Suffragette (2015)

Very well executed

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

I'm sure that the Suffragette could be good, but something went wrong. I found the whole movie extremely boring, however its topic is not only interesting but also very important in the whole world. Abi Morgan has already shown, that she's able to write very great films, like The Iron Lady. But now she couldn't make the story exciting. From the first time I was sure how the film will be ended, I didn't have questions, the only feeling I felt was disappointment. The cast was not bad, but the best part of it was Helena Bonham Carter. She is one of the most talented actresses, but she had a too little role, he couldn't show how talented she is, which is very sad. (She could save the movie) Meryl Streep was also presented on all of the posters of the Suffragette, but she had 2 minutes in the film. I think, Anne-Marie Duff wasn't powerful enough and Carry Mulligan was not properly instructed by the director. (she is a good actor, but without good instructions was she unable to play well) The Suffragette is not bad, but it could be better, if the director would work more on the situations and the script.

Like the film "Jackie" I reviewed recently, "Suffragette" from British Director Sarah Gavron seeks to achieve a necessary "roughing-up" of history made a bit too smooth (and hence unrealistic) by the passing of the decades. Without it, we are likely to add inappropriate refinement to pictures of actually-rather-demure-looking ladies in old sepia photos, with their smart-if-stiff-looking Edwardian-type clothes and such old-fashioned, even twee, names as "Emmeline Pankhurst" and "Emily Davison".This film will have none of that. Here are women - of various ages and (very importantly) various classes - boiling over with fury at the injustice they suffer, fed up with promises of enfranchisement that get nowhere. They struggle on at work for low (and lower-than-male) pay, give birth at regular intervals without much choice in the matter, face routine sexist abuse, are treated like property, pass most rights to their husbands as they marry, and just cannot stand it any longer.And this in a basically-democratic Britain that has long prided itself for the way it stands up for rights. Indeed, by 1912, male workers have won plenty of rights for themselves already, but now see it as convenient for the process to stop at that point.So here is a film whose main positive (if sadly mostly invented) characters are female; and since they are acted by the likes of Carey Mulligan (our increasingly radicalised heroine Maud Watts), Helena Bonham-Carter (as composite character Edith Ellyn) and a cameo Meryl Streep (as the real-life Mrs Pankhurst herself) - we have nothing to worry about in the sense of quality.Most male characters are not shown as clearly, and where they are, the light is often negative. (That appalling womaniser) Lloyd George in his pre-PM days is well done by Adrian Schiller, but he is as ineffectual (at this stage) as he is basically well-meaning. Maud's husband Sonny, played nicely enough by Ben Whishaw, is a basically-decent everyman entirely unable to distance himself enough to see that the woman he does indeed love deserves more than that. From the ruling class, the (sadly never-existing) Benedict Haughton MP (played by Samuel West) is willing to use fair means and foul to keep the lid on a growing rebellion that his own wife is a part of. And he is aided in this by Special Branch's Inspector Arthur Steed - the "man of the match" for this viewer at least, played with great deftness of touch by the ever-talented Brendan Gleeson. Steed is now deploying the first hi-tech as he seeks to spy on - and of course undermine - the plotting Suffragettes.And here we come upon a key point of the film, given that the portrayal of the activists here makes few bones about the fact that they are terrorists, actively encouraged into acts of terror by their leader. As it happens, nobody actually dies in the film - except for Suffragette Emily Davison, who famously ran in front of King George V's horse at The Derby (having been imprisoned on several occasions and apparently force-fed 49 times). Certainly injuries are sustained as the police wade into crowds of protesting Suffragettes. But the latter's activities could indeed have taken lives, and were certainly highly disruptive.The makers would like us to accept that the women were left with no other choice, but, though that case indeed has its historical merits, this same excuse has been used by (worse) terrorists a little too often for us to feel fully comfortable with the concept.In any case, the portrayal of London in 1912 is remarkable, and there is a great deal of squalor still present there - for men and women both, it might be added. Ground-breakingly, the film is also the first in history to be permitted to use true House of Commons settings - a testament to its great worth, and to the key historical events it portrays.Except that this is not purely historical. As the DVD's Extra Materials make clear, our film here was made with more than one eye on the fact that wage-differentials exist even in today's Europe, while basic rights are still denied to women in a host of countries right here and now in 2017.For this and the clear historical imperatives, "Suffragette" is simply a well-acted and skilfully-presented must-see.

The story of the Suffragette Movement and the right for the female vote is a fascinating and quite important part of history that is very much overlooked in film and still holds much relevance today.A large part as to why is the potential problems with how a film would portray it. Despite being really interesting, it is difficult to get the portrayal the Suffragette Movement and the right for the female vote spot on. There is always the danger of heavy-handedness, being too careful, being one-dimensional and being too cold or sentimentalised.'Suffragette' to me was a compelling film that did more right than it did wrong, but at the same time it does not escape a few of the traps that portraying this subject poses. It is a brave and worthy attempt though, and even though the finished product is flawed 'Suffragette' gets a lot of applause and respect from me for trying.It doesn't escape the trap of being heavy-handed, with some of the build ups overdone, occasional preachiness in the writing and parts in the music score intrusively orchestrated. While the brutality most likely did happen and it brings a darkness that stops the film from being too much of one tone, parts did jar like with the laundry boss, which agreed did feel like they belonged in another film.Nor does it escape portraying its characters in a stock and one-dimensional way. Did feel a lot for the women, and found myself inspired by their cause and rooting for them even if they did go the wrong way about it in parts of the film and in history. However, especially the boss and with the sole exception of Steed, the male characters are stock and unsympathetically drawn, found myself really infuriated by Sonny's actions as well and found him generally a placid personality. There are a few real life characters intersected here, which was interesting but appeared too briefly, while they made an impression David Lloyd George and Emmeline Pankhurst were reduced to cameo roles.However, it is very handsomely and evocatively mounted in period detail, being suitably naturalistic and sombre. The cinematography, with the hand-held technique, has been criticised for being excessive and lacking focus, it didn't bother me that much and thought it gave a real and appropriate sense of frenzy, claustrophobia and fear. Apart from the odd intrusive part, the music is rousing yet understated. Much of the direction gives clarity to the story and a sense of pace and the film always looks great.Much of the writing is fine too, some heavy-handedness here as well as parts that are a bit emotionally cold and too careful but the main and familiar events are handled powerfully, sincerely and thoughtfully. The storytelling, a vast majority of the time, is spirit-rousing, heart-stopping, moving and inspiring, the ending was really quite powerful.Carey Mulligan is particularly magnificent of the uniformly impressive cast, and Brendan Gleeson and Anne-Marie Duff are not far behind. Meryl Streep's appearance is brief but very memorable, while Helena Bonham Carter brings a wonderful feistiness to the ringleader of the group. Ben Whishaw, on the other hand, is a little dull as Sonny, though the way the character is written deserves a large part of the blame here, and the laundry boss character is too much of a stock pantomime villain-like character.Overall, brave, worthy and largely successful if flawed telling of a fascinating, important and relevant piece of history, that has been overlooked. 7/10 Bethany Cox

England, 1912. Women don't have the vote and one woman, Emmeline Pankhurst (played by Meryl Streep), is trying to rectify that. She is the leader of the Suffragette movement and, after trying peaceful means to obtain their goals, their methods turn more extreme. On the fringes of the movement is Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan), a factory worker. She tries to stay out of the struggle but is inexorably drawn into it. What she sees and endures is brutal, and ultimately ground-breaking.The story of a how woman came to get the vote in the UK is a story of courage and conviction and one that deserves telling. The work of Emmeline Pankhurst and the Suffragettes was revolutionary, necessary and ultimately successful. The movie shows well what the situation was like for women at the time and how they achieved their ends.However, it is incredibly heavy-handed in its approach. Every male in the movie is portrayed one-dimensionally, as an ogre and oppressor and unsympathetic to women and their cause. There is not a single likable, or even non-dislikeable, male in the movie. A bit difficult to like the movie too much when it is so manipulative and unbalanced.Quite dull in spells, too. Pretty much conventional, paint-by-numbers storytelling.