Do we really need these scenes of post-politician Thatcher, depicting her suffering from dementia? The scenes didn't strike me as insensitive so much as odd, reminiscent of the fantasy hospital scenes in "Angels in America" with Streep as a deceased Ethel Rosenberg haunting a dying Roy Cohn, but with Streep this time as the latter figure. If anything, they at least provide Streep with more opportunities to show just how committed she was to this role. So perhaps they are justified. But why the World War II flashbacks? Why the irrelevance? Why not have the other elements of the film match the perfect performance by Meryl Streep, instead of making them so lackluster?
Still, this movie is Meryl Streep's. We see Streep in a variety of different human qualities: ambition, arrogance, humility, fear, revenge, bitterness, peace. Forgive me for the cliche, but I had to frequently remind myself that I was watching Meryl Streep and not Margaret Thatcher. Streep's performances by now are so well-known: "Kramer vs. Kramer," "Manhattan," and "The Deer Hunter," "Silkwood," "A Cry in the Dark," "Sophie's Choice," "Out of Africa," "Postcards from the Edge," "Adaptation," "The Devil Wears Prada," "Mamma Mia!" and "Julie & Julia." If it were announced that she were to play Superman or James Bond I would not protest or question. Here it is impossible not to be captivated by her. And if Streep doesn't win, it will be a great tragedy.
As Thatcher she is the uncompromising enemy of compromise. We see her hallucinations turning frightening, as Denis (Jim Broadbent) is taunting her and encouraging (or provoking) her to drink more. We see her rise through parliament, where, if you were shocked by the "you lie!" moment several years ago in Congress, you should see a British Parliament session. (With all due respect to my British friends, why is there a man in a funny wig yelling "ord-ah! ord-ah!" if the politicians don't shut up?) The scenes with her as prime minister are more interesting, perhaps because it fits my typical liberal view of seeing Thatcher as a villain, and the scenes with her as an elder suffering do not. Anyway, it is easy to see this film through any prism you like. Conservatives, American and British alike, will appreciate the glory days of conservatism and the defense of free-market and tough foreign policy principles. Liberals, likewise, will get to see Thatcher as the villain they've always wanted; there's even a strange scene where she glides, whereas the gentlemen around her walk.
I could write for hours about Streep's performance, but unfortunately there are other aspects to this movie which must be discussed. Streep is directed by her "Mamma Mia!" director Phyllida Lloyd, who tries really hard, as do many other things in this film, but to no avail. Compare the non-linear storytelling of "We Need to Talk About Kevin," which is enigmatic and effective, to that of this movie, which seems formulaic, precisely what a movie like this shouldn't be. The make-up effects are exceptional, and the script is somewhat intelligent, and there are some unique shots, such as her first day at parliament, a drop of blue in a sea of dark suits. This is a movie that tries, but it simply either tries too hard or not hard enough.
Finally, the consensus seems to be now that there is no consensus on who will win this year's Best Actress award. The Oscars will likely use two biases against her: 1) the movie is mediocre at best and for that reason above all else she shouldn't get it, and 2) Meryl Streep is so good all the time that it's best to just give it to someone else this year.
Academy Awards, give the Oscar to her!
Posts
