East is East film - scenes of DV

[BootyMum]

East is East was on tv the other night. It is an amusing film and I was enjoying it until it suddenly crossed into quite dark and disturbing territory with what seemed to me to be an abrupt change of gears. This was the scene of the previously loving husband beating the crap out of his wife and one of his adult sons.

Previous to this event the Pakistani husband and English wife had seemed to have a loving and equal relationship. The husband pontificates about being the head of the household, his wife is not in the least cowed and gives back as good as she gets. He seems to enjoy the verbal sparring and the couple seem to have a vibrant and mutually respectful relationship. They are also shown as having an intimate and sexual relationship.

However, the husband is both disappointed and enraged when his sons refuse to marry the Pakistani origin brides that have been chosen for them. His wife stands up for her sons and the husband punches her repeatedly in a frankly deranged attack. She is left bruised and battered.

This is a shocking scene. However what makes it worse is that the wife, although angry is cowed and becomes submissive to her husband's will. She in turn becomes infuriated by her sons resistance to their father's dictats and tells them they must respect their father and her husband whilst they live under his roof. In one of the final scenes she offers her husband a cup of tea and it seemed to me to be her offering an olive branch to the husband who had been disappointed in her.

Now I know this movie was set in the 1970s and attitudes to DV may have been very different then. But still I was very shocked and saddened how a feisty and confident woman was so "punished" by her husband and this was excused in the context of his disappointment and distress at the situation his family was in.

I felt this film normalised DV within a apparently loving relationship. Prior to this the film had been a light hearted look at a cross culture clash but suddenly became something quite unpleasant and horrifying [the DV] but only the husband's and sons perspectives were explored in the context of the plot.

It left a nasty taste in my mouth. Apologies if this is a bit of a ramble but I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same as me or had any thoughts on this? I have seen that the husband and wife characters are still together in the forthcoming sequel and I guess that I just feel disappointed that the DV was brushed over in the original and that there appears to be no ramifications [wife leaving] in the sequel. I feel this sends out a disturbing message about what is acceptable and normal in an otherwise supportive and happy relationship.

I never understand how people classify EIE as comedy. The film has a very dark storyline which also continues in part 2.

I never watch it and feel entertained. It's a sad film. DV was not something people spoke about then.

the film does highlight other issues, the mothers friend crying because her daughter has gone to pakistan and been forced to marry, she knows what sort of life she will live, the oldest son being disowned by the father because he will not marry and he can not be even spoken about because he is gay, and the other children being totally oblivious because they are not aware of homosexuality

the film is very touching too it is not just an amusing film because of the issues it covers

If it hadn't have been marketed as a black comedy then it would have reached such a wide audience.
It has the right mix of showing the issues that it does but with comic moments.
It would be nice if everyone was interested enough in the subject matters that the film shows to watch documentaries and be interested in factual information, but they aren't.

TBH i use shows like Holly Oaks to talk to my DD's friends, we do need different forms of media, as long as DV or rape isn't sensationalised, flims and television can be used as a learning tool.

iIthink again for me it was how DV was portrayed in the context of this film.

Everything appeared okay between the husband and wife in the final scenes, with her offering him a cup of tea things were back to "normal".

I guess I just felt this was false, that the equal, jousting, intimate relationship I had seen before could not have really continued, there must have been some uneasiness or discomfort at least on her part?

And this was not addressed in the film. I did not have the sense like Fartmeister that the DV had happened before, I guess because if he had attacked her the way he did I felt she would have been more wary of him. She may still have confronted him but she would have been ready to run IYSWIM. I was shocked that he attacked her the way he did as to me there hadn't been any clues in his prior behaviour that indicated he would act like this, he had seemed to me to be more relaxed and even proud of his outspoken wife, finding her putting him in his place amusing. He would joke about bringing his first wife over, she would tell him to go to hell and he would laugh.

I don't know, maybe I am just overthinking this or perhaps I did just miss a whole cultural and narrative subtext!

It's been years since I saw the film, but in my mind I didn't think everything between husband and wife was 'normal' at the end. Wasn't there an air of tension and bleak acceptance that came through on the wife's face and demeanour? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but their relationship wasn't portrayed as relaxed and flirty or warm and cuddly.

