MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Trailer: The Iron Lady

I’m still getting “stunt” from this… though Broadbent looks utterly real, as always.

Be Sociable, Share!

42 Responses to “Trailer: The Iron Lady”

  1. movielocke says:

    Camptacular. Andrew Sullivan’s new favoritist favorite movie ever. Will we get a bunch of jokes on Modern Family, will Cam dress Lily up as Thatcher?

  2. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    And you thought people seeing J. Edgar were old. The average age at screenings of this after it opens will be at least 62. It’ll be Senior Living Center Movie Day at your local theater.

  3. LexG says:

    Honestly? I’ve been loaded for bear on this thing, but that looks a LOT more tolerable than I’ve been dreading, and a lot more serious than the shtick-fest promised.

    Though they REALLY need to retire that “David Gale” cut at the end of the trailer, especially since “The Artist” has it in their trailer too, a lot more effectively.

  4. Proman says:

    Looks better than King’s Speech.

  5. Smith says:

    Looks like Streep is doing the Mike Myers version of Margaret Thatcher – or auditioning to play Austin Powers’ mom. Weird performance, to go on the available evidence – though maybe in context it’ll all seem more or a piece and less glaringly campy.

  6. yancyskancy says:

    A good sign may be the writing credit for Abi Morgan, who does the excellent BBC series THE HOUR.

  7. David Poland says:

    She also co-write Shame with Steve McQueen

  8. film fanatic says:

    If Abi Morgan’s writing is a good sign, is it fair, then, to say that Phillida “Mama Mia” Lloyd’s direction is a bad sign?

  9. yancyskancy says:

    film fanatic: Well, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

  10. movieman says:

    Agree with FF and Yancy: “Mama Mia” was among the worst directed int’l blockbusters of recent years.
    And among the very worst stage-to-screen musicals since Josh Logan wreaked havoc on “Paint Your Wagon” and “Camelot” back in the ’60s.
    Lloyd couldn’t even make the Greek island where “MM” takes place look attractive. Now that’s some crazy s**t!

  11. Proman says:

    Mamma Mia is finely directed and Lloyd’s direction is one of the reasons’s the film ended up a huge a hit that it was.

    You kiddies cannot even critique it properly. You have no idea what it takes to make a succesfful film of this kind. I was forced to sit through the actual musical twice. I can tell you the film is 10x times better.

    The idea that you can pass a verdict on her directing prowess after just one film just tells me that you cannot think for yourself but only interested in passing judgement.

    No matter how much I may loathe Thatcher the person, this film does look pretty good from the trailer.

  12. hcat says:

    Yes, I remember when leaving the theater plenty of the audience saying “well, the Abba songs were just alright, but oh what magnificent camerawork!”

  13. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Proman, is Lloyd your sister or something? Seriously, that has to be the most passionate and scornful defense ever of a director 99.7% of America hasn’t heard of.

  14. yancyskancy says:

    Passionate, scornful and absurd (oh, and condescending). Nothing wrong with saying “I didn’t dig her first film, so I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude on her second.”

    I looooove ABBA and cheesy musicals, but didn’t think the movie worked except for most of the performances. Lloyd definitely deserves some credit for that (though she should’ve reined Streep in a little – and I’m a fan).

  15. LexG says:

    Can I just ask why movie-critic/bloggy type people ALWAYS have to qualify their opinion on a movie about such a figure with “no matter how much I loathe” Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, J. Edgar? Like, we GET IT, you’re all a bunch of warmhearted, progressive thinkers who hate the big, evil conservative white people… Is that such a NOVEL STANCE that it warrants an aside to register your disgust/disdain every time out?

    I just pretty much assume everyone who reviews movies and comments on movie blogs is a firebrand liberal (it’s obvious because you’re all so very NICE and POLITE and RATIONAL, behaving just as Obama, Clinton or JFK would be if they posted on movie blogs)… it feels redundant to have this qualifier, like you just CAN’T WAIT to convey your disgust. It’s tiresome, as tiresome as if you watch Fox or read Big Hollywood and hear them throwing around “liberal this” and “liberal that” every second– we all get it.

