Talking Movies

October 12, 2015

Suffragette

Carey Mulligan stars as a young suffragette in 1912, whose life falls apart as she becomes ever more militant in her fight for the vote.

maxresdefault

Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan) works long hours in an East End laundry. Her husband Sonny (Ben Whishaw) also works there, delivering the freshly-laundered clothes. Their boss is a tyrant, but that’s the way of it in 1912. But when Maud is caught in the middle of a violent protest by Mrs Drayton (Lisa Dillon), and Violet (Anne-Marie Duff) comes to work at the laundry, the door is opened to a new world. Maud finds herself testifying in front of Lloyd George (Adrian Schiller) as part of a campaign by Alice Haughton (Romola Garai) to convince Parliament that working women deserve the vote. Little does Alice know that her husband, Cabinet Minister Benedict Haughton (Samuel West), is simultaneously ordering Inspector Arthur Steed (Brendan Gleeson) to break the ring circling around chemist Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter). And Steed targets newcomer Maud…

‘The Time is Now’ proclaims Suffragette’s posters. What is the contemporary relevance? Pankhurst proclaims “We want to be lawmakers, not lawbreakers.” We also hear “We will not respect the law, if the law is not respectable.” Lincoln ignored the similar contradiction in his legalistic philosophy. He wanted to make slavery illegal, but if he doesn’t respect the existing law, despite wanting everyone else to respect his future law, then he’s guided not by law but a higher ethical imperative. So his opponents could claim a similar ethical imperative when not respecting his law. Suffragette’s politics are as muddled as expected from Iron Lady scribe Abi Morgan. Maud’s petulant “They lied to us” is shot down by Gleeson’s “They didn’t lie. You were promised nothing, and you were given nothing.” Yet the opening scroll tells us 50 years proved peaceful campaigning was a waste. Does Morgan know how long Catholic Emancipation took? The eternity it took for the Chartists’ demands to be met? (And we’re still waiting on one, annual elections).

Gleeson’s Irish detective makes you realise that blowing up post boxes, smashing in random shop windows, GBH, and dynamiting the Chancellor’s summerhouse aren’t civil disobedience. These are outrages, which, Fenian or Anarchist, were a feature of the times. There’s a more interesting period-appropriate Conradian tale floated when Steed tries to recruit Maud as a double-agent, but this is too simplistic a film for that. Eduard Grau renders 1912’s East End grimy and occasionally dreamy in his grainy, close-in camerawork, and Mulligan and Gleeson are on fine form as the antagonists. The problem is the script. Meryl Streep appears for two scenes as Pankhurst, but Brick Lane director Sarah Gavron shies away from contrasting Pankhurst’s comfortable fugitive life with Maud losing everything when Sonny shuns her for fear of unemployment and further ostracising by their neighbours. The closing scroll proclaims that because of Pankhurst women of property over 30 got the vote, i.e. Pankhurst, not Maud. WWI might deserve that credit, but in either case Maud was merely an expendable pawn.

Suffragette’s final image; women marching at Emily Davison’s funeral as Maud narrates; is jaw-dropping for historical obliviousness. Less than 14 months later, millions of men would march to death.

2.5/5

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. Thank you for this review.

    And joy, my comments !

    “That’s the way of it in 1912” ?

    Does a valid cause lose validity because of the existence of other atrocities ? : the cause of Catholic emancipation ; WW I etc.

    I researched Emily Davidson and soon found Emily Davies, assuming she was the soul Emily Davidson was modled after, found that she lived until age 91, not a martyr but a career educator of women’s higher education.

    Nevertheless, sans martyrs there was much sacrificial work and probably personal suffering for the cause of suffrage at the time. Some of their methods seem to reflect primitive, unformed, desperate and hysterical judgement. Those adjectives could be descriptive of the miserable lot of countless women at the time .

    I am not sure that conditions have improved for women to the extent that could be predicted after receiving the vote, such as housing, childcare and protection, issues of personal protection for women, including employment issues and general comprehension of human suffering (even among some people who think they comprehend). The absence of sufficient Catholic/Christian/(even)
    Jewish Faith Formation , must have been problematic along with with education in general (for everyone).

    I recently learned that in the early 1900s in USA, child labor in some instances was allowed to go over 9 hours a day, with less than 1/2 day a week of schooling. Scott Nearing, an economist, was considered a ‘dangerous radical’ at the time for working to reduce children’s working hrs down to 9 hours / day. Nearing was expelled from respected teaching positions in the 1st third of the 20th century for his views regarding child labor.

    God Bless.

    Comment by Donelia Tonk — November 8, 2015 @ 8:12 am | Reply

    • Hi Donelia,

      Thanks for the comment!

      I meant to imply that 1912 was a land where Marx’s concept of the reserve army of the unemployed held good; if anyone complained about their boss there would be a willing replacement for them just round the corner.

      A valid cause isn’t invalidated by the existence of other valid causes, but I take issue with the film positing the suffragettes as having no recourse but anarchistic outrages because they’d waited too long by parliamentary means when historically they were waiting no longer by parliamentary means than other causes.

      Fergal.

      Comment by Fergal Casey — November 12, 2015 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

    • It’s Emily Davison: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison

      Comment by Abigail — December 27, 2015 @ 10:49 pm | Reply

  2. Suffragette successfully captures the hardship and bravery of the British women’s suffrage movement, while also showcasing a wonderful performance from Carey Mulligan. Technically, it’s skillfully written and directed, boasting appealing visuals and a strong character arc. While the film sometimes feels methodical in its approach, its heart and message are in the right place – and, sadly, it’s still relevant 🙂

    Comment by Romster — October 9, 2016 @ 7:37 pm | Reply

  3. I’d rather be an informed rebel and not a slave to a monolithic feminist/socialist ideology. I’d rather be a knowledgable rebel than a slave to any political party that has lost the meaning of Liberty for the people while enforcing their own power. I’ve learned and lived my philosophy for 40 years and it works very well.

    Comment by Carey Mulligan — April 15, 2017 @ 11:37 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: