We went to see this on Friday night. I'll try not to spoil it.
MT's career, starting when she helped in her father's shop in Grantham through to her resignation as PM, is all done in flashback as the mind of Mrs Thatcher, portrayed as her present day self, goes back to the past.
The most remarkable thing about the film is the portrayal of Maggie in her pomp by Streep, and the film is worth seeing for that alone. Alexandra Roach was also very watchable as the young Thatcher.
For me there was far too long spent on the present. More depth and context in the flashbacks would have been welcome instead. The Falklands part took me right back - more later possibly, have to nip out soon.
It was a strange experience and evoked more sympathy than I expected, even allowing that films are designed to do that sort of thing.
I'll be interested to get a take in due course from people who didn't actually live through the Thatcher era - I suspect they'll think Thatcher as PM is an exaggerated portrayal, when in fact she was really like that.
Recommended, if not totally satisfactory.
|
|
I know of someone who worked closely with her at the time of Falklands - tales of drug use to keep awake and high emotion as the human cost appeared. There was a right slagging of her on Jeremy Vine the other week, usually by people who didn't realise that she actually turned around a bankrupt country from the brink. Short memories and ignorance.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sun 8 Jan 12 at 15:14
|
I didn't agree with many of her policies, but I wish we had people with those sort of convictions and strength of character in politics today.
|
>> I didn't agree with many of her policies, but I wish we had people with
>> those sort of convictions and strength of character in politics today.
I nursed a deep loathing for her at the time, but I thought then and now that she was a conviction politician who would never just do whatever was convenient at the time, which seems to be rule one now. That comes through in the film too.
I mentioned that the Falklands scenes were evocative. In March/April '82, I was in Edinburgh, staying in a house, then used as training college, in Ramsay Garden right by the castle gates. It has tremendous views of the Princes Street its gardens, Waverley station, and across to the Firth of Forth.
At about 8 in the morning, a number of us were in a big sitting room watching the breaking news that Argentine forces had invaded the Falkland Islands. Nobody was really quite sure where they were, and there was some debate as to whether they were somewhere beyond the Shetlands or the Outer Hebrides. I honestly can't remember now what my contribution was, I think it was more accurate than that but I do remember saying that the fact that Argentina had invaded suggested that the islands might be nearer to them than to us. One or two people were gazing out of the window as if half expecting to see the Argentine navy steaming up the Firth.
At least we all know now.
|
>>At least we all know now.
Reminds me of a quiz question - What is the distance from the South Shetland Isands to John O Groats ?
I now know where they are.
|
I've always had mixed feeling about Maggie.
First and foremost i respected her, for her no nonsense manner and patriotism, you asked a question you got an answer.
You might not like the answer but you got it anyway and knew where you stood, that's not been the case since.
Many things i disgreed with, especially the closure of the mines...it could be a strangely right long term choice though when the oil runs out and world tensions increase as the USA and China (and India?) fight it out for whats left, hopefully not...we have enough coal left to keep us ticking over for some time.
Looking forward to this film releasing on Sky later in the year.
|
|
If you click on the link to Top of The Pops 1977 in PU's thread and watch the film it will give you some idea of what a washed up miserable dump Great Britain was in the last years of Labour's reign. Margaret Thatcher wasn't perfect by any means, but she was right for the time and the good she did far outweighed the bad.
|
>> If you click on the link to Top of The Pops 1977 in PU's thread
>> and watch the film it will give you some idea of what a washed up
>> miserable dump Great Britain was in the last years of Labour's reign.
Last years of Labour's reign my backside.
In mid 1977 we'd had a Labour govt for leess than three years. The Tories had been in charge from 1950 to 64 and again from 70 to Feb 74.
By the time Thatch won in 79 Callaghan and Healey had sorted Barber's inflationary boom and were trying to get to grips with Industrial Relations. How different would history be if 'Sunny Jim' had not funked an election in autumn 78?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 9 Jan 12 at 00:46
|
Funnily enough, I was looking for something to read the other day, and found a copy of her memoirs book that was bought for me back in '93, and have never read.
I never really took much notice at the time - too busy getting drunk and trying to get laid, I think.
But anyway, it's very interesting, especially when she talks about other nations and the whole Europe/Euro thing. She talks about her concerns at the way Europe is (was) heading and the possible outcomes, and most of it has turned out to be true. Things like Greece and Spain getting very good terms and taking everything they can, even though they made no promises in return, for example. And how the various countries within europe have such different cultures, work ethics, industries etc, that the Euro will surely struggle.
Certainly worth a read with the current events in mind.
|
In 1981, Thatcher was the most unpopular PM in British history, due to very high unemployment and cuts in expenditure.
In 1982 the Falklands were invaded. Advice was that an attempt to regain them was a very high risk and if a carrier was lost then the war would be effectively lost, but she had nothing to loose, if the opinion polls were to be believed then she was going to lose the next election anyway.
Wining the Falklands war led to a landslide victory.
She called it right!
She was a conviction politician of the best kind, but I wonder how the people that lost their jobs under her leadership felt / feel about her.
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 8 Jan 12 at 22:05
|
>> In 1982 the Falklands were invaded. Advice was that an attempt to regain them was
>> a very high risk and if a carrier was lost then the war would be
>> effectively lost, but she had nothing to loose (sic), if the opinion polls were to be
>> believed then she was going to lose the next election anyway.
Well, if that's not an insult, or potentially libellous, I don't know what is.
Are you seriously suggesting that a calculation about her re-election prospects came in to a decision to commit to a war?
|
>> In 1981, Thatcher was the most unpopular PM in British history, due to very high
>> unemployment and cuts in expenditure.
>>
>> In 1982 the Falklands were invaded. Advice was that an attempt to regain them was
>> a very high risk and if a carrier was lost then the war would be
>> effectively lost, but she had nothing to loose, if the opinion polls were to be
>> believed then she was going to lose the next election anyway.
>>
>> Wining the Falklands war led to a landslide victory.
>>
>> She called it right!
>>
>> She was a conviction politician of the best kind, but I wonder how the people
>> that lost their jobs under her leadership felt / feel about her.
>>
You are joking?
In 1983 Labour under Foot were a music hall joke and completely unelectable. Indeed there used to be speculation in the press that the party was finished and the SDP would be the new challengers to the Tories (one person who did not subscribe to that view was Thatcher herself).
It's also worth remembering that the Thatcher led Conservatives has another walk-over in 1987 when any Falklands effect was long gone and Labour could still not gain power in '92. There has been a lot of airbrushing of history by Maggie T's enemies over the years, keep repeating the same fiction and people begin to think it is fact.
|
|
Apart from the selling orf of state utilities, I thought Margaret Thatcher was the best thing since uncut organic wholewheat bread, and I still do.
|
>> Apart from the selling orf of state utilities, I thought Margaret Thatcher was the best
>> thing since uncut organic wholewheat bread, and I still do.
>>
+1
|
"Apart from the selling orf of state utilities,"
and
waging an unnecessary war
Pursuing her idea for a poll tax against all indications that it would not work
selling off most of the council housing stock apart from sink estates
Exacerbating social division
Presiding over the decline of our manufacturing industries
Encouraging the "greed is good philosophy" that has led to our current financial woes
I suppose she had her good points
|
|
Im sorry, was that the last government or Thatchers? Hard to tell really.
|
>> I suppose she had her good points
If you had walked the streets of any big city stepping over weeks of un collected rubbish, and if you had been in darkness as power cuts rolled across the country due to a miners strike, and if you had watched red robbo ripping the heart out of the car industry in the pre thatcher years, you would find quite a few good points.
I know you mean a different war, but this war was needed, and as in all wars there is collateral damage.
|
www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp
www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge83.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
All acknowledge that the Falklands contributed to her election victory.
As I said, "of the best kind" in my post. If that is not a compliment, I don't know what is.
However, I will now add that, people with strong convictions need, more than others, to listen to and heed the opinion of others.
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 8 Jan 12 at 22:39
|
>>
>> www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge83.shtml
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
>>
>>
>> All acknowledge that the Falklands contributed to her election victory.
her re-election. It had nothing to do with her first term. Sure it helped her second term win tho.
|
|
I well remember all those things, probably more clearly than you do. Margaret Thatcher was perhaps the inevitable reaction to the turmoil that existed in the country in the seventies. If she had served for one term and had been succeeded by a more moderate and conciliatory leader I think she might have seen as a successful reforming Prime Minister and not the divisive pollitician that she is see as by many today. Unfortunately the Falklands War secured her future and the rest is history.
|
>> I well remember all those things, probably more clearly than you do.
