"Brasil", Loncraine's "Richard III", "V for Vendetta", Jarman's "Edward II" (but also "1984") - there is a very distinct "line" of movies and books in British culture that features this bleak, dystopian police state as the chief enemy - something that is, for example, much less common in the American cinema (one movie I can think of is "12 Monkeys" - but again you could say this is a British movie despite having American actors).
I was wondering - since most of these movies were made in the 1980s or the 1990s - is this just a reaction to the Thatcher's era, or is this something going more into the past?
And how does it square off with the Britain being the "CCTV Nation" and whatnot?
Care to weigh in, Brits and Brit-o-philes? :)
The British are a dreary bunch?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2009, 03:55:00 PM
The British are a dreary bunch?
Nah. Besides, I think this makes them very European. I'm just curious if this is a recent phenomenon (a reaction to the long winter of Thatcherism) or has this been present in the British culture for a longer time.
I think a long time. Due to the fact they live in Britain. The entire history of the British people is the struggle to escape Britain. Why do you think they created an Empire?
Yeah, but I think it is curious.
I mean the whole "black helicopter" syndrome and anti-government sentiment is much more pronounced in American rather than British culture, for example (at least that's my impression). But when it comes to art (especially cinema, which according the Lenin is the most important of arts), this seems to be the opposite - in American cinema (Nixon excepted) if there is some government conspiracy, it is usually without the knowledge/against the will of the President - in the UK, the Prime Minister is sitting in the middle and pulling all the strings.
Slightly facetiously, I blame George Orwell.
Less facetiously, I suspect you are seeing a reaction to the regimentation and suspicion forced on a previously remarkably laissez-faire and liberal British society by the World Wars. Licensing hours, for example, date to WWI, as a "temporary measure" that is still with us.
There's a lot more to it than that; the dystopian, rather than police state, aspect can probably be traced back to Tudor and Elizabethan times.
I have to think about this longer before answering, but British movies, books and TV series seem to go from a deep nostalgic love for the 20s and the 30s, the days before the Second World War, to a deep mistrust of the future, described as a police and/or fascist state with shades of 1984 (and present days seem very often described as an endless process of economic decadence and social difficulties, 'Full Monty' style).
But I don't think Thatcher is the reason; the British of Tony Blair's years seem equally worried about the omnipresence of surveillance cameras, excessive police powers, gradual erosion of civil liberties, etc, etc.
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
V for Vendetta was awful. The good guys lost. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
The movie? Perhaps (although I didn't take it that way). The comic book on which it was based, however, was clearly anti-thacherite, though.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 30, 2009, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
V for Vendetta was awful. The good guys lost. :(
I have a sudden urge to listen to Tchaikovsky's "1812" Overture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
That was the fantastically awful, miscast movie*. The book is a lot more British.
*WHO THE FUCK CAST NATALIE PORTMAN? V IS OBSESSED WITH MUSICALS, HAS A BITING, CAUSTIC WIT AND DRESSES FABULOUSLY IN A DRESS: HOW THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE STEPHEN FRY IN IT, AND NOT CAST HIM AS THE BRILLIANT, SARCASTIC,
VERY OBVIOUSLY GAY SUPER HERO?!?!?!?!
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
That was the fantastically awful, miscast movie*. The book is a lot more British.
*WHO THE FUCK CAST NATALIE PORTMAN? V IS OBSESSED WITH MUSICALS, HAS A BITING, CAUSTIC WIT AND DRESSES FABULOUSLY IN A DRESS: HOW THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE STEPHEN FRY IN IT, AND NOT CAST HIM AS THE BRILLIANT, SARCASTIC, VERY OBVIOUSLY GAY SUPER HERO?!?!?!?!
Because he is fat. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
The movie? Perhaps (although I didn't take it that way). The comic book on which it was based, however, was clearly anti-thacherite, though.
A right wing government that comes to power on a faked terrorist attack and is dominated by a televangelist? What does that have to do with Thatcher?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
That was the fantastically awful, miscast movie*. The book is a lot more British.
*WHO THE FUCK CAST NATALIE PORTMAN? V IS OBSESSED WITH MUSICALS, HAS A BITING, CAUSTIC WIT AND DRESSES FABULOUSLY IN A DRESS: HOW THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE STEPHEN FRY IN IT, AND NOT CAST HIM AS THE BRILLIANT, SARCASTIC, VERY OBVIOUSLY GAY SUPER HERO?!?!?!?!
