The film gives you a background to the character giving you the times she struggled due to her class and her gender. It gives the impression of her as a feminist icon. This I'd dispute, she fought for her rights and her career. I can't think of an incidence of her improving conditions for her fellow women.
The period detail seems pretty good throughout the film as it progresses. That's probably my favourite thing about the film. Obviously I'm wrong, as everyone else loves it, but I didn't enjoy Streep's performance. It was in the Michael Sheen, perfect mimic style. I didn't get a sense of the woman or her feelings on anything, just that Meryl had her off to a T. The younger actress seemed to be doing more actual acting.
The film is as flimsy as it gets when it comes to a political stance. Or even showing the consequences of her actions. There are big events, some which would anger Sean Penn, but zero analysis. This is a huge let down. I'd like to have seen it tackled in a similar way to McQueen's Hunger. No sides taken but a proper look at its subject.
My biggest problem with the film was the fictional portrayal of a living woman and her 'hallucinations'. It was a bad way to move the story along. Put the facts on screen or tell a nice story about characters that don't exist. Don't do half of each and portray an elderly, probably not very well, woman like this. It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.
All in all I liked this film a little more than I liked the woman herself. I'd rather have watched a documentary.
1.5 pawprints out of 5
Posts
2 comments:
I have to give you credit, I doubt I'd ever sit down to watch the George W. Bush biopic. Sorry you didn't have a better time, though.
It was not a film that interested me unless they actually showed some real behind the public image stories. But I have heard similar from you that it is a bit flimsy, one I can avoid, nice review.
Post a Comment