A.O. Scott is once more right on the money. "admirably modest," to be sure, but also stirring. Carey Mulligan, as usual, is superb.
2
I finally got to see this movie on pay-per-view and thought it was outstanding, but it's definitely not for those who prefer car chases. People who are familiar with the miseries of factory workers may not know the details for women: how they faced sexual abuse, how they also had to care for kids as they worked, and how they got less pay for long hours and then had to take care of families at home.
The movie gives a nuanced view of different women in the struggle. They are far from the usual stereotypes of either ugly, man-hating women or women of privilege.
The movie gives a nuanced view of different women in the struggle. They are far from the usual stereotypes of either ugly, man-hating women or women of privilege.
7
The real story is vitally important; however the movie story simplistically personifies the suffragette movement and the status quo as two predictable characters, compresses a 50-year struggle into a few weeks or months and ends years before the vote was actually attained.
The movie was an important reminder that women did not get the vote or any level of equality by being nice. Many young women are enjoying the rights their 'Foremothers' fought for oblivious to the labor and heartache and rejection they endured. Ironically, they are the ones who are also chosen for jobs or appointments, etc. because they are not perceived to be the threat their elders were. I hope this movie will remind them of what they take for granted. They have a duty to remember and honor them. That said, it was a little disheartening to learn that some of the suffragettes employed arson and sabotage, though, not violence. Or the only violence experienced was to themselves. Carey Mulligan and Brendan Gleeson were interesting antagonists, too.
3
The "review summary" does a poor job of summarizing the review. Based on the summary I thought that this was going to be a really negative review and almost didn't click through. This does a disservice to both the review and the movie.
@Charlie, 10-23-15: "why must Americans look to Britain?" Perhaps you've forgotten or have not seen "Iron Jawed Angels" http://tinyurl.com/bstr9je, with Hillary Swank, Frances O'Connor, Julia Ormond, Anjelica Huston, Vera Farmiga, Molly Parker, Adilah Barnes, Lois Smith and Carrie Snodgrass. This inspiring 2004 film, with top-notch acting, screenplay and production values (courtesy of HBO), screens around the USA during election cycles -- reminding everyone of the long hard struggle for the passage of the 19th Amendment. Definitely worth watching.
3
Violence, the film seems to say, is necessary to get the attention of the press and of the patriarchal class. It could be termed "vandalism" to blow up mailboxes and empty houses, but bystanders can be hurt by flying metal, and, as the film notes, a housekeeper could have been killed. The film addresses important issues, and the focus on rank-and-file complexities is enlightening, but I trembled at the message that to be effective in a good cause, violence is appropriate, indeed necessary.
While Suffragette depicts women willing to suffer and die to draw attention to their cause, ISIS finds it effective to have victims die in public beheadings to spotlight it's desire for a caliphate. Discussions of Suffragette ought to include the message of nonviolent protest preached by Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela.
While Suffragette depicts women willing to suffer and die to draw attention to their cause, ISIS finds it effective to have victims die in public beheadings to spotlight it's desire for a caliphate. Discussions of Suffragette ought to include the message of nonviolent protest preached by Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela.
4
Women struggled for rights without violence long before MLK, Ghandi or Mandela. When I was a journalist, Edith Mayo told me that the women's rights movement has been the longest nonviolent movement for rights. She is now curator emerita in political history at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.
Yes, some British suffragettes committed vandalism. But no wars were fought for women's rights. Women have not violently attacked men in the name of feminism.
Yes, some British suffragettes committed vandalism. But no wars were fought for women's rights. Women have not violently attacked men in the name of feminism.
14
I also did not admire the violence. I wonder if that kind of destruction actually prolonged the time for gaining women's suffrage.
I am not understanding comments about this film's being "boring" - or, worse, "drab." They can only come from an extreme lack of empathy, or a simple inability to see the reality of the lives of the women portrayed. Yes, the lives of working women in turn of the 20th c. England were, indeed, drab - should the filmmakers have taken a Mary Poppins approach instead?