You sound fat.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 03:54:08 PM
"Brasil", Loncraine's "Richard III", "V for Vendetta", Jarman's "Edward II" (but also "1984") - there is a very distinct "line" of movies and books in British culture that features this bleak, dystopian police state as the chief enemy - something that is, for example, much less common in the American cinema (one movie I can think of is "12 Monkeys" - but again you could say this is a British movie despite having American actors).
You left out what I would call the most obvious after 1984, A Clockwork Orange.
I think the key is that Britain never experienced Totalitarianism but was far more exposed to it than we were. Most of the above are generally along the lines of It Happened Here (which you also forgot), which is the most obvious case of British distopianism simply transporting the Continent's totalitarianism on to England.
American Totalitarianism is often somewhat different. I think Brave New World, though Huxley was British, is far more American.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:26:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
The movie? Perhaps (although I didn't take it that way). The comic book on which it was based, however, was clearly anti-thacherite, though.
A right wing government that comes to power on a faked terrorist attack and is dominated by a televangelist? What does that have to do with Thatcher?
You realise that the film is based on a comic book written in the 1980s/early 1990s, right? In fact, if you find some interviews with the author he says it was his response to the oppressive atmosphere of the Thatcher's era.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:26:20 PM
Because he is fat. :P
You never see his face. Body double.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:29:01 PM
You realise that the film is based on a comic book written in the 1980s/early 1990s, right?
I do now. :punk:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 03:54:08 PM
"Brasil", Loncraine's "Richard III", "V for Vendetta", Jarman's "Edward II" (but also "1984") - there is a very distinct "line" of movies and books in British culture that features this bleak, dystopian police state as the chief enemy - something that is, for example, much less common in the American cinema (one movie I can think of is "12 Monkeys" - but again you could say this is a British movie despite having American actors).
You left out what I would call the most obvious after 1984, A Clockwork Orange.
I think the key is that Britain never experienced Totalitarianism but was far more exposed to it than we were. Most of the above are generally along the lines of It Happened Here (which you also forgot), which is the most obvious case of British distopianism simply transporting the Continent's totalitarianism on to England.
American Totalitarianism is often somewhat different. I think Brave New World, though Huxley was British, is far more American.
Oh yeah you are right. Clockwork Orange is one I forgot.
Incidentally, the movies I mentioned (plus Clockwork Orange) are among my absolute favourite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:30:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:29:01 PM
You realise that the film is based on a comic book written in the 1980s/early 1990s, right?
I do now. :punk:
:cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
'V for Vendetta' is based on a comic published in 1982. The comic was quite obviously a transparent attack on thatcherism, and the movie only had to make minor changes to make its target broader; for example, it is too a transparent attack on Fox News style journalism (England prevails).
Quote from: Armyknife on September 30, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 04:18:11 PM
I have to think about this longer before answering, but British movies, books and TV series seem to go from a deep nostalgic love for the 20s and the 30s, the days before the Second World War, to a deep mistrust of the future, described as a police and/or fascist state with shades of 1984 (and present days seem very often described as an endless process of economic decadence and social difficulties, 'Full Monty' style).
But I don't think Thatcher is the reason; the British of Tony Blair's years seem equally worried about the omnipresence of surveillance cameras, excessive police powers, gradual erosion of civil liberties, etc, etc.
'1916' is a better watershed.
The Somme?
Incidentally I have watched 'The Magic Flute' of Kenneth Branagh and I was quite shocked initially when I saw he had chosen the trenches of 1914-1918 as background for the story...
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 03:54:08 PM
"Brasil", Loncraine's "Richard III", "V for Vendetta", Jarman's "Edward II" (but also "1984") - there is a very distinct "line" of movies and books in British culture that features this bleak, dystopian police state as the chief enemy - something that is, for example, much less common in the American cinema (one movie I can think of is "12 Monkeys" - but again you could say this is a British movie despite having American actors).
You left out what I would call the most obvious after 1984, A Clockwork Orange.
I think the key is that Britain never experienced Totalitarianism but was far more exposed to it than we were. Most of the above are generally along the lines of It Happened Here (which you also forgot), which is the most obvious case of British distopianism simply transporting the Continent's totalitarianism on to England.
American Totalitarianism is often somewhat different. I think Brave New World, though Huxley was British, is far more American.
Truthfully I think it's the same thing as watching a horror movie. Everyone watches and gets the heebies Jeebies but when the light comes on they are still in Britain and not in Poland.
