web
counter
 

The Iron Lady Review: Backwards and In High Heels

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (37)



ironladyreview.jpg

Ginger Rogers was an amazing dancer. So much that people love to brag that she did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels. But the only problem with making that statement is that it only values Ginger Rogers in relation to the men she worked with. She was an amazing dancer, Fred Astaire or not. It was my concern when Kathryn Bigelow won the Academy Award, and everyone started to crow about how big a step this was for female directors. Kathryn Bigelow didn’t win because she has a vagina, she won because she was a fucking great director. But, as quoth Ms. Rogers, “It’s a man’s world.” So it’s sad that every achievement a woman makes has to be valued because she’s a woman, and not because she’s a remarkable person. The Iron Lady is a biopic about Margaret Thatcher, the first female British Prime Minister, which falls into the same trap of heralding her biology rather than her biography. It comes at us on two fronts — Thatcher’s history as Prime Minister and Thatcher now in fading years. It fails at both. With the elderly Thatcher portion, had the film merely been a pseudo Man of La Mancha, it could have been a fascinating portrait. But it quickly loses steam — mostly because Thatcher is still alive and so there’s no natural and logical ending. As a historical biopic, it’s embarrassing, as it vag-plasters Thatcher’s controversial economic policy and war profiteering to make the film about a plucky young girl playing on the boys’ football team. It doesn’t matter how flattering an imitation Meryl Streep does manage when the entire gist of the film is venerable British politicians popping monocles and spluttering, “B-b-but YOU’RE a GIRL?!”

The Iron Lady opens with an elderly Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep) purchasing some milk and butter at the local Pakistani corner store. We soon find out she escaped her elder care nurse in order to feel more independent. Thatcher begins a lovely exchange with her charming husband Denis (Jim Broadbent), who we soon discover has died several years ago. Her daughter Carol (Olivia Colman) comes around to care for her elderly parent, making sure she’s ready for her dinner parties and generally doing well. It’s an amazing way to introduce a historical figure, and instantaneously made me sympathetic towards Thatcher. If the film itself were just about Thatcher and her relationship with her dead husband Denis, if the context of her ministry was put in perspective through her waning years and creeping dementia, the film actually would have been remarkable. Akin to the wonderful The King’s Speech, a film that despite all the alleged historical inaccuracies and convenient rug-brushing was terrific and lovely.

Instead, we’re given a Cliffs Notes version of Thatcher’s rise and reign, done in flashback, which coupled with Thatcher’s elderly hallucinations, gives everything a kind of untrustworthy bent. Similar to how many Republicans have deified Ronald Reagan in recent years, Thatcher’s given equal sainthood. While she doesn’t necessarily come out and say, “Let them eat cake!,” she is expected to have a recipe on hand that she can prepare would people want cake. Her entire term is boiled down to her being a woman who beat the odds. It’s not empowering in the slightest, if they wanted to show how tough a bird Margaret Thatcher was in office, they could have done her the common courtesy of treating her as one of the boys. If the filmmakers had at least taken a stance on Thatcher’s policy or rule, it would have been one thing, but they chose instead to focus on the fact that she was the leader of her country in funny little hats.

The only value of the film seems to be whether or not Meryl Streep puts on a great performance. And she honestly does. She’s remarkable. And while it’d be false not to attribute so much of this to the makeup and costuming, it takes an actress of Streep’s caliber to pull this off. Is she transcendent, is she the acting Goddess that we should all kneel before? I wouldn’t go that far. She brings the same gravitas and skill to the performance as she did as Julia Child in Julie & Julia, only she gets to make stirring political speeches instead of speeches while stirring pots. I prefer her as the elderly Thatcher, which is when the movie shines. Her interchanges with the delightful Jim Broadbent are glorious. But as a biopic, it’s stale and fawning. And by trying to blend frail failing old lady with iron-willed Prime Minister, the entire thing is more like Julie’s recipes than Julia’s.

