Hierarchies of Beauty: An Examination of Class-Based Aesthetic in Period Films
Autumn de Wilde’s Emma (2020) opens with the early morning awakening of Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy). The audience is greeted with classical opera music as Emma strolls her property’s greenhouse in a ruffled white morning dress and ringlet curls, accompanied by two servants. She gently examines each flower before having a bouquet of them cut for her. The classical serenade continues as she carries the flowers down the ornate pale blue hallway of her regency-style home to gift to her governess who is to be married — and thus the title card appears across the screen.
This scene differs greatly from one of the first scenes in Kelly Reichardt’s First Cow (2019), which takes place during the same time period, but in the Western United States instead of England. This film introduces its main character, Cookie Figowitz (John Magaro), as he is gathering mushrooms in the backwoods of Oregon. Cookie tracks through the forest, trudging through ferns and brush, and collecting all of the precious mushrooms he can into a dirty scrap of fabric. The camera captures this moment up close, including when he stops to right an overturned salamander. The shot then moves on to him bringing the findings back to a camp of other travelers in the woods, for which he is the cook.
Each of these films captures such a different setting and way of life that it can be easy to forget that they both take place during the 1810s-1820s. The kind of atmospheric detail offered in both is characteristic of the period film genre. This genre is known by a variety of names, including period pieces, period films, historical dramas, or the most simplistic historical films. This even includes westerns, which is a term typically used to refer to early American historical films. The time periods of these films can differ in multitudes of centuries, as well as their aesthetics and content.
There are similarities between these films and others of their type. The key defining characteristic here is that they capture a place and period. In order to do so, they incorporate costumes, landscape shots, and soundtracks that will transport the viewer in time. However, in the two examples above we can see specific differences in both content and atmosphere, bringing about different aesthetics and associations depending on the time period and setting. In addition, these aspects of the film can also tell us something about the time in which the film was made. For the purposes of this essay, I will be comparing the British and American setting in period films of the last decade within the context of both their aesthetic value and their class-based narratives. This will make use of three films set in the UK and three films set in the United States that take place during three similar time periods with each other.
In his essay on “Aesthetics” in Keywords for Media Studies, Lev Manovich introduces the term aesthetic by saying that, “[Aesthetic] comes from the ancient Greek aisthetikos, which meant ‘esthetic, sensitive, sentient, pertaining to sense perception’; that word was derived from aisthanesthai, meaning ‘I perceive, feel, sense’” (“Aesthetics” 9). This perception is influenced by “principles” like composition, color, symmetry, overall beauty, and other means of “organizing elements of any cultural artifact in place and time” (“Aesthetics” 10). In this way we might begin to notice how these films express aesthetics.
Going along with the aspects of form that Manovich presents, we can make basic observations about how British and American films make use of things like color, costumes, and music. We might notice that American films like The Power of the Dog, Little Women, and First Cow all have darker, less saturated color schemes. This comes in terms of the physical setting, which often makes use of natural tones like browns and greens, but also the costumes, which tend to involve muted tones and simple designs. This differs from British films like Emma and even Downton Abbey, which incorporate a more diverse and vibrant set of colors throughout the films’ color scheme. This sometimes even occurs to an extreme, like with Emma’s use of bright pastels.
Even the soundtrack, which contributes to the films overall aesthetic, differs between the films. Many of the previously introduced British films make use of traditional classical music and even opera, which would have matched what was prevalent in that society at the time. The American films do something somewhat different. While they do utilize folk music tied to that time period and location, especially in specific scenes, they mostly utilize (at least in the examples I’m looking at) more mainstream ‘movie soundtrack music’. This is instrumental but is more evocative than classical music or music tied to any one time period. Being that one of the main roles of period pieces is to immerse the viewer into the place and time, these soundtracks become another important piece of a film’s overall aesthetic. The classical music in British films allow them to feel more traditional and ornate, while having less of that period-specific music in American films makes for a progressive or less specific atmosphere.
