MovieChat Forums > Nell (1994) Discussion > a critics review..Let's comment is it fa...

a critics review..Let's comment is it fair?? - spoilers

posted 21 years ago by sutcal
16 replies | jump to latest

Nell
A Film Review by James Berardinelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States, 1994
U.S. Release Date: 12/14/94 (limited)
Running Length: 1:52
MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Nudity, language)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Jodie Foster, Liam Neeson, Natasha Richardson, Richard Libertini, Nick Searcy
Director: Michael Apted
Producers: Renee Missel and Jodie Foster
Screenplay: William Nicholson and Mark Handley based on the play "Idioglossia" by Mark Handley
Cinematography: Dante Spinotti
Music: Mark Isham
U.S. Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox

Nell, Jodie Foster's return to dramatic acting following a flirtation with Maverick's action-comedy, is an entirely human movie. In this lush, green world of rolling hills and crystal pools, technology is an unwelcome intruder; civilization, a threatening monster. Both are slaves to the avaricious. Nell is about the importance of communication and interaction, about how the events of childhood shape a life, and about the difficulty -- and rewards -- of reaching out to others.

Nell (Foster) has lived her entire life alone in the woods with an aging mother. She is eventually discovered by a local doctor, Jerome Lovell (Liam Neeson), who comes to her secluded, ramshackle hut after her mother's death. Nell's panicked and hostile response to strangers forces Jerome to travel to nearby Charlotte to recruit the expert assistance of Dr. Paula Olsen (Natasha Richardson). After meeting the young woman, Paula's impression is that Nell should be committed. Jerome, horrified by this possibility, obtains a court order to stop it. The two opposing sides eventually argue the case before a judge. Deferring his verdict for three months, the judge gives the two doctors that time to observe their subject, learn her language, and present him with enough evidence to make an informed decision.

Jodie Foster's two Oscars are no fluke, as her simple-yet-profound performance in Nell illustrates. She is one of only a few actors capable of so fully immersing herself in a character that it's possible to forget the star behind the performance.MY COMMENT: I agree with this, Jodie Foster's performance from my perspective was outstanding. END COMMENT With Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino, you watch a variation of the same personality; with Jodie Foster, you see a new individual.

Nell is an almost-childlike woman who speaks her own fractured form of English, hides inside her house by day, and takes moonlight swims in a nearby lake. In Jerome and Paula, she finds a substitute father and mother, and together, these three attempt to breach the non-physical walls between them. This, the real meat of Nell, is where the film attains its depth and richness.

At times, director Michael Apted, perhaps best known for his documentaries (the Seven Up series, Incident at Oglala), seems as enamored with the scenery as with his actors. The North Carolina terrain is breathtaking, and Apted, along with cinematographer Dante Spinotti, has created one of the most beautiful motion pictures of the year. It's a wonderful background for this tale.

Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson are solid, but constantly in Foster's shadow. MY COMMENT: I actually disagree here. THis movie was where I first truly began to appreciate Neeson outside of his efforts of Schindlers List. He has a screen presence and is an important cog in the movies plot. Whilst Foster is the central focus of the movie, Neeson's character and his passion for Foster is impressive END COMMENT In a film as frequently introspective as Nell, it's refreshing not to have the three main actors struggling to outdo each other. The gentle, unforced tone, once established, is maintained -- until the unfortunate climax.

Sadly, Scent of a Woman disease has infected Nell. Perhaps the writers couldn't think of a better way out of an admittedly-difficult situation, but to pander to the "Hollywood mentality" of movie endings is an unworthy way to wrap up an otherwise a finely-crafted motion picture. Had the majority of Nell not been so impressive, the lackluster final act wouldn't have been as disappointing.

Despite this moderate tarnish, it is difficult to deny Nell's intelligence and sensitivity. We approach this story with the same fascination that Nell faces each day, seeing, if only for a short time, how different the world -- and people -- can be. It is this impression more than any other that stays with the viewer after the drama has been played out and the final credits roll.