I doubt it, I was working London at the time, walking the streets. And you?
|
>> If you had walked the streets of any big city stepping over weeks of un
>> collected rubbish,
The 'winter of discontent' lasted less than 8 weeks. In the war of time it was not even a skirmish, much less a battle.
My memory of Thatcher is going home to Leeds to see another factory or mine had closed. Many would have been viable had Thatcher/Howe nor pursued a policy of high interest rates and no public investment.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 8 Jan 12 at 22:43
|
>> My memory of Thatcher is going home to Leeds to see another factory or mine
>> had closed. Many would have been viable had Thatcher/Howe nor pursued a policy of high
>> interest rates and no public investment.
With inflation at 18% high interest rates was the only option. If they were viable without public money they would still be open. They aint.
|
As an aside, this highlights the need for more than the tick or the cross comments.
I disagree with any comment in this thread that is in any way complementary of the "T" person (its Sunday so I can't swear). But I don't find it offensive as such so won't mark it with a sad face.
We need another option - an agree, a disagree, and an offensive option.
|
>> As an aside, this highlights the need for more than the tick or the cross
>> comments.
>>
>> I disagree with any comment in this thread that is in any way complementary of
>> the "T" person (its Sunday so I can't swear). But I don't find it offensive
>> as such so won't mark it with a sad face.
>>
>> We need another option - an agree, a disagree, and an offensive option.
Not you don't, you just used the disagree (third) option.
|
|
But if so many people use the x button, the post automatically gets removed and then that stifles debate?
|
>> But if so many people use the x button, the post automatically gets removed and
>> then that stifles debate?
I dont think anyone's point is going to get x'd out here, you have to get a lot of scowly marks for that to happen. If you disagree, at least have the balls to say why, as you did.
|
As for her, and has been said previously I have no interest in politics, however I hold her accountable for
closure of mines, factories and almost anything else that involved the normal working class (possibly labour voter) man
privatising the power companies which has led to the huge profits and total inefficiencies that they are all making now on the back of those who can afford it least
offering right to buy council housing which has resulted in a dearth of affordable housing and has made a small number of individuals very wealthy (instead of councils providing housing they now have to pay the rent for those who need it to private landlords)
making rich richer, and poor poorer
and of course the Poll Tax, she loved us up in Scotland so much that she forced it on us first.
And more importantly, I believe she single handedly created a society that was all about making as much money as possible for yourself and not giving two hoots for anyone else.
snip
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 9 Jan 12 at 00:47
|
>> As an aside, this highlights the need for more than the tick or the cross
>> comments.
>>
>> I disagree with any comment in this thread that is in any way complementary of
>> the "T" person (its Sunday so I can't swear). But I don't find it offensive
>> as such so won't mark it with a sad face.
>>
>> We need another option - an agree, a disagree, and an offensive option.
Marking people's opinions is a bad idea IMO.
The thumbs are for "helpful" and the scowly faces are for "offensive". What more is needed?
Unfortunately the currency is devalued when they are used for agree/disagree, which is more frequent, so they could be dispensed with altogether.
|
I worked for the Coal Board during this time (and earlier during the mid seventies problems).
We could ship coal in from Australia MUCH cheaper than we could deep mine it over here, of similar quality.
I can see and understand the social issues arising, but in those circumstances, why would you keep massively loss making pits open?
|
|
Smokie, how many companies of all types are given grants to keep jobs open in this country? How much public money has went into the likes of Nissan in Britain? Its what we do to attract investment and jobs.
|
Mrs Thatcher wasn't elected for any reason. She was just the leader of the Conservatives and the country was sick of Labour at the time and wanted a change. She was a fairly remarkable person though. She was quite right about the Falklands and the big industrial unions, thuggish and cynical about a lot of other things.
But all she did was smash the unions. She left the suits running industry alone, and they were just as responsible for the state of things as the unions. What's more they were offshore-minded, as she really was. She wasn't a patriot by any stretch of the imagination. She was a gringo-lover and globalizer. So having trashed the unions, she did nothing about the industrial suits going offshore and trashing the actual industries.