These formal elements set the films apart based on their setting but there are some universal aesthetic details that span across the genre, particularly in terms of composition. As we could see from the opening scenes of First Cow and Emma, many of these films begin with a character interacting with their environment, which is usually used to establish setting. For these same purposes, the films cinematically tend to include broad shots of the landscapes (man-made and natural) that the characters inhabit. In fact, one of the commonalities between both British and American period films can be found within the trope of having characters in the midst of passionate conversation or realizations, set against a wide scenic backdrop. There are variations of this, with the most iconic being a confession of love from one character to another, but really includes any kind of intimate moment with another character or themselves. Whatever the shape or form, this appears in nearly all of the films I mention in this essay.
The occurrences of this trope are always rich with cinematic detail, as we can see above. If one of the main goals of the period film is to showcase a particular setting, this certainly does the trick. But this also goes hand in hand with the narrative composition of the films — how their respective plots unfold. Manovich even includes “narrative organization” when listing principles that are used to achieve beauty (“Aesthetics” 9). We can see a classic example of this in Emma when, after the films conflict comes to a head, Emma meets friend-turned-love-interest Mr.Knightley (Johnny Flynn) in a field where a passionate conversation about intent and purpose ensues.
Yes, this scene is aesthetically pleasing. Each shot is well composed to showcase these two characters, both of which are dressed in complimentary pale colors against a richly colored field and a tree with flowers of a similar hue. It is visually beautiful in a way that compliments the energy and passion of the scene. However, this too correlates with how the scene is composed within the larger narrative. Very similar scenes to this can be found in Little Women (2019) and Far from the Madding Crowd (2015), and all of which occur on or around the narrative’s climax. In this way, we see a meshing of the scene’s beautifully situated aesthetics with the scene’s purpose in the plot.
With all of these interlocking principles of aesthetic that Manovich mentions, we can see how these two settings of film present differently. It’s not just their setting, but also their composition, costume, sense of color, atmosphere-appropriate music, and so on. In looking at each location as a whole we can see how the American-set films tend to portray a bigger sense of rustic life, labor, and natural elements. The British Films, on the contrary, appear from these considerations to value an aesthetic that is more ornate, formal, and passionate.
Something else that Manovich mentions in his book about new media that can further help us think about aesthetic in this context is that,
“New media objects are cultural objects; thus, any new media object — whether a web site, computer game, or digital image — can be said to represent, as well as help construct, some outside referent…As is the case with all cultural representations, new media representations are also inevitably biased. They represent/construct some features of physical reality at the expense of others, one worldview among many, one possible system of categories among numerous others.” (Manovich 16)
With this in mind it can be interesting to consider the role that these aesthetics serve in our purpose as a viewer. After all, they may not always be accurate — a fact that is important to consider. However, it is important to see them as what they are; what Manovich refers to as “cultural representations”. This applies to period films especially since their very purpose is to transport a viewer into a certain society during a certain time — a task for which each of these aesthetic principles is immensely important. A related practice is described by Amanda Klein in her article comparing the differing aesthetics of popular docusoaps Jersey Shore (2009-) and The Hills (2006–2010). In this she comments that, “the aesthetics of each show condition the viewer’s reception, inviting them to see each program’s performance of class and ethnicity as being tied to specific notions of taste and cultural capital” (Klein). This is the same idea we can see with the way that period films are constructed to aestheticize the time periods they represent. In this case, the goal for most period films regardless of location appears to be aesthetic achievement, allowing the viewer to become attracted to the beauty that is presented regardless of the true nature of those societies. We can see this further in the way that these films have inspired the creation of different “aesthetic” media based on the eras of these films like regency or western.
We can interpret these films differently when looking at another common idea explored within period films: class. In her work on the subject, Laura Grindstaff makes the comment that close readings on texts for class, “identify class-coded meanings expressed through character, action, and narrative development,” emphasizing that, “class is cultural and performative, expressed by and through the body, as well as an outcome of particular labor practices and consumption patterns” (“Class” 39). This idea of class and how it’s expressed is a central idea within period films, as they not only represent a setting but also the society and class values present in that setting. This is once again something that is highlighted by the contrast between British and American period films.
