Not The Iron Lady but The Ironic Movie (spoiler free)

[MovieAddict]

First off since it was the KGB who penned Margaret Thatcher’s moniker, kind of odd the movie uses it for the title but fails to make any mention of her role in the fall of the USSR.

I’m sad to say this movie is nothing more than a glossy disservice to, after Winston Churchill, the greatest British leader of the 20th century.
Of course it’s an entertaining, engaging disservice with a riveting performance by Meryl Streep, but that only serves to worsen the impact.

In short this movie is not much beyond classic premeditated liberal ‘change the narrative’ propaganda.

Since it’s finely crafted, richly produced and contains excellent performances, this movie will garner significant attention, a bevy of awards, and unfortunately likely a gigantic viewership. Unfortunate because viewers will walk away thinking they watched and understand the real Thatcher, when in truth they got the small minded, perverted Hollywood version.

That’s the irony…I can see now all the he articles describing the ‘wonders of an open-minded Hollywood. Despite frequently false accusations of liberal bias, Hollywood should be glorified for eloquently and even handedly portraying an honest debate on conservatism and liberalism.’

Truth is, it’s a completely biased presentation.

We are merely witnessing just another battle in the endless propaganda war to win liberal converts.

I can see future Departments of Education across the land exposing legions of children to this subtly dishonest portrayal of conservatism. How Margaret Thatcher conservatism is anti-people, anti-family, and merely an avenue for the ambitious to succeed. Poor conflicted Margaret Thatcher a women who succeeded against the old white male conservative establishment, her only mistake was that she chose conservatism as the avenue for her ambition. She was a liberal feminist at heart undone by her ambition and greed. A great women but weak person, future girls should stand up to the Man but do it as a liberal, and the world will benefit. Yes our children will be teaching our grandchildren that if only Margaret Thatcher was a liberal…then she would have saved her family, England and the world…

This movie epitomizes liberal propaganda; brilliantly cunning and deceitful. Not only does this movie obliquely attack conservatism from multiple angles, the great IRONY is it will likely succeed in changing the historical narrative regarding one of Britain brightest lights while at the same time getting credit for being unbiased.

[Andrew Forbes]

after Winston Churchill, the greatest British leader of the 20th century.

Tripled the U.K.'s nuclear forces. Opposed the immigration from SE Asian refugees and other "difficult-to-assimilate" cultures, but had no such qualms about white Rhodesians, Poles or Hungarians. Opposed sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa (which happened to have ties with UK business interests, including her husband's) and dismissed the ANC as a terrorist organization. Opposed the arrest of Pinochet. Supported the Khmer Rouge, even sending SAS training. Defined striking miners as "enemies within" and characterized their protests as "dangerous to liberty."

But she was a friend to Reagan and liked privatizing things.

[MovieAddict]

after Winston Churchill, the greatest British leader of the 20th century.

Tripled the U.K.'s nuclear forces. Opposed the immigration from SE Asian refugees and other "difficult-to-assimilate" cultures, but had no such qualms about white Rhodesians, Poles or Hungarians. Opposed sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa (which happened to have ties with UK business interests, including her husband's) and dismissed the ANC as a terrorist organization. Opposed the arrest of Pinochet. Supported the Khmer Rouge, even sending SAS training. Defined striking miners as "enemies within" and characterized their protests as "dangerous to liberty."

But she was a friend to Reagan and liked privatizing things.

Well Andrew, no comments about Sir Winston as the greatest?? You know he called Gandhi ‘that little brown man’, surely this is politically incorrect enough for you to disparage him too?

Interesting that in spite of your personal thoughts on Ms Thatcher, you do not refute that she was great.
Makes sense, after all if she wasn’t great, no need to make a movie about her.

Let’s review a little of why she was great, since the movie never does.

The Britain of 1979 was but a shadow of Britain just a generation before. After WW2, Britain experienced 30 years of unadulterated decline. She had become a 2nd rate world power with a 3rd rate economy with one of the lowest standards of living in Western Europe. The trade unions where highly political entities, their strangle hold on labor required policy decision to be approved by the union leadership. All major ‘national’ industries were decrepit; coal, steal, ship building, motor industries had stagnated delivering shoddy products at exorbitant costs which required government funding to continue. Thus taxes where stifling. Their deliverables were of such poor quality that the Soviet Union refused to trade with the British.

