Review of Nell (1994) by Jean-Francois V — 16 Jul 2009

"Nell" is a feral child story that, unlike Truffaut's and Herzog's earlier movies on the same theme, chooses not to go the naturalistic route but opts instead for an aesthetic, feel-good, melodramatic approach. Based on a novel entitled "Ideoglossia" (a title which might have undermined the film's box office prospects), the film is about decoding an alien language (with recurring, nursery-rhyme-like phrases such as "lilting poo, lilting doggies, lilting seas" O_o), creating a rapport with the person who speaks it, and unraveling her backstory. This last bit I found a little disappointing, as the "big revelation", about one hour into the movie, is one only to the protagonists, who are given fewer clues than the audience, because they get to see what Nell imagines.

There is something a bit too artificial, a bit too neat about the film. The relationship between the two doctors, for instance, is utterly predictable: Liam Neeson is the impulsive, empathic small-town doctor, Natasha Richardson the methodical, technocratic big city psychiatrist; both are attractive, single and cut-off from their own feelings ("It's like there's noone else in the world", says Neeson at one point.) So you know what the conflict of temperament is going to evolve into (it also helps to know that Neeson and Richardson were married that year, though that story did not have a happy ending, as Richardson died in a skiing accident in March 2009.).

I was also a bit annoyed by the rather unrealistic presentation of Nell's psychological condition. She does have her tantrums and she does get hurt, but you understand very soon that not only is she doing fine, she's going to get better, and it is we, modern folks, who are to learn from her: it is the therapists who undergo therapy, the guardian angels who are being guarded. What probably prevented me from suspending my disbelief is a segment from the series "What Happened Next" I watched last year, which revisited an autistic girl who had been the subject of a documentary in the eighties: her condition had not improved at all in the meantime; she had only gotten fatter and uglier. I know Nell is not supposed to be autistic, but if so, what is the connection between her condition and any psychological state actual humans may find themselves in? Perhaps Apted should have gone for pure fantasy the way Shyamalan does (I'm thinking of "The Lady in the Water") rather than create this hybrid of "Rain Man" and "E.T.".

Talking of "E.T.", I'm never comfortable about these all too professional tear-jerkers. "Nell"'s mountain setting is very scenic, Dante Spinotti's photography is dreamy, and Mark Isham's music is as celtic and John Barry-ish as you could hope for, creating an atmosphere of Walden-Pondish nature-mysticism that will probably enthrall the average city slicker in search of a New Age message to give meaning to his materialistic life (all that in a movie that grossed $33,592,700 in the US, praises the joy of junk food and manages to give some great product placement to a brand of videotapes.).

But I also have to admit that the manipulative, "Little House on the Prairie" mawkishness did manage to pry a couple of tears from me, hence the 3- rating.

One question I have about the film though is: where are all the animals gone?

(The USCB has rated this movie A-III for its "shadowy skinny-dipping, a flash of nudity, brief sexual references, minimal profanity and an instance of rough language"; which interestingly contrasts with the language of "Christian Spotlight on Entertainment", a fundamentalist Protestant site which considers it "very offensive" because of its "sinful scenes" and "evil images". As for me, I was a little appalled by the fact that the first education Nell's guardians find it necessary to give her is... sex education, which they provide by leaving her alone with a copy of "The Art of Sensuous Loving"...).