The New Republic

Of course, the fictional character is inherently more interesting: she can be whatever the writer, movie maker, or actress wants her to be; indeed, Salander's character doesn't even attempt to be like an actual human being. It's possible with a real character, but not as easily accomplished, especially when the real character and her eye witnesses are still among us; Salander's character is a punk, bisexual waif with a tattoo, while Mrs. Thatcher is married to a bore and carries a handbag. Make The Iron Lady 30 years hence, and the actress who plays her can be just as beguiling as Salander. If Thomson is correct, and movies (or, more accurately, movies for today's audience) depend on superficiality, then I may spending less and less of my time watching them. And so may other sensible people with an imagination. Imagination. I suspect that superficiality is a substitute for imagination. The viewers' imagination.

- rayward

January 17, 2012 at 11:03am

Both the makers of this film, including Meryl Streep, and the author of this review, David Thomson, feel the need to assert that, though they're trying to be objective, they really don't like Margaret Thatcher. How do you avoid superficiality when you're more interested in preening for your intellectual peers than in producing an original and insightful creation? Self-regard, in my opinion, is Ms. Streep's achilles heel as an actor.

- Athought

January 17, 2012 at 3:16pm

....Why Lisbeth Salander Beats Margaret Thatcher.... What a dumb proposition. That aside, I see Thatcher, as reinforced by this movie, as a kind of Lear, the difference being Lear is in text what Thatcher was/is in life, one too outsized to be captured by one artistic representation. Therefore, when Lear is performed, the best we can do is get aspects and iterations of him. So, too, it's a mistake, I'd argue, to try to capture the whole of Thatcher. So, I similarly take The Iron Lady to be offering a version of her, and here the juxtaposition of the old frail Thatcher, who in her onsetting dotage provides such a poignant contrast to the ascending and predominant political person she was in the prime of her power. I can see the argument that that juxtaposition is too pat and contrived. I'd say that Streep's acting gainsays that view. I was moved when she finally "let her husband go." So the movie as biopic is also a moving portrayal of Thatcher  in quite old age when the family she necessarily didn't have time for when in power means more to her, necessarily, than anything else. I see Thatcher, as reinforced by this movie, as a kind of Lear, the difference being Lear is in text what Thatcher was/is in life, one too outsized to be captured by one artistic representation. Therefore, when Lear is performed, the best we can do is get aspects and iterations of him. So, too, it's a mistake, I'd argue, to try to capture the whole of Thatcher. So, I similarly take The Iron Lady to be offering a version of her, and here the juxtaposition of the old frail Thatcher who in her onsetting dotage provides such a poignant contrast to the ascending and predominant political person she was in the prime of her power. I can see the argument that that juxtaposition is too pat and contrived. I'd say that Streep's acting gainsays that view. I was moved when she finally "let her husband go." So the movie as biopic is also a moving portrayal of Thatcher  in quite old age when the family she necessarily didn't have time for when in power means more to her, necessarily, than anything else. I see Thatcher, as reinforced by this movie, as a kind of Lear, the difference being Lear is in text what Thatcher was/is in life, one too outsized to be captured by one artistic representation. Therefore, when Lear is performed, the best we can do is get aspects and iterations of him. So, too, it's a mistake, I'd argue, to try to capture the whole of Thatcher. So, I similarly take The Iron Lady to be offering a version of her, and here the juxtaposition of the old frail Thatcher who in her onsetting dotage provides such a poignant contrast to the ascending and predominant political person she was in the prime of her power. I can see the argument that that juxtaposition is too pat and contrived. I'd say that Streep's acting gainsays that view. I was moved when she finally "let her husband go." So the movie as biopic is also a moving portrayal of Thatcher  in quite old age when the family she necessarily didn't have time for when in power means more to her, necessarily, than anything else.

- basman

January 17, 2012 at 5:28pm

Sorry for the triplication, my bad, bad, bad.

- basman

January 17, 2012 at 5:29pm

basman, I think the comparison to Lear is a propos. As to whether the fictional Salander is superior to the fictionalized Thatcher, that's above my pay grade. But I feel pretty confident in saying that Salander resembles many real people I know, and also that Mara was robbed at the golden globes.

- miceelf

January 17, 2012 at 5:33pm

"I have no idea whether Mara could play anyone else ...." She played the cute girlfriend in The Social Network -- nothing like the Salander role! How does she do it? In the immortal words of Sir Ian McKellan, "How do I act so well? What I do is I pretend to be the person I'm portraying in the film or play." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SL-L5WZcJc

- JakeH

January 17, 2012 at 6:15pm

I saw the original films and thought Naomi Rapace was just great as Lisabeth Salander, especially the first one in the series.

- rewiredhogdog

January 17, 2012 at 7:32pm

JakeH, she also played victims in such movies as the remade nightmare on elm street. as well as bit parts as victims of different kinds in mediocre rom coms.