Britain was headed towards total collapse and changes were needed, then as now changes on the national level which will effect previously guaranteed jobs are never popular. Yet Margaret Thatcher had to courage to do what needed to be done. More so then her fellow conservatives who felt decline was inevitable and only wanted to soften it a bit. She had to stand up to her own party as well as the liberals. Good thing she did. Her reforms restored Britain as an economic power house, decreased unemployment, increased private home ownership and brought an 80% increase in personal wealth among all Britons.

You think she was unfair to Union Leadership? The most powerful union leader Arthur Scargill openly wanted to bring communist revolution to Britain and was pushing workers to civil unrest and possibly civil war so indeed Ms. Thatcher was correct in labeling unions as a threat to Britain.
The movie didn’t address any of these issues, just made her look like some Machiavellian who did all these terrible things , whose only noble deeds are the battles she fought as a woman. That is why the movie wants you to admire her, because she stuck it to the Man. It still wants you to despise her conservative principles. The fact that her conservative policies were right and they saved Britain is ignored.

Your diatribe serves my point, like the movie they pick at pimples when Thatcher excised malignant tumors. When our country faces many of the same troubles as 1979 Britain and we have weak leaders on both the right and the left willing to say and do anything just to hold political office regardless if it is damaging to the country, we need a courageous leader like Margaret Thatcher. The movie failed to mine these highly topical and powerful themes and lacks for it. In retrospect the movie is a pretty but vacuous hit piece on Margaret Thatcher, one which the viewer is better served by not seeing.

[the5thghostbuster]

after Winston Churchill, the greatest British leader of the 20th century.

Tripled the U.K.'s nuclear forces. Opposed the immigration from SE Asian refugees and other "difficult-to-assimilate" cultures, but had no such qualms about white Rhodesians, Poles or Hungarians. Opposed sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa (which happened to have ties with UK business interests, including her husband's) and dismissed the ANC as a terrorist organization. Opposed the arrest of Pinochet. Supported the Khmer Rouge, even sending SAS training. Defined striking miners as "enemies within" and characterized their protests as "dangerous to liberty."

But she was a friend to Reagan and liked privatizing things.

Well Andrew, no comments about Sir Winston as the greatest?? You know he called Gandhi ‘that little brown man’, surely this is politically incorrect enough for you to disparage him too?

And you yourself did nothing to address the long line or criticisms pointed out by Frobes. You want us to buy that Thatcher was great, fine, but please explain to me how opposing sanctions against the Apartheid regime is in any way the actions of a great leader? And claiming that the union's of the era could have pushed the country to civil war is little more than hyperbole and not born out by the actual facts or history.

[MovieAddict]

And you yourself did nothing to address the long line or criticisms pointed out by Frobes. You want us to buy that Thatcher was great, fine, but please explain to me how opposing sanctions against the Apartheid regime is in any way the actions of a great leader? And claiming that the union's of the era could have pushed the country to civil war is little more than hyperbole and not born out by the actual facts or history.

Margaret Thatcher was adamantly opposed to Apartheid and voiced it many times. She just didn’t think economic sanctions were the way to bring about change. She advocated political and even military pressure but thought economic pressure would cause more harm than good. Harm to Black South Africans, harm to surrounding countries and harm to Britain which was South Africa’s (a former British Colony) biggest trade partner.

Please read up on Arthur Scargill, read his writings and read the history of labor unions in Great Britain and then when you know the facts and the actual history perhaps we can have a discussion.

Your vitriol only proves why this movie should be avoided. It only serves to indoctrinate the unaware and/or affirm the myth the left wants you to believe about Margaret Thatcher. Those wanting to know the real Margaret Thatcher and her role in British and World history should seek erudition elsewhere. Those who want to blindly and thoughtlessly accept the leftist narrative are free to seek enlightenment from this movie.

