|
|
|
Film review - This is England (2006) They don’t make big budget films about the far right in Britain. In fact, it’s rare for any film to be made about it. But one was made last year based on the personal experiences of its director, Shane Meadows. These are my impressions of it. IT’S 1983, the first day of the school summer holidays. We open with a couple of minutes of genuine archive footage. Mrs Thatcher appears, tearful crowds see the Falklands fleet out of harbour, then follow shots from some inane TV show – not really a contrast, as all these scenes are part of the same “spectacle”. Next come some disturbing shots of dead and wounded soldiers being hurriedly ferried away from a Falklands battlefield, and it’s these last that implicitly form a backdrop for the film itself. Shaun, played by Thomas Turgoose, is a severely undersized 13-year-old North-country boy (the scene-setting is reminiscent of that in Ken Loach’s Kes). He has lost his father in the Falklands War. His mum (Jo Hartley) just doesn’t possess the inner resources to help him get over it, and he’s scoffed at and bullied at school. One day he’s befriended by a gang of older kids - rather patronisingly, perhaps they want him as a mascot. They are punk/skinhead types, not political, indeed on the verge of criminality. Membership of the gang (which has one black member, a friendly and gentle boy called “Milky”) takes Shaun out of himself. The boys play fantasy/hunting games in derelict buildings: - a waste of time perhaps, but now Shaun feels that he’s needed and has a purpose. But then an older member named Combo (Stephen Graham), whom we haven’t met before, rejoins the gang. He’s been in prison, manfully taking the rap, it seems, for one of the other members. He quickly re-establishes himself as the feared leader, and preaches a programme of white supremacy. A pivotal moment in the film has been reached, and the mood of the action changes. Combo’s portrayal as a genuine nationalist skinhead is projected straight through the distorting lens of “Searchlight”. He is violent, racist, almost a psychopath; but also seemingly fond of young Shaun. He, meanwhile, simply wants to “belong”. The gang has now acquired a faction of NF sympathisers in it (I say NF as that’s the party that many folk will associate with this particular period of right-wing history, but it could equally be one of the several break-away or rival Nationalist groups from the period). The dangerous and feckless way in which the gang-members live and act - lager-swilling, hanging around cheap cafes, courting trouble - is strongly hinted at. But Shaun’s sweet if silly mum is quite happy to consign him to their care. “Initiations” follow for Shaun, involving the acquisition of the the right haircut and the right clothes. These are ritually-conferred up him - along, of course, with the right “bovver” boots. Shaun participates in a violent raid on a local Asian shop. Other racist attacks follow, along with lager-drinking and a couple of slightly sozzled snogging sessions with an older, beanpole of a punk girl fetchingly nicknamed “Smell”. The irresistible invitation, “Ere, d’you want to suck my tits?” completes the corruption of the totally pre-pubescent boy. Next Combo presents young Shaun with a large Cross of St. George flag. It’s always useful at football matches, of course. But the ral meaning of it in the film is as a symbol of the patriotism and sacrifice of Shaun’s dead father. Combo is allowed to identify this latter point in rather an eloquent and moving fashion. The reason for this is apparent at the film’s conclusion. The NF sympathizers are taken by Combo (who is not qualified to drive them, but of course he does) to a party meeting in a secluded country pub. A tweed-suited and bulbous character, seedy and middle-aged, obviously symbolizes the party’s intellectual and organizational leadership. He makes a brief speech on the theme of “We must get our country back!”, which is received with simple-minded enthusiasm. Most of the lads join up there and then. But one whose response is deemed inadequate is violently head-butted, stranded and left to walk home. The speechmaker is one of the very few fully adult characters in the film. There is Shaun’s mother, of course. But the grown-up who should be there, and whose role is poignantly emphasized by his absence, is his dead father. Alongside this towering absence, the gang is shown as living in a hermetic world of its own. They have no reference to any outside event save to the Falklands War. And it’s strange that in a film whose theme is the peril posed by nationalist doctrine, such alienation is not explored more deeply, or given genuine expression as it is in the disturbingly enigmatic films “The Believer” and “American History X”. Importantly, the violent Combo, in true “Searchlight” style, has to be portrayed as a sexual inadequate. This perhaps explains his outbursts of alarming violence. These culminate in a really serious beating administered to the gentle Milky, who all through the story has maintained a non-confrontational presence in the background. The