Choose a British feature film from the 1980s or 1990s and analyse it as an example of
“protest cinema.” The film could be about diverse socio-political themes, e.g., gender,
sexuality or race, or the socio-economic inequality in Britain at the time.
Merriam-Webster defines protest as ‘to make a statement or gesture in objection to’
(Merriam-Webster 2019) so following from that it would stand that “protest cinema” is a
film that makes a statement or gesture in objection to something. The film I will be
examining in relation to protest cinema is My Beautiful Laundrette (Frears/Kureishi 1885).
My Beautiful Laundrette centres on Omar (Gordon Warnecke), a second-generation
Pakistani immigrant, as he tries to fix up a laundrette given to him by his uncle, Nasser. He
rekindles his relationship with a school friend, turned racist punk gang leader, Johnny
(Daniel Day-Lewis) who helps him run the Laundrette. They build up the laundrette together
while facing various social forces that threaten their success. The film has been described by
the American publication The New Republic as an ‘essentially political film: about racism and
various kinds of exile.’(1986), I would argue that a film that is inherently political can’t be
not protesting in some manor having to present a message in support against or for politics
at the time, and I believe My Beautiful Laundrette to be a direct response against the
divisive politics of the time, social attitude and discrimination in Britain. The film can be
described as less plot driven politically but more interested in giving a presentation of the
world the characters inhabit. A study in contrasts, the rich and poor, immigrants and native
British, straight and gay and the role of women. Through the film’s presentation of frank
conflicted identities, a reality not often portrayed on screen, My Beautiful Laundrette offers
a radical self-examination of Britain in the ’80s, protesting the various inequalities through
its refusal to offer a one-dimensional view.
1
Life in 80’s Britain was a conflicted place for immigrants as there was economic growth and
a chance to make money, but also systemic hatred and discrimination against immigrants,
by both the government and people of the country. Between the years 1979 and 1990 the
conservative party was in power, with Margaret Thatcher as the prime minister. The
government promoted low inflation, small state, free markets through low taxation and the
privatisation of many government-owned businesses. Now whilst this may have had a
positive impact in the economy with inflation being down to 8.6% in 1982 (Table 11), in the
lives of individual people, unemployment reached 3 million in the same year (BBC), a record
high. The government’s anti-immigration stance was present throughout Thatcher’s years as
leader, with one of her famous comments being
We are a British nation with British characteristics. Every country can take some small
minorities and in many ways, they add to the richness and variety of this country. The
moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened. (Thatcher
1978)
The combination of high unemployment combined with the anti-immigrant sentiment
presented by the government lead to an association of immigration being the cause of
unemployment leading to the rise of groups like the National Front, with hard-line antiimmigrant policies. This hatred was reflected by a rise in violence against the Asian
community in Britain. A 1981 survey by the Home Office found that for 43% of Asian people
interviews interracial relationships were deteriorating. 64% of Asians credited the economic
recession as affecting the quality of life and 49% mentioned racial discrimination from
groups such as the national front. (Anwar 1998: 320). It is clear that Kureishi was aware of
2
this discrimination and inequality when writing and wanted to reflect and act against this
reality in his work having said ‘England seems to have become a squalid, ugly and
uncomfortable place. […] it is an intolerant, racist, homophobic, narrow-minded
authoritarian rat-hole run by vicious, suburban-minded, materialistic philistines.’ (Kureishi
1988).
