Ammonite - Mary Anning Film

[Fossiliy]

Just seen a trailer for the new Kate Winslet film ‘Ammonite’. I went fossil hunting with my family on holiday in Lyme Regis last year for the 1st time ever and purposely got the audio book of Tracey Chevalier’s book ‘Remarkable Creatures’ to give me some insight into Mary Anning.

Admittedly I have a reaction to audio books that mean I fall asleep to them far too quickly if I’m listening in bed (must be a throwback to falling asleep during the bedtime story) so my recollection of the story might be slightly fogged. BUT I don’t remember it being a ‘love story’ about two women set amongst the sludge and windswept beaches of Dorset? The film seems to be pushing this as the main thrust of the film.

The main theme I took from the book was the huge prejudice against women and the enormous injustice of several men trying to take credit for Anning’s discoveries. Class was certainly an issue too between the two female protagonists and their relationship was at the core of the book. There was a sense of repression and suppression of women in all aspects of their lives most certainly. But I don’t recall a love-affair or even any sense of attraction on a sexual level?

I know, I know artistic license and all that but I can’t just help but imagine when they optioned the book someone saying ‘Two Victorian women right? A friendship right? Can we shoehorn some girl-on-girl action here?’

I think it’s a fascinating story and I was very ignorant about the history and importance of Mary Anning. Maybe I should hold back full judgement until I see the film but I can’t help feeling a bit cynical.

Did Tracey Chevalier gloss over a lesbian relationship? I wonder what she thinks of it? Anyone else read the book?

I’m a Chartered Geologist and STEM ambassador, I was really looking forward to this, particularly as DD studied MA at “school” last term.

Watched the trailer, got all exited by fossils, oops - snogging. Really disappointed that one of the most notable people in British, if not global, Earth Science has had her story overwritten by a romance , that may or may not be true.

She was very religious. And as well as the very many hours she spent working, she lived with her mother and cared for her. So it's equally a very reasonable supposition that she was quite simply single and didn't go there.

@peachgreen

See also The Imitation Game & The Theory Of Everything

Both these movies were centred around exploring the private lives of the subjects though?

I disagree. The Imitation Game 'focusses on Turing’s implementation of computational ideas' according to this review www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/imitation-game-alan-turing/amp & I remember at the time it was criticised by some for not going into enough detail about his personal life. I was left in no doubt after watching the Theory of Everything that Hawkings was the genius. As I say, I hope this film will do justice to Mary Anning's importance, especially since, in comparison to the other two there is scant evidence about her private life.

Goodness. Just watched God's Own Country following the recommendations on this thread. The man-on-man sexual acts were rather more brutal and prolonged than I had been expecting. Yorkshire looked beautiful though.

As for the Theory of Everything.... that was a film about domestic abuse right? I spent the whole film waiting for Jane to LTB.

I spent the whole film waiting for Jane to LTB

There is that.

Sometimes I wonder what would be considered sufficient "proof" a historical figure was a lesbian, to some people.

I'm not saying the love story in Ammonite isn't a fabrication. It probably is. But not every lesbian in history was Gentleman Jack. She was an outlier, an incredibly forthright woman with personal wealth to sustain her, who nonetheless wasn't openly lesbian. The only reason we can say for sure that she was gay was because she left us her diaries, describing her life in her own words. And even then, those words were obscured by a cipher, which took over a century to decode.

Almost every other historical lesbian - particularly those who didn't help us out by writing all their feelings down - is subject to intense scrutiny and debate. Was she really a lesbian? Maybe she just had close friendships! Maybe that man she spoke to once in her life was actually her one true love instead! Maybe she was just a proud single woman and not a lesbian.

Lesbian women lived such hidden lives they were never going to leave behind a convincing burden of proof. What would that look like, to the people who ask for it? Plenty of lesbians married men out of economic necessity. Plenty were too cautious to commit their truth to a diary. Plenty more lacked even the words for what they felt. What "proof" could women like these leave us? Does the lack of proof mean their stories don't deserve to be told?

Maybe the love story will feel shoe-horned into Ammonite. Maybe it won't. I'll reserve judgement til I've seen it.

Friendship as a topic doesn't get much interest in modern pop culture.

This point was also made in the excellent biography of Sarah Churchill I read last year.

Friendships can be as emotionally powerful as sexual relationships, yet they don't often get treated with the respect they deserves. There seems to be a need to insist that a friendship MUST have been sexual in nature, in order to explain why it was important to the character or person in question.

Found this piece that I thought reflected many of the replies on this thread

www.theguardian.com/news/shortcuts/2019/mar/13/fake-lesbians-in-film-biopics

@contactusdeletus

Sometimes I wonder what would be considered sufficient "proof" a historical figure was a lesbian, to some people.

