TIFF Movie Review: Albert Nobbs (2011)
Stiff and uptight, Albert Nobbs forgot to be interesting
Photo: Liddell Entertainment and Roadside Attractions
The adaptation of the 19th-century short story by George Moore and subsequent play, Albert Nobbs, is a dull and grey story of a woman pretending to be a man, essentially because that's the only life she's known for some thirty years. Working as a butler in a swank Dublin hotel for the last 17 of those years, she's been pinching pennies and saving her tips, dreaming of the day she can open her own tobacco shop and begin living a life she call her own. Beyond that, a couple of side stories involving supporting characters persist, but there really isn't much more of this story to tell.
The cast includes Glenn Close, Janet McTeer, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Aaron Johnson, Mia Wasikowska and Brendan Gleeson. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Albert Nobbs" is a Liddell Entertainment and Roadside Attractions release, directed by Rodrigo García and is rated R for some sexuality, brief nudity and language. The running time is 1 hour 53 minutes.
Some sense of life is attempted to be found in a side story involving a waitress named Helen (Mia Wasikowska) and her uneducated and uncivilized boyfriend Joe (Aaron Johnson). However, both are a pair of despicable characters with few redeeming qualities if any. Joe is plotting to get out of Ireland and make for America and the two use Albert's affection for Helen as a way to bilk money out of "him" to the point you dislike them even more and take pity on Albert. And in this case be sure not to confuse pity for actual emotion.
The only takeaway is a supporting performance by Janet McTeer as Hubert Page, a woman also pretending to be a man, for reasons I won't spoil here, but the fact McTeer has a character to play rather than a passive and quiet empty shell such as Albert helps out a lot. There's reason to watch when Hubert is on screen, I found myself finally leaning in with interest and kept hoping she would return every time her moment ended. To be honest, why this film focuses on Albert instead of Hubert is an apt question we may never know the answer to.
There isn't enough understanding or character building to care about Nobbs and I never got the impression she was all that interesting to begin with. All we see are frightened glances, hidden coins and a general fear of being found out, but Nobbs' small back-story doesn't offer enough these cliched character choices to hold much weight for the long run and I'm afraid the Oscar talk surrounding Close may all be for naught.
Working with a script co-written by Close with Man Booker prize-winning author John Banville and Gabriella Prekop, I'm not sure how much of the blame should fall on the writers or the shoulders of director Rodrigo Garcia. Garcia and cinematographer Michael McDonough offer up a rather grey landscape with little color, making me wonder if there was anything they could have done to make things the least bit livelier.
I haven't read the script, but would suspect this is a story that would work much better in the pages of a novel rather than on the screen, where the thoughts in Nobbs' head could be heard (and no, this isn't a request for voice over). With this film we get very little insight into the character. Nobbs needed a sounding board and the few scenes she spends with Hubert help with this, but there needed to be more to ever begin caring about or understanding her. Reserved and quiet people almost always have something more to say, it's a matter of getting it out of them. In Hubert's home there is one scene where we see Albert's shell begin to crack… it's also the last time this happens.
I'm sad to say Albert Nobbs falls as flat as it does, but it simply doesn't have much of a heartbeat or reason to exist. I felt zero emotion for the characters as the film neared its conclusion and my only interest leaving the theater was in Hubert. It began to feel as if the film's only goal was to present us with an image of Close dressed as a man, and in that regard it works, but as for the rest it's all rather needless and inconsequential.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 13 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Does this mean she will fall in your next Oscar predictions?
Not will, already did.
Why I love this website
Meryl for number 3!! woot woot!
I thought you were going to see Shame instead of this. It would be a great shame (no pun intended) if you couldn't see Shame.
The story is about a woman suffering from sexual abuse and tryin to survive in a time where she was not able to deal with it by therapy f.e. She is a traumatized person frozen in the horror of her experience. If this feeling is palpable for an audience it has done a very good job. Thanks to Glenn Close and her fellow actors. I dare say that it needs some interest when watching a film not only reading a script and some general knowledge of human distress.
It's a shame that this movie didn't live up to expectations, I was hoping Close got her shot at the Oscar nom.
That being said, I think you should have dropped her below the bubble line. I've been reading reports and the film isn't outright hated, but most people agree with you that the film is quite boring. I'm guessing that for now, you could bump up Keira Knightley to the #5 spot and drop Glenn Close to a #7 with either Jodie Foster or Rooney Mara at #6.
I think your contenders' lists are too long for now. I don't think Abbie Cornish, Jane Fonda or Felicity Jones stand a chance against the other contenders. A 0% chance. The list should include people who actually stand a chance, right? Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening for any of them.
Iris,
what does the f.e. mean after your wording therapy? (therapy f.e.)
Thanks, just curious…
I take your curiousity as a wish to understand. In answering your question: In those times people were quite alone with those experiences. Healthy therapeutic methods were not developed as we know them today. Additionally social conventions in behavior did not allow to show yourself as easily as it seems to be today. Of course even today a person does not come easily have his coming out with a trauma. People tend to protect themselves. It is simply to hard to know such facts. But you can much more easly talk about your problems than you possibly could in those days. Not appreciating the film could possible mean to protect yourself from what it is about. I hope this answers your question properly. Iris
f.e. oh sorry, that was german thinking, that was not short for "for example", right. You use e.g. right, we would use the short form for "zum Beispiel" (for example) z.B. I apologize for this misinterpretation of your question. My answer hopefully is not redundant though. Iris
You are absolutely dead-on in your review. I had the exact same feelings as you watching this film. I kep wishing for McTeer to keep showing up as she was by far the most interesting character on the screen. I leaned over to my husband half way through the film and said "So much for Close winning the Oscar"
I do hope the movie is not as bad as you say. The story is not to blame, if so; it is a masterpiece, but perhaps unfilmable. See http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/sex-and-gender-in-albert-nobbs.html
OMG,it was such a boring film,did not like it at all