Greetings blogophiles! This is Rana (rhymes with Banana! Unless you're British...then it doesn't...)
Having briefly discussed the magnificent film, The Hours, with the other two blunt judges, and conducting a brief analysis of the noises and facial expressions this movie inspired in them...well let's just say those two aren't big fans. I on the other hand, beg to differ sir...(I do that a lot, you'll see!) I shall try with all the might of this figurative pen to persuade you that The Hours is definitely worth one hundred and fourteen minutes of your time.
Here are a few things you should know:
The film was directed by Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot, The Reader)
The screenplay was written by David Hare (who also wrote the screenplay for The Reader). The screenplay is based on the 1999 Pulitzer-winning novel by Michael Cunningham.
The film was directed by Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot, The Reader)
The screenplay was written by David Hare (who also wrote the screenplay for The Reader). The screenplay is based on the 1999 Pulitzer-winning novel by Michael Cunningham.
And the cinematographer (amazing amazing amazing) was Seamus McGarvey whose work we have seen in Atonement and High Fidelity (heads up judges, that's right!). I am a huge fan.
I'll start things a little out of order: For me as a movie-watcher and now movie reviewer, cinematography is truly of utmost importance. Even if everything in the movie is an absolute disaster, a masterful cinematographer can give me a film worth watching. Most often though, the cinematography is the icing on an already delicious pastry (Amelie much!). I cannot quite say that this is the case here, The Hours would lose a lot of its value without the brilliant work of the brilliant Mr. McGarvey. His use of contrasting colours made for stark and stirring imagery. Unsettling close-ups of the faces of lead and supporting characters at times gave the movie an eerie and suspenseful nature, making one distinctly aware, from the start, that this film is one about tragic existences.
As for the cast, well, first I must attempt to explain the plot.
The film revolves around three women, each from a different generation, whose lives are connected in time through the novel Mrs. Dalloway . Each woman suffers a sense of desperation and perplexed restlessness, grappling with the mental and physical health of herself and those around her. In 1923, Nicole Kidman portrays Virginia Woolf who is deeply involved in writing her novel, Mrs. Dalloway, while struggling with mental illness, isolation and fear.
In 1951, Julianne Moore portrays Laura Brown, a pregnant housewife and mother, feeling trapped and confronting her identity and her lack of satisfaction with her life vis a vis her duties as a mother and a wife. At this stage of her life, she is engrossed by Mrs. Dalloway.
In 2001, Meryl Streep plays Clarissa Vaughan, a woman living with her lesbian partner, consumed by throwing an award party for her long-term friend, a poet, played by Richard Harris. Clarissa faces the task of coming to terms with the nature of her relationship with this friend and ultimately with herself.
While I originally found myself criticizing the film's extremely shallow, undeveloped and peculiar take on sexuality, unlike most critics I don't take issue with the 'dispassionate lesbianism' seen in The Hours (Richard Schickel of Time Magazine). Upon further reflection on the treatment of sexuality, it seems to me that the awkward, misplaced or simply jaded same-sex encounters in the film bring an air of reality to...well the reality that is sexual encounters. Rather than watching compelling, intense (and most often reciprocated by both parties) moments of sexual passion, one faces fleeting moments of uncomfortable, uncertain, timid and weary interactions. I appreciate this watered-down, reality-akin experimentation with sexuality, while I also admit that the screenplay leaves the audience hanging in a major way by failing to give direction to, or develop, the plot as it relates to love and sex.
Daldry captures each era in the film beautifully even as the movie weaves in and out of three extremely different decades. One of the most intriguing things in the movie is the sense of foreboding that dominates the film from the very beginning to the very end. You continually have that feeling that makes your eyes slightly narrow, your neck slightly tilted forward, distantly wondering "am I reading into this?" and "where is this movie going exactly?" - but in a good way, oh in a delicious way!
The Hours takes on very dark themes and the film never breaks character, it has a vision from the moment it starts until the closing credits. This quality can unfortunately be a rare one in films sometimes. Stay attuned to the superb acting - such brilliance should not be taken for granted, Nicole Kidman is not just a pretty actress vying for attention by going 'ugly' (well maybe she is but who cares, the result is breathtaking), she completely transforms in this movie to the point where her voice and her mannerisms are no longer remotely recognizable.
