A Truthful, Compelling Depiction of The Suffragettes - Suffragette (2015) review

As it has recently been international Women's Day and Mother's Day I felt it appropriate to upload my review of the critically acclaimed film 'Suffragette'. this powerful story of how women fought the right to vote is one of the best films I have seen in years. Its a shame to think it didn't catch the eye of the awards ceremonies but all the same it is an incredibly important film one that everyone should see.


Suffragette truthful portrays a working class women’s life in Britain in the 1900’s and it’s a rum one at that. Women toiled working in the factories of Britain, in the giant machine that was the industrial revolution. Whilst also expected to be a housewife and mother, and your husband got paid more than you for doing the same job. It is hard to believe the sexism that existed a century ago.

In ‘Suffragette’ The women’s jobs are in a laundry in Bethnal green, the owner is a leery bastard with a sexual appetite for young girls, it is quickly inferred that the central character Maude Watts (Carey Mulligan) has been sexually abused by him from a young girl, hence why she gets ‘special treatment’ as an adult.  It is the women that get the hard labour jobs of washing, ironing etc that cause them to have sores, scolds, lung irritation and headaches, while the men run deliveries in the fresh air. From the start of the film the injustices are laid plain to see. It is made pretty clear why things needed to change.

‘Suffragette’ tells the story of the women that fought for our equal rights and the right to vote that women have today.  The film tells the fight from the perspective of working class women; this makes it much more relatable than if it were a story focusing on the wealthy, high society women who lead the movement. It communicates that this was a fight for all regardless of class and needed unification in order to succeed.

The film guides the audience through the narrative with the character of Maud, a fictional character she is the outsider, the converted suffragette, the figure the audience can relate to. A cinematic tool that is used in numerous films but is used to great effect in Suffragette; many will be able to relate to Mulligans heart wrenching performance when she discovers her youngest child has been put up for adoption. The scene is one of desperation and hopelessness as Maud sobs at the loss of her son and the injustice of her life.

As her ideas about her value and role in society are questioned and she is ostracised for her beliefs from the community she has always known. She comes to embrace a new family and way of thinking.  The turning point comes when she meets Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep) and Pankhurst imparts the inspiring quote ‘Never give up, never give up the fight’.

Suffragette portrays its history with brutal reality; it is at times visceral and hard to watch. The scene outside parliament where the chancellor announces there will not be a change in the suffrage bill was particularly affecting. Tension is created with the arrival of riot police and the peaceful protest soon derails into chaos. This is conveyed purposefully through the cinematography, the action is at times blurry and in-cohesive, it gives the audience a very real feeling of being at the center of the chaos. This scene stirred thoughts of the Sharpeville massacre during apartheid in the 1960’s. Innocent peacefully protesting women were beaten by police much like the Africans were shot at by the police. To paraphrase Nelson Mandela if peace is met with only violence, then the protesters must use violence otherwise it is an unfair fight. To apply this to the suffragette movement the women used violence because peaceful protest fell on deaf ears. Much like the apartheid protesters of the 1960’s the suffragettes used sabotage to wound the enemy, no lives were ever intended to be harmed. It is clear to me there were similarities between the two movements.

A similar feeling of confusion is created the first time Maud is incarcerated in prison, she does not understand what is going on and is scared. She has not joined the fight yet and this comes as a shock. The scene is again a relatable one as many would find themselves feeling the same.

The most brutal scene of the whole film is where Maud, in prisoned again and this time a committed member of the cause: (she has already been shunned by her community, lost her job and her son so really has nothing to lose; this appears to be a system of challenges that every freedom fighter must go through,) goes on hunger strike and is after five days force fed. The scene is barbaric and brutal you want to look away from the screen, a similar feeling is stirred throughout of much of Steve McQueen’s ‘12 Years a Slave’. However I did not look away as I feel it is important that we relay and remind ourselves of our history however stained it may be and I feel it is credence to ‘Suffragette’ for showing the plight for women’s rights unreservedly. You admire the suffragettes so much more for what they achieved and the courage they had to stick to their beliefs because of the hardships they faced.

The film is told truthfully and with historical accuracy, there is no glamorizing, the women all appear natural with no makeup, which is in part its beauty. The women are relatable; representative of all of society, from the women in the laundry to the educated doctor or the politician’s wife, a different type of trapped life is shown through the latter, Alice Haughton the wife of a politician. She is paid bail by her husband and petitions him to pay for the other women. He refuses, reminding her she should know her place. Illustrating that women of all rank were discriminated against one way or another.

I found the portrayal of the men in the film fascinating: Maud’s husband Sonny (played by Ben Whishaw) was a man of the times he lived in, integrally kind and loving but still prejudiced and stubborn. Hugh Ellyn (Finbar Lynch) the husband of Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), a militant suffragette; was a man ahead of his time, a believer in gender equality. There were also the police inspectors and government official’s hell bent on keeping women in their place. Much like the women of the film the men were portrayed representative of the time with conviction and believability.

