and it takes a black woman to bring things back into equilibrium again? Are things "set right" by her being the husband's new love interest, after the movie ends? Interesting message they're sending, if that's what it is.
shareI think you're reading too much into it.
Maybe I am reading a bit too much into it, but casting decisions like that are rarely made by accident. I know what the movie description says and that it doesn't mention race, but the director certainly had a reason for doing it. I'm also a writer and I am a counseling psych grad student, so maybe I'm looking for things that other people aren't, but it sure seems to be an interesting message to me.
shareNot sure about the message, but I did think the beginning was very clever making us think that the nanny was his wife and Codys mother. I thought at the very beginning that Ladd would be the nanny. So maybe they were just trying to shake things up a bit.
Let not your heart be troubled...
Your question is not only stupid but ridiculous. You seem content that a successful BLACK MAN marries a white woman, but offended because he leaves her to be with a black one? The movie NEVER suggested it takes a black woman to do anything. If anyone mentions race in this movie, it was the white wife who uses the "truffles" reference. I am also a writer. Published 2 books; and I do NOT see what the hell you're talking about. The only thing I SEE, is someone who would have ZERO problems with this movie had a black man left his BLACK WIFE for a white nanny. Typical racist dog. I come here to read reviews, and not so surprisingly, more people are commenting on this race garbage than anything. Get your f&cking head out of the clouds thinking that white women are superior, and how dare black men abandon black women for white women, only to abandon white women in return. If it makes you happy, Sean Patrick Thomas dates white women in real life. Happy now?
shareYour question is not only stupid but ridiculous. You seem content that a successful BLACK MAN marries a white woman, but offended because he leaves her to be with a black one? The movie NEVER suggested it takes a black woman to do anything. If anyone mentions race in this movie, it was the white wife who uses the "truffles" reference. I am also a writer. Published 2 books; and I do NOT see what the hell you're talking about. The only thing I SEE, is someone who would have ZERO problems with this movie had a black man left his BLACK WIFE for a white nanny. Typical racist dog. I come here to read reviews, and not so surprisingly, more people are commenting on this race garbage than anything. Get your f&cking head out of the clouds thinking that white women are superior, and how dare black men abandon black women for white women, only to abandon white women in return. If it makes you happy, Sean Patrick Thomas dates white women in real life. Happy now?
When I flipped the film on, what came to mind for me was "Obsessed." Maybe it's just the mostly-black cast and the crazy white lady villain, but I'm just cynical enough to wonder if the casting was supposed to make audiences think of a Hollywood film. That's a common enough ploy for B-movies and made-for-TV movies.
Maybe all the casting director was trying to do was to show that race (for once) DOESN'T matter by choosing an interracial cast.
As I said in another thread, I swear that SOMEONE is going to make race an issue, regardless of whether or not it really is. People just need to sit down and watch a movie for it's entertainment value (if there is one), not sit and nitpick every little thing in it.
And sorry, but yes, psychologists, psychiatrists, and psych students (grad or bachelors) are definitely going to over-analyze things. It's in their natures. I'm not saying that's a negative thing, I'm just saying, it is what it is.
Was this movie great? No, certainly not, but for a Lifetime movie, it was not as bad as their movies usually are.
EMOTICONS ARE BACK! YAY!
It's hiding one's head in the sand to think that in real life interracial relationships/marriages are not noticed by others and that there aren't some problems.
In this movie, I couldn't help but think there were some unfortunate stereotypes.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed this movie and thought it was very suspenseful with good acting from some of the leads.
Seriously?
This is on the first page, describing the movie....
A neglectful mother concocts a plan to kill her live-in nanny when she discovers the nanny is having an affair with her husband.
They could also have called the mother a little psychotic. No mention of anyones color/race. Don't read so much into things.
isn't this movie a remake of another movie I watched many years ago. Does anyone remember the name of the original?
regardless of race -- the movie is a load of crap and a waste of time to watch and it has nothing to do w/the color of skin; it just fell flat. its just plain *beep* dumb and sorry i wasted my time watching it.
sharethere was another movie some what like this movie it was called Baby Monitor: Sound of Fear and it was a babysitter instead of a nanny
shareYes I just posted about Baby Monitor... it has to be a remake. Exact same plot except for the high tech gadgets. If not a remake then a blatant rip off. I liked BM better.
Let not your heart be troubled...
I think an interracial marriage would face more challenges than many others, especially if the wife is an ice queen and totally indifferent to her son. The fact that he fell for the nanny of like color would just work to feed the white wife's insecurity, forcing her to grasp at straws, such as that remark about the truffles. Every plot must have conflict. This was a plot about an affair. Then it's going to result in a broken marriage. Perhaps the casting had no message -- this was more a movie about pushing boundaries I think: the techno advances of the buildings; the violence and gore for it being on Lifetime; a selfish wife who resorts to such insane measures to keep her man... I suppose it's sad they'd push the interracial envelope to have it end in adultery, but so many others do that aren't interracial. Perhaps they're just implying that interracial marriages can have the same conflict as one that is not. I don't know; just my opinion.
shareWhy the focus on the races? In my opinion, it had nothing to do with the plot of the movie. I saw a selfish mother/wife, a caring nanny and a husband who realized he shouldn't have married his wife. She certainly was cold and calculating and her son was far down on her priority list. The fact that she chose to hire hit men to murder the nanny to protect herself financially makes her one cold woman.
shareI agree. Frankly, I would have thought that the line, "I'm from Texas," ergo, [I] know how to shoot a gun, would have been far more offensive. I've heard this line uttered in a few movies lately, and it's like saying all Texans know how to do is be a hillbilly gun-toting moron who doesn't know how to do anything but shoot people up. And I know people from Texas, and they're far from being like that. IMO, people being black or white had nothing to do with anything regarding this movie. It's 2015 (and yes, I realize this movie was made in 2012, but my point is, we're in the 21st century) and maybe, just maybe, this movie was trying to represent some of the real life marriages in the U.S. these days, not focusing on whether a black man married a white woman, or a white man married a black woman, and whether or not the nanny/mistress was white or black. People need to stop focusing on race. This movie was about a cold, calculating woman whose husband was having an affair, and whose child mattered little to her until his life was threatened and there was a possibility of losing him (and I have a feeling that losing her child didn't matter much to her except in the abstract thought that it would lose her her husband because he loved their kid, therefore, the kid mattered to her in that aspect, as she wanted to keep her husband), and all she wanted was to get the nanny out of the way so that she could get her husband back. Period.
EMOTICONS ARE BACK! YAY!
Frankly, I would have thought that the line, "I'm from Texas," ergo, [I] know how to shoot a gun, would have been far more offensive. I've heard this line uttered in a few movies lately, and it's like saying all Texans know how to do is be a hillbilly gun-toting moron who doesn't know how to do anything but shoot people up. And I know people from Texas, and they're far from being like that.
I don't think that was the message. Lifetime often makes movies from the point of view of the mistress and have her get the guy at the end. It was very refreshing to see a black woman as the lead in an original Lifetime movie. Black women are usually nonexistent, the token bff, or the angry black chick picking on the poor innocent white woman on a network that prides itself on being "the women's network."
Rest in eternal peace Andy Whitfield
that is the message I got too. I was offended by this film and I didnt get why at first. Something about it just seemed off and racist. this movie was directed by a black woman. enough said.sorry there it is. the truth. The bias was obvious and clearly slanted. she hates white woman who marry black men. they are not worthy wives, mothers to black men or their children. black woman should steal their men back and not feel bad about it. cause all white woman are cold evil shrews. instead of portraying the cheating amoral sluts they were innocent doe eyed/good men and victims of that evil white woman. *eyerolls* If your man cheated on you with the nanny he would not be called good,right? LOL That is the lowest you can get. the guy was a pig and the girl was a slutty whore.
shareyeah I was disturbed by that to.Im like so what she saved the kids life but she also ruined his family life by having an affair with his dad.
"I think I liked it better when I thought Sylar ate brains."
Well statistically Negro Male/White Female marriages have the highest divorce rates. They are even higher than black/black marriages, white/white marriages, and Negro Female/White Male marriages....
The plot was realistic...
Actually, the plot would be realistic if they were POOR...or at least the black guy was poor.
Apparently, white females don't help themselves by frequently marrying the wrong type of black.
They go against most of the safest/'best outcome' relationship statistics.
They tend (more than the national average) to marry black men who are:
a. Poorer than they are...or going to experience long-term economic stress, of some sort, during the marriage.
b. Younger than they are...or equal in age.
c. Having less education attainment than they do.
and the white women themselves are usually:
d. in economic stress of some sort before and during the marriage.
Basically, a white woman determined to marry a black should tend toward one who fits the average best outcome for a "happy marriage" paradigm for all demographics. Generally, this is an older, more educated black man (bachelor degree or higher) who has a higher income than she does. And they should both NOT at anytime be poor as a couple...as financial duress is THE number one cited cause for divorce and marital discord (and the income back between blacks and whites is increasing).
Apparently, statistically, interracial marriages that follow all the optimal statistical coupling patterns have better than average outcomes...as do their children.
On November 6, 2012...God blessed America
I don't think race had anything to do with it, and not only white women watch Lifetime. It was no accident that Hallmark had the largest audience in years when they had a multiracial cast. Frankly, it was refreshing to see a difference in casting in lieu of the typical fanfare of an all white cast. I've seen multiple Lifetime movies where black women are cast as the token black friend, the sassy one liner, the secretary, a poor despondent suffering soul on the streets due to homelessness and/or prostitution, or the villain. It was a nice switch. I think if you have an issue with it, then perhaps you're over applying it to a situation you're currently having or are simply looking to be offended.
shareI agree with the OP. It certainly did seem as though the movie was implying that a mixed marriage is destined for failure. At one point, the husband says "Have you ever made a huge mistake?" Then, he says that the mistake he made was marrying his wife. But the writers and producers of the movie were purposely vague and did not specify why he thought marrying her was a mistake. That vagueness leaves viewers wondering if they want us to believe that it was a mistake because it was a mixed marriage.
The vast majority of Lifetime movies portray the adulterous husband and the mistress in a negative light. This movie, however deviated from that formula. Somehow, viewers are supposed to believe that the husband and nanny did nothing wrong. One of the dumbest lines in the movie was when the nanny said that she didn't destroy the wife's family because she was going to leave. That reasoning makes no sense. Even though she was leaving, she was still going to have the husband's baby. Also, before the affair, the husband did not intend to leave his wife. It was only after the affair that he realized he wanted to divorce her. BOTTOM LINE: THE NANNY DID RUIN THE FAMILY.
Perhaps what was most annoying about this movie was the ending where the song lyrics say the words "You were brave and did us proud". Neither the husband nor the nanny did anything to be proud of. Furthermore, when he is described as "a good man" by the nanny's best friend, those words seemed completely inaccurate. Someone who has been cheating on a spouse cannot be described as a good person.
At the end of the movie, I thought it was totally unrealistic for the son to be fine with the absence of his mother. Any child would be distraught if one parent was gone. And yet in the closing moments of the movie, he seems carefree and is acting as if the mother never existed.