[Andrew Forbes]

Your diatribe serves my point, like the movie they pick at pimples when Thatcher excised malignant tumors.

Not having seen the film, I cannot comment on its quality, but I would hardly call the points I have raised "pimples." I make a distinction between a great leader and a leader who does great things. Thatcher may have brought Britain out of a long economic slump, but she also had some rather horrible social views and an unwillingness to acknowledge the subtleties of some very messy situations (Northern Ireland, organized labour and the anti-Apartheid movement, among them) under the guise of strength. Arthur Scargill was a radical and a misguided Communist sympathizer, but that doesn't negate the legitimate concerns of unionized miners. You criticize the film for failing to address the complexity of the issues, but you appear quite willing to ignore these "pimples" in favour of simply declaring her the second greatest leader of 20th Century Britain. I raised some specific points to counter your assertion, and your response has basically been to tell me to shut up.

[MovieAddict]

Your diatribe serves my point, like the movie they pick at pimples when Thatcher excised malignant tumors.

Not having seen the film, I cannot comment on its quality, but I would hardly call the points I have raised "pimples." I make a distinction between a great leader and a leader who does great things. Thatcher may have brought Britain out of a long economic slump, but she also had some rather horrible social views and an unwillingness to acknowledge the subtleties of some very messy situations (Northern Ireland, organized labour and the anti-Apartheid movement, among them) under the guise of strength. Arthur Scargill was a radical and a misguided Communist sympathizer, but that doesn't negate the legitimate concerns of unionized miners. You criticize the film for failing to address the complexity of the issues, but you appear quite willing to ignore these "pimples" in favour of simply declaring her the second greatest leader of 20th Century Britain. I raised some specific points to counter your assertion, and your response has basically been to tell me to shut up.

Then Andrew I owe you an apology, perhaps I was a bit bombastic. I guess I took your post as a call to arms so fired some canons back but never intended to stifle dialogue.

Anyway the issues you raise are smaller points because they are not one sided tour de force arguments which diminish Thatcher’s stature. I already expanded on the Miners situation...sure conditions in mines are tough. But the strike was over closure of unproductive mines. Scargill wanted the government to guarantee those jobs regardless of cost. Thatcher refused to allow to throw national capital into running useless mines. Worse...why would Scargill risk the lives of his workers in unproductive mines. Why not just advocate the government give welfare and get the workers out of the unsafe mines all together?

Look at the issue Britain is facing with its immigrant Muslim population, they have not assimilated and are agitating to make Britain a sharia nation. I agree that likely the displaced Asian communities in the 70s did not pose similar threat but Thatcher’s argument is not without merit.

Lastly, I guess our definitions of greatness differ, you are looking for perfect...this is unrealistic. Absolutely Churchill must be regarded as one of the greatest statesmen of the century yet he held the now distasteful views that India should remain a colony. No one is perfect and you don’t have to be perfect to be considered great.

[Andrew Forbes]

Fair enough.

[Polynikes]

I have not seen the film, which opened a week or two ago here in Great Britain. Whether in film or in politics, the words "Margaret Thatcher" tend to create a clear division between those who fiercely protest their admiration for her, and those who fiercely declare their hatred of her. On the day she dies, a goodly number of people will actually celebrate in the streets in the same manner that some Palestinians publicly celebrated the events of September 11, and some Americans celebrated publicly the death of bin Laden, while a goodly number will express their disgust in letters to the press at what the first lot are doing. I am one of the minority who has a less emotionally or intellectually charged view of her political actions and legacy, recognising that her politics helped to change Britain for the better in some ways, but for the worse in others, and that her "conviction" style was sometimes admirable and right, sometimes distasteful and wrong.

The reason I shall not go out of my way to watch the film is well expressed by this article by a (non-Thatcherite) practising doctor/journalist in the Daily Telegraph. [url]The-Iron-Lady-and-Margaret-Thatchers-dementia-Why-this-despicable-film-makes-voyeurs-of-us-all.html[/url]. It seems to me distasteful to portray in public the dementia of someone who is still alive (and so she effectively has no course of public reply), and I don't see the need for it. The film could have been made as a straight bio-pic without building it around her current state of health.