And it wasn't anything politically motivated to show it that way, it was incompetence by the filmmakers. They just tried to show too much of her life and that rarely works in film. Films don't do entire lives well unless you focus on specific defining events and put them in the spotlight. This film didn't do that. They weren't trying to slam Thatcher (if they did, they made a mistake in hiring Streep as she kept Thatcher human through a very schematic script.) They just bit off more than they could chew.
I appreciate the response. I suppose maybe for me it did seem that it focused on a ‘defining event’ and it was by her dementia in her old age. I’m sure I didn’t catch every nuance of the film to be going on like I have with any real authority, but from the impression that I got it seemed far too focused on her dementia and fall from grace of her younger years in relation to it.
Like the scene of her washing the tea cup or whatever it was that she made a point earlier in the film that she wasn’t going to be the wife that did that. WTF? I interpreted that to reference that despite all of the things that she accomplished in her life she wound up reduced to washing that cup that she proclaimed she would never be reduced to. What was even the point of that?
I may have just misinterpreted some of it, but it sounds a lot like others weren’t too appreciative of the effort either and I might assume they didn’t just misinterpret it too. Whatever though. It was what it was and it was just a movie. Just not one that I was hoping for at the time I finally decided to watch it.
I suppose maybe for me it did seem that it focused on a ‘defining event’ and it was by her dementia in her old age.
Yeah, it was the only thing that really stood out because it kept coming back to it. But I don't see it as being a negative portrayal of her, it was an attempt to show who she was and how she is now (at the time) and it just misfired. It's not really "defining" because I don't know anyone who dwells on that aspect of her life as her "defining" moment. Falklands, yes. European relations, yes. Dementia, no.
Trust me, if you wanted to slam Thatcher, you don't need to show that she's come down with dementia. That happens to too many people across the political spectrum, so that as a political statement is meaningless, and as a character statement is pointless, as she had no control. She did plenty of controversial things in her life when she was of sound mind that could be argued for or against her depending on the context. But none of that was shown. It was just a superficial overview of her life and her current state.
Originally Posted by Fastfwd
I may have just misinterpreted some of it, but it sounds a lot like others weren’t too appreciative of the effort either and I might assume they didn’t just misinterpret it too.
I think some people are reading too much into it. It was just a poorly made movie, and relatively harmless towards Thatcher's legacy. I think more people are angry at the fact that the were bored stupid watching it and finding it a waste of time rather than getting riled up over the portrayal of a conservative figure in history. I know I was ticked off I watched two plus hours that I won't get back.
Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!