The Role of Class in British Cinema - Essay Example

?The Role in British Cinema The King’s Speech The King’s Speech narrates a story of a man obliged to speak to the entire world with a stammer. It is a painful experience for an individual who is stammering to speak to the other person. Facing a microphone and knowing that the British Empire is listening must be frightening. At the time of the mentioned speech, approximately a quarter of the world’spopulation would be listening, particularly people from Germany. In 1939, Britain was engaging into war with the Germany and listeners of the speech required an individual with resolve, clarity, and firmness in his voice and not a stammer with punctuated and tortured silences (Ebert 2011, p320). George VI was the king and he never wanted to become one. After the death of his father, his brother Edward was to take the throne but he refused to take it in order to marry the woman he loved, and thus, the duty was given to Prince Albert who since early ages, he had struggled with his speech. Albert has been the favourite of his father, but he mourns the introduction of the newspapers and radio, which necessitate a monarch to be heard and seen on public occasions. To avoid public humiliation, his wife Elizabeth seeks help from several speech therapists but nothing works. At last, a speech therapist from Australia Lionel Miguelbecomes of great assistance to Prince Albert in delivering the King’s speech(Ebert 2011, p320; Conradi and Logue 2011, p201). The paper will discuss the role of class in British cinema with special emphasis on the film The King’s Speech. Royal Politics and Its Aesthetic Value in British Cinema Film theory as it is known today came into existence in the late 1960s and since then, they have been controlled by psychoanalytic ideas. After the First World War, it was easier to identify two specific groups in film criticism. The first group was composed of the Sergei Eisenstein figure, whose theoretical essays and filmmaking in the 1920s established the beginning of the role of cinema as an aesthetic one. Based on the idea of Eisenstein, the aesthetic value of the film depended on its capability to change reality and this took the form of montage in his films. The second group was composed of the surrealists and impressionists. They were of the notion that the main role of the cinema was aesthetic; however, they were of the idea that the camera was sufficient to render general objects sublime. They emphasized on cinema as the visual medium which indicated that they considered narrative in most cases as a hindrance that had to be overcome (Murphy 2005). From 1934, British cinemas witnessed an increase in attendance among the people. Apart from being a source of entertainment, they assumed the crucial role in communication and social contact. British films of those times expressed the image of Britain as a very stable hierarchy at home, a just colonial government overseas and it represented the patriotic images of the armed forces and the monarchy. In general, the entire population of Britain looked happy with the films that were offered in the 1930s and those films assisted in the maintenance of the status quo and consensus. An important demographic feature of Britain in the 1930 was the steady ascendancy of the middle class. A number of films were based on this status quo (Redner 2010, p138). The Kings Speech setting is in the 1930s and represents what films at those times attempted to represent, that is, the role of class in the British Cinema. Universal agreement on a clear concept of class in cinema is elusive due to the various socioeconomic and political interactions that cinema, as an important media channel makes with the society. However, the transposition of the various usages of class in other disciplines onto cinema studies enables the generation of ideas with respect to cinema class. Using the Eisenstein theoretical postulates, cinema presents the audience with a chance to view of reality artistically coined to achieve the intended aesthetic value (Murphy 2005). Thematic presentation of various class issues in a cinema can constitute an important aspect of the cinema presentation, thereby taking a central role in communication of the intended message. Apparently, the wide spectrum of class as a thematic concept may not take the best form possible inside one film, certain class items may appear conspicuous and assist in the building of the main theme. In order for the obscured class concepts to make meaning to the film, a deep analysis is necessary to assist the audience to identify them and further understand the implications thereon. In British cinema, a lot of social attributes with a long cultural and political history often constitute part of the information conveyed in films and other related pieces. With an increasing reliance on technological advancements, creativity and other detail adding techniques have enabled movie directors to add unique British society attributes than before. It is possible to twist events in a film today and provide social, cultural, and political classes that even if they existed in the British society, only critique of antiquated facts can serve the curiosity of how it was in the past. Despite the fact that some concepts employed to bring out such detail of antiquity imagination always leads to exaggeration or abstraction, presentation of class in British film always presents some level of social stratification that must be appreciated. As appreciated by Miller and Stam (2000, p403), the expected level of uncertainty in unraveling ancient accounts of history in terms of detail, the openness in disclosure must not be restricted to obvious facts but creativity is employed to add aesthetic value. The importance of political influence on the delivery of the directors’ choice of class cannot be overemphasized in a society whose leadership heavily relies on democratic space created by politics. Apparently, the design of the film The King’s Speech captures an important historic period when the delivery of the British monarch’s official statement mattered to almost one-quarter of the world’s political organization. In the early decades of the 20th century, Britain took care of several overseas territories including North America, Europe, Africa and Asia, dramatically increasing the population interested in the words from the monarch ((Seidler 2010, para.7). The British tradition of closely following the developments at the center of their politics in the monarch’s palace, still witnessed today, would also make the following of the presentation of the top political figures a force to reckon with any day. Organization of the British monarchy obtains a thematic presentation