Thirty years on, Withnail & I feels more relevant… | Little White Lies

In Praise Of

Thir­ty years on, With­nail & I feels more rel­e­vant than ever

13 Apr 2017

Two men sitting on steps, one reading a newspaper headline, the other looking pensive, wearing coats and boots.
Two men sitting on steps, one reading a newspaper headline, the other looking pensive, wearing coats and boots.
Bruce Robinson’s cult clas­sic will strike a chord with any strug­gling young artist liv­ing in a big city.

Thir­ty years on from the release of British cult clas­sic With­nail & I, the plights of its pair of twen­tysome­thing out of work actors con­tin­ues to strike a chord with young cre­atives scrap­ing a liv­ing while hop­ing to catch a break.

Set in 1960s Lon­don, Bruce Robinson’s film painful­ly – and hilar­i­ous­ly – cap­tures the sense of iner­tia in the wilder­ness between com­plet­ing edu­ca­tion and estab­lish­ing your­self firm­ly in a career. Both With­nail (Richard E Grant, in an icon­ic, career-defin­ing per­for­mance) and the nar­ra­tor Mar­wood (Paul McGann) are aspir­ing actors des­per­ate to land a part, but seem­ing­ly get­ting nowhere, wil­ing away their days drink­ing copi­ous amounts of alco­hol and ring­ing up their unhelp­ful agents.

Star­ing over the precipice of the end of their twen­ties, time is run­ning out for them to make it. As With­nail puts it, in one of his char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly self-pity­ing, acer­bic one lin­ers, inim­itably spat out by Grant: This is ridicu­lous. Look at me: I’m 30 in a month and I’ve got a sole flap­ping on my shoe.”

Before going on hol­i­day by mis­take’ to the coun­try­side, where the major­i­ty of the film takes place, we get a glimpse of their life in Lon­don. Although pop­u­lat­ed by coun­ter­cul­tur­al hip­pies rather than the mod­ern incar­na­tion of the hip­ster, the UK cap­i­tal was as it is now recog­nis­able as a place where young peo­ple flock to pur­sue their dreams, start­ing at the bot­tom in a dingy flat.

The one With­nail and Mar­wood occu­py is par­tic­u­lar­ly squalid, and is a tri­umph of set design; the film’s beige tones give a drea­ry feel and evoke the intense cold’ With­nail com­plains about, objects are scat­tered across the room and give a sense of clut­ter, and the wash­ing up pile is a thing of ran­cid hor­ror. Theirs is a messy, dis­or­gan­ised lifestyle with no sense of sta­bil­i­ty or direction.

What’s inter­est­ing is that they’ve arrived at this point from priv­i­leged back­grounds – espe­cial­ly With­nail. Where­as Mar­wood appears mid­dle-class, Withnail’s con­nec­tions are pos­i­tive­ly aris­to­crat­ic, and he is lent a cot­tage to stay for their trip to the coun­try from his old-mon­ey, Har­row- and Oxford-edu­cat­ed, Latin-quot­ing yet grotesque Uncle Mon­ty (Richard Grif­fiths). We’re told his dad too is loaded”, but With­nail is reluc­tant to ask him for mon­ey for rea­sons he is eva­sive about, but per­haps relat­ed to his dis­ap­proval of his son’s cho­sen career. Yet With­nail is, in his own words, ‘‘a trained actor reduced to the sta­tus of a bum,” some­one used to the fine din­ing and expen­sive wines but now resort­ing to down­ing lighter fluid.

Withnail’s priv­i­lege doesn’t seem to count for any­thing. Part of the rea­son he is a sym­pa­thet­ic, or at the very least, pitiable char­ac­ter rather than an insuf­fer­able brat is that he doesn’t get his own way. Though the lan­guage he uses exudes enti­tle­ment (“I demand to have some booze!”, How dare you”, We want the finest wines avail­able to human­i­ty. And we want them here, and we want them now”), the sta­tus he evokes is impo­tent, so that his words sound absurd, hilar­i­ous­ly incon­gru­ous with his shod­dy appear­ance, and lack­ing in any sin­cere con­vic­tion that he expects any­one to obey his commands.

He does still take his pur­suit of an act­ing career seri­ous­ly, how­ev­er, as is clear from the unchar­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly unaf­fect­ed man­ner in which he asserts his ambi­tions to Uncle Mon­ty. Reflect­ing upon his own failed career as an actor, Mon­ty posits that, It is the most shat­ter­ing expe­ri­ence of a young man’s life when one morn­ing he awakes and quite rea­son­ably says to him­self: I will nev­er play the Dane’. When that moment comes, ambi­tion ceas­es.” To which With­nail replies defi­ant­ly, It’s a part I intend to play”. But by the end of the film it is only the com­par­a­tive­ly less-priv­i­leged Mar­wood who final­ly gets a big break, leav­ing a resigned With­nail to point­ed­ly quote a pas­sage from Ham­let’ in the final scene – words that, it seems, he will nev­er speak on stage after all.

Per­haps because it was set in the lib­er­al-mind­ed 60s, or that it was made under a Thatch­er gov­ern­ment that cham­pi­oned the idea (or myth) of a free mar­ket-dri­ven mer­i­toc­ra­cy, but With­nail & I presents a sce­nario where being born with a sil­ver spoon is not enough to make it. In our cur­rent cli­mate, how­ev­er, where much is made of how act­ing jobs are more and more becom­ing the pre­serve of an elite few, it’s inter­est­ing to pon­der – in today’s soci­ety, would it be Mar­wood who fails and With­nail, for all his vices, who succeeds?

You might like