If some viewers find "Suffragette" boring, I suspect they lead insulated lives in which child labor, dangerous working conditions, sexual exploitation, domestic violence, police brutality, state repression, inequality and denial of rights, police surveillance, intolerance and suppression of dissent are mere historical artifacts -- and how tiresome to revisit the past!
Emily Davison, one of the historic figures whose actions are portrayed in the film, was jailed repeatedly during the long fight for the vote, and forcibly fed 49 times. She and the other suffragists and suffragettes (both terms were adopted by women's groups in England, with the latter being the more militant branch of the movement) are commemorated by this film, and their struggle honored. We stand on their shoulders. Boring? Drab? They shine.
If some viewers find "Suffragette" boring, I suspect they lead insulated lives in which child labor, dangerous working conditions, sexual exploitation, domestic violence, police brutality, state repression, inequality and denial of rights, police surveillance, intolerance and suppression of dissent are mere historical artifacts -- and how tiresome to revisit the past!
Emily Davison, one of the historic figures whose actions are portrayed in the film, was jailed repeatedly during the long fight for the vote, and forcibly fed 49 times. She and the other suffragists and suffragettes (both terms were adopted by women's groups in England, with the latter being the more militant branch of the movement) are commemorated by this film, and their struggle honored. We stand on their shoulders. Boring? Drab? They shine.
39
I don’t lead an insulated life. I’m the daughter of refugees who went to public schools and became a civil rights lawyer. I’ve been in the trenches fighting for equality for 30+ years. I was really excited about seeing this movie.
But it’s infuriatingly boring - infuriating because it took an amazing story and a wonderful cast and made something so dull that it was difficult to sit through it without checking one’s watch.
But it’s infuriatingly boring - infuriating because it took an amazing story and a wonderful cast and made something so dull that it was difficult to sit through it without checking one’s watch.
1
Mr Scott opines "The specific battle it chronicles — for the right of women to vote — was won, in Britain and the United States, a long time ago." Spoken like a man! A LONG TIME AGO? 1928 is NOT A LONG TIME AGO!
Why wasn't Ms. Dhargis given this assignment?
Why wasn't Ms. Dhargis given this assignment?
21
I'm 57 and my mother was born before women could vote in the U.S. (1920). Of course, many women of color had to wait longer to vote. In the early years especially, many men pressured wives and daughters not to vote, or to vote the way they did. It wasn't until 1980 that polls showed women diverging from men in their voting patterns.
6
Carey Mulligan is quite nauseating !
2
Oh - you must mean in the scene in which her character is force-fed in jail. I agree - that was nauseating indeed. And done repeatedly to many of the thousand women arrested in Britain during the fight for the simple right to cast a ballot.
16
It's amazing how men will make the most inaccurate personality assessments when they are too illiterate to come up with something end point.
6
I loved the movie. Did I wish that it had more emotion? Sometimes, but I chalked it up to this being a British movement. Things were done properly even the bombings. There was plenty enough emotiona there. I gasped and was horrified at times. I saw parts of history that I didn't know existed. This movie has the tenor sometimes of a documentary rather than a car-chase-filled Hollywood blockbuster. I rather liked that. Bring your daughters. They need to know their history.
25
Bring your sons too- they need to know just as much, if not more so!
36
What, no car crashes, explosions, and such? That is no way to make a movie. But if it really puts the viiciousness of power when challenged on the screen that alone makes up for all its shortcomings.
14
The advance of civilized society has been immeasurably aided by those who recognize injustice and fight against it. Whether it was the rise of abolitionists against slavery, the advent of the labor movement against inhuman working conditions, or the more recent ferocity of groups like Act Up ("we're here, we're queer, get used it") that surely enabled today's public acceptance of same gender marriage. The feminist movement, embodied by the goal of equal voting privileges for women, has enhanced society in ways historians today are only beginning to chronicle (can feminism ever overtake oppressive regimes like the Taliban that forbid the education of women?). Films like "Suffragette" should be welcomed by us all for wherever women are oppressed, or for that matter wherever any people are oppressed, that oppression diminishes us all.
