*** Official "THE HOURS" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Hours" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "The Hours" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Here is an interesting article that appeared on USA Today: The Hours': Men Just Don't Get It.
Or here.
I respectfully disagree.
~Edwin

 

[JamieD]

I do as well, Edwin. It isn't hard to see the bias in that article. More likely than not, it is an example of what happens when a reporter is told what the findings should be before they even start looking for information.

Personally, enjoyed the movie, thought it was very well done, and had a number of interesting themes within it.

Many men I know don't want to see it simply because they have no idea what it's about. It has not been advertised at ALL around here. Many women I know, on the other hand, simply want to go because of the women in the cast, despite not knowing anything about the movie.

 

[Holadem]

I read that article as well yesterday... and I must say I agree. I loved the movie, but I don't see many men, non-movie buffs liking it.
The portrayal of men who want to help but are either powerless or even completely clueless is not easy to watch for any men. For me, the idea that my woman could be so dissatisfied with life and I can't do anything about it is a terrifying one.
[EDIT] I have since changed my mind on the above paragraph
One of the best movies of the year, no doubt, top 3 material.
--
Holadem

 

[Stephen_L]

I watched and really enjoyed the film though I must place myself in the "head scratching" category. I could understand and empathize with the sadness the three women felt; one wrestling with mental illness, one trapped in a life she does not want, one investing her life in supporting another. But in the end I was deeply saddened by the choices made by some of the characters. Ms. Moore's character seems so very sad and depressed yet she doesn't share it with anyone. She seemed to be surrounded by people who might have helped. I understand that the 50's was a very staid period but her alternative to abandon her family and ease her pain by passing it on to her son and her husband seems so selfish and wrong. I did empathize with the decision of Virginia Wolf knowing she was loved but terrified of the terrible dark depressions and putting her family through them. The same for Ms. Streep's character who saw some of the emptiness in her life, but kept on working at it, and in the end I sensed the terrible things she experienced would make her wiser and stronger.

In the end I loved the story and enjoyed seeing some fine women actors older than 18 getting some quality screen time.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Ms. Moore's character seems so very sad and depressed yet she doesn't share it with anyone. She seemed to be surrounded by people who might have helped. I understand that the 50's was a very staid period but her alternative to abandon her family and ease her pain by passing it on to her son and her husband seems so selfish and wrong.

It is no more selfish and wrong than the countless number of absentee fathers these days who have also left their wife and kid(s) without any contact or child support of any kind.

This is has been the same ongoing problem that our country has been experiencing, but this time, interestingly told from a woman's point of view both emotionally and psychologically - keeping in mind of course, that her ultimate decision to abandon her family is still wrong.

~Edwin

 

[John Geelan]

I'm a guy who's heading out tonight with his wife to see "The Hours", she wants to see it.
It's my gut feeling this is a "chick flick" and I don't see it making much money because it will be hard to draw guys into it.
I'll report later if I liked the movie.

 

[Seth Paxton]

It isn't hard to see the bias in that article.