The conflict between Britain being a place of success and opportunity for immigrant
whilst also being a place and hatred and unhappiness is presented through Nasser and Papa,
Omar’s uncle and father, who are both first-generation immigrants from Pakistan. They
have opposite stories, Nasser thriving in British society under Thatcher’s economic policy,
owning the garage and the laundrette, living in a nice house with a car and family, the
picture of success. He believes in hedonistic principles believing everyone should pursue
their own happiness, his identity being most strongly expressed in these two quotes ‘In this
damn country, which we hate and love...you can get anything you want. It's all spread out
and available. That's why I believe in England.’ ‘I’m a professional businessman, not a
professional Pakistani.’. He has a hybrid identity of being seen as a Pakistani man by the rest
of the world, being called ‘Thieving Uncle Tom parasite!’ by a black man he kicks out of his
flat but seeing himself as nothing more than a businessman. Papa is presented as the polar
opposite to Nasser, he is filled with regret at coming to England, likely due to the suicide of
his wife, now an alcoholic and cared for by Omar. Before he came to England, he was a
successful left-wing journalist against the Thatcherite policies across the world. Omar says
of it ‘Papa hated himself and he hated his job. He was afraid on the streets for me... so he
took it out on her, and she couldn't bear it.’. Papa himself says ‘This damn country has done
us in. That’s why I’m like this. We should be there. Home.’, ‘They hate us in England. All you
can do is to kiss their asses. Think of yourself as a little Britisher.’. They are in direct
3
opposition to each other with Nasser assimilating and valuing business and Papa valuing
education ‘We are under siege by the white man. For us education is power.’ and possessing
a universal anger at the inequality all Pakistani face. Neither character is without their flaws
and bad choices, both critiqued in their presentation. Omar grows to favours the businessminded nature of his uncle, choosing to open the laundrette instead of pursuing his
education while simultaneously not disregarding the racial discrimination in the country,
brought to the forefront through his relationship with Johnny. While Frears and Kureishi’s
protest isn’t presented explicitly by creating these characters that honestly reflect the wide
immigrant experience and non-one-dimensional characters expected of the time, this action
is a protest in and of itself.
Omar and Johnny’s relationship is a complicated one that is intertwined with class and
racial relations and while this a protest he romantic and sexual nature of their relationship is
much more radical invoking backlash from both sides. Presenting an interracial gay
relationship is a strong statement in itself in Thatcher-era Britain with the passing of Section
23 banning the teaching of the existence of homosexuality in schools, referring to
‘homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’. This was also in the midst of the AIDS
epidemic with many newspapers using it to further demonise gay people, so presenting a
gay relationship that was happy and not presented in a negative light was revolutionary. The
relationship between Johnny and Omar is a conflicted one as Johnny previously held the
power in school, being white but now Omar is of a higher social class and Johnny’s
employer, a fact that is ignored by neither of them. The dynamic of their relationship shifts
throughout the film with Omar remarking at one point ‘In school, you and your friends
kicked me around. And what are you doing now? Washing my floor. That's how I like it.’ and
another time Johnny says, ‘All the Pakis like me.’. The shifting power of their relationship
4
keeps them more balanced in relation to the other relationships within the film such as
Nasser and Rachel, who is dependent on him financially. The relationship between them
proves beneficial to both of them, with Johnny becoming a part of society again presented
on screen by the shift in his wardrobe to brighter colours, leaving behind the skinhead
uniform. Omar’s business was successful and flourishing. Their relationship and sexuality is a
point of unity for them as it ostracises them from both their respective groups. For a film full
of conflict, the relationship between Omar and Johnny is never a true source of social
conflict, unlike Nasser and Rachel, this straight-gay reversal, promoting a gay relationship as
a source of harmony is a radical statement against the demonization present in the 1980s.
At the end of the film all has been destroyed with the laundrette smashed up, Rachel
leaving Nasser and Tania disappearing the only thing left unbroken is Omar and Jonny in the
back room of the laundrette, a symbol of hope.
The last form of protest presented by the film is the role of women in society. The three
primary women in the film are Tania, the daughter of Nasser, Rachel whom Nasser is having
an affair with and Nasser’s wife Bilquis. The film has been criticised for its portrayal of
women, and while it addresses many of the issue faced by men looking at the problems they
face in society, the problems that dominate Tania’s life appear to stem from her home life
and not the world around her. It is the conflict between her identity as a British woman and
the more traditional aspects of a woman’s role in her home life. Tania’s mother Bilquis is an
often-silent figure, and though aware of Nasser’s betrayal only acts towards the end of the
film, cursing Rachel. This relationship appears to frustrate Tania declaring ‘I hate families.’