Marty, you forgot another masterpiece of American distopian filmmaking. Barb Wire. A nuanced and sophisticated examination of conflicted loyalties in a world turned upside down.
Re Vendetta: OK, if the book was written in 82 *and* contained the fake attack and the televangelist I'm obviously wrong.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:31:45 PMOh yeah you are right. Clockwork Orange is one I forgot.
Incidentally, the movies I mentioned (plus Clockwork Orange) are among my absolute favourite.
Same. 1984 was the first adult novel I ever read, and it had a huge impact on me.
That said, I think there is probably more in common between various American, Russian and British forms of 20th Century distopianism than you are acknowledging. They all either draw upon 20th century conflicts between totalitarian powers (V for Vendetta=Spanish Civil War, 1984=WW2/Cold war) or trends visible throughout the 20th century (Pavlovian conditioning for Brave New World and A Clockwork Orange), or parodies of 20th Century Utopianism (virtually all of them, going back to Zamiatin).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:38:19 PM
Marty, you forgot another masterpiece of American distopian filmmaking. Barb Wire. A nuanced and sophisticated examination of conflicted loyalties in a world turned upside down.
Re Vendetta: OK, if the book was written in 82 *and* contained the fake attack and the televangelist I'm obviously wrong.
I don't recall a televangelist in the movie or comic book. And there was a nuclear war in the comic book.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2009, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:38:19 PM
Marty, you forgot another masterpiece of American distopian filmmaking. Barb Wire. A nuanced and sophisticated examination of conflicted loyalties in a world turned upside down.
Re Vendetta: OK, if the book was written in 82 *and* contained the fake attack and the televangelist I'm obviously wrong.
I don't recall a televangelist in the movie or comic book. And there was a nuclear war in the comic book.
Neither do I... IIRC the history in the comic was based in a fascist takeover of a democratic state, as in 1933. Moore was (is, probably) radically anarchist and believed the worse would happen without any need for fake attacks, etc. The apathy of the people would suffice, added to racial and sexual prejudices (the movie was quite obvious, but the comic even more, in that 'V' true objective is to shake that apathy and create an Anarchy - with capital A - in Britain)
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:31:45 PMOh yeah you are right. Clockwork Orange is one I forgot.
Incidentally, the movies I mentioned (plus Clockwork Orange) are among my absolute favourite.
Same. 1984 was the first adult novel I ever read, and it had a huge impact on me.
That said, I think there is probably more in common between various American, Russian and British forms of 20th Century distopianism than you are acknowledging. They all either draw upon 20th century conflicts between totalitarian powers (V for Vendetta=Spanish Civil War, 1984=WW2/Cold war) or trends visible throughout the 20th century (Pavlovian conditioning for Brave New World and A Clockwork Orange), or parodies of 20th Century Utopianism (virtually all of them, going back to Zamiatin).
Yeah I guess you are right (btw, you are familiar, I hope, with "Master and Margaret" by Bulkhakov? It's one of the best books ever written - of course in case of Russia, if you want to set your story in a dystopian totalitarian world, you just describe reality ;)).
I just think that this is more pronounced in British cinema, perhaps because these topics resonate better with the fears of the public.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2009, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:38:19 PM
Marty, you forgot another masterpiece of American distopian filmmaking. Barb Wire. A nuanced and sophisticated examination of conflicted loyalties in a world turned upside down.
Re Vendetta: OK, if the book was written in 82 *and* contained the fake attack and the televangelist I'm obviously wrong.
I don't recall a televangelist in the movie or comic book. And there was a nuclear war in the comic book.
Well the guy was more of a Christian talk show host/personality than a televangelist. He was more of a Rush Limbaugh than Jerry Fallwell type.
Although I agree that perhaps my claim that this is more of a British than an American phenomenon was a bit of an exaggeration. I mean, I just thought of X-Files. Still, if the show was British, the heroes would probably be the people running away from Moulder and Scully. :P
Japanese also have a very dystopian fiction.
When you think about both nations they are very similar. Both Islands that one time in history was pretty much destroyed (WWII) I believe those were very dystopians moments that are still in those nations imagination
:childish grumble:
So it looks as if people are starting to suggest that it goes back to the traumas and increased restrictions of the world wars in comparison to the pre-war world.
As I suggested...
