I Finally Found A Film I Hate (Part 2) · 11:26pm Mar 6th, 2020
And we're back.
I'm here violently savaging a film you don't really care much about for really no-one's pleasure but my own.
You see how annoying it is from my perspective now?!
I kid...
Anyway.
So we're about a quarter through Nicholas Nickleby 2001 and have gotten past the Dotheboys School Saga and I feel virtually nothing.
A far cry from the intrepid catharsis of the 2002 version. Even in that, there's a scene where Nicholas and Smike hide at a derelict house and gaze up at the stars. It's silent, it's slow but it's perfectly paced and honestly hits the Ho Yay button in all the right ways.
Nicholas: Where is your home?
Smike: ...you are my home.
And a thousand fan ships set sail! 
But this isn't the 2002 masterpiece, this is the 2001 cringe-fest!
So...there's none of that. Mores the pity.
So, here, as I mentioned, more gets done for the story of Nicholas's sister, Kate.
Now, one scarcely needs to imagine how hard it was for a young woman to find work in Victorian times but it was not impossible. Kate is well-bought up and pretty and her uncle is much more fond of her than he is of Nicholas so he arranges some employment at the Mantalini Milliners (Hat-Makers).
And here, my understanding of what directors want out of this film flies out the window!
Because here was a perfect opportunity to cut loose and bring forth theatrics in spades. But that is not to be.
Tom Hollander as Mr Mantalini could have been a real hit. I love him in many other things I've seen and, while his very famous role of Cutler Beckett in PotC is played very cold and calm, he can let loose in other ways.
And Mr Mantalini is a character who is required to be let loose. He is, to quote Wikipedia...
Alfred Muntle (he changed his name to Mantalini for business purposes) is a handsome man with a large bushy black mustache who lives off his wife's business. He is not above stealing from his wife and dramatically threatens to kill himself whenever he does not get his way. Madame Mantalini is much older than her husband and equally prone to dramatics. She eventually gets wise and divorces him, but not until he has ruined her with extravagant spending and she is forced to sell the business to Miss Knag. Mantalini is seen again at the end of the book living in much reduced circumstances, romantically tied to a washerwoman, but still up to his old tricks.
So yeah, the directors wanted to get rowdy and awkward and loud, here's the perfect opportunity.
And what do I see? I see one argument that's over in about a flash. Mr Mantalini checks out Kate, Mrs Mantalini asks if he's trying to break her heart, he answers not for all the women in the world and...that's about it. Miss Knag too has a moment of emotional spasm but it's over before it really sinks in and Kate has such little verbal or physical reaction beyond looking shocked or scared that nothing feels like it was accomplished.
The tragedy of Kate's situation is that she is being tossed around by her uncle and his business partners and treated like a tool but this isn't grounds to have the film treat her like one!
We see the Mantalinis go out of business and The Mantalinis quarrel louder and stronger and Tom Hollander, bless him, is giving it some oomph drawing a gun threatening to end it all and everything (I would make a workplace-shooting joke but it wouldn't be in good taste) but counterintuitively its everyone else who goes for the over-dramatics and the atmosphere just makes the scene feel so sterile.
You have all these great actors and you're not making good use of them!
And before anyone here says anything clever about the big-budget films I like but everyone else doesn't, this is something that has both a relatively low budget and a very timeless source material. There should, by all rights, be a lot more focus here!
This isn't changing the story to suit any alternate interpretation, it's just lack of priority skills.
You can't really consider a scene dramatic if the drama isn't so much from the thing causing the drama itself but rather the other characters jumping up and down in a frenzy.
But anyway, onto the next band of lunatics; The Crummles Theatre Troupe.
Now, in the 2002 version, Vincent Crummles, the larger-than-life travelling-theatre manager and the next man to show Nicholas and Smike a good chunk of kindness, is played by Nathan Lane!
And it is a treat to watch.
So here's a treat.
Everything about it is just sublime. The priceless false lead with the on-set background, the gorgeous scenery, the bizarre story about drunk horse actors (Which I think could fit right into a fic on this site, let me tell ya'!) and of course, the fantastic Nathan Lane adding his typical comedy to the character in a glorious performance.
Now...to the other one.
