Jacinda Ardern's documentary: a self-serving spectacle or an intimate glimpse?
The new documentary, 'Prime Minister', promises an 'intimate portrait' of political power, but it's a fine line between intimacy and invasion. Most of the footage is captured by Ardern's partner, Clarke Gayford, giving the film a unique, yet unsettling, perspective. It's like accidentally stumbling upon someone's personal home videos, leaving you with a sense of intrusion.
The film begins with a myth-making narrative, showcasing Ardern's rise to power in 2017. She is portrayed as a millennial messiah, a young, emotional leader who captivated the world. But is this the true Ardern, or a carefully crafted image?
There are moments of genuine rawness, especially during her pregnancy and early motherhood. The scenes of her breastfeeding and juggling cabinet papers are powerful, evoking empathy from viewers who can relate to the challenges of balancing a demanding career and family life. However, it leaves one wondering if this is an authentic glimpse or a curated portrayal.
The documentary takes a turn when it delves into Ardern's decline, particularly during the Covid era. It presents a one-sided view, portraying Ardern as a saintly leader misunderstood by an ungrateful nation. The backlash and protests are minimized, leaving viewers with a sense of confusion and a desire for more context.
As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Ardern has a strong hand in curating her image, even in her personal life. The narrative shifts to one of New Zealand not being worthy of her, a narrative that feels more like a PR stunt than a genuine reflection on her premiership.
By the end, 'Prime Minister' leaves viewers with mixed feelings. Admirers will be captivated, critics will be left with a sense of unease, and the rest of us might question the need for such an extensive portrayal of Jacinda Ardern's domestic life. Was it necessary to spend two hours in her home cinema? Perhaps not.
And here's the part most people miss: the controversy lies in whether this documentary is a shameless act of self-promotion or an honest portrayal. What do you think? Is it a compelling insight or a carefully crafted myth? The floor is open for discussion.