21
A drab telling of an important piece of history. A by-the-numbers, let's-follow-a-character through history rather than go along with an active character changing history through her actions. The difference isn't subtle: the filmmakers have opted for a docudrama approach laced with "realism" instead of taking some real license, or just picking a better character, and watching her change history. They had it here with Helena BC's character of the pharmacist, a ringleader of terroristic women, but instead went with Carey M who appears wan and put out by what history has thrust upon her. Overlong, boring, and laced with more than just a "few too many glowingly emotive speeches," the movie's climax is equally disappointing, too, as it's taken completely out of the hands of our protagonist.
4
Sorry - wrong.
3
I will never forget Rose-the-maid's first restorative sip of hot tea after staggering back to the house at Eton Place from a suffrage demonstration at which she was arrested and then force-fed in jail! ...assuming I'm remembering it right....
That was "Upstairs, Downstairs." Also loved "Shoulder to Shoulder."
That was "Upstairs, Downstairs." Also loved "Shoulder to Shoulder."
19
MasterpieceTheater on PBS many years ago, starring the late Georgia Brown, was a fantastic potrayal of the fight to win votes for women
Not one critic even refers to this outstanding show.
Not one critic even refers to this outstanding show.
14
I'm looking forward to seeing this somewhat modest film even though the review is maddeningly wishy washy, But I've just seen "Steve Jobs" with all its hype and rave reviews and found it a mess--Jobs deserved better than this. BTW, Brits are still not citizens; they are technically "subjects" of the Crown. Maybe someday they'll update this.
6
Yes, technically. But practically, they have nothing on the scale of Social Security numbers, the IRS, or police departments armed to the teeth.
4
Finally a movie about women's struggles for the vote! And what timing! Finally a woman has a real likelihood of becoming President of the U.S.! If only every woman would see this film, take along a daughter or granddaughter, a man or two, so everyone understands the true historical moment of Hillary's candidacy! The suffragettes would be so proud!
29
I think most people understand the "historical moment" of a woman running for president. But, in reality, HRC's candidacy is NOT the first time a woman has run for POTUS. Victoria Woodhull, a female physician, ran for president in the 1880s, quite pointedly to protest the US govt.'s denial of voting rights for women. It was a largely symbolic effort but it made the point quite dramatically (for the era).
That said, I will (sadly) not vote for HRC because I don't think she represents political policies that favor AVERAGE American women. Yes she is female, but her "concern for women" (i.e., "feminism") begins and ends with herself. She has spent her entire public career taking MILLIONS from, favoring policies that benefit Wall St., banks, big corporations at the expense of average and low-income Americans--both female and male. She also lied to the public to protect an obviously philandering husband, then remained with him after he humiliated her by openly cheating on her in the WH. To me, all that does NOT = a strong feminist. HRC is merely a feminist impersonator. She wears that mantle every election cycle when it suits her (i.e., to win womens' votes) then, once elected, throws women under the bus to suck up to her wealthy, largely male donors. Supporting someone just because they are female makes no sense. I might as well vote for Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin because they are female.
That said, I will (sadly) not vote for HRC because I don't think she represents political policies that favor AVERAGE American women. Yes she is female, but her "concern for women" (i.e., "feminism") begins and ends with herself. She has spent her entire public career taking MILLIONS from, favoring policies that benefit Wall St., banks, big corporations at the expense of average and low-income Americans--both female and male. She also lied to the public to protect an obviously philandering husband, then remained with him after he humiliated her by openly cheating on her in the WH. To me, all that does NOT = a strong feminist. HRC is merely a feminist impersonator. She wears that mantle every election cycle when it suits her (i.e., to win womens' votes) then, once elected, throws women under the bus to suck up to her wealthy, largely male donors. Supporting someone just because they are female makes no sense. I might as well vote for Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin because they are female.
