Suffragette

Sarah Gavron directs the period drama of women in 1912 London campaigning for the right to vote.

suffragette-2015-movie-posterSarah Gavron’s “Suffragette” is most relevant today as a piece of historical fiction because issues of women’s rights are in 2015 as prevalent and significant as they were in 1912 London. It’s the slightly fictionalized story of English working women who took up civil disobedience in order to pressure the government to give women the vote.

Should women be allowed to vote? Of course. The answer is so obvious that even the film provides scant arguments against it. “Suffragette” could better advance the discussion of women’s rights in 2015 if it had more to say regarding the debate and nuances of women’s rights issues in 1912. “Suffragette” is more a soapbox than a profound piece of modern feminism. And while it has strong performances and competent filmmaking, it’s even lacking as a stirring piece of dramatic historical fiction.

Carey Mulligan is excellent (although what else is new) as Maud Watts, an uneducated mother working in the laundry trade in London. She happens across her colleague Violet Miller (Anne-Marie Duff) smashing West End windows while calling for the vote for women, and she’s reluctantly pulled into the fray. Maud testifies at a parliamentary hearing in place of Violet regarding the pitiful working conditions at the laundry, and the police associate Maud with the other suffragettes (including Helena Bonham Carter and a rapid cameo from Meryl Streep), which is a different term from the non-violent suffragists.

It isn’t long before Maud comes around to the cause, despite how it estranges her from her husband Sonny (Ben Whishaw) and her young son. Sonny is a character who isn’t as monstrous as some of the other male figures in the film, who range from having severe male-gaze/ownership issues to being flat out sexual abusers, but Sonny isn’t quite sympathetic to the cause either. The only meaningful male character with principles of any sort is the police officer played by Brendan Gleeson. He unblinkingly and calmly reasons with Maud that no one cares for her or her activism, and that she’s only being used as a pawn. From Gleeson, the scene hits heavy, and he passively upholds the law without politics in mind and even calls attention to the barbaric treatment of female prisoners later in the film.

“Suffragette” stands out from the crop of most Hollywood movies simply as an example of fiction, historical or otherwise, that allow this many women on screen at once. We see them plotting attacks and even running away from explosions. “Suffragette” even takes on something of a caper vibe, but it lacks a strong sense of suspense to carry along the action. Gavron resorts instead to a lot of shaky cam, naturalistic filmmaking that doesn’t go the distance in terms of creating mood.

During the closing credits, Gavron closes “Suffragette” with a roll of major countries and the year in which they gave women the right to vote, ending with Saudi Arabia promising women the right this year. There is still work to be done, and if nothing else, “Suffragette” is still a rousing story capable of getting more and more women to speak up.

3 stars

Inside Llewyn Davis

“Inside Llewyn Davis” is the Coen Brothers’ searingly intimate folk ballad.

Folk music is that most honest of all music genres. It’s often just a man, his words and his guitar, and through simple song structure and intimacy of the performance, it hits searing individual truths. And yet when folk music is done poorly, it can be the most hammy and phony of all, a parody of itself and hardly a solid piece of music.

The only American directors capable of handling that dichotomy are the Coen Brothers. The two are masters of characterization and tone, bordering on satire and sincerity with each of their characters. “Inside Llewyn Davis” is their folk ballad, and it’s a searing portrait of an unlikeable and sullen artist, one that feels warm and honest without ever trying to fake folksy charm.

“Inside Llewyn Davis” could not be possible without the lead performance of its title character by Oscar Isaac. In this film full of cartoonish supporting players coloring a strange, tough-to-crack world, Isaac plays Llewyn with every ounce of attitude and truth. Llewyn is completely unlikeable, stuck-up, lazy, pretentious, snarky and never cool, and Isaac turns him into a tragic figure befitting a travelling folk song. Continue reading “Inside Llewyn Davis”

The Great Gatsby

The parties in “The Great Gatsby” are grand, but does Baz Luhrmann see any similarities between now and then beyond “people were gangsta”?

Part of what has made “The Great Gatsby” so enduring is that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel is a trim, elegant story with themes that touch on American values old and new. And yet as would be his nature, Baz Luhrmann has transformed “The Great Gatsby” into a long, over-stylized melodrama. Because it lacks Fitzgerald’s resounding tone, it’s a glitzy movie stuffed to the brims that feels strangely empty.

Luhrmann spoke on “The Colbert Report” about how modern the book feels after all these years, and no one is arguing with him there. But what does he see as the similarities between the Roaring Twenties and now? Surely it can’t be the economy, music, fashion or ideas about race.

Luhrmann sees the massive parties and equates them to raves on the wildest scale. He sees scantily clad dancers and choreographs them to hip hop, and for everyone else wearing suits, throwing around money and driving flashy custom rides, he sees them all as gangsta.

Make no mistake; the parties in “Gatsby” are grand. Done up in 3-D and bursting with colors, streamers and floating butterflies, Luhrmann throws a gigantic bash. All the greater then in demonstrating Gatsby’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) unwavering love for Daisy (Carey Mulligan), or something like that.

“What’s all this for,” Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) asks Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki). “That, my dear fellow, is the question.” But Luhrmann is too enamored with his 3-D effects and the celebratory nature of it all to justify how any of this speaks more broadly about our time or theirs’. Continue reading “The Great Gatsby”

Drive

Samurai don’t wear a robe or carry a sword anymore, but they still exist. They wear driving gloves and carry a hammer to nail a bullet into a thug’s forehead.

“Drive”’s nameless anti-hero possesses the same focus, patience and loyalty of his feudal Japanese ancestors, and Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn shares the same pacing and cinematic flourish as his Asian, French and Italian counterparts. Continue reading “Drive”

An Education

There is a performance by Carey Mulligan in “An Education” that is so inherently charming that I would like to say it is the sole reason for the film going above and beyond as it does, give her an Academy Award for her work and move on. But Lone Scherfig’s film has a nuance to it that transcends boilerplate Oscar-bait becoming a wholly original work of art.

“An Education” is a British film in the early, pre-Rock and Roll 60’s of London. Jenny (Mulligan) is a senior in high school, top of her class, itching to attend Oxford, constantly nagged by her supportive but pushy father Jack (Alfred Molina), plays the cello, has a quasi-relationship with an equally nerdy and fastidious boy and is bored out of her mind. She lives in the type of household where a Latin dictionary serves as a suitable birthday present, and both her father and would-be boyfriend think highly of her enough to get the same gift. Continue reading “An Education”