:childish grumble:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:24:59 PM
*WHO THE FUCK CAST NATALIE PORTMAN? V IS OBSESSED WITH MUSICALS, HAS A BITING, CAUSTIC WIT AND DRESSES FABULOUSLY IN A DRESS: HOW THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE STEPHEN FRY IN IT, AND NOT CAST HIM AS THE BRILLIANT, SARCASTIC, VERY OBVIOUSLY GAY SUPER HERO?!?!?!?!
Cause they wanted to sell tickets. :mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:59:58 PM
Yeah I guess you are right (btw, you are familiar, I hope, with "Master and Margaret" by Bulkhakov? It's one of the best books ever written - of course in case of Russia, if you want to set your story in a dystopian totalitarian world, you just describe reality ;)).
I just think that this is more pronounced in British cinema, perhaps because these topics resonate better with the fears of the public.
Master and Margarita is in my top 5 favorite novels, together with Dead Souls.
Yeah. Russia ended up inventing modern Distopianism becaus it wasn't so much a fiction as the unfortunate reality. :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 05:35:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:59:58 PM
Yeah I guess you are right (btw, you are familiar, I hope, with "Master and Margaret" by Bulkhakov? It's one of the best books ever written - of course in case of Russia, if you want to set your story in a dystopian totalitarian world, you just describe reality ;)).
I just think that this is more pronounced in British cinema, perhaps because these topics resonate better with the fears of the public.
Master and Margarita is in my top 5 favorite novels, together with Dead Souls.
Yeah. Russia ended up inventing modern Distopianism becaus it wasn't so much a fiction as the unfortunate reality. :lol:
As "We" Zamyatin demonstrates.
I would point out, Marti, that British dystopianism goes back much further than so far stated. The Morlocks and Eloi, after all, were Britain's future in The Time Machine, and that was written in 1895...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:24:59 PM
*WHO THE FUCK CAST NATALIE PORTMAN? V IS OBSESSED WITH MUSICALS, HAS A BITING, CAUSTIC WIT AND DRESSES FABULOUSLY IN A DRESS: HOW THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE STEPHEN FRY IN IT, AND NOT CAST HIM AS THE BRILLIANT, SARCASTIC, VERY OBVIOUSLY GAY SUPER HERO?!?!?!?!
Cause they wanted to sell tickets. :mellow:
An interesting point: Nobody likes gays.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 06:55:26 PM
I would point out, Marti, that British dystopianism goes back much further than so far stated. The Morlocks and Eloi, after all, were Britain's future in The Time Machine, and that was written in 1895...
Dystopianism goes a loooong way back in British literature; there's dystopic elements in Gulliver's Travels, as far as I am concerned.
"Police state" dystopia's relatively new though. It only really got going after WWII.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:59:58 PM
I just think that this is more pronounced in British cinema, perhaps because these topics resonate better with the fears of the public.
Or perhaps they resonate better with the fears of the film industry in Britian, rather than the public?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
V for Vendetta was a transparent attack on Bush's faith based fanaticism.
written in the early mid 80's? odd.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:21:55 PM
written in the early mid 80's? odd.
I was tricked by the thread title into thinking we were discussing movies. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 09:34:07 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:21:55 PM
written in the early mid 80's? odd.
I was tricked by the thread title into thinking we were discussing movies. :(
well the movie is based on the book.... if they turned it into an anti bush thing they didn't get it. Bush is no Thatcher, not by a long shot.
Quote from: dps on September 30, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:59:58 PM
I just think that this is more pronounced in British cinema, perhaps because these topics resonate better with the fears of the public.
Or perhaps they resonate better with the fears of the film industry in Britian, rather than the public?
Don't think so. I may be wrong about this, but I think in Britain the "film industry" is not some isolated "dreamworks" machine like Hollywood, so the topics it raises are connected much more with the British public.
I'd add 'Children of Men', which is possibly not a British film but is based on a P.D. James novel and the pretty dreary 'State of Denmark'.
Anti-authoritarianism and underdog love is the British thing.
I'd say it owes a lot to post-war austerity and rationing and has the same root as kitchen sink drama.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 30, 2009, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 04:26:20 PM
Because he is fat. :P
You never see his face. Body double.
Having a masked Aussie (who starred in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, remember) faking a British accent is almost the same thing.
John Hurt's opening speech mentions my home town, Enfield. When I went to see it, everyone stood up and gave a llittle cheer at that point :D
The British, like the rest of Europe, ploughed headfirst into the social upheaval and trauma that were the first and second world wars. But unlike our more unfortunate European brothers, we never experienced first hand the crushing weight of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, so we were left to explore it in our literature and arts. Also remember that foreign examinations of the same sort of dystopian phenomena are harder to access without knowledge of that language.
