Okay, so full disclosure, I really don't like Margaret Thatcher. I think that her policies during her time as our Prime Minister set in motion a change in the country which is evident today, in our consumerist nature, and I think that she, and her government, are responsible for many of the worst aspects of the world we live in at the moment. That being said I also believe that it is perfectly possible to enjoy a film about someone that you do not agree with or indeed, someone that you dislike. I know, for example, that 'Birth of a Nation' is held in incredibly high regard, despite the glorification of the Ku Klux Klan in the film. So there it is, complete neutrality where the film is concerned.
So how about it then. The film begins with an elderly Margaret Thatcher in a cornershop buying milk and looking shocked at the price of it. I imagine this reference to milk was supposed to be a nod to her nickname 'milk snatcher', it ended up feeling a little clunky and too self knowing. But anyway, she then makes it home where we discover that she managed to get around her guards to get out alone and that she isn't too well, indeed she is seeing visions of Denis Thatcher, her late husband, who she talks to throughout the film. The film consists of the elderly Thatcher looking back at events that have happened in her life mainly during her political life, many of them triggered by events of the modern day.
First off, Meryl Streep looks and sounds like Margaret Thatcher, that much is pretty much certain. There was much awards buzz around her performance in this film, and I like Meryl Streep, so I will go ahead and say that she's very good in the part. In fact the acting is generally very strong, Jim Broadbent as Denis Thatcher acting the clown, Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe (as I really like Anthony Head this is the most sympathetic Howe has ever been), Richard E Grant as the criminally underused Heseltine and many more to boot. This film, however, falls down in nearly every other respect.
I had been hearing fairly average things about this film in the press prior to going to see it, but the night before I went I learned that one of the writers who wrote Shame also wrote the screenplay for this. Shame was magnificent, in every respect, with a script and story that simply worked and felt real. So I thought that perhaps The Iron Lady would also have some of the same honesty and sense of realism about it.... It doesn't. Instead the film was a mess, all over the place. I think that one of the reasons that I found it so confusing was the tirade of factual inaccuracies throughout the film. To begin with, in the entire duration of the film we neither see, nor hear about a single other female MP. I understand that the reason for this is to try and exemplify Thatcher as being a woman in a male dominated world, but it simply wasn't true. What was true is that there were very few female MPs when Thatcher took office (around 19), and when she left office there were around 66. Now I understand the reasons, but I also feel as though the rise in female MPs could have had something to do with a prominent female MP (in this case PM), and don't see why that couldn't have been an equally important part of the film as the lie which they included.
Another incredibly offputting part of the film was the depiction of the Labour opposition. Now I'm not going to go into the politics, the simple reason being that there were in effect no politics in this film. But I will say that during the entire film we are only ever presented with one Labour Leader, Michael Foot. I suspect that this was for the simple reason that his appearance is easy to imitate and also recognise, therefore it would be something for the audience to distinguish him by, but the reality is that Foot for leader only during the period of 1980-83, and that after the defeat of the Labour party in 83 he stepped down to let Neil Kinnock have a go, Kinnock then lead the party until 1992. As well as annoying the politics student in me, this also meant that the timeline felt confused, at moments when things later in Thatchers government were happening we also had cuts to Michael Foot, which made me constantly question when the things we were seeing happen were happening. This, I understand, may not be of similar importance to most people, but it is one of the reasons I failed to enjoy this film.
Next there is the fact that the film is devoid of any serious political content. Like I say, I am not a fan of Thatcher, but she also has her many supporters, in fact I would argue that she is the most divisive Prime Minister of the 20th century, this wasn't anything to do with the fact that she was a woman, that she had a winey voice, or the fact she wore pearls, it was to do with her politics and the policies that she introduced into the country. What we see in the film is her sending ships into battle in the Faulklands (including one moment when she orders the attack of the Blagrano when someone utters something along the lines of"when escalating a situation, it is better to be the first one to do so", which is given as a noble and insightful line, but which I thought was just a little bit despicable). We also see Margaret Thatcher being bombed by the IRA, it is indicated that before she came to power there were problems in the country (shown through piles of rubbish in the streets), and we also get a brief mention of the Poll Tax (with no real explanation of what it is).
I believe the film makers are suggesting that this is a film about age, and memory, rather than the film about Margaret Thatcher, but that raises the question, why not just make a film about another old lady remembering her life, her struggles and indeed her dead husband, why did that woman have to be Margaret Thatcher? I actually don't think the film even works that well as a discussion of age, and I think that it is a topic which has been covered in a much better way in other films. I think that had this film been a more political film, an actual film about the life of Margaret Thatcher, then I would have enjoyed it a lot more. As it is I felt entirely underwhelmed, as the film felt vacuous of any real purpose, and besides a good performance from Meryl Streep, who couldn't give a bad show if she tried, is utterly forgettable.
No comments:
Post a Comment