Mrs. Miniver and Film as Propaganda

26th February – 4th March 2018

Unfortunately, this week doesn’t feel like it was nearly as productive as last week. Though I’m probably about to show myself that it wasn’t as bad as I feel like it was.

This week really turned out to be all about wartime propaganda. I read the chapters of One World, Big Screen that I felt were most relevant. These were the intro of course, one on internationalism in American cinema between 1939 and 1941 and one that focused specifically on British-American relations through the war and how this was depicted and strengthened through movies. This was a really interesting read that raised some points I had not considered before and gave me a lot to think about. It also included some stuff on a film I watched this week, Mrs. Miniver (1942). This was a film that was part of the Anglo-America propaganda effort and was, in part, meant to sell the American people on the British. It was hugely successful, commercially and critically, winning four Academy Awards in 1943 including Best Picture.

There is a fascinating depiction of the events of 1940 in Britain in the film that will be the focus of what I discuss in the preliminary analysis I’ll be handing over to my supervisors in a fortnight. It’s very much focused on the home front that I think, in and of itself, is really interesting. Its the first film that I’ve watched so far that’s solely about the civilian experience. Dunkirk (1958) flits between the civilians that contribute their boats and a military point of view, Dunkirk (2017) goes for the everyman experience, primarily from a soldier’s perspective, and Darkest Hour (2017) is obviously the ruling class’s perspective. Perhaps most interestingly, it is the only film so far that is primarily a woman’s point of view. Both Dunkirks barely have female speaking roles at all and Darkest Hour, aside from some ladies in a scene in which Churchill, rather bizarrely, catches the Underground, involves only a secretary and Clementine, Churchill’s wife, neither or which have almost anything of value to contribute to the story except selling the fact that men died and it was sad. That aspect might be worth looking into. (I appear not to be able to escape my interest in depictions of women).

Otherwise, this week I ventured to Bowral to see Darkest Hour again and had a lovely relaxing day as I found a nice little cafe down there to do some reading as well. I also went to the PhD Orientation which was basically just a bunch of advice being thrown at us which was nothing I hadn’t heard yet but still nice to hear again. We did a little bit of a writing exercise and I ended up just freewriting about some ideas for the synthesis that I’ll be handing in so all in all a good day.

Next week I’ll be continue to work on this synthesis, going through Imagining Realities, returning to an article on Oliver Stone and Platoon and writing up my analyses ready to go.

Advertisements

Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film

James Chapman
2005

This book is an exploration of how British historical films have confirmed or confronted the idea of British national identity during their times. Chapman looks at a number of historical films spanning from the early 1930s to the late 1990s. Chapman places each film in both the context of the British film industry at the time and the wider social, economic, and political context. While I wouldn’t be looking at many of these same films, the contextual information for each decade from the 1930s to the 1990s is invaluable to me as I can apply it to my own analysis of the films that I look at that come out of Britain at these times, for example, Fire Over England (1937), Young Bess (1953), or Elizabeth R (1971).

Among the films Chapman discusses is Elizabeth (dir. Shekhar Kapur, 1998). This was a valuable chapter as it provided contextual, production, and reception information as well as analysis of the film itself. Interestingly, Chapman reads Elizabeth largely in the context of the legacy of Princess Diana who died tragically just days before the film began principal photography. He argues that outrage from historians and critics alike that the film depicted Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, as not a virgin at all can be seen as a desire to protect the national myth about Elizabeth I but also as a kind of proxy to defend the reputation of the late Princess Diana, another national icon. It is an intriguing reading that I will take into consideration. It would be interesting to think about how 16th century ideas about protecting a woman’s virtue and reputation are being invoked again at the turn of the 21st century for another female royal.

 

Chapman, James. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film. London: I.B Tauris, 2005.