While I can't judge the quality of the adaption, having never read Cunningham's novel, I can nonetheless tell you that on its own, this movie is worth your time. Watch it and revel in its gripping depths.
Yours in Film,
Rana [the polemic]
Ps. We are big fans of post-scripts that are longer than the 'script' itself around here but I'll keep this one short and sweet:
Please reach me at cuebluntjudges@blogspot.com with your thoughts, criticisms, musings or just a what up.
I'll start things a little out of order: For me as a movie-watcher and now movie reviewer, cinematography is truly of utmost importance. Even if everything in the movie is an absolute disaster, a masterful cinematographer can give me a film worth watching. Most often though, the cinematography is the icing on an already delicious pastry (Amelie much!). I cannot quite say that this is the case here, The Hours would lose a lot of its value without the brilliant work of the brilliant Mr. McGarvey. His use of contrasting colours made for stark and stirring imagery. Unsettling close-ups of the faces of lead and supporting characters at times gave the movie an eerie and suspenseful nature, making one distinctly aware, from the start, that this film is one about tragic existences.
As for the cast, well, first I must attempt to explain the plot.
The film revolves around three women, each from a different generation, whose lives are connected in time through the novel Mrs. Dalloway . Each woman suffers a sense of desperation and perplexed restlessness, grappling with the mental and physical health of herself and those around her. In 1923, Nicole Kidman portrays Virginia Woolf who is deeply involved in writing her novel, Mrs. Dalloway, while struggling with mental illness, isolation and fear.
In 1951, Julianne Moore portrays Laura Brown, a pregnant housewife and mother, feeling trapped and confronting her identity and her lack of satisfaction with her life vis a vis her duties as a mother and a wife. At this stage of her life, she is engrossed by Mrs. Dalloway.
In 2001, Meryl Streep plays Clarissa Vaughan, a woman living with her lesbian partner, consumed by throwing an award party for her long-term friend, a poet, played by Richard Harris. Clarissa faces the task of coming to terms with the nature of her relationship with this friend and ultimately with herself.
While I originally found myself criticizing the film's extremely shallow, undeveloped and peculiar take on sexuality, unlike most critics I don't take issue with the 'dispassionate lesbianism' seen in The Hours (Richard Schickel of Time Magazine). Upon further reflection on the treatment of sexuality, it seems to me that the awkward, misplaced or simply jaded same-sex encounters in the film bring an air of reality to...well the reality that is sexual encounters. Rather than watching compelling, intense (and most often reciprocated by both parties) moments of sexual passion, one faces fleeting moments of uncomfortable, uncertain, timid and weary interactions. I appreciate this watered-down, reality-akin experimentation with sexuality, while I also admit that the screenplay leaves the audience hanging in a major way by failing to give direction to, or develop, the plot as it relates to love and sex.
Daldry captures each era in the film beautifully even as the movie weaves in and out of three extremely different decades. One of the most intriguing things in the movie is the sense of foreboding that dominates the film from the very beginning to the very end. You continually have that feeling that makes your eyes slightly narrow, your neck slightly tilted forward, distantly wondering "am I reading into this?" and "where is this movie going exactly?" - but in a good way, oh in a delicious way!
The Hours takes on very dark themes and the film never breaks character, it has a vision from the moment it starts until the closing credits. This quality can unfortunately be a rare one in films sometimes. Stay attuned to the superb acting - such brilliance should not be taken for granted, Nicole Kidman is not just a pretty actress vying for attention by going 'ugly' (well maybe she is but who cares, the result is breathtaking), she completely transforms in this movie to the point where her voice and her mannerisms are no longer remotely recognizable.
While I can't judge the quality of the adaption, having never read Cunningham's novel, I can nonetheless tell you that on its own, this movie is worth your time. Watch it and revel in its gripping depths.
Yours in Film,
Rana [the polemic]
Ps. We are big fans of post-scripts that are longer than the 'script' itself around here but I'll keep this one short and sweet:
Please reach me at cuebluntjudges@blogspot.com with your thoughts, criticisms, musings or just a what up.
No comments:
Post a Comment