As "Shirley" (2024 release; 118 min) opens, we are reminded that Brooklyn's Shirley Chisholm was the first Black woman elected to the US Congress, in 1966, among a sea of white males newcomers. We then go to "December, 1971" as Chisholm decides to run for the US presidency in a crowded field and with little chance of actually winning.... At this point we are 10 minutes into the movie.
Couple of comments: this is the latest from writer-director John Ridley (best known for his script for "12 Years A Slave"). Here he looks back at what basically amounts to a footnote in US political history. Question: who was the first Black woman elected to US Congress? Answer: Shirley Chisholm. Question: who was the first Black woman to run for president? Answer: Chisholm again. This film focuses solely on her 1972 presidential run, and hence this is NOT a biopic of Shirley Chisholm. We are given no background or context, none whatsoever, on how this woman got elected to Congress in the first place, or what she did in Congress. As to the movie itself, it struggles to get off the ground, although there are some good moments, in particular towards the end. The movie benefits enormously from the strong lead performance by Regina King ("If Beale Street Could Talk"). Lucas Hedges plays Robert, a national student representative. Bottom line is this: we all know the outcome of Chisholm's 1972 presidential run before we even watch this, so the assumption is that we watch this for the journey, rather than the end result. Turns out that journey isn't all that interesting, even if the concept itself (a Black woman running for president? In 1972? She is DEACDES ahead of her time) is momentous. I'd rather have watched and learned how Chisholm raised to prominence to begin with by getting elected to Congress in the first place. As a complete aside, I must point out that significant chunks of the movie were filmed in Cincinnati (where I live), standing in once again for New York of the 1960-70s (see also Todd Haynes' "Carole"). Also this: couldn't the film makers come up with a sharper movie title than the lame and generic "Shirley"?
"Shirley" received a one week limited theatrical run in Mid-March and then starting streaming on Netflix last week. "Shirley" is currently rated a respectable 70% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. That feels a little high to me. "Shirley" is well-meant, for sure, but I'd rather have watched a biopic of this barrier breaking woman. If you have any interest in politics, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.
Couple of comments: this is the latest from writer-director John Ridley (best known for his script for "12 Years A Slave"). Here he looks back at what basically amounts to a footnote in US political history. Question: who was the first Black woman elected to US Congress? Answer: Shirley Chisholm. Question: who was the first Black woman to run for president? Answer: Chisholm again. This film focuses solely on her 1972 presidential run, and hence this is NOT a biopic of Shirley Chisholm. We are given no background or context, none whatsoever, on how this woman got elected to Congress in the first place, or what she did in Congress. As to the movie itself, it struggles to get off the ground, although there are some good moments, in particular towards the end. The movie benefits enormously from the strong lead performance by Regina King ("If Beale Street Could Talk"). Lucas Hedges plays Robert, a national student representative. Bottom line is this: we all know the outcome of Chisholm's 1972 presidential run before we even watch this, so the assumption is that we watch this for the journey, rather than the end result. Turns out that journey isn't all that interesting, even if the concept itself (a Black woman running for president? In 1972? She is DEACDES ahead of her time) is momentous. I'd rather have watched and learned how Chisholm raised to prominence to begin with by getting elected to Congress in the first place. As a complete aside, I must point out that significant chunks of the movie were filmed in Cincinnati (where I live), standing in once again for New York of the 1960-70s (see also Todd Haynes' "Carole"). Also this: couldn't the film makers come up with a sharper movie title than the lame and generic "Shirley"?
"Shirley" received a one week limited theatrical run in Mid-March and then starting streaming on Netflix last week. "Shirley" is currently rated a respectable 70% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. That feels a little high to me. "Shirley" is well-meant, for sure, but I'd rather have watched a biopic of this barrier breaking woman. If you have any interest in politics, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.