Review: ‘The Iron Lady’ – Sheamus Sweeney DCU

Critical Media Review’s second entry is fitting in this age of neo-liberal austerity. Sheamus Sweeney of Dublin City University reviews the biopic of that great warrior of neo-liberalism Margaret Thatcher. In ‘The Iron Lady’ the reviewer finds a film decontextualised of both politics and outcome and a recasting of Thatcher as a plain ‘grocers daughter’ and a feminist struggling in a man’s world.

The Iron Lady – Sheamus Sweeney DCU

Do you remember that episode of The Simpsons where Marge painted a portrait of Mr Burns as a frail and naked old man? One person looked at the painting and said, “he’s bad, but he’ll die. So I like it“. This is the best perspective from which to approach a film that displays as much historical and political insight into Thatcher’s life as any semi-attentive person would have picked up over the past thirty years. As the story is told from the perspective of an increasingly frail and confused old woman this could account for some of the more self-serving memories and omissions. On the other hand, Phyllida Lloyd (director) and Abi Morgan (writer) have suggested that one of the motivations behind the film was to explore the deterioration of somebody suffering  from dementia. This is a little like suggesting that Downfall is an exploration of the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease. Whatever the reasons, the decision to use such a device results in historical distortion that often borders on the grotesque. This is important because, whatever its shortcomings, the film is likely to become the dominant frame of reference for many people who lack firsthand memories of Thatcher’s premiership. It is so devoid of insight and detail that at times I found a completely different narrative running in my head like a vitamin supplement compensating for nutritional deficiencies.

For a start, my alternative narrative included women apart from Margaret Thatcher. She is reinvented, as Seumas Milne points out, as a pioneering feminist and class warrior; a petit-bourgeois Spartacus appropriating feminism for the right. She is a woman in a man’s world, and the cliché is startlingly apt. She is presented as the only, possibly the first, woman to enter the House of Commons. The benches of her own party are packed exclusively with white, middle aged men in suits. So too, are those of the opposition. In this version of history, there is no Barbara Castle or Shirley Williams shouting at her from the opposite side of the house.  This film does not depict the under-representation of women in British politics. It suggests their complete absence. When other women do appear in the film it is either in a subordinate caring role, like the staff in Downing Street, or as cheerleaders on the election trail. Similarly, women are completely absent from the strikers and protesters who seem to regularly besiege the Prime Minister’s car. Admittedly, the steelworkers and mineworkers unions were exclusively male. Their sexual politics were often less than progressive. Much of the abuse hurled at Thatcher was sexist in nature, and the NUM’s internal newspaper still had a topless model on page three when the strike against pit closures began in 1984. Nevertheless, the narrative conflates big and small “c” conservatism in the most vulgar way. Thatcher is presented as a vulnerable, but strong woman at the mercy of powerful, but vacillating, men. Class distinctions are obliterated as wealthy Conservatives and trade unionists defending their jobs are simplistically reduced to leering men standing in Maggie’s way. The destruction of British manufacturing and the erasing of entire communities is sacrificed to the most offensive and reductive form of gender politics.

The miners’ strike itself and the IRA hunger strike are disposed of in brief segments of contemporary footage. Both would have been suitable candidates to showcase Thatcher’s renowned obstinacy and single-mindedness. Yet it is the Falklands war that fulfils this role, the enemy without being far less historically contentious than the enemy within. In general, satirical comparisons between The Iron Lady and Downfall are probably inevitable. In this part of the film they seem oddly appropriate, as Maggie faces down her own group of vacillating, defeatist generals and orders the sinking of the Belgrano. The irony that the Belgrano had survived the bombing of Pearl Harbour is lost even though Thatcher had cited the attack in a previous scene as a precedent for the defence of the Falklands.

If the film can be said to do a disservice to Thatcher it is in the way it reduces her political philosophy to obstinacy of character, hence her nickname and the film’s title. Towards the end of her tenure as prime minister, when this obstinacy becomes politically untenable it is in turn ascribed to her developing physical infirmity rather than ideological hubris. Her name may underpin neoliberal economics, but here Thatcherism is breezily reduced to good housekeeping and the common sense economics of the grocer’s daughter. Her conquest of the Tory leadership becomes a matter of a new hairstyle, and a better speaking voice. There is no mention of her admiration for Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, or of her fellow free marketeers in the Conservative Party. When some of the tory “wets” suggest that austerity medicine is killing the patient, the obvious contemporary resonance  is bludgeoned beneath Thatcher’s single-minded insistence that the medicine will work. This may be effective as an illustration of character, but it does not help in any consideration of her legacy and influence.