in the film, which underscores the role of political class in the country, one of the most stable constitutional monarchies in the modern world. The central focus of the British Empire in the film demonstrates the importance of the political class during the stipulated historic times, which enables the film to capture public presentation of the political class as a vital show of power. In the development of the plot as designed by the directors, grooming of the royals was as important as it is today in many respects. The extent to which public presentation of the royal personalities in Britain touches on the integrity of the monarch is directly illustrated by the measure of anguish possessed by Albert, who must impress his audience due to the attention given to the words of his public statements. According to the feeling in the society at the time, stammering would subtract essential substance on the message, which compels him to take extra ordinary moves to cope with the ‘embarrassment’. To demonstrate the importance of the apparent ruling class built around the British monarchy in the film The King’s Speech, the historic events in the period towards 1939 capture the importance of a flawless delivery of official statement by the monarch. King George VI had to make decisions regarding the escalating tension with Germany to the effect of declaring a war (Seidler 2010, para.8). In terms of the sensitivity of such weighty matters as taking military action against foreign aggressors, the political person issuing statements to such effect must not leave any loose ends. According to the common belief in the society, even the military demands flawless participation backed by personnel without a notable blemish. Based on these convictions, Albert had to make desperate arrangements to ensure the stammering blemish did not obscure the political expectation of flawless presentation. Apart from the major theme of political class in the film The King’s Speech, several other films have adopted similar themes around the political intrigues of the British monarchy. In achieving the insider eye of the palace as the seat of the monarch’s power, these films achieve an important enlightenment from different perspectives. Cinematographic creations on the intrigues around any political setting sometimes require a certain level of political caricature that must attain analytical fact-finding visitation of the setting in order to acquire the appropriate authority. As such, the importance of the political class themes in these films in bringing out the attributes of the ruling class with certain uncontestable facts of the politics behind the organization. It therefore implies that the British monarchy is among the most studied monarchies through cinema presentation. In light of the outcomes of such presentation, many followers of the royal family as well as critics have gained a rare view of the inner corridors of the top British political offices through film. The director captures the corridors of the British monarchy through cinematographic use of long corridors in the movie that largely takes place indoors (Ebert 2011, p320). Subtopics of political presentation around the monarchy perhaps emerge such as the critics’ opinion of the royal family position in the increasingly changing political times. As a major concern, the mixing of political organization platforms where the head of state is not subjected to democratic procedures as those subjected to head of government conspicuously gain momentum. As illustrated in The King’s Speech, hereditary factors of ascent to the throne depict lack of willingness by the royal family to serve the country as those in elective positions. Confirming the fears of the critical groups, it is logically arguable that the hereditary concept may compel individuals without the British peoples’ interests at heart at the level of putting everything aside for the service of the people. The chance of the working class ascending to such powerful political positions is equally virtually impossible (Dave 2006, p65). For Edward’s abdication of the duties assigned to him by virtue of handing down through the hereditary tradition, chances of the sovereignty of the people falling in the wrong hands can form a debate that would place the monarch into a tight scrutiny. Alternatively, issues of ability of the individual to make sound decisions on behalf of the nation places the entire hereditary concept into question. As illustrated by the case of Albert, an individual with mental disability may not appear to be the best candidate for such political office due to the complexity of political decisions involved for the office bearer. Although discrimination on grounds of disability continually loses meaning in the modern world, perhaps the greatest worry by the royal family amid the scrutiny and sensitivity of the office would largely come from such issues of its inability to provide persons without a blemish to the people. Despite the fact that the traditional role of the monarch as a political and religious figure may place the individual at the helm into conflict with the two roles, general expectations from the public fail to understand the sacrifices involved. Whether the decision to make the monarch the head of the Church of England was correct, places the political decisions in the British royal family in a sort of an entanglement. In view of the role of the film The King’s Speech in the presentation of the class issue generated through the two roles of the monarch, Edward made a bold move that exposes the confusion thereon. As a political figure, the British monarch automatically falls in a rare responsibility borne by the religious class (Dixon 1994, p104). In a world with a more secular setting, such a role of the monarch may lead further controversy, perhaps when the constitutional rights of the individuals taking office in the monarchy may appear to be tied. As an illustration, a host of other issues that the head of the Church of England could not do may be permitted in the future with dramatic changes occurring every day. The film raises class issues in terms of the social setting as generated by the political environment of the British society. The position of the lower class in terms of free interaction with the political elite is not an easy phenomenon due to the protocol issues also captured in the film The King’s Speech. Logue’s position is not ordinarily the same level with the royal family’s daily life’s interaction. As depicted in the magnitude of the need for the ruling class in Britain to make a flawless presentation, routine interaction with the lower classes on an ordinary platform is considered as a break of protocol. Ironically, the