The Iron Lady (some spoilers)
Liz wanted us to go and see The Iron Lady. There's nothing wrong with a film existing about a person you don't admire, after all, is there? Hitler's been in loads of films, and the most recently prominent, Downfall, was really popular and led to a humourous Youtube meme. There's nothing saying that the film is going to come down pro-Thatcher and her policies, right? There's no reason why lefties and righties alike shouldn't be seeing it.
Perhaps it being from the same director as "Mamma Mia!" should be far more of a sticking point as to whether it's worthwhile seeing. After all, "Mamma Mia!" is already responsible for the crime against celluloid that is Pierce Brosnan singing "S.O.S" - what could another film by the same director unleash upon the world?
As it turns out, the scariest we get is a bomb-befuddled Denis Thatcher shouting about his shoes. It could have been so much worse.
Overall I'd say The Iron Lady is worth a watch regardless of your political affiliations. If you honestly think you'll be unable to watch a depiction of Thatcher onscreen without shouting, or throwing things, you should perhaps ask why you don't feel the same (assuming you don't) about Hitler, real life serial killers, Kim Jong-il in Team America: World Police, and so on.
It's fair to say that Streep gives a brilliant performance as Thatcher, over and above an uncanny impersonation, although she manages that as well. We are invited - and do, despite everything - to feel sorry for Thatcher, to feel happy for her, to share her elation and success and paranoia at various points. Jim Broadbent is reliably brilliant as Denis, and it was a nice surprise to see Olivia Colman (avec daft fake nose) as Carol (though no mention of golliwogs! Probably for the best, eh?).
I suspect half the fun of the film is in seeing who will turn up as who - there's some nice cameos in there, both of prominent actors and of (to me) unknowns playing prominent figures (look! There's Michael Foot!). Giles/Anthony Stewart Head - for some reason going by "Anthony Head" in the credits, rather than "Giles" - has a far more prominent role than I would have imagined.
The other half of fun in the film seems to just be in seeing an edited highlight reel of events that happened and stuff in real life, in Britain, (largely) in the sixties, seventies and eighties. There's nothing wrong with going to see a film in which things you remember living through are depicted onscreen. In and of itself though, such a film doesn't seem like much of an achievement or all that interesting.
Something I was worried about - taking sides - never really comes to pass. It seemed to me that Thatcher's reign in office was covered quite well, all the highlights, things she is known for, but (crucially) without the film coming out on Thatcher's side. It is quite clear that there is a constantly-present element that strongly disagree with what she is doing, and they are not depicted as being wrong. You could say that some of the effects of what Thatcher did are not shown - but why should they be? This isn't a sober account of Thatcher's time and office, whether what she did was right or not, her impact on history and on what was to come. It's about her.
The one part of the highlight reel that rang a bit strange to me was the run-up to the Falklands war. It was very jingoistic, full of bluster and overly patriotic - and by most accounts, so was the war - but I felt like the film came down on the side of this, that it was saying "surely nobody could disagree that this was the right thing to do at the time", and that there could be no dissent. This may have just been me though; I don't think Liz had similar problems with that element.
If you go into the film expecting the bulk of it to be about Thatcher and her rise to power, Thatcher, and her time in office, Thatcher and her successes, Thatcher, and her toppling, the night when knives came out, you might be disappointed - or surprised at least. I haven't mentioned it until now, but the film largely takes place in the modern day. The highlight reel we see is just what that implies - it is Thatcher's own recollections of her past, and Thatcher is no longer really in her right mind, so I am unsure that her recollections can even be that trusted (there are hints of this when her flashbacks occasionally get a bit dreamlike, funny angles, speech coming from figures onscreen that are not talking when we see them, and so on). I don't mean to say that the depiction of history is inaccurate, but rather that Thatcher is only recalling the moments that most left an impact on her, or even, that she is jolted into recalling in the modern day.
But it is this modern setting - the framework to the film, really - that I have the most issue with, that becomes the real problem with the film for me. After everything, it wasn't whether I'd agree with the way the film paints her achievements or otherwise that got to me.
It was that they used her mental illness - the mental illness, remember, of a woman who is still alive and is really dealing with this day to day (regardless of what you think of her) - as a plot device, as a structure to the film.