Tania’s primary conflict and confrontation with her own values come from talking to Rachel
when Tania tells her ‘But I don't like women who live off men.’, Rachel replies ‘we're of
different generations... different classes. Everything is waiting for you. The only thing that
5
has ever waited for me...is your father.’. Rachel and Tania are alike in their lack of monetary
autonomy, but this discourse doesn’t acknowledge the obstacles that are present for
women in society at this time, as Rachel’s statement appears to suggest the world is now
full of opportunity for women. Tania is still a radical character to be presented on screen
especially for an Asian woman in the 1980s, who is brazen in her sexuality and desire ‘What
good would come of us fucking?’. So, whilst gender is an issue that is addressed in the film, I
don’t think the film could be understood as protesting the role of women, as it appears to
take a very one-sided look at the issue’s women face in comparison to the rounded
presentation of sexuality, race and class of the men.
The film protests through its nuanced examination of identity and self-critique, presenting
the hybridity of life in ‘80s Britain. However, the film also uses the mise-en-scene with
characters being presented as physically separated such as Johnny and Omar when they first
meet again by the spiked fence, and Nasser being behind a grid when Rachel ends their
affair. The physical separation is used to convey the barriers that exist between each of the
characters which are in turn either broken down or raised back up. The separation between
Johnny and Omar is fully removed in one shot of Johnny looking into the backroom with
Omar looking out and their reflections become one, symbolic of their unity. (fig 1)
Throughout the film, characters view each other and themselves through mirrors and
reflections (fig 2), furthering the films encouragement for self-examination and presentation
as a critical mirror to society. Often, the hang in doorways showing the in-between nature
of their identity, not belonging one place or the other. This mise-en-scene is used to support
the message of the film of self-examination and hybrid identity.
In conclusion, My Beautiful Laundrette is a protest film, due to its nuanced examination of
Britain in the ’80s examining a number of ostracised groups, such as immigrants, the white
6
working class and the LGBT community and encouraging a society of acceptance and hybrid
identities, through the message present through the characters but also the mise-en-scene
of the film, aiming to tear down the divisive message presented by politicians of the time.
Word count: 2005
7
fig 1.
fig2.
8
Filmography
Frears, Stephen (dir.). 1985. My Beautiful Laundrette (Orion Classics)
9
Bibliography
Anwar, M. 1998. ‘Between cultures: continuity and change in the lives of young Asians’,
Family Practice, 16.3 320-321 (London: Routledge)
BBC ‘On This Day’, Unknown author, unknown date, website,
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/26/newsid_2506000/2506335.s
tm> [accessed 18/02/2019]
Burns, Gordon. 27 January 1978. ‘TV Interview for Granada World in Action’, transcript of an
interview, <https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/103485> [accessed 18/02/2019]
Protest. (n.d.) Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). (1999). Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster Incorporated. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protest>
[accessed 18/02/2019]
Section 28, author, unknown, 7 May 2000. ‘Gay and Lesbian Humanist’
<https://web.archive.org/web/20050308181830/http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html
> [accessed 18/02/2019]
Table 11 Sources: GDP at factor cost, average estimate, unemployment, and inflation are
from Economic Trends, no. 358 (August 1983), pp. 6, 36, 42. Forecast of GDP at factor cost,
compromise estimate, is from United Kingdom, Financial Statement and Budget Report,
1983-84 (HMSO, 1983), pp. 18-20; the forecast of unemployment is from Government's
Public Expenditure Plans 1983-84 to 1985-86, presented to Parliament by the chancellor of
the exchequer, Cmnd. 8789, vol. 2 (HMSO, 1983), p. 65. Number of unemployed in millions
is converted to rate using 1982 labor force data. The forecast of inflation is from the
government's Autumn Statement (H.M. Treasury, November 1983), p. 17, and Economic
Trends, no. 360 (October 1983), p. 42.
<https://willembuiter.com/Thatcher3.pdf>
The New Republic, 7 April 1986 (v. 194), 24–25
10