Within the media, period dramas have always been popular due their detailed view of the past and the ‘marketing and consumption of British heritage as tourist attractions’ (Sargeant 2000:301). While the microcosm of an almost realistic British heritage usually attracts an audience alone, the shows usually also take an extra step to ‘raise interesting questions about the current consumption of history through popular media’ (Byrne 2014:312). Implementing contemporary ideas and issues into the heritage media texts allowing for these shows to become ‘not dry, conservative mythmakers … [but] are flexible and innovative’ (de Groot 2009:184). These ideas often come in the shape of identities such as class, gender, sexuality and more. Therefore, within this essay I will look at how characters class has influenced the representation of identity within ITV series Downton Abbey (2010-) and the BBC series Peaky Blinders (2013-). To do this is will use the arguments suggested by Katherine Byrne in there ‘Adapting heritage: Class and conservatism in Downton Abbey’ journal, which state that class identity is fluid and not set from birth, being able to change throughout a person’s life time. While countering this argument with the theories implemented by Paul Long in his ‘Class, Place and History in the Imaginative Landscapes of Peaky Blinders’ chapter. Suggesting that class is set from the day you are born and as much as you can try to change it, others will view you as what you were originally. Both scholars however do suggest that it is important to understand the conflict between the social classes within the TV shows and how this effects the way the characters behave and how the class as a whole is represented.
When constructing class in Downton Abbey, Byrne identifies the ‘focus on the servant class as well as the aristocracy’ (Bryne 2014:315). She then goes on to use Paul Dave’s Visions of England book where the scholar states that the ‘unresolved conflict between a secure, traditional, elite Englishness and a more unstable sense of national identity … through the experiences of those whose lives lie on the social margins and who are traditionally mere “footnotes” in the national past’ (Dave 2006, 27). This is shown within Downton Abbey through the focus on both the aristocrats’ relationships as well as the relationships of the servants working within the house. By focusing on both classes, the producers are therefore able to develop a clear difference in identities between the two. However, this is different within Peaky Blinders, with the show only focusing on the working-class society of the time. The director, Stephen Knight, is able to explore a unique identity of the working-class due to setting the period piece only months after the end of the First World War. Paul Long explains this by stating that ‘Knight seeks to address … the immediate and enduring legacy of the war for working-class characters … working-class men were emotionally marked by war is a means of affording such characters a rare and complex interiority’ (Long 2017:174). Stephen Knight’s interest in these working-class stories is explained when he states in an interview that “[t]he English has great difficulty mythologizing working-class culture … they are very good at mythologizing upper middle-class culture” (HeyUGuys, 2013, 3:00). This lack of representation allows for Knight to explore unseen identities of working-class men in Birmingham around the 1920s. The use of the war as a centre piece around the identities of the characters within Peaky Blinders allows for a version of hierarchy to be created, not only within the Shelby family but also the whole working-class within Birmingham. This can be seen when Long states that the ‘Shelby’s stand out in this space: they dress elegantly and live well and indeed might be mistaken for working-class aristocrats or indeed the unseen businessmen of this vision of the city’ (ibid 173). Here the scholar’s use of ‘working-class aristocrats’ show the idea of a class system within a class, with Thomas Shelby (Cillian Murphy) at the top. Furthermore, this shows are clear difference in the structure of class within both Peaky Blinders and Downton Abbey although both are set within the same era. Downton Abbey presents the relationship between working class and higher class as at the most part civil, with only minor conflicts the majority of the time. While Peaky Blinders offers a look into the heart of the working class, focusing on conflict not only within the class but also pressures forced down on them from the higher classes.
