How Conservative Is the Heritage Film?

How Conservative Is the Heritage Film?

MAURICE: IMAGE STABILITY VS NARRATIVE INSTABILITY

INDEX

INTRODUCTION 2

HOW CONSERVATIVE IS THE HERITAGE FILM? 2

CASE STUDY: MAURICE 3

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………….……6

INTRODUCTION

The British heritage cinema has been always a topic of discussion, creating debates around whether if it is a genre itself or a mixture of genres, its ‘Britishness’ and if it is a conservative view of the past. In this essay we will focus on the question of how conservative the British heritage cinema really is, looking at a particular example, considering its themes and analysing the aesthetics. It is true that some of these films are very different from each other in its themes and narratives. For instance, Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson, 1981)has nothing to do with A Room with a View (James Ivory, 1986) or Sense and Sensibility (Ang Lee, 1995). Thus, we have a different range of topics and while some might seem more conservative others may show more progressive issues. However, if we give a closer look to these films we might find that behind the big country houses and the ornamented settings there are what Andrew Higson (1996) calls ‘narratives of instability’, which will be explained later. Moreover, we will discuss how these narratives contrast with the mise-en-scène and the aesthetics, sometimes reinforcing the story.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

HOW CONSERVATIVE IS THE HERITAGE FILM?

Heritage cinema, British heritage cinema, in particular, has been always considered a conservative vision of the past. Many writers have been arguing how this is closely related to the period in which the films were produced and how they reproduce the past. Firstly, most of these films were all released during the 1980s, years marked by Thatcherism. This period is generally known for the conservative reforms carried out by Margaret Thatcher’s government, such as putting back traditional family values, the privatisation of public spaces or welfare reforms, among others. In this way, critics started to link the films produced during those years with the traditional and conservative politics of Thatcher. This takes us to the second point, how heritage films reproduce the past. 

If we look at films such as Chariots of Fire, A Room with a View, Maurice (James Ivory, 1987)or Howards End (James Ivory, 1992) we will find the same characteristics. Heritage films are set in the past, usually at the beginning of the 20^th century, in the country houses in southern England. The stories are about bourgeoise and upper-class characters whose main problems are usually about love, with the exception of Chariots of Fire. The narrative is episodic, and the editing is usually slow. These characteristics mixed with the beautiful landscapes, interior designs and costumes, and the political situation in the 80s, lead us to think about heritage cinema as a cinema of nostalgia and pleasure.

However, we must go deeper and analyse the themes beyond the aesthetics. There are films which narratives are built around more progressive topics, for instance, inter-class romance in Howard’s End or homosexuality and inter-class romance in Maurice. Furthermore, there is a tension between these liberal messages and the visuals used in these films (Vidal, 2012). This tension creates a feeling of repression; thus we see the main characters with progressive ideas suffer because they do not fit in that world. We are going to see this in depth with our case study: Maurice.

CASE STUDY: MAURICE

Maurice is a 1987 Merchant Ivory film, based on the novel by E.M. Forster. In this romantic drama we follow the story of Maurice Hall, a young gay man who falls in and out of love with Clive Durham, a young Cambridge student; tries to accept himself and struggles to fit into the society of the 1910s England; and finally falls in love again with Alec Scudder, a servant who works at Clive’s country house.

The film fulfils our expectations of what a heritage film should look like in terms of the aesthetics, mise-en-scène, camerawork and editing that Andrew Higson (1996) describes. Even though the film shows a country house version of England, as both Maurice’s and Clive’s families have big houses in the south of England, we have also a portrayal of London, where Maurice works, which is seen as chaotic and something a countryman should avoid. Most of the characters are upper-class, both families have money and wealth and in the Cambridge scenes, we can see how they talk about art, music and literature. Even the way in which Clive declares his love to Maurice (giving the main character some books) and his concept of platonic love is elitist.

 There are many shots just showing the university or the houses, big landscapes or just shots perfectly balance where we see the beautifully furnished interiors. Regarding the formal aspects, the narrative is slow and episodic: there are several fades to black followed by another season (beginning in 1909, late-term 1910, summer term 1910, spring 1912…). The shots are very well balanced and framed and the camerawork is artful, with very slow camera movements; in fact, there are just a few quick moves in the most dramatic scenes, for instance, when Alec lays down with Maurice, right before the “sex scene”. Moreover, the use of long takes and the slow and undramatic editing intensify the “museum aesthetic: (…) designed to show the heritage attractions” (Higson, 1996, p. 233). This relation between museum and heritage is something that other authors have mentioned. Belén Vidal (2012) has argued that this beautiful and nostalgic view of the past as a way to escape the present has provoked the commercialisation of heritage as if watching a film was the same as going to a gallery or a museum.

However, as it is mentioned before, this iconography and technical aspects might have more meaning than they seem in relation to the narrative. Aesthetics and other director’s choices are not arbitrary, they are chosen for a meaningful reason. But in order to explain the relation between the visuals and the narrative, we have to know what makes the narrative progressive by itself.

As we have seen before, Maurice tells two love stories, one unfortunate and another successful. As Clair Monk explains, Kit Hesketh-Harvey, the co-screenwriter, describes the plot as “boy meets boy, boy loses boy, boy meets another boy” (De Montfort University, 2018). It is just the same as a romantic straight love story. We see the main character suffer because of his sexuality, but in the end, what really catches us is the love we felt for Clive and how happy he is with Alec. The story is treated in a way that “makes gay men seem ‘just like everyone else’” (Monk, 2001, p. 10). It focuses on emotions as any other romantic stories. Therefore, it validates homosexual love by making a simple and positive story with a happy ending. Moreover, having a happy ending in a film like this makes a political statement, even if it is not intentioned, because it says that being gay is okay and even if it is hard to fit in society you can be happy because you will find someone who loves you. What is more, even if some critics just focus on the first half of the film believing that it is a sad ending, as Claire Monk mentions, it is one of the only major films in which the main gay character has a happy ending (De Montfort University, 2018). This is the message that the ending is giving us, and for the time, and even for the present, is something progressive. Furthermore, it breaks class boundaries because Maurice ends up treating Alec Scudder, a lower-class boy like an equal, and finally falls in love with him.

