Skip to main content

Iron Lady a Hard Film

I was intrigued by the trailers for Iron Lady, starring Meryl Streep. The scenes were dramatic, elegantly composed, and powerful. I don't know when I have felt so let down by a movie, though, as by this one. Perhaps that is because the trailer and other publicity have not dared to indicate what at least half this movie is really about.

The acting is superb. Not only does Streep deliver her customary and impeccable artistry, but her co-stars do, as well. Harry Lloyd is such an appealing young Dennis Thatcher, I nearly had a crush on him by the end of the movie. Alexandra Roach is enchanting as a young Margaret Roberts, and Jim Broadbent is well up to the task of partnering with Streep, playing a ghostly Dennis to an addled and struggling Margaret.

The disappointments are buried deep in the film's construction. The movie acts more like a Christmas pageant or a tableau than a movie, one scene appears after another, flashbacks interrupting quite predictably, but without a strong story line. I learned almost nothing about Margaret Thatcher that I did not already know.

Harry Lloyd
What I did learn about Margaret Thatcher were things I don't need to know. In fact, no one needs to. The many scenes that show Thatcher hallucinating, talking to her dead husband, toddling about a dreary flat, saying things that don't make sense, were disquieting to me. Not only did they provide no elucidation about a major historical figure, they strike me as not just an invasion of privacy, but an outright violation of it. If I were one of her children, I would be distraught beyond words. In short, the film goes where it has no right to go (and has no right, in part, because it invents events in Thatcher's mind). And where it could go--with magnificence, conflict, strength and great interest--it travels in short staccato snippets that don't connect.

There are allusions to unions, strikes, economic difficulties, but nearly all these are addressed with MT mini-speeches, short bursts of newsreel footage, and highly choreographed scenes with power-broker males. The scenes relating to the Falklands conflict were the best in terms of bringing history to life. But we go fairly quickly from this to MT's demise. And her demise appears to come because she is bitchy (and truly remarkably and nearly abusively so) to her cabinet.  That will do it, of course, but it can't be the entire story.

Alexandra Roach
Margaret Thatcher in a bathrobe, huddled on the floor, watching television in the middle of the night, struggling to open a CD case, chiding her hallucinated husband, or telling her daughter non-sequitur's that are out of time and space: what was the purpose in taking us here? Just one scene like this would have been more than enough to show us that time has its way with us all, that even the Iron Lady must grow soft eventually. But it wasn't one scene. It was many, and as they increased in number, I felt that I, the viewer, was being hounded in a most counter-productive fashion.

I had to wonder, had Maggie been Male, would this same movie have been made? Would someone make a movie of a drunken Churchill or Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's? I doubt it. For all the pomp surrounding the film about Great Britain's first female prime minister and despite having been directed by a woman, Iron Lady commits the age-old and oft-repeated mistake of invading a woman's life, rather than exploring it with respect. She was remarkably, undeniably, unprecedentedly powerful. And we MUST deconstruct her, mustn't we? We must not end this movie with the imperious Margaret Thatcher at the podium declaiming, the persevering woman who achieved the unthinkable achievement, or even the difficult and self-deluded politician at the end of her career--defeated, but not utterly powerless.

No, we must end this movie of the life of Margaret Thatcher with her begging her ghost-husband not to leave her, washing a teacup, and then hobbling down a dark hallway into oblivion. Whatever she did or did not do, whatever mistakes she made or accomplishments she managed, the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain deserves better from the world of cinema.


It does seem rather hackneyed to emphasize the irony of the stature of a great historical figure to her subsequent pitiable condition. What a pity they ruined a great story. I will watch the movie (with trepidation now) and check back with you later. Thanks for your commentary.
Let me know what you think! It is worth seeing... and is a well-done film. abrazos, Y
Tati Galiano said…
hola Ysabela!
You received my Liebster Blog Award:
Un beso grande!!

Popular posts from this blog

Life without Television, Part 2

I began life without television with relief, which was consistent Monday through Friday. The first few weekends, though, felt awkward, anxious, lonely. When PBS has good programming on Saturday nights, it is extraordinarily good. Father Brown, Phryne Fisher, New Tricks... Extraordinary acting, high production values, and I fantasize about the pudgy, brilliant priest just perhaps having an innocent crush on one of his special parishioners, which would be moi. 

I called a friend one Sunday. "Maybe television helped with my anxiety more than I realized," I said. She told me about her aunt who, after her husband's death, kept the television on in his "man cave" 24/7. He has been gone years now. The television goes on, everlasting, in his absence. I don't blame her. Much of my frequent and prolonged television viewing began with grief.

After my sister died, I would watch almost anything, especially late at night when sleep eluded me. I even watched Convoy with …

Glad to Hear It

This past week, Larry Wilmore and company mentioned Rachel Dolezol again on The Nightly Show. I don't remember who made the comment, but either Wilmore or one of the panelists said, "Did Rachel Dolezol do anything bad? No, she really didn't. Why did we get so uptight about that?" I was glad to hear it. Three cheers for being human.

I looked briefly at what's on Google currently about her and the now much-discussed Shaun White. I intend not to enter any of that fray mentally or verbally. I still maintain that humanity trumps color. We have a long way to go until we can leave our "paint by numbers" mentality behind, but we've made progress. Good changes can come, even in the midst of chaos and controversy. Maybe White and Dolezal will help us see that eventually.

As long as I'm here and continuing on the subject of color, I think I'm not alone in the fact that I don't like being called "white." As for my background, it includes …

Whose day?

Years ago, I made some collages using pages from a desk calendar from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The image that leads this post is one. Inside the hearts and flowers is a picture from the MMA collection of  a Japanese screen made in the 16th century. It is titled Tagasode, which means Whose sleeves?  The title comes from a 10th-century poem:

The fragrance seems even more alluring than the hue, Whose sleeves have brushed past? Or would it be this plum tree blossoming here at home?
Iro yori mo ka koso awaredo omohoyure tagasode fureshi ado no ume zo mo
The word haunts: tagasode. Whose sleeves? The question floats in my mind like a cloud on a still day. The sleeves materialize in my mind's eye. I hear them move through hushed air. I can imagine, though not name, the scent of the person to whom those sleeves belong. It's not unlike smelling the scent of your infant's clothes, or holding the perfume bottle that belonged to your don't need to open it... you know tha…