I blame soccer hooligans.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:36:18 PM
well the movie is based on the book.... if they turned it into an anti bush thing they didn't get it. Bush is no Thatcher, not by a long shot.
Indeed. Thatcher was brilliantly successful in many things. Bush was merely average.
some post WWII "American" dystopias:
Phillip K Dick (Blade Runner et al)
Burrough's Interzone
Matrix
Gibson's Neuromancer
Logan's Run
Terminator
Max Headroom
Robocop
Truman Show
most of these are considered "science fiction". there are of course many subgenres: Zombie (Night of the Living Dead et al) and post-Apocalypse (Postman, The Day After, Boy and His Dog) and so on.
Most of the films are from Hollywood, so apparently they are part of a dreamworks machine that have no connection to public hopes and fears. ;)
anyhow, I think the popularity of dystopias are a modern reaction to a complex world, and are part of global culture as the creatives who come up with them consume and influence each other, transcending national cultures (Mad Max anyone?). There's no "28 Days Later" without Romero, there's no "V for Vendetta" without Eisner or Kurtzmann.
Quote from: saskganesh on October 01, 2009, 07:38:09 AM
some post WWII "American" dystopias:
Phillip K Dick (Blade Runner et al)
Burrough's Interzone
Matrix
Gibson's Neuromancer
Logan's Run
Terminator
Max Headroom
Robocop
Truman Show
most of these are considered "science fiction". there are of course many subgenres: Zombie (Night of the Living Dead et al) and post-Apocalypse (Postman, The Day After, Boy and His Dog) and so on.
Most of the films are from Hollywood, so apparently they are part of a dreamworks machine that have no connection to public hopes and fears. ;)
anyhow, I think the popularity of dystopias are a modern reaction to a complex world, and are part of global culture as the creatives who come up with them consume and influence each other, transcending national cultures (Mad Max anyone?). There's no "28 Days Later" without Romero, there's no "V for Vendetta" without Eisner or Kurtzmann.
You forgot Fahrenheit 451. Reading banned in favor of easier-to-manipulate television and squads of "firemen" destroying information sounds pretty dystopian to me. :contract:
yeah, good one. of course, there are many more.
note that Farenheit 451 the movie was produced by Universal, but directed by Truffaut, who is pretty much "non-Hollywood" if that actually means anything..
Quote from: saskganesh on October 01, 2009, 09:47:55 AM
yeah, good one. of course, there are many more.
note that Farenheit 451 the movie was produced by Universal, but directed by Truffaut, who is pretty much "non-Hollywood" if that actually means anything..
So that explains the awfulness of that movie.
It's America so therefore not worthy of Mart's consideration.
Quote from: PDH on October 01, 2009, 09:50:20 AM
It's America so therefore not worthy of Mart's consideration.
As an American and therefore a god upon the earth, I find Mart not worthy of any consideration.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:36:18 PM
well the movie is based on the book.... if they turned it into an anti bush thing they didn't get it. Bush is no Thatcher, not by a long shot.
Indeed. Thatcher fought to save the environment by shutting down those horribly polluting coal mines. Unfortunately she failed to stop global warming but she will always be remembered as the greenest of the green.
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:36:18 PM
well the movie is based on the book.... if they turned it into an anti bush thing they didn't get it. Bush is no Thatcher, not by a long shot.
Indeed. Thatcher fought to save the environment by shutting down those horribly polluting coal mines. Unfortunately she failed to stop global warming but she will always be remembered as the greenest of the green.
And being a trained chemist, she was instrumental in pushing forward the ban on CFCs.
Quote from: Warspite on October 01, 2009, 09:57:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:36:18 PM
well the movie is based on the book.... if they turned it into an anti bush thing they didn't get it. Bush is no Thatcher, not by a long shot.
Indeed. Thatcher fought to save the environment by shutting down those horribly polluting coal mines. Unfortunately she failed to stop global warming but she will always be remembered as the greenest of the green.
And being a trained chemist, she was instrumental in pushing forward the ban on CFCs.
And best of all, she crushed organized labour, modernizing a Britain that was still trapped in the Depression. She revolutionized the Labour Party (which was philosphically in the same niche filled today by RESPECT and the World Workers Party today) by forcing them to become Tories themselves. She stood up to the forces of Communism, Caudilloism and Martinusism. She made Britain matter again, if only a little.