Heritage British Cinema and Thatcherism

Heritage British Cinema and Thatcherism

The book, "British Cinema in the 1980's" by John Hill, has given detailed accounts of both heritage as well as Empire films, but however, happens to convey the mistaken message that filming the past is all completely an escapist and a reactionary idea, and that it has to actually look extremely ugly. It is a fact that British cinema has always managed to pose a real problem to the comprehension of Americans and others all over the world, and when contemplating British cinema, several issues automatically come to the fore, among them the question of what exactly British Cinema is about, what exactly does it depict and discuss, what has it contributed to the cinema of the world, except maybe some 'kitchen sink realism', and what are the various genres that it depicts, and so on.

In short, it is often stated that British cinema has basically lacked a sense of focus, and this is perhaps the reason that in comparison to other world cinema, like French and German, for example, British Cinema has often been rejected outright, and has therefore been out of the limelight, and the consequent lack of critical acclaim. There have been a lot of books written o the subject, wherein the authors have attempted to put things into their right perspective, and show that it is indeed a fact that British cinema too warrants attention form the world, John Hill being one of them. He addresses such issues as the changing role of British cinema during the 1980's, and the way in which it managed to deal with the question of identity. This is the reason that Hill starts his book with the time when Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of England, during the years from 1979 to 1990, and John Hill analyses her method of government, and all her various ideologies.

The picture that he paints however is quite a negative one, and he reveals the fact that more often than not, British filmmakers were completely unsympathetic and uncaring about Thatcherism, and challenged many of the values therein. The reason for this feeling was, according to Hill, because the entire system was deteriorating at a rapid rate, probably as an inevitable result of the Thatcher policies, which managed to weaken further the already weakened state of the film industry of Britain. This is seen by the fact that by the end of the 1970's, the Rank, Associated Productions, and EMI were all pulled out of production, and these were the literal giants of the film industry of the time. Soon, Thorn had alos downed its shutters, followed by Goldcrets, of 'The chariots of Fire' fame. This is the ersaon that the film industry had to finally succumb and turn to television for sustainance, and it is widely believed that this was the reason that the genre of British 'Art Cinema' developed.

In general, British heritage films of the 1980's are treated as being in compliance with the existing and predominating Thatcherism of the day, and most of the films created at that time were also seen as being literal vessels of a complacent and bourgeois idea of quality on the part of the British filmmakers, and that they revealed a sort of a British cultural Imperialism. British heritage films also generally reveal a significant predomination of the male character, and they appeal to a so-called non-dominant or a feminine sort of spectatorship.

One of the more popular heritage films of the 1980's is the 'Room with a View', made in the year 1985. The movie being a Merchant Ivory production was indeed a big hit. The star cast was Maggie Smith as Charlotte Barlett, Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy Honeychurch, Denholm Elliott, as Mr. Emerson, Julian Sands as George Emerson, Daniel Day Lewis as Cecil Vyse, Simon Callow as reverend Arthur Beebe, and Judi Dench as Miss Eleanor Lavish, among others. The movie 'Room with a View' was one of the three adaptations of EM Forster's novels, which were taken by Merchant Ivory Productions to be made into a delightful heritage film. Literary heritage is one of the predominating features of the film, and it even utilized the actual novel's 1908 chapter headings as its intertitles.

Most of EM Forster's wit and humor and language and even the tone of novel has been captured in the film by the talented scriptwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. The film pokes fun at the English abroad and all the preoccupations that they exhibit with issues such as etiquette, manners, class, and social conventions and what to do and what not to do. At the same time, it must be stated that the film is indeed a social satire, and at the very heart of the movie, just like in EM Forster's novels, is the very real conflict that always arises between the desire of the human heart, and the various moral codes as dictated by the society, in this case, English. The various characters become the most important part of the film, and the characterization of the film is shown as a series of dynamics, and the relationships of the characters with one another also forms the essence of the movie.

This is where the culture clash between two different generations comes into play, and this issue is examined in great detail. Victorian morality and old fashioned values, which the older generation still believes in, and the changing moral values of the younger generation, which desires to follow a more Edwardian tradition of free and fair, are shown in great contrast with each other. While the elders represent unchanging and traditional values, the youth represent the changing times and the modern age. Quite inevitably, there is great friction and tension among the characters and this is encapsulated in Lucy Honeychurch, the sheltered and protected girl, who is faced with the extremely difficult choice between passion and security, and she is torn in her desire to finally break free of tradition and convention and the hypocrisy associated with it. What happens is this, the sheltered and protected Lucy Honeychurch, who is holidaying with her spinster aunt in Florence, happens to be kissed by the completely unconventional George Emerson.

