The Nature of Nicholas (2002) Online

The Nature of Nicholas -- An interesting film, uniquely done with compelling, open-ended metaphors with some dark comedic moments and thought provoking cinema photography. Noteworthy acting from two very young actors. Homosexuality is not really what this movie is about. It's more about accepting who you are and the struggles we go through to achieve that. The homosexual theme was just used to communicate that point. In addition, there isn't really just "one" meaning to this movie. It is created in such a way so that everyone can come to their own conclusions.

Here is my interpretation of the movie: Pre-teen Nicholas and Bobby are best friends who are becoming mutually attracted to one another. In the beginning, Nicholas is a bit more aware of it than Bobby. When Nicholas acts on an impulse and kisses Bobby in their clubhouse, Bobby's shocking realization of this new emotion sends him into a state of deep denial. The only way Bobby can distance himself from his homosexual feelings is by manifesting a separate entity. Created from all the shame and guilt he feels -- probably influenced by societies regard to homosexuality in the late 50's -- Bobby's homosexual self comes alive as a grotesque, zombie-like twin which he casts-away to die and rot alone in deep pain, suffering and sadness.

Nicholas is still very much in love with Bobby. Although they stay friends, Nicholas's romantic feelings are ignored by Bobbies heterosexual, normal-looking persona. Nicholas finds mutual warmth and understanding by nurturing Bobby's suffering and dying homosexual entity. He hides it under his bed, protecting it and feeding it with pilfered food from his kitchen and entertaining it with comic books. It is obvious Nicholas is desperately trying to keep it alive.

Nicholas's mother comes into his room. The hand of Bobby's entity sticking is out from under his blankets. This provokes paranoia in Nicholas, assuming that his mother now knows his true feelings.

Nicholas's dead father -- A stern military man -- comes back from the spiritual side with a bizarre dual personality of compassion and retribution. It temporarily uses Nicholas' mothers' body to communicate with Nicholas -- confirming the paranoid feelings Nicholas has that everybody knows how he feels toward Bobby and how wrong it is. (It's not clear if that was intended to actually happen or if it was a figment of Bobby's imagination sparked by paranoia and guilt. I guess that's left for each person to decide) Overwhelmed with guilt and shame, Nicholas shuns his homosexual feelings by creating a zombie-like twin, much like Nicholas did, which he casts-out and leaves to rot and die alone.

Toward the end of the film, the heterosexual, normal-looking Bobby takes his now rotting, homosexual "alter ego" away from Nicholas before it dies. We see Bobby carting his almost lifeless bag of bones into the distance. At this point it is believed that Bobby is taking it away to finally kill it -- or to finally put an end to his homosexual feelings. However we find out later this is not the case.

Later, while walking in a field, Nicholas asks Bobby: "What happened to him?" Bobby points to himself, shrugs his shoulders with a shy grin and replies: "I'm right here!" -- It is clear that Bobby was no longer ashamed of his homosexual feelings and no longer needed that separation or "alter ego". Bobby took his alter-ego away so that he could accept his homosexual feelings before they died. So In other words -- Who Bobby is, is who he is -- part gay, part straight, a mixture of every feeling and emotion (like all of us probably are) -- And Bobby was finally at peace with that.

However poor Nicholas is not so lucky. He will have a much more painful road in life to travel. We see Nicholas's decaying, homosexual entity and his fathers spirit meet at an old abandoned little house on a lonely road. The spirit attempts to put Nicholas's alter ego (or homosexual feelings) to rest forever. It looks down at the rotting, Nicholas-like figure lying on an old bed and says: "All in the past. It's a part of growing up. There are allot of little houses down this road." it then covers the entire body with the blankets. The scene cuts to the outside of the old house -- On the roof is printed the name: NICHOLAS.

