Billy Elliot: Unpacking Individualism and Class Stereotypes

By Safia Minion

Billy Elliot (2000) presents a story that breaks down notions of toxic masculinity in traditional working-class cultures. It’s set against the backdrop of the controversial 1984-1985 Miners’ Union strike. It seeks to challenge harmful gender stereotypes, but when portraying the working class and the strike movement, it resorts back to familiar clichés. Other than a few seconds overheard on a radio, the film makes no effort to explain the causes of the strike. We don’t even see the strikers holding signs at the picket line, we only hear them shouting ‘Scab! Scab! Scab!’ repeatedly at those who have betrayed the strikers and gone to work. The only explanation provided to the viewers of the political background is a few lines of one-sided commentary from the ballet teacher’s conservative husband. 

The “happy ending” of the film shows the dad putting the strike behind him, going back to work, and putting his son’s dream first. Prior to this, the dad and the older brother’s decision to strike is almost seen as a selfish choice, putting their needs above the needs of little Billy.  On one hand, the film attempts to criticise the collectivist aims of Billy’s striking family, as they threaten his individualist dream to further his own creativity and self-fulfilment to no benefit of his community. Simultaneously, it criticises his family and his community’s lack of solidarity with his break away from gender norms. This disparity highlights how the film is lacking in substance. 

The story of Billy Elliot arguably fosters the standard American values of freedom of self-expression, individualism, and personal progression, but to promote these values it harshly denounces the traditional working-class culture that clashes with it. Just two years after Billy Elliot was released, Bend It Like Beckham (2002) came out. In both films, the protagonists’ happy endings occur when they can pursue their personal dreams, stepping outside of the traditional, gender normative, collectivist values their families or communities initially imposed on them. While both films offer an important criticism of conventional gender norms in how restrictive they can be, does this have to come with a two-dimensional portrayal of the intricacies of the traditional community that the main character is leaving behind? 

This is representative of a wider trend in the late 1990s and early 2000s, where there was a spike in cultural and media exchange between Britain and America, largely driven by globalisation and the dominance of Hollywood. Films like Billy Elliot and Bend It Like Beckham reflect this, embracing themes of individualism that resonated with both British and American audiences. Since the rise of neo-liberalism in Britain with Thatcher in the 80s and under Tony Blair’s New Labour, Britain adopted liberal ideals like personal freedom, diversity, and breaking traditional gender roles, which are central to both films. Set against the decline of long-established industries and the weakening of collective identities tied to Labour movements, these films tell stories of personal success that were increasingly relevant. 

This article raises important questions about how films like Billy Elliot and Bend It Like Beckham frame individualism and success, often at the expense of nuanced portrayals of traditional communities. As we reflect on the influence of neoliberalism and globalisation on media, it’s worth considering whether future films will revisit these themes with more complexity, especially as nostalgia for the 2000s resurges. Could we see a more balanced exploration of individual dreams and collective values in contemporary storytelling?