8
THANK YOU. It's insulting to the intelligence of women today to imply that they must vote for hrc because she is a woman or to encourage the idiotic idea that one's female condition is part of one's ability to govern. Let the best person win, thanks very much. I will vote for whomever I choose.
1
Kate is so right about HRC. She leads a feminist parade of one self-servíng politician. I will not vote for ms scary lady if she was the last person.
1
For all its earnest purpose the film is a pictorial nightmare--women walking from left to right are seen walking from right to left in the next close-up; in the final Derby horse race the horses run in both directions--and as for close-ups, the DP cannot amaze himself and us with the big in your subject's eye shots--this, with jumbled editing and lots of camera swishing leave the film a visual mishmash, which is too bad--nothing is gained by this self-important "style" and much is sacrificed in terms of film literacy.
4
I think A O Scott got it right. There is some ambivalence; it's not perfect. There is pathos and some suspense and some very very good acting. There is a scene that will tear at your heart. Does it cover everything about the suffrage movement-no it doesn't. But it will teach the ignorant a lot. I recommend it to everyone, but especially to men. You'll come away unhappy about where we are today and about why it took so long to get not very far. It also is to my eye a good period piece showing what lower class English life was like at the beginning of the twentieth century.
24
"Britain elected its first female prime minister in 1979;" and none since.
"we might have a woman president before too long. " and she still has to face sexism.
It is depressing that the state of gender equality has improved little since when women got the right to vote. What about the right to govern? The right to *represent*? Women are the majority of the world's population and our leaders are overwhelmingly the male minority.
"we might have a woman president before too long. " and she still has to face sexism.
It is depressing that the state of gender equality has improved little since when women got the right to vote. What about the right to govern? The right to *represent*? Women are the majority of the world's population and our leaders are overwhelmingly the male minority.
20
My problem is that I can't find anywhere to see this! I live in a capital city of a state, and not one theatre is playing this movie! I called around, and was told the management didn't think anyone would want to see it! I bet the suffragettes would find that quite ironic . . .
19
What bothers me about this particular ongoing struggle for the dignity of women in societies is what it says about the feelings of certain kinds of males about their own Mothers.
Personally, I can't quite believe that the women who have fought bravely in wars of every time and place can actually be considered of lesser intellect and bravery than any of the men.
I am certain that my own male relatives have not treated their female colleagues so poorly as they are portrayed in fiction and real life.
Personally, I can't quite believe that the women who have fought bravely in wars of every time and place can actually be considered of lesser intellect and bravery than any of the men.
I am certain that my own male relatives have not treated their female colleagues so poorly as they are portrayed in fiction and real life.
4
I have anticipated the opening of "Suffragette" in the United States and was shocked to learn that it is not opening in the Seattle/Tacoma area until November 14 and the only theater I can find it being aired is the Grand Cinema in Tacoma. Apparently it is not "important" enough to show nationwide in "establishment chain" theaters? The power-masters don't want to get the peons riled up. The article says, "It also underlines the viciousness with which power reacts when it is challenged." That is what we have been dealing with in America since the early 1970s when BIG democracy-destroying money masters joined forces to put down the women's, union and other civil rights movements and why we have a wholly-owned-corporate government today. Their quest has been relentless and has resulted in the dysfunctional government we are experiencing today. Women - and the men who love them - must find out when "Suffragette" is showing in their area and go out in force to show the supposed "masters of the universe" that WE do not like the kind of America and the world that they have in mind. It is past time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in America!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
36
Do you think attending the film "in force"--and buying tickets--will "show the supposed masters of the universe" that WE do not like their plan? This sounds a bit naive to me as a plan for political action.... Definitely not what the women in the movement depicted in the film were up to.
