Why did they choose Jim Broadbent to play Denis Thatcher?
You see, The Iron Lady can make a great boast. The central performance is extremely convincing. So convincing that you get lost in it. You don’t end up watching the film, thinking ‘God, that performance by Meryl Streep is excellent.’ You just accept that she is Margaret Thatcher and wonder whether it is appropriate to intrude into her privacy. In other words, the very fact that we start worrying about privacy is tribute to the performance.
But Jim Broadbent does, well, a very good Jim Broadbent impersonation. I like Jim Broadbent impersonations. But not in the middle of a film about Margaret Thatcher.
Denis Thatcher was a much more obvious and traditional Tory figure than his wife, and his support, as an affluent older businessman, was central to her development as a successful Conservative politician. Get him wrong, and you get her wrong.
And this was not a minor error. Jim Broadbent is all over the film like a rash.
But, although this was a serious mistake, it doesn’t ruin The Iron Lady, which is, taken in the round, a rather good film. Most political films, like football movies, are chronically bad. This one is actually good enough to be worth considering properly.
Deciding to use dementia as a way of framing the story is critical to this.
I’ll explain why in a minute, but first there are the questions of taste, of course. I can see the privacy argument, but on balance I am with Matthew Parris (£) on this. Margaret Thatcher was a towering figure and as public a person as can be. Facts about her are interesting, and in the public interest. I felt the treatment was sensitive and that the idea that it should not be depicted almost suggests there is something to be ashamed of in this condition.
The advantage of the way the film is done is that it provides drama, emotion and sympathy without having to make something up. Most historical films need to depart from the truth in order to become absorbing narratives. This did not.
I am sure most Conservatives will be wary of the film lest it be a sort of left-wing attack. I certainly was. But, in the event, the correct criticism is that it lacks politics altogether. Not completely, you understand, but it doesn’t have enough. It doesn’t give you a sense of the arguments.
Instead it concentrates on the character of a Prime Minister whose character was extraordinary.
Go to see it? Yes, I think so. Apart from anything else, Meryl Streep’s performance is one of the finest I’ve ever seen.
Comments