THE KING'S MAN (2021)

 

PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *poor*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *adventure*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *psychological, sociological*                                                                                                                          I'm glad Wiki told me that the working title of director/co-writer Matthew Vaughn's prequel to his two KINGSMAN films was "Kingsman: the Great Game." The "Great Game" phrase appeared in Rudyard Kipling's 1901 novel KIM, and Vaughan stated that his prequel had been inspired by the 1975 film THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING-- itself derived from another Kipling work. Thus, it's fair to assume that the director wanted to ground the origins of the fictional "Kingsman" spy-service in real history and sociopolitics, just as KIM dealt with the "game" of espionage unfolding between the superpowers Russia and Great Britain in the early part of the 20th century.                                                                                                 

The main reason I'm glad to have learned this datum is that it clarifies why KING'S MAN is such a mishmash, with elements of Kipling, Mark Millar, Movie James Bond, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and the entire 1930s Hollywood trope of "Rule Brittania" movies. The two previous movies were one with the Mark Millar source material that generated the franchise: all superficial popcorn fare, built on the tropes of "Movie James Bond," with lots of goofy sci-fi gadgets and references to pop culture. KING'S MAN departs from the formula to tap into a modified "Rule Brittania" vibe, and its only "pop culture" references were exaggerated hat-tips to familiar historical figures like Mata Hari and Rasputin. Perhaps audiences learned that this was only a "name only" part of the Kingsman franchise and stayed away, with the result that the movie bombed.                                                                                               

  I might validate Vaughan's attempt to do something different, but I suspect that he labored too long in the vineyards of escapism-- not only KINGSMAN but X-MEN and KICK-ASS-- to know how to approach real history and sociopolitical discourse. Instead, Vaughan begins by loosely describing how the spy-service was founded by the English lord Orlando Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) in the early 20th century and then presenting the fledgling service with a great conspiracy to manipulate the outcome of World War One. As in many James Bond movies, the source of the conspiracy is a rogue operator, a mystery man called the Shepherd, who wants to destroy Great Britain in the war by keeping Russia and America out of the conflict. Oxford and his circle of allies, including his Black African factotum Shola (Djimon Hounsou), attempt to foil the conspiracy, though Oxford tries to keep his grown son Conrad (Harris Dickinson) on the sidelines.                                                                 

 The problem with Vaughan's project is that despite grounding his story in real history, the script shows no more sociopolitical smarts than your average comic book. Additionally, Vaughan knew that he had no shot with a big audience if he didn't include the big RAIDERS-style fight-scenes, but with almost none of the marvelous technology seen in the diegetically-later films. One such battle involves Shola and the two Oxfords seeking to assassinate the Shepherd's Russian agent Rasputin, thus rewriting the real history of the priest's murder by a group of his enemies. Another is a lively swordfight between Oxford and the Shepherd at the climax. But I for one didn't engage with any of Vaughan's characters, so I didn't become invested even on the escapist level.                                               

  Whereas the old Hollywood movies celebrated the British Empire as a source of order in a chaotic world, KING'S MAN is obliged to apologize for imperialism-- before celebrating how an English spy-agency saves the world. There are a number of grim, downbeat moments here, but they don't mesh with the escapist scenes, and their presence leads me to wonder if Vaughan wasn't trying his hand at more mature fare, even if he chose a bad showcase for that ambition. Despite the suggestion that the younger Oxford will become the central character once he goes through a rite of passage, Fiennes' Orlando remains the focal icon from start to finish. The performances are all strong, which is one improvement over the acting in the two earlier movies, but grim moments alone do not convey a sense of naturalism. There's not much here to connect KING'S MAN with the wild fantasies of the franchise, though in one scene Rasputin does seem to be demonstrating real psychic powers, hence I peg the phenomenality here as "marvelous."