Nanny McPhee- A Film for the Mischievous

“The nanny you need is Nanny McPhee.” Truly, it is easy to agree with this statement. Nanny McPhee delights and entertains children and their parents time and time again. (However, I am not advocating using television or movies as a babysitter.) A film for the whole family, Nanny McPhee uses humor and wit to tell the heartwarming story of a frustrated father and his seven mischievous children.

Don’t believe me? Check out this trailer!



With a cast including the talented Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, and Angela Lansbury, along with many endearing children such as Thomas Sangster, known for Love Actually, Nanny McPhee examines what happens after the 17th nanny in a row has left the Brown household. Coming in and acting against the children’s plans, Nanny McPhee teaches the children several lessons: to say please and thank you, to go to bed when they’re told, and even more lasting ones. Throughout however, is a story of how Cedric Brown (Colin Firth) is struggling to keep the family afloat after the death of his wife. Financial struggles force several sacrifices for the family, and how they deal with them provide touching moments.

The development of Nanny McPhee is an interesting story in itself. Screenwriter Emma Thompson and her production/screenwriting partner Lindsay Doran were looking for a new project when Thompson came across the English children’s books in the Nurse Matilda series. Written by Christianna Brand in the 1960s and 70s, the stories feature a magical nanny who teaches lessons to a group of misbehaved children. After spending five years working with an adaptation, Thompson and Doran began the process of getting the story to film, added director Kirk Jones, known for Waking Ned Devine.

Not only can the viewer look at the acting, screenplay, and storyline, the costuming and colorful sets are entrancing as well. As we see Nanny McPhee transform from a oddly shaped, hairy eyebrowed, moled person to a beautiful one, it is amazing to believe that that was Emma Thompson underneath.

Walking away from a viewing of Nanny McPhee leaves you with a smile and a warm feeling inside. Rather than simply transforming the family, as director Jones himself says, “She [Nanny McPhee] shows them that they’re already good.” Go in with an open mind, and you’ll leave reminding yourself that even the most mischievous people have a wonderful heart.

Crash- A Collision of Stereotypes

White. Armed. Persian. Lonely. Black. Corrupt. Asian. Rich. Latino. These and many more facets of the characters in the film Crash come out in extremely interesting ways throughout the film. Although the color of someone’s skin is seen immediately, their true self is only glimpsed throughout the film. From the beginning to the end of the movie, the audience is learning just some of the reasons why each character acts as they do. A hardworking father does his best to protect his little girl, but in daily life, he is only seen as a Latino ‘gang banger.’ The tough as nails cop cares for his drug addicted mother although she criticizes him every chance she gets. The hardworking family loses their store because of a linguistic and cultural misunderstanding. The ability of director/writer/producer Paul Haggis and his staff to draw the viewer into each individual character is so powerful that it is easy to forget that one is sitting in front of screen watching a film.

Sound interesting? Get caught even move in this trailer.



Crash has the ability to continue its theatrical power into discussions on how we all deal with stereotypes. Acting on our stereotypes is not always bad, as the film shows with the character of Jean being afraid of two black men and ignoring her fear. However, more often than not, our stereotypes are not nearly as complex as the real life version. This can especially be seen in Don Cheadle's portrayal of the character Graham. The woman he happens to be sleeping with still has no clue about his life until it is forced upon her.

When leaving a viewing of the film, it is difficult not to talk about what you saw and heard. An easy first reaction could be a feeling of wanting more of each characters story, but the movie would be much too long, and also would not leave enough to the imagination. Room for thought, but including crucial details is this movie’s strength. After viewing, think back to the showing of the bullet boxes. Look closely at the framing of each shot. If you do, you’ll want to watch the movie again and again just to catch one more example of the genius of the film.

I would honestly recommend this film to any of my friends and family, and hope to show it to my often racially stereotypical grandfather. For this reason, I give the film 5 hearty grins for its thought provoking relevance to all.

Structure- does it help or hurt?

Living the American Dream. That’s what it could be said that Philo T. Farnsworth was doing in his career of inventing. Starting out as a young man in a Mormon community in Utah, he rose to an inventor who was paid a certain amount for all electronic televisions sold. However this process was not simply about his ideas and genius, rather it was about the business and the politics.

When looked at through the context of our Minority/Majority class, I see several different themes that emerge. First, we see that Farnsworth’s ascribed status in terms of being a white male of appropriate height and weight would be to his advantage, especially in the time that he worked. In this way, he is clearly in the majority, and benefiting from white privilege. However, through his achieved status of being Mormon, relatively low on the economic scale, and without a true occupation, Philo was not taken very seriously by many.

When looking at Philo’s story, I could easily see how Symbolic Interactionism relates. In his line of work, Philo often had to convince skeptical people of his vision and its power. Those that truly new him on a personal level and would talk to him knew him to be a genius with promise as an inventor. This daily interaction built a group of people who worked together for the common goal. However, both the structure and economic power were working against him.

Who had the power here? It’s actually more important to look at who had the money. Unfortunately, money makes the commercial world run, and without it, Farnsworth’s company could not keep constructing the electronic television. Because David Sarnoff had the company and had the money, he could buy off as much as possible to beat out Farnsworth. Without funding, Farnsworth was weakened and disheartened.

Finally, and in my opinion, most important, it was really the social structure that stopped Farnsworth’s notoriety. With Structural Functionism, we see that because order runs society, the institutions and the roles they create are what contribute to how society behaves. Farnsworth was really one man with several supporters. Sarnoff was one large company with many connections. Although Farnsworth had a public demonstration of his television 5 years before RCA did, the presentation of the electric television at the World’s Fair was more famous. With FDR as the first person broadcasted, it was clear that the power was given because of the connections due in turn to the structure. Had Farnsworth been backed by a large company, the situation would have been gravely different. As it occurred, however, it was the story of the rich corporate giants vs. the intelligent little man.