The left at the time was completely obsessed with her person. Idiots. That's when I went off them. They imagined she had gone to war in the Falklands as a gamble over the next election. No one sane would do anything so risky for such a reason. But she (or rather the armed forces) got away with the Falklands, and that certainly helped her win the election.
No proper politician ever makes a major, risky decision for just one reason. There are always several. And to give Mrs Thatcher her due, whatever else she was she was a proper politician. We could do with more of them.
|
|
A "gringo lover"? Bit racist innit?
|
>> Bit racist innit?
Heh heh... but no, not really. I suppose we all love the gringos, for historical reasons that may be less valid than they used to be. I suppose what I mean is that Mrs Thatcher was a comprador capitalist, almost the opposite of a patriot. A bit like the people who ran, and still run in some cases, the Central and Latin American countries essentially in the interests of a small national class and US big business.
My own leaning is more towards Europe (God help us all).
|
>She was a gringo-lover and globalizer. So having trashed the unions, she did nothing about
>the industrial suits going offshore and trashing the actual industries.
So,
are you saying that she was a visionary who foresaw the extent and social/cultural effects of the global trading we have today?
|
>> are you saying that she was a visionary who foresaw the extent and social/cultural effects of the global trading we have today?
No. I don't think she gave it a thought.
|
And to give Mrs Thatcher her due, whatever else she was she was
>> a proper politician. We could do with more of them.
>>
...knew we'd drag you over to the right some day....;-)
|
>> Smokie, how many companies of all types are given grants to keep jobs open in
>> this country? How much public money has went into the likes of Nissan in Britain?
>> Its what we do to attract investment and jobs.
>>
Yes, to encourage a company to go forwards, successfully, to make money and keep people employed...not, bung money down a dark hole in an industry that you know is hopelessly uncompetitive.
|
But Westpig, could the majority of our current manufacturing output not be made cheaper in the Far East just now?
Many of our call centres are based abroad, I am sure we could move more and more jobs away and they would be done cheaper. But then the country is left to pick up the pieces for benefits for those without a job.
|
>> Many of our call centres are based abroad, I am sure we could move more
>> and more jobs away and they would be done cheaper. But then the country is
>> left to pick up the pieces for benefits for those without a job.
>>
To stay ahead of the game, we need to leave the cheap stuff to others, we need to concentrate on what we're good at...quality or niche e.g. quality car manufacturing, finance, etc .
We'd never beat the Chinese or Indians on labour costs, would we....not when they use kids or people on less than a dollar a day.
It would help if the people who lived here backed the home grown stuff more....like many in Europe do.
|
>>It would help if the people who lived here backed the home grown stuff more....like many in Europe do<<
Ab-so-lute-ly! - we really need to think like that IMO, plenty of good cars "Made in England".
|
|
He says driving a Jap car, made in japan.
|
>>He says driving a Jap car, made in japan<<
Does it count though, being it's 2nd hand, like.
|
|
I can't see that, I bought it in England and paid me hard earnt's to an English garage, who then re-circulated the wonga via his bank etc., etc..
|
The value of the original purchase, is in part, made because of its resale value. Its also using Japanese parts to keep it going (possibly)
All in all, you cant say buy British, and then buy Japanese, - new or second hand. Its extreme hypocrisy.
|
>>All in all, you cant say buy British, and then buy Japanese,<<
I can, and I did :D
|
I can see both arguments but in the perfect fantasy domestic economy people wouldn't want to buy either new or second hand non-UK produced goods and therefore there'd be no demand for them so even those who didn't care about the economic implications wouldn't buy them in the first place. If you see what I mean...
:-)
|
>> I can see and understand the social issues arising, but in those circumstances, why would
>> you keep massively loss making pits open?
Not the massive loss makers but surrendering a whole industry becuase todays exchange rates make imports cheap was and is extreme folly.
|
I have to agree that taking essential services such as fuel, water, electricity and gas out of the hands of the people of this Island and letting control pass to foreign companies whose interests are certainly not necessarily compatible with the UK's interests was and is extremely foolhardy.
How many essential services are now in the hands of, say, the French, not currently known for their spirit of Entente Cordial?