© 1994 James Berardinelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back Up

[–] Howlin Wolf 20 years ago

With Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino, you watch a variation of the same personality; with Jodie Foster, you see a new individual.

... I disagree with this. I don't think I've ever seen Jodie Foster in her 'adult' career play a character that can't be classed as a 'strong, independant woman'... Both Pacino (Dog Day Afternoon) and Nicholson (About Schmidt) have 'played against type' at least once; maybe more...

There's definitely something rustling behind your curtain...

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howlin Wolf 20 years ago

No - but they are of the same 'type', otherwise I wouldn't be able to 'categorise' them as I have done... !

I didn't make it. It fell out of your hair that way, and I want it back!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howlin Wolf 20 years ago

... (About Schmidt - non-'Lunatic'... ) (Pacino: - 'Weirdo' is a very loose 'tag'... ... but how about Frankie & Johnny?)

... Find me an adult "role" where Jodie Foster hasn't played "strong and independent"...

I didn't make it. It fell out of your hair that way, and I want it back!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howlin Wolf 20 years ago

that does not mean she plays the same character or has the same personality.

... I never said it did...

That which is not yet, but ought to be, is more real than that which merely is.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howlin Wolf 20 years ago

... but my point was; that if the reviewer was going to say such a thing about Nicholson & Pacino, then he would have to include Foster, as well... As I said, I don't agree with doing this, though; I think they're all different from each other - and all good.

That which is not yet, but ought to be, is more real than that which merely is.

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 17 years ago

you're pointing out "strong and independent" but still all her characters are different. (Except for maybe Flightplan and Panic Room much later on) I mean just look at her two Oscar winning roles. You can't just say "strong and independent" and leave it at that. Her characters in teh Accused and Silence of the Lambs are two women that couldn't be more different in personality. And she is completely convincing as both those women, Clarice Starling and Sarah Tobias.

The people that jsut say they are all the same because they are strong and independent are being narrow minded because they aren't used to seeing women portray strong characters so they think they are all the same. All De Niro's characters can be loners and depressive but Jake La Motta and Travis Bickle are still entirely different men he becomes the same is with Jodie in the Accused and Silence of the Lambs and ofcoruse Nell she is very different.

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

With Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino, you watch a variation of the same personality; with Jodie Foster, you see a new individual.

... Of course all her characters are different; I just think that it's unfair of that particular reviewer to bag on Nicholson and Pacino when Foster herself can be very easily pigeonholed if one were so inclined. This critic seems reluctant to admit that.

The people that just say they are all the same because they are strong and independent are being narrow minded because they aren't used to seeing women portray strong characters so they think they are all the same.

... Not true. Take Frances McDormand as an example. Marge Gunderson in Fargo - a strong and independent woman, but one who holds fiercely onto family ties. Then see her play the mother in Almost Famous. In the latter example there is nothing strong nor independent about that character, quite the opposite. In AF she shows us needy, nagging and neurotic. In my opinion, Foster doesn't take on enough parts that allow her to show a wider range of emotions, specifically from the more vulnerable end of the spectrum. That being said, I still think Jodie is a damn fine actress, and I wouldn't want people to think that I were implying otherwise.

All De Niro's characters can be loners and depressive

We're No Angels. Stanley & Iris, Sleepers, Godsend - all films where Bobby mixes things up a little.

It's made from bits of real panther, so you know it's good...

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 17 years ago

I agree that that reporter didn't need to rag on Nicholson and Pacino like that just to make Foster look good. I wasn't agreeing with that at all. I don't know why you bring up the Frances McDormand parts as examples. Marge Gunderson is more of a developed character we see going on her own journey through Fargo. And Almost Famous she is just the mother role and it's the boy's journey. Ofcourse she performed fabulously at both but I don't see any comparison or point to using those examples.

All I know is that when I see Jodie in the Accused and in Silence of the Lambs it's hard to believe it's the same woman. Because everything about those performances seem different.

