Film review: Death of a Gentleman
By Charles Randall
How pleasing it is to see a film about real cricket in cinema quality. Death of a Gentleman has been premiered in London recently and goes out on general release this weekend.
Much of the film digs into the opaque governance of the ICC, rulers of the world game. Disturbing questions are asked, and it hardly seems to matter that none are really answered in this brave four-year project written by two journalists Sam Collins and Jarrod Kimber.
The attack on the ICC builds momentum, but perhaps the film's most striking aspect is the high-quality cinematography that views cricket from grassroots to Test arena. The game comes over very well on the wide screen. It is all real action. There are no cavorting actors dressed in perfect whites faking in the field and no silly director's cutting.
The film claims that the global game is driven by “the pursuit of commerce and human greed”. The question 'why' is left dangling. Collins and Kimber could not claim to make allegations of corruption that has blighted international football. They are not exposing endemic drug-taking that has scandalised cycling and athletics.
What Death of a Gentleman succeeds in doing is to invite the viewer to gasp in disbelief at the machinations of the secretive, self-serving organisation that is supposed to govern world cricket. The film cranks up a debate that was stirred by the Woolf Report in 2012, a document that criticised the ICC's undemocratic governance. Lord Woolf's findings were rejected at the time and pooh-poohed in the film by Giles Clarke, England's representative. The ICC seem to have widened the gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.
The film's occasional focus on ordinary cricketers and the successful effort by Ed Cowan, a charming man, to break into the Australia Test side brings the whole story to life. Cricket's unique attraction comes over well, and the possibility of Olympic recognition in the future – imagine China throwing huge funds at cricket – suggests that game could move forward at a rapid rate. Any excited thoughts about all this is countered by a grim-faced comment from Clarke about upsetting the English summer schedule.
Clarke, then ECB chairman, unfortunately is depicted as a sneering, reactionary 'suit' with little to say. He declines to answer legitimate questions and refuses point-blank to talk about the vulgar T20 project with Allen Stanford, which caused embarrassment to the ECB. Clarke, taken in by an American crook, would have gained sympathy if he had admitted to a big mistake in an attempt to challenge the supremacy of the Indian Premier League. The IPL needed challenging and still does.
Clarke misjudges approaches from the film-makers, perhaps understandably because nothing as articulate and entertaining has been done before in cricket outside radio and television. So he becomes an easy target. The ICC's side of the story is muddled, as depicted by Clarke and half-eaten words from the ICC president and Indian business mogul N Srinivisan.
Collins - a good club seam-bowler - and Kimber look at the rise and rise of T20 and the shrinkage of Test cricket. Lalit Modi, the Indian Premier League founder, makes the good point that, while players are being tempted by money away from other formats, the IPL widens cricket's fan base. That must good for the game as a whole. One could add that Test cricket will kill itself if spectators are expected to pay to watch tedious matches on featherbed pitches. The subcontinent, most notably, has problems there.
The story of Cowan is instructive. A left-handed opener - Oxford Brookes University-educated with a passion for the game - allows the camera into his life while he fights for a Test place, moving his young family from New South Wales to Tasmania to improve his chances of catching the selectors' eye. He makes his Test debut against India in the Boxing Day match at Melbourne in 2011 and scores 68, but we sense he lacks flair. Eventually he makes a miserable appearance at No 3 at Trent Bridge in the 2013 Ashes series, suffering a rush of blood first ball, and his career halts abruptly after 18 Tests.
Ed has one century to his name, but he is little more than a blocker, judging by his slow international scoring rate. Is Ed good enough for Test cricket? It appears not, but he is a damn nice fellow. Hang on, though. Since his film appearance Ed has returned to New South Wales in triumph as a leading bat in Sheffield Shield cricket, knowing Australia will need a solid opener to replace Chris Rogers.
But back to meeting rooms. One must accept that all individuals in the ICC want to help cricket. So the film cries out for a sensible comment to counter the probing of Collins and Kimber. Perhaps Wally Edwards, chairman of Cricket Australia on the ICC executive committee, could have commented.
In a recent interview with ESPNcricinfo, Edwards made a good point about the precarious television funding of cricket. “The reality is the world of cricket relies on India,” he said, “and the discussions that are happening are: How can we grow the market outside of India? What will generate more interest outside of India? Poor old India sits there, everyone wants them to tour and do this and that, and they do. If you did the analysis, most nations owe them games - Australia do - so they're very generous and they understand the world needs them to tour.”
Edwards offers a sympathetic view of India's position, but in the film David Becker, a former ICC lawyer, makes devastating criticism of Srinivisan's steam-rollering style that pushed behaviour within the ICC towards illegality.
One suspects that the ICC's big three want to avoid the political machinations that can blight democratic governing bodies and divert income streams. Look at FIFA and wonder how Cayman Islands can have an equal vote to Germany on major issues. Nevertheless India, Australia and England now take half the ICC's global revenue while money allocated to the growth of the game has plunged to nine per cent. A credible reason for this might emerge in due course, but Death of a Gentleman has insufficient time to dissect everything everywhere in 97 minutes of cricket chat, action and entertainment.
