I have to raise an eyebrow when he says things like, “This movie really is the origin story of Eggsy,” or, “I joke that we’ve made the prequel to the Eggsy movie.” This movie is a Pygmalion story. It’s about Harry Hart shaping Eggsy Unwin in his image. So when Vaughn says he’s making the “origin of Eggsy”, which trope is he playing to, exactly?
Kill your father to become a man? The offspring is new and improved?
Or tragic death-of-lover origin story? Older gay mentor and young man?
One could say “both”, but I personally think there’s a disconnect between the movie Vaughn thought he was making and the movie the audience saw. He says things that seem to jive with the “offspring” trope:
Eggsy is really the real, true modern gentleman spy. It really isn’t Harry Hart. Harry Hart is the old cliché of what you think a gentleman spy is. [x]
Even blatantly talking about “new blood”:
Harry even says, ‘There is a reason why we’ve developed weak chins.’ He said that meaning, ‘Look at us, we need to get new blood into this system,’ and that’s what Eggsy is. [x]
Comments like these seem go jive with the “kill your father” trope. Harry was lesser, he was a cliché, he needed to make way for a new generation. I think this is what Vaughn means for us to see when he sets up all these mirrors between Eggsy and Harry. Having Eggsy repeat Harry’s lines, dress in Harry’s clothes, even movie into Harry’s house (according to cut footage). The odd absence of on-screen grief also seems to back this mentality. When Eggsy is left to finish the mission/movie on his own, he doesn’t do so in a tear-stained homage to his lost loved one–in fact, upon Harry’s death, he fully comes into himself. He puts on the suit. His confidence goes through the roof. He shows the world what he can do. He fucks one of his enemy’s hostages and seems to have forgotten Harry’s existence. All of this is classic “kill your father.”
Vaughn didn’t even seem concerned with Harry Hart’s presence in future movies–as a reborn character or as a ghost hanging over Eggsy’s head. From what I can tell, he sees Harry Hart’s part as fulfilled. Maybe he’ll find a way to bring him back if ticket sales in America look good, he says callously. But he clearly doesn’t see Harry Hart as particularly important beyond his role in Eggsy’s origin story.
Thing is, this is not the movie ANYONE saw.
Okay, maybe that’s hyperbole, but come on. The only thing people wanted to know after the first movie was, “So when does Harry come back?” In the kill-your-father model, this would be a step backward. But people didn’t see Harry as the father. They saw him as the love interest.
Love interests don’t have to be explicitly sexual or romantic to be love interests. Hmm, what’s a great example of a movie where there was no explicit on-screen confirmation of a sexual/romantic relationship, but the audience clearly understood that they were seeing the dynamic of lovers playing out before them…? Oh right. My Fair Lady.
See, this conversation trips me up:
Harry: Did you see the film “Trading Places”?
Harry: How about “Nikita”?
Harry: “Pretty Woman”?
Eggsy: No.
Harry: My point is, the lack of a silver spoon has set you on a certain path, but you needn’t stay on it. If you’re prepare to adapt and learn, you can transform.
Eggsy: Oh, like in “My Fair Lady”?The one thing all these movies have in common is that it involves someone who finds themselves in a “low” position in life (a street con, a convicted murderer, a prostitute, a low-born) being placed into a position of higher status by outside forces, and subsequently earning it. Exactly what Harry is preparing to do for Eggsy. The thing is, those last two movies involve the elevation happening via a romantic relationship. Which brings us to the eternal queerbaiting question: is it subtext, or is it a joke?
It’s such a fine line, because if it’s a joke, then it’s a self-aware joke. If it’s subtext, then it’s subtext in the form of a joke. You could slice that distinction with a hair. But it means everything in terms of the director’s intentions.
Going by what I’ve seen of the director’s personality? I think it was a self-aware joke. But I think the audience saw subtext in the form of a joke. Again, huge distinction.
The father-offspring thing is a total miss. The vibe that everyone got from this movie was romantic tension between older mentor and young lover. That’s what people see in the mirroring. That’s what people see when Eggsy wears Harry’s clothes, speaks his lines, moves into his house. That’s what people see when Harry Hart fucking says things like, “One does not use dressing room two when popping one’s cherry,” and generally saunters in front of Eggsy in an opaque cloud of pheromones while Eggsy trails after him with stars in his eyes.
Maybe part of the garbled messages is that nothing ever dimmed those stars in Eggsy’s eyes. I think the church scene was meant to be Harry’s fall from grace, but no one read it that way–not even Eggsy. In other words, the metaphorical father-killing never takes place. Eggsy is never disillusioned.
Vaughn also completely fails to communicate his assertion that Harry is an old cliché who needs to be replaced. In fact, the movie tells us the exact opposite. It practically punches us in the fact with constant dropped hints that Harry is a rebel, that he’s new skool, that he’s got rebellious ideas of how to do things. He comes across as Eggsy’s perfect match, not Eggsy 1.0.
Why does any of this matter?
Because people are going to show up to the sequel and go, “Wtf?”
We were left without an emotional resolution to Harry Hart’s death in the first movie. That’s the only cliffhanger anyone gives a shit about. That’s the only reason they’re going to pay money to see movie #2. They want to know if Harry Hart is really secretly alive and see the emotional reunion, or they want to see Eggsy spend an entire movie wrestling with Harry’s ghost. I have a sneaking suspicion that Vaughn is just going to make an entire movie of Princess-Fucking Eggsy that in no way connects to the emotional plot of Harry and Eggsy’s relationship that he dedicated the first movie to. To the audience, this will look like he just completely dropped the main character’s journey. It will be an incomprehensible non-sequitur.
The nail in the coffin here is that Vaughn cut that breakfast scene specifically because it “unintentionally” made it seem as though Harry and Eggsy had hooked up. It tells me that he was explicitly trying to avoid the love interest read, and it also tells me that he had already hopelessly shot himself in the foot. If all it takes is them eating breakfast together, then your audience already has enough to fill in the blanks.
I could be wrong, here. What do others think?
I think you’re a fucking genius. Take my keys, go to my house, fuck my wife.
God I live for meta like this
Exactly what I thought after the movie: Matthew doesn’t understand the movie he actually made. And it’s clear in that he thinks the anal sex joke works. It doesn’t. Eggsy’s not looking for a tumble then. Would Harry have done that?? No way. Eggsy’s 100% going to check on his mum and he’s going to Kentucky. He’s not looking to get laid. He’s going to bring Harry home, even if it’s in a coffin. He’s going to honor Harry.
The movie is better and more emotional than he planned. It’s not a spoof. Matthew had better actors than he anticipated, and far more subtext between them than he realized. Those characters loved each other, gay or not. They hurt for each other. Adored each other. It’s not Austin Powers. Your movie is better than you know, Matthew. Step back and watch it with fresh eyes.
Just another WordPress site