Especially since as I read it there was just as much factual and anecdotel evidence contradicting the theory as supporting it. How the writer felt this information resulted in support of her theory is beyond me.
Here's the rundown
Woman, 56 - thinks women can understand it more. Has no anecdotel (or other) evidence to support this. She has nothing to say like "the men I've spoken with don't care for it", for example.
Man, ?? - Psychiatrist. He didn't understand the character motivations. That's 1 man, anecdotel evidence basically.
Man, ?? - Psychologist. He says "Men will balk". He does not say "Men ARE balking". He is only stating what he assumes WILL BE the response by men, not what the response has been. Neither is he giving an explanation for some data already presented to him.
Man, 41 - found the film "disturbing and a little depressing" and "did not hold my interest". He gives his personal explanation at why this is, not in his terms but in his assumed terms for all men. Mark that as 2 anecdotel dislikes.
Cinemascore - no data given, just a summary of "women of all ages liked it more than men". Nice, Cinemascore being cited as data. I'm pretty sure I know how we all feel about that one night, preview night process.
Paramount - they dispute the Cinemascore results. They claim more women came to see the film first, but the men finally did come and when they did they liked it. No hard data of this "like" is given. Of course the writer of the article slants the shit out of this with "Some do". No data is given on either side, just some heresay followed by some more heresay.
Man, ?? - Psychologist. Loved the film. So on anecdotel we now have it 2-1 against.
Man, 40 - Psych consultant I think. Also loved it. Now we are 2-2
So from this the writer moves into her final paragraph and thought with "Women remain the film's biggest fans". Hmmm, really? I'll take your word on it, but not based on what I just read.
Woman, 52 - director of Older Women's League. She loved it and so did her friends. Okay, how does this prove that women like it more than men? Just having a woman say "I really liked it, I'm sure I like it more than men do. I just have to, you know."
Frankly, I don't know. How about some fucking journalism next time. This kind of puff reporting is fit for IMDb gossip shots...or come to think of it, USA Today.
BTW, any problems I had with the film had nothing to do with not getting the women's reactions or needs. In fact the only thing I thought was slightly weak was the drier, slow pace (certainly not unique to a women's film) and perhaps a slightly weaker connection between Woolf and her life and the other 2 women. Not that I don't get how they all match the literary references, but rather that having 2 of the stories literally linked while the other one remains very metaphorically linked makes the metaphor naturally weaker.
I think artistically I might have preferred to have only 1 of the modern stories just as a parallel to Woolf's own life.
But this remains a minor quibble at best. All 3 settings were wonderfully written and acted which is why I gave The Hours 9 of 10 and have it as my #12 film.
Not only that, but I have another woman's tale at #10 (Frida) and still another at #20 (Far From Heaven). Does that anecdotel evidence suddenly mean I should write an article about how men appreciate all these "women's films" more than women do? Puh-leeze.
Men aren't scratching their heads MORE than women with this film. First of all the article totally discounts the AGE FACTOR, which I'm sure plays some part in this. Second, it discounts the fact that some women might be more willing to overlook any headscratching simply because for them it's a rare treat to have so many women with good roles in the same film. I don't think that women in general are more or less comfortable with the choices made in regards to family/children. And suggesting that guys less understand child abandonment...funny how deadbeat dads who father kids and then walk out is such a problem when we have a world of guys who could never comprehend such a concept.
It wouldn't be the first pretty good women's film to do really well with women simply because of this unique chance to see a lot of women in the major roles. Or does our writer and her psych friends have another article on deck about how Ya-Ya is really good and men "just don't get it".
Of course this is all just IMO, I also have no facts to back these claims up. But then I'm not getting paid by a major paper either.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Now if the article wants to talk about how men are reluctant to go IN THE FIRST PLACE, then we are on to something.

A talky film featuring a bunch of women talking about their problems, that does seem to scare away a lot of men up front.

But I can believe the Paramount rep when he says that once men actually give it a chance they like it JUST AS MUCH as the women do. Again with the exception that some women who might not like the film if it was mostly male instead of mostly female will like the film just because of the female character dominance.

Compare Hours to Glengarry Glen Ross for example. I think they are close in being dialog-heavy films with a slow tempo. But I would also guess that GGR scores worse with women, just like Hours might with men. I think a lot of that comes from the boderline "arty" fans who will give a break to the film they more identify with (by gender roles).

 

[John Geelan]

Saw it last night and it is a heavy movie. Basically all the women are all depressed to one degree or another. The men in the movie are basically happy especially the John C Reilly character...he's absolutely giddy
Great tour de force acting by everybody including that little kid that the Julianne Moore character eventually....well I won't give it away.
Still I don't see this being even a modest money maker or having the buzz that gets all kinds of people into the theater (usually an Oscar Winner has some sort of mass appeal).
It is a very good film that movie lovers and acting lovers will enjoy but again the subject (death and longing) are a bit heavy for the average movie fan.

 

[Seth Paxton]

enjoy but again the subject (death and longing) are a bit heavy for the average movie fan.

Agree 100%, this is no feel-good nor a film of epic scale that demands mass viewership. I just balk at the idea that women appreciate "actor pieces" more than men, which is why my rant response to the article Edwin pointed out.

 

[DonRoeber]

I thought there was supposed to be a strong parallel between how Woolf's husband and Moore's husband (Reilly) were out of touch with the very deep psychological problems their wives had, though in Woolf's case she had been diagnosed but the seriousness wasn't quite recognized.

I think you can throw Clarissa Vaughan's lover/girlfriend/wife (I forget which is correct) into that mix. She had a general idea of what was going on, just like the other two mates, but wasn't aware of the whole picture.

The Hours is my favorite film of 2002, without a doubt.

 

[Tim Glover]

Saw this tonight. It's well done. Depressing however and perplexing.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Good point Don.