The little house where Nicholas's homosexual self resides is symbolic to what it would feel like to have your true emotions imprisoned due to an unacceptable, prejudice world. Putting Nicholas's alter ego to rest communicates the very common parental (and society) disapproval of homosexuality -- especially in young children. The "other little houses on the road" that the spirit mentions, tells us that many other children were also denied their true feelings -- They too had to put their feelings to rest.

While waking into the yard on his first day of the new school year, Nicholas notices boys and girls sitting and laughing together. He realizes that his homosexual feelings -- A true part of who he is -- has been forced to be at rest. However, he pauses, looks around, boyishly stone-faced and bit confused as if he realizes in his heart that his true feelings will never, honestly be put to rest. This inner turmoil is something that Nicholas realizes he will have to face. He understands that life goes on and he must go forward and so he continues walking into the school.

Dressed in his military uniform and cap, His father's spirit walks slowly behind with arms crossed behind his back. This metaphorical scene communicates clearly all of the intolerance, forced-denial, guilt and shame -- not just from his dead father, but from society as a whole -- that will "haunt" Nicholas's life forever.

Quite near to being the greatest work of art I've seen in the film medium.

One of the users here complained about cardboard characters, which is absurd--would you complain that the characters in a ballet or a symphony are too simple? This film flows like only the greatest works of art do, and its characters serve as part of the complex texture and intent of the film as a whole, rather than being "creations in themselves" (this is a surreal and stylized film, and its also one of the few genuine mythic works that has been brought to the screen--the characters are exactly as they need to be to pull this off, and to pull of the thematic intent of the film). Each performance is also breathtaking in its ability to capture the awkwardness of the moment--an essential feature of reality that few movies achieve; this is particularly important to the period of adolescence that this film captures (and does so better than anything I've seen); the awkwardness of sexual awakening is a painful and mythic thing, and this film has insight to offer on the true nature of that time in our lives, a time that it is difficult to perceive or remember objectively (and certainly difficult to express--nearly impossible i would say, if I hadn't seen this film with my own eyes!). This film is indeed a surreal and mythic expression of the "true nature" of that time. Some have focused on the homosexual element, but I think in the film it only served to highlight the transgressive sense of one's first sexual feelings (which is also expressed by the decay and monster metaphors that crop up), and on the idea that we are sexually connected to everyone, be it our best friends or mothers (which is something we eventually move beyond in order to grow up); this film was definitely not trying to make a *point* out of the gay element--it was just there naturally, and as a part of the confused friendship of the two boys, both discovering and fearing their sexuality (whether it is a straight or gay sexuality--it is almost irrelevant).

Regarding the sense of the awkward silence and the uncertain space between people who have trouble relating, the filmaker is clearly influenced by the rest of Canadian cinema (which has always had a particularly realistic sense of people interactions), and specifically by David Cronenberg (in more ways than one!)... and yet he has already transcended his influences to arrive at a completely new and higher style (despite the fact that this is his first film!). Cronenberg has never achieved anything quite so pure in intent or as mythic in story (some have called this a fable), or as "perfectly constructed" in structure and execution (in terms of the pacing of the acting, perfectly framed shots, and the sense that every tiny element of the film is chosen so to expresses the film's central ideas--it is a powerfully coherent work, in a way that most film is scattered and messy, usually without being aware of its own clumsiness). A final point about this awkward space between people--the film takes it to a stylized extreme that is a delight to watch (there is no doubt the film is one of the most stylized things i've seen--which is a GOOD thing, of course, and makes for fascinating performances--but in doing so it actually captures the emotional reality of what it depicts better than any "realistic" portrayal could have--in this way it is similar to a surprising television show called "Buffy the vampire slayer"). There is this incredible pacing in the awkward silences, dialogue withholding about as long as it possibly could, but then breaking the tension at the exact moment where it feels like it should; this is where the film flows like music, as all great films should--you can feel and almost see the tension flowing through the scenes; it made me smile through almost the entire movie, how well they captured the difficulting in reaching out to other people, to very degrees and for various reasons (the awkwardness that exists between the main character and the other characters has a different flavour in each case, and a different cause--his awkwardness with his best friend is the most fascinating, of course, and the most human, since his best friend is the only person, other than his dead father, that could hope to understand him--and yet he fears he may not be able to relate to his friend after all).

