Kes With Tights.

Rating: 7/10 (10 August 2008)

Set against the disastrous miner's strike of the 1980's (unless you were a policeman on over-time pay), we find young Billy Elliot. He is too much of a kid to grasp the enormity of social and political issues. He is an observer. Things happen around him and implode upon his family life.
But he definitely has no desire to go down t'pit. His sights are set elsewhere - as a dancer.
In the steadfast working-class world of coal-mines, pubs and self-respect, nothing could be more out of place or less macho than dancing. Something for posh girls, perhaps, but certainly not working-class boys. Ballet? It's the stuff of pansies.
The conflict between the two extremes is almost a cliché in itself. But we can let that pass because it is sublimely acted, and the contrast between Billy's aspirations and the turmoil of the times is realised with heart-rending authenticity.
What is disappointing is that the movie appears to confirm the prevailing prejudice by actually casting Billy as a homosexual. It's as if all of those gruff, bluff voices at the working-men's clubs have collectively announced 'Thar - I tou'd thee so!' Perhaps many dancers are homosexual. But it doesn't follow that all homosexuals want to be dancers. It may also be that most ballet dancers in particular have what might be called 'an ambiguous sexual identity', but this movie tends to underscore the prejudice as a presumption. In doing so it over-simplifies Billy Elliot's dilemma by associating his desire to dance with emergent homosexuality. Life is not always that straightforward. And I personally think greater depth would have been lent to his character if he had been portrayed as a heterosexual youth coming to terms with an urge to dance whilst at the same time having to confront all of the contrarian elements of his inherent masculinity and expectations of manliness. Scripting him as 'gay' might have been politically-correct, but it glosses-over what could have been much more complex drama by suggesting it as an explanation in itself.
In 1970, we saw another young Billy in the movie 'Kes'. It was filmed and acted in a much more understated way which - although offering a less dramatic take on life, and therefore often dismissed as 'boring' by those not born of Yorkshire stock - nevertheless offers a more authentic view of life as it was 'oop north' in the days of the pit.
'Kes' is also more realistic because his family are neither enlightened nor supportive. Although he craves escape as much as his later namesake, we all know that there is no hope for him. The mine will surely swallow him up (though 13 years later he'll be out on strike).
Billy Elliot, then, is very much 'Kes' revisited. Where Billy was left in 1970, alone, neglected, hopeless and cradling a dead kestrel; this time our hero is spared his dismal fate and given opportunity and hope. It's a feel-good movie with a happy ending. But it seems bogus for all of that. How many miner's sons become ballet dancers?
I'll stick with 'Kes'. It's grim, but at least it's 'true'.