Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The Iron Lady

I need someone to help me out with The Iron Lady. While watching it, I was reminded of most dreams I have. My dreams are typically a series of events that start and end without warning. New characters are brought in with no introduction and zero context, the narrative is non linear and nonsensical, and in the morning, I try my best to piece it all together.

That’s the exact experience I had with Phyllida Lloyd’s flawed Margaret Thatcher film. The movie is 105 minutes long, and I think I was able to follow about 10 of them. I’m a pretty sharp guy. And when it comes to movies, I’m shaper than Hattori Hanzo’s steel. My point is: I pay attention in films; it is very difficult for me to not “get” something. But I honestly hadn’t the slightest clue what the fuck was going on in The Iron Lady. It’s a muddled, discombobulated mess that ranks among the very worst biopics I’ve ever seen.

When it begins, Thatcher (Meryl Streep) is old and decrepit, and, as it turns out, certifiably schizophrenic. At home, despite being surrounded by several aides and caretakers, Thatcher divulges in extended conversations with her husband, Denis (Jim Broadbent), who has been dead for years. They eat breakfast together, poke fun at each other, and so on.  I don’t know a whole lot about Margaret Thatcher, but The Iron Lady makes it sincerely look like she has gone insane. Is this true? Is she completely nuts? (I’m not being sarcastic here, I honestly do not know.)
The film spends equal time cutting back and forth between Thatcher talking to her dead husband, and her rise to political power several decades earlier. The dead husband stuff is pretty straightforward, but no less engaging. The flashbacks of her younger years are the scenes that went straight over my head. No supporting characters are introduced and no context is ever given to any scene, it’s as if Lloyd and screenwriter Abi Morgan (who co-wrote Shame, my favorite script from 2011), assumed viewers had an innate, insider’s perspective of British politics in the ‘80s. I don’t give a shit about the politics of my own country, let alone one I do not reside in. So for politically apathetic people like myself, a film like The Iron Lady needs to make its points clear and moderately assessable, in a way that is (hopefully) fresh.

I suppose Meryl Streep’s second place Oscar status (directly behind Viola Davis) is to be expected. But does her performance really merit it? Not in my eyes. Many people have praised Streep’s performance as a “flawless impersonation.” Since when is an impersonation sole grounds for an Academy Award? Yes, I’m fully aware how many actors have won Oscars for playing real life people. Some of those performances justified awards, others did not. Good make-up and a lot of yelling isn’t enough. Where’s the substance, the cohesion – where is the movie that doesn’t make me feel like I’ve awoken from a bad dream? D-

14 comments:

  1. Brilliant review. I haven't seen this, but I've read a lot of negative reviews and this has to be one of the best. I honestly don't give a fuck about Thatcher or Meryl Streep, whose talent extends only to her ability to put on realistic accents that are nevertheless annoying and difficult to take seriously. I mean, look at the piece of shit that was Julie and Julia. That movie was the worst, and I was seriously hoping Streep's character would just die. She frustrates me so, so, so much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Tyler Dude, you are the ONLY other person I know that hates Julie and Julia as much as me. Thank fucking god.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Streep’s performance is so true and so uncannily accurate, so full and so complete in its understanding, that she is fascinating every second she is onscreen. As for the film itself, the structure is a bit off and the screenplay doesn’t really give us much else other than a history lesson, but a good history lesson at that. Nice review Alex.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You can add me to the J&J haters list!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Harsh,harsh. No she was not going insane...she was very much grieving at the loss of someone who had been a daily part of her life for years . Developing dementia maybe, but not insane. I, for, one liked her in the role and was not bored at all by the storyline.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This film is so bad, and thought I was the only one who didn't think Meryl Streep was a worthy Oscar candidate. Her perf. and the makeup are the only features worth praising. What a mediocre mess of a film (no agenda, awful stylistic choices - what's with the drab, washed-out photography, and odd soundtrack choices?). Colossal screw-up!

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Dan O. Yeah I definitely thought the structure was off, or better yet, non existant. Do you think Streep deserves to win Best Actress?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Colin Nice! Interesting fact: the real Julie from that movie (not Amy Adams, the actual Julie) became obsessed with Chris Messina, the actor who portrays her husband in Julie and Julia. She actually separated from her real husband and everything. That would make for a far more interesting film.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Andy Buckle Agree agree agree. I was baffled and dumbfounded throughout. This movie makes The Tree of Life look as accessible as a Disney film.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Alexx. Wow, what a movie that would be! Like Tabloid, in a way. The only way it could be bettered were if the real-life Amy Adams (Amy Adams) decided to run off with a 45-year old blogger from England.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great review. I'm puzzled as to what the people involved wanted to achieve with this movie. She is so hated and despised yet the trailers made it look as if they were doing a film about a great heroine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Sati. I was really confounded by that too. I thought it was a Do-No-Wrong biopic, when it was anything but. One of the many many problems I had with this flick.

    ReplyDelete