Subsequently, Lucy is frightened and completely confused, and she finally returns to her own England in order to accept a proposal from the incorrigible and stuffy Cecil Vyse. However, George soon reappears, and what happens next is that Lucy starts to question her real feelings for both Cecil as well as for George Emerson. How will this experience manage to affect all her marriage plans? What must be done next? It must be remembered that British cinema, at the time that the Room with a View was filmed, seemed like it was probably in the last stages of its ultimate demise. This was the time when the number of people who would actually go to a theatre and watch a film was declining at a rapid rate, and a lot of British production houses were all closing down their businesses.

The 'Room with a view' was one of the most visible depictions of the production trend of the time, when quality costume drama or the so-called heritage films came into being. Some of the other important productions of the same time were 'The Chariots of Fire', made in 1981, the Golden Bowl, which was made later, in the year 2000, the Madness of King George, in 1995, sense and Sensibility, 1996, Shakespeare in Love, in 1998. All these films were based on costume drama, and this genre happened to become a large success, initially in Britain, and later in America as well. The charm of heritage films lies in the fact that they engage with certain subject matter and dialogue that have normally played a major role in determining the understanding of British heritage and the English traditions and customs of previous years.

The reason is that these are all films that are set in the past, and they inevitably tell the stories of English nobility, their manners and their various proprieties, their various and several romantic transgressions, and all their entanglements. All these issues are examined in great detail and depicted in carefully detailed, and also visually splendid and impressive period detailing and reconstructions. Some of the more common visual images painstakingly reconstructed in heritage or period films are the luxurious country house settings for the film, the beautiful and picturesque 'rolling green' landscapes of England, the very impressive costumes that are worn by the characters in the film, and the various canonical reference points to be found throughout the film, are all some of the attractions and a part of the innate charm of heritage films.

There are, of course, exceptions, and certain heritage films have not indulged in great expense or time to research and create costumes and period sites for their films. It was in the same period that cultural commentators were able to identify what they assumed was the consolidation of the heritage industry, and they decided that this manner of potent marketing of the past would inevitably become a part of the new emerging culture, which was also a sort of commodification of museum culture, and the English costume drama seemed at that time to be a part of the new emerging industry. There has been a lot of debate and discussions on how exactly these so called heritage films must be interpreted, in academic circles as well as in the mainstream press, and in the more specialized film publications.

As a part of the debate, certain issues became more important than others, and some of them were that a limit must be imposed on this type of trend in production, and that in terms of subject matter of the film, the sources from which the film would draw, the casting in the film, and the style. Would all these factors be able to make up and contribute to a major genre of films? As a matter of fact, heritage films do indeed operate at the culturally respectable end of the market, and they are also the main players in the British Art Film genre. The heritage film generally has a sort of an aura around it, which means that such films have no place in the contemporary national culture. They also operate as literal 'ambassadors', by promoting certain accepted and well-known forms of Englishness through the content and the depiction of characters in the film, and they articulate a version of English heritage that has been widely accepted all over the entire world for several generations.

In fact, when the Chariots of Fire won the National Award, that is, four Oscars, in the year 1982, Colin Welland, the scriptwriter of the film, is reported to have said, "the British are coming!" And when Anthony Minghella accepted his award for the film "The English Patient' in the year 1997, he is reported to have stated that it was indeed a "great day for the Isle of Wight," and the Isle was where he had been born. Although it has been proven that both the films were not as 'English' as they were made out to be, being partly produced by Hollywood names, and being characterized by international actors, the British Press did for sure make a huge drama about the Englishness or the Britishness of the films.

The same reactions were evinced when the film 'Gandhi' was released in 1982, as was 'Shakespeare in Love'. However, one important point is that when compared to major Hollywood films, the heritage films of England are made on a much smaller relative budget, and more emphasis is placed on the artistic value of the film, the craft and artistic expressions that went into it, and so on. Therefore, these films are much better valued for their aestheticism and for their cultural significance, than for the value in the box office. Therefore, it is very obvious that the British film industry has had a very long history, and in recent years, the industry has truly become international, with Hollywood playing a major influence on the film industry in Britain today.

It is often quoted that Jane Austen, the popular novelist of England, would be able to, in fact, get more drama out of issues on morality than many other writers would be able to get out of, for example, a shipwreck, or a battle, or from plain mayhem. Her novel, 'Sense and Sensibility', is one such work, in which morality plays a larger than life role, and the author makes the entire issue extremely interesting, with all the twists and turns that it may bring upon the characters in the novel. The novel deals with two sisters, Marianne, and Elinor, who are both embroiled in several controversies related to love. While Marianne believes in 'love at first sight', Elinor has infinitely more 'sense' in her head, and is the more practical sister of the two. However, this does not protect her from disappointments in love, and she suffers similar disappointments as her sister Marianne.

The heritage film, based on the novel was filmed in the year 1995, and it was directed by Ang Lee. With a star cast made up of actors like James Fleet, playing John Dashwood, Tom Wilkinson playing Mr. Dashwood, Harriet Walter playing Fanny Dashwood, and Kate Winslet playing Marianne Dashwood, and Emma Thompson as Elinor Dashwood, among others, this was a film that raked in profits for the company that made it. The film deals with a memorable set of characters, and starts with Mr. Dashwood dying, and leaving his estate to his son by his first marriage, which had left his second wife and his three daughters without money to live on. They are, however, taken in by a kindly cousin, but their lack of fortune affects the prospects of marriage for all the sisters, and when Elinor happens to form a sort of attachment to the extremely wealthy Edward Ferrars, his family disapproves and separates them. Meanwhile, Marianne finds the dashing Willoughby more to her taste and liking, and this means that both the relationships are strained severely. However, the film being a romance, all through the heartbreak and hardships faced by the characters, especially Elinor and Marianne, there is indeed happiness and joy for the sisters at the end.

This film, 'Sense and Sensibility', is another of the famous heritage movies of the 1980's of England. Some of these films have been described by various critics as being 'politically negative'. Andrew Higson, when writing on the early costumes and literary adaptations of novels into movie that were done in the 1980's, states that one of the most important and central part of the heritage film is generally the "artful and spectacular projection of an elite conservative vision of the national past." The manner in which such visions are created, according to Andrew Higson, are the inordinate amount of concentration on the Edwardian era, and the depiction of old English cottages, on canonic literature, and on certain select landscapes, like for example, the very green English landscape. In addition, the division between the upper and the lower classes that existed in times of yore, certain significant moments of national history that had happened in olden times, and the expected nostalgia that all this would create in the viewer's minds, were all depicted in the heritage films, like in Sense and Sensibility, for example. However, another critic, Julianne Pidduck, has stated that these heritage films do indeed democratize history, by the mere act of making it widely and freely available to large audiences. Raphael Samuel is also reported to have mentioned the same thing in his criticism of heritage films of the 1980's in England.

However, all this in no way means that there is no suspicious ideological content in these heritage films and issues like conservatism, an aura of nostalgia, and a longing and a respect for history are all a part and parcel of these heritage films. This means that social as well as economic politics are in fact relevant, and continue to be so, for the heritage films, and this is point that has been debated on through the years since then. Class has also been an important aspect of the true heritage film, but the question this raises is, have all the heritage film up until today have been mere depictions of the upper classes alone, or have other classes too been allowed to emerge form time to time? In case they are depicted, then how are the poorer classes and their misery and poverty shown in these films? For example, the film 'Far from the Madding Crowd', made in the year 1967 by John Schlesinger, and an adaptation of the novel by the same name by Thomas hardy, is one heritage film that catches one's attention.

In the year 1959, in fact, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had declared that the class war was over, and that Britain had successfully won that war. He was actually however talking form the point-of-view of one nation Toryism, which at that particular point of time seemed to be credible and also quite secure. However, just about four years after this particular declaration, the conservative administration in England was brought down by a number of crises and problems, which led to the labeling of the Tories as being an elitist, and an anachronistic and a corrupt party that was 'tainted with traditional upper class vices'. At the same time, affluence had indeed brought about several changes in the existing class structure in England at the time, like for example; it led to more and more opportunities for social mobility, and also for better professionalism among the classes. However, on the other hand, consumerism had started to increase, and a variety of problems happened to be hidden under the facade of this aspect of the class problem.