  16. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    The qualifiers aren’t limited to political subjects. “Despite Shawn Levy, I’m really looking forward to Real Steel.” Sort of a common way to express surprise over the unexpected anticipation of something. Of course, you’re absolutely right that some people are just eager to convey disgust and reassert their progressive viewpoints. I’ve probably done it in the past, and it is pretty tiresome and obnoxious. It’s an easy habit to get into.

  17. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Lex you nailed what is what wrong with nearly all contemporary film criticism online and this insistence from boring people weighing in with prior baggage or elitist attitudes. It is not criticism in any shape or form and you will never be forwarded the privilege of being called one if you start a review on such a bum note.

    Do people have to wave a flag out of fear that if they like a film that are endorsing everything in the film, subject matter and all. So I like The Woodsman, it doesn’t mean I wanna fuck underage boys.

    The “I ate this on the way to the cinema” approach to film criticism that used to be strictly relegated to conversations at recess, has been allowed to ferment and is now being used as quotes in trailers and from forum dwellers who make a (barely) living existence as film critics.

    Thank god you’re dead Pauline, otherwise you’d be picking up a gun and blowing your brains out.

  18. Krillian says:

    The trailer for Mirror Mirror is out. It looks like the kind of film greenlit the week after Burton’s Alice in Wonderland opened. Strict kiddie comedy.

  19. JKill says:

    “I don’t particularly care for Hitler, but DOWNFALL is pretty good.”

  20. LexG says:

    But isn’t MIRROR MIRROR the Tarsem one? It’s gotta at least be INSANE-MATTHEW BARNEY PORNY-looking, right?

    ALWAYS BET ON THE STEW, but Tarsem’s crazy enough that MM ought to be a must-see too.

  21. leahnz says:

    declaring one has prior baggage with the subject matter – for what ever reason – is simply providing an honest qualifier before giving one’s subjective opinion of material that could well be tainted by one’s now out-in-the-open prior baggage. for example, i’m not a big fan of thatcher the politico, so this flick and streep have a bit of a hurdle to overcome in humanising the woman for me; therefore, if it achieves the goal of getting me to look past thatcher’s politics to perhaps see something/sympathise with thatcher the woman in a new way, it will have cleared a surprising hurdle for me and succeeded in a way i was doubtful it could.

    (and i should add conversely, if i don’t feel the movie then my admitted preconceived notions about thatcher could be a factor)

  22. movieman says:

    I share every good liberal’s distaste for Thatcher (aka Reagan with boobs), but I’m still hoping to like (or at least enjoy) the film.
    My loathing of J. Edgar Hoover (The Man) certainly didn’t prevent me from admiring the formidable achievements of Eastwood, DiCaprio, et al.

  23. LexG says:

    I am repeating material from somewhere else, but I didn’t know until the last year of overly political movie bloggers that Thatcher was some GREAT VILLAIN. I thought she was this nice doddering old lady, but then again you guys all like to rewrite the history that EVERYONE LOVED REAGAN at the time. Or it seemed that way– I was 12 and living in the heartland. Other than this generally perception of each as kind of daffy or buffoonish (on SNL, comedy shows, etc), I never thought anyone DIDN’T LIKE THEM. What was Thatcher’s great crime to progressive movie bloggers? Did she wage some genocide that I’ve completely forgotten?

    And asked for the zillionth time, shouldn’t all liberals be super NICE? Just anecdotally, I don’t know any dyed-in-the-wool liberals who are actually nice, non-selfish people… they’re usually the biggest elitist, unfriendly, concescending, status-conscious assholes of anybody.

  24. JS Partisan says:

    Lex, Pennsylvania is not the heartland. It’s the east coast. I love how east coast people love to act as if they are from the mid-west. Seriously, that’s not the heartland, and not everyone loved Reagan. Seriously, the man was reviled all over this country but the press, being in love with him, didn’t exactly cover it. If he were elected today. The amount of vitriol the man would endure would be immense.

    Thatcher, much like Reagan, fucked over her entire country. There’s your reason for why few in her country remember her fondly. Seriously, the both of them, are some of the worst leaders these two countries have ever had.

    That aside, I am a liberal, and I don’t fit your criteria at all. I know a lot of republicans who do… LIKE ALL OF THEM XD!

  25. LexG says:

    Ain’t no fucking coast in Western PA. It’s the heartland.

