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?