Suffragette writer counsels vigilance

Helena Bonham Carter (left) stars as Edith Ellyn in director Sarah Gavron’s Suffragette, a fact-based story written by Abi Morgan.
Helena Bonham Carter (left) stars as Edith Ellyn in director Sarah Gavron’s Suffragette, a fact-based story written by Abi Morgan.

Suffragette, a partially fact-based drama about the early days of the female-led movement to give women the right to vote in England in the pre-World War I era, takes a dramatically surging episode of history and manages to make it thrilling and moving, a testament to a strong script by Abi Morgan.

photo

Carey Mulligan (left) stars as Maud Watts and Anne-Marie Duff stars as Violet Miller in director Sarah Gavron’s Suffragette.

Morgan, a veteran of the British film industry, is likely best known in this country as the scribe for The Iron Lady, a bio-pic of sorts about Margaret Thatcher, and Shame, a sex-addict drama starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, but Suffragette is an altogether different sort of narrative contraption. Populating her film with historic figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst (played in a cameo by Meryl Streep) and Emily Wilding Davison (Natalie Press) mixed in with a host of fictional characters, Morgan creates a believable tableau of the women's movement from the perspective of a canny, working-class mother (Mulligan), who starts out on the fringe of politics, but ends up embroiling herself in the cause, a move that costs her very dearly. Morgan spoke to us as she was being taxied through New York, en route to the airport in heavy traffic.

Q. One of the things that really struck me about the film was the way it depicted the sacrifice these women made to stand for something they believed in. It seemed as if it cost them nearly everything.

A. Yeah, when we started looking at the research, what was extraordinary was the different treatment of these women. It went from women who were unable to leave their houses because their husbands wouldn't let them be part of the movement, to women who were under threat of being stigmatized because their mental health was being questioned, to women having their children taken away from them because they weren't believed sane enough to look after them. What shocked me was how profound the reaction was to some of these women and some of the things they did. It was very extreme at times.

Fundamentally, it really made me question what I would have done. Would I have given up my children, my career, my sanity? It was fascinating when we did the research, including the declassified surveillance records -- only declassified in 2003 -- which showed the extent of the intimidation, interrogation, and surveillance of these women, which in itself became really compelling because of how brutal they were being treated. In the six years we were writing and developing and eventually making this movie, we were globally connected with different movements of equality; I was always looking at other examples of activism across the world. So it became interesting to me, the question of what makes one become an activist, and would I sacrifice the same as some of those suffragette women did.

Q. Given the breadth of the movement, and the many real historical figures involved, how did you arrive at your particular narrative?

A. I think initially it's very compelling when you look at the suffragette movement to focus on those key characters like Emmeline Pankhurst, who was absolutely at the forefront of the U.K. movement, but when I started homing in on the research I became more and more interested in the working woman. Initially, I wrote the film from the perspective of the Romola Garai character, [the well-heeled] Alice, and I brought the character of Maud [Carey Mulligan's character] into the house. But then the more I started to look at these two women who are in very different places -- the Alice character is an educated woman who's wealthy in her own right -- and I look at her character and I look at the character of Maud, a woman with very little wealth, trying to balance her career with trying to raise a child at the same time and it felt very true to a number of working women at the time. I felt as if the pressures on those women were very different.

When Alice is arrested, she can make bail, whereas the working-class woman couldn't do that, and so then it made me look at the journey of what it would mean if you were a passive observer, what would compel you to join in the movement and eventually move towards activism. To a certain degree that also parallels a certain key moment in suffragette history when Pankhurst said, "You know, we've been doing peaceful protest for 40 years, now it's time for militancy." So I wanted to create a believable character, to a certain degree, to give a character with enough jeopardy to make a compelling, dramatic story, but also to kind of give voice to these voiceless women who were the foot soldiers of the movement.

Q. The film also speaks to this most horrible human social cycle between the oppressor and the oppressed. The former always want to stay in power, and will do anything to ensure that, which makes the latter have to fight for their basic freedoms. The depressing part is how often this repeats itself throughout our history -- it's like we never learn anything.

A. Certainly the conversations the film has inspired -- all those issues -- the question that keeps coming up is: "Do you think it's changed today?" What would Mrs. Pankhurst think about modern day society? I think, in many ways she would be very pleased about the advances we've made, but she'd still be saying, "Well, why is there still not equality of pay? And why are there still educational issues for women across the globe? Why, in 2015, do women in Saudi Arabia, who have just been given the right to vote, still not be able to drive themselves to the polling station?'' What I've come away with is realizing equality is not a nirvana state you get to; equality is based on having a constant discourse.

Q. The film suggests that things really started to change shortly after Mrs. Pankhurst called for more divisive action. Was that the turning point?

A. Women had been peacefully protesting for 40 years, and when Mrs. Pankhurst gave her speech [declaring] women had to start to bring down the patriarchal institution so we must damage public property but there must be no loss of life, that was a key moment because she really divided the movement. I think [the film] represents a point in suffragette history where the stakes were raised, and the despair was becoming more evident. They had been subject to ridicule by the press and certainly the government and the huge anti-suffragist movement, which was very present at that time as well; both women and men were also fiercely against them. We were trying to capture that moment they were divided, and then there was this group who strategized like the military and formed cells. They were treated by the government at the time like they were terrorists, so what we're trying to capture is that very intense 16 months of suffragette history.

The truth is we know they didn't [start to] get the vote until 1918, but what I wanted to capture were these huge moments in suffragette history, from the night of the broken panes to Emily Wilding Davison's death. Certainly, before that their activities had been reported upon, but they'd never made front-page news, just a couple of columns at best, so I think Emily Wilding Davison's death was the first time it made the front page.

Q. I have a broader cultural question: There's always outrage at first when a disenfranchised group calls for cultural change. But the difference now seems as if everything moves at a much more rapid pace. Look at the 2004 election: If we were pro-gay marriage, we could only vote Democrat; if we were anti-gay marriage, we had to vote Republican. Now, a decade later, we actually have marriage equality as a federal right. Is this actually reflective of a more savvy and nimble society or is there another explanation?

A. We live in a digital age, which offers incredible connectedness to the world, but I think these things go in cycles. We have marriage equality which is absolutely fantastic, but we have to stay vigilant. I think there will still be politicians saying "let's build a fence and keep out the Mexicans." When you have a very rich man with the money and wealth to back their own presidential campaign saying such ridiculous things, sadly history repeats itself and so those men become dictators and presidents. So I'm really glad we have marriage equality and long may it reign, but we have to stay vigilant.

Q. The most dangerous thing to say is "It can't happen here."

A. Right. It can always happen here. The greatest thing that we have is conversation, and we have to keep the conversation going.

MovieStyle on 11/20/2015

Upcoming Events