 |
 |
thanks for this splendid defense of Billy Elliot. i enjoyed the film too. too busy to say more just now cheers Forwarded by: [log in to unmask] Forwarded to: [log in to unmask] Date forwarded: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:31:00 +0000 Date sent: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:55:51 +1000 Send reply to: Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]> From: Gary MacLennan <[log in to unmask]> Subject: My take (brief) on Billy Elliot. was( on Re: Billy Elliot. Loathsome. To: [log in to unmask] This thread was kicked off by a splendid piece of invective from Jeremy Robinson. For him Billy Elliott was "the most vomit-inducing attempt at 'nostalgia'". He also claimed that the film bored him. Given the level of vituperation occasioned by the film, this latter statement is hardly credible. We cannot be bored by anything we hate so much - surely. However that may be after Jeremy's post I was certainly not going to put up my hand and say "I liked it!" To do so would appear to volunteer oneself as a tastelessly sentimental moron, who cared nothing about the working class of England, especially the miners, and who also quite happily ignored the decline of Britain's national cinema. But A. Moor's post has given me some courage. There are interesting things in the film. For instance when the child walks along dragging the stick along the wall and suddenly the stick is bumping across the riot shields of Britain's brightest and best (NOT). I admit that image is hardly adequate to an account of the miners' strike. However the child and the stick and the brutal imperviousness of the shields does convey something of the nature of the Thatcherite state. Jeremy might concede here that at least this is not the kind of image a Thatcherite or Blairite (same difference) spin doctor would choose. I also liked the fact that the father's moment of triumph at the success of his son is compromised by the defeat of his class. (BTW I was at Essex University in 71/2 and heard Arthur Scargill address the student body during that great strike. It was a magnificent and deeply moving speech and 30 years later I still recall him talk of the 'blood on the coal'. So I know something of what the defeat of the 80s meant.) However as A. Moor points out it is really in the domain of sexuality that the film is at its most radical. Of course it displaces Billy's homosexuality unto his friend, Michael (Stuart Wells) but it still leaves open the question of Billy's own sexuality. (Just because you are a dancer does not mean that you are not queer). The amibivalence and compromises here are for me a much more honest recognition of the uneven reception of "gay liberation" than the cheerful "There's nowt as queer as folk" of The Full Monty. There are three particular moments in the exchanges between Billy and Michael that stand out for me. The tutu sequence where Billy dresses up and dances with Michael is beautifully done. The word I want to use here is 'tender' but I fear sending Jeremy rushing off screaming to the chuck bucket. The farewell kiss between the boys and the recognition of Michael's devastation at the loss of Billy is another fine moment. But perhaps the best moment occurs when Michael is allowed to share the family triumph at the end. Alongside the father's joyous face is Michael's sly cross-dressed pleasure at the success of his former love. The heterosexual family has to allow a space for the despised Other. Regards Gary