Would it be fair to describe British cinema as primarily 'liberal' in its treatment of race and/or sexuality?

Would it be fair to describe British cinema as primarily ‘liberal’ in its treatment of race and/or sexuality?

I think that in order to discuss this question effectively it is necessary to have a clear understanding of what the term ‘liberalism’ actually means when talking about sexuality and gender. I therefore found an accurate dictionary definition of the term ‘liberalism’ and found it to mean:

‘a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non-violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavour, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.’

This therefore tells us that liberalism is basically everything that contributes towards the overall sense of freedom of an individual.

I therefore think that the question of whether British cinema is ‘primarily ‘liberal’ in its treatment of race and sexuality’ is extremely interesting because I do agree that British cinema is fairly liberal concerning the treatment of these issues but the interesting question is how liberal British cinema is, particularly in comparison to the liberalism shown through the cinema of other countries.

I will firstly be discussing Basil Dearden’s film Victim, because I think that it is particularly interesting and relevant due to the fact that it was made in 1961. This was in the middle of a very key period of time in the development of the liberalism of the British culture in general and particularly the development of liberalism within British cinema. This is partly due to the introduction of The Wolfenden Report in 1957 which stated that male homosexuality should no longer be illegal and should certainly not be seen as a criminal offence.

Dearden’s film Victim presents the theme of male sexuality and tries to suggest that homosexual men are frowned down upon and discriminated against in an unfair way. It therefore tries to highlight the point that homosexual men are oppressed by heterosexual people and become the victims of harsh and unfair discrimination which leads to the desired effect that Dearden is trying to gain which is the sympathetic response of the audience towards the homosexual men in the film.

Dearden’s presentation of homosexuality in Victim could be seen as ‘liberal’ because it is dealing with a controversial and frowned upon subject and is trying to appeal for the audience’s sympathy for the homosexual victims. However, Victim is interesting because it actually highlights the fact that British cinema at this time is fairly liberal but is still not nearly as liberal as we are made to believe. For example, in order to have his film accepted by an audience, Dearden had to disguise the film’s original intention by turning the film into a thriller which would interest audiences anyway. The Monthly Film Bulletin recognised this when they described the film’s content as ‘dressed up… male inversion in a cleverly designed Crime Club dust- jacket’. The fact that Dearden felt the need to somehow disguise the film’s intention through a clever use of genre, highlights the fact that there still were boundaries within British cinema concerning sexuality in the 60’s because Dearden did not feel comfortable enough to present this film without disguising it.

Dearden’s presentation of homosexuality is also not very liberal however. For if you actually look at the way that he portrays homosexuality, he does still make it seem like some kind of unfortunate disease that cannot be cured. He does manage to gain the sympathy of the audience but not because of the fact that the homosexual men are being treated as an inferior race in a very unjust way, but more because the homosexual men cannot help not being heterosexual. For example, one of the homosexual men tries to provide an explanation for his sexuality by saying ‘I can’t ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, I think that it is interesting to look at the way that the liberalism has changed so rapidly over the last few decades since 1961 when this film came out. We can see this in a letter written by Dirk Bogarde who plays one of the principal parts in Victim, when he writes in 1996, ‘It is extraordinary, in this over-permissive age that this modest film could ever have been considered courageous, daring or dangerous to make. To start with, very few of the actors approached to play in it accepted: most flatly refused.’ The point that I think Bogarde is making with this statement is the fact that back in 1961 this film was seen as extremely daring and controversial, but compared to British cinema and culture these days, actually seems quite tame and modest in it’s treatment of sexuality. I therefore think that British cinema has become quite liberal in its treatment of sexuality over the past few years especially during the late 80’s and early 90’s.

However, there is still a large amount of censorship within the British cinema which means that even now, there are limits to what can and cannot be shown to the masses. This means that British cinema is not entirely liberal although I would have to agree with the statement that British cinema is primarily liberal with its treatment of sexuality.

Looking at British cinema in terms of its presentation of race however, I think that it still quite tame in comparison to the way that other countries have chosen to portray race or racial difficulties.

A good example of a recent British film that deals with racial tensions is Damien O’ Donnell’s East is East. In this film we have some very powerful and quite disturbing images of a father brutally beating his wife and children because he does not feel that they are obeying the supposed ways of their culture. These scenes are quite disturbing especially when we are presented with a shot of the children calmly watching television after the beating incident and we can see the bruising on their faces.

However, I think that this is fairly tame in comparison to the way that racial difference is presented in recent American cinema. For example, in American History X which is directed by Tony Kaye, the issue of race and racism is explored very explicitly. There are some extremely graphic scenes of racist brutality that are presented to the audience. For example, there is a scene in which the main character Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) kills a member of a black gang because of an attempted murder on him, by shooting him to the ground, turning him over, making him bite the pavement and then stamping on his head. These scenes are so graphic that it is extraordinarily disturbing and harrowing to watch. This is also similar to Mike Newell’s Donnie Brasco, in which we are presented with some extremely harsh and disturbingly graphic images of racist attacks on a Chinese restaurant.

I think that it is definitely true to say that American cinema is more liberal than British cinema and has been for a few decades now. For example, in Brian de Palma’s Scarface, there are some extremely violent scenes such as the one where the Cuban refugee played by Al Pacino, uses a chainsaw to kill an attacker. This is a particularly graphic image considering the fact that this film came out twenty years ago in 1983.

Around this same time in British cinema, films that were fairly violent or controversial were censored and were often actually banned from being shown to the public because they were seen as being too provocative and dangerous. A good example of this is Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange which he originally brought out in 1971 but felt the need to withdraw the film from British cinemas due to the controversial content of the film. The film was only re-released a few years ago which highlights the point that I made earlier about how British cinema has definitely become a lot more liberal over the last few decades. The fact that Kubrick did not feel comfortable with the way that a 70’s audience would respond to his controversial film, but had no problem re-releasing it thirty years later shows the extent to which British cinema has evolved over the last few years with regards to it’s overall sense of liberalism.

I think that British cinema is not as graphic as cinema from other countries in dealing with racial issues and is often more suggestive rather than blatant when portraying racial issues in general. We do not really have an equivalent to Mathieu Kassovitz’s French film La Haine in which we are presented with the everyday life of three teenagers living in the suburbs of Paris who ‘were all born and brought up in France but because they all belong to minority religious or ethnic groups, it would be customary to refer to them as ‘immigres’ even though they are not technically ‘immigrants’ at all.’ We are presented with an extremely violent and powerful film that highlights the racial tension that is present within the suburbs of Paris through its realistic portrayal of life in these rough areas. The film does not hold back from showing all the violence and racism that is present in this area, in graphic detail particularly when highlighting the police brutality that is present here. The film critic Jill Forbes says when describing this film:

‘Kassovitz appears to wish his film to convey the message that a generation of essentially decent young people is being forced into violent and murderous action by a society that is unwilling or unable to acknowledge their predicament.’

Although I have said that other countries are more liberal in their treatment of racial issues I still think that there is a fair way to go before even America (which I would consider to be one of the most liberal countries for cinema), is still quite concerned with race in general. For example, it was an amazingly emotional and special moment last year when Halle Berry won an Oscar as Best Actress for her performance in Monsters Ball. This is due to the fact that she became the first female black actress to win this award. I think that the way that she won this award, shows the fact that the American people are definitely progressing in the search for racial equality. However, the fact that this was such a landmark moment in America’s treatment of race shows that there is still a little way to go before people do not even think about whether an Oscar winner is black or white.

Karen Alexander wrote a very interesting passage about the way that British cinema deals with race called ‘Black British Cinema of the 90’s: Going Going Gone.’ In this passage she highlights the fact that Britain still has a problem with presenting black people without trying to present them in a stereotypical way or a way that presents them as being in some way different. She suggests that British cinema has a reluctance to present the black people as being completely British. She interestingly writes:

‘Until Cool Britannia can acknowledge the visibility of others and think about inclusivity instead of exclusivity on a broad institutional and cultural level, the idea that the nation has of itself, namely that Britishness is something to aspire to, is under threat.’

This is quite interesting if compared to an interesting passage written by Stuart Hall entitled ‘New Ethnicities’ because he acknowledges and agrees with the same point that Karen Alexander highlights about Britishness but argues that British cinema is definitely progressing which I would agree with. He points out the fact that these days ‘You can no longer conduct black politics through the strategy of a simple set of reversals, putting in the place of the bad old essential white subject, the new essentially good subject.’ Instead, he points out that:

We are beginning to think about how to represent a non-coercive and a more diverse conception of ethnicity, to set against the embattled, hegemonic conception of ‘Englishness’ which, under Thatcherism, stabilizes so much of the dominant political and cultural discourses, and which, because it is hegemonic, does not represent itself as ethnicity at all.’

I would definitely have to agree with the point that British cinema is becoming a lot more racially equal and liberal with its treatment of race even down to the fact that the Black British films that are currently being produced and shown on television are much more diverse and do not just deal with racism and the notion of blacks being in opposition to whites. I agree with Sarita Malik that these films:

‘Refuse a simple focus on racial politics and acknowledge other facets of identity. They are multilayered and complex films, not only in terms of narrative, but also in terms of genre, style and film form. As such, they render redundant those critical discourses which depend on the rigid dichotomies of Black versus White, negative versus positive, representative versus unrepresentative, realism versus fantasy and so on.’

This is certainly true in films like Gurinder Chadha’s Bhaji on the Beach and even Damien O’ Donnell’s East is East.

Overall, I think that it is true to say that British cinema is primarily quite liberal in its treatment of race and sexuality. There is obviously still a fair amount of censorship that is present within British cinema but I think that overall, in terms of its treatment of race and sexuality, British cinema is most definitely progressing rapidly and has become increasingly more liberal over the last few decades.

Bibliography

Alexander, Karen, ‘Black British Cinema in the 90’s: Going Going Gone’, in Murphy, Robert, British Cinema of the 90’s (London: BFI, 2000), pp. 109-114.

Bourne, Stephen, Brief Encounters (London: Cassell, 1996).

Forbes, Jill, ‘La Haine’, in Forbes, Jill and Sarah Street, European Cinema: An Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

Malik, Sarita, ‘Beyond the Cinema of Duty? The Pleasures of Hybridist: Black British Films of the 1980’s and 1990’s’, in Higson, Andrew, Key Writings on British Cinema (London and NY: Cassell, 1996), pp. 210-215.

Medhurst, Andy, ‘Victim: Text as Context’, in Higson, Andrew, Dissolving Views: Key Writings on British Cinema (London: Cassell, 1996).

Online Source

Online Dictionary at

Filmography

A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971,GB)

American History X (Tony Kaye, 1998, US)

Bhaji on the Beach (Gurinder Chadha, 1993, GB)

Donnie Brasco (Mike Newell, 1997, US)

East is East (Damien O’ Donnell, 1999, GB)

La Haine (Matthieu Kassovitz, 1995, France)

Monster’s Ball (Marc Foster, 2002, US)

Scarface (Brian de Palma, 1983, US)