Page 1 of The Hours

Just got back from seeing this. First things first - this is not worthy of Best Picture, not on first viewing at least. But, I expect the Academy will go for this, but really due to lack of choice from 2002.

The film is split into three segments - one from 1921, one from 1951, and one from 2001. The stories from each segment interweave, but I will say that overall, the 1950s segment is by far the best. This stars Julianne Moore and John C. Reilly, and this is possibly the most intriguing.

The second best is the 1920s segment, starring Nicole Kidman and her infamous nose. It is good, but drags at times.

The 2001 segment is poor: although Meryl Streep and Ed Harris put in good performances, a lot is left unsaid, yet too much time is spent on mundane details.

Overall, Daldry directs well, but the whole atmosphere of the film is slightly misplaced. Definitely worth seeing, but not in the calibre of other Best Picture winners. No doubt I will get this on DVD (it is a Buena Vista release - so expect a October/November retail date), but this is not as good as I hoped...the trailer dresses the film up better than it really is, but I suppose that is the point of the trailer.

A slight disappointment.

This film was one big yawn. Its not a bad film, its just such a mundane and uninspired piece of filmmaking. There is NOTHING that stands out, and that includes the performances. Its pretentious babble and will probably win the best picture Oscar simply because of that. The direction was poor, and the thing felt like some kind of crappy music video (I can`t believe this won at the BAFTAs for music). Do the film industry a favour and DON`T spend any money on this.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 26th February 2003, 16:22

Actually, I thought it was pretty interesting and really very powerful. It fudges some details of Virginia Woolf`s suicide in order to strengthen the parallels between the characters, but the development of the three narratives in both their thematic/emotional synchronicity, and, significantly, the way they depart from one another, is pretty extraordinary. As for Daldry`s direction, it was a little over-bearing at times (a common feature of theatre directors who make the swich to cinema, see Sam Mendes), but it`s helped no end by Philip Glass` hallucinatory score.

I have to say I don`t understand the comparison with music video, but there has been a lot of talk of pretentiousness and staid worthiness with regard to this film and, of the former I would simply remind you that a pretentious work is one that attempts to achieve some higher aim and fails, and there`s a world of difference between that and one`s failure to understand it. As for staid worthiness, well, with the lyrical intercutting, the swirling vortex generated by the music, the involving interplay of parallelisms (I particularly liked the visual parallel made between the dead bird`s `grave` and the cake Julianne Moore`s character makes for her husband) makes this not only an ambitious and daring work, but one that is rich and complex enough for it to not be unfairly described as experimental by Hollywood`s current standards.

--Mike

"there`s a world of difference between that and one`s failure to understand it"

That`s always a common thing to say to someone when they don`t like what you like. It usually comes across as a pot shot to insult someone`s intelligence. The reason I didn`t like it is because it tries too hard to evoke emotion, and completely fails. Yes, its a sad story (or 3 stories), but the scenes in the film don`t communicate this very well.

The acting is very good, but the way in which it is presented is not. From The Hours and Billy Elliot, I have pretty much made up my mind that Daldry is a crap Director, at least in making films. I know exactly what you mean about "theatre directors", although Sam Mendes is infinitely better. Daldry can stir his actors, but he can`t capture it.

"That`s always a common thing to say to someone when they don`t like what you like. It usually comes across as a pot shot to insult someone`s intelligence."

Whilst I`m not going to get into a futile p***ing contest about whether you or I or anyone else `understands` the film, I do think it`s important to appreciate that it is possible to fail to understand certain elements, and thinking that all that matters is one`s immediate, fairly unreflective reaction isn`t going to be taken particularly seriously by anyone.

It`s interesting that you say that the film tries too hard to convey emotion, as the critical consensus seems to be that the film is too cold, too academic, too lacking in actual emotional content, that it`s better at talking about emotions rather than evoking them. I haven`t decided whether this is true or not, although it seems to me that even if it is true it`s not necessarily a bad thing.

Also, I find your comment about Daldry interesting when you say "Daldry can stir his actors, but he can`t capture it." How does a director go about `capturing` what the actors provide? How is the matter of directing actors in performance different from `capturing` that performance on film, in your view?

--Mike

P.S.

I`m actually quite surprised I can`t even say p***ing.