One of the most poignant scenes in the film is when Sonny tells Maud that the law will side with him, that his children are his property if they divorced. I found this remarkable and ironic, considering in the 21^st century fathers now campaign for the right to more access to their children and complain the law sides with the mother too much. Perhaps that is why: men had it their way for so long, now women should have it theirs. But that wouldn’t be the argument of the suffragettes, as Maud states ‘I am worth no more no less than you’.

The second scene I found particularly affecting is where Maud goes back to the laundry and takes Maggie, a friend’s oldest daughter who is being abused by the owner just like Maud was and petitions Alice Haughton, an upper class suffragette to employ her as a servant. To me this is Maud saying that she recognises that the world won’t change straight away but this is her small part that she can change.

The film ends with the death of Emily Davidson and her funeral. It is at this point the suffragette movement receives worldwide coverage, a turning point in its effectiveness. Several captions role after the film ends, explaining how the vote for all women was achieved in 1928 in the UK and then goes on to list when the vote for all women was achieved in other countries and continents. This I found truly fascinating; New Zealand secured the vote in 1893 some thirty years earlier than the UK. Australia granted the right to vote in in 1902 while other European countries were much later, with Italy not granting its females the right until the 1950’s and Switzerland in the 1970’s. The film also provoked the audience to consider the ongoing fight for women’s rights in the Middle East in countries such as Saudi Arabia which to this day has not granted women the right to vote. I was watching an interview with Malala Yousafzai the other day and she spoke of her aim to achieve education for all girls. This shows that we still haven’t reached equality in many parts of the world, that there is still a cause to fight for in order to achieve fairness in every society.

It seems mad a film like ‘Suffragette’ hasn’t been made before but despite the wait the final product is excellent relaying this inspirational piece of our history in such an accurate, inspiring and dynamic way. Everyone should see this film, it is brilliant a master piece of British filmmaking, with a phenomenal cast and tells a story that very women should share and remember. 

Orlando (1992) Review

Based on the novel by Virginia Woolf Orlando is a historical fantasy story where the protagonist of the title lives through history from the Elizabethan era to the modern day (in the book this is the 1930’s the film the 1990’s). Orlando also changes from man to woman hallway through the narrative. The plot itself relies on a suspension of disbelief as we know it is not humanly possible to live through so many centuries or change sex in the way it is done in the film/book. However it is clearly a film with much metaphorical meaning as I will explore further.

The concept behind the character of Orlando in the novel was to encapsulate Virginia Woolf’s friend and lover Vita Sackville West’s personality in a character. It is clear in both the book and film Woolf and Potter use many metaphors to convey this. Having Orlando change sex from man to women first infers that Wests personality carried traits of the masculine and feminine at different points. It could also be a method of questioning whether there are differences at how we see the world and the world’s expectations of each gender:  would a man’s experience of love, death or poetry be the same as a woman for example. This quote from Potter explains the reason Orlando changes gender: ‘The change of sex is a result of Orlando reaching a crisis of masculine identity when he is unwilling to conform to what is expected of him as a man. Nor as a woman can Orlando conform’ relating this to Sackville West this is quite possibly a metaphor for her inability to conform to society with her views on love and relationships as it is well known she had a lesbian affair with Woolf whilst married.
When Orlando becomes a woman she says ‘the same in every way just a different sex’; this infers that a man and women can think and feel the same, but look how the world will treat them differently no matter the time period. Building on this theme I found it very profound the way Sasha rebuffs Orlando as a man exclaiming why should she belong to one just because she is adored by that one. As a woman Orlando uses the same argument to her lover in the 1850’s. The film was made in 1992 the height of the women’s liberation movement I feel this concept of opposing ownership is a feminist message.

The film was quite slow and very wordy although I feel it did capture Woolf's wit that makes the book more snappy and engaging. At various points throughout the film Orlando speaks directly to the camera, communicating his/her innermost thoughts to you the viewer, this 'breaking the fourth wall' approach defiantly went some way to capturing Woolf's idiosyncratic way of writing and description and gave the film an experimental feel.

I believe a film like 'Orlando 'is the sort of film you watch and then have to spend some time thinking about in order to understand its meanings. I admit a lot of the time I couldn't help but think it was a very odd film and questioned what its purpose was. However on reflection I feel I how have a better understanding of its message as a metaphorical comment on gender roles and expectations. it is clearly an intelligent, artful film I would definitely watch it again.

A Harrowingly Beautiful Search for Identity – The Danish Girl

The Danish Girl is a beautiful thought provoking film. It tells the story of Einar and Gerda Wegener, artists in Copenhagen in 1926. Einar is a successful landscape artist and Gerda paints portraits but has not reaped the same success as her husband due to the sexism of the art establishment. One day when a model can’t make a sitting for Gerda she asks her husband to put on some ladies tights and shoes so she can still paint. This awakes a new identity in Einar which is later christened Lili. At first Lili is an eccentric persona for parties but soon becomes more, Einar longs to be Lili in body as well as soul and so begins his transgender journey and Gerda’s to the loss her husband in exchange for a friend.  

