. But nobody did. Then I started researching. During [Krays] time there was a huge social change going on, particularly in London. The class thing was up for grabs. Everything was essentially becoming more middle class. The traditional working-class ethic was slowly disappearing. The world of privilege was shrinking as well. There was this economic boom. Young people had money because pop culture was suddenly something that was economically viable in this country. It was very exciting times. People often talk about the 60s when we were entering this world of light and everything was swinging groovy. But also there was some very strange, dodgy things going on politically, socially, in show business, in pop culture and in organized crime.
Was this your first really big idea?
Yeah, and I was very aware that I wanted to get it done quite quickly. It took about a year and a half. I was very worried someone might be up to it.
I was living in Leeds. So I came back down to London. Id gotten some film work. Theres a whole area of work for people in them funny suits in science-fiction films called creature work. The second assistant director of [Universal Pictures]The Mummy
said to an actor friend of mine, Look, we got a mummy shortage. Can you get 12 guys together? Basically, if you could fit into the latex suit, you got the job. We spent most of the time, dressed in our mummy bandage suits with our heads off, playing cards while we waited to be on set. But I had my manuscript and, bizarrely, I got a deal that summer. It was that quick.
In 98, just before my book was published, [Guy Ritchies]Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
was released. So there was a lot of interest because a lot of British gangster movies were in production at that time. But the Guy Ritchie film was precisely what I didnt want it to be. Some British journalists have done the most appalling things, lumping me in with that, writing, Jake Arnott, the creator of Geezer Chic. Which was just the most appalling notion!
I can tell by your tone that the term offends you. But I dont even know what Geezer Chic is.
I dont either. Its this kind ofLoaded
magazine, sharp suit, middle-class-white-boy-become-fashionable sort of thing. Like I said, maybe a lot of people bought the book because they thought it was going to be likeLock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
Your subsequent novels,
He Kills Coppersand
truecrime,help form a loose trilogy that extends into the
90s,with the last book featuring a Guy Ritchielike rich-kid director who tries to pass himself off as a working-class tough. What about Ritchie drives you so crazy? Is it his emphasis of style over content?
Yeah. And not even very good style at that.Lock, Stock
wasnt film noir. It was a feel-good film. People came out of it saying, Oh, that was quite funny. The classic point of noir is to unsettle. Its supposed to remind us that were living in a not very happy world, a world where corruption isnt contained. The violence inLock, Stock
is extraordinarily clichéd, a cartoon. It didnt have any sort of darkness to it. I think explosive, cathartic violence is very ritualized. Normal fights and real killings are really horrible. They implode everything.
So in Ritchies world, the brutality is played for laughs?
I think he said this in interviews, that he didnt realizeLock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
is a comedy. He took it entirely seriously. Thats why it worked. Its almost like Margaret Dumont in the Marx Brothers comedies. Every film, apparently, she thought, Oh, were doing a serious film at last. And thats why shes so fantastically funny.
60s-eragangsters so iconic in British culture?
I think for the modern young man theres so much fear of their own lack of clear masculinity. I think they assume there was a time when men were men and that, of course, all these people were fiercely heterosexual. In fact, though, homosexuals arent all going to be hairdressers. Its purely statistical: Theyre going to be involved in every kind of world the boxing world, the world of gangsters. That was the fascination for me.
How did you arrive at combining fictional characters with real people and events?
Harry Starks behaved differently from the Krays. I wanted to put the Krays in there just to say, This isnt Ronnie Kray. This is somebody else. The Krays behaved in a way that was slightly ridiculous. They were much more famous than they were successful. They were very feared but largely because they were so incompetent. The more successful villains would have kept their heads down a bit.
The Long Firm,these East End thugs are constantly tossing around Yiddish words
shtum, spiel, gelt.Were these terms really part of the jargon?
The thing about the East End, the cockney sensibility, is that its a series of immigrant cultures starting possibly with the Huguenots, but certainly with the Jews that came over in the late 19th century. If you listen to a proper East End accent, youll hear the cadences and a lot of the vocabulary as well. What was interesting about what was happening in the 20s and 30s in the East End is that you could go two ways. You could become political there was huge membership in the Communist Party, huge radicalism amongst young Jewish men. Or you could become a gangster.
In the end, is there a difference between the crime worlds of America and Great Britain?
Do you mean how theyve been portrayed? The biggest difference between organized crime in America and Britain is size and scale. Here, its very smalltime, very seedy. Also, with the Italian-American mafia, its much more about the idea that they belong to an immigrant culture. Everybody has to find their own way in. The American dream is about what you can create for yourself. The British dream is something that belongs to the aristocracy. Even now, you look at the pop culture world, you see all the angry young men and theyve become Sir Mick Jagger, Sir Elton John. In Britain, were about looking over our shoulders at the past. Organized crime, its part of our history. We had the biggest criminal racket in the world at one time, which is the British Empire.
Get the Theater Newsletter
Get a rundown of upcoming theater events and ticket deals in Los Angeles.