| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 09:19:31
The Nanny Diaries
One of the things I liked about this attempt to make light entertainment out of what is only hinted at as a complex phenomenon of the widening class gap in America, is the appearance of some fantasy moments.
But, as they're so few and far between, I wonder whether some of them may have been removed in a re-cut for the international market.
There's a certain scene wherein Nanny Annie [Scarlett Johansson] - against the orders of her rich-bitch employer Mrs. X [an unpredictable and occasionally touching performance by Laura Linney] - takes her charge to the Museum of Natural History. In some US reviews there's mention that one of the anthropological dioramas comes to life as the X family.
That moment is certainly missing from the version I've just seen, though there's a great joke when the little boy, seeing a family of cave dwellers, asks "Where's the nanny?" and Nanny replies, "It's her day off."
Another small but notable scene among its glib neighbours involves Nanny - who's led her mom to believe she's got a high-powered banking job - barging into the apartment of her best friend and her gay roomie to announce this is her apartment and they're a couple who's visiting because she's finally agreed that her mother can visit and she's coming to dinner - tonight!. The scene has energy and purpose, it shows Nanny evolving emotionally and taking control of her life, taking action instead of merely recording the acts of others. In short, it's cinematic.
Would that the rest of the film held up so well.
It falters precisely because there is no real consistency and precious little focus. I suspect this results from trying to impose a cinematic structure on source material that is essentially anecdotal, based as it is on a book by a couple of Ivy-league educated women who worked as nannies. It may also be because the husband-wife directorial team had trouble amalgamating their different takes on the material. But these are merely guesses.
The fact is that the film drags between scenes that might be quotes from a sociology text about the modern uber-wealthy nuclear family in Manhattan, sketchy off-screen domestic cruel arguments between parents whose money seems to buy everything but happiness, and the central who-am-I-really angst of Nanny, an attractive intelligent college-grad whose accidental job choice leaves her little room either for a social life or the space to figure out what's next.
These and other scenes serve to point up the complete shifts in tone from one to the next - unsuccessful stabs at light comedy, unsuccessful stabs at the poignancy of family betrayal, unsuccessful stabs at rom-com. The script takes far too much refuge in voice-over narration, and much of the actual dialogue sags with predictability.
Fortunately the acting overall is sufficiently engaging to allow us to hook on to the thin tale and follow it to the end. The ubiquitous Paul Giamatti, almost unrecognizable without his beard, proves again his range as a character actor. But his actual appearances onscreen are few, as are the other able supports. And, because the scenes they're in are juxtaposed with such different emotional temperatures, they seem to be in a series of separate films.
The real emotional meat of the film only occurs in its coda. Now, that's a premise for a real movie, with a chance to develop an unconventional friendship and room for the kind of comedy that emerges from its characters. Instead, we have a film that only provides glimpses of what affects people. That may be consistent with the very partial picture a Nanny can provide, but it's a cynical choice to cash in on what was a successful book.
|
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 12:27:31
Not a lot to add, except that it's surprising that several such prominent actors felt inclined to appear in it. I enjoyed it fine (3/5), but it's not going to be helping their careers.
Oh, and it's rather strange that Mrs. X's letter says something like "it's sometime [which should also be two words in this context] since I saw you" while Haydn 'reads' something like "it's several months since I saw you". |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 13:53:57
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I've read this review of yours three times now. I wasn't interested in the movie before, but I don't really think you've changed my mind. However, if it comes on TV...
Wise choice! 
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 13:30:40
I've read this review of yours three times now. I wasn't interested in the movie before, but I don't really think you've changed my mind. However, if it comes on TV...
|
|
|
