Heritage film is a critical term to refer to a cluster or cycle of late 20th-century British films that were argued to depict the United Kingdom of the pre-World War II decades in a nostalgic fashion.[1][2] Although this term was originally used to discuss the film genre polemically, its use has broadened out, and it is now also used more loosely to refer to period films with high-quality visual production values, including those produced in France, other European countries and beyond.[1]
Many – but not all – heritage films were adapted from classic literature of the 19th and early 20th centuries.[3] For its critics on the political Left, however, the heritage film was defined more centrally by:
At a time of British industrial decline, stagnant economic growth, political polarisation and social unrest, heritage films were appealing to many because they projected a nostalgic image of Britain as a prosperous, powerful and socially cohesive nation.[10][11] Many cinematic and televised films focused on the British Empire, particularly the British Raj in India.[12][13] However, while these films glorify and romanticize the past, they also provide a critique of the oppressive restrictions of British society and the superiority, arrogance, and controlled manner of the ruling classes.[12] Maurice (1987) and Another Country (1984) were concerned with sexual repression and the intolerance of English society in the early 20th century, while Heat and Dust (1983) and A Passage to India (1984) criticized the ignorance of British authorities in India and the inequities of colonialism. Other critics point out that the representations, themes and perspectives presented in heritage films are varied, not homogeneous, and many of them are romance narratives, suggesting that the pleasures they offer to audiences are more diverse and less necessarily conservative than those assumed by their original critics.[1]
The heritage film has been criticised from a socialist perspective for its romanticised portrayal of the past, its emphasis on the bourgeoisie or aristocracy rather than working class, and its fascination with luxurious settings, clothing, and lifestyles.[14] Its critics argued that the films reduced the past to a lavish consumer experience, presenting it as spectacle rather than offering audiences historical or critical understanding. This argument was strongly coloured by the wider, politicised and polarised, debates around British film, culture and society taking place in the Thatcher era, including similar critiques of the heritage industry itself, vehement opposition to Thatcherism among many British filmmakers and other prominent cultural figures, and counter-attacks on "anti-Thatcher" films (almost always, by contrast, set in present-day Britain) by Thatcher’s supporters in the British media.[15]
A further important strand in the critical debate around heritage films argues – from a feminist and pro-LGBT position – that, in contrast with their conservative reputation, many of the films are strongly progressive in their gender and sexual politics.[16][4][5] Many of the best-loved heritage films focus on strong and complex female characters (more than many other popular film genres), and some focus directly on the personal struggles, social position, rights of women and LGBT individuals in ways that remain relevant and deeply moving to their contemporary audiences.[17] In short, although the heritage film became popular by providing an escape from the present – particularly in the divided social and political climate of 1980s Britain – the full picture of the films' appeal, politics, and personal value for their audiences is more complex.[15]
Not all British films made since 1980 and set in the historic past are heritage films.[18] The heritage film can be distinguished from period films that take a more self-conscious, less naturalistic, even anachronistic approach to screening narratives set in the past (the "post-heritage film"); and from those set in more recent decades (usually 1940s onwards) that focus on characters from ordinary or working class social backgrounds, biographical subjects (biopics) and/or popular culture (the "retro film" or "alternative heritage film").