Suffragette (2015, 2016)

Suffragette is a British historical period drama about the suffragette movement in England in the beginning of the 20th century. It was shown in theatres in 2015 and released on DVD in 2016. Here are some basic facts about it:

** Directed by Sarah Gavron

** Written by Abi Morgan

** Run time: 1 hour and 46 minutes

The cast includes the following:

** Carey Mulligan as Maud Watts (a fictional character)

** Helena Bonham Carter as Edith Ellyn (a fictional character)

** Natalie Press as Emily Wilding Davison (1872-1913)

** Meryl Streep as Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928)

** Ben Whishaw as Sonny Watts (Maud’s husband, a fictional character)

** Brendan Gleeson as Inspector Arthur Steed (a fictional character)

The film received many positive reviews. On Metacritic it has a rating of 67 percent; on IMDb it has a rating of 68 per cent; on Rotten Tomatoes it has a rating of 72 per cent. I cannot agree with these reviews; I think they are too positive. I was looking forward to seeing this film, because it covers an important topic. I had high hopes. Unfortunately, they were not fulfilled. I was disappointed. There are many problems with this film. In the following I will try to explain what is wrong with it.

[Please note: there may be some spoilers ahead, because I have to explain my rating. But all facts mentioned in this review are part of the historical record, and therefore they can hardly be considered as spoilers.]

PART ONE

# 1. The film lacks a clear focus. As I watched it, I had to ask myself: “Where is this going?” There is more about social and economic problems in Britain in the beginning of the 20th century than there is about the main topic: votes for women.

The leading character Maud Watts lives in a small apartment with her husband Sonny Watts and their son George, who is about five years old. She works at a laundry shop where the manager seems to take advantage of the young girls who work there. Maud’s husband is a bully, who does not support her when she develops a growing interest in the suffragette movement. He even gives their son up for adoption when Maud is imprisoned, because he cannot take care of the son while he is working.

In short: she has a horrible job and a nasty husband. While this is sad for her, it is not really relevant for the history of the suffragette movement. I think the director and the writer try to cover too many topics in one film. They should have focused on the main topic – votes for women – instead of trying to cover the social and economic issues of the time.

# 2. When there is a hearing in parliament, Maud ends up as the person who has to speak to the committee about the suffragette movement, even though she is a new member of the movement, even though she has no experience as a public speaker, and even though she is completely unprepared.

The conversation is mostly about her job at the laundry shop. She says almost nothing about the main topic, votes for women. The chairman of the committee who is asking her questions, does not say much about the main topic, either. He never asks her: “Why should women have the vote?”

Giving evidence to a parliamentary committee is a great opportunity. In the film, the suffragettes totally miss their chance to make an impact here, because they are unprepared.

# 3. This film is about one suffragette, not the movement in general. The title of the film is significant: Suffragette – in the singular. Perhaps the title should have been Suffragettes, and perhaps the film should have covered the whole movement instead of focusing on one member of the movement.

# 4. In the film we see only one Pankhurst - Emmeline Pankhurst – and we only see her in one short scene. In the real world, there were several Pankhursts. We have Emmeline, her husband, and her daughters. During World War One, Emmeline and one daughter Christabel (1880-1958) called for a ceasefire with regard to votes for women, while another daughter Sylvia Pankhurst (1882-1960) continued the struggle for the female vote. This split in the movement is not covered in the film, because it stops in 1913, one year before the outbreak of World War One.

# 5. Most characters in the film are fictional, including the leading characters Maud Watts and Edith Ellys. Even Arthur Steed - the police inspector, who is out to get them - is a fictional character. Emmeline Pankhurst is a real person, but she only appears in one short scene. Emily Davison is a real person, who (perhaps) sacrificed her life for the movement. While she is in the film, she is not a leading character.

Many suffragettes are known by their names. Why is the main character not based on one of them? Why did the director and the writer decide to make a film about a fictional character? It does not make any sense.

PART TWO

# 6. The film has a narrow time-frame. It covers only 1912 and 1913, so the beginning of the movement in the 1890s is not covered, and World War One is never mentioned, even though this event was instrumental in changing the public attitude toward women’s rights.

During the war many women worked in factories, including munition factories. Moreover, many women served as nurses, not only in England but also in France, where they were close to the front. Since women played an important role in the war effort, it became impossible for male politicians to deny them the right to vote. Even so, the right was only granted in stages. Only women over 30 who had property were allowed to vote in 1918. A general right to vote was not given until 1928.

# 7. In the film we see some of the tactics that were employed by the suffragettes when they wanted the public to pay attention to them: the smashing of windows and the bombing of mail-boxes. These methods were used. The film is historically correct on this point. But one method is never mentioned or shown in the film: the well-documented cases where a woman chained herself to a metal railing in a public place. Why is this method never mentioned or shown in the film? There is an important difference between the violent methods that are shown in the film and the peaceful method that is not shown.

Smashing windows and bombing mail-boxes are violent methods that cause damage to property. Many members of the public did not approve of such methods so they did not create more support for the cause. In addition, the person who performed the attack would have to run away as fast as possible. This means there was no chance to explain the reason for this activity. To some members of the public, these violent methods did not make any sense at all. The violent actions got the attention of the public, but they often caused negative feelings.

