Recently, I saw the film Suffragette and went in with fairly low expectations. So far, critical reviews have been mediocre and the social media backlash has been alarming. Prior to the premier of the film, concern was raised over the exclusion of an important figure of the British “suffragette” movement: Sophie Duleep Singh, Indian-British suffragette and confidante of the Pankhurst sisters. In addition, the cast promoted a shirt which quoted from Emmeline Pankhurst’s speech, “I’d rather be a rebel than a slave”—a highly questionable oversight by the marketing team, which hardened my somewhat-negative preconceptions of this film.
However, I admit I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, which showed the British women’s suffrage movement with nuance and modern sensibility. It seems strange to say, but the overall picture had a very second-wave feminist stance. The film dealt with issues of sexual assault, workplace harassment, custody issues, marital inequality, pay inequality, and of course voting rights. The film’s main criticism has been its intentional and heavy-handed didactic approach to teach the audience a “history lesson.” But is it not a history lesson the public sorely needs? The film is called Suffragette, and from the very beginning the audience knows this subject matter will be the primary focus. No one criticized the dense history lesson material in Lincoln, which was—spoiler alert—solely about Lincoln.
Directed by Sarah Gavron and written by Abi Morgan, the film stars Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Meryl Streep. Mulligan plays a fictional character Maud Watts and is representative of the “everywoman” at the time: a working class mother who has been doing factory-work her entire life. She later joins the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), headed by Emmeline Pankhurst (Streep) and her second-in-command Edith Ellyn (Bonham-Carter), who is fictional but based on the real-life suffragette Edith Garrud.
From here the film focuses on the WSPU, which was a militant faction of the suffrage movement. This group would often partake in hunger strikes, breaking windows of trademark buildings, and the burning or bombing of empty stately homes. In one scene, we see the infamous death of Emily Davison during the Epsom Derby, who was killed during the race by the King’s racehorse while she attempted to expose the suffragette banner to the public. Her death brought worldwide recognition to the feminist cause. In another unsettling scene, we see Mulligan’s character imprisoned and on a hunger strike, being force-fed through a tube that was inserted through her nose, recreating the inhumane treatment of sociopolitical prisoners. And a particularly disturbing moment is created when the factory owner is seen sexually harassing a 12-year-old girl.
These scenes and others depict the severe injustice and prejudice that women in the early 20th century had to endure on a daily basis. The film depicts this injustice in a visceral way that is all the more poignant because many of the film’s issues are experiences women still face today. While some critics believe this modern-angle approach to be blatantly obvious, it may only appear so from a modern perspective, as these are very real concerns for women now and then.
Mulligan’s acting alone is a compelling reason to see this film, even if one is not particularly interested in this pivotal historical movement. Her performance is a heartrending and fully believable portrayal of a woman struggling to forge a path for herself in an environment that did not support or cultivate the intellectual development of women. We see Mulligan’s character in awe as she witnesses Ellyn’s medical education and achievements—she has never seen female accomplishment that is equivalent to a man’s.
It is always important for feminism to be inclusive and intersectional feminism is often never addressed, especially in mainstream entertainment. However, suffragette history has rarely been presented in popular cinema and is still a valid period to represent. Of course, it would be ideal to see a feminist perspective that included a non-white feminist angle, but in an industry that hardly represents woman-centric films period I cannot dismiss this story. It exposes a vital movement in the history of feminism.
I learned more from this 2-hour feature than from any of my history textbooks growing up, which always included the women’s rights lesson from the “Women’s History Chapter” of the textbook—often written by men. Women’s history should not be marginalized, but centralized in our education system, so young women cease to feel like lesser, but rather equal participants in our history.
Comments are closed.