    Also even though I’m not really Captain Reagan, but you can hardly say he’s “not remembered fondly” these days… He’s practically Jesus to the current crop of Republicans.

  26. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Leah I think that’s a fair comment for any average moviegoer. I just don’t expect to hear it from film critics whom I’d expect to have some form of subjective approach, less they be embroiled in some eternal personal embargo to every film that contains material they abhor. I’m not comparing those who say “I didn’t particularly care for the directors previous work”, this is directed at those who bring their everyday ideology into reviews. It’s not great criticism. It’s preaching from the pulpit.

    Now I’m not saying it can’t be entertaining at times. See Armond White.

  27. leahnz says:

    i get that jbd and thought that’s what you meant (assumed you meant ‘objective approach’ as a typo/oversight), but this notion that pro film critics are somehow more capable of judging movies objectively than “average” people (am i an ‘average’ moviegoer, as someone who actually works in film production? who is ‘average’) is silly and delusional, imho.

    people who are paid to articulate their opinions on artistic endeavour aren’t any more capable of taking their internal self out of the inherent viewer + movie = experience equation of viewing and critiquing movies any more than non-pros — but hopefully what pros are capable of is expressing said opinion with some clarity and unique style and flair so as to give readers/listeners some particular insight into their subjective assessment of art. a degree of objective assessment is possible, for instance judging poor production values, etc, but even that is up for debate, as evidenced by the many ‘pro critic’ reviews of J Edgar in which one person thinks leo’s old make-up is good vs those who find it naff. even objectivity is subjective.

    personally i’d rather know from the get-go and up-front if, for example, graphic violence makes a critic squeamish when they’re reviewing a violent film, or if a critic has an ideological bent contrary to that expressed in the art, rather than have that fact be a hidden factor that still unavoidably influences and colours said critic’s experience and thus opinion of a film.

    (what are all these reviews you’re reading that are obviously bringing in critic’s everyday ideologies and “preaching from the pulpit” to the detriment of their critiques, vs the likes of pauline k, who was hugely subjective and personal in her critique of film? can you give some examples apart from mary mary quite contrary armond white? honestly curious)

  28. JS Partisan says:

    Lex, no, it’s not the Heartland. It’s not the mid-west. It’s Pennsylvania, which is on the east coast, and no where near the real Heartland of the country.

    That aside, they remember Reagan fondly because what they believe the world used to be. Of course they forget that even with most of his douchebaggery, he did work with Tip O’Neill on occasion, so SAINT REAGAN in no way was as extreme as this current crop of people are now.

  29. LexG says:

    Christ, that celeb-ass-sucking, haggy quote from Jen Yamato in the quotes sidebar… Jesus fucking Christ does that crew overestimate their importance…

    And, really, what a bunch of snobs, all of you guys… Poland included; How do you guys just ALWAYS happen to be at Westside venues where celebrities hang out, other than to sniff their asses? How come I never see like Poland or Yamato tweet, “Yep, sitting at the Outback Steakhouse in Burbank.” Nope, it’s always at some Soho House-ass venue where you be JOHNNY ON THE SCENE.

    If Poland has so much as SPOKEN to a person of color since 1999, I would lose that bet. You guys live in LA and never seem to be hanging out with Filipinos or Armenians at regular restaurants.

    How do you live in LOS ANGELES and never have to be troubled by minorities?

  30. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Yes typo. I’m clearly focusing on the majority of the avalanche of web criticism Nothing to do with established professionals who can write objectively and have historial perspective. Just because you announce the fact of prior baggage upfront doesn’t necessarily equate to having any better insight. Especially if your total life experience equals your parents house, a college dorm and one activist rally.

  31. LexG says:

    “Yep, hey, it’s me, David Poland, catching a flick at the Glendale Americana with a bunch of Armenian dudes.”

    “Oh, hey, it’s Jeff The InSneider… Just got SCOOPED at the Chuck E Cheese in Burbank. TOLDJA!”

  32. leahnz says:

    nobody writes objectively about movies, not humanly possible.

