The Influence Of Heritage Films
Heritage films were not without criticism, as demonstrated by the backlash of movies that illustrated post-war British decline. These movies, in contrast with the heritage films, focused on contemporary issues and had strong agendas beyond mere entertainment. Rather than keep the audience in a dreamy daze of imagining about what once was, instead they showed the hard realities of what is. East is East (1999), for example, examines racial tensions throughout Britain around from the influx of immigration stemming from their former colonies. While the father in the movie is deeply embedded in his Pakistani roots, his six English-born children illustrate a complex cultural position from being immersed in this society, but never fully fitting in
…show more content…
due to their religious and ethnic ties. A variety of other films cover an array of topics including the prevalence of drug use, poverty, and widespread discontentment. The change in millennia brought the 2000 drama, Billy Elliot, embedded in the coal miners’ strike of 1984-85. The plot focuses on a young boy’s desire to practice ballet in a masculinity-demanding household, yet the political situation framing this story clearly has significance. With a major strike occurring, his father and older brother are stressed with finding means of staying afloat, and this historical event clearly left a lasting impression on Britain. Margaret Thatcher’s political policies had lasting consequences on society, and her Conservative mindset has faced harsh criticism from the film industry long after her resignation. Jeffery Richards and Anthony Aldgate explain, “It is clear that culturally, at least, British cinema was as profoundly affected by Thatcherite policies as the rest of the country at large” (219). While heritage films and post-heritage films differ considerably in their occasions and agendas, both post-war genres signify the diminishing relevance of the past, unease with the rocky present, and anxiousness for a progressive future. Clearly, support for a white, patriarchal run country was no longer relevant or welcomed within Britain. All citizens were concerned with their rights, and together took steps to ensure that everyone in the nation was acknowledged within the political arena and cultural representation. The Suez Crisis revealed the remarkable decline of the United Kingdom’s authority over distant civilizations. With domestic problems rising rather than diminishing following the victory of both wars, Great Britain was forced to focus inwards rather than exert control over distant subjects. This shift in the global reach of the nation allowed social changes in a variety of subjects to push forward. Immigration from former colonies was immense, and rather than just increasing the population, these culturally distinct newcomers demanded political representation as well. The creation of the National Health Service and access to medical treatment for everyone at little to no cost reflects this demand for equality. A. B. Atkinson writes, “People feel that the state should take responsibility for securing a national minimum and at the same time see how considerations of self-help point to the state only making a contribution. Their conception of the national minimum is based on elements both of well-being and of rights” (150). Rather than segregate and cause divisions within the country, steps such as this brought everyone under one common umbrella of benefits. As Britain’s demographics spread away from its historical roots, the cultural diversification pushed it to progress towards equality at an exponential pace. Not only did non-whites celebrate the rise of relevance to the mainstream society’s concerns, women also enjoyed newfound freedoms.
Peter Leese remarks, “While idealization and a superficial libertarianism, sometimes sexual, was often associated with women at this time, a surer gain was to be found in the clear-eyed observation of how women lived and spoke from day to day” (88). The Victorian age of celibacy and the submissive position of females were long gone, and women had no intention of bringing it back. Vintage attire was replaced with provocative styles and the fancy hairdos seen in heritage cinema were chopped into edgy bobs. No longer satisfied with the mundane lifestyle of house makers, women eagerly entered the job market in record numbers. Colleges gradually incorporated both genders and rather than simply fill feminine roles such as secretaries and nurses, women became lawyers, doctors, and scientists. Divorce reform further empowered women to find happiness rather than economic security through marriage. The legalization of abortions with the Abortion Act (1967) furthered this newfound independence. Motherhood was no longer the final destination or goal, but rather a potential no longer embedded in necessity. Lead female roles in films demonstrated women’s cultural influence, and the controversial political decade of Margret Thatcher showed their political power as well. Although she did not particularly represent women’s rights, she did symbolize that non-male leadership was obtainable. Further, women played significant roles in both houses of Parliament as the House of Lords reform led to their appointments. Throughout society and across the island, a plethora of individuals embraced the forward-thinking perspective that thought processes rooted in the past never would have
offered. Post-war Britain clearly appreciates their past that brought pride, prestige, and glory; despite this, they embrace the future and the inclusion of people from all demographics. Guy Ortolano states, “Born of concerns about Britain’s supposedly faltering economic performance in the 1950s, declinism fueled a widespread commitment to modernization” (167). The island’s current lifestyles would be completely unrecognizable to prior generations, but pride in British heritage is still indisputable throughout society. This respect for the past, however, cannot overshadow the eagerness to grow through modernization. The Pound Sterling offers a symbolic nod to the past, as well as the era of heritage cinema. The unfaltering pride in the Queen also indicates their remembrance of history. On the other hand, the reforms of the House of Lords as well as the multitude of films enveloped with political and cultural messages demonstrate Britain’s willingness to move in a new direction. The rises in involvement with European affairs, as well as the various social movements, often regarding people from outside of the United Kingdom, show that quiescence was not an option. Although the empire ceased to exist gradually, the need to dominate foreigners was replaced with a desire to become welcoming, inclusive, and diverse within their own borders. This array of evidence demonstrates that neither politically nor culturally are the British dominated by the past, but rather they represent a forward thinking, progressive society.