beating is ostensibly sparked by Combo’s awareness that his own favourite pop idiom is Caribbean in origin. He begins by soulfully congratulating Milky on his racial connectedness with this music, but realizes that, according to his own lights, a white man shouldn’t find himself stirred by that repertoire, and can’t rationalize the inconsistency. The young Shaun is present at this, and is horrified. Combo breaks down when he thinks he has killed Milky (did he really love him all along?), and the film finishes with a scene in which the tearful lad goes to the beach and throws his cherished flag into the sea. Is this meant as a symbol of his rejection of his new friends? Of the NF? Of his race and country? Of his father, now perhaps irredeemably associated with the psychopathic Combo ... Certainly, This is England is not intended as a high-grade historical reconstruction. It is, though, surely safe to infer an intention to discourage people from voting BNP (the film was released on 27th April 2007, only days before the English council elections). However, the NF/BNP presence is kept in soft focus throughout. The well-known old NF logo appears only in distorted and uncertain form, and when the gang goes out to make a bit of spray-painted propaganda there’s a bit of a problem as to how to spell NASHIUNAL. Obviously the gang hadn’t seen any leaflets or printed material – or was there lurking obscurely at the back of the director’s mind a fear of court action? Certainly, no reference is made to any member of the NF personnel prominent at the time. Neither is there any reference to the sort of groundwork that branches were undertaking, nor to any of the various factional splits and fractured loyalties that were all too apparent. Despite the close attention paid by the film-maker to cars and interiors (the poky lounges and bedrooms are convincingly reconstructed), and to clothing-styles and haircuts (the girls are scrupulously accurately made-up and one, I have to say is quite beautiful), the idiom of the piece is this year’s. There were a few progressives, as I well remember, talking about using the St. George’s flagin 1982, (I pride myself that I was one, though not then in the NF context ). But I don’t remember people casually saying “Cool!” I do want to acknowledge that This is England can tug at the heart strings. But it should be remembered that the cheap, nasty and meretricious share, with the honest and noble, the ability to arouse and manipulate the audience’s emotions and loyalties. Veritas Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:15 | # The screenwriter probably isnt clever or subtle enough to portray English xenophobia as anything but racism (as if he’d wish to do otherwise). In the often amusing American sitcom ‘That 70s Show’, the resident xenophobe, Red Forman, is seen as basing his aversion to foreigners, not on racism, but on his fervent American Nationalism, but of course, the timeline of the show allows that sentiment to be viewed as an historic curiosity. 3
Posted by Bodkin on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:51 | # A couple of Sundays ago, it was raining and I looked up what was on at the local cinemas. I saw this film listed and pondered about it for a bit, and then thought I cannot believe that a commercial film will be released with this subject matter that will not be full of tiresome and predictable moralizing crap. It looks like I was right. “Combo’s portrayal as a genuine nationalist skinhead is projected straight through the distorting lens of “Searchlight”. He is violent, racist, almost a psychopath” “the film finishes with a scene in which the tearful lad goes to the beach and throws his cherished flag into the sea.” Yawn… Exactly as I expected. On the other hand, I have never met anyone in the BNP, maybe they are like that! I did work with a bloke who was in the NF when I was 19. He didn’t have a swastika tatoo on his forehead and he wasn’t violent or psycopathic, in fact he had a great sense of humour and was very entertaining. He also seemed very knowledgeable and intelligent. I got on really well with him. Quite a bizarre experience really, I have never been able to make it fit with the reality as shown on TV and the movies. Weird. 4
Posted by Veritas on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:25 | # Joel, What did you make of the ending of “American History X”? 1)“Liberal” view: the general turn-around has been too, too late and the wicked, no matter how repentant, get the well-deserved fate that’s always been on its way to them, and the blacks are the ones to mete it out to them ... 