The Iron Lady
Yeah, so, I haven't had to pay to see a movie in a theater since... oh... 2008 or so. And so, I decided I'm going to break that spell with...The Iron Lady? Yep. It's Oscar season, and The Iron Lady snagged a nom for Meryl Streep's performance therein. At least it was a fairly cheap ticket.
Roll Call: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Alexandra Roach, Olivia Colman, and Harry Lloyd. Abi Morgan, writer. Phyllida Lloyd, director.
What's It About? The life and times of one Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep), the UK's first female prime minister, its longest serving prime minister in the 20th Century (1979-1990).
What About It? Let me get this out of the way right off the bat: Meryl Streep was incredible in the movie. Seeing the previews, I could only think that her performance was more going to resemble Leonardo Di Caprio's in J. Edgar, an imitation of a historical persona, rather than a portrayal. Not so. Streep disappeared into the role and helped bring Thatcher to life. I know I've said that Streep could have a nasty bout of diarrhea on set and Oscar voters would nominate her for her "splendid" performance. That may or may not be true. (We do know that she's not likely to win for such a role, even if she is nominated). It is true, however, that she earned her nomination here. She was fantastic... and... as it happens... one of the only reasons (Jim Broadbent's performance as Thatcher's husband Denis being the only other) to see the movie. I mean, other than Streep and Broadbent, the movie kind of stunk.
Well, maybe stunk isn't the right word. It certainly wasn't all that it could have been. I mean, if you like just-the-surface-and-nothing-else biopics, then by all means, eat this up; you'll love the hell out of it. Me? Nope, I need the filmmakers to dig deeper. And here, they just wouldn't. Ok, yes, hypocrisy alert. For anyone paying attention (and I don't know who might... I probably could have just left it alone and been a flip-flopping hero), I've often said that you shouldn't attend movies to get a history lesson. Movies are entertainment, not necessarily education. Filmmakers are going to add details, downplay other details, and tweak a "true" story to maximize drama or tell the story they want to tell. It happens. And I have no problem with that. I just want to be entertained. But really, what's so entertaining about telling the life story of someone who should be somewhat compelling by unveiling a tale based on broad and simplistic generalizations that serve to boil this complicated (as most people are) individual into a series of one-note songs? Not much. What I gleaned from The Iron Lady: Thatcher was motivated to become the leader of her party and later country because a.) she was inspired by her father, b.) thought her humble roots mattered, and c.) thought that women were being treated unfairly. I also learned that Thatcher was a stubborn ass who treated people who didn't agree with her unkindly, and she more or less abandoned her family for a life in public office (I can't decide whether this was an intended lesson or not). I was also led to believe that Thatcher was an incredible Prime Minister who overcame a lot of contention to bring her country back to greatness. She might have been controversial too... but the film blames her stubborn nature- and to a degree- back-stabbing former supporters for her fall from grace. Actually, we don't get to see much in the way of Thatcher's policies or ideologies... other than I'm right, you're wrong. She hated labor-unions, thought even the poor should pay their fair share, and seemed to revel- or at the very least encourage- police to stomp the skulls of young protesters. Oh, and often, where ever she went, said young protesters liked to smack her car's windows. She was also plagued by the IRA.
What does all this amount to? Veneer. Facade. The surface. We don't get Abi Morgan or Phyllida Lloyd's stab at why or why it mattered (the infamous so what? question). Everything just happens in the movie. One event after the other. Each designed, it would seem, to show off Streep's tremendous acting chops (nice to see, but still...). One moment, Young Thatcher is vying for a seat in Parliament and losing, the next, she's won, the next, she decides to run for party leader, the next, the IRA is terrorizing her administration. Anything deeper than just the "facts" and you're going to have to drawn your own conclusions. But Kiernan- you pompous hack- aren't you always saying that you want to be shown what matters, not told when it comes to movies? Indeed I am. But- at least in my mind- Morgan, Lloyd, and company didn't really even try to show us anything deeper. They just sort of slyly mentioned a few moments- almost as though they realized, "Hey, if we don't at least put this in to some degree, people are going to hammer us. So why don't we have a news reporter casually mention that she harbored a few controversial opnions, etc." And there you have it. Bases covered. Only... come on, folks! Try to get into Thatcher's head.. a little bit. At least Eastwood tried with Hoover. This is all shiny surface. Give me a break.
Beyond all that, I also need to mention that this was one of the most depressing movies I had seen in a while. The story unfolds by having a present-day Thatcher, struggling with dementia, barely a shell of who she once was, recall all the details of her life in flashback as various modern-day reminders pop into her life. As a story-telling device, it works pretty well, even if it is depressing watching a diminished person struggling to deal with their diminished-ness and straining to retain a sense of their relevancy. I'm not going to deduct points because it's depressing. That actually would sort of drive home the point that we should appreciate who and what we have while we're still fit to appreciate it. No day should be taken for granted. That said, it does bring up an interesting- and in this case, I believe- unintended consequence of such a set up. If it's modern-day and dementia ridden Thatcher driving the story- how much are we to believe her account of what happened. This is actually an issue that Eastwood (in perhaps his best move of that movie) brings front and center in J. Edgar. In that instance, it was actually megalomaniac Hoover dictating his memoirs. Hoover was in complete control of what he was saying- he was willfully distorting the past to make himself look greater... and he's eventually called on it. Here, Thatcher is remembering things. But how trustworthy is her memory. Again, I don't think the film wants us to start thinking these things... and to that point... I believe I've read ("Do some research, you hack!"- you all seemed to say) that folks suffering from dementia have a much better grasp on their pasts than on their here and nows. So perhaps Lloyd and company figure it was worth glossing over. But to me, it makes for an interesting dynamic. One that I probably would have missed, if the movie was- you know- more interesting in and of itself. But... there you have it. (My favorite Ebert-written review ending... I know, I know.. I'm a hack).
Grade: C+ (the plus is for Streep hitting a home run).
No comments:
Post a Comment