Capturing Historical Accuracy in Belle (2013)

This is a slight diversion from my usual review of adaptations, because I'm looking at historical accuracy in a period drama, however historical accuracy is something I am very interested in particularly with relation to adaptations when they appear! And I was also very eager to watch and review Belle!

I only managed to watch Belle this week despite trying to get tickets on several occasions last year. For some reason my local cinema only had showings around noon on a weekday, which is impossible when you're working and I certainly couldn't justify taking a day off to go to the cinema! The reason I was so keen to watch Belle was that I had been deeply moved when learning her story at school. I was also interested in how they intended to approach and present her as an aristocratic mixed race woman in a twenty first century film whilst also obtaining historical accuracy. Would they sex up the story Andrew Davies’ style aka Colin Firth diving into a pool in his shirt and breeches as Darcy? Or would it be a fairly dry, historical narrative? In actuality it's somewhat a mix of both approaches with the two options Belle has before her as potential husbands and romantic leads. However, it is an excellent film and was really underrated. And I really don't know why it didn't receive much publicity last year. The film opens with the statement ‘Based on a True Story’ so I was hoping for historical accuracy given that the director made such a pointed attempt to tell the viewers of the story’s veracity.

I was particularly keen to find out how the director Amma Asante had captured Eighteenth century attitudes to mixed race women, particularly a wealthy, independent, orphan woman. Amma Asante was born to Ghanaian immigrant parents in London giving her a unique and sensitive insight into the role.  The film opens with the child Belle collected by her wealthy, white, sea Admiral father from squalor and poverty in the care of a black female (possibly a slave, this is not clarified). He then takes her to his uncle’s home to be brought up with her white, illegitimate cousin as he is going on another sea mission. Before he leaves, he tells her how much he loves her and to always remember that. His love and affection for her is not supported by his aunt and uncle, who are initially shocked by the girl. However, her father, Captain Sir John Lindsay, begs his aunt and uncle to provide her with the privileges that she is due as his daughter. We know that William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield did take in his great niece and raised her as his own and the painting of the 1st Earl Mansfield’s great nieces still exists today reflecting the great affection he grew to have for both the girls. 

Painting of Belle with her cousin Elizabeth Murray, formerly attributed to Johann Zoffany, c.1779

One move away from the film’s real life counter-parts’ lives was to make Belle’s cousin Elizabeth illegitimate and to imply that because Belle’s father had recognised her as his child in his will, this took away the stigma of her illegitimate birth. This was not the case. Belle’s illegitimacy would have been as much of an issue as her race in eighteenth century, if not more so, despite her father’s recognition and inheritance. In the film, Belle even has an argument with her cousin Elizabeth about Elizabeth’s lack of success in obtaining a marriage proposal from the affluent and highly eligible James Ashford, during which Belle says that Elizabeth’s proposal was not forthcoming because she is inferior to her, because Elizabeth is illegitimate whereas Belle’s father recognised her as his child in his will. The main issue that the film raises respecting race relations in the eighteenth-century is the Earl of Mansfield’s difficult verdict on the Zong massacre in 1781. Discussions of the case punctuate the film and provoke the people surrounding the Earl of Mansfield, and later Belle herself, to question him on his understanding of the difference that race makes to humanity. The case is most succinctly summarised as whether it is right that human lives can ever be worth claimed as lost cargo. Sadly the court case revealed that the slaves were worth more to the slave traders claimed on their insurance as lost cargo than when sold as diseased slaves. The ultimate verdict, that the Earl of Mansfield as Chief Justice makes, is kept until the very conclusion of the film. His verdict was a critical decision that contributed significantly to the abolition of slavery in Britain. Whilst references to this highly important case punctuate the film, the attitudes which black women (and women) received in the eighteenth century are also identified. A particularly poignant scene captures the attitudes to both black women and women during the period. Belle is discussing the case with the young, as yet unqualified lawyer, John Davinier. She states that she has realised how lucky she is to have escaped slavery twice, as a daughter of a slave and then as an independent woman of fortune. Sadly what the film does not go on to say is that as soon as Belle marries, she would in effect become slave to her husband as the marriage laws of the country did not recognise married women as independent of their husbands. Married women had NO legal identity. A married woman could run up debts in her husband’s name, could not vote (obviously!), could not inherit (all and any inheritance would go to her husband), could not pass on an inheritance, her husband could dispose of her property at will and any money earned by a married woman was also legally the husband’s. Ironically, if Belle decided to marry, she would at that point become more of a slave than she had ever been before despite her origins. It’s a pity that the film does not go into this in further detail, although there is only so much discussion of historical laws that you can present in a 104 minutes! This is definitely a film to watch with your historical hats on! And if you don’t have a historical hat then it’s an excellent and beautifully filmed drama anyway.