I watched The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse tonight. The plot isn’t terribly original, but it is cleverly handled: the characters of Royston Vasey invade the “real†world in search of their creators who have grown bored with them. The film essentially begins when Reverend Bernice reveals that she has discovered, underneath her church, a series of catacombs whose walls depict the apocalypse—specifically, the end of Royston Vasey. Scenes from the first ten minutes of the film have “already been written,†as it were (such as the scene in which Dr. Matthew Chinnery inserts a rectal probe into a giraffe). The only way to save Royston Vasey is to unlock a secret door (this provides occasion for a nice prop gag) and pass through into the real world, find Gatis, Pemberton, and Shearsmith, and force them to write more episodes. Naturally, the writers don’t want to. They’re working on an entirely new project: a film entitled The King’s Evil, which takes place in England, 1690.
Overall, the film handles quite well the central problem of translating a popular television show into a feature length film. One of the things that makes the series so enjoyable is that new characters emerge with nearly every show, some of whom never return (like Neds, the “Knight Rider†fan). The writers are not interested in “character developmentâ€â€”the idea is to use the characters to spawn new characters (and new scenarios), which they do with great success. Some characters from the series just become null and void after a gag (like Iris and Judee). Even characters who appear to “develop†really don’t (the love between Pauline and Mickey is really a one-episode thing, more of a satire of “character developmentâ€). The film addresses this idea quite explicitly: in a visually stunning scene that takes place on the London Eye, Hilary Briss, the butcher, takes Herr Lipp aside and reminds him: “you’re nothing but a pun, a one-joke character just like the rest of us.†Royston Vasey is a really just a petri dish.
So how does a successful series become a 90 minute film for wide release? The “South Park” movie is kind of bold in the sense that Parker and Stone assumed that they could sustain our interest with what is more or less an extended episode (Bigger, Longer, and Uncut)—which they did. But “The League of Gentlemen†series has had limited success outside of England, and an extended episode will have no chance in American markets. So they devised a way to entertain die-hard fans and, simultaneously, introduce themselves and Royston Vasey to a new audience.
Actually, the former is more difficult to pull off than the latter. I want to see new characters. I don’t want “plotting.†Thankfully, there’s just enough of everything here, just the right balance: story, bits with old characters that don’t serve the story, and the introduction of new characters. And, frankly, I found that some of the absolute best bits were scenes from The King’s Evil—which many die-hard fans had feared would ruin the film, since it had nothing to do with Royston Vasey (though I don’t know why anyone would be worried by the introduction of new characters who have nothing to do with Royston Vasey, since the series had more or less grown out of Royston Vasey anyway. And The King’s Evil, which, we’re told, is an entirely separate LG project, is, technically speaking, still part of the whole Royston Vasey universe, something which the character Geoff understands. He knows that “freedom†comes from the ability to take advantage of the scripted, that this is what keeps us all going). How’s that for a parenthetical?
Long story short, the film sustains our interest in the main conceit. It’s an exceptionally well-written film.
My mind now races to the disagreements behind the scenes of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Some of the writers wanted just funny bits, strung loosely together. Others (notably Gilliam and Jones) wanted to make everything look good, look cinematic. Much of the time, the laugh would come at the expense of aesthetic validity, and vice versa. But with The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse, everything looks great. It’s visually as much of a leap from the third series as the third series was from the first.
Also: some great references to other films and filmmakers. Kubrick’s The Shining, Mike Leigh, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
I honestly can’t think of a better sit-com than this one, and I’m really looking forward to seeing the film – somewhow.
(According to IMDB it had a DVD premiere… In Mexico.)
“So they devised a way to entertain die-hard fans and, simultaneously, introduce themselves and Royston Vasey to a new audience.”
This surprises me. It seems that from all I’ve read – and from your decription – that it would be incredibly difficult for anyone unfmailiar with the series to grasp this film as a stand alone piece (unlike South Park’s film)
In fact, the characters, costumes and voices are all so distinct that it generally seems to take people a couple of episodes to even realize that nearly everyone is being played by the same 3 people. So if you add in the actual actors as well, it just seems very confusing to any one but existing fans of the show.
If nothing else though, all of this talk makes me want to go back and rewatch seasons 2 & 3 again, as I really miss the loan sharks (I was sad they were only briefly used in the series) and Neds and his crime-fighing car…
Audiences are introduced to the world of Royston Vasey in the pre-credits sequence: the walls of Jeremy Dyson’s flat are covered with “League of Gentlemen” memorabilia, photos of characters, clippings, etc. There are props and costumes everywhere, and he’s completely manic. He’s totally out of his mind. He’s on the phone with one of the other gents, pitching a new Royston Vasey idea. It’s clear he’s the one in the group who refuses to let go–and he’s getting quite desperate (his pitch is that they do another series, but this time all the characters have tails).
The film as such, then, is easy enough to grasp, because the pre-credits sequence makes it more or less unnecssary to ask Who is Geoff? Or, Who is that woman with the funny looking nose who sits on the toilet and says “I made a little brown fish!”? Plot-wise, it doesn’t matter. Obviously, audiences who know nothing about “The League of Gentlemen” will have very different viewing experiences than the die-hard fans. But the film itself will make sense and will even be quite enjoyable.
(previous comment deleted.)
R1 DVDs of this are avail. cheap from Hong Kong. packaged with deadly viruses no doubt.
is someone trying to track down Titicut Follies? I have a tape of it somewhere….
I was in search of it, but Mauer came up with a copy. If you do have a copy, hold on to it for dear life. Valuable stuff (by the way, Mauer, I’ll send your copy back shortly–along with the Nilsson stuff).
What ISN’T available cheap from Hong Kong?
Hello Daves.
Re-reading your review, now having seen the film, John – It’s a very good review. You’re dead on with the film’s strengths and weaknesses. Particularly the weaknesses that the creators and Hillary Bliss point out to the other characters all the time.
That said, I was disappointed in the film. While the first season was the funniest, the second season the creepiest and the third the best written (and the characters DID grow in the third series – think of Geoff – or at least revealed much more of their prersonas), the movie alas didn’t come close to any of those.
And I still can’t imagine this could have ever attracted “new” fans to the LoG.
The King’s Evil stuff was good, though relying on a villain not played by one of the League disappointed me.
While it’s certainly no entry point, it’s still a fantastic series, and I hope they do something again soon. Something with nothing to do with Royston Vasey I’m sad to say.