Many British period films have a strong focus on marriage and status, representing traditional British hierarchy. Furthermore, most convey the idea that status is determined by where you’re born in the social hierarchy and that the way to change this is through marriage or inheritance. We can see this particularly through Emma, which comments on this idea directly. In the film, main character Emma takes it upon herself to improve the status of a girl named Harriet (Mia Goth), who is an orphan and therefore has an unknown birthright. As anyone who is familiar with the classic story would know, Emma does this by attempting to ‘match’ Harriet with someone of superior status, emphasizing to her the importance of status by marriage.
As we can see in this scene, Emma makes several comments on the matter, not hesitant to be direct with Harriet: “The misfortune of your birth Harriet ought to make you particularly careful as to your associates”. We might also observe the way in which Harriet reacts to the lavish surroundings the first time she visits Emma, a further comment on class structure. Similar ideas to this can also be found in Downton Abbey, of which one of the central plots largely revolves around inheritance, as well as Far From the Madding Crowd, in which the main character gains her status through inheritance and is given opportunities to enhance this by way of her marriage choices.
In contrast, the American made films present a different idea of class and hierarchy. The first notable observation here is the simple fact that all three of the American films we’re examining explore characters of working class status, something that cannot be said for many British period films — which tend instead to explore the stories of the affluent. If the upper class is represented at all, it is seen as otherworldly. Such as when Meg feels out of place at a party full of rich girls in Little Women and struggles to fit in.
We see this in First Cow with the very idea of the plot revolving around the main characters undergoing a shady business endeavor that involved stealing milk from the rich in order to make their fortune. In Little Women, the characters are perhaps more well off but the idea of struggling to work hard for money vs. marrying the right man is a key theme. Even in The Power of the Dog, set in the 1920s, we see the two main characters having built a successful ranch business that relies heavily on hard physical labor.
In her article on the intersections between class and aesthetics with regard to talk shows, Laura Grindstaff often talks about these representations of class in the context of media. With particular regard to talk shows she comments that, “…I argued that talk shows were like modern day minstrelsy with guests performing in ‘poor face’” (Grindstaff 41). We can see now that a similar idea applies to period films. Due to their nature, they too act as performances of specific class structures in society; emphasizing both the rich and lavish British upper class that viewers so love to dream about as well as promoting the idea of the American dream/labor in exchange for wealth that is tied to traditional American values.
After looking at these films from two different angles, we can see some of the inevitable crossover. Shifting back to the topic of aesthetics, Manovich’s key argument in his essay on the topic is the fact that aesthetic tends to go unacknowledged in media studies. He says, “Scholars in recent decades in English-speaking countries have focused on the content of media and their social and political effects, and often ignored the forms of media artifacts” (“Aesthetics” 9). However, he also comments that, “Form and the relations between form and content are what make art… a unique type of human communication and experience” (“Aesthetics” 10). While he does argue that aesthetics are often ignored, it’s important to note this connection between form and content, which may be an important factor of the interpretation of these texts. As we have explored, aesthetics can be a valuable interpretation of media, but this interpretation by itself has its limits. After all, aesthetics alone are often considered to be about beauty, but were the intentional choices we’ve seen about scene, color, costume etc. made only for the sake of beauty? Or were they also influenced by the nature of their representation? It may be safe to argue here that to focus on aesthetics alone would deny the visibility of the cultural context that makes them so. Perhaps one of the unique things about aesthetics is the way that it is tied to context. We gain an interesting interpretation by examining aesthetics, but an even deeper one when looking at these details in the context of class. With this we can better understand the specific choices behind the films and what they represent.
