NELL
A film review by Jeffrey Graebner
Copyright 1995 Jeffrey Graebner
Occasionally, a film will contain performances that are so strong that they are able to help it to get past major problems. NELL is a good example of this. The performances by Liam Neeson, Natasha Richardson, and especially Jodie Foster make the film worth seeing despite some major miscalculations with the story.
The title character (Foster) is a young woman who grew up in an isolated cabin in the woods. Her mother had escaped from civilization after being raped (Nell was conceived from the rape). After the death of the mother, Nell is discovered by a group that included country doctor Jerry Lovell (Neeson). Nell is totally unaccustomed to strangers and speaks a language that only she understands. After the court gives Lovell thirty days to prove that Nell is capable of living outside of a mental institution, he begins a determined effort to learn to communicate with him. The mental institution is represented by Dr. Paula Olsen (Richardson) who also goes to the woods to observe Nell.
By far, this film's greatest strength is Jodie Foster's wonderfully nuanced performance in the title role. Since the majority of Nell's dialog is in an unfamiliar language, Foster is required to convey virtually all of the character's thoughts and feelings through a combination of body language, facial expressions, and vocal inflection. Just as the characters in the film need to struggle a bit to understand what Nell is trying to express, her emotions need to sometimes seem a bit opaque to the audience as well. Foster is able to strike this difficult balance. As Drs. Lovell and Olsen are learning more about the character, we too become aware of new nuances to Foster's performance. A second viewing of this film is probably necessary to fully appreciate what Foster has accomplished.
Some critics may be tempted to dismiss Foster's performance as a flashy grab for an Oscar, but that isn't really fair. Foster has already proven herself to be one of the finest actors of her generation (she won 2 Oscars in the last 5 years) so it seems genuinely believable that she was primarily attracted by the pure challenge of this role. Nell is a complex and fascinating character and Foster does a very impressive job bringing her to life.
In the shadow of Foster's performance, Neeson and Richardson may not receive the recognition that they deserve for their work in this film. During most of the film, Neeson essentially serves as a stand-in for the audience. Neeson shows Dr. Lovell's constant search for a better understanding of Nell's behavior while also standing back to allow the audience to discover her secrets themselves. Neeson was required to give a quiet, subtle, primarily reactive performance and he plays it very well.
Richardson also finds just the right note with her performance. She plays a skeptic in the film who initially questions Nell's intelligence and competence, but eventually is turned around through her first-hand observations. She manages to believably show this initial skepticism while avoiding the temptation to allow the character to become unlikable. Her character grows through knowledge, but does not undergo radical personality changes.
In real life, Neeson and Richardson are husband and wife. Their obvious natural chemistry serves the film well when their characters begin the inevitable romance. The most interesting aspect of the on-screen relationship is the basically >parental< relationship that they form with Nell. Just like a real-life parent/child relationship, Drs. Lovell and Olsen both provide Nell with knowledge and learn from her themselves.
While the three lead performances are terrific, the script by William Nicholson and Mark Handley (based on Handley's play "Idoglossia") has some very serious problems. To put it simply, the film is overplotted. When the film concentrates on the 2 doctors' exploration of Nell's world and Nell's introduction to the civilized world, the film is fascinating. Unfortunately, Nicholson and Handley insisted on adding artificial conflict.
In a film that absolutely did not need a literal villain, they added Richard Libertini as the head of the mental health institute. He plays a highly cliched bureaucrat who appears heartless in his efforts to have Nell institutionalized. His character is completely one-dimensional and uninteresting. This subplot takes over the last part of the film with some unnecessary sequences with Nell committed to the cold, unpleasant institution. It finally leads to an absolutely ludicrous courtroom finale.
The film is also undermined by an unfortunate subplot involving a group of country rednecks who try to terrorize Nell. The film briefly introduces the interesting idea of the press reaction to Nell's existence, but that idea is left generally undeveloped (except as a plot device in the mental institution subplot).
The one other major mistake was the use of occasional flashbacks that reveal to the audience the origins of Nell's language before the characters in the film learn it. This is information that would have had more impact had it been revealed in a more subtle manner. Taking an omniscient view for this one plot element just doesn't work.
Despite these mistakes, the parts of the film that do work are very good. If the script had jettisoned these unnecessary subplots, it could have been quite a remarkable film. I'm not familiar with Handley's original play, but I tend to wonder if some of these extra elements might have been added in an attempt to "open up" the story for the screen. The film's best elements seem like they would also work well on the stage while the less successful parts probably would have been even more blatantly out of place in a play.
Visually, NELL is a >very< good looking film. Director Michael Apted and cinematographer Dante Spinotti use shadows and dark lighting very effectively to establish mood and tone. Much of the film takes place at night, but it is never too dark for the audience to see what is going on. Spinotti widescreen photography includes many attractive scenery shots, but never spends too much time dwelling on them. The film is further enhanced by Mark Isham's lively but unobtrusive score.
NELL is a flawed film, but one that is very much worth seeing for the wonderful leading performances. With a tighter script it could have been one of the year's best films. In its final form, it is still a very good one.
-- Jeffrey P. Graebner Columbus, Ohio
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews