David recommends . . . don't believe the hype about MADE IN DAGENHAM

MID will be an enormous box office success. The reasons are very simple.


1.  It's about wimmin, nay working-class wimmin, empowering themselves against discrimination. So millions of women will go see it.


2.  There is a new law, apparently, that all reviews of MID have to refer to it as a "feel-good movie". So that whole Richard Curtis "I wanna feel-good!!!" crowd will be queuing fast.


3.  It portrays trades unions and strike action in a positive light. So everyone on the Left will go and see it, especially given the New Dawn of Edism.  This, combined with 1, will draw in millions of right on men.


4.  It's a British movie which has been massively hyped. This will bring in all those who (a) are desperate for the UK film industry to do well (despite making crap films) and / or (b) hate American blockbusters.


5.  It's set in the 60s so will draw in herds of 60s nostalgia fetishists, irrespective of whether it accurately reflects the 60s. (See "The Boat That Rocked")


6.  Everyone covered under 1 to 5 will fall for the hype and tell all their friends it is "the best movie ever made", "it's really really feel-good!!!" etc.  Bringing in even more millions.


7.  It's got Sally Hawkins in it, who gurned her way, appallingly, through previous bad British film HAPPY-GO-LUCKY (bit like "feel-good" - are you getting the picture?). And there's another new law that she has to be promoted as (a) a wonderful new talent and (b) the future of the now-being-reborn UK film industry.


In other words it's a triumph of marketing that will be studied in business schools for many years to come. It illustrates the difference between advertising and marketing. The latter meaning you plan for what demographics (see 1 to 6 above) you are going to sell to BEFORE you even design the product. Which means YOU are being manipulated even as you consider - for no longer then 3 seconds probably - whether to go and see it.


Since I'm already clearly biased, here's a few snippets from a couple of the less hysterical user reviews on imdb.com. And note that these are quotes from what are positive reviews overall.


"The film has all the look and feel of a TV movie and is utterly predictable in its mix of humour and tragedy."


"The movie is set in May/June 1968 and it's a pity more care wasn't taken to ensure the period detail was spot on."


"All the ingredients of a British feelgood movie are there but the overall effect is somewhat spoilt by the tendency to portray all the male authority figures as buffoons."


"It's just a pity that in portraying the women as strong salt-of-the-earth characters, the men have to be seen as caricatures."


"This is big screen TV material. A bit of humour; a bit of heart-string tugging; a bit of stereotyping; a bit of costume drama, a bit of vintage vehicle spotting; a bit of real life documentary; a bit of 'celebrity star' spotting - actors playing roles you wouldn't think they'd take; a bit of flesh baring, a bit of social comment; a bit of this and everything else so as no one feels left out. Trouble is, this makes it a Jack & Jill of all trades and master/mistress of none".


"It is, at the end of the day, a superficial treatment of a ground breaking industrial dispute."


Or how about rottentomatoes.com?


"It’s jolly stuff, yet for all the bawdy banter, there’s a Boat That Rocked-like sense of a genuinely interesting moment being regurgitated as a cuddly sitcom."


"I'm not saying Made In Dagenham is a shallow piece of nostalgic fluff. But within five minutes, Bob Hoskins is singing My Old Man Said Follow The Van during a power cut."


The comments about the male characters are perhaps the most subtly significant. Basically, it's a chick flick.  As a few minutes spent watching TV advertising will reveal, marketers sell to men using sex, and to women by portraying men as stupid.


That is perhaps the ultimate irony. A film promoted as about women's self-empowerment will make millions by manipulating women. The film clearly (some would say, rather obviously) reveals women's oppression by capitalism as workers. Less obviously it reflects how women are oppressed by capitalists as consumers.  I wonder what Naomi 'No Logo' Klein would have to say?