BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

It's about time: 'The Hours'.

  
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:27 / 28.02.03
Has no-one seen this apart from me and BiP then? Emotionally draining, but in a good way, beautifully acted (especially by Nicole Kidman, almost unrecognisable), a real ensemble movie. Even if you haven't read Mrs Dalloway, even if the prospect of a movie where one of the main characters is Virginia Woolf is not the most enticing prospect (both categories in to which I fall) it doesn't matter. The official website is worth a look too.

I don't want to say too much because I'm still processing it 24 hours later. It was a wonderful movie that asks an important question. Go see it. Then come back here and talk about it.
 
 
Persephone
20:14 / 28.02.03
Yes. So shallow of me, but Nicole Kidman should *always* wear that prosthetic nose. I thought she looked fantastic.

And I ...love Allison Janney.

And it was a little sad, because the whole time I could feel Husb sitting next to me, radiating with how strongly he identified with Leonard Woolf. And I'm not even a brilliant writer, I'm just an enormous pain in the ass for no good reason.

What did you think about Jeff Daniels' performance? Performance in the cultural studies sense. I only fell out of the movie a little because I got the idea in the middle that Ed Harris looked like Aragorn and Jeff Daniels looked like Samwise Gamgee & it was hard to work against that...
 
 
The Strobe
21:02 / 28.02.03
(Maybe Spoilers)

(Trivia first: I too like Kidman's nose in it. I really can't see who on earth could find it unattractive, to be honest.)

I was pretty impressed. I found the first quarter of an hour a bit worrying - it looked like it could all go pear-shaped; the editing was a bit obvious ("I'll buy the flowers myself") and though I can understand the need to caption 40s England and 20s England, I thought the rest of it was pretty obvious.

Actingwise: Kidman is good but not great, and in the train-station sequence she tries too hard; far better is the entire sequence with Nessa and the kids. Moore is good, especially at her shell-shocked depression. When she turns up again nearer the end... I thought she was fantastic. That was acting - not just the age, but the lack of depression, etc. Streep annoyed the hell out of me, and though the character's meant to be annoying... christ, she was REALLY annoying.

I reckon the best performances came from the supporting cast. And no, not Ed Harris. Steven Dillane's Leonard was superb - he's the real star of the train-station sequence. And I though Danes and Janney worked really well as the "healthy" foils in the 20thc, even if they had tiny parts; Danes was especially good, I felt - the bit where she hugs Moore is perfect.

As it went on, the editing got a lot better and less cheesy, and was indeed one of my favourite things; motifs like the eggs breaking, etc. And, unlike Two Towers, every part of the tripartite structure was as interesting as the other. Hence: it worked. The direction and editing were both great; Philip Glass' score, though interesting, was probably a little bit too prevalent for my tastes, but hey, it weren't bad.

Finally: I think the thing that struck me was how depressing it was for a mainstream, multi-Oscar-nommed movie. I mean, it's a film about depression and depressed people. I thought it handled the topic incredibly sensibly (and do indeed want a t-shirt that says "Even crazy people like to be invited"); it certainly affected me. Friends I saw it with didn't notice this til I pointed it out to them afterwards, but they agreed. I mean, Richie/Buck in the 50s sequence is clearly a troubled child. I found it a rather affecting perfomance of what's probably depression when it's almost too early to tell.

It's good and solid, anyhow, and I hope it gets something at the Oscars. Just not everything; the Baftas were a good indication of what I'd like to see happen.
 
 
Lilly Nowhere Late
05:47 / 01.03.03
I cannot really read all the comments about this film because I
haven't gone to see it yet and I just hate knowing what to expect. I
must say, however, that reading "The Hours" followed up by a re-read
of "Mrs.Dalloway" about 3 years ago was one of the most rewarding and
consuming bouts of indulgence I have experienced in aeons. I was so
pleased to know that this film was made and that it seems to be done
rather well.(hearsay) Do treat yerselves and have a good double read
and see if you don't agree. O yeah, and it would be remiss if I
didn't mention that I literally used to be married to Septimus.
Theres proof in Narcotic Transmissions and The Dreaming Satellite if
you doubt this...tho who'd care I cannot imagine...
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
08:16 / 01.03.03
I'm reading this thread with the music on the official site going in the background, lovely...

I have to disagree with Paleface, I thought Kidman and Streep were both wonderful, though as I said at the top, I don't tend to watch 'real acting' films and stuff that much, so I don't have as much to compare it with as other people. I loved the Invisibles-esque teasing at the start of whether Virginia was actually writing the life that the Streep character was living (a misleading magazine article I'd seen while waiting seemed to suggest that Woolf was out-of-time and writing what the other two were going through, literally).

And for me, the 'lump in the throat' moment was the end, when Sally comforts Clarissa and Julia hugs Laura, forgiveness, compassion, understanding...

