What a bizarre movie that was. More thoughts when I've listened to the podcast.
The vote is WAY more split than it was back in Thatcher's day. Regardless, she had approval numbers during her time in power most modern politicians would die for. The Con-Lib pact would be a taster for what you'd get in a proportional representation system, or even the Single Transferable Vote system we have in Northern Ireland. Personally, I'd be okay with that, but it would probably be very fragile and would likely make UKIP much more influential. Also the various local Nationalist parties. Actually, I guess that would be the point.
You'll also note I said most people were fine with her, ie they weren't actively opposed to her. Even relatively recent polls have seen her regarded as Britain's most capable Prime Minister, beating out Winston Churchill for one. Still a lot of old folks around who actually remember her, perhaps with rose-tinted spectacles.
I'm not particularly a Thatcher apologist, but I do remember when she was in power and large numbers of working class people loved her, just not so much in mining communities. Nobody survives the scrutiny of history, is more my point.
And yeah, movies whatever. I never understood the reason to self-censor a topic if that's where the discussion takes you - provided everyone stays civil. Sadly Thatcher is one of those topics that encourages a degree of foaming spittle in some people. Not us, we're ace.
I'm a huge supporter of wholesale voting reform in this country. If that ends up with the likes of UKIP being more largely represented then, well, that's democracy yo. (Also, I want to know what the deleted comment you responded to said.)
"Nobody/Nothing survives the scrutiny of history" could be the tag line for so many pieces of art.
Thanks for this question, JoeX111. I just replied to it in the Zootopia thread. Somewhat unsatisfyingly, I'm afraid. But I'll keep thinking on it.
I was highly amused at the concept of "Charles C. Reilly" -- a combination of John C. Reilly and Charles Nelson Reilly.
Dang! I thought everybody missed that.
So yeah. I don't agree that this movie is attempting to make a facile (or any) point about modern economic disparity. If this were that movie, the folks on the upper floors would have everything and be depicted as the callous, shallow monsters that the movie does present, the folks on the lower floors would have little or nothing, and be the shining heroes of the hour. But that's not what goes on. The whole conflict pretty much erupts over intermittent but increasing breakdowns in the building services and everyone is depicted as descending into senseless barbarism. The economic stratification, such as it is, is certainly one of the fracture points, but it's only one, and nobody's heroic or justified in their actions.
Including our protagonist, which I thought was one of the more interesting things about the movie. Here Tom Hiddleston is, smart, presumably moral, a doctor, and with ties to pretty much every corner of the conflict and yet he really makes no attempt to intervene or alter the course of the collapse. Not your typical protagonist behavior, by any means.
I really loved the production design on the movie, and the cast, and the sense of spiraling madness I got. I don't know that I understood everything that happened (I didn't twig to the idea that the narration was Hiddleston dissociating, for example), and given that I don't agree that the point was an allegory to modern problems, I'm not entirely sure what the point -was-. But I am moderately glad that I went on this ride nonetheless. Still not sure how up for watching Cronenberg's Crash I am, though. The premise was always a bit of a stopper for me.
I have to say that my impression of Thatcher's Britain has been pretty much solely formed by comic books like Alan Moore's V for Vendetta, which was a pretty direct response to Thatcherism, and the depiction in things like early Hellblazer, none of which is particularly pretty. And much of which felt directly relevant to High-Rise, actually.
I realize this is painting with a broad brush, but since a lot of the austerity under Thatcherism impacted social services, education, and the arts, I think you'll find a lot of creative types have a skewed perspective on whether or how good it was for the country. I have to admit, when I was younger, my perspective on Thatcherism was formed almost exclusively from listening to Pink Floyd and Roger Waters albums. :)
Well sure, from a certain point of view it was a disaster, but from a certain point of view Obama's presidency was a disaster. The USA has a significant ultra-conservative element, the UK, and especially in the 70/80s, has a significant Marxist element. If you're in either group your view of history is going to be skewed.
Frankly, everyone's view is skewed by their own life experience.
Staid conservatives are going to have less of an impact on culture than angry young socialists, so we have the modern view that Thatcher was universally reviled. She wasn't.
I haven't even mentioned the Spice Girls yet - and, trust me, that's unusual.
Well tell us whatcha want what you really really want.
I wanna really, really, really wanna zigazig ah.