The Hand That Rocks the Cradle

The phrase "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" is often thought to be a traditional proverb, but it is actually taken from a poem by the otherwise obscure 19th century American poet William Ross Wallace. This film is an example of that sub-genre of the thriller which I have come to think of as the "... from Hell" film. The basic plot of such films is that a stranger comes into the life of the hero. At first this stranger seems affable and friendly, but quickly reveals himself or herself to be a dangerous criminal or psychopath, and the hero finds that he is in danger. This basic concept is an old one, but it was given a new lease of life in the late 1980s and 1990s by the success of "Fatal Attraction" (or "One-Night Stand from Hell"). Other examples include "Pacific Heights" ("Tenant from Hell"), "Single White Female" ("Flatmate from Hell") and "Bad Influence", which can be summarised as "Bloke-You-Meet-In-A-Bar from Hell". Like "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle", this last was directed by Curtis Hanson.

Claire and Michael Bartel are the perfect all-American middle-class couple, living the American dream in an affluent district of Seattle. They already have a young daughter, Emma, and Claire is pregnant with their second child. And then their life is turned upside-down when Claire is sexually molested by her obstetrician, Dr. Mott. She reports him to the authorities, more women come forward to accuse him and he commits suicide to avoid trial. Although this development is clearly upsetting for Claire, she eventually recovers, safely gives birth to a boy and hires a young woman named Peyton Flanders as a nanny.

So was Claire right to accuse Dr Mott? This might seem like an absurd question; the answer, in both legal and moral terms, must be "yes". Had she not done so, he would have been free to continue preying on women. Yet, as T S Eliot wrote in "Murder in the Cathedral", "for every life and every act consequence of good and evil can be shown", and Claire's act, however morally justified, has evil consequences which go beyond Mott's suicide. His wife is pregnant, and the shock of his death causes her to go into premature labour and to lose her baby. She also loses her home because all her husband's assets are frozen to compensate his victims. This woman, of course, turns out to be Peyton, who has infiltrated Claire's home to pursue a scheme of revenge.

The "... from Hell" genre can sometimes descend into absurdity, "Bad Influence" being a particularly poor example, and this film has several weaknesses. Annabella Sciorra is not particularly memorable as Claire and Matt McCoy even less so as Michael. A pre-stardom Julianne Moore, here appearing in a supporting role, is memorable mainly for the bizarre way in which her character dies. Ernie Hudson, in an embarrassing performance as the Bartels' mentally handicapped handyman Solomon, is memorable for all the wrong reasons. He seems to have been written into the film as a sort of virtue signalling by proxy. (Aren't the Bartels wonderful to provide work for such an unfortunate person?) The plot starts off as tense and efficient but tends to go downhill towards the end.

What holds the film together is the central performance from Rebecca De Mornay as Peyton. It is a performance which operates on three levels. The first, and most superficial, level is that of the ideal nanny, someone both friendly and capable, which initially impresses the Bartels so much and persuades them to employ her. The second level is the one that the audience see, that of the cold, implacable avenger.

Underlying these two levels, however, is the third, that of the woman who believes herself to have been wronged but who lacks any social or legal form of redress. For the wrong Claire suffered at the hands of Dr Mott, she has clear legal remedies open to her via the courts and the medical authorities. But Peyton? For the wrongs she has suffered she has no remedy at all, not against Claire, not against her husband or his estate, not against society in general. The only advice anyone could give her would be to accept her misfortunes philosophically, which seems woefully inadequate. If Peyton is vindictive and evil, life has conspired to make her so. This is the central issue at the heart of this film, and it is a measure of De Mornay's performance that she allows us to see it. We might hate what Peyton does to the Bartel family. And yet, at the deepest level, we can understand the motives and the reasons behind her crimes. The complexity of her character lifts this film well above something like "Bad Influence", Hanson's other essay in the genre. 7/10

Just the opening scene turns off a lot of people, but that's too because all of the film - all of it - is interesting with Rebecca DeMornay excelling at a vengeful, psychotic killer nanny. This "nanny" does about everything you could do to ruin a family. Yes, she's the nanny from Hell.

I always thought Annabella Sciorra had an interesting face with a knockout smile, at least back in late '80s, early '90s, so I enjoy watching her. Here, she plays a good woman who is married to a good man (Matt McCoy) - wow, there's an oddity in modern films: a happy and faithful husband and wife!

This is an involving film. Once you are into it, you're hooked and the 100-plus minutes go by pretty fast. DeMornay is so effective in her role you just can't wait to see her exposed for who she is and justice done to her.

I did think Sciorra's character would have needed more to go on to come to the right conclusion near the end, but, usually every film has some question marks regarding credibility. The violent, ending scene is very suspenseful and well- done.

This domestic thriller was a box-office hit despite its mid-level marquee pull and is entertaining and delivers plenty of suspense and shocks along the way. A vengeful widow who has lost her husband to a suicide and suffers a miscarriage plans to get even with the woman who caused the trouble by filing a sexual molestation suit against her husband. Rebecca de Mornay is the evil nanny who plots her revenge with relish, her satisfaction obvious as her plans begin to bear fruit. The nanny is not swayed by the innocence of the young girl or the newborn baby she is hired to care for and intends to destroy the entire family. Naturally, the parents are clueless as to what is going on until much later, while de Mornay methodically turns the household into her own domain, holding it in a grip of fear. Annabella Sciorra is the wife and mother who confronts de Mornay in the final moments. Graeme Revell contributes a nice music score.

