Now I was honestly hoping that The Iron Lady was either a) a sequel to The Iron Giant, which would have been awesome or b) an Iron Man sequel which showed Pepper Potts donning the Iron Man suit. Sadly, I got a clear awards film that plays up the melodrama and holds out it hands for the slew of awards that it hopes to receive. The first time that I watched the trailer, it played out like a paint-by-numbers trailer for every single Oscar film that comes out in December. I thought that maybe this film wouldn’t be so Oscary when I get to see the full film. Well, to say the least and to setup the tone of this review, I was extremely disappointed.
The Iron Lady is a film that, the way I saw it, brings to life the check list on the storied career of Margaret Thatcher, played brilliantly by Meryl Streep. When I say check list, I mean that the director Phyllida Lloyd (Mama Mia!) and writer Abi Morgan seemingly made a movie that had them revisiting dog eared pages on the biographies they read about Margaret Thatcher. The film chronicles the life of Thatcher from the early stages of her career to the grooming of her time in Parliment and capping the film off with the Falkland Wars or Malvinas for those on the other side of the battle, plus some time for reflection on her life and career. But while these things would be interesting to focus on, the film actually settles at this weird, memory driven film, focusing on Margaret Thatcher in the midst of her descent into dementia and having a conversation with her dead husband, who is played by Jim Broadbent. The confusing thing about this is why are we focusing on her conservation, which are made up from what I can tell since I doubt that Thatcher had transcripts of her conversations, with her deceased husband? The movie uses these conversations to jump into particular memories about her life, either in her childhood or during poignant moments during her time as Prime Minister.
This is where the film just loses me. This fractured narrative utilizes the typical bio-pic mechanism where we are introduced to a famous figure, typically in old age, then flashback to an earlier time in their life where the film will focus the entirety of the story on for the full run time, not jump back and forth into particular important memories. Some will say that it is used to paint a picture of her life and give meaning since in her dementia, those memories are important. That’s all well and good, but those memories are just that, a picture. There is no insight given to important memories, other than to just give you a visual of what Thatcher went through at that particular time. If you know anything about Margaret Thatcher, you would want some insight into these important memories or scenes. Thatcher was one of the most polarizing figures in British politics, but nothing about this movie is controversial. We don’t get a debate on her politics as there is no development from her counterparts and the opposing party. It’s just an essay on her entire life with no real explanation or expansion. How can you justify talking about a famous political figure like Thatcher, one marred in controversy, and not talk about any of it?
The problem with the movie, and there are a lot of them, is the focus of the story being on the entire life of Thatcher. When you have two hours to tell a story about a certain figure, do what the Kings Speech did, which this movie really wanted to be, and focus on one important time in her life. I don’t want to see a movie about the history of her life, just the part that will get me involved. I understand that director Phyllida Lloyd is a director of theater and this being her second movie, played this film like it was meant for the stage. Each memory acts like the next scene change instead of being a reflection on what that scene means to us. All I know is that Thatcher is the rogue woman of politics and gets chided by her male counterparts. You have an amazing talent like Meryl Streep, who turns in a mesmerizing performance as Thatcher and waste her talents on a story that doesn’t really go anywhere. She nails the mannerism and poise of Thatcher, to the point that it’s almost like watching historical footage of the Iron Lady. She is meant, in a way, to carry the entire film and all it’s shortcomings, which sadly outweigh the performance she gives. If the film is wanting awards, which it was clearly made to win them, then they will get some acclaim from Streep’s performance.
I am really at a loss for this movie. I love biopics and when they are about a polarizing character, I am absolutely sucked in. Sadly, I am left with the same knowledge and opinions about Thatcher and her legacy, never being challenged to think about them as the movie doesn’t offer up debate. It tries to be the Switzerland of biopic movies, when it really shouldn’t be with their subject. How they handled the main set piece, which is the Falkland War (in my mind), is weird since we are treated to a truncated version of the war where she makes her general platitudes, but doesn’t expand on the impact that her intervention and conflict has on England after it is all said and done. You are left with just these montages of historic high points in her career and that’s all. Apparently that is all her life was, a series of montages.
I still scratch my head over why the director and writer chose to focus on Thatchers dementia, either as some cheap metaphor as to how even the mighty can fall from grace or something. I wanted them to dump the whole, capture her entire life in two hour feel and focus on an important time in her career. The movie tries so hard to be the King’s Speech, which might be an unfair comparison since it deals with different timelines and characters, but you basically substitute the handicap of the stutter in place of not having a penis as the main characters conflict. I realize that she wasn’t the most revered politician, especially in the all boys club of British politics, but the film doesn’t take the time to focus on her struggles. Streep is placed in little vignettes in Thatchers career, acts through them marvelously and then shuffled onto the next scene. It’s like watching a high school yearbooks “best of” reel and that’s it. No true conflicts between her and the opposition, some scenes of riots from the voters and a few instances of her being vilified are the only bits of conflict. Such a polarizing and complex figure that isn’t made complex, instead she’s just there. Her only struggle is apparently being a woman, overcoming the odds. But you can’t really lean on that fact when the woman went on to be the PM for almost 11 years. There has to be more than just, she was a woman fighting for her place in politics, and more she was a woman who made difficult decisions and invigorated the politics of Britain, for good or worse.
If you are wanting to see this movie for Meryl Streep’s performance, I suggest something else. Go watch Doubt or even The Devil Wears Prada for a good time with Streep’s acting. She is just sadly wasted in a movie about the check list life of Margaret Thatcher. She will undoubtedly get praise for her portrayal of Thatcher, which the Academy and awards committee can’t help but love when an actor plays a historical figure, but the story of The Iron Lady doesn’t do anything other than highlight her performance, not enhancing it as it should. I am left with a lot of unanswered questions on the storied career of Thatcher and the film does nothing to expand upon the woman and her career. You’re basically leafing through an important person’s photo album and looking at the important times of their life with no deep insight. At some point, I will re-watch this movie and maybe I will come to appreciate the work, but having to review this after seeing it weeks back gives me a bit of time to reflect on the film. It’s a muddled story and narrative structure, highlighted by the delightful and even meaningful portrayal of Thatcher. Sure the structure of having her talk to her deceased husband might be a bit off, but it does at least bring a bit of levity and framing of Britain’s controversial PM. That is more due to how Streep plays Thatcher, which is honest and meaningful. As for the story, at least it brought to light a lot of her career, but that shouldn’t replace a structured story. I get her life was filled with important moments, but I don’t need to see them all.
Rating: 2/5
*all images via