No one brought brownies, but that was ok; Meryl made the "crab thing" and it proved very popular (and yes, that's a rare joke from the movie). And so we were off on a two-hour journey that shuttled from 1923 England to the 1951 LA suburbs to 2001 NYC. At the end of the meeting, Brandon and I didn't jump to talk about it, but sat in silence for a minute as the credits rolled and let it sink in.
Did we like it? It was hard to say. We definitely didn't not like it; it was so complex that we tried to get through all the layers before making a final judgment call, which is still difficult to do. We came up with the following:
-The acting is phenomenal. Meryl Streep is great as usual, but it's one of the few times in her career that she's actually out-acted. Nicole Kidman perfectly portrayed a woman succumbing to mental illness. I've read a bit about Virginia Woolf (namely her hilarious Dreadnought hoax, which is possibly the best practical joke ever played), but I never realized just how much her illness affected her; I never could quite picture her in real life. Nicole Kidman pulled it off in an Oscar-worthy performance.
And Julianne Moore--holy Mrs. Dalloway, where did that come from? I haven't seen her in a lot, but I'll never doubt her abilities from now on. In Far From Heaven, she plays a character in the same time period and position as in The Hours, yet the roles are perfect polar opposites. We agreed that she should have won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for The Hours. Not to mention, she played herself old, which could have been hilariously bad, but it wasn't.
Also, the supporting cast was all great. John C. Reilly, Toni Collette, Ed Harris (!), Allison Janney, Jeff Daniels...all had small roles, some for only a minute or two, but they were all brilliant and supportive of the powerhouse performances by the three main women. Now that I've gone on for three paragraphs about the acting, let's move on, shall we?
-All that said about the acting, the script could have used some improvement. "I felt like several times they were going somewhere good," said Brandon about the movie's various monologues, "but they got sidetracked just a little bit and ended up going somewhere else." (Nonverbatim.) I felt a little differently. Some of the script was good, but half of the character's speeches could have been cut. Frankly, Julianne Moore's segments had no impassioned monologues, and hers was the story we were both most interested in. Coincidence?
In contrast, in the 2001 setting, not a scene went by without a monologue, yet they seemed to go nowhere. Let's be honest here: in the 2000s, people rarely go on for six minutes about their feelings unless they're a) onstage, b) full of crap, or c) ACTUALLY have something important to say (the rarest of the three.) Ed Harris is brilliant as a former love interest of Meryl's living with AIDS, but he went on for way, way too long about abstract things while I zoned.
At one point, while cooking loads of food for her party (and rather suspiciously separating eggs with her hands...ew...), Meryl breaks down and monologues...about what? For that matter, was Jeff Daniels's character even necessary? He mainly comes in to witness this breakdown.
**Also, on another note, I would like to point out some of the realism flaws in this film. Supposedly, Mer is giving this hugeish party at her apartment, complete with seating chart. Cool, but why would you start making all the food that day? Would you really leave the baking, or even some of the prep work, until you're all frazzled? Not only that, but she takes breaks from food prep to:
a) cry in front of Jeff Daniels (who, as you can see from the picture, really doesn't give a damn)
b) cry in front of her daughter (who also doesn't really give a damn), and
c) lie on her bed with her daughter and talk about life.
As the Realist of the World, I would like to point out: THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE. In real life, you run around like Charles Manson prepping everything, while crying and talking about life. It's called multitasking.
I might have to rename my blog: "The Philosophy of Zola...and, advice for hosting dinner parties!" And now, I will take off my Realist cap, and return to the film analysis.**
So, in closing, the script could have stood a rewriting. I haven't read the novel, so I don't know how adapted it is, but yeah.
-The score is by Philip Glass. That's all I need to tell you. I like Philip Glass's music, but it all sounds the same, and it all reminds me of The Illusionist.
-I absolutely loved the editing, and Brandon agreed: the way it seamlessly combines and intertwines the stories of the three women is attentive to detail and award-worthy. There was a specific type of name for that editing, but I don't recall it; perhaps he'll comment and tell me. Great filmmaking in general, but Brandon's more the critic of that than I am.
-And, in regards to Nicole Kidman, I loved the scenes between her and the servants. She's simultaneously afraid of them and bitching them out:
"Nelly, please go to London to get some ginger for the children. I want to give them a treat."
"I have to make lunch, ma'am. There's no time."
"..."
"*death stare* Is something detaining you, Nelly?"
PWNED, NELLY. And well-won, since Virginia had just caught the servants making fun of her for being mentally ill and all.
As a side note, that isn't actually the movie character. I kept trying to Google image search Nelly from the movie, and this Nelly kept coming up instead:
In my humble opinion, he would have gotten the movie the Best Picture Oscar.
-After some hard thinking, B and I decided that it was a close call, but Salma Hayek should have won Best Actress that year for her performance in Frida. Both actresses were brilliant, but Nicole only had to cover one day... Salma had to cover a lifetime. Not that Nicole didn't deserve it, of course.
So! In short, how to sum up The Hours? As you can see, it's impossible to entirely sum it up in a neat and orderly fashion. If I had to, I would say a well-performed, well-meaning movie. It's not about love, although there's a lot of love in it; it's about three women in three time periods, connected through mental strife, strength, and determination. And the ending...I won't tell you the ending, but it connects back to the beginning and the whole film so well. I call this meeting of the Depressed Women's Club to an end, and someone had better bring brownies next time.
In closing, Meryl wasn't the only character subject to a monologue. Julianne and Nicole both gave cathartic speeches; Julianne pulled hers off the best. However, Nicole's might be the most famous. It drew mixed reviews from the two of us. Brandon thought it wasn't entirely sincere; I thought it came close--so close--to the mark.
Found at the train station by her well-meaning husband, who has her under his constant care and protection, Nicole aka Virginia explains to him that mentally ill is not synonymous with emotionless. In fact, she is still very much alive:
If I were thinking clearly Leonard, I would tell you that I wrestle alone in the dark, in the deep dark and only I can know, only I can understand my own condition. You live with the threat; you tell me, you live with the threat of my extinction. Leonard, I live with it too. This is my right. It is the right of every human being. I choose not to suffocate in the anesthetic of the suburb but the violent jolt of the capital. That is my choice. The meanest patient, yes, even the lowest is allowed some say in the matter of her own prescription. That by which she defines her humanity. I wish, for your sake, Leonard that I could be happy in this quietness but if it is a choice between Richmond and death, I choose death.
And, after this intellectual discussion, we watched a few hours of Family Guy and Who Wants to be a Millionaire reruns. I love the contrast of my life.
P.S. I update the lists below when I accomplish things...
Great review. I might actually have to watch this now (considering it's sitting on my mantel.)
ReplyDeleteP.S. Like my new display name?
Great post as always! But who is this Carl person?
ReplyDelete