In Bruges (2008)

January 17, 2008 (Sundance Film Festival), February 8, 2008 (United States), release dates

Directed by Martin McDonagh

Screenplay by Martin McDonagh

Music by Carter Burwell

Edited by Jon Gregory

Cinematography by Eigil Bryld

Colin Farrell as Ray

Brendan Gleeson as Ken Daley

Ralph Fiennes as Harry Waters

Matt Smith as young Harry (in deleted scenes that are available on the DVD)

Clémence Poésy as Chloë Villette

Jordan Prentice as Jimmy

Thekla Reuten as Marie

Jérémie Renier as Eirik

Željko Ivanek as a Canadian man Ray hits for offending Chloë

Anna Madeley as Denise, a Dutch prostitute picked up by Jimmy

Elizabeth Berrington as Natalie Waters, Harry’s wife

Eric Godon as Yuri, Harry’s Belgian contact who sells illegal weaponry

Ciaran Hinds as the priest (uncredited)

Produced by Blueprint Pictures, Film4 Productions, Focus Features, Scion Films

Distributed by Universal Studios, Focus Features

In Bruges opens with shots of architecture in (where else?) Bruges. Ray, in voice-over, tells viewers he just killed some people and has to wait for instructions, presumably from his boss. When the instructions come through, he is told to go to Bruges, which he does with his partner Ken. They are forced to stay in one double room because everything is booked: It’s Christmastime. Ken likes Bruges; he thinks it’s a fairyland. Ray thinks Bruges is a s---hole. The beautiful cinematography helps viewers side with Ken on this particular point.

(This blog post about In Bruges contains spoilers.)

The odd ethics of the hit man’s profession, at least as portrayed in In Bruges, means that Ray has to pay for his mistake with his own life. In a way, this code of ethics plays the role of fate: Ray has killed a boy in error, and he has to pay the consequences. This part of the story is told in flashback at the beginning of the film. It is an event that happened before the film even starts; thus, Ray’s fate in the story is already determined when viewers meet him. This predetermined fate is a noir characteristic with a slight variation in In Bruges: Ray isn’t willing simply to give in and accept the code of ethics as defined by his boss.

The amazing thing about In Bruges is the relationship between the two main characters, Ken and Ray. The film manages to get viewers to identify with them, with two professional hit men. I, for one, was rooting for both Ken and Ray. The two of them argue and fuss like a couple on vacation. From the vantage point of viewers, their interactions are sometimes hilarious. Here’s an example:

• Ken: “Did we or did we not agree that if I let you go on your date tonight [with Chloë], we’d do the things I wanted to do today?”

• Ray: “We are doing the things that you wanted to do today.”

• Ken: “And that we’d do them without you throwing a f--king moody, like some five-year-old who’s dropped all his sweets?”

• Ray: “I didn’t agree to that.”

Ray and Ken, at Ken’s insistence, see some of the medieval sights, which include lots of religious architecture and art, in the city. Some of the religious art depicts torture and agony. One in particular depicts Judgment Day, and it prompts Ray and Ken to discuss religion and the implications of their occupation for their own salvation. Ray is despondent about the mistake he made on his first hit, and the two of them have a long conversation that brings them back to Ray’s mistake. In fact, their conversation is humorous and might be more so but for the gruesome nature of their work:

• Ken: “At the same time as trying to lead a good life, I have to reconcile myself with the fact that, yes, I have killed people. Not many people. Most of them were not very nice people. Apart from one person.”

• Ray: “Who’s that?”

• Ken: “This fellow, Danny Aliband’s brother. He was just trying to protect his brother. Like you or I would. He was just a lollipop man. He came at me with a bottle. What are you gonna do? I shot him down.”

• Ray: “Hmm. In my book, though, sorry, someone comes at you with a bottle, that is a deadly weapon, he’s got to take the consequences.”

• Ken: “I know that in my heart. I also know that he was just trying to protect his brother, you know?”

• Ray: “I know. But a bottle. That can kill you. It’s a case of it’s you or him. If he’d come at you with his bare hands, that’s be different. That wouldn’t have been fair.”

• Ken: “Well, technically, your bare hands can kill somebody, too. They can be deadly weapons, too. I mean, what if he knew karate, say?”

• Ray: “You said he was a lollipop man.”

• Ken: “He was a lollipop man.”

• Ray: “What’s a lollipop man doing knowing f--king karate?”

• Ken: “I’m just saying.”

• Ray: “How old was he?”

• Ken: “About fifty.”

• Ray: “What’s a fifty-year-old lollipop man doing knowing f--king karate? What was he, a Chinese lollipop man? Jesus, Ken, I’m trying to talk about . . . .”

• Ken: “I know what you’re trying to talk about.”

• Ray: “I killed a little boy. You keep bringing up f--king lollipop men!”

• Ken: “You didn’t mean to kill a little boy.”

This conversation shows quite well the double nature of In Bruges. On one hand, it is a film about violence and murder; on the other, viewers come to know two characters who are taking stock of their lives and realizing that they have to reconcile themselves to the crimes they have committed.

In spite of his angst about what he has done, Ray falls in love while he is in Bruges. His anxiety about his first date with Chloë, the woman (and drug dealer) he met on the street, also makes him likable and easy for viewers to relate to. But Ray’s mistake haunts him throughout the film, and it’s the reason that his boss, Harry Waters, wants to find him and kill him. It provides the tension and suspense, and it explains the ever-present threat of violence that viewers understand is everyday life for a hit man.

In Bruges is a hard film to watch. The humor and the romance soften the story a bit, but not too much. In fact, as time passes since I saw it more than once on DVD, I find the film more and more unsettling. It doesn’t offer any easy answers for the characters or the viewers. The ending is ambiguous: Viewers aren’t completely sure what will become of Ray. But this ambiguity and ambivalence are features of noir, and the fact that the viewers share in both the angst and the humor is an achievement, a plus for the film.

All the main characters are involved in criminal activities that would ordinarily make them hard to like for most viewers. But I was surprised by how much I grew to like the characters, and the ability of the film to get viewers to identify with them is one of its strongest points. The characters’ relationships are just like anyone else’s in many ways; humanizing them through those relationships—and through humor, too—makes In Bruges worth watching.