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.
*****