- miceelf

January 17, 2012 at 8:13pm

I didn't have much interest in seeing The Iron Lady because Thatcher's right-wing politics were the opposite of my own, and it's tough to muster interest in a biopic about a person you don't like. It's not like she's fascinatingly evil. She's just a bummer. I mean, the Falklands? Really? Quick quiz: How many people died in that war? What was the population of the Falklands in 1980? What is/was its strategic, economic and/or geopolitical significance? Wikipedia Says: 900, 1800, 0. Stark numbers. Stark, stupid numbers. Was the rock even worth a single ship? To which the answer was, "It's the principle!" To which the answer was, "Oh, you mean the great legal principle of imperial takers, keepers?" Unadulterated silliness.

- JakeH

January 17, 2012 at 8:26pm

Up to you but I'd recommend seeing the movie for at least four reasons: Thatcher was a world ranking figure of compelling intellect, analytic intellect at that and compelling personal force who grew from modest rank to unbelievable heights by virtue of her intellect and personal force; the perspective is in stark tension with those heights even as the movie reviews them; Streep's performance is for the ages, best I've seen in a long time; and honestly there is so much mediocrity that gets ventilated and hyped, it's almost an obligation, not really, to take in a movie like this that has aspects of greatness such as here in the acting. But I'm in a decided minority here, I'll grant.

- basman

January 17, 2012 at 9:07pm

What JakeH said on 1/17/12 at 6:15 pm EDT

- ironyroad

January 17, 2012 at 9:30pm

P.S. I take it neither of you will be seeing Rick Perry, The Man, The Music.

- basman

January 17, 2012 at 9:49pm

basman, I've already seen Rick Perry in a movie. I believe it was called Talladega Nights.

- miceelf

January 18, 2012 at 8:51am

I probably won't make it, but I believe K2K is organizing a special showing for TNR subscribers in the New York area.

- ironyroad

January 18, 2012 at 1:03pm

Funny, ironyroad. Your approach to these things is the very opposite of mine. If I sense in myself a strong visceral reluctance to see a certain movie or read a certain book, because I don't like the director or the character or the author, I consider that very reluctance to be an important reason for me to go see the movie or read the book or whatever. I noticed it about myself when I was only 17 and forced myself to go see "Clockwork Orange" and "The Godfather" both of which I absolutely did not want to see. Of course it is easier to take the path of least resistance and passively ignore that which we dislike but my way is more interesting and potentially brings greater insight. IMHO.

- noga1

January 18, 2012 at 7:28pm

Other film I forced myself to go see but for different reasons was "Sophie Scholl" and Mike Leigh's "Another year".

- noga1

January 18, 2012 at 7:32pm

"As you might expect, Streep is magnificent but speciously sympathetic in the Alzheimer-like coda to the real drama, even if her husband Denis (played by Jim Broadbent) proves such a bore you can’t understand why so decisive a woman stayed with him. " How about she stayed with him because she liked and respected him and because she was grateful for him standing by her side through thick and thin? Why the cynicism, as if the only understandable motive for people to stay together is excitement and mutual interest? I don't even understand why "decisive" is at odds with staying with a boring husband. Perhaps it takes a decisive woman to stay with a boring husband.

- noga1

January 18, 2012 at 7:50pm

Noga, I believe the Rick Perry movie is just a joke of basman's -- I do go to a movie now and then against a feeling of reluctance/resistance and sometimes it has paid off. Two that come to mind are (coincidentally) "Another Year" and "Let The Right One In." What didn't pay off was "Talledega Nights" which I found forced and unfunny -- Will Ferrell does nothing for me.

- ironyroad

January 19, 2012 at 4:14pm

What I also meant to say was that I definitely plan to see 'Iron Lady' despite my dislike of Thatcher's politics, in case that got lost.

- ironyroad

January 19, 2012 at 4:44pm

I'm curious. What was your reason for the reluctance to see "Another year"?

- noga1

January 19, 2012 at 9:30pm

I'm not sure. More than once I've reacted that way to a new film of Leigh's and then I see it and end up liking it. Some caricature of his movies that lodged in my head early on and won't go away?

- ironyroad

January 20, 2012 at 2:58am

I found the film (Another year) tedious and clichoid. I couldn't like any of the characters. They all seemed pathetic each in their own unique way. Yet clearly we were meant to admire the central couple, both physically unattractive and sanctimonious, for the so-called enduring beauty of their love for each other and (qualified) charity towards more fallible humans.

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 3:51am

Completely off topic, I thought you mind find these interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/berlin-aerial-photographs-hein-gorny-2012-1

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 4:05am

It's odd looking at those photos because I was there for six weeks during the summer, and walking around exactly those areas near the Reichstag and Brandenburg gate. Unrecognizable now, even from fifteen years ago. Another Year left me somewhat ambivalent -- I didn't like the wife character, pretty much for the reasons you mention, but I found the husband ok in that grizzled understated English way. It seems to me that middle-aged people have the right to be physically unattractive (I fight for my rights!).