The film is beautifully shot and the costumes, hair and make-up echo the deco and nouveau styles however it is the chic, delectable, gorgeousness of the production that makes the harrowing unhappy story all the more moving. The prettiness reinforces the feeling of dissatisfaction; captured in the painterly landscape of flowing silk chiffon gowns and scarf's Lili is a façade, she can never be accepted as a real woman in 1920’s society

The story is made more powerful by it being a story of two halves;  Redmayne has the more dramatic transition from man to woman however its Gerda’s

independent frame of mind and unconditional love for her husband that gives the film great power. Unlike in ‘A Theory of Everything where Felicity Jones’s Jane Hawking coped with Eddie Redmayne’s Stephen Hawking debilitating physical condition In ‘The Danish Girl’ Einar’s choice is his alone; it is a mental decision as well as a physical one. It would have been easy for Gerda to walk away but because she chooses to support him it provides an interesting comment on the complexities of love and relationships. Yes she loses her husband but there is still a love between them both even after the transition.

There were times I found it hard to rationalise Einar’s point of view. In many ways he was very selfish, destroying his marriage and breaking Gerda’s heart all because he wanted to be a woman. I suppose it is something you can only understand if you are Trans. I felt the film was realistic in how it managed to show Einar’s need to undergo this journey but also the destruction and heartbreak it caused on both sides of the marriage.

It is a harrowing emotional ride, how could it not be? Despite there is light and shade, much like their art, their emotions are portrayed with believability and realism. You can see Einar’s conflicting emotions as he explains Lili is more than a bit of fun or Gerda’s love for Einar but frustration that he can’t forgo Lili for her sake.

The use of costume is subtly effective in visually communicating Einar’s transition to Lili. From her first outing, which has a look of ‘a man in a dress’ feel about it: you can tell Lili hasn’t come to the forefront yet; to one of the most successful costumes when Einar/Lili is beaten up in a Parisian park in the last quarter of the movie. Dressed in a cream suit and feminine style shirt with his natural hair but by this time in a far more feminine style than at the start of the film and wearing makeup, this look I felt was completely androgynous: it was feminine but also masculine. It came across as genderless falling in the no man’s land of the gender binary. As a study of how clothing creates an identity this is a fascinating construction, one of the most powerful uses of costume in a film for a long time.  

This is a film that will stay with you after the final scene and will make you question the boundaries of love, gender, sex and identity. It is a highly emotive, turbulent story of identity and how far you would go to support the one you love. The only question left to answer is who is the ‘Danish Girl’ Gerda or Lili? I reckon it could be both.

I'm Not There' Review

The film depicts the personalities/ stages of career of musician Bob Dylan explored through using six actors to play the various facets of the singer. The actors are each given their own identity and name, none are actually called Bob Dylan but Haynes uses subtle references to his songs or inspirations in the names of each person.

It does not have a traditional story arc as the film doesn't aim to show a story of his life or his career but is far more philosophical in its outlook; I feel it aims to show simply the multi layers of a person in an irreverent and slightly nerdy way. It is most definitely a film for the most passionate of Dylan fans you really need to know and awful lot about the man as the film uses a lot of insider references. As someone who knows little about Bob Dylan other than his most famous songs, I believe this was one of the reasons the film was hard to follow. For example Marcus Carl Franklin’s character is called Woody Guthrie in reference to Dylan being inspired by him in his early days I only realised this after doing some research after watching the film.

Despite this I believe even if I had known more about the subject I would still have found it confusing and baffling as it is a very arty, unusually structured film. Some criticise it because of this however I feel it was a brave move to make a film which breaks with traditional cinematic conventions. Unfortunately for all its cleverness I didn’t find it very engaging. It is very wordy and although I like films with good dialogue. My lack of knowledge of the subject matter and the randomness of the plot made it quite a hard slog in places.

Praise can be found in the production: the recreation of 1960’s America was effective I really liked the way some of the film was shot in black and white other in colour. Franklins story depicted the rustic warm of the southern American landscape in 1930’s depression America while Gere’s western rebel in 18^th century America was so theatrically stylised, visually this was the most exciting part of the film; (even if as the audience you were wondering what the significance of the period was)! Also notable was Cate Blanchett’s Dylan meeting Andy Warhol at a post -modernist hallucinogenic party. Original Super 8 film of 1960’s Greenwich Village also artfully depicted the setting.  Of all the performances Blanchetts was stand out not only did she look better than all the men as the musical bard her performance was engaging and raw.

Overall it was an interesting and creative film and as a study of an artist of the 20^th century and wider cultural movements it was worth watching. I just feel it was perhaps trying to be too clever and in doing so a stronger message was ultimately lost.