Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Added 2022-04-30 12:31:27 +0000 UTCMore links
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNBek11DdzZWcgljW9ug0n_EOSN1XHFd/view?usp=sharing
Comments
As the dowager Countess of Grantham would say "I quite agree".
JIM SCHMITZ
2022-05-01 23:05:10 +0000 UTCI think my earlier comment must not have saved! Sadness! But I’ll try and remember what I put! First off in reference to the UK wearing different outfits at different point of the day - this is historically accurate particularly amongst the middle and upper classes. So if we plug for the 1800s there would be morning gowns, gowns for afternoon tea evening gowns and ball gowns - and the male equivalent of morning jackets and dinner jackets and varying styles of footwear and clothing. For those times it was often, especially amongst the richer folk of making sure you are seen and you wouldn’t want to be seen always repeating outfits. What you would wear in the morning for visiting friends or when you were called upon was much more simple than if you were having dinner which was more formal. Afternoon tea as a concept was introduced around the 1840s I believe - there was a duchess who started having some tea parties which were very exclusive and then queen Victoria started going and they became really popular - but these were very special events which you dressed up for - because tea had always been quite expensive! I believe there was a Portuguese princess who had tea as part of her dowry - it was worth a lot. So tea parties are always considered quite nice events. Fast forward to modern day the average person does not dress up for different meals in the day - except perhaps if you are going to a nice afternoon tea event or for an evening meal somewhere special, those are the only times you would really change clothes like that. Yet I’m sure there are some of the upper class of society who do still hold with more of those traditions and the historical gentlemen’s clubs around London probably still hold those dress standards. Now in regards to this film, out of the two of them I also find that I prefer the first film. I think there are a couple of reasons that I personally do. Firstly the setting in time. The first film, although the clothing could potentially place it in a time period stylistically, the vibrant colours and hues made it almost more like a fairytale world and not set in a time period. Because of that it felt much more like a fairytale and felt at least to me more magical. This film was set in a specific time period, which meant all of the vibrancy was gone from the clothes to represent the time better - making it more real worldly ultimately made it lose its magic for me. Secondly the children, in my opinion, in the first film the children were much more likeable. Yes they played some naughty pranks to try and get their dads attention but there wasn’t anything inherently malicious in those pranks. And ultimately you could see that the dynamic of the kids they really loved each other. In this film, I dunno - we obviously learnt why the kids were acting that way - but they were all kinda bratty and there wasn’t much of a redemptive arc that really took place to replace that bitter taste left by the brattiness. Even just the meanness of smashing the jam and taking the wedding dress for example, considering the time period that they were meant to be in - for any kid to be behaving that way would be awful and kinda unpatriotic to be destroying rations. And the amount that the kids were horrible to each other was just so off putting and there just wasn’t enough time in the film focusing on the good part of them coming together I think. Which kinda leads onto point 3 the reason that I personally believe the great storyline with the kids was lost or didn’t have enough heart in it was because they had too much focus on the side plots. In the first film the kids had a lot of screen time and so we saw their dynamics change naturally. Whereas this film had too much about the uncle and the hit women - I guess it was meant to be the comedic relief - but those scenes kinda fell flat for me. If there had been more of a focus just on the children and the mother and how they became changed then I think it would’ve been much better! I think that ultimately the first film is a film that can be loved for all ages but the second, although it is a good little film I think it can mostly just be enjoyed by children or those who have sentimental attachment to it!
Alicia
2022-05-01 11:20:01 +0000 UTCThe two things I fault the film for: too much focus on Phil's dilemma, especially at the end; and more whimsical CGI magical stuff than was needed. You probably did recognize "Voldemort", though you didn't acknowledge it. Lovely time together, mate.
JIM SCHMITZ
2022-05-01 03:22:10 +0000 UTC
