In 1840s England, palaeontologist Mary Anning and a young woman sent by her husband to convalesce by the sea develop an intense relationship. Despite the chasm between their social spheres and personalities, Mary and Charlotte discover they can each offer what the other has been searching for the realisation that they are not alone. It is the beginning of a passionate and all-consuming love affair that will defy all social bounds and alter the course of both lives irrevocably.
As entertainment, I enjoyed watching Ammonite. The protagonist, Mary Anning, is an intriguing woman. She is prickly and somewhat anti-social, at least to strangers. Yet she puts up with oppressive behavior by her mother, perhaps to keep the peace or because they are family. She is dedicated to her pursuit of science through paleontology, but also pays the bills by creating what amount to trinkets to sell to tourists. She is interesting, which isn’t a bad thing in a main character. But Mary Anning was a real person, and as such, the filmmakers elevated” her story by involving her in a lesbian relationship that was not supported by any historical evidence. This is what movies do, and it does add to the plot, though it was small consolation to a descendant of Mary Anning, who questioned whether it was polite to the historical figure to do so. I am reminded of the movie Cinderella Man, directed by the talented Ron Howard, where boxer Max Baer’s son protested because Howard had made Max more vicious than he was. Baer was playful and even boxers he fought liked him outside the ring. But this is what directors do. One possible result of that added subplot is the enigmatic ending. We are left wondering about the ultimate relationship of the two women, and perhaps that is at least partly because history is so vague on Mary Anning’s sexuality in general. But this is not a documentary; it is a biopic, a different animal altogether, as I alluded to it above. If this movie hadn’t’t been made, flawed factual details in all, I would never have heard of Mary Anning at all. So I think her legacy and her place in history is ultimately improved by the film. Sometimes, in fact, a popular biopic leads to increased interest and attention for a historical character. That can’t be a bad thing, can it?
This is a beautifully crafted piece of work from Francis Lee and Stéphane Fontaine that depicts the rather downtrodden existence of 19th century English paleontologist Mary Anning (Kate Winslet) who spends much of her time combing the beach for shells and fossils that she restores and sells in a small shop she shares with her ailing mother (Gemma Jones). The arrival of the enthusiastic Roderick Murchison (James McArdle) and his wife Charlotte (Saoirse Ronan) changes her pretty breadline, dreary, routine as he, initially, pays her to show him how to spot the ammonite but then leaves his poorly wife in her care to recuperate from an as yet undefined malady. The story is essentially about how the two women bond, and about how that bond intensifies and it features two very strong performances from the leads who struggle with their delicately smouldering relationship. Together with Lee, they manage to deliver a sense of their longing in a largely un-passionate - yet not sterile - fashion. The snag is that the film really, really, lacks pace and characterisation. Its not that is needs to be a full-on sex-fest, its that their dialogue is sparing to the point of frugality. Why do they bond? At times their affinity is hard to fathom; terse even - and there is a maternal affinity that seems to compromise the potency of their chemistry as people who are falling in love. There are a couple touching contributions from Fiona Shaw and Gemma Jones (sort of reprises her role from Gods Own Country (2017)) and there is an explicit swipe at the male-driven scientific community that did its best to discourage/ignore the obvious skills possessed by Anning, but as a film for the big screen it just lacks depth - we are left to guess/assume way too much and it left me feeling just a bit empty.