This is a chilling movie to spend a day or night with. Mrs. Moss (Rebecca De Mornay) seeks revenge on Claire Bartel (Annabella Sciorra) for reporting her husband Dr. Moss for sexual harassment, which lead to the doctor's suicide and precipitating Moss' miscarriage. She poses as nanny Peyton for the Bartel family, with the intention of raising hell.

Rebecca De Mornay gave an outrageously evil performance. The plot is solid and fast-paced; the only problem I have is the method Claire used to interview Peyton for the nanny position. She only asked Peyton, "How did you become to be a nanny?" leaving out relevant questions like health, personal background, prior jobs, resumes, way with kids, etc. Other than that, I enjoyed watching this movie and especially liked Julianne Moore's character, with her making smart, acid wit remarks. I especially liked her line "You have a Harvard education, make something up."

Overall, a great mystery movie with some good action mixed in.

Grade A

Sorry for the lousy pun but a nanny-themed movie starring Madeline Zima was asking for it, now, let the review start.

You have a good typical American Family made of a handsome blue-eyed scientist with a sexy beard, played by an actor whose fame didn't rise much since the film, a frail devoted asthmatic housewife who looks like the twin sister of Talia Shire with a nicer hairdo, played by Annabella Sciorra, and a smart little girl (Zima), that's for the initial picture, and this happy family is looking for a nanny to take care of their newborn son and brother, so that Claire (the wife) can take care of a greenhouse project. Kind of a boring premise ... but there's more spicy elements about this family, and it's all wrapped up in the first 15 minutes, like a script school-case.

During a visit, Claire was victim of sexual abuse from her gynecologist, she sued him, other mothers complained, he killed himself, his wife played by Rebecca De Mornay didn't inherit the money and what's more, she has a miscarriage in the process, and become permanently sterile. To call it a strike of 'bad luck' would be the understatement of the millennium. Still, in her bad luck, while watching the news, she could catch the name and face of that woman who was indirectly responsible for all the personal mayhem she went through. You gotta wonder what the TV and police were thinking. Anyway, now, guess who's gonna offer his services for the nanny job?

Good thriller always rely on simple concept. "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" is no exception, it was an unexpected hit in 1992, the same year of a similarly themed film "Single White Female". Both are based on the same "Stranger Within" concept, when the lives of an ordinary family or group of persons are affected by the entrance of a next- door stranger, and it is a source of heart-pounding psychological thrills that was made started with "Fatal Attraction" and "Misery". The "Stranger Within" thriller is almost a synonym of 'fatal attraction'... in fact, the film could have as a tag-line "Fatal Attraction with a Nanny", just like "Single White Female" was "Fatal Attraction with a Roommate".

So, there are reasons though why this film wasn't as memorable as the one with Glenn Close, the surprise effect asked for more tricks and it's likely that the ones used in the film never really catch the audience off guard. Rewatching the film myself after 15 years, I realized that the realism, as used in Curtis Hanson's film, was made of the self- canceling effect between things happening too conveniently well for the villainess for the first three quarters, and then for the good guys in the last one. The evolution of the narrative is so schematically well-oiled that even the greatest effects are still attenuated by their predictability. It wows at times but hardly with a major 'w'.

Just to give you an idea, my younger brother who has seen less movies than I (ten years younger) immediately guessed that the big black retarded guy (played by the only Ghostbuster whose name is hardly remembered) was gonna be the last-minute hero, needless to say that he harbored a triumphant smile when at the climax, the poor daddy broke his legs and was immediately disqualified from the final confrontation. Anyone could've guess that but he also predicted that the slutty evil baby sitter would frame him so that he can be expelled from the house, and that was impressive.

He still enjoyed the film and I still did, but it is true that, suspension of disbelief was too demanding. So many things go totally wrong as soon as Peyton, the baby sitter makes her entrance that it's a wonder how Claire can't reassemble the pieces of he puzzle. She wants to wear a sexy dress, but she finds a last-minute stain and then puts the something that looks like extracted from the wall cover of a grandma's house. But let's say she's naive and at least, the character of the friend Marlene, played by sexy Julianne Moore never really trusted Peyton, but then how about a missing application letter, how about the sudden change of behavior of her daughter. But let's just say that, given how these tricks work, and how efficient they are in their frustrating effects, I accept them for the sake of what I expect from a B-movie thriller.

Still, there are three things I can't really forgive and that could've been easily avoided, Peyton could have faked a resume, after all the troubles that affected Claire's family, they would take some precautions and not let any stranger entering their world, just like that. Secondly, I don't think a woman who didn't have a child, much more sterile, can breast-feed a baby, and last but not least, the depiction of asthma. Not only these wheezing noises were annoying because they were never matching Clair's chests' movements, but when you decide that your movie will have a main character suffering from asthma, is it too much asking some tutorial about the proper use of an inhaler. All she did was making a quick click, she never put the inhaler in her mouth and it didn't feel as if she was inhaling anything.

If you care for realism, the film might not be your cup of tea, but that's not a reason to dismiss it, "Fatal Attraction", as a milestone as it was (and it wasn't) had its more-or- less ridiculously unrealistic parts. So, Hanson's film is enjoyable for what it serves well, a solid villainous performance, and an eerie sometimes sexy atmosphere that creates a well-packaged average psychological thriller, that's all, but as far as realism is concerned, well, it's not a good sign when a film is an inspiration for these hilarious '100 THings I learned" threads ...