Agree with other posters that this is a bleak and thought-provoking film dressed up as a comedy to reach a wider audience (v funny as well of course). The relationship between Mr and Mrs was interesting - she was a typical Northern w/c character in many ways and he the hen-pecked husband - but desperately trying to hold on to vestiges of his own culture in a situ where no one else wanted to. The DV was shocking and came out of nowhere, but was of its time AND more painful to witness because it did not fit in with the characters seen so far.
iirc, Mr was also bigamous - had another wife in Pakistan? Again, uncomfortable/shocking for us now, but not altogether in the context of the film.

that is why to some it is so well acted because it does just become part of life dv becomes acceptable the norm they kiss and make up he is sorry or acts sorry and things go back to the way they were before. this is the way it was for many many women then and sadly still. many women do no even realise they are in an abusive relationship they will believe it is just a one off or only happens every now and then and real abuse happens all the time, the women live in constant fear and the beatings are daily and they do not even recognise emotional abuse and the effect it has

dv situations are not all about violence happening everyday, women living in fear cowering from their partner, treading on eggshells, the women just taking it and not fighting back some fight back with as much force. there are so many different dynamics and very complex situations that is what makes dv very hard to understand. i think the more it is shown in films and on tv, addressed in books with different situations the better people will understand

Ive seen it loads of times and the dv scene is harrowing. I believe it had happened before and would happen again. If that wasnt the case then it would be v unrealistic. Doesnt it take 33 attacks before the average victim leaves? You have to also add in the context that being a single mum back then would have been much harder than now.

You seem surprised by her turnaround submissiveness because she had previously been fiesty. But it is a dv myth that strong women dont get hit or leave when they are.

I always cry at the end if this film, btw.

I thought there was a lot in that film that was serious stuff, despite it being funny. The older son who's gay and his mum has to go to the payphone to call him with all the other kids in the rain? That's really awful and sad. And his arranged marriage earlier. I like East is East but I don't think it was ever trying to be uncritical of Britain in the 70s or that dad's cultural baggage.

I remember watching the DV and realizing wow, from her reaction it seems this is really scary, why is that then? So for me it was one of those films that made me realize it isn't actually perfectly normal for adults to beat each other and their children up and to pass it off as nothing. I think her reaction in the film shows clearly she is scared and shocked and that was the right reaction to show. If you're watching you can see very clearly what is happening is a big deal.

apart from the fact that it was very very difficult for a woman to leave her husband in them days[and still is sometimes]...sadly one of the other issues would of been the fact that she was married to a man from pakistan.
often [at this time]women who did this was vilefied.
so it would of been easier for her to stay with him.
i myself was called terrible names and vilefied for going out with a fella from india.
in them days even the fact that you had had a relashionship with a man from india "marked you"!

sparky

Yeah, and I think the fact she really only seems to have a close relationship with her sister shows that too Sparky - they seem isolated both in the Muslim community and the white British one.

when i got married to my husband i was grateful for him to marry me.
it made me "ok"-instead of "ruined goods"![in societys eyes]

sparky

I'll admit it's a while since I've seen this film. Is the fact that it's a mixed marriage properly explored...it would have been a MASSIVE thing back then.

it took twenty years for a lot of my family to speak to me again.
a close family member also had a mixed race dc.....i used to stand in her parents street and act as "look out"for her and rushed up to her mothers door if i saw her dad coming.
she was banned from the house by her dad and used to have to sneak round with the baby so her mum could see the baby in secret.

sparky

You seem surprised by her turnaround submissiveness because she had previously been fiesty. But it is a dv myth that strong women dont get hit or leave when they are.

Foreverwino I was surprised by her turnaround submissiveness as it did not seem to fit with the character I thought she was before. I imagined that she would be furious with him and would have been more outspoken about this rather than silently seething and taking her frustration out on the children, telling them that they must respect their father and her husband... This I found hard to understand, her defence of her husband to her concerned children. Although I guess she had to reconcile within herself her reasons for staying loyal and within the relationship.

Also, if this was a pattern in their relationship [the DV] would she have been so outspoken and fiesty [within close proximity] as she was in the film? Surely she would have learnt that being so led to her being hit? And she would have seemed more wary of him rather than playful and cheeky as she was in the beginning of the film?

I know that strong women can still get hit and don't always leave for a variety of reasons. I think this film frustrated me on some level, perhaps because i find it difficult to view the realities of some women's lives and options in the 70s. Maybe also because all the focus is on the men's lives and experiences [father and sons] and I would have liked to understand Ella's perspectives and conflicts more. Why did she marry him, what was she attracted to, how difficult was it for her to be married to someone of Pakistani origin at that time, how did she feel about there being a first wife, why did she not leave him when he hit her, etc. I felt the film didn't give her a voice although this is not unusual of films in general I guess...

Have name changed.

BootyMum....It's not your fault, but I'm getting quite frustrated with you.

"I was surprised by her turnaround submissiveness as it did not seem to fit with the character I thought she was before. I imagined that she would be furious with him and would have been more outspoken about this rather than silently seething and taking her frustration out on the children, telling them that they must respect their father and her husband... "

I'm getting so worked up I can hardly find the words. All I can muster at the moment is;

Feisty women stayed with their DH's in 1970. It's what they did. And you didn't marry someone from another culture for a laugh. She must have really loved him in the first place. She would have had to put up with a lot of abuse which could easily have been avoided if she'd settled down with someone white.