2) “Conservative view”: the guy was right all along and that despite the disillusionment caused by the druggy and gay behaviour of his supposed comrades in jail, (remember, his spirit is broken by the public homosexual rape he undergoes) the friendly nature of his black-fellow worker in the prison laundry, and the idiotic drunkenness of the third-rate bunch at the coming-out-of-jail-party, he should have stuck to his guns, risen above that lot and maintained his aristocratic outlook. The shocking and squalid shooting of his kid brother would then symbolize the utter worthlessness of his efforts towards “outreach” and “reconciliation”. Why should it just be the white community that needs “re-education” and not the minorities too? I can hardly believe however that the pretty articulate and convincing way in which the white racialist cause was articulated could find favour with today’s film makers and distributors, so reluctantly I conclude that there’s a subliminal anti-white message in the film - but luckily I and the others were immune to it! Perhaps someone should ask Mel Gibson what he thinks of it? And to Bodkin - well I’m an ex-NF member, 1980’s vintage! Do you think I’ve got a swastika tattoo and a skinhead? I may be a bit rough-and-ready but I hope I’m not oafish. 5
Posted by Bodkin on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:52 | # “well I’m an ex-NF member, 1980’s vintage! Do you think I’ve got a swastika tattoo and a skinhead?” Yes of course! Look mate, I’ve watched TV, and I’ve read the Guardian, I know what you people are like! Anyway, thanks for saving me a few quid and a few hours of my life. I haven’t seen Romper Stomper or American History X or any film in that genre so maybe they are different. But the way you describe the ‘Combo’ character occurs to me as crap propaganda, so crap as to be worthy of the Eastern Bloc in the Cold War. Childish stuff aimed at 5 year olds. OTOH consider the film ‘Crash’. Not a great film, but nevertheless it does depict interethnic tension in reasonably realistic way. For example, Mat Dillon plays a racist white cop, who pulls up a black couple and gooses the black woman. Later in the film, he is given a bit of depth by explaining why he feels the way he does. Finally, he is the only cop on the scene at a road traffic accident. The black woman he goosed is trapped inside a burning car and he risks his life to rescue her. He is a racist white cop (oh my god!) but he is also shown as a decent man (he looks after his disabled father) and a courageous man (he risks his life to rescue a black woman). Now that, in my opinion, is a bit more true to life. How it got past the ZOG censors is beyond me! 6
Posted by Bodkin on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:18 | # I probably need to start sticking smileys in my text so people know when I’m taking the mick. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:19 | # “How it got past the Zog censors is beyond me” The biggest surprise for me is how ‘Falling Down’ got made. Both the director, Joel Schumacher, and the star, Michael Douglas, are Jews and the film is a WN classic. 8
Posted by fast eddy on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:20 | # But there is nothing ‘racist’ against blacks or Jews in ‘Falling Down’ iirc, only the soft target of poor hard-working Koreans. ‘American History X’ was directed by a British Jew, Tony Kaye, but the editing was taken out of his hands and he wanted to disown it. Here’s a review found on the internet, scathing but accurate:
9
Posted by Englander on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:41 | # Upon first seeing American History X, years ago when I was much younger and Hollywood movies were just entertainment and I didn’t even consider what the filmmakers might be trying to achieve politically with their film, I just left the movie thinking what a bunch of morons the White Power kids were. I watched it fairly recently and I’m convinced that it is more balanced towards our point of view, and my reading of the final scenes matches veritas’ “conservative view” above. Norton’s under-written and unlikely change of spots was little more than a softening and rejection of his Nazi past and the kind of tactics they used. Crucially, he was never given a chance to use his charisma to articulate anti-racism of any sort. Think how different that might have been. Norton’s racism in the film is the result of the senseless murder of his fireman father by blacks, and the film ends with his brother’s shooting by a black. The only murder committed by any of the White Power gang was when Norton killed the black who was stealing his car. Even the white’s winning the basketball court was set to a triumphant musical score. You were meant to root for them. So I think the writers knowingly portrayed blacks as just what the racists in the film considered them to be, and the white racists as (mostly) misguided youths who can be manipulated by unsavoury characters (Stacy Keach). I don’t think racialists should really find anything wrong with that movie. 10