There were several opportunistic policies that had been passed, and there was also a growing lack of satisfaction in manual labor. Therefore, it was very evident that in Britain, even at the end of the 1960's and the beginning of the 1970's, there was indeed a large amount of class differences in English society, and society in general was divided into there major classes, which were the upper classes, the middle classes, and the working classes. The divisions were in fact brought about by the differences in wealth, power, and the types of work, the ideologies, the status, and the opportunities that were available. At the same time, this period saw a vast change in the people's attitudes towards traditions, old values, taboos, customs, and the all-pervasive parochialism, and this was the very attitude that was reflected in all the New Age films that were made during that time. Towards the end of the decade, there was an increasing interest in subjects such as industrial archaeology, the documentation of the culture of the working classes, which, it was widely believed, was quickly dissipating, or changing into something else entirely different. This was in fact a call for the renovation and rejuvenation of the past, and this was exactly what led to the making of the heritage films.

Colin Well and was a Lancashire born art teacher, who has in fact managed to achieve an inordinate amount of success in acting, as well as in television and film and in writing for the stage and for the television, and for films. His most successful film was the 'Chariots of Fire', made in 1981, for which he won the Best Screenplay Oscar. The Chariots of Fire was directed by Hugh Hudson, and are about two men who were chasing their own dreams of glory, both of them being British athletes, but one of them a Jew and the other a devout Christian, both of whom compete in the 1924 Olympics. The main characters are played by Nicholas Farrell, who plays the role of Aubrey Montague, Ben Cross, who plays Harold Abrahams, Nigel Havers, who plays Lord Andrew Lindsay, Ian Charleston, as Eric Liddell, and so on.

The two athletes, the Jew and the Scottish Christian, run for entirely different reasons; while the Jew runs so that he may escape prejudice and so that he may be able to gain some fame, the other man runs for God. The entire story is in the format of a flashback, and it is set in the year 1924. According to John Hill, in his book, British Cinema in the 1980's, the very embodiment of the phenomenon of Thatcherism is seen in the film, "Chariots of Fire'. He also states that he finds the 'Lady' and all her works as a completely unmitigated economic, social and political disaster, which, in addition, according to Hill, filmmakers have spent decades opposing, or at the very least, hating. It must be noted at this juncture that Hill is more often than not an extremely fair and just critic, but he does at times write with a strict Labor-left ideology and often rates films according to their varying degrees of political correctness.

It is often said that British cinema has always been presenting problems of several different kinds to Americans, and to American cinema. John Hill, in his book, 'British Cinema in the Eighties', has addressed two very important questions, one being the real role of the British cinema during the eighties, and the other, how did the British cinema of the time manage to deal with the several identities possible, including the entire national, political and its social and also its gender issues. When all these issues are placed against the background of heritage cinema of the eighties, which was as a matter of fact, at that point of time, becoming increasingly dominated by Hollywood, they assume a large amount of importance. John Hill draws upon the various works of John Corner, Sylvia Harvey, Andrew Higson, and so on, in order to provide readers with excellent reviews on films such as 'A Room with a View', 'Howard's End', and 'Maurice'.

The heritage film, 'Maurice', is an adaptation of EM Forster's novel about a gay man in England, faced with three important choices in his life. Like Durham, he can opt for a cold and frigid marriage, like Viscount Risley, he can opt for soliciting soldiers in bars and other seedy areas, and also be prepared to face six months of hard labor, or, on the other hand, he may, like Maurice, risk everything, and therefore opt for requited love. However, it takes a very long time for Maurice to reach to this point in the film. The film was produced by James Ivory and Ismail merchant, and it was one of the bigger showings of this production group. The film is a really painstakingly produced period film, and is a complete Edwardian drama, wherein the entire drama is centered on Maurice Hall, who is also the central character in the film. He is an Edwardian era 'fancy lad', who feels that he has been smitten with one of his schoolmates form during his years in college in Cambridge.

What one must remember is the fact that this was prohibited and it was a notorious concept even to consider taking up. In the beginning, he is smitten by Clive, played by Hugh Grant, in one of his first major roles, and he builds up his fantasy. However, his bubble would soon burst, when he sees a friend of theirs, named Mark Tandy. This character is arrested for his homosexual tendencies, and he is subsequently sentenced to hard labor in prison, and when Maurice sees what has happened to his friend, he makes up his mind to start amending his ways, and convinces Clive as well to do the same. Thereafter, both the men go in for different types of treatment, Clive gets married, while Maurice attempts hypnosis. While Clive appears to be cured, Maurice cannot seem to be able to overcome his homosexuality, and he cannot therefore 'shake it off'. Finally, he ends up shacking up with the very low class gamekeeper at the country estate, and starts to live with him.