I don't know if any of the posters on this thread are English, but in my experience of class in Britain I find that you can tell what class to which a person belongs the very minute they open their mouths. There is simply no way Rachel could be working class and speak with such fine elocution. Johnny likewise is working class ... he drops his "aitches".
It seems trivial, but it's such a strong marker for class in England.
In any case Rachel represents a certain section of middle class England that is clinging, in quite desperation, to "respectability". Her future is closing down in Thatcher's Britain; her security is gone and ultimately I imagine she must suffer the "indignity" of getting a job. The film is about accepting change and getting on with it, among other themes, and Rachel must also.
Her line about not having the opportunities Tania has reflects her place as a middle class woman; in fact working class women may be considered to have had greater opportunity because at least they were part of the world of work. Rachel's only "opportunity" was to be a graceful wife. The fact she knows Johnny's mother only means she is involved in the local community, which would be expected of any respectable middle class woman.
Also, Tania's family are most definitely not working class, but are more or less upper middle class, albeit part of a Pakistani mercantile class, not an English one ... yet.
reply
share
smeth
17 years ago
Wow, this post is still going strong. Allords, I'm inclined to agree with you. In british movies, when lower class people pretend to be higher class and use a fake accent, there usually is some obvious giveaway, the accent dropping or something.
So the question is, how does Rachel know Johnny's mother? Is it possible that Johnny's mother grew up uppper class (asuming she's roughly the same age as Shirley Anne Field b. 1938, she grew up during WWII and the 50s) but fell on such hard times that she and Johnny ended up in the council estates in South London?
Not only is the question how does she know Johnny's mother, but why is this tiny scene included? Kureishi puts meaning into every sentence the characters speak. For some reason he felt it important to point out Rachel knows Johnny's mother.
reply
share
Krustallos
17 years ago
Sorry AllOrds, but I know Shirley Anne Field personally. She speaks just like Rachel and she is of working class origin and grew up in an orphanage in Bolton.
All it takes to change your accent is a few elocution lessons and a good ear.
I'm not entirely dismissing your idea about Rachel's history (it does have a certain elegance), but arguably if she was supposed to be pure middle class she would have been better provided for by her husband, either through alimony or insurance. Just from the 'feel' of the character I suspect her existence has been a little more precarious.
Furthermore, she lives in a council flat - when she is 'hexed' by the wife, she says that her furniture is moving about and the Council have been onto her about it.
So all in all, I think smeth's second idea, that Rachel is a failed social climber, is the more plausible explanation.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
reply
share
smeth
17 years ago
I just watched this again thinking about this topic. Krustallos, I think you've been right all along.
In an early scene Rachel and Nasser are making woo-hoo in the car park and Rachel says "Je t'aime" etc. I thought she's either educated or french.....or a high class hooker. The high class hooker seems to fit better. I used to think she was always well dressed, but she's over dressed. Wearing furs to a laundrette opening? She's putting on a show for Nasser. I don't know if she's really a prostitute, but she's definitely a kept woman. If Rachel really is the personification of the declining British empire, it makes complete sense for her to pretend to be someone she's not, looking up to some outdated dream of elegance.
I know I've been over anylizing this, but if anything, Kureishi mocks the romanic notion of Britain's former glory. He was writing about contemporary struggles (in the 80s) and surviving with the tools at hand.
reply
share