La Dame de fer : 3/10
Margaret Thatcher, first and only female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (from 1979 to 1990), once capable of ruling the kingdom with an iron fist, is now peacefully living her imposed retirement in London. Aged over 80, she is overtaken by memories. Between past and present, this intimate journey is a new battle for this woman who is equally adored and hated.
To put it simply, it's academic, long and pompous. Meryl Streep is excellent as usual, but the film has absolutely nothing to offer.
Everything that had annoyed me in J. Edgar was there: the alternating structure between the present and the past, the focus on more or less interesting points in Thatcher's life, the very academic side (well, that's common to almost all biopics, to be honest), fortunately the music was less of a disaster.
Here again, there was a choice in terms of angle: we could have talked about what made Margaret Thatcher want to enter politics, the difficulties for a woman to establish herself in an exclusively male environment, or (in my opinion the most interesting although the hardest to deal with, especially given our lack of perspective), about what she “accomplished” at 10 Downing Street and which means that it was (and still is) very controversial.
But no, we are shown Margaret Thatcher, 80 years old, who “is caught up in her memories”, to quote the pitch. That is to say that for 2 hours, we see Meryl Streep losing her mind, Meryl Streep dancing while talking to a ghost, Meryl Streep sorting shirts and suits. And then from time to time, a “key scene” from her life is introduced in a more or less subtle way.
I found the scenes in the present more than useless. I found them indiscreet, almost creepy. If Margaret Thatcher has indeed lost her lucidity, it's really sad for her, but I don't want to see that spread out on a screen for 2 hours. I don't see the point, I don't see how it has its place in the biopic of a political figure, however detestable she may be. Trust me, I hate Thatcher and everything she represents, but it has nothing to do with her current mental state. There is plenty of room to attack Thatcher on her opinions and her actions, no need for this kind of scenes.
The flashbacks are a succession of “bankable” scenes, but I don't feel like there was any thought behind them, that the most striking, the most photogenic elements were selected to be shown in the film, without there really being any narrative choice. There isn't really a plot, at the end of the almost 2 hours, we saw scenes unfold, but it had no purpose, it didn't serve as an explanation, a demonstration, anything. To make a lame parallel, I had the impression of seeing a history essay full of examples, without any argument, without logical connector, without introduction or conclusion, above all without a clear problem.
Typically the idea of using stock footage wasn't bad, but I feel like it's just a way to avoid digging. By not staging these passages, there are no technical or artistic choices, there is no point of view expressed. The film is completely neutral, all political questions are erased, sanitized, which is a shame when we see to what extent Thatcher still creates controversy!
To end on a more positive note, and to “justify” my 3 points, I have to say that Meryl Streep is fantastic. She is perfect as Margaret Thatcher. It's a shame the film doesn't really talk about her.