And Foster shows a LOT of vulnerability AND strength all at once which is what makes her such a great actress. Take Clarice Starling, that's probably a female performance with the greatest balance of strength and vulnerability all at once. I don't know how you don't get the vulnerability from that performance? It's just bouncing off the screen.

It'd not like she's just little miss tough detective, not at all she is VERY vulnerable, has things about her past that haunt her and feels empathy for the victims and opens up the vulnerable side of herself to Hannibal Lecter. So you saying that she doesn't show enough of a wide range of emotions. Her Clarice Starling performance is the best balance of strong and vulnerable emotions that I've seen from an actress.

But I guess some people think you can't be strong and vulnerable all at the same time and it has to be one or ther other. Realistically women are both these things and that's what makes Jodie's performances more real and developed because she balances the strength and vulnerability beautifully. And that's what women are really about.So I think you need to look closer because these women she plays aren't just tough kick ass women, they are also VERY vulnerable.

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

My point in comparing those two McDormand roles was that I can accept women playing 'strong and independent' parts without needing to see them do it all the time. I'm not threatened or surprised by the appearance of a feminine presence, so such an assumption cannot be used to explain my assessment of Ms. Foster.

Marge Gunderson is a positive female role model who possesses great inner strength and resolve, but at the same time she has two personas - one for on duty and one for off, there are many facets to her character. It's especially surprising when you note that one of McDormand's other characters (the mother) shares hardly any of these resilient qualities at all.

Take Clarice Starling, that's probably a female performance with the greatest balance of strength and vulnerability all at once.

There's vulnerability in the performance because of the events of the plot, but I don't think it's demonstrated to the audience from the start. It's only because Clarice is placed in a dangerous situation, she still does her best not to speak of her emotions. It's not the type of vulnerability that's part of her personality, it's because of what she faces.

Again I'll use the example of another female protagonist to compare with; Cate Blanchett as Veronica Guerin. There's a scene in that film where Guerin is confiding to her partner that she doesn't feel she has the credentials to do her job. Where is the same sort of scene where Starling admits her feelings of insecurity to a supportive confidante? We don't get one. There may be conflict and vulnerability present, but it's all internal. There's no outward display of such feelings, as I recall.

So I think you need to look closer because these women she plays aren't just tough kick ass women, they are also VERY vulnerable.

... but my concern with Jodie is that she never takes roles where her characters are allowed to admit they are vulnerable to a sympathetic ear. Foster even confirms herself that she isn't drawn to 'needy' parts - which is fine, except that I would argue it just hinders 'diversity' a little bit. My reason for mentioning the two McDormand parts is to prompt people to think whether they could imagine Jodie playing them - because I honestly can't.

It's made from bits of real panther, so you know it's good...

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 17 years ago

Well I was saying most people have problems with that. And using McDormand in Almost Famous is a bad example because that's typical roel for a woman. I'm talking about women in the type of roles typically played by men that doesn't have them as the love interest, damsel in distress or mother role.

And I disagree with you I see vulnerability in Clarice from the second she appears on the screen. From her first close up when she is staring at the crime scene photos you can see something there. That's what made Clarice Starling as a character as a a heroine so appealing to the world because it was obvious how vulnerable and fragile she was yet she was determined and ambitious. She had all those layers as a character and Jodie expressed that beautifully. And that's the thing everyone notes about Clarice and Jodie's performance is that what makes her so appealing is her vulnerability. Not her fighting crime.She uses her brain and her heart not her brawn like some perfect fighting machine macho hero we see.

And the whole subtext of the movie the reason why its' called Silence of the Lambs is Clarice being vulnerable due to her past. NOt just the situations she put in with the crimes but it's her past that is haunting her. And like I said all through the movie Foster displays the best balance of strength and vulnerability ever seen onscreen by an actress.

