Bea says: I was a schoolgirl in the 1980s, and quite politically aware, so despite not living in this country I remember seeing on the news, and hearing heated discussion of, some of the key scenes portrayed in this film (the Falklands war, riots, the miners strike, the poll tax). I remember what a hated (or loved) figure Thatcher was then, and when I arrived in the UK in 1995, not long after she stepped down. So I wasn't sure how I'd feel about this film.
Early on, I had the strange sensation of feeling inspired by someone whose politics I dislike - from the film's portrayal it is certainly true that young Margaret Roberts' attempts to stand for political office are inspiring to women, who generally have an easier time of making their way in the world now. Although I knew she was a grocer's daughter I had not realised how that had hampered her attempts to rise within the Conservative party, and I did relate to her sense of always feeling slightly on the outside due to not coming from the same background as most other people.
The film told the story of her years in power mostly in flashback, as her character is now elderly, and confused. It is a very good portrayal of dementia, in fact - of living in past memories and being bewildered by current life. It attempted, and achieved in my view, a balanced portrayal. As Margaret achieves more power, she becomes more and more single minded and less and less able to suffer fools gladly. One of the final scenes of her prime minister-ship is cringe-worthy - and perhaps suggesting that she was no longer functioning on form at the end.
The film also offers insights into her marriage and to a limited degree her family life, although much has been said before on these, and again strove to portray a balanced view. The portrait of her marriage to Dennis is interesting and touching - and showed his importance as the support behind her power.
It will be said by every reviewer - but Meryl Streep is absolutely pitch perfect and never misses a beat. She is totally believable in mannerisms, and voice. If she doesn't get an Oscar for this, it will be daylight robbery. I have read rumours that she is planning this to be her swansong - she will be missed; perhaps the greatest actor of our generation. There are overall good performances in this film, but Streep acts everyone else off the screen.
****1/2
Cecil says: This film is more to do with dementia and grief than it is about the so-called Thatcher Years. Given that most of the preview clips ARE from her flashback memories of her days in power, I can imagine many cinemagoers being a little disappointed if they have been led to believe that this film would transport them back to the glory days (or nightmare years, depending on your perspective).
Sure, we get reminders of certain key moments in her premiership, as Bea says, but this is much more about the Thatcher dealing with the grief of losing Dennis, and coping with old age.
When I first heard about this film being made, I wasn't sure I would want to see it, especially as I was one of those who detested the woman when she was in power. Did I want reminders of those bad old days which scarred my youth (all my 20s were lived under Thatcher)?
I was convinced by the interview with Streep as she went into the premiere showing in London last week. She came across so thoughtfully and was careful with how she expressed herself on a subject which she recognises still evokes strong passions in this country two decades on.
As Bea says, Streep was utterly brilliant. The tone of voice, the small mannerisms all captured perfectly. Rather like in Thatcher's governments, the other actors just faded into insignificance alongside.
What surprised me, and I couldn't tell whether this was the focus of the film or whether it was just a reflection of my own mellowing over the years, was that I felt little surge of blood or passion at any of the scenes. They all felt really very distant, almost as historical as the civil rights movement scenes we had watched in The Help only last month. I guess this is a good thing, since for me the society Thatcher created in the 1980s must have been about the most divided this nation has seen since the Civil War, and the country feels a lot healthier now: even the 2011 riots pale into relative insignificance next to the 1981 equivalents...
Swansong or not, this film really is about Meryl Streep, and is a must-see for all film-lovers.
***.5
Monday, 9 January 2012
Saturday, 7 January 2012
The Deep Blue Sea
Cecil says: Why?
Why was this film called The Deep Blue Sea?
Why have such slow-moving scenes that we spend up to 20 seconds watching a briefcase being shut? Or a pair of leather shoes being handed over from one person to the other, with no soundtrack except the faint creaking of the polished leather?
You kind of sense that Terence Davies must have had some deep, significant message to get across to us through this film. But buggered if I know what it was...
On the face of it, this was a lovely Friday night out: bit of romance (classic love triangle with the lovely Rachel Weisz - Hester - opposite Tom Hiddleston - Freddie, the RAF ace - and Simon Russell Beale - William, the ageing judge); a period piece (set in post-war England); and some good-old hearty singing throughout (ah, haven't pubs changed these days?).
But with an opening scene that has Weisz's voiceover reading out her own suicide note, you kind of sense that this might not be a joyfest; and two minutes in I leant over to Bea to comment on the slow pace. The funny thing is that the preview just prior to the film was of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, which looked more like a Harry Potter set with an old storyline, ie fast-paced, all-action and special effects.