When I was about 6 I asked my mum why my dad had to live with us. She replied "He pays the bills". She was/is a strong woman who had her own career. She also had the dinner on the table when he came home from work or there was hell to pay. We were a nice middle class family.

"I felt the film didn't give her a voice although this is not unusual of films in general I guess..."

For me it wasn't necessary in this film. I already understood.

Yes desperatehousewife but maybe you are looking at this through the lens of your own experience/mother's experience... That is what you have understood perhaps, that Ella's situation is similar somehow? And perhaps why you are getting so frustrated with my not understanding... it seems obvious to you having lived through it, it just is the way it is?

Please don't think I am completely ignorant of the societal/gender issues portrayed in the film. My parents are also a cross cultural couple, my mother also deferred to my father as she was a SAHM and he paid the bills.

However in the context of this film I still find Ella's perspective difficult to grasp. The character's motivations more so than why a woman would stay with an abusive husband iyswim?

I would have liked to hear more of the mum's voice too - it is a bit annoying because it's suggested there's so much going on under the surface (like she is clearly quite shocked about the fanny art one of her sons makes but also wants to keep in touch with her other gay son). It's true (and irritating) that lots of films don't give much voice to women.

I am also surprised that anyone would think that East is East is a light hearted family friday night comedy.......maybe it was marketed like that at the time?

We watched the sequel recently, which I enjoyed more. But neither are films I would think as 'family viewing' they are bothe quite complicated and dark at times.

But *LRD do you think she knew he was gay?

The siblings asked who the man in the salon was and the elder brother answered "A friend"... It was obvious to the audience that this man was most likely his gay lover/partner. However I was not sure that the mother understood this.

I thought the son was dead to the father as he refused to bend to his will and marry the bride who had been chosen for him. He also humiliated his father by running away at the engagement/wedding. I thought this was why the father refused to acknowledge him and the mother was defying this as she still wanted a relationship with him.

However I was not sure that either the mother or the father knew he was gay? [Unless I missed something?]

Bootymum I think you're talking about cognitive dissonance when you describe the difference in Ella's behaviour before and after the violence.

There are many different types of abusive relationship. Most are not violent all the time and most do not involve women who are so incredibly scared that they are permanently frightened and mere shadows of themselves (though these do exist of course ). Many DV relationships are incredibly 'normal' in between episodes of violence. That's why so many people do not leave. Abusers often put extra effort into a relationship after a period of violence. Women latch on to this as the 'real' person and the 'real' relationship and view the violence as an aberration. They themselves try extra hard to keep that good period going. This can often lead to a period of what appears to be quite special closeness between the couple. It's why you often here phrases like "Jekyll and Hyde" and "but when it's good, it's really good", "but I know he loves me because he's just so passionate and he's done x, y, z for me" used in the context of abusive relationships.

To some extent these women are in denial. Why risk the stigma of single parenthood, poverty, loneliness when things are often good and violence only features now and again?

If you've got a true handle on DV you don't see it like that and you realise the only solution is to leave. But if you don't have that knowledge or the means to make an escape it's easier to ignore the violence, latch on to the good times, and try harder to prolong them - be more loving, more supportive, funnier, more attractive etc.

And Littleducks I am surprised that so many of you think it strange that I initially felt that East is East was a light hearted comedy!

Until the DV scene I had felt that East is East was very funny. The father was portrayed as a bumbling, blustering caricature to great comic effect. The children were hysterically funny. Even the circumcision scenes were played for laughs rather than serious insight on religious and traditional beliefs, mother's reluctance to have her baby's genitals operated on...

I felt the earlier scenes set a tone of a not too serious look at racial and culture clash in 1970s Britain.

And then suddenly, with the DV scene, it turned into something much grittier which to my eyes also wasn't fully explored and left me feeling disatisfied.

And rightly or wrongly I felt that the DV was portrayed as being somehow normal and unremarkable [by not being grappled with in the context of the plot] but accept that that might be due to my viewing this with modern eyes and my taking for granted that this type of behaviour is not acceptable.

To be fair to Bootymum I'm pretty sure I remember 'East is East' being marketed as a comedy.

Sunshine thank-you for your thought provoking post. It really made me think.

Perhaps what I wanted was more exploration of Ella's POV. I am a bit tired of most movies looking at men and their thoughts and feelings. The character of Ella was an interesting one in all her contradictions.

Booty - I don't know if she knew; I meant I'd like to have known more about what she did think ... she knew something was happening, but not what, I think. She was obviously quite ambivalent to her husband's religion but also had quite a strict/traditional sense of morality of her own ... it was interesting but not much explored.