15
VIEWS
0
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view montebubbles's profile
    Posted November 11, 2015 by
    montebubbles
    Location
    Hollywood, California
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    iReport at the movies

    More from montebubbles

    "Suffragette" screening an unexpected delight with Carey Mulligan Q&A

     
    Actress Carey Mulligan, director Sarah Gavron and writer Abi Morgan were part of the Q&A for the Variety screening of “Suffragette” I attended.

    While the movie is a color feature film that is a representation of a collection of individuals used to create individual characters of the actors, it also has the feel and the look of the 1930s Warner Brothers feature films. These films were all in stark black and white and were used to make social statements about the period in time.


    “Suffragette” has more violence in it than you would think about women getting the vote. As in the case of the Warner Brothers movies that were overly violent, the violence is not there for the sake of violence, it was there as a reflection of what was going on in that time in history.

    The violence is there as women were not even thought of as second class during that time in history. To get attention to what they were doing, they had to result to violence from breaking windows, blowing up a house and causing an incidence at the horse races that resulted in serious injury to the King of England. The death of the activist that created the serious injury to the King of England, was the shot that was heard around the world in the Suffragette movement as she gave her life to the cause.

    Created by an almost entirely female cast and crew and filmed in real locations when possible, it moved fast in 44 shooting days. The trickiest part, filming at Parliament for an anti-woman historical shoot.

    In reality, I had to be dragged to the movie, because as a female it’s something I should have been interested in. It looked like a boring drama that they typically bring out before the close of Oscar submissions. The movie was slow at the beginning but after that it was captivating. It had all of the ingredients in it that would have made for a summer release. It was well acted, well written, and had more action than you would have expected about a movie about suffragettes.

    As is the case with a lot of feature films today, there was no call of lights, camera, action as the actors were not told when the cameras were running and they were performing naturally.

    Something we learned from AFM and AFI this week, they’re throwing the storyboard out on many productions today and they’re just getting it done.

    Would I have paid to see this movie? When I went to see the movie “Hugo” we expected to see a really bad movie, and the “Suffragette” like “Hugo” was a great surprise to me. It’s definitely a movie I would recommend, not because you’re a woman or believe in women’s rights but because it’s just a good movie. It pushes all of the buttons, bring kleenex.
    Add your Story Add your Story