For example, let’s take another look at the trope we discussed earlier. We’ve explored how this operates aesthetically, showcasing the setting and providing a backdrop for the passionate climax of many films. With the addition of class, however, we might look at this practice as having a larger purpose within the societies portrayed. The fact that these characters seem obsessive about taking private walks in scenic remote locations becomes not just about passionate aesthetic climax but also about having a private space, away from the peering eyes of society, in which characters can discuss personal matters of feeling. Here is a space where they can talk about the societal constraints of marriage vs. personal feeling, or just generally discuss personal or taboo issues amongst themselves.
We looked at the nature of this scene between Emma and Mr. Knightley in Emma and noted its similarity to professions of love at the end of films like Little Women and Far from the Madding Crowd. However, in order to explore its crossover with class we might consider some variation in these examples. Both Emma and Far from the Madding Crowd are British films. This trope presents similarly in both of them. The noticeable difference comes with Little Women, which is set in America (during the same time period as Far from the Madding Crowd, for that matter). Unlike the main characters in its British counterparts, Jo does not say yes to Laurie’s proposal of marriage. There is no culminating romantic kiss or walking off into the sunset. Jo passionately explains that she does not feel the same way and, in fact, is not sure she has any intention of marrying at all. One of the reasons for which being that she feels she would not fit into the elegant society that Laurie is a part of.
This sense of freedom is a common thread among the American period dramas, in which the structure of the narrative is much less rigid, and characters are encouraged to undergo various endeavors to make their way in the world independently rather than adhering to a formal progression of societal rules and marriage.
In light of this, the other elements we’ve been exploring also have ties to the idea of class. Where costume is concerned, it’s no surprise that American historical films portraying the middle and lower classes would have clothes of plainer design and colors that would have been cheaper at the time. We can even see this addressed explicitly in Little Women, in which the four sisters actively talk about not having enough money for lavish clothes, and one of the key events in which Meg (Emma Watson) overspends on bright floral fabric for a dress that she cannot afford. Likewise, in American films like The Power of the Dog and First Cow, which take place in the west, the clothing worn is simply a matter of practicality for the working class that it represents. There are a variety of ways in which fashion indicates wealth and status as well as beauty, and period films are a breeding ground for this kind of analysis.
This exploration serves an important function specifically within these period films made in the last ten years because it allows us to not only make assumptions about the time periods in which they’re set but also the time period in which they’re made. As pointed out by Grindstaff, “by making the social context a key ‘player’ in the analysis, historical studies show that media portrayals of class are not merely representations of class but interventions in class-based political struggle on a broad scale.” (Grindstaff 39). When we’re able to make connections between these films and to the time periods of their creation we can start to make observations of the values present in today’s society and how that translates into the “cultural representation” that Manovich describes within period films. Many of these stories are ones that have been told in some shape or form before but change to fit with the times. This can be seen in Little Women, through the simple fact that this newest version of the film showcases the unfortunate need to aestheticize one’s stories in order to make them desirable enough to make a living in society — something that is scarily applicable to the topic of this essay.
With these ideas we may further wonder what purpose these period films have in being made now with the representations that they showcase. Perhaps the aesthetic beauty in British films allows for an escape from a world much more complicated than professions of love in scenic fields, or that of American films fulfills a desire to look back on a time when the American dream was still achievable. Looking at these modern attitudes toward the past may just provide a time stamp of how we feel in the present, and the kinds of stories we believe are worth telling moving forward.
Works Cited
Grindstaff, Laura. “Trash, Class, and Cultural Hierarchy.” The Money Shot: Trash, Class, and the Making on TV Talk Shows, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002, pp. 409–426.
Klein, Amanda Ann. “The Hills, Jersey Shore, and the Aesthetics of Class.” Flowjournal.com, 22 Apr. 2011, https://www.flowjournal.org/2011/04/the-hills-jersey-shore-and-the-aesthetics-of-class/.
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. MIT Press, 2001.
Ouellette, Laurie, et al. “Aesthetics.” Keywords for Media Studies, New York University Press, New York, 2017, pp. 9–11.
Ouellette, Laurie, et al. “Class.” Keywords for Media Studies, New York University Press, New York, 2017, pp. 39–42.