Nevertheless, we cannot forget how Maurice suffers to get to this happy ending. After the break up with Clive, Maurice starts to think he is ill and he goes to the doctor and tries hypnosis. However, this emotional pain is reinforced by the mise-en-scène. It is what Andrew Higson (1996) called ‘narratives of instability’ and ‘images of stability’. According to Higson, these films show a fluid identity and “dramatize the dissolution of a particular version of England (…) and the decadence of aristocratic life” (1996, p. 239). For instance, in Maurice, we see how the protagonist is decided to renounce to his name, wealth, position, and career for love twice, and finally does it for a life with Scudder. But, on the other hand, “narrative instability was overwhelmed by the alluring spectacle of iconographic stability” (Higson, 1996, p. 239). The shots of landscapes and private heritage properties show the traditional England. Hence, we have these images of tradition versus these narratives of progression.

This tension between the image and the story can be appreciated in Maurice. The character is repressed by the society he is living in: homosexuality is punished and seen as a disease. But he is also repressed by the mise-en-scène. Maurice is surrounded by the big English country houses and the perfectly ornamented interiors, but also by perfect well balanced and framed shots and a fixed camera with slow movements. All of this contrasts with the fluidity and the ups and downs of the narrative. While the image is static during most of the film, we see how Maurice falls in love and almost gets caught with Clive a couple of times; how Clive is scared of being exposed as a homosexual and breaks up with Maurice to marry a woman; how Maurice fights against his desires, falls in love with a servant, feels threatened by him and finally accepts his love and gives up everything to be with him. This collapses with the fixed beautiful image of the 1910s England, creating a different environment for the viewers. The progressive characters (Maurice and Alec) are trapped in a world that does not suit them, they are not accepted in that world and so they are repressed. This justifies the use of upper-class characters. We see Maurice’s suffering because he does not have to worry about money or work, it is his main and only worry. 

Moreover, if we analyse the lighting of the film, we might find how it can relate to the main character’s inner world. Maurice’s main colours are yellow, green, blue and black, but all of them are very soft and darkish tones. This bleak and melancholic aesthetic may represent Maurice’s emotions (Monk, 2001), how he is feeling inside: repressed and sad because he cannot be with a man. Thus, we see one more time how the aesthetics are not just there for the visual pleasure, they have meaning. However, this depends on a more personal reading and interpretation of the film, but it is something that we may consider too.

This film has the usual feeling of nostalgia of the past that heritage films have, which might give a conservative impression, but, as we have seen, the issues presented in the film seem current. These themes, reinforced by the contrast with the technical aspects, are still relatable today, that is why it was digitalised in 2017. We can both observe beautiful scenarios while we suffer with Maurice. Even though this film was not as successful as other Merchant Ivory films at the time of its release because of its theme, it is becoming more popular nowadays. Many articles have mentioned how Maurice was only nominated for best costume design by The Academy and lost money at the box office, while Howards End or A Room With A View were a massive success. However, nowadays we can see the importance of Maurice, as it was a queer film made during Thatcherism, a time of profound homophobia (Davidson, 2018).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Higson, A., 1996. The Heritage Film and British Cinema. En: Dissolving Views: Key Writings on British Cinema. London: Cassell, pp. 232-248.
• Monk, C., 2001. Sexuality and heritage. In: G. Vincendeau, ed. Film/Literature/Heritage: A Sight and Sound Reader,. London: British Film Institute, pp. 6-11.
• Monk, C., 2002. The British heritage-film debate revisited. En: Routledge, ed. British historical cinema: the history, heritage and costume film. London: s.n., pp. 176-198.
• Vidal, B., 2012. Narrative Aesthetics and Gendered Histories: Renewing the Heritage Film. En: Wallflower, ed. Heritage Film: Nation, Genre, and Representation. London; New York : Columbia University Press, pp. 91-120.
• Vidal, B., 2012. The British Heritage Film Nation and Representation. In: Wallflower, ed. Heritage Film: Nation, Genre, and Representation. London; New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 7-51.

ONLINE REFERENCES

• Davidson, A. (2018). Was Merchant Ivory’s Maurice just too gay for the 1980s?. [online] British Film Institute. Available at: https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/merchant-ivory-maurice-hugh-grant  [Accessed 23 Jan. 2019].
• Garrett, D. (2018). Beautiful Love, Despised Love: Maurice, The City of Your Final Destination, and Call Me By Your Name. Off Screen, [online] (22). Available at: https://offscreen.com/view/beautiful-love-despised-love-maurice-final-destination-call-me-by-your-name [Accessed 30 Jan. 2019].
• Lodge, G. (2017). Maurice at 30: the gay period drama the world wasn’t ready for. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/19/maurice-film-period-drama-merchant-ivory [Accessed 23 Jan. 2019].

FILMOGRAPGY

• Maurice. 1987. [Film] Directed by James Ivory. United Kingdom: Merchant Ivory Productions.

VIDEO REFERENCES

• De Montfort University, 2018. The relevance of Merchant Ivory film Maurice 30 years on [online video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqR-2sG68mM&t=51s [Accessed 04/01/19]