Unfortunately I can't talk about Jeff Daniel's 'performance in the cultural studies sense', and didn't fully understand it until looking at the site and realising what his character signified to Clarissa. Having only ever seen him in fluff like 'Speed' or 'Arachnophobia' it was nice to see him in a different setting. Was it just me or was he pitching his voice rather high? I kept worrying that wardrobe had supplied him with the wrong pair of trousers that day.
 
 
The Strobe
09:38 / 01.03.03
Hmn. I thought Kidman was near-wonderful, and Streep wasn't bad per se, she's just very fucking irritating.

Yes, you're right on the lump-in-the-throat thing.

I enjoy the idea of Woolf writing the other lives, but I'm not sure (especially having read the book) that it's anything other than an interesting but flawed theory.

And I second reading both books, preferably Mrs Dalloway first, and then The Hours. We all know that "The Hours" was the working title for Mrs Dalloway, right? They're not difficult reads, and neither is too long, and the Woolf is simply fantastic. The Cunningham is pretty damn good. It's a shame, but I really do think a working knowledge of at least the Woolf is pretty important to the film... the adjective I kept coming up with to describe it was "literary". I did not like the Septimus-->Richard translation, sadly, but that's personal preference. Poor Septimus.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
15:55 / 01.03.03
Well, Luckily I had Plums to explain most of what I didn't get from Mrs Dalloway and, after having a bad experiene with Orlando about 5 years ago I suppose it's about time I gave her another go, the website is really good for helping out explain things for non-Woolf people like me.

The 'Woolf writing the other lives' thing, I know that's not what happens, I just thought at the start that that was where it was going, what with Streep's character echoing her over the 'buying the flowers' thing, but I did see that that's not where it goes.
 
 
Sebastian
23:19 / 01.03.03
It was a wonderful movie that asks an important question.

I only saw the trailer (which I have to confess it repelled me), and I don't think I'll see the full movie, so go ahead and spoil it for me: what's the question? Is it that you put in the topic abstract (Is it living if we do so for other people, not for ourselves?)??
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
09:00 / 02.03.03
Pretty much. In each of the three periods someone has to make a decision about whether it is sufficient to live in such a way that you make those that depend/love you happy, at the cost of your own happiness, or do you have to be true to yourself even if that makes other people unhappy. Kidman and Moore's characters both come to a 'live for myself' decision, it's a bit more difficult for Streep's character but she gets forced into what is strangely, living for herself but bringing her closer to her girlfriend and her daughter, so suggesting that depending on who you consider 'the others' to be, will dictate whether it has to be an either/or for your happiness.

I expect now someone will be along to say I missed the point and Sebastian: Get the video when it comes out then
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
18:25 / 02.03.03
Yes. So shallow of me, but Nicole Kidman should *always* wear that prosthetic nose. I thought she looked fantastic.

I'm with you, Persephone.

And I found/find it very hard to respond critically to this film because so much of it had personal resonance for me. The 'long suffering partner to a loon' being one such theme. I told an ex about this the other day and he cackled for about five minutes. Also, I bawled through a large part of it. But I'll have a go...

I don't think the question in the abstract is the only *point* to this film though, this ambition and breadth one of the things I loved about The Hours.

Something I really valued in it was for once a 'mainstream' (and I'd agree that this a thoroughly odd thoroughly mainstream Hollywood film. I think it gets certain wild cards in Hollywood due to the huge status of the stars and the 'Brit' factors of Daldry and Woolf. Brits and period folk are allowed to be fucked up and miserable) film, it had a reasonably nuanced and intelligent attitude to issues of mental (ill)health and depression. And examined carefully the impact of depression/manic depression not only upon the sufferer, but on their families/lovers etc.

And it seemed to expand from this into examining the age-old question of how mental health and creativity intersect, that old 'cure me and you take away my genius' chestnut is explored here with intelligence and sensitivity.

As is the question of how love functions within a relationship where one partner is seriously mentally ill/self-destructive. Is it love to protect them from themselves? Or it is love to allow them to go their own way, follow their (creative) energies, even though this may well kill them? Thought the interplay between Dillane and Kidman was wonderful during their scenes, and incredibly touching.

I'll have a think and come back.

And actually, I quite liked the transposition of Septimus into Richard. Underlines that, although we're led to be believe so at the start, Clarissa Vaughn's story is *not* a contemporary resetting of Mrs.Dalloway, but merely a narrative that overlaps it. And that this overlap is conscious, at many points, rather than far-fetchedly (?!) coincidental.

My first reaction to the swopping of shellshock for AIDS was a grimace, I'll admit, but I've begun to really appreciate the shift in focus. (is this from Cunningham's book, or unique to the film?)