due to their religious and ethnic ties. A variety of other films cover an array of topics including the prevalence of drug use, poverty, and widespread discontentment. The change in millennia brought the 2000 drama, Billy Elliot, embedded in the coal miners’ strike of 1984-85. The plot focuses on a young boy’s desire to practice ballet in a masculinity-demanding household, yet the political situation framing this story clearly has significance. With a major strike occurring, his father and older brother are stressed with finding means of staying afloat, and this historical event clearly left a lasting impression on Britain. Margaret Thatcher’s political policies had lasting consequences on society, and her Conservative mindset has faced harsh criticism from the film industry long after her resignation. Jeffery Richards and Anthony Aldgate explain, “It is clear that culturally, at least, British cinema was as profoundly affected by Thatcherite policies as the rest of the country at large” (219). While heritage films and post-heritage films differ considerably in their occasions and agendas, both post-war genres signify the diminishing relevance of the past, unease with the rocky present, and anxiousness for a progressive future. Clearly, support for a white, patriarchal run country was no longer relevant or welcomed within Britain. All citizens were concerned with their rights, and together took steps to ensure that everyone in the nation was acknowledged within the political arena and cultural representation. The Suez Crisis revealed the remarkable decline of the United Kingdom’s authority over distant civilizations. With domestic problems rising rather than diminishing following the victory of both wars, Great Britain was forced to focus inwards rather than exert control over distant subjects. This shift in the global reach of the nation allowed social changes in a variety of subjects to push forward. Immigration from former colonies was immense, and rather than just increasing the population, these culturally distinct newcomers demanded political representation as well. The creation of the National Health Service and access to medical treatment for everyone at little to no cost reflects this demand for equality. A. B. Atkinson writes, “People feel that the state should take responsibility for securing a national minimum and at the same time see how considerations of self-help point to the state only making a contribution. Their conception of the national minimum is based on elements both of well-being and of rights” (150). Rather than segregate and cause divisions within the country, steps such as this brought everyone under one common umbrella of benefits. As Britain’s demographics spread away from its historical roots, the cultural diversification pushed it to progress towards equality at an exponential pace. Not only did non-whites celebrate the rise of relevance to the mainstream society’s concerns, women also enjoyed newfound freedoms.
Peter Leese remarks, “While idealization and a superficial libertarianism, sometimes sexual, was often associated with women at this time, a surer gain was to be found in the clear-eyed observation of how women lived and spoke from day to day” (88). The Victorian age of celibacy and the submissive position of females were long gone, and women had no intention of bringing it back. Vintage attire was replaced with provocative styles and the fancy hairdos seen in heritage cinema were chopped into edgy bobs. No longer satisfied with the mundane lifestyle of house makers, women eagerly entered the job market in record numbers. Colleges gradually incorporated both genders and rather than simply fill feminine roles such as secretaries and nurses, women became lawyers, doctors, and scientists. Divorce reform further empowered women to find happiness rather than economic security through marriage. The legalization of abortions with the Abortion Act (1967) furthered this newfound independence. Motherhood was no longer the final destination or goal, but rather a potential no longer embedded in necessity. Lead female roles in films demonstrated women’s cultural influence, and the controversial political decade of Margret Thatcher showed their political power as well. Although she did not particularly represent women’s rights, she did symbolize that non-male leadership was obtainable. Further, women played significant roles in both houses of Parliament as the House of Lords reform led to their appointments. Throughout society and across the island, a plethora of individuals embraced the forward-thinking perspective that thought processes rooted in the past never would have
offered. Post-war Britain clearly appreciates their past that brought pride, prestige, and glory; despite this, they embrace the future and the inclusion of people from all demographics. Guy Ortolano states, “Born of concerns about Britain’s supposedly faltering economic performance in the 1950s, declinism fueled a widespread commitment to modernization” (167). The island’s current lifestyles would be completely unrecognizable to prior generations, but pride in British heritage is still indisputable throughout society. This respect for the past, however, cannot overshadow the eagerness to grow through modernization. The Pound Sterling offers a symbolic nod to the past, as well as the era of heritage cinema. The unfaltering pride in the Queen also indicates their remembrance of history. On the other hand, the reforms of the House of Lords as well as the multitude of films enveloped with political and cultural messages demonstrate Britain’s willingness to move in a new direction. The rises in involvement with European affairs, as well as the various social movements, often regarding people from outside of the United Kingdom, show that quiescence was not an option. Although the empire ceased to exist gradually, the need to dominate foreigners was replaced with a desire to become welcoming, inclusive, and diverse within their own borders. This array of evidence demonstrates that neither politically nor culturally are the British dominated by the past, but rather they represent a forward thinking, progressive society.