Question

me ajudem a escrever um texto sobre as sufragistas!
o que eu tenho até agora é:
The objective of the project is to show the acchivement of the weman’s right to vote
In 1903, in London, the Women Social and Political Union was criated by Emmeline Pannkhurst. Mostly known for as suffragetts, the objective of the group was to show the parlament why the weman should have the rights to vote.

Answer 1

From the first scene, this drama tells what it came to: while male characters shout at women's right to vote, a female character throws a stone at a window, shouting for the right to vote. Men against women, vote against no vote - is armed the historical and political context that interests the director Sarah Gavron and the writer Abi Morgan.


Sufferers takes an interesting starting point by choosing as protagonist Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan), a woman with no political background. This laundress, accustomed to male oppression, never questioned the system, but gradually discovers her rights as a citizen. It is easier for the average audience, to whom the film is directed, to identify with this common character than to cheer for a radical militant. The script accompanies Maud's political awakening towards the liberation of the social rules of the early twentieth century.

Another finding is the use of voting restriction as a symbol of oppression. Instead of attaching itself to the right to vote in itself, electoral practice is used as a metaphor for gender inequality. The real theme of the film is the struggle for equality, for the defense of minorities and for the elimination of the macho dogmas imposed by Christianity. Little is said about the vote itself: the true political gesture of the script is to put the finger on moral wounds that exist until today.

By the middle of 2015, it may be absurd to think of women being prevented from voting, but the ban was considered as "natural" as the limitations of gay and transsexual rights are considered to be natural today, for example, and since they were once considered natural, little racial segregation, slavery, and other forms of privilege of the white elite. Despite being a period film, The Suffragetts becomes relevant for its sad timeliness.

Unfortunately, from such an interesting premise, Sarah Gavron has a disappointing performance in the direction. It is limited to the most basic book of dramatic and historical cinema: to show the atmosphere in the streets, a crane rises to the buildings, when the characters speak, the frame closes very close to the faces, when action must be demonstrated, the camera shakes frantically, so as to almost lose the characters from view. The aesthetic choices of this project are clichés, but they are worse than that: they function as a manipulative and reductive point of view.

So the closed frames tell you exactly what to look at, the sad soundtrack tells you when to cry, the ellipses tell you what to worry about, the picture shows where the characters are safe (between friends, in the light) and when they are in danger (at home or at work, in dark places). The film tells you who to love and who to detest, hammering what is right and what is wrong, without allowing ambiguities, discussions or minimal dialectical thinking. The greatest example of this Manichaeism lies in the image of men who are, at best, apathetic and conniving, in the worst case, violent and serial rapists.

At the same time, the script shows moralism, urging the public that, although Maud has become a militant, she is still a loving mother, concerned about her son and her husband. Equally, the only excuse given to a woman to give up the political struggle is motherhood. To try to sensitize an audience unaccustomed to the most basic ideas of feminism, the film detracts from the complexity of its discourse and makes a point of attributing Christian virtues to the protagonist, avoiding that the public stops to cheer for her.