Phyllida Lloyd only other major cinematic contribution has been Mamma Mia!, and she was working from a script by Abi Morgan, a playwright who was responsible for the dreadful shitshow that was Shame. But hey, Morgan’s written two scripts this year will unquestionably garner best actor nods for the two leads, so bully for her. She’s only to be trumped by John Logan, who wrote Hugo, Coriolanus, and Rango. But, Morgan’s a girl, so you know, it was harder for her to be genius what with all the menstruating and thinking about babies. And that kind of ridiculous sentiment is what ruins The Iron Lady. Honestly, I don’t think there’s too much value in doing a biographical study on a historical figure while they are still alive. Have there been successful ones? Sure, but more often than not, if you don’t know the death and legacy of a specific person, it difficult to portray them properly. The Iron Lady will be recognized for Streep’s outstanding performance, as well it should be, but as a film, it tries to do everything backwards and in high heels, and it stumbles and falls flat on its ass.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Celebrity Bullsh*t: 2011's Greatest Gifts of All | 5 Shows After Dark 1/3/12









Comments

I have no interest in this film, but I did want to read a review. Thank you Prisco for a very even-keeled, cogent analysis which managed to neatly avoid any political overtones.

With a checkmark in the "read review of Thatcher movie" column, I shall now buckle up for the inevitable, and likely, ultimately, somewhat hysterical (all senses), polictical melee the comments seem destined to devolve into. 5 points will be deducted from the first person to call Thatcher any version of "c*nt" (but feel free to think it, early and often). Hate her as an equal, people.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 3, 2012 3:16 PM

If anyone calls her a "c*nt", I will personally defend such a horrific and scurrilous attack on the poor word.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 3, 2012 3:27 PM

Happy New Year, Paddy.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 3, 2012 3:32 PM

It does not speak well for my education that I barely know who this woman is. In high school we reached the Vietnam War and in college we started over and only got to World War II.

Posted by: Bob Frapples at January 3, 2012 3:32 PM

Thanks for the review. I generally love Meryl Streep even if I don't like the movie she's in. However, I'll be skipping this one. I was more interested in her political rise, rather than the "But you're a girl" angle.

Posted by: BWeaves at January 3, 2012 3:38 PM

She's an evil right wing c*nt, Bob Frapples. And Meryl Streep is going to win an Oscar for playing her.

That devolved quickly. Kudos again to Prisco for staying above the fray.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 3, 2012 3:39 PM

Happy New Year, Mrs. Julien. Might I say that you are in excellent form.

Posted by: Bob Frapples at January 3, 2012 3:45 PM

Happy New year, Mrs. Julien. I've missed you over the past couple of weeks while hordes of in-laws marauded through my house and watched Fox News all day long. There were times when I thought I wasn't going to make it. Let's hang out in a better thread. The header pic is making me ill.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 3, 2012 3:46 PM

As I was Punk as Fuck™ during her time as PM (1979 to 1990), my politics certainly didn't (and still don't), align with her Conservative Party, but I always found it interesting that it seemed like she needed to swing the party even further to right, almost in compensation for the funny little hats. And the vajine.

Posted by: Groundloop at January 3, 2012 3:48 PM

I like Meryl as much as anyone, but I won't be watching this. I'm from The North, they'll take away my credentials if I do.

Posted by: Carrie at January 3, 2012 3:56 PM

So you're saying that the entire film is pointless 3rd or 4th wave feminism?

Posted by: idiosynchronic at January 3, 2012 4:31 PM

I can only hope that the film makers used VIM's "Maggie's Last Party" as part of the score.

Posted by: antbee at January 3, 2012 4:49 PM

Frankie Boyle expresses my feelings for Thatcher better than I ever could.

The review mirrors a few that I've read already - solid performance by Streep, which is the only really interesting thing about the film. The criticism pops up regularly that, in trying to make the character sympathetic, they've focused on the 'woman succeeds in a man's world' trope rather than on her own hateful politics.

Posted by: csb at January 3, 2012 5:08 PM

Would someone recommend a good biography of Thatcher? All I hear is how horrible she is, but since I did not live where she reigned it's hard for me to understand why she's so vilified.

By the by, I think we're making headway in the 'gal in a man's world'.... nowadays people talk about what a crazy Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann is, not that she's a crazy *woman* Presidential candidate.
Progress, people. Progress.

Posted by: Stella at January 3, 2012 6:18 PM

Good review. I've been hearing similar sentiments elsewhere, and my motivation to see this is not high as a result. I guess I should judge for myself by seeing this movie, but if we're talking about Oscar rooting, I thought Michelle Williams did an awesome job and find it difficult to imagine Streep surpassing that, as great as she is.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 3, 2012 6:31 PM

@PaddyDog:

I'm glad you survived. I probably would have lasted 2.5 hours, no more.

Posted by: MM at January 3, 2012 6:36 PM

I have high hopes that, when Mrs Thatcher finally dies, they'll do what they did with Cromwell...

Dig her up and execute her all over again.

Posted by: Wintermute at January 3, 2012 7:24 PM

If anyone calls her a "c*nt", I will personally defend such a horrific and scurrilous attack on the poor word.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 3, 2012 3:27 PM

-----

Amen.

I'm sick of seeing headlines every time she gets ill - 'Thatcher home after health scare!'

What a nonsensical fucking statement. That's akin to: 'Thousands mourn after scientists find cure for sadness!'

'Thatcher home after health scare!' Really? Who got scared? Unless it was Satan despairing that he'd now have to share his personal space with that nefarious slab of ice it makes zero fucking sense.

Either way, good review, Prisco.

Posted by: zeke the pig at January 3, 2012 7:43 PM

As soon as I saw this review, I knew that PaddyDog would be coming back to us. Welcome back, Paddy.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 3, 2012 9:02 PM

@zeke the pig: She'll probably ursurp him.

Posted by: FabMax at January 3, 2012 9:26 PM

So Brad Pitt and his Inglourious Basterds don't riddle her full of holes with tommy guns and grenades in a bloody cresendo of violence in the tower of Big Ben?

Count me fucking out!

Posted by: DarthBrookes at January 3, 2012 9:48 PM

Wow, even more dumbass, ignorant and vapid political statements by dumbass ignorant posters on Pajiba?

No, surely you jest!

Posted by: A Guy. at January 3, 2012 10:08 PM

I don't want to be left out. I too am a dumbass, ignorant and vapid poster on Pajiba. I cannot stand Margaret Thatcher.

Posted by: hippyherb at January 4, 2012 1:01 AM

What is it about this site that attracts so many bed-wetting wackos?...Half of you retards wouldn't know the difference between socialism and capitalism beyond a handful of talking points memorized from those blogs that tell you what to think.

Just STFU and stick to issues you usually deal with it, like whether some chick over 90 pounds needs to lose weight.

Posted by: Mark at January 4, 2012 1:55 AM

The political aspect of the Iron Lady, is one of a fighter, a fierce human being; wavering between ethnicism and humanitarianism from the one hand, especially on the early days, and on the other hand a strong conviction and belief that her decisions were for the better. The film does provide an account of the rises and falls of the Thathcerian years and the proud, ostentatious even attitude of Maggie herself. A series of events of the contemporary British History that most of the nation will be able to relate to.

Posted by: Marge at January 4, 2012 2:41 AM

Good review. I actually agree with it completely.
What could have been an insightful, challenging and even controversial film about one of the most loved/hated politician of the twentieth century, instead ends up being just an empty vessel for Meryl Streep to showcase once again that she’s Oscar worthy! As if we didn’t know that already… The most Oscar nominated living actress in history really does indeed become the British Prime Minister in the “Iron Lady”. Unfortunately Meryl alone is not enough to lift an otherwise flat and quite superficial biopic and in the end what we are left with is great performance for a film that doesn't quite deserve it and that feels like it's been adapted from a page of Wikipedia.
My FULL review: wp.me/p19wJ2-tB

Posted by: MovieGeek at January 4, 2012 5:18 AM

While I'm not British, I still lived during the Age of Thatcher (coterminous with the Age of Reagan), and I recall how she broke the back of the mining unions, and privatized industries left right and center with a fine disregard for the misery it would cause.

She also suffered a "strategic rush of blood to the head" (in one analyst's phrase) and embroiled the UK in a colonial war with Argentina. The US never openly sided with the UK in the Falklands, but did provide weapons, tanking facilities and intelligence. I'm surprised the Argentinians aren't mad at us over that.

All told, she gets a mixed review from me.

Based on the review, though, I won't be seeing the film treatment. If I want to see a monster flick, I'll waste my money elsewhere.

Posted by: The Wanderer at January 4, 2012 6:46 AM

The poster for this film is all over the Scottish buses at the moment. I have no idea why an ad agency thought it worthwhile spending that kind of money marketing a film in a place where there are more pandas than Conservative members of Parliament.