I'm not saying the love story in Ammonite isn't a fabrication. It probably is. But not every lesbian in history was Gentleman Jack. She was an outlier, an incredibly forthright woman with personal wealth to sustain her, who nonetheless wasn't openly lesbian. The only reason we can say for sure that she was gay was because she left us her diaries, describing her life in her own words. And even then, those words were obscured by a cipher, which took over a century to decode.

Almost every other historical lesbian - particularly those who didn't help us out by writing all their feelings down - is subject to intense scrutiny and debate. Was she really a lesbian? Maybe she just had close friendships! Maybe that man she spoke to once in her life was actually her one true love instead! Maybe she was just a proud single woman and not a lesbian.

Lesbian women lived such hidden lives they were never going to leave behind a convincing burden of proof. What would that look like, to the people who ask for it? Plenty of lesbians married men out of economic necessity. Plenty were too cautious to commit their truth to a diary. Plenty more lacked even the words for what they felt. What "proof" could women like these leave us? Does the lack of proof mean their stories don't deserve to be told?

Maybe the love story will feel shoe-horned into Ammonite. Maybe it won't. I'll reserve judgement til I've seen it.

Thi is basically the same argument people who want to "trans" historical charachters make.

Yes, we in many cases may not have any answers about whether certain people were homosexuals. So we just present these real individuals as if they were gay or lesbian because we want to check some boxes for lesbian representation? Notwithstanding that it might misrepresent them, or be something that they would not have appreciated.

It's part of a very annoying approach to historical depictions that somehow imagines people living in other places and times thought and felt the same way we do (or at least the way the right-on people do), and held the same values. Because that makes us comfortable.

Does the lack of proof mean their stories don't deserve to be told?

The point is that you aren't telling the story of the particular person, it's a story that's been invented for them.

[quote Fossiliy]Found this piece that I thought reflected many of the replies on this thread

www.theguardian.com/news/shortcuts/2019/mar/13/fake-lesbians-in-film-biopics[/quote]
That sums it up very neatly, thanks for sharing.

Sometimes I wonder what would be considered sufficient "proof" a historical figure was a lesbian, to some people.

As an unmarried woman with no significant relationships I would say it actually being recorded somewhere that they were sexually attracted to women. Otherwise I would see no reason to assume they were not just like me - heterosexual but perfectly happy alone/ too busy/ never met the right person and wasn't willing to settle.
Certainly lack of a man is not proof of lesbianism. Having female friends and no man is not proof of lesbianism. The idea that lack of one thing is proof of something else is laughable. How much proof? How about any at all?
As a life long single woman I find the idea that all life long single women were secretly lesbians and this is a marvellous and progressive thing deeply offensive. Not that there's anything wrong with being a lesbian - but there's also nothing wrong with being single, and the idea that 'how wonderful, they were having lesbian sex that whole time' does frame being single as somehow lesser or sad or pitiable, like a life half lived. When of course it's not - it's just a life lived in a different way. And I say that as a woman who has never done anything so amazing as discover a dinosaur. What I've got up to by myself pales in comparison to Mary Anning's accomplishments.

I would hate - should I ever do something so worthy a film gets made about me - for some well meaning director to add in a lesbian romance I never had to fill in the gaps, or explore another idea (my life aint your idea buddy) and I would be incandescent if anyone tried to claim making a woman who was happily single and content in her own company into a lesbian in a relationship was progressive and something to celebrate.

Biopics only get made for people for whom there is a wealth of evidence about their life (we don't get biopics about washerwomen and scullery maids who remain washerwomen and scullery maids their whole lives - many of whom may well have been lesbians ) and if people for whom there is a wealth of evidence leave behind no evidence of their feelings - we can conjecture either such feelings did not exist or they were not very important to them. Therefore centring a biopic around these feelings which are not recorded and are purely invented is a bit offensive to the subject of the film. Either you want to tell the story of their life - or you don't.

Great post Icantreachthepretzels

I suppose what is at the heart of my annoyance is that MA, typically of course, hasn't had the general coverage she deserves until quite recently - as a scientist and discoverer. I want people to know about her and a biopic is great. But what's great is increasing awareness that a woman did this and that women weren't all just sitting around and not contributing to science, just because they were excluded from official organisations and their achievements are often forgotten. It's really inspiring and informative for kids who are into fossils, girls who love science, and for people in general to know more about that.

But a film like this just takes MA and "claims" her for homosexuality, like ooh isn't it great women were having gay affairs, and makes that the focus, instead of it being important enough in itself what she achieved.

