'BILLY ELLIOT'
Rant on the current state of the 'British' film 'industry' take 15: 'Billy
Elliot' (2000).
(The generalizations in this rant have been certified 'PG' by the BBFC -
'Pig-headed and Gratuitous. May contain some assertions of a dubious, fantasy
nature that some older readers may find disturbing').
'Billy Elliot': one of the worst films I've seen in a long, long time. It
featured the grossest of gross stereotypes, idiotically simplistic politics,
utterly patronizing, and the most vomit-inducing attempt at 'nostalgia' and
'retro-styling'. 'Billy Elliot' displayed a more blatant, calculated attempt
at targetting different sectors of the audience than any Hollywood blockbuster
of the last 30 years. (The miners' strike, for example - give me a fucking
break!).
Every single shot, every line of dialogue, every camera angle, every casting
choice, every detail, was predictable. True, so is almost every other film
ever made: but 'Billy Elliot' had nothing to redeem it (apart from the 30
year-old music, Marc Bolan, from an entirely different context).
I was bored after 5 minutes. The point is, this's supposed to be one of the
shining lights of 'British' cinema!
Billy Elliot' traded on those mind-numblingly dumb stereotypes of recent
'British' 'comedies' ('The Full Monty', 'Brassed Off') that it's Grim Oop
North but, hey, people really lerve each other underneath their prickly
prejudices. This kind of dreck was already way out of date in 'kitchen sink'
films of the early 1950s (and never existed anyway). It'd be offensive if it
wasn't so hopelessly bad.
Also on New Year's Day on UK TV was 'E.T.': an infinitely superior example of
a 'coming-of-age' story, beautifully crafted and marvellously played (an
amazing performance from Henry Thomas). Critics often attack Spielberg and
American movies for being 'sentimental' or 'manipulative'. (But all art is
'manipulative', it always wants to have an effect on an audience). However, in
terms of 'manipulation', contrivance and sentimentality, 'Billy Elliot' was
the one of the vilest, most repugnant examples of recent times. Every
(would-be) 'dramatic' point was milked shamelessly and crudely for effect,
making 'E.T.' and the entire Disney output look like hard-nosed cynicism by
contrast.
---
RE-CAP:
The US has Martin Scorsese; the UK has Guy Ritchie.
Hollywood has Paul Thomas Anderson ('Magnolia', 'Boogie Nights'); the UK has
Paul Anderson ('Mortal Kombat', 'Shopping').
The US has Spike Lee, the UK has Shane Meadows.
The US has Chris Columbus ('Harry Potter', 'Home Alone', 'Mrs Doubtfire'), the
UK has Danny Cannon ('I Still Know What You Did Last Summer').
The US has Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola; the UK has
no one remotely comparable. (Maybe Ridley Scott or Alan Parker. But Scott, for
instance, has never made a film with a 'British' subject, and went the
Hollywood route from his first film onwards).
Like the billionth sequel to a one-time successful Hammer horror movie, the
foolish romantic in me hopes that the corpse of 'British' 'cinema' can be
revived yet again. But, judging by recent form, obviously not. (We all know
that the 'British' film 'industry' has never recovered since the Yanks pulled
out in the late 1960s. Except as an occasional production base.)
It's like that old Morrissey song: 'It's Gonna Happen Someday'. Except it
never does. (And Mozzer, The Smiths' siren dandy of the North, who once
derided the US's influence over 'British' culture, has buggered off to L.A.
like everyone else).
|