Meryl Streep seems a lock for yet another Oscar nomination.
Streep’s upcoming film, “The Iron Lady,” casts her as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the more influential leaders of the 20th century. The early pics released from the film show Streep capturing Thatcher’s gaze with eerie efficiency, and Oscar voters adore biopics like Charlie Sheen digs Twitter.
But Thatcher is a beloved figure in conservative circles, and Hollywood isn’t a bastion for right-of-center sentiment. Insert your preferred understatement metaphor here.
So where does that leave roughly half the country who either admire Thatcher as a leader or her principles?
Political properties quickly inspire passionate debate and demagoguery. Think “The Reagans,” “The Kennedys” or anything by either Oliver Stone or Michael Moore. When ABC’s “The Path to 9/11″ hit television screens, Democrats howled over its alleged unfairness to former President Bill Clinton. “The Reagans” put words in the “Bedtime for Bonzo” star’s mouth that many felt didn’t reflect his views on AIDS sufferers.
The ugliest part for media consumers is watching people trying to prevent such a product from hitting the marketplace, or altering it beyond what the creators intended. Both ideological sides are guilty in this arena, and that’s hardly what the free and open exchange of ideas is all about.
Michael Moore has every right to twist facts until they barely resemble reality.
That doesn’t mean factually flawed movies should arrive in theaters unscathed. If “The Iron Lady” is as unfair to its subject as an early script review suggests, film fans should respectfully correct the record. Write your local paper to set things straight. If you see a review which accurately details the film’s biases, send said critic a positive note.
Hint: Film critics and journalists alike rarely hear from satisfied readers, just angry ones.
The Internet and social media allow reg’lar folks to have a voice, and sometimes that voice is just as loud as the one belonging to those media gatekeepers.
And, of course, you can always choose not to see the project in question assuming you can verify the extreme bias via trustworthy blogs and news reports.
Streep isn’t perfect, despite her press clippings. Her work in ‘It’s Complicated” was a bit too pleased with itself, yet she still managed to be sexy, vulnerable and funny. But it will be fascinating to see what she does as Lady Thatcher even if the portrait follows the expected left of center template.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m torn—on the one hand I admire Thatcher as an individual, but on the other, I utterly despise the English as a people (my definition of “American exceptionalism” is “the only good thing the Saxon dog ever did”). And people who say “Reagan, John Paul II, and Thatcher won the Cold War” are simply feeding the British delusion that they’re still a world power. They aren’t. Thatcher might’ve helped a little, but only in the sense various cardinals helped the Pope.
Still, though, they probably aren’t going to portray it as Thatcher being—as she was—merely a good vassal to Reagan, but as her being simply wrong, and a bogey to the British left (who are the most vile of all leftists, not even excluding actual Communists—they’ve inherited every iota of the Victorians’ provincial arrogance, without any of the Victorians virtues). Plus, Meryl Streep always exudes an overweening self-satisfaction that makes you want to trip her into a storm drain. Maybe they thought that was appropriate for Thatcher, which is funny if you know anything about her.
Gee…I like the U.K. peoples. I guess I’m less of an American. Oh well.
If what I’ve read on Big Hollywood is true, then this movie sounds like another “W.”, “Fair Game”, or any of the recent based-on-actual-events political dramas on HBO (like the upcoming “Game Change”).
My reaction is to ignore them, but I’m not sure this sends the right (or any) message to Hollywood, since I’m not their target audience anyway. I canceled my subscription to HBO years ago because so much of their original programming – the advocacy dramas & sleazy documentaries – exhibited a clear agenda. The good stuff like Rome and Band of Brothers can be rented.
I wish Meryl Streep would stop imitating real people and get back to just acting, preferably as a regular American woman (no heavy accents, calculated gestures,etc.). Her Julia Child impression was a painful caricature, and I’d be surprised if her performance in this role isn’t just as bad.
To tell you the truth, I think all these types of films try too hard to over inflate their own importance. I can like a historical film that may not be 100% accurate but tells the basic essence and a good story (Thirteen Days), and I can like a film which is complete trash but a good story (JFK) but don’t sit there and tell me your film is anything but a good piece of entertainment. If you’re trying to be a historian then get into another field.
As far as this goes, I approach it like anything else. With an open mind.
I wish more films would tell people to do their own research if they’d like to know more. But sometimes that could produce results other than what was intended.
I’ll approach it with an open mind, also, but I can’t figure out that Game Change movie. The book sucked. How are they going to make a decent movie out of that mess? Maybe it they both suck, they will go the way of “W” and that horrible Sean Penn and Naomi Watts’ movie.
“If you see a review (of Thatcher) which accurately details the film’s biases, send said critic a positive note.”
Well, Christian, I’ll be happy to send you and Kyle a positive note, but I’m not holding out hope for any other reviewers. Pretty much we all know what to expect from mainline reviewers. I’m not expecting any surprises. It’s only interesting to see which “big-time” critic writes the most overwrought piece of crap.
I am sure i will be having a number of discussions with the writers at Film School Rejects, this is just up their alley. It seems that if a movie criticizes America or anything Conservative they are all for it, but if I complain about film makers like Kevin Smith blasting religion or other directors badly made and highly inaccurate movies then I am the nut.
If the film is not factual then it needs to be listed as a parody or historical drama which is what this film seems to portray.
I’m not sure Kevin Smith was blasting religion in Dogma (I’ll be polite to him and pretend he never made Red State). A lot of that movie’s satire, for instance the bishops coming up with “Buddy Christ” because the Crucifixion is a downer, is spot on.
But Film School Rejects is, from what I’ve seen, even more of an echo chamber than TV Tropes and Television Without Pity; I’d expect more diversity of thought from the Moscow and Leningrad Union of Artists, circa 1937.