Smashing windows was a political statement. The suffragettes claimed the police cared more about a broken window than they cared for women’s lives. Police contempt and disregard for women’s lives were evident when women were beaten up by police officers in the streets and when hunger-strikers in prison were force-fed to prevent them from dying and becoming martyrs for the movement. Whether we agree with the suffragettes or not, it seems the political statement was too difficult to understand. It was not accepted by the general population.

When a woman chained herself to a metal railing in a public place, she did not harm anyone else and there was no damage to property. While she was chained, people could gather around her and she could explain why she was doing this. She could explain why women should have the vote.

The police would try to remove her, but it would take some time, and this time could be used to address and educate the public. The woman would appear to be brave, she suffered for her cause and she did not make anyone else suffer. Since the method was peaceful, many members of the public would approve of it.

If there was any violence, it was when the police used violence to remove the woman. Until the woman was removed, she could talk about women’s rights and some members of the public would agree with her. The peaceful actions got the attention of the public and they often caused positive feelings.

Since there is a significant difference between these methods, I have to ask: why does the film show only the violent methods, which were often counter-productive? Why does the film fail to show the peaceful method which had better results?

# 8. Some reviewers have objected to the fact that all named characters in the film are white, even though many people of colour lived in London at the time and some of them were members of the suffragette movement.

Rebecca Carroll discussed this issue in an article that was published in the Guardian of 5 October 2015. Her article opens with the following statement: “When four successful white women wear T-shirts asserting that they won’t be slaves, they hurt women of colour who are erased from feminist history.”

PART THREE

9. An on-screen list at the end of the film shows when women got the vote in selected countries. Obviously, the list is partial, but there are some interesting omissions.

The list begins with New Zealand 1893, the first country that offered women the right to vote. We are not told that the women of New Zealand did not have the right to run for office. This right was not given until 1919. The list mentions Norway 1913. But it does not mention Denmark 1915. Why not?

According to the list, all women of the US got the right to vote in 1920, but this is not quite true. White women were allowed to vote. But black women (as well as black men) in the southern states of the US did not get the right to vote until the middle of the 1960s.

Among Asian countries the list mentions China 1949. We are not told that there is only one party in China, which limits the options for all voters. The list does not mention Thailand 1932, even though this was the first country in Asia which gave women the right to vote.

# 10. One question is never explored: what happens in a country when women are allowed to vote? Does it cause any fundamental changes in society, in the composition of parliament and in the way the government runs the country?

Obviously, there are some changes but are they real, are they substantial? Often the answer is no, the changes are limited and slow. In the film we are told that Maud earns 13 shillings a day, while men earn 19 shillings a day. Obviously, this is not fair. But the question is: what happened when women got the right to vote? Was the unfair difference eliminated? The answer is: no, it was not. There are still many cases where men are paid more than women for the same type of work. Giving women the right to vote did not abolish this unfair system.

If we consider the composition of parliament and the way the government runs the country, change seems to be almost non-existent. Most women vote the same way as their fathers or brothers or husbands, so when women do get a chance to vote, the result is almost the same as it was before.

In many countries, women may enter parliament, women may become members of the government, a woman may even become a prime minister, but how much does it really change? When a woman becomes prime minister, she often turns out to be tougher than her male colleagues. The classic example is Margaret Thatcher, who was known as the Iron Lady.

In Asia, several women have reached important positions, but usually not for themselves, in most cases because of their family. The classic example is Aung San Suu Kyi, who is famous because of her father’s role in Burma (Myanmar). Another example is Yingluck Shinawatra, who became the first female prime minister of Thailand because of her brother, a former prime minister.

CONCLUSION

As you can see, there are many problems with this film. I had high hopes, but I was disappointed. The topic is important. The story of the suffragettes deserves to be told, but this film does not do it very well.

Even if some aspects are historically correct, it does not help much, because the film lacks a clear focus, because the time frame is too short, because the main characters are fictional, and because the leader of the movement – Emmeline Pankhurst – appears in only one short scene.

The more I think about this film – what is has and what is does not have – the more I am compelled to say it is fundamentally flawed. And therefore I cannot give it more than two stars.

PS # 1. Shoulder to Shoulder is a television series about the suffragettes that was shown on British television (BBC) in 1974. In six episodes, this series covers the history of the movement from the 1890s until 1919. It has a longer time-frame than the new film from 2015, which covers only two years: 1912 and 1913.

PS # 2. Shoulder to Shoulder edited by Midge MacKenzie (1975, 1988) is the official companion book to the television series from 1974.

PS # 3. The Suffragettes: The Story of Emmeline Pankhurst is a documentary film about the suffragette movement and its founder (2006).

PS # 4. The Story of Women and Power is a mini-series in three parts written and presented by Amanda Vickery. It was shown on British television (BBC) in 2015 and released on DVD in 2016.

PS # 5. For more information, see the following books:

** The Pankhursts: The History of One Radical Family by Martin Pugh (2008)

** The Suffragettes in Pictures by Diane Atkinson (2010)

** Suffragettes: How Britain’s Women Fought & Died for the Right to Vote by Frank Meeres (2013, 2014)

PS # 6. A substantial collection of primary material about the suffragettes has been available online since October 2015. For more information, see “Details of more than 1,000 suffragette arrests made available online,” the Guardian, 12 October 2015.

PS # 7. The fictional character Edith Ellys seems to be inspired by Edith Garrud (1872-1971) and Edith New (1877-1951). The fictional character Maud Watts seems to be inspired by Hannah Mitchell (1872-1956), a dressmaker and a seamstress from Derbyshire.

*****