There are really only a handful of effective biopics. Films like "The Aviator," "Capote" and "Milk" work well because the filmmakers approach their subjects as film characters. This allows that the freedom to work from the inside out, rather than concentrating on complete accuracy. Other films like"Patton" and "Ed Wood" work because there is an unknowable quality to these figures that the filmmakers opt not to question. Rather, they stand back and let us try to figure them out for ourselves.
Unfortunately, for every biopic that works, there are probably five that don’t. For every "Ed Wood", there are two "Beyond the Sea." These films objectify the subject without delving too deep leading to a shallow almost exploitative viewing experience. The filmmakers simply want to trade on their subjects’ recognizably, rather than actually saying something about them.
Phyllida Lloyd’s "The Iron Lady" is not totally in the latter camp, but is certainly not in the former. In telling the story of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lloyd displays an eye for detail and tone that effectively creates a political world that is an impenetrable bureaucracy. The men at the heart of British government in the 1970s and 80s are portrayed as stubborn bulldogs. They’ve been doing this the same way for years and they just going to keep on doing it that way until they die. In the midst of this comes a strong-willed, independent woman, who fights her way into the boys club and quickly takes charge. It is to Lloyd’s credit that the lead up to Thatcher’s reign is exciting and effective. When telling the story of an important political figure, few things are more important than creating a strong context. We need to get a sense of where and when this person lived, so that we might better understand how they might have decided to take certain actions. Lloyd manages to go against the standard biopic stereotype and manages to tell a good portion of the story visually, rather than simply have characters sit around in a medium shot explaining everything to the audience.
Unfortunately, once Thatcher takes office, the film devolves into a story we’ve seen countless times before, albeit with the genders reversed. Once again, the familiar trope of the unappreciated spouse complaining about not being a priority gets trotted out and we are given some token introspection from Thatcher. Also, many of the specific achievements that Thatcher obtained while in office are skimmed over. Perhaps Lloyd found the simple fact of Thatcher’s election to be inspiring enough. Maybe she didn’t feel comfortable really delving into a figure as divisive as the conservative Prime Minister. Whatever the director’s reason, I think it is a major mistake to retreat from Thatcher's ideals. There are a few scenes when the audience is given a sense of this woman’s convictions, whether we believe in them or not, and these scenes are stirring. There is the moment when she decides to go to war to defend the British territories, even though she is under tremendous pressure to simply let them go. As we see Thatcher stand up to her advisers and even the American ambassador, we really start to feel like we’re seeing the real Thatcher in action, rather than a quick series of reenactments.
Ultimately, the choice to make a film about Margaret Thatcher at all is an interesting one. Thatcher is a controversial figure, and there is no doubt a great film to be made about her. Unfortunately, Lloyd and her screenwriter seldom seem very interested in going very deep into her character.
As with any biopic, good or bad, the vital element of the film is the lead performance. And, thankfully, Meryl Streep displays a commitment to crafting not only a physically and behaviorally accurate performance, but one of substance. Like so many other actors in these types of roles, Streep could have relied heavily on the exterior of the character; the part we are all familiar with. Instead, much like Phillip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote", Streep creates a full-fledged, three-dimensional character with hopes, dreams, and fears. Only after the character is finished does Streep layer on the cosmetic qualities.
It has become such a standard position that Meryl Streep is a great actress that we sometimes forget why we think that. Her performance here reminds us. At every level, she is committed to the performance. She puts forth a great amount of effort into the role while making it all look so easy. It would have been enough for her to skate through this role, throw on an accent, sound commanding, then go home. But she doesn’t. She invests herself in the role. While watching the film, I not only forgot that I was watching Meryl Streep; I forgot that I was watching “The Best Actress of Her Generation.” I wasn’t even thinking in those terms. I was simply watching Margaret Thatcher.
It is Streep’s committed performance that makes me wish there was a better film surrounding her. She certainly elevates the film- along with the sturdy support of Jim Broadbent- but there is only so high it can go when it seems only superficially interested in its subject. Ultimately, the choice to make a film about Margaret Thatcher at all is an interesting one. Thatcher is a controversial figure, and there is no doubt a great film to be made about her. Unfortunately, Lloyd and her screenwriter seldom seem very interested in going very deep into her character
No comments:
Post a Comment