    “Just because you announce the fact of prior baggage upfront doesn’t necessarily equate to having any better insight.”

    huh? who said it did?

    sorry, got sidetracked, eta having a historical perspective on film does not mean objectivity. simple litmus test: if objectivity in movie critisism was possible, then respected pro critics would all have essentially the same critique of all movies, and this is clearly not the case

  33. scooterzz says:

    “How do you live in LOS ANGELES and never have to be troubled by minorities?”

    well, there’s a t-shirt i’ll be looking for in santee alley…..

  34. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    I have driven across the entire state of Pennsylvania numerous times. Western Pennsylvania has a lot more in common and is a lot more similar to the Midwest than the East Coast. Numerous small towns all very far apart and a whole lot of nothing for miles and miles. Once you get West of Harrisburg on your way towards Pittsburgh and beyond, it’s more Midwest than East Coast. The Philadelphia region is a different story.

    Reagan underwent a serious image rehabilitation campaign starting in the ’90s. Will Bunch covers it in detail in Tear Down This Myth. Grover Norquist and the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project worked diligently to refashion Reagan’s legacy and largely succeeded. Ironically despite his status as a Republican God Reagan would be way too moderate in today’s GOP. Most of his worshipers seem to know little about him, content to just follow along with the adulation.

  35. Krillian says:

    Reagan and Thatcher helped win the Cold War. He ruled. Look at those 1984 election results. He’s also been deified and demonized beyond recognition, but that’s politics. Always rewriting history.

    JKill had the best one-liner on the topic.

    Depends on the critic. If I’m reading Ebert, still one of the best, I already know he’s a big leftie, but he doesn’t feel the need to bring it up much in his actual reviews. If I’m reading Wells, I know it’s from a guy who wishes he could be in charge of torturing Republicans in hell.

    Kyle Smith and maybe Kurt Loder are the only critics I can think of who are right-of-center… I think Eric Snider’s a centrist… wow, tough to say.

    I think I prefer it being hard to tell. I’m going through my mental rolodex and all other critics are either left-wing or unclear…

  36. movieman says:

    JBD alluded to him earlier, Krillian.
    You can add Armond White to your list of right-wing movie crix: he’s so
    hardcore that he nearly makes Karl Rove look like Dennis Kucinich.

  37. leahnz says:

    yowza, is nobody going to do a proper take-down of thatcher and her britain? rewriting history isn’t necessary to be heavily critical of her policies and the effect it had on the working class in her country.

    (and reagan almost certainly had alzheimer’s while serving out his presidency – given that a significant portion of the brain effected by the disease is already well damaged before the earliest symptoms even appear – a prospect i find deeply disturbing, considering the era. but he does seem like a hard-core intellectual communist compared to the whackadoos fronting his party now)

  38. LYT says:

    I lived in Ireland when Thatcher was in charge of Britain – she’s the reason I support term limits now. It got ridiculous that Dick-Cheney-in-a-dress kept getting reelected despite her total lack of charm and ruthless support of neo-fascist police actions and dismantling of social services for the poor.

    The one significant good thing she did is meet Gorbachev early on, decided he was sincere about wanting to engage with the west, and passed the word on to Reagan.

  39. LexG says:

    “…neo-fascist police actions and dismantling of social services for the poor.”

    Sounds good to me! Fuck poor people.

    I love how all LA/NYC movie critics are SUPER LIBERAL, then they go to junkets and ONLY VENUES where they can suck celebrity dick… You dudes would ALL run across six lanes of freeway traffic to avoid a homeless person or even a Filipino kid in a flat brim…

  40. Krillian says:

    I’ve never considered White as right-wing, but I don’t take him seriously, as he’s the guy who tends to hate stuff like the Toy Story movies and There Will Be Blood, but he’ll turn around and praise Your Highness or Jack & Jill. But now you make me want to go back and read his reviews with this new light.

  41. movieman says:

    Krillian-The only person White has sucked up to more than Steven Spielberg is George Bush.
    Which totally blows my mind since he’s (a) African-American; and (b) gay.
    Right-wing hawks don’t get any more schizo than Armond.
    Maybe it’s my imagination, but it seems like he’s spent more time trashing Obama (and lionizing Bush) than he has reviewing movies.

  42. LexG says:

    Bush RULES.

    FOUR MORE YEARS. Or at least Vote Rick Perry.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon