"The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" looks good and was well produced. Rebecca DeMornay's and Julianne Moore's performances were excellent; and the rest of the cast is decent. The cinematography was ambitious and included many visual and audio elements that both denote and connote meaning in support of the story.
It's logical to pay attention to all these subtle details because you expect that things like shot selection, framing, minor objects in a set, and background details were intentional-part of a master design. Unfortunately, all that is right is ultimately wasted because the basic story structure is inexplicably out of alignment. The basic story is a lot like Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", where the sanctuary of a household is threatened by invasion from outside. And like "Straw Dogs" a lot of energy is utilized to create moral ambiguity between the household and the invaders. "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" actually creates a greater ambiguity as the invader (Peyton) has even more reason for her actions (and our sympathy) than the father in "Straw Dogs".
Plus the director takes great pains to portray Claire and her husband unsympathetically. Claire is shown to be selfish, reactionary, and self-congratulatory. She acts without regard to the consequences of her actions, unconcerned about the wreckage she creates. To her everything is black and white, and she is a crusader for right. It was a conscious decision to portray her in this way and it is natural to assume that it was done for a reason.
Normally the reason to expend a lot of energy in this direction is that it opens up a host of opportunities for giving the film an unconventional treatment. For example, it would be great irony if the same irresponsible over-reaction by Claire that led to Payton's husband's suicide came back to destroy Claire. The story was set up for this when Payton was able to exploit Claire's character defects and manipulate her into banishing Soloman from the house. It would have been a much more satisfying resolution to have Claire die because Soloman was not present to rescue her, leaving Payton to inherit the family. If the moral tone of that ending was too negative they could have just killed each other.
Watching this film one wonders if the director and screenwriter shot a more interesting ending but were forced to go back and re-shoot the final sequence using this lame conventional resolution. That would at least explain the huge disconnection between story and ending; leaving everyone disappointed and puzzled by something so inconsistent with the earlier elements in the film.
Bottom line-with parents like these the kids would be better off in foster care and with endings like this film viewers are better off paying attention to production technique and ignoring the actual story.
It's logical to pay attention to all these subtle details because you expect that things like shot selection, framing, minor objects in a set, and background details were intentional-part of a master design. Unfortunately, all that is right is ultimately wasted because the basic story structure is inexplicably out of alignment. The basic story is a lot like Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", where the sanctuary of a household is threatened by invasion from outside. And like "Straw Dogs" a lot of energy is utilized to create moral ambiguity between the household and the invaders. "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" actually creates a greater ambiguity as the invader (Peyton) has even more reason for her actions (and our sympathy) than the father in "Straw Dogs".
Plus the director takes great pains to portray Claire and her husband unsympathetically. Claire is shown to be selfish, reactionary, and self-congratulatory. She acts without regard to the consequences of her actions, unconcerned about the wreckage she creates. To her everything is black and white, and she is a crusader for right. It was a conscious decision to portray her in this way and it is natural to assume that it was done for a reason.
Normally the reason to expend a lot of energy in this direction is that it opens up a host of opportunities for giving the film an unconventional treatment. For example, it would be great irony if the same irresponsible over-reaction by Claire that led to Payton's husband's suicide came back to destroy Claire. The story was set up for this when Payton was able to exploit Claire's character defects and manipulate her into banishing Soloman from the house. It would have been a much more satisfying resolution to have Claire die because Soloman was not present to rescue her, leaving Payton to inherit the family. If the moral tone of that ending was too negative they could have just killed each other.
Watching this film one wonders if the director and screenwriter shot a more interesting ending but were forced to go back and re-shoot the final sequence using this lame conventional resolution. That would at least explain the huge disconnection between story and ending; leaving everyone disappointed and puzzled by something so inconsistent with the earlier elements in the film.
Bottom line-with parents like these the kids would be better off in foster care and with endings like this film viewers are better off paying attention to production technique and ignoring the actual story.