
Former Reason Editor, Virginia Postrel’s Bloomberg column was not happy with the new Margaret Thatcher biopic “Iron Lady”:
Hollywood has no trouble with public women as long as they are hereditary monarchs, who have no choice about their role. It can deal with the power of Elizabeth I, who had to rule to survive. But the more democratic, liberal power that arises from the combination of ambition, competence and popular appeal — the power of a Margaret Thatcher … is more problematic. A grocer’s daughter who becomes prime minister could be anyone (even if she is in fact an extraordinarily gifted person). Her ambition thus casts doubt on the audience’s own choices, or at the very least poses an alternative to them. Some people do in fact die regretting their unfulfilled ambitions and uncompleted work….”
So, OK. Thatcher herself, at least in my mind, is a feminist icon. She took on a career in which women were not allowed to enter. A female Prime Minister was not even a consideration and she turned that notice on its head. Screenwriter Abi Morgan described “The Iron Lady” as a “very feminist film,” noting that it had a female writer, director and star. She also acknowledged Thatcher’s “extraordinary” ability to combine homemaking and child-rearing first with her legal studies and later with her political career. “What’s interesting about her,” Morgan said, “is that I don’t think she felt the guilt that I think we feel. I think there’s an inherent guilt that most people feel. The thing I think most women struggle with mostly is feeling guilty.”
Protrel said “these supposedly feminist filmmakers could have portrayed Thatcher as an ambitious woman who had nothing to feel guilty about. Instead they chose to inject guilt where it did not belong. They obscured Thatcher’s public accomplishments in a fog of private angst. The portrait of dementia isn’t the problem. The way the film uses old age to punish a lifetime of accomplishment is.”
Which is a fair argument, but Postrel, to my knowledge and Google research, has never spent any time with Thatcher. So one could argue that everyone has guilt and regret and that Hollywood biopics are not, in fact, documentaries. I do believe the disclaimer “based on” tells people that this is not the entire, completely accurate story, and possibly not even a true story, it just happens to be based on this woman. Anyone who is using a Hollywood film starring Meryl Streep (who is phenomenal as always) as their basis for history isn’t someone you should be listening to anyway.
In my humble opinion, this is why feminists get a bad name. Many take everything too literally. It’s a film, not a historical text. That’s a problem with American culture: we celebrate Hollywood as if it actually mattered. It doesn’t. Can’t we just enjoy the popcorn and flashing lights of Hollywood and stop making everything so serious?
You Might Also Like ...
- Filed under: feminism, film, film reviews, films, women




















They say the English language is one of the hardest to learn simply because we have so many words for one thing. Miss, Ms., Mrs. – all of these are prefixes for women, each meaning something different. Miss, unmarried; Ms.- could be unmarried, could be married; Mrs.- definitely married. Bottom line, Americans cover our asses when it comes to language. The French, on the other hand, do not, and this has been bothering some feminists of Cesson-Sevigne. Special corespondent for the LA Times, Kim Willsher, brought this issue to the attention of Americans with her wonderful, through article on Sunday.