A final point about the characters--the only character that needs to be truly fleshed out, in order for this work of art to capture what it intends to, is the young boy, for this is HIS world, and his mind that we enter (his mother and most other characters are of course frighteningly distant from what this young boy is going through, and are thus acted that way--the side performances are brilliantly formal, I might say, again thinking of the ballet or music analogy, to think of the perfection of choreography in the gestures and tones of voice, especially on the part of the mother). And the young boy is indeed fleshed out! I have never seen so sensitive and delicate a performance (or so sensitive a film as a whole, for that matter); this young actor easily replaces Haley Joel Osmand, in my books, as the best child actor who has ever been (though of course we must see if he can pull this off consistently).

Much more can be said, but I must stop for now. But one final comment--this is the sort of film that creates a whole other universe of reality, completely consistent unto itself, right down to the impressive art design of the furniture, the colour schemes, the glowing cinematography. The place it takes you to is completely unique, and is quite far outside the look and feel of any style or genre we are familiar with; this is a new place, my friends--the world has found a rare new filmaker who does not simply re-arrange the old, or flash fancy tricks at us--this is filmaker with old world mastery combined with a completely fresh vision.

Note: As a comparison, here are my other top 10 films of 2002: Atanarjuat (aka "The Fast Runner"), Heaven (by Tykwer + Kieslowski), Full Frontal (Steven Soderbergh), Happy Times (Zhang Yimou), Thirteen Conversations About One Thing, Ararat, Road to Perdition, Human Nature, and *possibly* The Hours. NONE of those films has the extreme sensitivity or "perfect" sense of flow that Nicholas achieves (which doesn't *necessarily* make it better, but it's one of many reasons why it is at the top of my list).

My list of the best works of 2001 included: Yi Yi ("one and two"), In the Mood for Love, Waking Life, Memento, Mulholland Drive, The Man Who Wasn't There, and Amores Perros. "Nicholas" is on the same level as the best of these (when films get to that level, I don't like rating them against eachother, so I'll restrict myself to saying that it's "on the same level"). 10 / 10

Be Prepared, you may be confused..but to be honest The Nature Of Nicholas is one of the most creative and innovative films I have watched in a long time. It is an avante-garde surreal masterpiece of reality and hallucination that is like The Wonder Years on acid. It's ideas and themes may be familiar..but the way Erbach deals with them is fantastic. This film may not be for everyone, but for all of you who love to see something new in film making watch it if you can.

Jeff Erbach is a great new Canadian director who is reminiscent in the likes of David Cronenberg, Guy Maddin & David Lynch.

I am really out of words after seeing this movie. I really don't know what to write. When I read the plot saying that a boy has troubles dealing with his best-friend, since he is very attracted to him, I was expecting something like a drama/romance with a love story of him getting hurt; you know, same old, same old. But my god, was I surprised. You never see him cry, nor get hurt. You just see him create a ghost of his best-friend. He sort of "raises" that ghost, until his friend comes and takes it. What the hell? You also see his father (who is dead) stabbing some sort of things into his friends and his mother's date, which allows him to control them. However, they have no wound (even though you see blood).

Well, I'm already lost in whatever is that I wrote. What I want to underline is that these types of "surrealness" do not work in a romance/drama. There was no drama, no romance. All the "surrealness" made it all disappear. I was expecting something completely different.

Now the movie itself was very entertaining, it just wasn't what I expected.

Plot: 6/10 - The movie forgets about the main part of the plot: the serious attraction. It is very confusing, yet very entertaining and unpredictable.

Acting: 10/10 - Excellent, gorgeous acting. Every character has its characteristics and you identify each one for those thanks to the great acting. Well done.

I can't rate this movie more than 7 since the plot is something really important in a movie, even though it contains excellent acting.

