Defending 'Nativity'!

 by Sophie Reeve-Foster



Nativity
could easily be dismissed as a contrived children’s Christmas film, but I would argue that its characters, nuance and naturalistic style outweigh its cheesy aspects. 

The film presents Martin Freeman in the role of a grumpy primary school teacher, cynical about Christmas’ artificial joy since his girlfriend left him for Hollywood some years ago. However, Paul Maddens is not depicted as a villain, which is unusual for anti-Christmas characters in these sorts of films. 

Paul's breakup story, and the scenes showing how happy he was before, establish our empathy for him, as well as the unfortunate events throughout the film, made more frequent by Mr Poppy. Furthermore, underneath his low-spiritedness, we can see Paul's potential to be happy, especially when contrasted with excited children. Freeman’s grounding, exasperated role allows viewers to understand him while the growing web of lies fits perfectly with quietly frustrated British culture. 

I believe that the setting of a primary school roots the film in naturalism, as well as the children’s authentic acting, without the need for a magic miracle; this combination makes the situation more believable. Of course, elements are exaggerated – such as the Hollywood trip – but setting the songs within a the school play almost makes them self-aware in their artificiality, and therefore charming. It is this authentic element which I think Nativity 2 and 3 lose. 

For those reasons, in my opinion, this film will always be a classic.

 


Comments