They meet Crummles in a tavern, as they do in the book, and are treated to a fencing performance but...not enough is done to really make the viewer feel like they're watching a play within a play. There's loud music and some fast camera shots but the two fencers aren't really doing a whole lot to stand out and it has no real lasting impact. The scenery is dark and dingy and really doesn't add much to the usually gloomy atmosphere.
This version of Vincent Crummles in himself isn't bad. I at first thought this was Tom Baker playing it but it turned out to be the late Malcolm Tierney (He was the Sheriff in Braveheart who executes Wallace's wife...Being English myself, I'm not too keen on that film 
) But here, while he has some nice lines and bit of pizzazz, it's not enough to really keep him interesting or to justify how the other characters react to him. What's more, his dialogue and the rather quiet and stilted acting make Crummles look more like one of the characters exploiting the heroes rather than someone helping them.
Vincent Crummles is not a perfect human being by any means. He's pompous, he's exuberant, he's opportunistic, he's patronising and he's very eccentric. But he's got a good heart underneath and as someone who's not morally perfect nor compromised, he's one of the most relatable characters and a tremendous lot of fun.
This version's Crummles comes across as too arrogant and sly to give the needed impression.
Mrs Crummles too creates too much of a shrill and mercurial atmosphere, especially coming on in her nightmarish Georgian makeup and wig.
The 2002 one has a very progressive and bold casting choice (Because yeah, you could do that in the 2000's) by casting Barry 'Dame Edna' Humphries as Mrs Crummles! So, in-context, the Crummles are implied to be a gay couple in the 2002 one. How's that for inclusive? 
The music, colour and liveliness of the Crummles troupe is essential but in the 2001 version, it all comes off as very unappealing. The music is shrill and the colours are clashing. You feel like the directors want to make these guys the villains for some reason...
Maybe that's why they have the Crummles have one of their actors in blackface.
...
You did not misread that but I wish you did!!!
I know, I know that this is Victorian times but this was in 2001!
It's meant for the 'Fairy and the Savage' performance the Crummles have with their 'Infant Phenomenon' daughter. But the 2002 version had this and Alan Cumming never had to wear Blackface! He came on dressed as a sort of Neanderthal and the scene was very bouncy and had some tremendous humour as the Crummles commentated and yelled instructions to the hapless Mr Folair as their daughter kept screwing up parts of the show which came out like accidental insults.
'Mr Folair! Shut your trap!' (Points to the trap-door he came out of)
(The bouquet being held obscures his face) 'Mr Folair there's a problem with your head!'
You see how it works?!
The performance is meant to be cheesy and awkward and yet, here in the 2001 version, it's no more awkward and uncomfortable than the serious scenes!
Yeah, what's worse than a film having blackface?
A film having blackface and failing to make it shocking!
Oh but it doesn't stop there.
Mr Lenville, the rancour of the Crummles Troupe is given a bolstered role here but...you wish he weren't.
Now, in the books, he provides a sort of minor antagonistic role to Nicholas during his time working with the Crummles. He's a self-centred fellow who doesn't really get along with anyone and like a lot of the minor characters, is largely glossed over in the 2002 version but he gets a scene and it works.
He appears as this senile old buffer with a broken leg who assures the Crummles he can still play Romeo even while infirm and twitching and considers the idea of moving on absurd (Which Mrs Crummles quietly snipes that maybe Lear would be more his role now). You don't see him much but you can definitely get what works with his character. He's a sort of a Richard Burton-type, fading and cantankerous, likely off his face on drink and so full of himself that he's more a hindrance to the troupe than anything else.
Here, he's a man about Nicholas's age, which is alright, but it means that firstly, he's not really got any reason to be replaced by Nicholas for the part of Romeo making Crummles look unjustified in suddenly recasting him and secondly, his reactions are too overblown and forced to feel warranted. When he says 'What-What-What?!' after hearing Crummles choose Romeo for the part, it sounds fake, phoned-in, lifeless. And when he throws down the script before Crummles and they all gasp, I don't feel anything. Such a big reaction from such an unimpressive character just doesn't feel sincere.
And finally, we have Ralph Nickleby's rich friends who he tries to introduce Kate to and, wait...
Is that...