When arguing about the solidarity of class within Peaky Blinders and Downton Abbey, the identities start to differ. This is shown within Downton Abbey with ‘the Victorian and Edwardian ideas of one’s class as intrinsic and God-given’ (Bryne 2014:318) being challenged. This could be argued to be a contemporary idea added to the storyline creating a sense of post-heritage within the microcosm society of Downton Abbey. When analysing Robert Crawley’s (Hugh Bonneville) words, Bryne suggests that ‘Robert’s words here are carefully chosen: he implies that class is performative, rather than innate, and aristocratic status is a learned behaviour. The social implications of this are very contemporary’ (ibid 318). The contexts of these words come when a distant relative to the earls, Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens) is brought into the family as the heir to their title. Matthew was a Middle-class solicitor in Manchester and ‘[h]e voices contemporary, anachronistic anxieties about the ‘ridiculous’ trappings of hereditary wealth, especially regarding servants, which he considers an unnecessary indulgence’ (ibid 318). This change in social class as well as identity within the early 1900’s can be seen in two ways, one being that class can change as a result of conflict, however resulting in a form of tension and degrading by the people originally within the class. And with the other being that class identity can only change when the class above accept you into their social identity resulting in limited conflict. In the case of Matthew, the second adaptation of class identity has taken place. This class fluidity within Downton Abbey is not always the same, with the lower-class servants working within the house being cemented in their social class, without any opportunities to change it. Byrne explores this further through the character arc of Thomas (Rob James-Collier), where the scholar states that he ‘is the voice of modernity and equality in the drama, objecting to the lack of freedom and privacy that accompany a life of service: ‘we can say what we like down here … there’s such a thing as free speech’ ‘ (Byrne 2014:320). It is clear here that Thomas’ character within Downton Abbey has had many contemporary views implemented within it to not only appeal to the twenty first century audience, but to also create conflicts within the servant class and between the higher and lower classes within the house. The idea of Thomas being the advocator of conflict is further supported through Byrne’s analysis, where she argues that ‘such subversive willingness to comment on the unfairness of the class system is undermined by the fact that if there are any villains in Downton it is these two, in the eyes of the other servants at least’ (ibid 320). By showing the voice which is standing up against the class system as a villain, helps to create the traditional identities of class at the time due to the lower class mostly having to live without a voice to stand up for them and any ‘struggle against the class system [was] often represented as disloyalty’ (ibid 320). The character of Thomas in Downton Abbey could therefore be seen to share many similarities with Thomas Shelby from Peaky Blinders due to the action taken against the class system as well as being seen as a villain for doing so, however Thomas Shelby is an extreme example of this. The researcher explains Thomas’ identity by stating that ‘Tommy’s ambition in business looks beyond the criminal world, to legality and, potentially, a form of respectability’ (Long 2017:175). The scholar here is suggesting that Tommy’s use of illegality within his business is not something he is happy about, but feels was needed to escape the bottom of the lower class within Birmingham. Also, the focus on become respected plays a major part in both Tommy’s and his family’s identity, leading to conflicts when higher classes degrade him due to his social status. Long then goes on to suggest that Tommy is looking to ‘step outside of his social and familial bonds – if they can indeed be escaped’ (ibid 175). The idea of social bonds maybe not being escapable is an issue faced by Tommy throughout the five series no matter how far he gets from the working class. This is shown in series 5 episode 1 where Thomas Shelby has become the MP of Birmingham and is having an altercation with Lord Suckerby (Tim Woodward), where Suckerby shouts “How the fuck did a man like you get into a position of trust in a place of power and privilege?!” (Peaky Blinders, 2013) this statement shows that the idea of class being assigned at birth is present within the representations of identity in Peaky Blinders and is further supported by Long as he goes on to say ‘the fate of men like him – whether on a battlefield or in a factory – is not his to decide … assures him that ‘The end of a rope has been this man’s destination since the night he was born’ ‘ (ibid 175). This is suggesting that the working class are destine for crime and the death penalty as a result, and that Thomas Shelby is no different to the rest of them.
Therefore, through my analysis of the arguments presented by both Katherine Byrne and Paul Long, conclusion are able to be made. Within Downton Abbey Byrne’s research shows that class within the show is fluid is some cases with characters from the middle class able to move up into the higher class, such as Matthew. But also suggests that lower class identity is more concrete, with any attempt at the lower class servants in the house speaking up about their oppression being seen as an act of disloyalty and converted into a villain. Long’s argument into the solidarity of class within Peaky Blinders has some similarities to Byrne’s argument, with Steven Knight’s construction of class being very difficult to alter and with any class improvements being met with large amounts of degrading and conflict. Knight shows this by pushing the character of Thomas Shelby as far as he can up the social ladder but never allowing for the character to be accepted anywhere other than the working class. It is however important to remember that this movement of class identities has had contemporary ideas and values added, to appeal to a modern audience. This can result in certain characters movement between the classes being halted or pushed due to producers trying to battle post-heritage issues within the microcosm of the past by using characters to represent them.
Bibliography-
Byrne, Katherine (2014) ‘Adapting Heritage: Class and Conservatism in Downton Abbey’, Rethinking History, 18:3, 311-327.
Dave, Paul (2006) ‘The Upper Classes: The Heritage Film’, Visions of England: Class and Culture in Contemporary Cinema, 27-45.
De Groot, Jerome (2009) ‘Historical Television’, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture, 184-207.
HeyUGuys (2013) Cillian Murphy & Steven Knight Peaky Blinders Exclusive Interview. 8 September. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0qH9pYrku4 (Accessed: 4 December 2019).
Long, Paul (2017) ‘Class, Place, and History in the Imaginative Landscapes of Peaky Blinders’, Social Class and Television Drama in Contemporary Britain, 165-180.
Peaky Blinders (2013) [TV series] Steven Knight, United Kingdom, BBC Studios, Series 5, episode 1.
Sargeant, Amy (2000) ‘Making and Selling Heritage Culture’, British Cinema, Past and Present, 301-315.
Comments