The depiction of national culture - in the British heritage film - is portrayed through several different vehicles, particularly the use of aesthetic visuals and costume, the creativity of language and dialogue, historical accuracy and the documentation of the historical icon. All these are important features of the modern heritage film which deserve individual, and also collective, observation. I believe it is important to examine their capacity to engage and disengage with the contemporary era, in order to fully evaluate their role in the portrayal of a national heritage. This area of film studies has grown in prominence in recent years and is an interesting development of popular culture. Thus, I plan to dedicate a series of articles covering this topic, one which is of great personal interest to me. This article will serve as an introductory one, with each subsequent article being devoted to one specific film. The three examples of the modern British heritage film of which I will study are
ChariotsofFire (1981),
Elizabeth (1998) and
TheDuchess (2008). In my opinion, these are good examples of the heritage film, as they are also historical films. It could be argued that the portrayal of iconic characters, such as Queen Elizabeth I, enhances and informs ones foreknowledge of not only that historical character, but also of that era. For example, find a bunch of people who have watched a film about King Henry Tudor and the conversation will inevitably turn into a discussion of his many, many wives. How many did he have executed? Which one outlived him? How many Janes did he marry?
This formula can effectively be applied to a wide selection of heritage films. However, I plan to apply it to the three films Ive mentioned earlier. Firstly,
Chariots of Fire documents two historical characters: Harold Abrahams and Eric Liddell, famed British runners. Whilst their participation in the Olympic Games is the focus of the film, issues concerning sportsmanship, nationality and masculinity are key themes in the development of the main characters. Similarly,
Elizabeth features a rather more iconic historical figure, yet largely centres upon the queens romantic liaisons, religious duties and familial allegiances. Finally,
The Duchess traces the social and political lifestyle and appearance of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, yet is much more poignant in its illustration of female oppression and empowerment, and the suppression of genuine romance and affection. Through this, one can see a clear engagement between these historical films and the age of modernity.
I believe that
ChariotsofFire,
Elizabeth and
TheDuchess represent good examples of such a type of film, initially due to the periods in which they are set. All three films take place during a supposed golden age of British history;
ChariotsofFire in the 1920s and at the height of the British Empire,
Elizabeth during the 16th century English Renaissance and the beginning of Englands Golden Age, and
TheDuchess in 18th century Britain, just before the Industrial Revolution and the start of British global prominence. By the setting of these films in times of greater British influence than in modern times, it has been possible for their audiences to be offered a measure of (albeit rather superficial) reassurance drawn from their nations past achievements. This has proved particularly potent in times of recession (early-1980s and late-2000s) when the nations future has been extremely uncertain. All three films engage and disengage with modernity thematically, in varying degrees. For example,
Chariots of Fire seems to offer the most fierce representation and conflict regarding national identity and culture, despite being set in the most recent times. However, this is owing to the fact that it was produced in the 1980s, earlier than the other two films, so is therefore perhaps more dated than the others. In opposition,
Elizabeth and
The Duchess take place during the 16th and 18th centuries respectively. Therefore, it would be expected that issues of national identity would be considerably more rigid than they are portrayed. The idea of being English in
Elizabeth is, interestingly, explored in conjunction with the notion of religious inclusiveness. Rather innovative for an Elizabethan, wouldn't you say? The issue of Englishness is raised only as an adjunct to these personal struggles with religion and duty. These struggles appear much more modern than the conflict depicted in
Chariots of Fire. Although its major personal conflict is between national identity and religion, the two seem a lot less fluid, and the characters struggle to accommodate them, by contrast with
Elizabeth. Furthermore,
The Duchess, made ten years after
Elizabeth, can be seen as even more thematically modern. There is a greater feminist dimension to the film than the previous two. Georgianas duty as a woman seems surprisingly more exaggerated than Elizabeths. This is largely to highlight the issue of female oppression and the struggle against conformity. Overall, all three films convey an idea of national identity through a variety of techniques. Some techniques are used very overtly to portray an idea of nation, such as the emphatic display of rural countryside in
Elizabeth and
The Duchess. Additionally,
Chariots of Fire uses language stereotypically associated with national culture. Nevertheless, the three films are intrinsically connected in their capacity to address key themes which both convey a sense of national identity and also resonate with contemporary audiences. Keep an eye out for my articles on each individual movie!