4
Oh for god's sake, it's just a standard limited release that is opening in a few markets initially to build word-of-mouth, then expanding to more markets. It's not a dastardly conspiracy to prevent you from seeing the film and rising up to change the patriarchy. "Suffragette" is a big enough film that it will eventually play pretty much everywhere in the U.S., with the likely exception of some small towns that never get anything but standard popcorn mall flicks anyway. If a prestige drama like this one were to open simultaneously on hundreds of screens like some Marvel Comics movie, it would quickly flop and disappear. A gradual release pattern allows awareness to build, so when it opens outside the major media centers of NYC and L.A. it has a better chance of getting a commercial foothold. It's not about some evil male executive lurking behind a desk, twiddling his handlebar mustache, saying "I'll foil those women from being empowered!!!"
16
A real suffrogete used a knife to attack a painting of a nude by Titian in this same period. Does anyone know if that is portrayed in this movie?
7
No. It's not.
I saw a preview last night. No, this is not in the movie.
Why, that single alleged incident totally invalidates the concept of women having the vote, or any rights whatsoever! We must demote them back to chattel immediately!
3
The term "suffragette" always bugs me since it's a pejorative. We did not portray black men who were former slaves as suffragettes...they were called suffragists as anyone who wants to vote is called. And I think I'd rather watch the old PBS series.
11
"Suffragette" was the term embraced by the WSPU, the radical women's suffrage movement and insisted on by its members, to distinguish themselves from the less action-oriented suffragists.
4
The Suffragettes themselves embraced the word: they loved it because they believed it recognized them as a real political movement.
3
"Suffragette" derives from "suffrage" - the right to vote. Not the right to "suffer".
4
"... and while nobody least of all Maud - supposes that the vote will solve everything, it will at least be a start."
".... a start...."
The promise of the vote was that it eventually would lead to full, legal, constitutional equality. It was supposed to be a "start", not, "And that's all you get, girlies!"
After WW2 the United States wrote the new constitution for Japan. In it, it made women fully and absolutely constitutionally equal - not just the vote, but across the board in every institution.
Fast forward. State after state is passing the Equal Rights Amendment, panicing Ronnie Reagan and the Religious Right, so Ronnie said, "Oops, you're taking too long! Sorry, no equal rights for you, girlies!" as if human rights have a sell-by date. And, just to make sure that the Partiarchal Order has its last laugh, it put in place of the ERA Amendment an amendment that was 204 years old, an amendment that had been kicking around that constitutionally codified how the mostly male members of the Senate would get paid.
Well, isn't that special.
Will I see the "Suffragette"?
Oh, yes, and I will get my last laugh just as Ronnie did 35 years ago as I watch his precious Republican Party fall into chaos, unable to rule on anything except female's ladyparts. It's the only game they still have going.
It will be their swan song and cause much pain and misery for millions, but, in the end it will destroy them.
Couldn't happen to a nastier bunch.
Ha.
".... a start...."
The promise of the vote was that it eventually would lead to full, legal, constitutional equality. It was supposed to be a "start", not, "And that's all you get, girlies!"
After WW2 the United States wrote the new constitution for Japan. In it, it made women fully and absolutely constitutionally equal - not just the vote, but across the board in every institution.
Fast forward. State after state is passing the Equal Rights Amendment, panicing Ronnie Reagan and the Religious Right, so Ronnie said, "Oops, you're taking too long! Sorry, no equal rights for you, girlies!" as if human rights have a sell-by date. And, just to make sure that the Partiarchal Order has its last laugh, it put in place of the ERA Amendment an amendment that was 204 years old, an amendment that had been kicking around that constitutionally codified how the mostly male members of the Senate would get paid.
Well, isn't that special.
Will I see the "Suffragette"?
Oh, yes, and I will get my last laugh just as Ronnie did 35 years ago as I watch his precious Republican Party fall into chaos, unable to rule on anything except female's ladyparts. It's the only game they still have going.
It will be their swan song and cause much pain and misery for millions, but, in the end it will destroy them.