The film certainly doesn't make fun of her condition, but Christ, does it take liberties. I find myself in the unenviable position of feeling sorry for Margaret Thatcher - not the fake version on film but the real woman. It is exploitative. Imagine if Tony Blair was going through a horrible cancer ordeal, and that this was public knowledge. Now imagine a film made of his time in office and rise to power, in which a frail and sick modern-day Tony is startled into remembering moments from his highlight reel by the sight of his chemo-induced hair-loss in the mirror, by the sight of his gaunt body, by radiotherapy visits. It's not a nice image and I'm sorry for mentioning it, if it offends (if the imaginary condition of Tony Blair, offends, yes, I know, but it feels wrong laying it out somehow anyway). But why, then, should Maggie Thatcher's illness - mental, yes, but very real, and happening right now in real life - be any different to a "physical" illness?
The framing device isn't even that good; it's clunky, it's too obvious, it makes you roll your eyes, and the climax to the film was almost laughable.
I don't know whether it's established in real life that Thatcher constantly imagines her dead husband still alive, and talks to him, but whether or not it is true, it felt deeply wrong to see it being used onscreen for something so cheap as the entertainment of the cinema masses.
So go and see it, by all means - look, it's an accurate representation of a real person's accent and mannerisms! (Oscar-bait) Look, here's some things I remember happening in real life! - but don't expect to come out without a bad taste in your mouth.
Post-scripts -
1) Perhaps my sensitivity to the exploitation of mental illness issue is down to my nan, who suffered greatly from Alzheimer's disease and lived with us for quite a few years while in the grip of the condition. I don't like seeing it used as a clunky way of framing a film, even more so when the subject of the film is still with us.
2) This is not to say Alzheimer's shouldn't be depicted onscreen, of course, and I welcome more awareness about mental illness, dementia and the like in books, on TV, and in film. Just, like, maybe, try not to use an old lady's suffering as popcorn entertainment.
3) I gather there was some debate in the media and online over whether it was right to make such a film while Thatcher was still alive. Some were saying it was worse still for people to be saying "we should be waiting until Thatcher is dead to do this". Well, it may be brutal but here it is - yes, they should have waited until she was dead if they were going to do the film this way. If they were going to do it at all.
Perhaps it being from the same director as "Mamma Mia!" should be far more of a sticking point as to whether it's worthwhile seeing. After all, "Mamma Mia!" is already responsible for the crime against celluloid that is Pierce Brosnan singing "S.O.S" - what could another film by the same director unleash upon the world?
As it turns out, the scariest we get is a bomb-befuddled Denis Thatcher shouting about his shoes. It could have been so much worse.
Overall I'd say The Iron Lady is worth a watch regardless of your political affiliations. If you honestly think you'll be unable to watch a depiction of Thatcher onscreen without shouting, or throwing things, you should perhaps ask why you don't feel the same (assuming you don't) about Hitler, real life serial killers, Kim Jong-il in Team America: World Police, and so on.
It's fair to say that Streep gives a brilliant performance as Thatcher, over and above an uncanny impersonation, although she manages that as well. We are invited - and do, despite everything - to feel sorry for Thatcher, to feel happy for her, to share her elation and success and paranoia at various points. Jim Broadbent is reliably brilliant as Denis, and it was a nice surprise to see Olivia Colman (avec daft fake nose) as Carol (though no mention of golliwogs! Probably for the best, eh?).
I suspect half the fun of the film is in seeing who will turn up as who - there's some nice cameos in there, both of prominent actors and of (to me) unknowns playing prominent figures (look! There's Michael Foot!). Giles/Anthony Stewart Head - for some reason going by "Anthony Head" in the credits, rather than "Giles" - has a far more prominent role than I would have imagined.
The other half of fun in the film seems to just be in seeing an edited highlight reel of events that happened and stuff in real life, in Britain, (largely) in the sixties, seventies and eighties. There's nothing wrong with going to see a film in which things you remember living through are depicted onscreen. In and of itself though, such a film doesn't seem like much of an achievement or all that interesting.