It just adds another point that this is a uniformally "women empowered, men happily ignorant" script.

It ain't. In fact, it's Streep (and Moore too) who are the most out of touch with Harris' life in the end. Streep doesn't realize that he is only living for her (nor does she totally understand their previous relationship I think). And Moore as a mother doesn't seem to realize what sort of impact her actions have had on her son's life (to a full extent).

 

[Holadem]

And come to think of it I wouldn't described Woolf's husband as "happy" in the film even on a "basically" level. I think he's aware of the trouble at hand to some extent at least.

I would go much further than that, he is the most aware of the three mates, and has pretty much devoted his life to helping his wife (the move to the country, the printing shop).

I would say that the mates range from acutely aware of their women's problems (Kidman/Woolf's husband), to vaguely aware (Streep's girlfriend) to totally clueless (Moore's husband). AND they belong to both genders, thus eliminating any perceived sexist/feminist agenda.

--
Holadem

 

[ThomasC]

The portrayal of men who want to help but are either powerless or even completely clueless is not easy to watch for any men. For me, the idea that my woman could be so dissatisfied with life and I can't do anything about it is a terrifying one.

I think that as long as someone is able to help, whether it's me or not, it's fine with me. But until such circumstances come up, I won't really know.

So I finally see this movie today, and I'm one of those left clueless. (Sits at the computer for 10 minutes thinking of something to type) I have nothing against the film, but could somebody please explain it?

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well Thomas, it’s a complex movie, so it’s pretty hard to wrap up briefly, but I’ll make an attempt.
First off, everything (no matter what era or what character) revolves around Virginia Woolf and her novel, Mrs. Dalloway. There are three sets of characters and four separate time periods, all of which have to do with one aother.
1st Character Set is Virginia Woolf and her family. The minor time period is when she was wrting the novel, Mrs. Dalloway, (I think the 20s, but I’m not a Woolf scholar), but most of this takes place when she committed suicide (in the 40s, I think, but you might want to check). Mrs. Dalloway, is the story (among many other things) of a woman, seemingly filled with confidence who is preparing for a dinner party. In this simple novel, Woolf plumbs the depths of the human condition, as to our doubts and despair. You will notice that much of what occurs in this time frame revolves around the real life Virginia being unable to contend with even having dinner prepared by her cook for her sister and family.
2nd Character Set is a 50s housewife and her family and friends. Laura, the housewife, is unable to even bake a cake for her husband’s birthday. Even her young son seems more competent than his mother. She too is despairing and is on the verge of suicide, put pulls back. The obvious connection, is the book she is reading, Mrs. Dalloway and the dinner theme. There is a surprise in store for us later.
3rd Character Set is set in the present, centering around a woman who is also preparing for a party, this one for a writer friend dying of AIDS. She too is, in the end unsure and filled with self-doubt, though seemingly the most competent of all on the surface.
There is some physical connection between the second and third plot lines. One way to view this, is that in one story, Woolf is writing the novel, in the second Laura is reading it, and in the third, it is being lived.
This only begins to scratch the surface of the movie, There are many themes, such as sexuality and the roles we play. It is helpful to have some knowledge of English literature and Woolf though, I think not necessary.
Hope this helps.

 

[Holadem]

It is helpful to have some knowledge of English literature and Woolf though, I think not necessary.

The fact that the movie started with Woolf's suicide was obviously intented to bridge that gap and is something I truly appreciated about the movie.

My favorite line: "The artist, the visionary has to die so that other can appreciate the value of life". Actually it sounded nothing like that, but that was the idea of the line I am referring to. Woolf/Kidman said it.

I can't wait for this one on DVD.

--
Holadem

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's not the "artist" or "visionary" who has to die. Woolf/Kidman is explaining to her husband, Leonard, why a character in the novel has to die. Of course, the conversation is fraught with subtext, since Leonard is so deeply concerned with his wife's condition, and I can see why the line might leave the impression that it refers specifically to an artist's death. The two deaths in the film are of writers, but the death in Mrs. Dalloway was not.

M.

 

[Holadem]

Michael, I know that she was referring to a character in her book. However, I could swear the word "visionary" was used to described said character (I got the impression it was some kind of artist) in the phrase we are discussing, foreshadowing her death and that of Harris' character. Am I off base here? This would be a first
[EDIT} Oh, I think it was a poet... would someone confirm?
--
Holadem