Very, very short sighted.
|
|
Governments get 5 years. Its no real wonder they are short sighted.
|
>> I have to agree that taking essential services such as ..... Very, very short sighted.
Good heavens Roger. Most of that seems OK to me.
Does this mean I am a reactionary? Perhaps it means that you aren't.
:o}
|
>> Not the massive loss makers but surrendering a whole industry becuase todays exchange rates make
>> imports cheap was and is extreme folly.
>>
Not really. At a time it was uneconomic to dig the coal out of our own pits, we imported it more cheaply. Now the stuff has more value, we've still got it down our own holes.
There's tin mines opening in Cornwall and the same with Gold in Scotland. Same principle but different time scales.
|
>>
>> Pursuing her idea for a poll tax against all indications that it would not work
The Poll Tax was one of the most sensible and fair ideas (to raise local taxes) that has ever been made.
The tactics for its introduction were fatally flawed by starting off in Scotland, with its long history of opposing anything Tory, even if the ideas themselves were good.
The idea of raising local taxes based upon an assumed value of property, with no regard to the number of inhabitants therein, is completely crazy. (Yes, I know there is some relief in Council Tax for single occupancy.)
Local taxation should be based on people numbers, as that has a direct correlation to needed local services and their costs.
|
|
Quite right Roger. Local services are used by individual people.
|
The poll tax was doomed, it made people responsible for themselves and enraged the lefties who know a good bit about using facist violence to oppose democratic decisons they don't agree with.
|
A poll tax in principle sounds fair.
However, people who were not working would have to pay it also. So you got situations where husband was working and wife was not. The husband would have to pay for the wife's poll tax as I remember it.
That just does not seem fair?
Perhaps a local income tax is the answer? Again, everyone working has to pay a share.
Poorer towns would perhaps still need a subsidy, richer ones would not.
|
...about using facist violence...
The poll tax riots made my support for Thatcher even firmer.
I've never understood why vandalism and thumping coppers is seen by some as valid political agitation.
If you don't like coppers, fine, go and thump as many as you can find.
But for other protests leave them out of it.
|
>>
>> If you don't like coppers, fine, go and thump as many as you can find.
>>
>> But for other protests leave them out of it.
>>
Oi
|
The poll tax was doomed because it was uncollectable. Originaly envisioned as a small sum per person by the time it was introduced it was a considerable amount and it became obvious that there would be massive non compliance with the tax. Whatever the rights and wrongs it very soon became evident that it would not work in practice.
Margaret Thatcher showed her underlying weakness: she couldn't accept she was wrong and a change in direction was needed. Virtually all the cabinet believed that pushing forward with the tax would be a disaster fro her but she would not listen to them.
|
>>people who didn't realise that she actually turned around a bankrupt country from the brink. Short memories and ignorance<<
I've come late to this so this point may already have been answered. The reality was the reverse - the UK economy was actually in good shape by 1979, ask Denis Healey, he's still around, and by 1981 it was shot to pieces.
The point that Thatcher backed 'monetarism' to the exclusion of all else was symptomatic of her major weaknesses - she was both small-minded and mean-spirited. The two often go together, of course. She was also one to bear a grudge - so many eventually, I think, that they took her apart.
I remember two exchanges - both on TV news clips IIRC - that illustrate her mindset. She asked a university student somewhere what she was reading and the girl said 'history'. The reply was 'what luxury'. On the launch day of the Metro in 1981 she was given a 'test drive' in front of the cameras and then asked what she thought of the car. She didn't comment on it but just picked on the government's financing role and said words to the effect of 'and I hope to god that's the end of it'.
Stupid, stupid woman.
|
I never liked her in charge .I was lucky at the time had a decent job and salary.
I can remember coppers thumping people on strike,roads blocked off.
|
>> >>
>> I can remember coppers thumping people on strike,roads blocked off.
>>
Do you also remember the coppers having bricks thrown at them?
|
|
One thing is sure, no government of this country will ever, ever again try to impose a Poll Tax. 1381 and 1990 were both disasters.
|
Saw the film last night
Its a difficult film to comment about without spoiling it for others. Its in flashback from a point in her last befuddled years.
If you are expecting an in depth political and social history of her years from this film forget it, its all mostly purely on a human level about her and her relationship with Dennis, Carol and Airey Neave*. (And mark is pilloried in the film even without a part in the film! )
The performances and characterisations by all are superb, but Streep's performance is simply stunning. The film is worth its weight for that one thing alone.
