Heritage films make up a great deal of British Oscar take homes. My favourites being The King’s Speech which received 12 Oscar Nominations and Remains of the Day which received 8 Oscar Nominations.
Historical fiction is something British studios are good at, Britain is a country that prides itself on its history and access to historical settings and expert consultants is no difficult task.
Heritage films often follow an aesthetic; period pieces generally focus on the wealthy, in lavish settings such as stately homes. Wide shots of beautiful gardens and magnificent palaces make up most of the cinematography and the features are watched through rose tinted nostalgic glasses. “Oh what it is to be a 19th century eligible bachelor with an income of £5,000”.
(Much to my dismay an annual £5,000 doesn’t do much for you in the 21st century).
VisitBritain are especially fond of heritage films because they have had an overwhelming effect on tourism. They put us on a nice footing with the rest of the world, we are very good at portraying ourselves as an entire country of aristocratic ladies and gentleman or incredibly proud butlers to said ladies and gentleman. It could be argued that heritage films are something of a branding exercise.
Historical Britain looks very nice and aesthetically pleasing while historical matters like poverty and mass disenfranchisement are swept off screen.
I should interject here that I actually like this style of filmmaking. It’s perfectly acceptable to watch a film with a historical aesthetic, not every film has to be about a revolution or the mass suffering of the underclass. I would go as far as to say that many heritage films have merely chosen to be character lead. The King’ Speech for example is about a man overcoming a speech impediment; Remains of the Day about an old man dealing with a life of lost love and hindsight perspective; and The Madness of King George about a powerful man losing everything to insanity. To this end they achieve their goals regardless of their lack of social commentary. Frankly sometimes we don’t want social commentary.
Peterloo (2018) cannot be described as a heritage film. It certainly played no part in the British Tourism industry, nor did it peddle in any kind of nostalgia. Instead the audience is told the story from the perspective of those less fortunate in our history. Instead of lavish manor houses we are presented with industrial squalor and we spend time with ordinary families who are suffering as a result of the callousness of those in charge.
It could be argued that more palatial footage would be useful in conveying “How the other half live”. But far more effective is the decision to have the side of the elite told from very ordinary rooms, while still implying the splendour with which they live, nobody is distracted by it and we are able to focus solely on the routinely bad decisions made by those in charge.
The portrayal of George IV is a stroke of genius. The last we see of the villains of Peterloo is a repugnant and unpleasant man, living in extravagance in such a way that would make the viewer hope never to achieve such wealth, lest they begin to resemble such a being.
It’s likely not worth comparing a historical drama to heritage films as they’re two opposing genres. One peddles in nostalgia while the other in history. But its interesting to see the approaches a film might take to avoid being miscast as a heritage film and the steps it would take to create an accurate and relevant portrayal of one of the darker moments of Britain’s history.
~Alexander~
T H E N A I V E F I L M M A K E R 