April 2012
--Good you reminded me about Iron Lady. That movie has been here for months and I never got around to watching it. I watched it this morning. Glad I did.
First off, I’ve never been a Margaret Thatcher fan and this movie didn't change the opinion I have of her. I lived in London thru most of her regime. She fucked up Britain as much as Reagan fucked up America, and in both places the results are still with us, probably forever.
She was on her way out and was saved by the Falklands episode. After that she was regarded as The Iron Lady, and celebrated as a chieftian of war. It was a spectacular military effort, one that’ll be studied in military textbooks. The Brits came from behind, over “impassable” terrain and caught the Argentinians by surprise, a lot like how Lawrence took Aquaba.
I lived there thru most of her time as Prime Minister, and I remember all the other events in the movie--the IRA bombings, the strikes, particularly the coalminers’ strike which brought the country to standstill. During her time State industries and services, like railroads, were sold off to the “private sector.” And everything that went private soon went to hell.
This woman brought division and strife to the country. She cut the taxes for the wealthy and all of the social services just like Reagan. England’s theatre, for example, became what it was because of State subsidies and support. She cut that and now the English theater isn't as robust. Now they do mostly musicals, and plays with well known American stars, actors who can’t act worth a fuck. All this to sell tickets.
From the 60’s there appeared something called “fringe theatre” something like Off Off Broadway in the U.S. The actors still got Equity scale but the venues were away from the West End. Even pubs were venues. They would convert their upstairs into small theatres. They even had the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh (still do). Actors got a start in Fringe, the plays were more experimental and original in theme and substance, mostly new plays. Lots of them transferred then to the West End, and both areas benefited. Thatcher cut subsidies and Fringe theatre sort of withered away. And so did the robustness of the West End.
That's how she made life good for the wealthy and the emerging so called meritocracy.
What really brought “prosperity” to Britain was the advent of credit cards. When I first got there credit cards were a rarity. Credit itself was rare. If you wanted an appliance you put it on layaway, and got it when it was paid. Then about the time Thatcher got in credit cards went apeshit. Everybody had one. Credit went crazy and this gave a false sense of wealth. In reality the entire country was going into debt. Prices went up, especially property prices, just like here. Soon if you didn't already have a flat in London (with rent control) it’s impossible to move and live there unless you had money or a great professional job. In other words, a yuppie. I saw all of that in my time there. It would be impossible now to do what I did in London, find nice flats, work, and learn the Londoner tricks of living well in spite of the prices. Every time I go back the place seems cheesier and without heart. All new glitz. Reminds me almost of Las Vegas sometimes. Even so, it’s still London and it's like an elephant. It takes more than Thatcher or Tony Blair who even tho he was Labor, embraced everything that Thatcher put out. England is now in worse shape than Italy or Spain.
I thought the opening scene in the movie said a lot. It’s in a store owned by a middle easterner; we see a seeming obnoxious older yuppie buy a paper and leave, oblivious to anything but his smartphone; and the old lady, Thatcher, has to nearly fight herself past a guy way off somewhere in his iPod. Good scene, that. Sets up current London. And a good intro to Thatcher.
Then into the Denis conceit. That first scene when she is talking to him, then he disappears when the daughter comes in, really startled me. The conceit was good all the way thru the movie. It was there to humanize her and it did. It was sad because at the end she sends Denis packing (literally) and then she's all alone, now in her cherished reality. But is being old, alone and without illusion that much better? This movie ends quite sadly.
The portrayal of Denis was on the mark. He was well liked. There was a play on the West End, called “Denis, Anyone?” which tried taking the piss out of Denis. Even tho the play ran a long time and was funny, it didn't damage Denis at all. In fact made people like him all the more. He took the piss out of himself.
And Meryl Streep! What an incredible job she does. I remember when she won the Academy Award for this I thought oh hell not her again. After seeing her I got to say my mind has changed. She’s got Thatcher down cold!
So straight off the acting is terrific. And the script. That conceit of the dead Denis coming in and out of her fantasies is good. We learn a lot about Thatcher, making the flashbacks that much stronger, particularly since they're from Thatcher’s POV. If I had a quibble about the script it would be that not enough is shown about the havoc she caused and her actual governing. But that’s not what the script was trying to do so it’s an unfair quibble. Just the same we can’t say this is an accurate look into her because so much is fantasy confrontations with Denis and the writer had no way of guessing what was in her head.
The movie itself has all the hallmarks of a Brit movie. I love their movies, what they do with the camera, how they fill the frame, how they are impeccable with detail, the lighting. The direction is very good (Phyllida Lloyd). She lets the scene develop without rushing, having faith in the script and the actors. All of this is in this movie. And of course great acting from top to very bottom. The Brits know how to make a movie. When they become ex-pats and direct American movies you can tell where they learned the craft.
