REVIEW: Suffragette fails to live up to expectations

Any industry body and governing force is largely, almost solely made up by men.

Half the human race have their voice but yet it is still to be heard as loudly as man's.

With that in mind, it comes as no surprise that Sarah Gavron's new film, Suffragette, has a pervading resonance far outstripping the time period in which it is set.

This film is the story of the suffragette movement in England, towards its more violent and dramatic years.

It is told, we are assured, at the beginning, through the eyes of a particular group of working women, comprised of Anne-Marie Duff's Violet Miller, Natalie Press' Emily Wilding Davison, Helena Bonham Carter's Edith Ellyn, and as the focus of the film's narrative, Carey Mulligan's Maud Watts.

The film has a strong start, tossing us straight into the sweaty, loud and dirty confines of a laundry house.

The women work hard and the men supervise or work outside in the fresh air, with more pay.

A stage is set. What follows is the slow but steady radicalisation of a poor, working class wife and mother, who is overworked, underpaid, under-represented and unappreciated.

It is even alluded to that the slithering boss at the factory abused her as a young girl when she worked there.

By pure instinct, Maud is drawn to the suffragette movement and as the film unfolds, so does history.

At the risk of cynicism, it must be said that such is the powerful nature of this chapter of history, that it is in fact very difficult to make a truly rubbish film out of Suffragette.

The camera work is reassuringly clear and crisp. The costumes, sets and accents all absorbing. The direction is, well, direct, and the performances charged and emotional.

It is all basically told in a very familiar way. In fact, the arc of the film is almost paint-by-numbers.

To go further, this movie is not daring in a creative filmmaking capacity at all. It is the message that is the thing.

Evidently, and tellingly given that this a big box office draw funded by Fox, the makers have gone the route of simply showing the story for what it is.

What needs be done with a story of this nature, it seems, is to ground it in a believable world, get some damn good actors in, and simply shoot it.

This is a shame, because a more creative approach to telling the story would enhance and empower it further.

Yes, this film holds a rousing call to arms for women, and an affecting true story of female struggle in a male world. It is a huge production, and it will be seen far and wide. As well it might.

But one feels that it would be so much more powerful if the style of the storytelling wasn't so pre-packaged.

There is one very powerful scene in which our main character is subjected to tactics of "barbarity", as described by the stern yet increasingly complicit Inspector Arthur Steed, played by Brendan Gleeson. For a fleeting moment, the story punches you in the gut. Then the story returns to the reliable arc so often used in hero stories.

At the end, we are shown the real suffragettes marching in London, and the ensuing history of their cause.

Again, this is extremely powerful and effective, and ends up eclipsing everything we've just seen, whereas it should really be adding to it.

This is a truly remarkable story, told in a very unremarkable way, but will end up being very popular, because the message is the point.

Suffragette is currently in UK cinemas