Any time a movie chooses to deal with subjects of this contentious nature (i.e. homosexuality, cross dressing, trans-gender, etc.) they are setting themselves up for even stronger criticism than films are already put through anyway. Most people, I would venture to say, find this fact a good thing, as these films explore very personal and sensitive issues in many people’s lives. These subjects should be handled delicately, but in the case of “Albert Nobbs,” it seems the issue may have been handled a bit too delicately.
“Albert Nobbs” explores the life of the title character’s 
struggle with living as the opposite gender. Albert Nobbs, played by Glenn Close, is a woman who has transformed herself into a man working as a waiter in 19th century Ireland. Nobbs internally grapples with whether she should end this charade of an existence or take a wife of her own to continue her life of secrecy. While the film’s plot sounds like an interesting and compelling piece, “Albert Nobbs” fails to make any real statement about the character or how the character even views her own sexuality.
The film is saturated with scene after scene that fails to tell any kind of linear story. There are too many plot lines and key characters, which make it impossible to know the main focus. Every scene is so unintentionally awkward that it makes the film very confusing for the viewer. Most of the scenes end with an aura of suspense or heaviness that seems out of place, leaving viewers wondering whether they missed an important piece of dialogue that brought the scene together.
The film fails to explore the complexities of Nobbs’ character so much that viewers are left wondering how she truly feels or what she wants. Nobbs leaves unanswered questions such as, “Why did she choose to be a man in the first place?” or “What is her true sexual preference?” One can argue that she made the choice to become a man out of her necessity for employment. This may be true, but it is obvious in the film that Nobbs could be working at her same place of employment as a woman just as easily because of the mere fact that she is surrounded by women working the same job. Nobbs claims she chose to be a man out of this necessity yet, at the same time, is insistent on marrying one of her female co-workers. This creates major ambiguity as to whether Nobbs literally sees herself as a man or if she views herself as a woman just playing the part of a man.
In a desperate attempt to convey exposition, Nobbs is left awkwardly talking to herself out loud. Maybe the thought was to steer away from more of a voice over, but in this case a voice over would have sufficed beautifully and would have been much more believable to watch.
The ending of the film leaves the viewer unfulfilled. It seems like the intent was to make a touching moment out of something that leaves the audience with a sense of incompletion.
The acting as a whole was believable but was not enough to redeem itself from the shoddy plot structure of the film. Close’s performance definitely deserved its recent Academy Award nomination, but not for the reasons most would think. Close was not great because of the believability of her portrayal of a man, but rather her complete transformation into an almost emotionless, uncomfortable individual, completely removed from reality. While the technicality of the directing on Rodrigo Garcia’s part was solid, there was nothing standout or innovative about it. The same could be said for the cinematography — it was good, but not unique.
The film is way too uncomfortable, confusing and lifeless to be enjoyable. On the other hand, many people enjoy the more abstract stories that are geared toward focusing on a certain way of life and not necessarily a clear story line. For those that do enjoy the more abstract stories, I say go for it, but I do have this warning: Purchase tickets with caution.