--Joe
--Good you reminded me about Iron Lady. That movie has been here for months and I never got around to watching it. I watched it this morning. Glad I did.
First off, I’ve never been a Margaret Thatcher fan and this movie didn't change the opinion I have of her. I lived in London thru most of her regime. She fucked up Britain as much as Reagan fucked up America, and in both places the results are still with us, probably forever.
She was on her way out and was saved by the Falklands episode. After that she was regarded as The Iron Lady, and celebrated as a chieftian of war. It was a spectacular military effort, one that’ll be studied in military textbooks. The Brits came from behind, over “impassable” terrain and caught the Argentinians by surprise, a lot like how Lawrence took Aquaba.
I lived there thru most of her time as Prime Minister, and I remember all the other events in the movie--the IRA bombings, the strikes, particularly the coalminers’ strike which brought the country to standstill. During her time State industries and services, like railroads, were sold off to the “private sector.” And everything that went private soon went to hell.
This woman brought division and strife to the country. She cut the taxes for the wealthy and all of the social services just like Reagan. England’s theatre, for example, became what it was because of State subsidies and support. She cut that and now the English theater isn't as robust. Now they do mostly musicals, and plays with well known American stars, actors who can’t act worth a fuck. All this to sell tickets.
From the 60’s there appeared something called “fringe theatre” something like Off Off Broadway in the U.S. The actors still got Equity scale but the venues were away from the West End. Even pubs were venues. They would convert their upstairs into small theatres. They even had the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh (still do). Actors got a start in Fringe, the plays were more experimental and original in theme and substance, mostly new plays. Lots of them transferred then to the West End, and both areas benefited. Thatcher cut subsidies and Fringe theatre sort of withered away. And so did the robustness of the West End.
That's how she made life good for the wealthy and the emerging so called meritocracy.
What really brought “prosperity” to Britain was the advent of credit cards. When I first got there credit cards were a rarity. Credit itself was rare. If you wanted an appliance you put it on layaway, and got it when it was paid. Then about the time Thatcher got in credit cards went apeshit. Everybody had one. Credit went crazy and this gave a false sense of wealth. In reality the entire country was going into debt. Prices went up, especially property prices, just like here. Soon if you didn't already have a flat in London (with rent control) it’s impossible to move and live there unless you had money or a great professional job. In other words, a yuppie. I saw all of that in my time there. It would be impossible now to do what I did in London, find nice flats, work, and learn the Londoner tricks of living well in spite of the prices. Every time I go back the place seems cheesier and without heart. All new glitz. Reminds me almost of Las Vegas sometimes. Even so, it’s still London and it's like an elephant. It takes more than Thatcher or Tony Blair who even tho he was Labor, embraced everything that Thatcher put out. England is now in worse shape than Italy or Spain.
I thought the opening scene in the movie said a lot. It’s in a store owned by a middle easterner; we see a seeming obnoxious older yuppie buy a paper and leave, oblivious to anything but his smartphone; and the old lady, Thatcher, has to nearly fight herself past a guy way off somewhere in his iPod. Good scene, that. Sets up current London. And a good intro to Thatcher.
Then into the Denis conceit. That first scene when she is talking to him, then he disappears when the daughter comes in, really startled me. The conceit was good all the way thru the movie. It was there to humanize her and it did. It was sad because at the end she sends Denis packing (literally) and then she's all alone, now in her cherished reality. But is being old, alone and without illusion that much better? This movie ends quite sadly.
The portrayal of Denis was on the mark. He was well liked. There was a play on the West End, called “Denis, Anyone?” which tried taking the piss out of Denis. Even tho the play ran a long time and was funny, it didn't damage Denis at all. In fact made people like him all the more. He took the piss out of himself.
And Meryl Streep! What an incredible job she does. I remember when she won the Academy Award for this I thought oh hell not her again. After seeing her I got to say my mind has changed. She’s got Thatcher down cold!
So straight off the acting is terrific. And the script. That conceit of the dead Denis coming in and out of her fantasies is good. We learn a lot about Thatcher, making the flashbacks that much stronger, particularly since they're from Thatcher’s POV. If I had a quibble about the script it would be that not enough is shown about the havoc she caused and her actual governing. But that’s not what the script was trying to do so it’s an unfair quibble. Just the same we can’t say this is an accurate look into her because so much is fantasy confrontations with Denis and the writer had no way of guessing what was in her head.
The movie itself has all the hallmarks of a Brit movie. I love their movies, what they do with the camera, how they fill the frame, how they are impeccable with detail, the lighting. The direction is very good (Phyllida Lloyd). She lets the scene develop without rushing, having faith in the script and the actors. All of this is in this movie. And of course great acting from top to very bottom. The Brits know how to make a movie. When they become ex-pats and direct American movies you can tell where they learned the craft.
--Joe