I will spoil it a bit. The film indicates that MT is suffering from Alzheimers type symptoms. and alludes that this may have affected her later years in office. In view of her rapid medical decline afterwards, this may or may not make sense. A lot of people will say this film is overly reverent about her, Yes it treats her in sympathetic way, but this is a consequence of the way the film is set - Confused old lady.
All in all tho, as a film, night out, entertainment, its really really worth the effort to go and see. Cinema was packed.
* Remarkable man en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airey_Neave
|
|
The film has been rated PG because its not suitable for miners. :-S
|
* Remarkable man en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airey_Neave
He was - and wrote some very good books.
Saturday At MI9 - Upstairs waiting to be read.
They Have Their Exits - where I first came across him as a kid and I devoured everything about Colditz.
Flames of Calais - A book on my list of must haves - about the 1940 retreat to Dunkirk and the "forgotten" casualties of that conflict that fought on to death or captivity. The Greenjackets museum at Calais is almost the only thing worth visiting in that French Holyhead.
|
Herself thinks it is unethical, or something like that, to make an intrusive biopic about someone still living. This is nothing to do with her attitude to Mrs Thatcher which is a lot more hostile than mine.
I am inclined to agree. But only up to a point. I certainly won't refuse to see it when it comes round on TV, and I don't suppose she will either.
What I really like when I am idling in front of the screen is horrible violent immoral American schlock. You know, 'world culture' I think it's called.
|
>> Herself thinks it is unethical, or something like that, to make an intrusive biopic about
>> someone still living. This is nothing to do with her attitude to Mrs Thatcher which
>> is a lot more hostile than mine.
>>
>> I am inclined to agree. But only up to a point. I certainly won't refuse
>> to see it when it comes round on TV, and I don't suppose she will
>> either.
MT will be dead by then probably, so it will be ok. Your missus is right, it does feel intrusive and disrespectful to do a biopic about someone still alive, especially in this case as the film pulls no punches about how gaga she currently is.
|
I cant help thinking that there comes a point where its just taking shots at a senile old lady who cant answer back.
|
>> I cant help thinking that there comes a point where its just taking shots at
>> a senile old lady who cant answer back.
>>
+1
Exactly my thoughts.
A heck of a lot of people can only concentrate on her negative points or perceived negatives...and utterly ignore the positives, as if they don't exist.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 15 Jan 12 at 22:01
|
|
Luckily the film tries to make no comment about whether what she did was right or wrong, there is no hint of having a go at someone who can not defend themselves, it is none the less pretty brutal in its depiction of her current mental health.
|
I saw the film on Saturday, too. Unlike Zero's cinema, mine was mostly empty - but that's Hemel Hempstead for you, an intellectual and cultural desert.
I was kind of prepared for what it turned out to be, which is a bit of a disappointment. Streep, however, is magnificent. She convincingly captures the mental frailty of a dementia patient as well as the hallmark determination of Thatcher in her prime. The supporting roles are also very well played and the skilful use of contemporary material quite startling in its vividness and its ability to carry the viewer back to the eighties and beyond, if you lived through those times.
The problem with the film is that, having said the above, what else is left? Not much, I feel. There is little insight into what made Thatcher tick, beyond the obvious points that one drew from her background and the side of her personality that was well-known. There is little reconstruction of the background to specific events. The only major reconstruction is of Thatcher's present mental condition and her hallucinations about Denis.
Unlike Zero, I did not feel that the film was hinting that Thatcher may have been affected by dementia while in office; I presume he means the unintelligent intransigence that eventually cost her the loyalties of the cabinet - but I thought this was merely an ironic note that the uncompromising nature of Thatcher, which brought her into power and which enabled her successfully to prosecute the Falklands War, almost brought her down just before that and undid her in the end. The film showed her being warned early in her career that she should not strain loyalties too far.
So if there is little insight into Thatcher, what is left? There is no real narrative, beyond the passing of her career, chopped up into flashbacks, which at times becomes irritating. Eventually the hallucinations of Denis end. Thatcher is shown as partly dependant on his "presence" and partly resentful of it. Much of this aspect of the film is very sad and I suppose it shows Thatcher as a vulnerable human being; maybe some people who still think of her as some kind of monster would find that surprising, but anyone who has had contact with dementia sufferers will not.
