Valiant

‘Valiant’ (Chapman, 2005) is a CG animation that tells the simple story of a slight yet idealistic country pigeon who enlists into the forces to become a carrier pigeon during the Second World War. Teamed with a rag-tag bunch of misfits, they are whipped into shaped by the drill instructor and quickly sent on a dangerous mission into occupied France. What follows is an (un)inspiring story of triumph over the odds, self-belief and the wonderful commodification of an imagined national identity constructed to rejuvenate an ailing industry, kick-start a once great studio back into life and also compete alongside Hollywood to, in effect, ‘beat them at their own game’; quite a weight for a small pigeon to carry.

In an article in the Times on 6th January 2002, Hugh Pearman lamented, “we know, or we think we know, what Hollywood is like. We have an idea of India’s Bollywood, too, and both the French and Italian film industries have clear identities. But Britain? Not since the post-war heyday of the Ealing Studios, people will tell you, have we had an identifiable centre of the film business. Those days are gone.” (Pearman, 1, 2002) However, Ealing studios, once proud producers on ‘The Lavender Hill Mob’ (Crichton, 1951) and ‘Passport to Pimlico’ (Cornelius, 1949) is undergoing a resurrection designed to marry British industry with British cinema. It has been built, to not only house state of the art sound stages and studios, but also workshops designed to nurture British talent. In launching this studio, The Premiere Fund, a lottery granted fund launched at the same time as the Film Council to spend £30, 000, 000 over three years in ten British projects, has invested in a British animation project to rival the mega-studios in the U.S (namely Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks SKG). Speaking of this project, Robert Jones, head of the Premiere fund declared, "this project demonstrates that UK companies are now more confident than ever about competing with big projects in the international marketplace. Ealing Studios established itself historically, as one of the worlds most respected film centres. Now, with the creation of a major new animation facility, this brings not only medium, but ultimately long-term benefits to the UK film industry. The opportunity for us to support a high-profile family film can also only help broaden the range of projects coming out of this country." (Jones, www.ukfilmcouncil.co.uk). The flagship film was the perfectly judged and cynically constructed Valiant, a film that touches base with everything ‘British’ or at least what the people investing in it perceive to be ‘British’– courage, quaint eccentricities, dry comedy, underdog grit, sprit of the Dambusters and so on.

Despite the involvement of many US figures, ‘Valiant’ was marketed as “The first British CGI animation with ambitions to take on the American studios at their own game” (Ide, The Times, 24, 03, 2005). ‘Their own game’ of course refers to America’s dominance over the international animation scene. With studios like Pixar and Disney not only breaking box office records with every new release but also pushing the technological envelop, it seems like a futile exercise to put a small British animation in direct competition with Hollywood. However, it should be argued that ‘beating America at its own game’ should not be mission statement of contemporary British cinema. With the case of ‘Valiant’, it would be impossible to define the ‘nationality’ of film. Nations and states can rarely claim ownership of any particular film. With modes of productions becoming a global enterprise with casts, crew, and talent moving between borders, where does the nationality lie? This argument is evident simply by looking at the funding for ‘Valiant’. Though British people may handle the story and direction, the financial ownership of the product lies with many people. Therefore, despite the efforts to rival the US, British Cinema still needs to be funded by it to survive. It can also be argued that, while British cinema cannot compete commercially with the US on its own terms, it also cannot compete artistically. This is evident when looking at the core ethos of the film. If it is designed specifically for marketability, then business is its main objective and actually making an artistic impression is relegated to the background. By amalgamating all that is needed to compete – Hollywood style production values, ‘best of British voice cast’ and a nationalistic depiction of Britain, the production is drawing its focus to what it wants to achieve commercially without letting the artistry do the talking.

Throughout ‘Valiant’ we can see the impetus on marketing the film and selling the concept of British animation rather than telling a compelling story. Unfortunately, ‘Valiant’ relies on the heavy deployment of stereotypes in order to market itself. It is the ultimate heritage film. For example, in ‘Chariots of Fire’ (Hudson, 1981) we are presented with perfect vistas of Britain, framed, and lit beautifully to commodify the nation and sell it to an international market. We see the essences of a constructed ‘Britishness’ – afternoon tea, stately homes, rolling hills and cricket on a Sunday afternoon. All these elements, though constructed, are real in the sense that the hills are real, the stately homes exist and the sometimes, we do actually play cricket, however in films like ‘Chariots of Fire’, all these elements are combined and magnified to the point of the grotesque. What elevates ‘Valiant’ into another league of heritage films is the form of the film itself. Because ‘Valiant’ is a computer-generated film, every single frame, every colour, every single pixel has been specifically chosen to present the perfect image of Britain. One of the principal differences between live action and animation is that absolutely nothing happens by chance in the latter, not lucky accidents, no unplanned but beautiful lens flares, no improvisation from the characters. So, we see Valiant’s beautiful and idyllic family home – a Oxfordshire cottage complete with working water wheel, babbling brook all surrounded by the kind of verdant greenery the hue of which could only be created by a computer. After his goodbyes to his worried mother, Valiant flies off to London to enlist in the Air Force to become a carrier pigeon. As he soars and dives, elated at the prospect of ‘doing his bit’ he comes across his first glorious sight of London. The clouds (literally) part to reveal a stunning vista of London with Big Ben, naturally, in the forefront. As he soars up to a gratuitous close up of Lord Nelson atop Nelson’s Column, Valiant shouts “Come and get me Falcons!” This shot, coupled perfectly timed Route masters trundling along in the background and the crisp blue skies and gleaming post boxes have been woven together to produce an utterly fake, vulgar imagined Britain.

Everything about ‘Valiant’ is designed to gain interest in Britain and British filmmaking. It can be argued that the artistic value of the piece is relegated to the background and the financial aspects are highlighted greatly in all areas of the production. As we have discussed, the film is the flagship for the new Ealing Animation Studio’s and so, though speculatively speaking, the studios chose to make a comedy affectionately lampooning Britain and ‘Britishness’. Though it is not an outright spoof, (the film bears its love for Britain clearly on its sleeve) it does rely on the employment of stereotypes to create interest with foreign markets, which therefore leads to healthy revenue. The stereotypical nature of the heritage film is at odds with Europe’s attitude to its international image. Where Almodovar has spent his career, deconstructing stereotypes (see ‘What Have I Done To Deserve This?’ (1980), ‘Pepi Luci, Bom’ (1980) to name but two), British film culture seems perfectly content to peddle stereotypes across the Atlantic to please America and to generate revenue and interest in British cinema (see ‘Bridget Jones’ (Kidron, 2004), Notting Hill (Michell, 1999) ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ (Newell, 1994).

Of course, there has been a resurgence of less mainstream and more challenging films breaking through over the last 5 years – ‘London To Brighton’ (Williams 2006), ‘This Is England’ (Meadows 2006), ‘Dead Man’s Shoes’ (Meadows, 2004) and ‘Venus’ (Michell, 2006) to name a few. However, the very fact that these forward thinking, invigorating films struggle to get funding let alone widespread distribution speaks volumes for the climate the industry and its cinema is in. The mass saturation of marquee films such as the ‘Harry Potter’s’ and, of course, our imported US blockbusters amounts to a harsh truth that our national cinema, if we have one, is guest in its own house.

However, here in lies the problem. What should ‘Valiant’ and indeed British Cinema be like? I would argue that it should not try to be like Hollywood, at least not in the sense that it focuses specifically on making money above all. Nevertheless, simultaneously, it should not seek to be more like European cinema. As soon as you begin to define your identity by moulding it in the form of another, all sense of credibility and structure of said identify is lost. If British Cinema is to stand-alone, if it desires to break free of Hollywood’s shadow it must find its own voice on its own terms and compete artistically until it has the strength to compete commercially. Otherwise, the hollow words of Michael Eisner will pollute British cinema and it will become even more integrated with Hollywood.

“We have no obligation to make history, we have no obligation to make art, we have no obligation to make a statement, to make money is the only objective” Michael Eisner, Disney CEO, 2000 (www.kiskeya.net)

Watch

Country: UK/USA
Budget: £20,000,000
Length: 76mins

Filmography:
‘Venus’, 2006, Roger Michell, Free Range Films
‘Dead Mans Shoes’, 2004, Shane Meadows, Warp Films
‘This Is England’, 2006, Shane Meadows, Big Arty Productions
‘London To Brighton’, 2006, Paul Andrew Williams, Steel Mill Pictures
‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’, 1994, Mike Newell, PolyGram Filmed Entertainment
'Notting Hill', 1999, Roger Michell, Polygram Filmed Entertainment
'Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason’, 2004, Beeban Kidron, Working Title Films
'Pepi Luci, Bom’, 1980, Pedro Almodóvar, Fígaro Films
‘What Have I Done To Deserve This?’, 1984, Pedro Almodóvar, Kaktus Producciones Cinematográficas
'Chariots of Fire’, 1981, Hugh Hudson, Enigma Productions
‘Passport To Pimlico’, 1949, Henry Cornelius, Ealing Studios
'The Lavender Hill Mob’, 1951, Charles Crichton, Ealing Studios

Pub/2008

More like this:
'The History Boys', 2006, directed by Nicholas Hytner
'The Crying Game', 1992, directed by Neil Jordan
'Au Revoir Les Enfants', 1987, directed by Louis Malle