There's no evidence but plenty of people will see the film and think it's all her real life story and see her forever more as a lesbian. As PPs have said there's nothing wrong with that – but it's not the story.

Review of Ammonite. Can't say I'm very inspired to see it after reading that.
www.indiewire.com/2020/09/ammonite-review-kate-winslet-saoirse-ronan-francis-lee-1234584265/#respond

They could have made a film highlighting how women scientists were not taken seriously, how her work was used by men who got far greater recognition than she ever did and the wider struggles of women in society at that time

But you know lesbians amirite???

Surely Kate Winslet just gets her kit off in every single film she does? It's just now she does it in a lesbian way.

I remember back in 2003 ish her earnestly discussing how she only did nude scenes when they were essential to the plot. Thing was, they seemed to be essential to the plot of every single film she ever did. My male friend I went to the cinema back then with even started to get bored of it.

It was also around the time she was tediously telling us she was definitely a size 12, not bothered about was size she was, and had totally not been changed by Hollywood

I'd just view this as a couple of decades have made no difference except Hollywood has decided the Winslet brand of vaguely arty movies now works better with empowering lesbian sex than empowering female nudity.

Dd1 is very interested in Mary Anning and would love to watch a film about her, but this is very much not the film for her, which is a bit disappointing.

Thanks to this thread I have ordered Remarkable Creatures which I think I'll enjoy. And I really want to go to Lyme Regis now, I wonder if I can fit in a trip this evening 🤔

I've just seen this. It's very beautiful and relaxing to look at. There are a couple of fairly tame lesbian sex scenes, which I found as boring as any other sex scenes.

It does a complete disservice to Charlotte Murchison who was a geologist in her own right before Charlotte and her husband even met Mary Anning.

There was some focus on Anning's scientific skills and knowledge but if you had never heard of Charlotte Murchison before (I'm assuming most people haven't) you'd be none the wiser about Charlotte's own achievements.

Googling either woman doesn't produce anything to suggest they were anything other than friends, with Anning being a friend of the Murchisons as a couple. I suppose it's possible they might have had a more intimate relationship which was kept completely private; it's equally possible it's 100% fiction.

What is true is that they were women involved in scientific research at a time when very few (any ?) women were. Charlotte Murchison's husband is a bit player in the film but he was also a geologist and presumably did not object to his wife being involved in geological research which in itself must have been unusual.

She was very religious

Anning's family were Dissenters which made a life made difficult through lack of cash even more difficult than it need be. Anning and her mother seem to have some business acumen after the death of Anning's father.

Charlotte Murchison was very wealthy in her own right having inherited money from her mother, which perhaps Gentleman Jack like might have assisted a relationship, but nothing suggest there was.

Surely lesbian representation is a good thing?

At the expense of retrospectively making a real life person a lesbian when there is no evidence whatsoever for it?

The film's focus is the fictional love story, not the science.

Im half way through it at the moment. I have to say its not doing much for me.

(Caveat I know this an old thread) Well Lister's case & others show there were women who had relationships w women round then. That in itself isn't 'right-on'. What IS is changing language/concepts/thinking/values. Did the film do that though? I never watched as heard it was v dull.

In some cases there is ambiguous evidence someone was gay, but generally it's stronger than evidence for people being trans. Still, I agree that it doesn't work to say that people w no evidence for that were gay. Some evidence, OK, but making it up out of thin air is wrong. Just as it would be wrong to invent a hetero romance for a lesbian, as the most recent biopic of the dancer Loie Fuller did.

they could also ofc do films about imaginary/composite characters.

That's not true about friendship. More recently, stuff like Derry Girls & We Are Lady Parts has been very popular. Other examples - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2020s_female_buddy_films

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2010s_female_buddy_films

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.netflix.com/browse/genre/1143288&ved=2ahUKEwii5JPH29mPAxVWW0EAHcXRNDwQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0lnW5dn3hpfO8w8lFuJAtW

Stop bumping zombie threads.

I know this is zombie, but I have a bit of info which might be relevant. A while back, long before this film, there was a piece in the Guardian about how the female curator at Lyme Regis museum was trying to improve knowledge about MA. I was interested because BBC schools had broadcast a drama about her life. But I was more interested that the curator had been at my school, a few years ahead of me. There was nothing personal about her in the piece, and about any attitude she might have to MA because of her own life, but she was known at school to be more interested in women than men. And I am wondering if that had any influence on the film makers.
Also, the posts above refer to MA being ignored by the elite geologists because of being a woman and lower class. The class thing worked against men as well. William Smith the first to draw a map of the UK was ignored, and Dr.Gideon Mantel who discovered the iguanodon in Sussex had a struggle for it to be recognised.