Couldn't happen to a nastier bunch.
Ha.
138
Oh, yes, and I will get my last laugh just as Ronnie did 35 years ago as I watch his precious Republican Party fall into chaos, unable to rule on anything except female's ladyparts
you do realize that the Republican party has control of both houses of the legislature? The only thing standing between legalized abortion and its abolishment is the next presidential election? Don't laugh too hard.
you do realize that the Republican party has control of both houses of the legislature? The only thing standing between legalized abortion and its abolishment is the next presidential election? Don't laugh too hard.
34
People don't realize this election just like Bush/Gore and the ones between is more about the Supreme Court nomination and the very likely need for a new Justice or two in the next presidential term than any other factor.
9
Rosa writes: The promise of the vote was that it eventually would lead to full, legal, constitutional equality. It was supposed to be a "start", not, "And that's all you get, girlies!"
This is inaccurate. It was not intended as a start. It was borne out of the the abolition movement, which women joined to fight for freedom for everyone -- slaves and women.
When slavery was abolished, freed men were granted rights that all women were not. Abolitionist women then turned their attention to fight for equal equality for women.
SEVENTY years later, they won the right to vote -- and that was all. The suffrage movement was a compromise of sorts. Women could not achieve the equality they wanted and turned their attentions to focus only on suffrage (and were willing to die for the cause).
That said, white women also turned on black women who had been part of the movement for fear they would alienate those prejudiced against black people. Black women who had fought for years, some of whom had been slaves, were pushed aside.
Someone else mentioned the term "suffragette"--as opposed to suffragist, the suffragette in Britain is a pejorative term which arose from the rioting and looting--in opposition to the staid, political US tactics (which, after learning from trips to England, turned to picketing).
This is inaccurate. It was not intended as a start. It was borne out of the the abolition movement, which women joined to fight for freedom for everyone -- slaves and women.
When slavery was abolished, freed men were granted rights that all women were not. Abolitionist women then turned their attention to fight for equal equality for women.
SEVENTY years later, they won the right to vote -- and that was all. The suffrage movement was a compromise of sorts. Women could not achieve the equality they wanted and turned their attentions to focus only on suffrage (and were willing to die for the cause).
That said, white women also turned on black women who had been part of the movement for fear they would alienate those prejudiced against black people. Black women who had fought for years, some of whom had been slaves, were pushed aside.
Someone else mentioned the term "suffragette"--as opposed to suffragist, the suffragette in Britain is a pejorative term which arose from the rioting and looting--in opposition to the staid, political US tactics (which, after learning from trips to England, turned to picketing).
7
Sounds like a good movie. Brendan Gleeson - one of the best actors around who is far too little known, even though he has had roles in many moves. He is beyond brilliant in the gem of a movie from some years back called The General, which I highly recommend to all NYTimes' readers/commenters.
9
Gleeson in Calvary - so moving. Extraordinary. A must see.
4
Brendan Gleeson was beyond brilliant in his performance in "Calvary". He was also nominated for an academy award for this performance. 2014.
4
Why is it that Americans must always look to Britain to find such stirring dramatizations of women's struggle for their civil rights? First there was a fascinating BBC series on the Suffrage Movement in Great Britain that aired on PBS decades ago. And now this admirable "Suffragette." When will the American fight for woman's rights finally be brought to the screen? And please don't bring up that disappointing Ken Burns documentary. Was it not written, directed and produced by men? The American Suffragists were anything but as dull as described there. Their history is one of the great untold stories of American history and requires a gifted filmmaker to bring it fully to life.
53
Have you viewed "Iron Jawed Angels"? U.S. focus, good performances.
And if men are making films about the women's movement, are women not doing so b/c they cannot land funding....b/c they're women? If that is the case I can hardly blame them for not doing what they have not the wherewithall to do.
Lastly -- to what Ken Burn's documentary do you refer?
Thank you.