- ironyroad

January 20, 2012 at 5:30pm

Anybody can look attractive, ironyroad. Middle-age is no excuse. Did they have to make her buck-teethed and so frumpy? It seemed to be a deliberate choice by the director that she should look horsey and unappealing. I was wondering what exactly he gained from it. What point was he making? That if she had a little more physical allure it might interfere with her saintliness? It's not as if the characters were not aware of their looks. There were some exchanges about it. It's as if he was doing it as a sort of admonition to all those middle aged women out there who spend too much time doing their hair or something. As if the only two possibilities were either the aging woman who is resigned to her age and the other silly middle aged woman who dresses too young and tarty for her age.

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 6:40pm

But she isn't saintly, Noga, she is a somewhat smug let-me-explain-what-you're-doing-wrong-in-your-life type who withdraws her friendship from someone who needed her and passes that friend along to "professional counseling." I guess it's possible that Leigh meant that part of the end of the movie to suddenly open up another perspective, while still showcasing her virtuous and caring acts. Or maybe the movie is standing by her all the way, and genuinely believes the act at the end was justified (well, maybe it was justified in some ways but counseling isn't a substitute for friendship). The friend, in contrast, is attractive -- I thought so at least.

- ironyroad

January 20, 2012 at 8:11pm

Yes, in a pathetic sort of way.

- noga1

January 20, 2012 at 9:13pm

I saw the movie with a few, older, friends of mine. They thought the second proposition was the right one, that we were meant to identify with the older woman. But we talked about it some more and they came around to my way of seeing her. Not a bad person just someone who, as you said, couldn't be a friend when she was needed most to be a friend. "Family" was her reason. Even so, there was no need for her to speak about Mary as if she were some piece of discardable junk. The fact is, I don't trust Leigh and I don't think we were intended to feel such pity for her.

- noga1

January 21, 2012 at 12:00am

I identified with Mary a lot. I remember sitting in a large-ish group of people in a restaurant aftwards and feeling quite angry that nobody understood her, or empathized. I still think, however, that Gerry is capable of seeing people's needs (she's the one that gets Tom's widowed brother to come to London for a while). But like a lot of thoughtful, caring, and capable people she extracts a price (control? respect?) for her good deeds. Coincidentally, we were having a discussion of a similar nature in class today, about Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms and his (and/or the narrator Frederic's) attitude to Catherine Barkley and her fate. We talked a bit about whether there's an authorial distance from Frederic Henry's story that makes the novel more than some kind of narcissistic male war fantasy. I think myself that caution is maybe advised, not just assuming the authorial position is an endorsement of the narrative POV's position. I do respect Leigh, on the basis of experience, as someone who can't just be locked into any one moment of what his movies say.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2012 at 12:40am

"... still think, however, that Gerry is capable of seeing people's needs (she's the one that gets Tom's widowed brother to come to London for a while)." He was "family".

- noga1

January 21, 2012 at 8:18am

Mary is a natural victim. She begs to be kicked and abused in her behaviour, neediness, lack of self-awareness. She is a natural target for bullies and do-gooders simultaneously and they both tire of her eventually. There is a certain anger in the way of her portrayal in the film, always fumbling, helpless, selfish, silly, which is why I think Leigh did not intend us to sympathize with her. If he did he would have allowed her at least one or two moments of dignity. He stands right behind Gerry.

- noga1

January 21, 2012 at 8:31am

Yup, that's why I identified with her.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2012 at 12:55pm

Are pity for a character and identification with it the same? Just wondering. I watched "The spy who came in from the cold" last night (by sheer coincidence my son brought it from the library yesterday. Today he is a leCarre aficionado). I saw it years and years ago and didn't remember much so it was like seeing it for the first time. As it reached the end, I was reminded of Neil Burnside's resort to a similar solution at that memorable episode. Do you think it was some sort of a homage to LeCarre but from the side of the decision-maker, as if providing some sort of retroactive defense to why such a brutal end was the only possible solution? (I think we can talk about it here in this thread. We are not disrupting any conversation)

- noga1

January 21, 2012 at 1:28pm

True, it looks as if everyone else has gone elsewhere. On The Spy Who Came In, yes, I think there is at least some prima facie evidence that the Sandbaggers creator (Ian MacIntosh) was making a gesture toward that famous climax in espionage fiction (and movies). It would be interesting to watch both scenes back-to-back. Maybe there are other clues there. The structure is somewhat different, however, as in Sandbaggers, Burnside orders Laura's execution as there is no other way out of the dilemma that he has found himself in, and essentially he brings about the death of someone he loves. With The Spy Who Came In, it's more that Smiley and Control look the other way as Mundt has Liz killed at the Berlin Wall (they pretty much know that's what he's planning) but they expect Leamas to jump into the Western sector and escape. His romantic/existential choice to climb back down is typical Le Carré, but Burnside's choice is grimly pragmatic, the opposite of any romantic sacrifice. Burnside will do anything for the mission. Leamas has given up the mission (in a general sense, not the specific operation he's been on). And Leamas had specifically asked that Liz not be dragged further into the operation, a promise given by London but then broken.

