Recounting the life of a political icon requires more than a simple dive into defining events — it demands a careful excavation of the layers that supported their journey. By choosing to focus solely on Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 presidential candidacy, the film directed by John Ridley makes an ambiguous move: it exalts the peak of her path without giving voice to the arid terrain she had to navigate to get there. The result is a narrative that aspires to greatness but settles for outlining, leaving aside the deeper contours of the struggle that shaped this pioneer.
Before becoming the insurgent candidate who challenged the foundations of American power, Chisholm had already become a political reference when, in 1968, she achieved an unprecedented feat: becoming the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress. The film, however, disregards this revolutionary genesis and opts for an approach centered on the presidential race, suppressing the context that makes every step of her rise an act of resistance in itself. By choosing such a focus, it misses the opportunity to expose the strength forged in earlier battles, essential to understanding the historical weight of her candidacy.
The promise of revealing Chisholm’s resilience against a politically hostile system is only partially fulfilled. Instead of deeply exploring her strategies of articulation and the ethical dilemmas she faced, the narrative clings to moments already crystallized by time — powerful speeches, yet ones that feel more like showcases than windows into the heart of her convictions. The famous slogan “unbought and unbossed” emerges as ornament, rather than as the essence of a life that defied all attempts at submission.
If there is a driving force preventing the film from succumbing to simplism, it is named Regina King. Her performance transcends the limited script, offering the audience the image of a woman driven not by vanity, but by a nearly visceral urgency to break barriers. It is through the strength of her portrayal that viewers glimpse the depth the film refuses to explore fully. However, even King’s talent is not enough to compensate for a dramatic construction that lacks emotional breath.
Visually, the work wavers between efficient and schematic. 1970s New York, recreated through Cincinnati sets, serves its purpose but fails to transport the audience to the pulse of that era. The aesthetics remain correct but soulless. Added to this is a title that reduces the protagonist to an electoral slogan, obscuring the grandeur of her historical confrontation with the status quo.
The critical reception seems to grasp this dissonance. The middling score on Rotten Tomatoes reflects a respectful yet restrained acknowledgment, highlighting the value of the subject but lamenting the superficiality of the approach. Distribution via Netflix, after a modest theatrical release, broadens the reach but also exposes the fragility of a narrative that does not delve deep.
What “Shirley” delivers is a reverent but constrained portrait of a figure who deserved a bolder lens. It serves, perhaps, as an initial invitation for those unfamiliar with her story, but leaves wanting those who expected a dense dive into her political significance. The woman who dared to defy the rules of power, who rejected labels and patrons, still awaits a narrative that reveals her beyond the electoral stage, exposing the core of her defiance.
Film: Shirley for President
Director: John Ridley
Year: 2024
Genres: Biography/Drama/History
Rating: 8/10