In that, for an avowedly non-straight (that's as close as Daldry will let us get, but he's out about having had relationships with men and women) man, AIDS looms larger than for straight society. And gives rise to what has almost become a cliche of having address books with a generation of names crossed out. The comparison with the war veterans is an interesting one, I think, and provides scope to look at survivor's guilt, through the character of Richard.

Oh, and I'd forgotten about The Hours being Mrs.D's working/alternate title. Cheers, Paleface
 
 
The Strobe
22:35 / 02.03.03
Yes. Bingo, Bengali. Will have a think and come back also. Stuff to work on.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:17 / 04.03.03
What did you think about Jeff Daniels' performance? Performance in the cultural studies sense

Can you explain what you mean by this, Persephone? Not sure I understand why specifically Dnaiels' performance... but am interested...
 
 
Mike-O
13:57 / 04.03.03
"Can you explain what you mean by this, Persephone? Not sure I understand why specifically Dnaiels' performance... but am interested... "

Jeff Daniels, being largely know for his incredibly moving performances in such films as Dumb and Dumber, Speed, and Arachnaphobia.... :P

So you see where this is going my friend...

Given that, though, I found his performance quite well done in this film, shocking as that was. His portrayal of the homosexual ex-lover of Richard gave him an interesting role to play with Streep's character Vaughn, and in my opinion outshone her in their scene. Mind you I found her a little too static in her acting for my liking, but I generally always find her that way. Regardless, a wonderful movie by all counts.... It's really a shame films like this are becoming harder and harder to find (It would be nice if we could just transport the theater mentality into hollywood picture making altogether to produce some fantastic films).
 
 
Persephone
15:20 / 04.03.03
Well you know, I left the theater not knowing what to think about Jeff Daniels' acting --i.e., acting "gay" (apart from the whole Sam Gamgee thing). I shouldn't have said "in the cultural studies sense." I'm not really sure what cultural studies is... but I mean in the sense of thinking about sexuality as performance, on a theoretical level; and then on a political level, how okay am I going to be about who performs what. And ought I try to be more okay or less okay with this or that. I actually don't mean this as a criticism of the movie, I was just curious about what other people thought.
 
 
Mike-O
15:46 / 04.03.03
Persephone.... I can understand the angle you're coming from. I think to portray a character from a different sexuality than the actor, especially in a movie as dynamic in its emotional intensity as this one, makes said actor's performance all the mroe difficult. I doubt that the actor in question would ever want to come off as sterrotypical, but by the same token they want to do that character justice by giving the role as much depth as possible, which ultimately will include influence in regards to sexuality. That said, I think Daniels walked a thin line well -- he did not come off as flamboyant, in the least (which of course is the easy route when a straight actor attempts to emulate a homosexual role). He instead comes off as a character with a passin for life which he wants for Clarissa to see, to understand that regardless of at what time or in what way, both him and Clarissa were drawn into Richards life and enthralled by the means with which it kept them from having top face their own lives. By that token, he wants her to understand that her life is out there waiting for her to claim it, as it was for him. And in that sense, I found his character quite empowering in his journey, and his enlightenment. Cheers to you, Daniels.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:50 / 05.03.03
Does anyone want to pay for me to see this so I can argue with the people who think it's any good? Go on, I'll give you the money back if I actually like it.

Script by David Hare. Directed by Stephen 'Billy Elliot' Daldry. Starring Meryl Streep. Music by Philip Glass. If only I'd had an invite to the wrap party of this one.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
20:14 / 05.03.03
If I wasn't planing to go and see Frida I could be tempted to accompany you and see you eat your sarcasm at the end of it...
 
 
Mourne Kransky
16:08 / 06.03.03
Script by David Hare. Directed by Stephen 'Billy Elliot' Daldry. Starring Meryl Streep. Music by Philip Glass.

Indeed, Flyboy, looks like a winner. Plus, Michael Cunningham has written some other pleasant stuff, strong on narrative, if slight of characterisation and overly sentimental.

Not to mention splendid Julianne Moore (who is, as ever, excellent and very moving) and lovely Stephen Dillane as Leonard. Nicole's nose was impressive (though not as impressive as Julianne's makeup in her last scenes) and it featured in the credits but it did mean her face was lacking in any animation throughout, not entirely consonant with her behaviour during her impulsive, agitated spells. Ed Harris sure looked the part and like everybody else in the film, acted the role well. Yes, Alison Janney is undoubtedly a shag of the first order and the little boy (Bug) was heartbreakingly good.

But Sweet Jesus Christ, what a load of overhyped and energy-sapping Road To Nowhere. There wasn't one character, except for poor long suffering Leonard and Julianne Moore as she faced the ordeal of conjugal duty with John C Reilly, about whom I cared for more than a fleeting moment. All those self-obsessed and self-pitying people. Virginia Woolf should be weighted down with stones and sunk in the Thames. Wish I'd gone to see Adaptation now.

