THE IRON LADY

The difficult thing about adapting a controversial life is that one has to choose a course. Deify it, and you run the risk of propaganda. Vilify it, and you run the risk of character-attack. However, in choosing one or the other, at least the storyteller takes a stand shapes the story.

Perhaps a far greater misstep than propping someone up or tearing someone down, is simply not taking a side at all.

THE IRON LADY introduces us to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep) in her later years. She is struggling with dementia, and has visions of her dead husband Dennis (Jim Broadbent). For no specific reason, we begin to reflect on her life. We begin with her entry into politics at a time where British government was no place for a woman. The young Margaret (Alexandra Roach) has listened closely to her Alderman father, believes that government is not just a place for the privileged…and that it just requires strong convictions and the ability to voice them to lead one’s community.

She eventually ascends into national politics, and as an adult is groomed to take a high cabinet position within England’s Conservative Party. As she continues to dodge the sexist barbs, she grows increasingly confident, and eventually finds herself in position to challenge for leadership of the party. Her leadership run is a success, and she becomes the first female Prime Minister of England. However, not one to rest on her laurels, she soon starts to lead the country through a neverending string of controversial policy-making.

The course she takes to drag England out of financial ruin sparks riot and bloodshed in the streets…her direction of England’s presence in Northern Ireland brings terror to her doorstep…and her unwavering course to war with Argentina costs scores of British lives.

Too bad the film decides to only skim through all of that controversy.
The trouble with creating a bio-pic, especially when it involves a subject that lived an extraordinary life, is in deciding just how much of that extraordinary life to retell. To me, the very best bio-pics are the ones that set hard  margins and focus in on something specific. For a political figure, I find it best when a film focuses on one particular crisis or movement. While the subject might have done many other extraordinary things, to include all (or even several) waters down the narrative, and takes away from the sense of character. Sadly, THE IRON LADY isn’t interested in telling us “some” very well. It’s more interested in telling us “all” very half-assed.

This film isn’t the story of Margaret Thatcher so much as it is a 105 minute montage. The film feels at its best when we spend time with young Margaret and old Margaret – both of which contain probably the best character moments by the actors involved. Young Margaret seems like such an original mix of ambition and quiet reservation that I found myself wanting to listen to her more – alas, she leaves us far too soon. Old Margaret, while sometimes seeming heavy-handed, is an intriguing image: a one-time leader worn down by time. Sadly, when she is not being used for cliche, she is overshadowed by those around her doting on her.

Where the film really gets offensive is in-between the two Margarets. The bulk of the film where Meryl Streep plays “Thatchers Greatest Hits”. At no time do we get any insight into the woman who was such a controversial leader, nor are we given much of  chance to understand the ramifications of her decisions. On more than one occasion, she is led to 10 Downing while her car is being swarmed with protestors. These moments are usually flanked by archival images of Britons rioting. Why? I know the answer to that question, but that’s because I’ve picked up a history text book. Were I going on this film alone, I wouldn’t for the first second understand what it was Thatcher was doing that had her citizens in such a state of unrest.

What’s curious is that the film neither flatters nor decries its heroine. It is neither right nor left-leaning. How does that happen? She’s a political figure – she had supporters and detractors. How is it possible to tell her life story, and seem neither glowing nor scathing? Perhaps it’s because none of it feels real. Every moment set within The House of Parliament is overplayed to the point that it begins to feel like a cartoon. Sure, English politicians can get a little more animated than their North American contemporaries, but not to this hammy extent. Because of that, we get no grounded sense of what was happening in England in the 80’s (which was fascinating – go look it up), nor Thatcher’s role within it.

Meryl Streep’s performance is an interesting one. For most of the time when she’s “Old Maggie”, she gives us something textured. She embodies sadness, frustration, and pride from moment to moment. Sometimes she even breaks free of the handcuffs of playing off the ghost of her dead husband. That would have been an award-worthy performance. However, when Streep plays “Prime Maggie”, she too becomes a caricature and delivers every line with a wide-eyed, purse-lipped silliness that I could envision being used on Saturday Night Live in the 80’s. If anything, she needed some quieter scenes to counteract these moments of grandeur, but sadly, the script didn’t want to give her any.

I feel like I’m being too kind in some respects, so allow me to be clear: THE IRON LADY is a steaming mess of a movie. Were it not for a handful of handsome visuals, and fleeting moments with Young Maggie and Old Maggie, I’d be giving this film a zero-star rating. It skims the surface of a life that has so very much depth, and doesn’t take a stand on any elements of the life in question. Streep does the best with what she’s handed, but unfortunately what she’s handed is the worst part she’s played in a decade.

Thatcher’s life would make for a fascinating film, but this movie doesn’t come anywhere close.

Matineescore: 1/2 ★ out of ★ ★ ★ ★

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions on THE IRON LADY.