Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Small C, Big P

Something's been bothering me. I've tried to push it to the back of my mind, primarily because of the pigs. But last night as I lay in bed trying to sleep it kept raising into my consciousness and even pigs swimming a synchronized ballet couldn't push it back. Nanny McPhee (small c big p).

Clearly I've changed between seeing the last one and the new one that's just opened. I loved, without qualification, the last one. I did this one too, for about a day. I laughed, like a delighted child, at the antics of the pigs and at the burping crow and at the pen stealing elephant. I liked the idea that children were learning lessons which were taught with magic and fun and love. I was thrilled by the cameo performances of some big stars, Fiennes deserves an Oscar for his few minutes on screen.

But.

Perhaps it's best to tell you a bit about the plot (no spoilers here). Nanny McPhee (small c big p) shows up and she's got a distinctive face. We're supposed to think it ugly. She's got moles, a unibrow, a thick nose and one tooth that escapes her mouth only to take rest on her lower lip. People make jokes about her appearance yet she goes happily on her way respected by all who know her. However, as the children learn their lessons she becomes more traditionally attractive, moles disappear, eyebrows separate, magic rhinoplasty alters her nose and so forth. By the end of the movie she has a traditionally beautiful and somewhat radiant face.

I was delighted to see her again when she showed up on the screen. I was delighted moles and all. Knowing who she was from the last film, I found myself liking that face - the first face. I already knew that she had a beautiful character and that character shone through her eyes and informed mine. When the moles began to disappear I was disturbed. I closed my eyes and wished them back but, no, they were gone. As she grew more conventionally attractive I grew more disenchanted with what I was seeing. I didn't NEED Nanny to change to find her beautiful. I didn't NEED her to be anything but 'Nanny In The First Place'.

I know, I know, films and literature constantly say, out loud, that beauty is only skin deep - but then most stories give a different message. Ugly is criminal, ugly is deviant, ugly is repulsive - it's beauty, not the beast, that is holy. Isn't it possible that attractiveness is about more than clear skin and sculptured brows? Isn't it possible that we as viewers, could have come to see her become magically more beautiful WITH moles - wouldn't that be more like the miracle of true transformation. That the appearance of beauty happens in the heart of the viewer rather than on the face of Nanny McPhee (small c big p).

Emma Thompson, the star of the film also wrote the film. I challenge her to make Nanny McPhee (small ... oh you get it by now) part 3 - but this time do something magical. Let her true beauty stand out - let her in dignity be 'Nanny With The First Face.' It's a face we already love - we don't need it different.

11 comments:

Susan said...

Kinda like Shrek... That must be why I liked that movie so much. Shrek and his princess ended up being beautiful just being themselves... and whatever the rest of the world thought - who cared? But we ended up loving them anyway - all the more! At least I did...

Now you've got me looking forward to meeting Nanny McPhee.

Susan said...

Dave, I have a whole different take on Nanny McPhee becoming beautiful. I took it that as the children began to love her one by one they stopped seeing the traits that make her ugly until to them she was radiant. The fact that she started the second film ugly again just reinforces my opinion that as you get to know someone you see past any physical imperfections.

Susan

heidi @ ggip said...

I have often wondered what the writers of the film intended by making her "blemishes" fade away. It is difficult to tell.

Debbie @ Three Weddings said...

I agree with what the second Susan said. In the same respect, a person that is "beautiful" in appearance can become less attractive or even ugly as you get to know their true inner self. And if you remember, in Beauty and the Beast, Belle came back for the Beast and only when she realized the handsome prince before her was still him did she accept him for the man she was looking for.

Mom said...

I, too, felt that it was not Nanny who had changed, but rather the way the kids (and therefore us) saw her. But as I read your reflections I can see that maybe that message is buried a little deep for viewers (especially children) to catch.

Shan said...

I agree with Second Susan. There's a line in the first movie where one of the children says of Evangeline (late in the film, when she's dressed up and prettier), "she's beautiful!" and Colin Firth's character says "She's always looked that way." To me, that is meant to apply to Nanny as well.

But I've only seen the first one, maybe the second is different.

Amanda said...

The thing about people "not seeing the traits that made her ugly", is that.. okay as a person who's often considered ugly, I'd really rather people see my unibrow and various other traits that most people consider ugly, and see those things as beautiful. Rather than come to ignore what I happen to look like, until I look conventionally beautiful to them because I'm beautiful "under the skin" or something. It's the same way I don't like it when people "don't see the wheelchair". It's far better to see the wheelchair, see the unibrow, whatever, and accept those things for what they are, than it is to eventually come to believe they're not there. I'm notsure if this is coherent, it's late at night, but hopefully my meaning gets across.

Dave Hingsburger said...

Hi, I appreciate the idea that people get more or less attractive as you get to know them. But this film has close ups of the moles disappearing - if they are trying to get the message across that she is becoming more beautiful to the children ... it's really not clear. I agree with Amanda, see me for who I am, with what I've got ...

Andrea S. said...

I was out of town for a week with poor internet access for most of that week so I'm behind in reading these posts.

But I agree with Amanda: if someone has to pretend that I'm hearing and not deaf, or thin and not overweight, or not wearing glasses, or have no acne (yup I'm 40 and still get the occasional pimple or three) in order to like me, then frankly I don't see that as complimentary. No, none of these things are the most important part of me, but they're all there and they're all still part of me. If you genuinely like ME, the person, then you'll be genuinely comfortable with the fact that, yes, I'm deaf and whatever else, it's not the center of who I am but it's not a trivial cosmetic detail either. I don't want my deafness or my appearance or whatever to be the ONLY thing you see, but I also don't really want to hang around people who have to pretend those things out of existence before they can be comfortable around me either.

Anonymous said...

Hey, possibly this post is not on topic but in any event, I have been browsing about your site and it looks really neat. It is easy to see I am creating a new blog and I am struggling to make it look great, and supply excellent subject matter. I have learned a lot here and I look forward to additional updates and will be returning.

Anonymous said...

This is a good blog. Keep up all the work. I too love blogging and expressing my opinions