My opinion is 7.4/10

and yet very watchable.

I don't pretend to know what this film is about, I just know that it was very satisfying to watch. Some movies, a very few, leave you with that feeling, the one that says, yeah, that's what a movie should be; that's how you feel when you have watched cinema art.

I know I should discuss the freudian symbolism and explain how it all fits into Freud's stages of sexual maturation, but I just can't bring myself to reduce this film to such cant.

It is a mythic story, best experienced in a childlike (vs.childish)state.

I hate pretentious movies that try so hard to be art that they forget to be entertaining. This movie falls into that category. I'm not really a fan of abstract surrealism at the best of times, but bleak self-loathing surrealism can just go take a jump in the lake! The trouble with symbolism is that if it needs a guide book to tell you what's going on (especially symbolism in movies where the viewer doesn't have the time to dissect every nuance), I think it fails. It just becomes a series of directorial in-jokes. I don't mind challenging film. I can stomach dark movies. But this simply failed to reward the effort.

Furthermore, none of the non-surreal relationships (Nicholas and Bobby, Nicholas and his mother, mother and boyfriend) were remotely credible, so my mind was constantly tussling with the disbelief about their relationships, long before the actual surreal stuff started happening.

This movie had the potential to be really worthwhile, with some mature performances from the young leads forging the way, but instead it disappeared right up its own self-indulgent rectum.

Read traymasters' review above, then save yourself the time of actually watching the movie. His review is far more meaningful and lucid than the actual movie!

When we grow up we throw away our old personality we've become too big for like a snake crawls out of its old skin leaving behind a dry slough. So The Nature of Nicholas is a parable about coming of age when the boy should cast away his old, already dead nature to continue on the way into his adult life. Visual design of this drama in demonstrating this idea is absolutely unusual and innovative to the degree of becoming surreal. Don't you know the song "Lose This Skin" by The Clash: "Come with me, I thought he said, but that's not him anymore, he's dead. What's it like to be so free? So free it looks like lost to me. I've got to lose this skin I'm imprisoned in." The Nature of Nicholas is like an elaborate music video to this song.

The psychological premise of the movie is familiar: two boys on the edge of puberty face a crisis in their friendship when Nicholas, the smaller and shyer boy, gives in to an erotic impulse and plants a peck of a kiss on his pal, Bobby, and Bobby recoils. Then the movie dissolves into murky surrealism. We're not sure whether the friendship is continuing -- real Bobby has been replaced by zombie Bobby, whom Nicholas hides in his bedroom and in a barn that serves as Nicholas' etymology lab. Bobby the silent zombie accepts Nicholas' gestures of care-giving, which include a bath, secretive feeding (who knew zombies need food?) and a shoulder massage. But there is no further overt affection shown except one kiss on Bobby's neck. Another introductory scene shows Bobby dragging a reluctant Nicholas to a school girl's party. The two take part in a game of spin the bottle. When it's Nicholas' turn to take a girl into a closet for a make-out scene, nothing happens except a shadowy man in long underwear pops up behind the clothes rack, apparently as a voyeur. Later on, we learn that the apparition is Nicholas' dead father, who makes a few other appearances for no clear reason.

Secondary characters and choppy dialog add little to the story. We watch Nicholas' mother trying to be supportive of her son and getting little but sullenness in return. The mother's suitor gets a similar brushoff. Near the end, real Bobby hauls zombie Bobby away in a wagon while Nicholas watches. It's hard to know what to make of this scene -- they seem to be parting as friends, yet the mood suggests Nicholas has been abandoned. By this point, Nicholas has been transformed into a zombie himself, and is shown following his father's shade into an abandoned farmhouse. It is anyone's guess whether the real Nicholas is still out there somewhere or has surrendered to schizophrenic fantasy.

I watched this film in a 7-part series on YouTube and I did plod through all seven segments. At the end, I wished I had tuned out after Part 3.