The journalistic thrust focuses on skewed priorities. This means that every cricket lover should not miss a chance to see the film and to discuss the issues.
The attack on the ICC builds momentum, but perhaps the film's most striking aspect is the high-quality cinematography that views cricket from grassroots to Test arena. The game comes over very well on the wide screen. It is all real action. There are no cavorting actors dressed in perfect whites faking in the field and no silly director's cutting.
The film claims that the global game is driven by “the pursuit of commerce and human greed”. The question 'why' is left dangling. Collins and Kimber could not claim to make allegations of corruption that has blighted international football. They are not exposing endemic drug-taking that has scandalised cycling and athletics.
What Death of a Gentleman succeeds in doing is to invite the viewer to gasp in disbelief at the machinations of the secretive, self-serving organisation that is supposed to govern world cricket. The film cranks up a debate that was stirred by the Woolf Report in 2012, a document that criticised the ICC's undemocratic governance. Lord Woolf's findings were rejected at the time and pooh-poohed in the film by Giles Clarke, England's representative. The ICC seem to have widened the gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.
The film's occasional focus on ordinary cricketers and the successful effort by Ed Cowan, a charming man, to break into the Australia Test side brings the whole story to life. Cricket's unique attraction comes over well, and the possibility of Olympic recognition in the future – imagine China throwing huge funds at cricket – suggests that game could move forward at a rapid rate. Any excited thoughts about all this is countered by a grim-faced comment from Clarke about upsetting the English summer schedule.
Clarke, then ECB chairman, unfortunately is depicted as a sneering, reactionary 'suit' with little to say. He declines to answer legitimate questions and refuses point-blank to talk about the vulgar T20 project with Allen Stanford, which caused embarrassment to the ECB. Clarke, taken in by an American crook, would have gained sympathy if he had admitted to a big mistake in an attempt to challenge the supremacy of the Indian Premier League. The IPL needed challenging and still does.
Clarke misjudges approaches from the film-makers, perhaps understandably because nothing as articulate and entertaining has been done before in cricket outside radio and television. So he becomes an easy target. The ICC's side of the story is muddled, as depicted by Clarke and half-eaten words from the ICC president and Indian business mogul N Srinivisan.
Collins - a good club seam-bowler - and Kimber look at the rise and rise of T20 and the shrinkage of Test cricket. Lalit Modi, the Indian Premier League founder, makes the good point that, while players are being tempted by money away from other formats, the IPL widens cricket's fan base. That must good for the game as a whole. One could add that Test cricket will kill itself if spectators are expected to pay to watch tedious matches on featherbed pitches. The subcontinent, most notably, has problems there.
The story of Cowan is instructive. A left-handed opener - Oxford Brookes University-educated with a passion for the game - allows the camera into his life while he fights for a Test place, moving his young family from New South Wales to Tasmania to improve his chances of catching the selectors' eye. He makes his Test debut against India in the Boxing Day match at Melbourne in 2011 and scores 68, but we sense he lacks flair. Eventually he makes a miserable appearance at No 3 at Trent Bridge in the 2013 Ashes series, suffering a rush of blood first ball, and his career halts abruptly after 18 Tests.
Ed has one century to his name, but he is little more than a blocker, judging by his slow international scoring rate. Is Ed good enough for Test cricket? It appears not, but he is a damn nice fellow. Hang on, though. Since his film appearance Ed has returned to New South Wales in triumph as a leading bat in Sheffield Shield cricket, knowing Australia will need a solid opener to replace Chris Rogers.
But back to meeting rooms. One must accept that all individuals in the ICC want to help cricket. So the film cries out for a sensible comment to counter the probing of Collins and Kimber. Perhaps Wally Edwards, chairman of Cricket Australia on the ICC executive committee, could have commented.
In a recent interview with ESPNcricinfo, Edwards made a good point about the precarious television funding of cricket. “The reality is the world of cricket relies on India,” he said, “and the discussions that are happening are: How can we grow the market outside of India? What will generate more interest outside of India? Poor old India sits there, everyone wants them to tour and do this and that, and they do. If you did the analysis, most nations owe them games - Australia do - so they're very generous and they understand the world needs them to tour.”
Edwards offers a sympathetic view of India's position, but in the film David Becker, a former ICC lawyer, makes devastating criticism of Srinivisan's steam-rollering style that pushed behaviour within the ICC towards illegality.
One suspects that the ICC's big three want to avoid the political machinations that can blight democratic governing bodies and divert income streams. Look at FIFA and wonder how Cayman Islands can have an equal vote to Germany on major issues. Nevertheless India, Australia and England now take half the ICC's global revenue while money allocated to the growth of the game has plunged to nine per cent. A credible reason for this might emerge in due course, but Death of a Gentleman has insufficient time to dissect everything everywhere in 97 minutes of cricket chat, action and entertainment.
The journalistic thrust focuses on skewed priorities. This means that every cricket lover should not miss a chance to see the film and to discuss the issues.
Dartmouth Films