- ironyroad

January 21, 2012 at 3:28pm

I see Burnside's role as more analogous to that of control, rather than Leamas (who would be an innocent operative in the order of Caine). He was burdened by the ethical question of what harm can be inflicted on one individual in order to benefit the greater part of society. (Robert Kaplan calls this kind of thinking "pagan ethics"). Perhaps MacIntosh was interested in placing the man responsible for the decision to execute the beloved in the shoes of the lover and see how that would work out. Of course Laura was not as innocent as Nan was. In "The spy who" the puppet masters are depicted as pretty cynical. We don't like them. Their word is worth nothing. In the Sandbaggers we get to see them tormented by the kind of decisions they have to make. It's the politicians who are the cynics. I agree that LeCarre does have a romantic streak that is allowed to play in the way action unfolds in his books. In the recent "Tinker Tailor", Smiley's love for his wife plays a significant role in his inability to see clearly. Perhaps I will try out your suggestion, as I have them both available right now.

- noga1

January 21, 2012 at 6:54pm

Oh yes, I just realized -- she's Nan in the movie, but Liz Gold in the novel (they changed names as Burton was married to Liz Taylor at the time). The novel also raises a couple of issues about Jews. She's one, Fiedler's another. I don't think this comes up so clearly in the film.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2012 at 1:26am

In any case, what do you think about the final scenes of SB and The Spy played against each other?

- ironyroad

January 22, 2012 at 1:29am

Well, we have two young and talented women who entrusted their life to their lovers who proved to be either too weak or too devious to cherish and preserve that life. The locale is the same, that famous Berlin Wall with its ominous perpetual darkness enlightened only by machine gun shots and people dying as they attempt to cross into a "better" world. And no matter how persuasive the rationale is, we remain with a deep sense of betrayal, that love and fine principles will never be allowed to triumph in the shadowy world of foreign policy. Seems to me John LeCarre is fascinated by Jews and tries to understand them from the inside out but there is a problem, an obstacle. He cannot really get away from the modern stereotype of the Jew as furtive, ambitious, intellectual, subversive and irresistibly charming (Axel in "Perfect spy" is actually re-incarnation of Fiedler writ larger), or the Jewesss who is politically naive and righteous who believes in "free love" which at the time of the novel and film would have translated directly into a tart. He usually punishes them in his novels.

- noga1

January 22, 2012 at 9:26am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR3LtWcn2lo&feature=related

- noga1

January 22, 2012 at 12:20pm

I think Laura knows the risks -- she isn't the only operative in SB who met that fate, but it's true that she doesn't know in this case that her escape will not happen, and that is the searing thing. She is happy to be walking out of East Berlin and towards Burnside, at the moment the shot comes. In contrast, Liz is not trained for espionage work. She's genuinely a caring and romantic individual who won't see the bad in people, except in the abstract sense of capitalism or something. But she has already experienced the gap between ideal and reality when she first gets to the GDR. So your description is elegantly concise but I have a feeling it only fits Liz well. If I was cynical I'd say she's the kind of girl who will go to bed with you provided you talk political analysis with her for four hours beforehand. I don't think le Carré is very good with his female characters in general. Charlie in The Little Drummer Girl is perhaps the most complex but I think that she's a kind of guy really. I watched some of the other YouTube clips -- Le Carré has been awarded some high-end German literary prizes recently. He speaks German beautifully.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2012 at 7:03pm

I didn't like Charlie. She was too suggestible and pro-Palestinian. I can't stand the politics of emotionalism. You can sell anything to the emotionally suggestible. I did say Laura was not innocent.

- noga1

January 22, 2012 at 9:38pm

That's true, you did. I just reread your earlier post.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2012 at 10:58pm

About attractiveness: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355 Apparently, we are hard wired to respond to prettiness even as day old babies. But a baby is notoriously known to think his mom is the model of beauty. It is a genuine belief on his part. I speak from experience. Yet of course it is statistically provable that not all moms are pretty. And fathers do not yield the same type of aesthetic appreciation. So how exactly accurate this research is, I wonder.

- noga1

January 23, 2012 at 4:54pm

Planning to see Tinker Tailor on Saturday.

- ironyroad

January 25, 2012 at 1:41am

"The artist" on Saturday for me.

- noga1

January 25, 2012 at 6:54am