This item was edited on Saturday, 1st March 2003, 01:17

I do know what you mean about understanding the film, but it is about 3 women. But then you might think that you would have to be a woman to completely "get" the film. But, it is directed by a man, so in many ways there are elements of what a man thinks a woman would feel in a certain situation, thus making it kinda stupid to actually talk about understanding the film. It`s up to your own interpretation, just like any film. And by the way, I would kick your ass in a p***ing contest ;-)

About the emotion. As you`ve said:

"better at talking about emotions rather than evoking them"

Well, doesn`t that back my comment up. Plus add in all the actresses sulking in front of the camera and the music constantly trying to stir some emotion in the audience (a tactic that is used by many, most notable Mr Spielberg and Mr Williams). It may work for some, but not me.

And about Daldry. I think he is great at motivating his actors, but he needs to go to film school and practice storyboarding. His camera work is just terrible in terms of angles. I know he doesn`t do the camera work himself, but if he is truly involved in the filmmaking process, he will be talking to the people that do the storyboards and the camera work. I`m a film student and I know a little bit about this, and although its hard to explain, but if you made even a short film you would understand.

Let the p***ing commence ;-)

I`ve just seen it and I thought it was certainly one of the better films I`ve seen recently. I do think it probably helps to be a woman, I can`t imagine any of my male friends enjoying it. It did remind me a bit too much of `If These Walls Could Talk` (the first one, I haven`t seen the second, I actually tend to avoid `lesbian` themed films!) but once I got away from that comparison I really got into it. I would`ve liked a little more levity, and the soundtrack was slightly jarring at times, I prefer the scores to be seamless and so much a part of the film that they`re an intrinsic part of the story rather than an intrusion.

"Let the p***ing commence ;-)"

Well, if you absolutely insist.

In saying the film is "better at talking about emotions rather than evoking them", I was making reference to the general critical consensus, not my own feelings, this is pretty much what you seem to be saying also. There is probably some truth to this, although one of the reasons the film is emotionally powerful is because it is articulate about emotions throughout.

I think the claim about only being able to understand the film if you are a woman is pretty specious. Firstly because not only was the film directed by a man, but the screenplay and novel upon which it is based were written by men. Also the film appears to be concerned with matters that affect human beings in general and not just women. The frame of reference is such that perhaps it requires male viewers to make a greater effort to engage with it, but that`s not to say they can`t get as much out of it as a female viewer.

"And about Daldry... he needs to go to film school and practice storyboarding. His camera work is just terrible in terms of angles."

Well, if you don`t mind my saying so, that`s a very typical film school attitude towards formal composition. It`s also a pretty patronising response considering you’ve provided absolutely no examples of Daldry’s supposed failure in terms of set-ups, blocking and, in your example, angles. Even if you were right (and we could get into a very boring discussion about that) it`s still a very artificial way to approach a film of any kind, in terms of how it obeys or disobeys conventions of composition without really reflecting at how the chosen approach is tailored to the content and the intentions of the film.

--Mike

"I think the claim about only being able to understand the film if you are a woman is pretty specious. Firstly because not only was the film directed by a man, but the screenplay and novel upon which it is based were written by men"

Yes, but you are repeating what I said in my first paragraph. Read it again.

"that`s a very typical film school attitude towards formal composition"

Well, I don`t mean he has to follow rules, but I don`t think he knows what he is looking for in the frame. The lighting isn`t quite right (possible artistic choice), and as the camera work is average at best, it highlights it even more. Of course if you ask them any mistakes ARE ALWAYS artistic preferences ;-)
As for providing examples, that is a very visual thing. If I wanted to demonstrate this, I would choose a scene, draw every storyboard in my own form, then redesign them. Of course, this doesn`t come across very well in words.

"still a very artificial way to approach a film of any kind"

I totally agree, and I hardly do it at all (as in I can`t remember ever doing it before). Its just noticably poor here.

I agree with everything that Mike says--the film was wonderful--deeply emmotive with a briliant score.I left the cinema feeling depressed but eager to ponder more on the themes. After having done that -i feel the film really worked and was worthwhile. Surely the main function of a film like this is to make one think on the subject matter and to evoke an emmotional response. This film certainly succeeds .

This item was edited on Monday, 3rd March 2003, 11:24