interaction between the two extremes of stratification brings the satisfaction that obscures blemish that seemingly put Albert’s rise to power after abdication of the role by brother on the marriage complication issues. The film therefore makes a case on the need for the integration of classes into a closer British social fabric that takes care of each other. Logue takes advantage of the therapist role and ensures that the royal client must come to terms with ordinary man’s setting of a simple life, including friendship (Ebert 2011, p321). One of the distinctive characteristics of the British society is the significance and persistence of class differences. Therefore, it may look strange to suggest that one of the constants in the English characters is social homogeneity. This has been made possible because the English have had little class feeling. The national character surpasses the class differences and inhibits them from becoming class feeling, which might intimidate the social order. In recent years, there were claims that Britain had developed into a classless society (despite these allegations, class was very crucial in the past) (Leach 2004, p182). Margaret Thatcher blamed those developments for the national decline and social breakdown, which led to the loss of those important traditions that assisted individuals to identify their place in society.The root cause of the problem was in the 1960s when class differences and other forms of inequality were confronted by the new political movements. During that time, cultural studies and film theory became mainly concerned with the theory of ideology, which sought to explain why individuals generally acknowledged the existing social hierarchy. The most significant expression of this form of theory was Louis Althusser works. He described ideology as a system of representations and ideas, which control the mind of a social group or of a man (Leach 2004, p182). British social realism is not all about representing the working class in motion or taking hand-held cameras to a particular vernacular, it is a collective idea in which the lived experiences proceed from here. It is concerned with changing attention on the oppressive social and political frameworks that encourage coalition Britain and the manner in which they affect the trouble working-class characters seen in these films. Filmmakers have found a stable ground to generate narrative-based comments on their films. It is proper to contend that the working class stories and films must appear more strongly during the times of socio-economic distress (Nwonka 2012). The British class system is internationally perceived as a ‘British phenomenon’ and it is very evident in most of her films. The King’s Speech perfectly falls in this model. King George VI after his father dies and his brother abdicated,is forced to give a radio address to the nation of Britain, which is in the brink of war. To do this, however, he ought to overcome his stammer with the assistance of a speech therapist Lionel Miguel. Miguel exhibits a deliberate disregard for class protocol and hierarchies. It is important to note that The King’s Speech is a heritage film and it is more of a representation of today’s political landscape in Britain. This is evident in the manner in which it supposedly dissolves the barriers of class. As aforementioned, the filmsetting is in the 1930s, a period characterized by economic depression, which has particular parallels with the modern recession (Hill 2011). The film wants the people to focus on the prominent classes in this era of austerity. Despite it being set in a period of economic recession, it does not involve with persisting economic problems of those times. Instead as mentioned before, it focuses on the elite classes. The film subverts particular conventions in the heritage genre. It plays British ‘stiff upper lip’ cliche and hierarchy notions through the representation of the King as a vulnerable character whose connection with his father is destroyed because of his incapability to reflect the image of media-friendly monarch. The hierarchy is represented to be very damaging in that the King is a damaged individual because he has no option but to live in these royal protocols (Hill 2011). The representation of the past given by the heritage films carries with it an evident contradiction between narrative and form; the past is represented as visually spectacular parody, inviting a nostalgic gaze that repels the social critiques and ironies so often suggested by those films. This is well manifested in the heritage space in which a pictorial film style displays the luxurious lavish decor and heritage sites, intended for the display of heritage properties instead of the enactment of dramas. Thus, things such as the setting of the movie become a conduit for characterization and narrative as well as ideological effect. They assist in the construction of a sense of Englishness based on particular bourgeois ideal of imperial stability, tradition, and propriety. Therefore, the heritage film would encourage a nostalgic flashback of the visual splendour and certainties of the national past (Vidal 2012, p9). These elements have been clearly indicated in the film, The King’s Speech. As aforementioned, the film looks at the monarchical class during the 1930s in Britain. References Conradi, P., & Logue, M. (2011) The King’s Speech, London, UK: Quercus. Dave, P. (2006) Visions of England: Class and culture in contemporary cinema, Oxford, UK: Berg. Dixon, W. W. (1994) Re-viewing British cinema, 1900-1992: Essays and interviews, Albany, NY: State University of New York. Ebert, R. (2011) Roger Ebert’s movie yearbook 2012, Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing. Hill, S. (2011) The King’s Speech: A very modern heritage film [online], freshties. Available from: [Accessed 19 Sep. 2012]. Leach, J. (2004) British film, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Miller, T. & Stam, R. (2000) Film and theory: An anthology, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Murphy, P. (2005) Psychoanalysis and film theory part 1: “A new kind of mirror,” Journal of Postmodern Cultural Sound, Text and Image, vol. 2, February 2005, ISSN 1552-5112. Nwonka, C. J. (2012) Empty tank [online], red pepper. Available from: [Accessed 19 Sep. 2012]. Render, G. (2010) Deleuze and film music: Building a methodological bridge between film theory and music, Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. Seidler, D. (2010) How the ‘naughty word’ cured the King’s stutter (and mine), MailOnline [Online] [Accessed 18 September 2012]. Vidal, B. (2012) Heritage film: Nation, genre and representation, New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Read More