And the things you are probably picking at is her not playing "weak" enough for your taste. Foster said she can't play weak passive women not vulnerable women. There's a difference between weak and vulnerable. And I am glad for this because I find it offensive seeing the same weak passive damsels in distress women onscreen. It's what makes Foster stand out. And I certainly don't think it makes Foster less of an actress just because she chooses not do those roles. Whenever she does a role she does it for her own personal reasons not just to do it. She committs herself 100% to what she believes in. And that's her integrity as an actress. She's said herself she is sick of seeing those passive type of women onscreen and I am too. So maybe you prefer her to play that type but I'm fed up with seeing it nscreen so I prefer Foster's beautiful mix of strength and vulnerability. To me it is more truthful.

For example when she replaced Kidman in Panic Room, it was said that Kidman initially played that role as someone more helpless and just sitting there in the room acting all defenseless. But when Foster took over she played that role as more resourceful and intelligent and like I said portrayed that same signature brand of strength mixed with vulnerability. I prefer seeing this onscreen. Some people think actresses have to be defenseless and weak onscreen and if you're not defenseless then you are acting too much like a man or too strong. No one ever says this about De Niro's parts. He has a lot of the same themes in his greatest roles too.

Her characters don't have to be weak. But they are very vulnerable and strong at the same time. And they have their own flaws too ofcourse-like her character in the Accused. And that is what women really are. Not these passive things. And I found Foster's performance as Clarice Starling far more involving and engaging and emotionally connecting than Blanchett's Veronica Guerin who seemed to play Guerin good but you got the sense that she was making Guerin look kind of foolish and annoying at times and some people saw the movie jsut left feeling that Guerin put herself in too many situations rather than feeling they got a good look at her as a person and what really motivated her. While Starling is a character we can connect to so well and identify more with because Foster allows us to see all her fears and determinationa and makes her more human.

And you are blaming Foster for their not being a scene on screen where Clarice wants to give up or doubts herself? She doesn't write the movies! She just acts in them! And that would betray the whole Clarice character! Clarice is someone who is determined and is on her own personal journey and she is compelled to do these things because of her past and her hope for the future. When we see her in the big showdown at the end in Bufallo Bill's basement do we see her all calm and completely in control? No we see her frightened to death but still doing it because that's her mission.

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

I'm talking about women in the type of roles typically played by men that doesn't have them as the love interest, damsel in distress or mother role.

Yes, and these have become typical Foster roles. I'd rather see an actress who has proved she can play both "weak" AND "strong", because that shows true range.

And I disagree with you I see vulnerability in Clarice from the second she appears on the screen.

... Exactly, it's just that she rarely - if ever - vocalises it. It makes it more difficult to empathise when you're constantly offered characters who are trying to keep a brave face, at all times.

So maybe you prefer her to play that type

I don't prefer anything. I want variety, which I don't think I get enough of, from Jodie. It's always the same archetype.

but I'm fed up with seeing it onscreen so I prefer Foster's beautiful mix of strength and vulnerability. To me it is more truthful.

Fair enough; everybody looks for different things. We just disagree.

No one ever says this about De Niro's parts. He has a lot of the same themes in his greatest roles too.

I did offer some examples where DeNiro shows the audience a different side of his ability.

And you are blaming Foster for their not being a scene on screen where Clarice wants to give up or doubts herself?

No; I am blaming her to some extent for always taking roles where any fallibility is never dwelt upon for very long. I'm not saying that the 'stiff upper lip' attitude doesn't suit Clarice in "Silence of the Lambs", because it does - I just feel that the parts she picks limit her to this one approach, far too often. What Foster does, she does extremely well, but for my taste there is never enough of a contrast between films.

It's made from bits of real panther, so you know it's good...

[–] Molly-31 17 years ago

I read that review when it first appeared. I was never sure what he meant about Scent of a Woman.

However, my favorite actors are often the ones who 'disappear' - you forget who is playing the role. Jodie Foster 'disappears' in Nell (also in some of Contact).

(Other actors who 'disappear' -- Robert deNiro, Olivia deHaviland, Anne Bancroft, I've even seen Shirley Temple do it once in a couple of her adult films.)