Posted by: honeychurch at January 4, 2012 7:48 AM

The Wanderer- Its because at the time, the military junta have a very strong grip on power. The war basically cause two very important things to happen. 1) it broke the image of the military in Argentina. This paved the way for the civilian government to come into power in the '83 elections. This was the same military government that committed terrible acts on its own people during the "Dirty War" years. 2) While it was made known through the airwaves that most of South America was pissed at the US and supported Argentina during the conflict, in reality, the military junta was EXTREMELY unpopular with its neighbors. Not only did they pick a fight with Great Britain, they were also gearing up with a war with Chile. Basically they could not respond to internal economic problems so the military junta blamed external forces and was looking for fights to their populace distracted and stupid.

Which never works...

Posted by: Diablo at January 4, 2012 8:36 AM

Well, thanks a lot, Marge: we're still red-faced over Mark pointing out the ignorance of half of us "retards" attempting a pretense of knowledge about Prime Minister Thatcher's politics or motivations, and you have to pipe in with a coherent analysis of both the lady and the film.

Guess I'll have to get with Mark to find the "talking points memorized from those blogs that tell (us) what to think." YOU certainly aren't helping to reinforce our "dumbass, ignorant and vapid political statements" that A Guy is trying to defend for us.

Sheesh..

Posted by: special snowflake at January 4, 2012 8:40 AM

I am Irish and therefore have a pretty epic hate on for Mags, what is unforgivable about this film is that it makes her story boring. She was many things, most of them unrepeatable in polite company but boring, she was not.

Paddydog magnifcent c*nts everywhere must be defended, bravo.

Posted by: catagisreading at January 4, 2012 11:21 AM

Diablo, you're quite correct, but I was keeping the focus narrow.

Posted by: The Wanderer at January 4, 2012 1:08 PM

She is Satan. I cannot watch this without recalling awful experiences as a result of her politics. Personally my blood boils when I hear this creature's name. She has been responsible for ruining the lives of so many people left voiceless by an unfair system which maintains the superiority of some nations over others. The oppressed really do not need to take a 'reasonable, apolitical view' (is there ever one?)about the powerful and the untouchable. For many people she had as big a hand in destroying their lives as did Hitler for the Jews. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the media the lives lost due to military force in Northern Ireland and Iraq/Afghanistan do not merit the same outrage.

I hope she like Reagan and Bush will be remembered for their evil. Unfortunately history is written by the victors and no one will remember the lives squashed unless it's convenient. I have no sympathy or respect for Thatcher apologists. She is worse than the C-word. I'm a feminist and
I do not consider Thatcher as a feminist icon. She is another upholder of the patriarchal, hegemonic order which kills and spreads terror. She truly made it to the boy's club.
This was a good review. I won't be seeing this since it's all too personal to watch her face. Maybe we will see a fawning Reagan biopic as an accompaniment in the following years.
Oh and since this site is crazy over Fassbender, I'm sure many are acquainted with the movie "Hunger". Still apathetic? Pathetic.
Personally I'd rather watch "Hunger", "In the Name of the Father", "The Boxer"(an underrated DDL performance but a rather lackluster movie movie) and "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" than shell out money to see her face.
/yes this is a rant. I reserve the right to unreasonableness and incoherence.

Posted by: severine at January 4, 2012 1:11 PM

Thanks for all your insight. This site has been really helpful to me… Please visit www.worldofbestporn.com

Posted by: Andrew A. Sailer at January 4, 2012 6:53 PM

Oooh, cuddly porn

If I remember correctly, she was essentially the Brit version of Reagan and had the same effect on their economy and social landscape, and yes, she seems to be viewed in much the same light as Reagan. I spent more time on roads and highways renamed for him these past two weeks and I can't help but think What the fuck did that guy do to get so much adoration?! Because I remember some similar shit to what we're going through now with failed 'trickle down' being replaced with 'job creators' and 'Iran/Contra' with 'Al Qaeda/Taliban', 'Russians with Muslims'!

I wonder, do they name highways after Thatcher? Or just battleships?

Posted by: Protoguy at January 4, 2012 8:24 PM

Oh, and the film? No intention of seeing it anymore than I wanted to see the one about Bush. Don't really see much point. That was kinda sealed when I heard Streep's Thatcher accent. Horrible.

Posted by: Protoguy at January 4, 2012 8:26 PM

@Diablo: How were the things you described a reason for the UK to go to war with Argentina?

Posted by: FabMax at January 6, 2012 9:06 AM