Of the three tendencies in British cinema discussed in the previous chapter, the realist tradition was the one most often privileged in critical discourses. There was a virtual consensus that the best, or most distinctive, British films were “realistic” and that the documentary movement paved the way for all important later developments. This version of British film history has come under attack on many counts, and a major shift in critical attitudes has provoked a new interest in previously neglected films, filmmakers, and movements. At the same time, there has been considerable debate over the meaning and effects of “realism,” one of the most complex and contested terms in film studies (and elsewhere). As a result of these developments, the realist tradition, once seen as the most important achievement of the national cinema, came to seem more like a liability than an asset.

There is, of course, no single “realist” style but rather a variety of “realisms” that share, according to Terry Lovell, “the claim that the business of art is to show things as they really are,” as well as “some theory of the nature of the reality to be shown and the methods which must be used to show it.” In Britain, during the 1930s, realism was associated almost exclusively with the documentary movement, and there were many complaints about the lack of realism in British feature films. While most critics thus welcomed the infusion of the documentary spirit into British fiction films during and after World War II, “the wedding of documentary and fiction” led to an unsettled and still contentious relationship.