I blame you, Flowers, and your Bengali henchwoman!
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:41 / 06.03.03
Wow. I have henchpeople now? And I prefer the term 'devoted slave' if it's all the same to you. (Must curb these self-destructive tendencies).

Nicole Kidman's nose is up for a 'Best Prosthetic' Oscar, facing fierce competition from Nic Cage's wig from Adaptation and Tom Cruise's personality in Minority Report.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
17:38 / 06.03.03
Flowers, you're too nice to have "henchpeople" now that I think of it. Mind you, BiPlatforms plays second fiddle to none, so my alternate terms of "acolyte" or "amanuensis" are disallowed. Will you settle for fellow traveller? Will The Divine Miss P d'ya think?

My initial response to the film was fairly negative (obviously... )which surprised me because of the strength of the component parts and the quality of the performances. By a process of elimination, I would perhaps have to blame the cinematography or the editing, or whatever, but both camera work and the management of the interpenetrating time streams were outstandingly well done. There were so many excellent things therein to admire but I still felt that, frustratingly, it didn't touch me where it had to and capture my emotions.

It is undoubtedly brave, giving us four suicidal people and dealing with their struggle for two hours. I think, like Mr Persephone, I was too affected by the minor characters, by the saintly Leonard, by the psychologically scarred little boy with the huge eyes watching a disappointing and frightening adult world, and by Clarissa's partner and daughter, trying to find the strength to give to Clarissa when she was trapped in her busy bubble of personal history.

Had that element been stronger, and it was all there in front of the audience but so secondary, I might have been more able to empathise with the main characters. The film's great success suggests that it is I who am out of kilter here in not catching the gloomy groove.

I discussed it during the warm up to an event I facilitated today with a dozen psych nurses and I found their perspective echoed my own much more than I suspect other Barblers' responses to the film might. A couple of those guys brindled at what they perceived as the romanticisation of suicide and major depressive illness, so perhaps it wasn't the film at all but my own jaded viewpoint which militated against me connecting with the narrative in the way others have.

Perhaps it was just that I watched Julianne Moore in The End of the Affair the other night and that much superior film was still reverberating in my head. Judging by the responses here, mine is a very minority opinion.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:05 / 07.03.03
But I'm entirely sure you're entirely right, Xoc, and that's the important thing. Can't tell if your response to my list was sarcasm that agreed with me, ironic faux-misunderstanding, or neither. But thanks for pointing out that Stephen Dillane is in it too - this really is the most Islington movie ever made. Now go see (stopwhiningand)Adaptation!
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
16:49 / 07.03.03
See, I loved the film, but reading yr comments Xoc I'm reminded of what I said to my counsellor a couple of days later:

that 'I was *so* glad I hadn't seen it years ago as I might well used it as justification for killing myself. And that I could see danger in this film'

Which may be akin to what's icking you about it. And icks me about it as well, in parts. Was having v.similar convo with work colleagues today although we're possibly professionally a little less 'SWAA' than you evil pysch types(!) (although not today. sheesh. )

I said in my first post that I would find it very hard to be critical about this film, meaning as a discrete cultural artefact, and I think I've proved my point

In that I'm pretty sure that my raving about this film is prompted partly by the fact that it has a *hell* of a lot of personal resonance for me, (genuinely, as opposed to the usual mental gymnastics I have to do with cultural stuff to make it all about me ) and I've seen it as possibly the perfect moment in my life.

Hmm.

still think it's a great piece of filmaking. And yeah, the boy who plays the kid is extraordinary...
 
 
Persephone
21:46 / 07.03.03
You either oscillate in this film's rainbow or you don't, I guess. That's not a terribly critical statement, but I think it's true for all art. Not that some art isn't really shit. Does anyone think that this movie was poorly crafted? Because I can see how it might not come alive for some people and leave them cold. And really, too, perhaps it's something to do with depression. It's a *totally* frustrating and alienating and boring condition --cf. Prozac Nation.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
22:44 / 07.03.03
I do wish I hadn't pissed on your parade, guys, since lots of lovely people whose opinions I respect enormously have got so much out of the film. I've had time to think it through a bit more and have some kind words to say that I missed before: re Jeff Daniels' character and what he represents, also finding Kidman's work registering with me at a distance more favourably than it did off the bat, and yet, and yet.

So I'm going to leave you all to it. There's maybe a debate to be opened up tangentially about films and mental illness and maybe I'll kick that off elsewhere. I think I have ishoos... Maybe the old blues about my mother's suicidal years. You think? Ha! No, I'm not going there tonight.

One odd thing I discovered on looking at portions of the dialogue on the page. Heretically, perhaps, I now see that there is much humour there I didn't pick up on at the time.
 
  
Add Your Reply