Holy crap, it is!
Tom Hiddleston?!
Tom Hiddleston is a background character in this film!
And, according to Wikipedia, this was his first ever role!
Well...damn, now I feel bad.
Okay, Tom? If you ever read this, I don't hate you. I'm really glad this thing opened so many doors for you and my problems with this film aren't anything to do with you!
I loved you in Avengers, I loved you in Night Manager and no-one can cut up Pterosaurs with a katana while wearing a gas mask in a dinosaur graveyard like you can! Okay? Okay.
Hugs.
Anyway, Roderic Culver (Son of Michael 'Captain Needa' Culver) here plays Lord Verisopht and Dominic West plays Sir Mulberry Hawk. I was looking forward to seeing what they'd do with the role, West especially.
They appear alongside a gaggle of fellow young aristocrats and for some reason their collars must be too tight because they all have these weird expressions that look like they're being strangled.
But anyway, they're at lunch and, like the Squeers, they're all messy eaters (Or at least trying to be. There's a reason you don't see Tom Hiddleston trying to shovel profiteroles into his mouth in any other roles. He's not very good at it and that's probably for the best)
Now, coming again to the 2002 version, the elderly Edward Fox played Sir Mulberry Hawk beautifully (Although beautiful is one thing Hawk is not). The scene starts innocently enough, the various lords and knights are having dinner and drinks at a table, noticeably Ralph Nickleby doesn't drink yet insists on pouring more for his friends and Kate is just sort of wondering why she's there. Verisopht (Played by Nicholas Rowe, a shock to see him trim and suited up after seeing him as one of the yuppies in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) tries a bit of smooth-talk but stops when he realises how silly he sounds, Kate laughs it off.
Then the bomb drops as Mulberry Hawk just casually and smarmily says.
"Gentlemen, I feel we are boring Miss Nickleby. Look, she can barely raise her eyes. The poor dear girl simply cannot understand why no one here is making love to her. She gasps! I have uncovered her secret. In fact, I'll hold any man fifty pounds... that Miss Nickleby can't look in my face and tell me that she wasn't thinking so."
That is true terror. The way he does it is so cheerily and nonchalant, you can tell this is not the first time and with his otherwise affable persona in public, you clearly get an image of something like this happening in real-life. And the fact that they all agree on the wager, including her uncle just adds to the horror without playing it up unnecessarily and cements Mulberry Hawk as a truly vile individual whose corrupt and sadistic nature is practically contagious.
Now, Dominic West would later play Theron in 300 so we know he can do the predatory character but here, he just, no joke, stands up suddenly and says the making love sentence just out of nowhere.
Okay, I get what they're trying to do. The lords are all drunk and wild and they all do this but it just doesn't work.
Part of what makes Mulberry Hawk so terrifying is the fact that he didn't need to be drunk. This is just something he does to Kate, humiliating her in public, in full view of her uncle and his business partners, as a game.
Instead, this film turned him and his cohorts into Dickensian frat-boys.
I despair, I truly despair.
Then Hawk actually tries to rape her and, like everything else, it's over-the-top and insincere at once so there's no real feelings one can grasp.
For something that's gone way too far with the most banal of material, trying to make it tense and uncomfortable is too-little-too-late!
Poor Kate Nickleby, I should be thinking.
But all I can think is poor Dominic West, poor Roderic Culver and poor, poor, POOR Tom Hiddleston.
And I know that's not what I should feel but that is what this film has done to me.
Anyway, it feels good to get some of this off my chest and I hope I'm getting more people into the 2002 masterpiece.
I don't know if I'll have the time to get the next part done tomorrow but stay tuned for more.
I hear ya. Eager to see it.
Some movies are just poorly thought through, aren't they?
5215487
I just don't know what they were thinking, that's the problem.
I mean, with big-budget, major-company productions that fall flat, you can kind of understand what could have gone wrong. Too many conflicting writers, too many attempts to relate unnecessarily, not enough focus, cutting necessary content, etr.
But this was low-budget and aimed at the niche audience. There is no reason the atmosphere should be so mislaid here.
Then again, I don't really know what it was like making films in the 2000s. It predates the whole internet media craze of today.
5215488
I can only agree with you