And if men are making films about the women's movement, are women not doing so b/c they cannot land funding....b/c they're women? If that is the case I can hardly blame them for not doing what they have not the wherewithall to do.
Lastly -- to what Ken Burn's documentary do you refer?
Thank you.
10
Many great histories of the women's equality movement have been written by men.
2
Thoroughly disagree with your assessment of Burns's miniseries--I taught American Lit in high school before retiring and used excepts from that series as additional material. Excellent use of original diary entries, letters, speeches and critical analysis of the women leading the movement and their times.
4
I disagree with A.O. Scott's analysis, historical films can fall into clichés. But it is perfectly legitimate to look back and reflect how much better things are now than before for the oppressed, including for women. That does not mean that such a film white-washes current injustices by any means nor is it necessarily suppressing present problems. It is not imperative for every good historical film to tell the full story of the present as well as the past.
12
Maybe I'm in danger of becoming a fossil, but I really do expect a review of any work of art that has as an incumbent part of the process something called 'performances' - like, say, plays, movies, dance, and opera -, especially those works of a serious nature, to include at least a glancing nod to the performers and their contribution to that particular work. Here is Mr. Scott, pontificating on "movies about injustices of the past", which is all very well and good, but nowhere in his entire review mentioning the performances of the actors involved (other than Carey Mulligan exhibiting determination and pluck - but is that Ms. Mulligan or the character doing so?), as if they didn't matter. This film may be screenplay-driven, but surely at least a little of the contribution to its effectiveness emanates from the actors, but you'd never know it from Mr. Scott's coverage. I am reminded of opera reviews that spend paragraphs on a directors' concepts and relegate the singers to a line or two at the end. Are we to assume that if nothing is said about the performers, then they are simply up to the task? Are they to be mentioned only if they're not? Did anyone in this film give a performance I might want to see, even if I'm not particularly interested in the film otherwise? I still don't know, so I guess I'll have to wait until the film gets to TV to find out. Ms. Dargis has the same problem as Mr. Scott. Is this part of a Times reviewing standard? Just asking.
36
Joe, reviews of movies on PC topics do not need to elaborate on the topics you point out. They can actually by pretty bad in those regards. Since it is PC though, it must be wonderful.
7
Perhaps you should see the film. It is not a PC stereotype of a story at all. It is about choices which some very brave women made at the time and it depicts who they were.
12
You can't blame Yoda for being hostile and suspicious of such controversial, new-fangled, hot-button ideas as women's suffrage.
8
The history of women's voting rights in Britain is more complicated than this review states. By the late 19c women with property had been allowed to vote in local elections and run as candidates for some local government positions. In 1918 women 30 and older with property were allowed to vote for members of Parliament, meaning about 30-40% of women got the right to vote in 1918. In 1928 the right to vote in Parliamentary elections was extended to all women at 21.
22
Exactly. The history of voting rights in Britain has much more to do with class, than sex. Most men were also disenfranchised until the end of the 19th century.
10
These two dates--1918, when a certain group of British women achieved suffrage, and 1928, when all British women were finally given voting rights--are revealed in a list at the movie's end. The list is a chronology of women's suffrage in several dozen countries. The U.S. date of 1920 is about halfway down the list, preceded by most of western Europe except Switzerland, which waited until 1971.
1
This film is set around 1912, however.
Everything in Scott's review runs true. But it overlooks the sad reality that Suffragette is confusing, sometimes boring, and just not a very good movie. Carry Mulligan's portrayal of Maud was fine acting, and the film's portrayal of the misery of working-class poverty at the time was very moving. But over-all, despite all the hoopla, the film just doesn't work.
5
How doesn't it work? I'd like to see the film, but am curious as to why you think and what you think didn't work.
Thanks-
Thanks-
11
Works well enough if you are in London. This is history even if Maud is fictional, and the action is taking place right here. Class divisions, poverty; the inevitability of how in two years most people would be affected by the war, all that felt involving enough to me.
12
It is pretty conventionIt