Suffragette
Dir: Sarah Gavron
2015
***
A big motion picture retelling the story of the British Women's Suffrage movement was long overdue. There are parts of history that most people will be familiar with, they will know the names of Emmeline Pankhurst and Emily Davison and they will know what happened at Epson Racecourse in 1913. I have to confess I didn't know much more than that myself, so was looking forward to learning more about a subject everyone should be familiar with. Unfortunately, I learnt little more than I already knew. So much was left out in fact that as soon as I got home I read up on the history of the movement, so I suppose I can thank the film for that but a subject such as this deserved better. It's not too hard to imagine the hardships that women faced before the vote, it was right to show an example of this but I don't think it should have been the whole film. I also can't help but think that a historical account of events could have featured real people rather than be lead by a fictional character. Carey Mulligan's performance as Maud Watts was great and I'm sure she captured the essence of many women of the movement at that time but surely a real person could have been found to be portrayed to give the film the realism it deserved. I'm afraid it is this lack of realism that really lets the film down. The development of the factual characters is shoddy at best, Natalie Press plays Emily Davison fine but her character is never explained or believable, even though she is a real person. The real Davison went through real hardship and had attempted suicide in prison many times before and at the time of the incident at Epson she was suffering severely from head and spinal damage from throwing herself down a concrete staircase when imprisoned the previous year. None of this was explored. Another moving true story that wasn't mentioned was that the Jockey of the King's Horse that she threw herself in front of, actually laid a wreath for her at Pankhurst's funeral. In fact, the incident at Epson should have been the beginning of the film, everything else that happened after that, the really important stuff, was dismissed and reduced to a couple of lines before the end credits. I felt that I had watched only half a film, considering the subject it should have been a three hour biopic. I think it's quite interesting that Helena Bonham Carter, who played Edith Ellyn, is the great-granddaughter of H.H. Asquith who was Prime Minister at the time the film was set and was strongly opposed to the votes for women. It's a nice bit of reprehension that is overshadowed somewhat by the casting of Meryl Streep. Streep is a great actress, without doubt, but she's clearly cast here for the sake of her name. Streep puts bums on seats, she's in the film for a matter of minutes but features on all the posters. Personally I would have liked and expected to learn far more about Emmeline Pankhurst in a film about the suffragettes and as much as I like Streep, there are plenty of British actresses who could have done just as well if not better. A big name star in a film that should be as realistic as possible is distraction and I do believe it was Sarah Gavron's intention for it to be realistic. The film is mainly shot from spectator perspective, in other words it's wobbly camera all the way. This didn't work for me at all. The last time I felt this dizzy after a film is when I went to see Gravity. I have many issues with the film but I have to admit it does pack a punch. It never holds back, really does show the hardship women faced and why the women were forced to take drastic and forceful action. I just wanted more of the facts and to be able to watch without getting motion sickness. It's like a really good TV drama filmed by someone on a unicycle. Good, but the story deserved better in my opinion.