Davies's story plods. And I couldn't help thinking all the way through that his dialogue didn't have enough of the cutting nastiness of Harold Pinter characters that make his films cope with silence so well.
That's not to say that the story didn't appeal to me and challenge me. These relationship dilemma plots are always thought-provoking, and Rachel Weisz is always a pleasure to watch, but no, I must make a commitment to myself: never go to see another Terence Davies film (remember Of Time and the City in 2008???), unless you really have nothing better to do, or you don't mind a glum ending to an evening out.
No, it wasn't that bad. But I can't give it more than **.5
Bea says:
This was a beautiful film to watch (the sets, the clothes, the hair), but like Cecil I found it rather slow for a Friday night - it might have better suited a languid Sunday afternoon perhaps... As it was, I was tired from a busy working week, and had just had a bowl of pasta at the Italian opposite, so had to wriggle and stretch to stay awake.
The story should have been more interesting, but it rather felt that too much was left out (why had Hester married the judge, who she did not love? Or did she love him once? Why was she so convinced that Freddie did not love her in the all-consuming way she loved him - they burnt up the screen whenever on it together. Had she tried suicide before?) Perhaps this was deliberate, to leave us wondering and having to fill in the gaps ourselves, but there was certainly time to flesh the characters out a bit.
Talking about the film this morning, Cecil and I both commented on how beautiful the war/postwar period looked in this film - the scene in Aldwych station for example during a bombing raid. Rather than overcrowding, stink and rats (which is what I imagine it was probably really like), there were candles, children nestled in bedding, and on the remarkably uncrowded platform, tables, bunting, and the lovely singing of a young man (Molly Malone - no accident I am sure as the chorus refrain is "Alive, alive-oh"). Similarly the supposedly austere flat of Freddie.
Lovely to look at, so if you go to see it savour its beauty, but have a good cup of coffee beforehand.
**1/2
Why was this film called The Deep Blue Sea?
Why have such slow-moving scenes that we spend up to 20 seconds watching a briefcase being shut? Or a pair of leather shoes being handed over from one person to the other, with no soundtrack except the faint creaking of the polished leather?
You kind of sense that Terence Davies must have had some deep, significant message to get across to us through this film. But buggered if I know what it was...
On the face of it, this was a lovely Friday night out: bit of romance (classic love triangle with the lovely Rachel Weisz - Hester - opposite Tom Hiddleston - Freddie, the RAF ace - and Simon Russell Beale - William, the ageing judge); a period piece (set in post-war England); and some good-old hearty singing throughout (ah, haven't pubs changed these days?).
But with an opening scene that has Weisz's voiceover reading out her own suicide note, you kind of sense that this might not be a joyfest; and two minutes in I leant over to Bea to comment on the slow pace. The funny thing is that the preview just prior to the film was of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, which looked more like a Harry Potter set with an old storyline, ie fast-paced, all-action and special effects.
Davies's story plods. And I couldn't help thinking all the way through that his dialogue didn't have enough of the cutting nastiness of Harold Pinter characters that make his films cope with silence so well.
That's not to say that the story didn't appeal to me and challenge me. These relationship dilemma plots are always thought-provoking, and Rachel Weisz is always a pleasure to watch, but no, I must make a commitment to myself: never go to see another Terence Davies film (remember Of Time and the City in 2008???), unless you really have nothing better to do, or you don't mind a glum ending to an evening out.
No, it wasn't that bad. But I can't give it more than **.5
Bea says:
This was a beautiful film to watch (the sets, the clothes, the hair), but like Cecil I found it rather slow for a Friday night - it might have better suited a languid Sunday afternoon perhaps... As it was, I was tired from a busy working week, and had just had a bowl of pasta at the Italian opposite, so had to wriggle and stretch to stay awake.
The story should have been more interesting, but it rather felt that too much was left out (why had Hester married the judge, who she did not love? Or did she love him once? Why was she so convinced that Freddie did not love her in the all-consuming way she loved him - they burnt up the screen whenever on it together. Had she tried suicide before?) Perhaps this was deliberate, to leave us wondering and having to fill in the gaps ourselves, but there was certainly time to flesh the characters out a bit.
Talking about the film this morning, Cecil and I both commented on how beautiful the war/postwar period looked in this film - the scene in Aldwych station for example during a bombing raid. Rather than overcrowding, stink and rats (which is what I imagine it was probably really like), there were candles, children nestled in bedding, and on the remarkably uncrowded platform, tables, bunting, and the lovely singing of a young man (Molly Malone - no accident I am sure as the chorus refrain is "Alive, alive-oh"). Similarly the supposedly austere flat of Freddie.
Lovely to look at, so if you go to see it savour its beauty, but have a good cup of coffee beforehand.
**1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)