This film sensitively but starkly illustrates the fears, confusion, yearnings and sense of exclusion that a boy can feel when coming to terms with himself and the life around him. The seemingly tangential nature of the symbolism in this film is a mirage; We are seeing the symbols exactly as a boy of 10 or 12 who feels apart and bereft because of bereavement and his emerging sexual orientation would see them, and the confusion we as viewers feel is his confusion, and the viewer will love this boy, and his friend, but will share their feelings of palpable awkwardness at the same time. This film is a rare treat of an opportunity to relive our own days of awkwardness and come to understand them better through adult eyes, and maybe even remember those times fondly.

What promised to be an interesting film of a young boy's awakening sexuality ended up a plodding, messy story that meandered all over the place. When the movie ended, I was left wondering what exactly was the message? In a Q&A session after the movie, the director was asked what was the point of the film, but he didn't seem to have an answer. The Canadian "pauses" did not add anything to the movie, other than stretch 20 minutes worth of story into a 90 minute film. On the positive side, the acting (especially Jeff Sutton as Nicholas) was very good and many shots looked beautiful. Unfortunately, this film is confusing and a major disappointment.

Yes, yes we "get" it Jeff, but let's get a little real here, shall we? When people talk of the pathetic state of English Canadian cinema, this is the film they are referring to. And the director's faux naive "Gee, I really don't know what to say about my own film," pose, is, let's face it, just that. He has thousands of words to explain why he can't or won't explain the creative decisions he has made so, please spare us the "artiste" attitude. You, sir, are no artist. You have a short film idea blown up into a bombastic and obvious turgid wallow in your own psycho sexual confusion - except it doesn't even feel authentic. Take a simple film of sexual ambiguity like, Van Sant's "My Own Private Idaho." A simple tale, borrowed from Shakespeare, about street kids testing, experimenting - and each beat, each frame is charged with all the delicious meaningful ambiguity that escapes this film. What do we get instead? Arbitrariness. Capriciousness. Confusion. Oh, but it's all super clear to the director? Good for him! We all thought that the age of the navel-gazing, nebulous "Canadian" bore- fest films were over, but sadly, the age lives on in Winnepeg. And I put the über-precious, constructivist Guy Maddin in the same bucket - what Nancy-boy, and he's not even gay! This film has such a tiny truth to reveal, such a small-minded, blinkered, pedestrian notion of adolescent sexual confusion, but somehow this misguided auteur and obvious member N.A.M.B.L.A., convinced a whole series of funders to back this project. What happened, Maddin come up dry on that funding go-round? I try to imagine some visitor to Canada checking into his motel room and turning on MPix and stumbling over this over-worked, tepid dross and wondering, "This must be what pass for independent cinema in this country. Poor souls!" And because Astral put money into it, they feel obliged to play it over and over... death by a thousand insipid cuts of mindless nonsense. And you, you reviewers, gushing breathlessly over this misfire - get out much, do you? Out there on the wind-swept prairies? Here's a clue - a shot of a wheat field, is a shot of a wheat field. Not a portal to the ineffable. and here's a clue for Jeff - when next you decide to write a script, and get puzzled looks from those who read it, take it to heart. Next time, why don't you write something outside yourself, just for once - why? I'm gonna give you the gift of truth. If you were Buñuel, if you were Goddard (in his prime) or Eisenstein, or J.M.E.C. Cocteau, or Rimbaud, or even Patty Smith, if you had an interesting life, an original thought or were just a really fun guy, then maybe what comes out of your head, that is so clear to you, but which you just can't explain, might be worth looking at. But, you're not. Not even close. You don't have a point of view worth looking at or listening to. It is base, dull, unimaginative and worse, banal. You bore with your reluctance to really grapple with what's in front of you. You mince around when you should be tearing it up. You lack spine and guts and conviction. You are stubborn but, that's a poor substitute for having something important to say. Do all of Canada, and Winnipeg a big favour and stop making films.