Jacinda Strikes Back! The hard re-launch of Ardern’s political identity.
Image by Rata Jamieson.
Alongside sources, this piece features the authors opinion.
This year, we have seen Jacinda Ardern’s story told in both her memoir “A Different Kind of Power” and the recently released “Prime Minister” film. These releases were a hard launch of Ardern reasserting her political identity, utilising written word and film.
There is a noticeable international appeal to the book and film, which perhaps indicates how well-liked Ardern was overseas. In the book, Ardern spends time explaining what the “biscuit tin” is, showing her intention in making it understandable to an international audience.
Simon Morris said on RNZ’s At The Movies “even at the height of… popularity… it was clear she had two constituencies. Overseas… she was a pop phenomena.”
The look through the 2016-2023 political era alone was an interesting experience.
Morris said “it’s an indication of selective memory how much of what’s covered in Prime minister, and covered very well I thought, was stuff I’d forgotten.”
While many students reading Canta now might not have been politically engaged during Ardern’s term, former UCSA president Pierce Crowley said “I remember in 2017 when she came to camp and there was a big rally, and I think there's even a clip of that in the movie.”
“There were times, particularly reflecting on the Mosque shooting and COVID and then the protests after, it brought you back to those periods in our history, which is a testament to the storytelling through the movie.”
The documentary was a mix of archival footage (which sounds strange to say about videos from 2018), footage from 2024 of Jacinda reflecting on her life and intimate footage shot by Clark Gayford, her husband, who Morris described as "the ultimate insider.”
The style of filmmaking is reminiscent of the documentary “Weiner”, which features a fly-on-the-wall style, where the filmmakers appear to simply be following without interjection. The downfall of this style of documentary making is of course, always the fly. There is always a question of whether humans, when conscious of being filmed, are acting naturally. But I think in the case of this film, it has a much greater chance of a portrayal of authenticity because the “fly’ is, of course, Gayford.
Andy*, a UC alumnus, said “from a cinematography angle, it’s quite close up shot. It had shots where there was a room full of people, then would centre in on her. The cinematography didn't lean itself towards, ‘here's this one person in a big wide world;’ it's more, ‘here's this person trying to get by in her bubble.’”
Susan Fontaine wrote for Massey News: “Conveying a sense of ordinariness is another way to build political authenticity. In Prime Minister, we see Ardern in her slippers and engaging in recognisably ordinary activities.”
The lack of a noticeable colour grade in Gayford’s footage also reflects this “ordinariness” - it feels authentic.
“I wouldn't necessarily say a brand reset, partly because [...] it's not like she's coming back to New Zealand politics,” said Andy. If the film is trying to attempt a rebrand, it would be attempting to lighten the image of the Labour Party considering there’s an election next year, Andy explained.
“It's more there to kind of humanise and kind of show a different kind of power, if you will.”
That being said, the documentary itself is certainly no deep analysis of the period.
Andy said “it's very interesting watching it from a New Zealand perspective as someone who was politically engaged [...] during that entire time. In that sense there's quite a few things I could point to that are like, almost completely overlooked.”
Crowley agreed, saying “there were a few aspects where you could see there were things constructed from the lens. [...] The found footage style was designed to convey an image of authenticity. It's not nonfactual, the movie, but there were aspects where things were placed in the timeline better reflect the message that's trying to be pursued. Towards the end of the movie, I think it was around sort of just general sexism in the sort of abuse that was rising towards December at the time. They used Simon Bridges, giving a speech in Parliament to sort of embody this in the film. But just in terms of the timeline, obviously, Simon Bridges was not the National leader in 2021. It was a speech from 2020.”
The book could be argued to be doing the same thing. The book covers a larger period of Ardern’s life. It spends a large amount of time on her early childhood, while her university years are a slim section, and her time in government fills a lot of pages.
Judith Collins released an autobiography in 2019. Like Ardern, she spent a lot of time explaining her childhood. In terms of political identity building, an autobiography or an autobiographical film offers the chance to create an uncontested narrative.
One difference between Collin’s and Ardern’s autobiographies is that Collins’ often portrays the sheer ridiculousness of governance. For example, Collins recounts when she was nearly sacked as minister and writes that John Key texted her in the early hours of the morning; “U awake?”
In contrast, a lot of Jacinda’s book is emotive, true to the political brand she has built on positivity. While still effective, the two different strategies to pathos (the feeling of sympathy you get when you experience artwork) between the books is noticeable. Moments of vulnerability from Collins are few and far between. Collins keeps her family almost entirely out of politics, and they scarcely get a mention in her book.
In contrast, Ardern’s book and film embody the phrase “the personal is political.” Ardern’s family was heavily documented in the media, while Collin’s husband hasn’t much been in the limelight since the famous quote “my husband is Samoan, so Talofa.”
On the whole, the film would be a great mother-daughter watch. Both Ardern’s book and Collins’ are easily digestible and quite interesting. With more retrospectives coming out about the 6th Labour Government, we may yet see a retrospective on the Key era, which, other than a few autobiographies, has not had a “Prime Minister” style treatment.
*Name has been changed.
Sources