Gems from the Interwebs

ce11.1: NEDs

I haven’t been to the cinema in so long… prior to this, I last saw Harry Potter, and prior to that it was way back in August with Scott Pilgrim. So when thepatter asked me to review NEDs, I thought “why not?”, and went along to the lovely Grosvenor, knitting in one hand (I needed to distance myself from the violence, ok?) and pen in the other. It was a (an?) historic occasion, marking the first time I’d seen an 18 in the cinema, and only the second 18 I’ve ever seen, the other being Sweeney Todd. 

• Director: Peter Mullan
• Cast: unknowns
• Runtime: 124 minutes
• Rating: 18

To put it mildly, NEDs is an uncomfortable watch. It certainly merits its 18 certificate for the harsh language and violence that permeate the movie, and director Peter Mullen is clearly aiming for ‘gritty’ and ‘realistic’ accolades.

The story is that of John McGill (Conor McCarron), a young boy growing up in the shadow of his violent elder brother and drunkard father, who transforms from prize-winning primary 7 pupil to knife-wielding, psychotic gang member over the course of a few short years. There is some exploration of the factors which contribute to John’s fall from grace – the violent youths who surround him on his housing estate, the schoolboys laughing at their swotty coursemate, and a posh young friend who ‘drops’ John for no reason – but overall, the story seems to focus on what he does, without offering many explicit reasons for it.

NEDs stands in stark contrast to Hollywood’s sugary tales. This is no Cinderella story. No happy endings here, for anyone, though the question of redemption hangs over the very end… if the rolling of the credits can be called an ‘ending’, as even after the overly-long screenplay the final minutes brought no sort of conclusion. At times, it is unexpectedly funny; at others, rather offensive (a hallucination sequence in which the crucified ‘Jesus’ beats up John was particularly so, as well as contributing nothing to the plot).

Not having lived in a deprived area of Glasgow in the 70s, I couldn’t argue one way or another for its historical accuracy, but the portrayal of certain issues does ring true today, and it is true that in certain parts of the city this gang culture is still pervasive, as well as the stigma attached to succeeding academically; or rather, the belief that there is no point in doing so. On the other hand, non-Glaswegian viewers are probably best advised that for the most part young people have many things to do other than roam the streets with knives, and the images of a corrupt and toothless policeforce are certainly outdated.

Overall verdict? The film probably wouldn’t have absorbed me if casually watching at home, but on the big screen it certainly made an impact. 7/10.

9am