At times, the omissions veer between the merely surreal to the offensive. In one scene late in the film, she imagines dancing with her husband, Denis. This becomes a recollection of other dances, notably with Ronald Reagan in the White House. And a dance with Nelson Mandela! Whether or not this was fictional, presented in this way it is a gross distortion of history as it is the one (indirect) reference made to apartheid South Africa. No reference is made to Thatcher’s opposition to economic sanctions against the regime, of her description of the ANC as a terrorist organisation, or of Mandela as a terrorist. Instead, she slides onto the dancefloor as a friend of freedom and a fighter against injustice. It is an especially revealing fabrication as noticeably missing from her dance card is her good friend Augusto Pinochet, fascist dictator of Chile. Given that her memory of the Falklands war is otherwise so clear, his absence is all the more puzzling considering how crucial his assistance apparently was.

On a couple of occasions, however, there are hints of an alternative film. Leaving Downing Street for the last time, while trampling some red rose petals for good symbolic measure, she says that they are leaving the country in a better state to that in which they found it. There is nothing in the film to suggest this. During a visit to the doctor, the elderly Thatcher complains that politics is now all about feelings rather than ideas. She makes an impassioned case for her anti-materialist ideology, explaining how ideas lead to actions, and how actions shape the world. Both examples suggest a different, more insightful, intelligent, and honest film than the current one.

Instead, in The Iron Lady, Meryl Streep excels in the role of an old woman with dementia who thinks she is Margaret Thatcher. In one sense, it is sadly appropriate that she is now a frail old woman, suffering from hallucinations. After all, we are living in the world she helped create and which most of us wish was simply a hallucination.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Review: ‘The Iron Lady’ – Sheamus Sweeney DCU

  1. I read the film as honest, intelligent and insightful. I would add brave to that list. It was of interest that it generated discourse among those who had viewed it that mainly focused on history and worked to position Thatcher firmly as ‘Monster’. Those who had not viewed the film or who refused to view it (on points of principle that varied from thinly veiled dislike to blatant expressions of hatred for the former British Prime Minister) equally felt obliged to comment.
    Regarding the film becoming the dominant frame of reference for Thatcher I agree, it is an important film. Students armed with ‘theory tool boxes’ and Academics can busy themselves quite happily for years to come with this one. It is also to be hoped that the film encourages a rash of film-makers to further explore Lloyd and Morton’s intelligent construct.
    Study for a T.V Drama exam was to the forefront of my mind when I went to see the film. Mc Loon’s assertion that T.V drama tells us more about the period in which the Drama is made rather than the period in which it is set rattled in my brain as I watched (obviously Lloyd had been influenced by working in the B.B.C T.V Drama department for five years 1979- 1984). Zizek ‘s ‘Living in the End Times’ elbowed for attention. I viewed the dementia theme as a metaphor that set up a binary between Thatchers downfall and the downfall of Capitalism. There is also a theme of mourning.The choices the director made did not abdicate on responsibility to the political. In the binary that was set up between the issue of the Hunger Strikers and The Brighton Bombings in particular, Lloyd demonstrated the capacity for violence and inhuman behaviours on both sides when fixed Ideologies are really all that is brought to a negotiating table. Far from functioning as a neo-Liberal attempt to rehabilitate Thatcher, this film invites an examination of the actual dynamics of her political life. In emptying Thatcher of the ‘drama’ that intense focus on her political career warts and all would undoubtedly reveal, Lloyd moved in the less obvious direction obviously with a good understanding that the meaning of text is generated in the discourses that develop around it. Directing our gaze towards an awareness of the fluid nature of identity and the current powerlessness of Thatcher, the Director solicits an examination of the history that requires the viewer to think, rather than function as a passive spectator. Examination of a ‘devouring machine’ that chews us up and spits us out is difficult to avoid. As an under graduate the film sent me fleeing to Foucault (in particular his ideas on power and punishment ) in a desperate attempt to understand an empathy deficit that seems to have become embedded in society, one that functions to normalise the de-humanisation of those who do not share our opinions and views or who threaten us in some way. Lloyd is better known for her work in Theatre in particular Shakespeare. King Lear in particular springs to mind when viewing The Iron Lady.
    Margaret Atwood chose Lloyd to Direct a reading of her novella ‘The Penelopiad'(2005) which was very successful (Lloyd had previously directed Atwood’s ‘The Handmaids Tale’. Her success with her feature début ‘Mama Mia (2008), the largest grossing film in British history, position Lloyd as a credible voice for the feminism and a film-maker to watch.She has with two feature films demonstrated admirably that Women can make commercially viable and socially relevant films in an industry that has not traditionally been Woman friendly.
    Jackie Condron February – 17- 2012

  2. Pingback: For the day that’s in it! | critical media review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s