As regards my own view of her, when she became prime minister I felt a sense of relief, believing that a woman at the helm would bring a much-needed dose of common sense to British politics. I quickly became aghast at her brashness and one-track mindset. Her famous words about there being no such thing as society struck me as dreadful. Her time in power sticks in my mind as a licence for selfishness, the pursuit of wealth and social irresponsibility.
Yet the longer view is probably that she accomplished certain much-needed reforms.
I'm sorry if my comments spoil the film for anyone. See it - it's well worth it, for Streep's colossal performance alone. No review can convey the subtlety of the vocal inflexions, the body language and the contrast between Thatcher-then and Thatcher-now. No doubt an Oscar will follow and it will be well deserved.
|
"Her famous words about there being no such thing as society struck me as dreadful. "
What she said was;
And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.
Which seems to me at least true.
|
"...people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour..."
So, look after Number One first and then...
Had she said that looking after oneself means self-reliance then fair enough. However, I believe it is often far more worthy to attend to others, whose needs may be more than one's own, than focus on oneself.
"There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." There are some people in society who through no fault of their own cannot meet their obligations.
I'm not at all in favour of the mindset of "entitlement" or "rights", which is often just a disguise for selfishness, but I think Thatcher's statement, CGN, is confused at best and misguided at worst - and given the self-centredness that corresponds with the Thatcher years it seems clear where it belongs.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Mon 16 Jan 12 at 14:41
|
In order to help others, you must first help yourself to be able to do so.
Obligations are individual because not everyone can do the same thing, although everyone can make the choice to do the right thing and do their best, which is a societal obligation and can apply without discrimination.
Self-centredness never went away, we are just more accepting of it now because its so common.
Its an illusion that people are any less self-interested than they were 30 years ago - I spend my life devoted to other people, mainly family and this is seen as a bit weird and unusual - why am I not making my life about me - thats what its all about now, personal attainment, prioritising your own dreams, reaching your potential, or whatever other soundbite claptrap some nitwit with too much time on their hands dreams up.
|
>> What she said was;
>>
>> And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and
>> women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and
>> people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then,
>> also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind,
>> without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an
>> obligation.
But then imagine it in that hectoring 'mother knows best' tone of hers!!
|
I know what she was trying to say. people must help themselves before they can help others. Thats what society is.
Very poor choice of words on her part.
|
>>imagine it in that hectoring 'mother knows best' tone of hers!! <<
Please tell me I never sound like that:)
Pat
|
|
Of course you don't, Mummy (OW!)
|
>> >>imagine it in that hectoring 'mother knows best' tone of hers!! <<
>>
>> Please tell me I never sound like that:)
Not in my fantasies you don't dear.
|
Not with the thigh high boots and the whip:)
Pat
|
No in your chefs outfit
I told you it was a fantasy.
|
Could have been put better I agree but what i believe she was saying is
1 There no such physical thing as Society. Society is an abstract concept. Society is made up of individual, families,neighbours.
2 We are unable to help other without ourselves having the means to do so.
3 Primarily we are responsible for our own welfare rather than relying on others
From what I recall the comment was made in an unscripted interview and verbatim speech is often less that perfect when transposed to the written word
|
>>Unlike Zero, I did not feel that the film was hinting that Thatcher may have been affected by dementia while in office; I presume he means the unintelligent intransigence that eventually cost her the loyalties of the cabinet
IIRC, during that scene she had a flashback within the flashback, which suggested her mind was wandering as she harangued the cabinet. I made the same inference as Zero.
I don't believe it for a minute though. And I think it's despicable to release a film depicting the dementia of someone who is still alive.
As I commented in the opening post, the film was however not unsympathetic on the whole. For me though, the present day setting was unnecessary and tediously overdone.
Not much has been said about Jim Broadbent as Denis. I found him frankly unbelievable, portrayed as he was as a kind of comical cockney sparrer - in life he was a fairly heavyweight establishment figure.
I stand by my intial comment that it is one to see, but in some respects it was an opportunity missed. There is a better film to be made of MT's life.
|
The Iron Lady - R.P.
