philechat

I just left the theater in nervous fits and soaked sleeves (forgot my handkerchief). Anyone else watched the film?

oriecat

Not yet, but I want to. So it was good, eh?

beastmaster

Overall, I liked it.

The one thing that's a little off-putting about the movie is that you see the characters experiencing grave emotions, but the "mystery" of the movie is *why* they are so sad. For example, Julianne Moore's character is sad [no spoilers], but it wasn't until fifteen minutes after the movie, chewing it over, that I realized a clear impression of why she was *so* sad. I'm not saying it's bad technique; in fact, I kind of liked it. But it was hard for me to understand the emotions on the screen while they were being expressed. I related more to the kid: "Why is Mommy crying?"

Personally, I thought the best performances in the movie were the supporting actors: Toni Collette, Jeff Daniels, and the guy who played Virginia Woolfe's husband.

The ending was a tad contrived, when Julianne Moore suddenly shows up.

philechat

I like the way the indoor scenes are always cluttered and too lush, either by furniture or by flowers, and the ways they shoot the walls and closed doors. It gives each frame that bitter sense of confinement all characters seemed to experience. And in many scenes the dialogues flow quite effectively, approximating natural speech. It does not rush for plot (unlike most American films), so one can savor each frame as they appear.

fando

I liked it a lot. Only one thing bugged me though: The prosthetic nose.

freemonkey

I want to see it, but I think I'll have to wait for it on DVD. I have a feeling I'll cry like a baby..... not something I'd like to do in public.

AnthonyAdams45

But I liked Mrs. Dalloway better. I guess I'm saying I prefer Virginia Woolf to Michael Cunningham, but there you go. Hours just too one note for me. Yes, the performances were nuanced. Yes, the set direction and art direction were wonderful. But the script was awfully loose in the plotting, and I think both Cunningham and David Hare missed Woolf's point in MRs. Dalloway, a point not altered by Woolf's wn suicide.

Secular Elation

I've been waiting impatiently to see The Hours--but I can't! Why not? Because NONE of the theaters in my city are featuring the movie! The movie opened wide on January 17, but it was nowhere to be found in my city! WTF!

It looks like a really good movie, and I love depressing movies for some reason.

Acinom

Reviving the thread because I saw the movie last night and felt like chatting about it.

I agree with the beastmaster that it was very mysterious in that it never revealed DIRECTLY why the characters were so sad. Out of the three stories, I immediately understood Meryl Streep's story the best because much of her anger was illuminated by her conversations with Richard about their lost youth. With Julianne Moore's character, I couldn't really understand why she just had to leave her family. Sure, she's a '50s housewife and all, but it's not a given that all '50s housewives were depressed, and it's still not clear what aspect of her life she really hated, and why the boredom of being a housewife couldn't be remedied by taking up hobbies, getting involved in her community, becoming a feminist activist, etc. As for Virginia Woolf's story, it was very clear that she killed herself partly because she was tired of her insanity, and partly because she wanted to spare her husband. But it's still not clear how her story, not the book she was writing, connected with the other two stories.

Anyway, I'm open to all thoughts on this intense movie. I'm thinking now that the message it was trying to make was that in our lives, we all have to make tough choices that would either lead us to a secure, stable family life or to a life that doesn't tie us down. Either choice involves having to deal with a certain degree of guilt. Choice #1 is embodied by Meryl Streep and her mourning for happier days when she was young and filled with hope. Choice #2 is embodied by Julianne Moore and to a certain degree, Louis, who both abandoned Richard and who are both sad about it even though they felt free and happy when they first left him.

A mini-rant that has nothing to do with what I just said:
What's up with the flickfilosopher? I used to like her reviews, but she tried coloring this movie in terms of feminism, which is simply not what the story is about! Quote: "Women live lives of quiet desperation, forever in the thrall of their obeisance to the men and children who depend upon their tender loving care." She also says that The Hours' message is that: "The destiny of the female of the species, whether gay or straight, professional or homemaker, is to look back on life with regret at having given so much to others and so little to oneself, no matter what choices she's made."

Argh!

fando

There's a lot more to Woolf than the movie touched on. For one thing, did you know that Woolf's suicide was in part influenced by the stress of living in WWII England? She was somewhat a patiot, having once vowed with her husband to take their lives should the Nazis invade England. Despite what the movie portrays, she was a fairly active intellectual and not necesarilly shut up in her room. That's why she wanted to go back to London: the quiet countryside only magnified her internal tourmoil. Woolf needed the hubris to survive. The Hours briefly touches on various part of Woolf's essence, but it can't convey the whole of her being and her writings. Consider it a gateway drug if you will.

That reminds me, Woolf wrote that a woman needs a room of her own to write, which is a metaphor for independence from the meddlesome interjections of men. The movie seemed to portray this literally by showing Woolf shut up in a room of her own. That's not quite the same thing, but it was interesting to see.