Posted by Top on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:18 | # “I don’t think racialists should really find anything wrong with that movie. “ That’s because when a man is starving then crumbs seem like a feast. Speaking of movies - David Lynch released a new one, called Inland Empire. This movie is conceptually way ahead of anything that mainstream Hollywood releases. No wonder he has to go to other countries to get funding. Even though the movie is an ‘artsy’ movie, tune in to the (subconscious) feelings it produces. I have never seen Hollywood portrayed this way. Lynch captures the hate and corruption of the place like no one else. My favourite scene is where the main girl throws up all over the Hollywood Walk of Stars. Classic. Not to mention that this movie deals with white slavery. And the last scene is so pro-family that you question how it could have got funding in France (where the art scene is dominated by Euro-hating jews). After seeing a movie like this you realize how corrupted and manipulated our view points have become and how much better things could be if media was in our hands. Just don’t get upset if you don’t immedietely ‘get’ the whole thing. I also recommend Mulholland Drive, another Lynch movie, which blatantly points a finger at the manipulation and corruption of Hollywood. 11
Posted by anon on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:42 | # Everything Yggdrasil says about People I know is correct. It’s definitely the most candid portrayal of racial-politics I’ve seen. http://www.whitenationalism.com/cwar/piknow.htm Nice work Veritas. More please. 12
Posted by Englander on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:55 | # That’s because when a man is starving then crumbs seem like a feast. True, but IMO that movie was more than crumbs. If skinhead groups like the one depicted in the movie exist, then they are fair game; they are worthy of criticism. They could have been given far worse treatment by the screenplay. They killed no one. The writers could have made them much worse. 13
Posted by calvin on Sat, 09 Jun 2007 09:02 | # Shane Meadows is the classic working lad made good. I doubt that Meadows is even aware that he is prostituting his childhood in obeisance to his new patrons (the liberal intelligentsia). The working-class youth of slightly higher intelligence who finds himself in the world of middle-class academia is like the immigrant who adopts a ridiculously exaggerated national stereotype in order to proclaim his right to belong. Remember the Indian aspiring Brits parodied to great effect in the comedy show The Kummars? Meadows provides a class equivalent of this phenomenon, in both cases the parties involved receive unfamiliar information from their new environment and project that information back at amplified volume, often appearing ridiculous in the process. The paradox is that being working-class is basically economically determined, once you start going to university or college a process begins in which your economic prospects rapidly improve and one ceases to actually be working-class except in a cosmetic sense. Made In England is Billy Elliot for racists, the sympathies of ordinary people are captured by a faithful and, in a way, affectionate reproduction of their experiences in order to drive home a political message. In the case of Billy Elliot a homosexual agenda was promoted whilst traditional working-class labour unity was laid quietly to rest. In the case of This Is England a pro-multicultural agenda is being promoted whilst the traditional British working-class itself is being quietly laid to rest. Meadows is just another New World Order whore too dumb to be able to identify his pimp. 14
Posted by JB on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:25 | # it sounds as bad and childish as Romper Stomper, which I recommend all of you to avoid as it is a complete waste of time and actors. At least American History X despite having that silly plot twist has some good lines and entertaining scenes. Post a comment:
Next entry: Jim Murray Burst Out Laughing
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Joel Godfrey on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:29 | #
Isn’t this what the film industry has pretty much been about for the last thirty years or so, especially the last five to fifteen? Create an image of a youth that needs identity, link it to something that is patriotic and racially conscious, get the leaders of racial consciousness to become violent and pathological, and then get the main character of the film to resent his or her affiliation to his or her racial and patriotic identity to feel guilt for everyone else. This is why I don’t really see movies as much anymore, the song remains the same and I (someone racially aware and comfortable with my heritage and ethnic history) am seen as someone irrational by those that feel in sink with this political garbage.
American History X was okay and made a lot of my uncles look back at me for awhile and question me again and again about when I was younger, we are all racially aware Americans so that was fine. However, maybe this movie will hit some sensibilities with the throwing away of the flag part and people might slightly see through the message and see it for what it might really be. Just another anti-white homogenous outlook by people not in sink with the working majority of a great country. Hopefully people will remember those that stood up first in a different light as they take their subways and buses home and look at all of those that aren’t of their cultures makers.
http://www.rasmusshirepress.com