Something I was worried about - taking sides - never really comes to pass. It seemed to me that Thatcher's reign in office was covered quite well, all the highlights, things she is known for, but (crucially) without the film coming out on Thatcher's side. It is quite clear that there is a constantly-present element that strongly disagree with what she is doing, and they are not depicted as being wrong. You could say that some of the effects of what Thatcher did are not shown - but why should they be? This isn't a sober account of Thatcher's time and office, whether what she did was right or not, her impact on history and on what was to come. It's about her.
The one part of the highlight reel that rang a bit strange to me was the run-up to the Falklands war. It was very jingoistic, full of bluster and overly patriotic - and by most accounts, so was the war - but I felt like the film came down on the side of this, that it was saying "surely nobody could disagree that this was the right thing to do at the time", and that there could be no dissent. This may have just been me though; I don't think Liz had similar problems with that element.
If you go into the film expecting the bulk of it to be about Thatcher and her rise to power, Thatcher, and her time in office, Thatcher and her successes, Thatcher, and her toppling, the night when knives came out, you might be disappointed - or surprised at least. I haven't mentioned it until now, but the film largely takes place in the modern day. The highlight reel we see is just what that implies - it is Thatcher's own recollections of her past, and Thatcher is no longer really in her right mind, so I am unsure that her recollections can even be that trusted (there are hints of this when her flashbacks occasionally get a bit dreamlike, funny angles, speech coming from figures onscreen that are not talking when we see them, and so on). I don't mean to say that the depiction of history is inaccurate, but rather that Thatcher is only recalling the moments that most left an impact on her, or even, that she is jolted into recalling in the modern day.
But it is this modern setting - the framework to the film, really - that I have the most issue with, that becomes the real problem with the film for me. After everything, it wasn't whether I'd agree with the way the film paints her achievements or otherwise that got to me.
It was that they used her mental illness - the mental illness, remember, of a woman who is still alive and is really dealing with this day to day (regardless of what you think of her) - as a plot device, as a structure to the film.
The film certainly doesn't make fun of her condition, but Christ, does it take liberties. I find myself in the unenviable position of feeling sorry for Margaret Thatcher - not the fake version on film but the real woman. It is exploitative. Imagine if Tony Blair was going through a horrible cancer ordeal, and that this was public knowledge. Now imagine a film made of his time in office and rise to power, in which a frail and sick modern-day Tony is startled into remembering moments from his highlight reel by the sight of his chemo-induced hair-loss in the mirror, by the sight of his gaunt body, by radiotherapy visits. It's not a nice image and I'm sorry for mentioning it, if it offends (if the imaginary condition of Tony Blair, offends, yes, I know, but it feels wrong laying it out somehow anyway). But why, then, should Maggie Thatcher's illness - mental, yes, but very real, and happening right now in real life - be any different to a "physical" illness?
The framing device isn't even that good; it's clunky, it's too obvious, it makes you roll your eyes, and the climax to the film was almost laughable.
I don't know whether it's established in real life that Thatcher constantly imagines her dead husband still alive, and talks to him, but whether or not it is true, it felt deeply wrong to see it being used onscreen for something so cheap as the entertainment of the cinema masses.
So go and see it, by all means - look, it's an accurate representation of a real person's accent and mannerisms! (Oscar-bait) Look, here's some things I remember happening in real life! - but don't expect to come out without a bad taste in your mouth.
Post-scripts -
1) Perhaps my sensitivity to the exploitation of mental illness issue is down to my nan, who suffered greatly from Alzheimer's disease and lived with us for quite a few years while in the grip of the condition. I don't like seeing it used as a clunky way of framing a film, even more so when the subject of the film is still with us.
2) This is not to say Alzheimer's shouldn't be depicted onscreen, of course, and I welcome more awareness about mental illness, dementia and the like in books, on TV, and in film. Just, like, maybe, try not to use an old lady's suffering as popcorn entertainment.
3) I gather there was some debate in the media and online over whether it was right to make such a film while Thatcher was still alive. Some were saying it was worse still for people to be saying "we should be waiting until Thatcher is dead to do this". Well, it may be brutal but here it is - yes, they should have waited until she was dead if they were going to do the film this way. If they were going to do it at all.