Having stated my intention to study, and comment on, three British heritage films in my introductory article, '
British Heritage Films: Portrayal of Nationality and Modernity' I plan to discuss each in chronological date order. Firstly, in this article, I will review
Chariots of Fire (1981):
Chariots of Fire is a good example of a film which depicts characters who display an intense reaction to the changing status of their society. The film is set during the time when Britains position on the world stage was being increasingly questioned, especially in the aftermath of WWI. Britain had to adapt to the reality of a much wider world beyond the influence of its empire, and to the possibility of being challenged by countries with equal influence. The Other had now been thrown into sharp focus and had to be taken into consideration constantly. In this instance, the Other is represented primarily by the Jewish protagonist, Harold Abrahams, who is met with regular contempt from the stereotypical English schoolmasters of Cambridge University
. Their blatant anti-Semitic attitude towards Abrahams, represents could be described as cultural narcissism. Their typically Englishcentric behaviour could be viewed as defence mechanism, and an attempt to reassure themselves comfort themselves, even about their own superiority. Whilst this may seem like a mere characterisation it also works on a much wider scale, one which has an audience to appeal to. As mentioned previously, such anxieties were prevalent during the 1980s. The fact that
Chariots of Fire takes place in the 1920s links its characters fears to the mass public fears of the day, in the early 1980s. Both decades faced much of the same social and international problems; WWI and Falklands War; decline of Empire and decline of manufacturing power; first waves of immigration and European integration.
Therefore, certain themes of the film could be seen as something of a reaction to the growing social issues of 1980s Britain. Particular issues such as: the growing unemployment levels, industrial conflict and widening class inequalities. In addition, these issues have resurfaced recently as a consequence of the previously mentioned severe global recession of the late-2000s which strengthens the argument that although this film, and other like it, take place in a specific period of time, they can (and are intended to) resonate with modern audiences. For example, Cashmore (2008) describes the film as a documentation of the beginnings of the individualist identity in Britain. Individualism was seen as more humane and less oppressive. There was a desire at this time to separate Englishness / Britishness from the idea of Empire. Cashmore, describes the acquisition of such an identity as consequential. Yet, one could argue that in
Chariots of Fire the appropriation of a British identity is used mainly as a matter of convenience. This identity is, to a certain extent, adopted by the English, and to a lesser extent, by the Scots, as a response to the competition with other countries during the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris.
However, it is interesting to note that Eric Liddell, the Scottish running candidate, is first faced with the idea of being British in the form of intense pressure from the Prince of Wales and the British Olympic committee. Liddell is deeply religious and on these grounds he refuses to run for Great Britain during the 400- metre race, as it is scheduled on a Sunday. Whilst during this scene, Liddell is repeatedly bombarded with assertions of his duty to his King and Country, neither Liddell nor the other main characters had previously identified so strongly with Britain.In fact, the other protagonist, Jewish Harold Abrahams, routinely struggles to be accepted as an Englishman during the first part of the film. Upon his and Liddells victory at the end of the film, he is described again as the Toast of England. Neither Abrahams nor Liddell, in Cashmores (2008) view, are depicted as particularly patriotic at all, another example of the budding individualistic culture of the time. This is a principal way in which the film disengages with recent sentiments of patriotism in Britain. Although present society is considerably more globalised and multicultural than the 1920s and 1980s, there has been a recent burgeoning of the wish for greater decentralisation of powers in the UK. Since 1997, Britain has experienced the devolution of certain powers from the centralised Westminster British Parliament to assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such, issues of national identity and the question of independence for regions of the UK, particularly Scotland, have become more prominent than in the past. Increasingly, the notion of Britishness has become heavily criticised and contested in popular discourse.