Movie Review: The Hours

The Hours

With Oscar® nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress (Nicole Kidman), Best Supporting Actress (Julianne Moore) and Best Supporting Actor (Ed Harris), The Hours has long been high on my list of films to see. When I finally got my chance, the movie didn't disappoint. Some performances, however, did.

In The Hours, three vignettes are interwoven to tell the story of three women on days that are ordinary in their lives, yet at the same time definitive. One of these women is author Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) who is occupied with writing Mrs. Dalloway, a book about a single day in the life of a woman, a day which also encompasses the story of her life. As Virginia struggles through her inspiration and simultaneous suicidal depression, the story skips ahead some thirty years to the 1950's and Laura Brown (Julianne Moore). The young and pregnant housewife and mother agonizes over her singularly unfulfilled life with her dull but adoring husband (John C. Reilly, playing a character similar to the one he plays in Chicago, the latter performance one that earned him an Oscar® nod himself, and who also gives a really great performance in a supporting role in the Oscar®-nominated Gangs of New York) and precocious 4 year-old son. Between moments of angst, Laura is reading a book: Mrs. Dalloway. Finally, in the present day, we meet Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep, who was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her role in Adaptation, but certainly gave a performance worthy of a nomination here, too). Clarissa copes with an almost overwhelmingly busy life with her longtime partner (Allison Janney), her daughter (Claire Danes), and her best friend, Richard (Ed Harris) who is dying of AIDS. Her story ties in with the others when we learn that Richard's longtime nickname for her is Mrs. Dalloway. As The Hours unfolds, the stresses endured by each woman devastates them emotionally. How each works to deal with - and finally live with - her trials and tribulations is the story the film has to tell, and the hearing of it is well worthwhile.

Nicole Kidman, who famously wears a prosthetic nose so as to more closely resemble the plain Woolf, does a fine job of playing a woman both brilliant and in deep despair. Unfortunately, that means her performance is subdued at best and offers little but a deeper voice and a monotone delivery to convey Woolf's utter lack of interest in living. Though her performance is all right, Kidman should have been nominated for last year's The Others which was truly Oscar® worthy (instead, she was nominated for Moulin Rouge in which she was also very good, but not stellar). She probably won this year on the strength of last year's performances when combined with this year's. Although I didn't see all of the films for which women were nominated in 2003, both Renée Zellwegger (Chicago) and Diane Lane (Unfaithful) gave better performances this year. Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep were, on the other hand, both superlative. Streep is typically good in virtually everything she does, and is no exception in The Hours. But Moore surpassed herself with her portrayal of Laura Brown. She lived day to day with a smile on her face that was so brittle you wondered she didn't shatter at any given moment. And when she finally does break, her determination to pick up the shards of herself and her life and move on is both visible and extraordinarily moving despite an extremely subtle performance. Ed Harris was also quite good and deserving of the nomination, though probably not the win (I haven't yet seen Chris Cooper's winning turn in Adaptation, but he's terrific in everything I have seen him in, and Christopher Walken - also nominated in the same category - was just fantastic as Frank Abagnale, Sr. in Catch Me If You Can.)

The Hours itself, nominated for Best Picture, lost to Chicago, probably a reasonable result. A nominee for editing as well (losing to Chicago in that category as well), The Hours actually deserved to win over its competition. The complexity of telling three very different stories simultaneously while highlighting their similiarities was successful in The Hours not solely because the direction was good and the screenplay excellent. It was because the editing was flawlessly done, and there were flashes of sheer genius during some of the cuts between scenarios. I was personally astounded by it (and I'm a longtime fan of good camera work and creative edits, so it takes something extra to impress me). For those looking for an all around good film - meaning one with terrific acting, a good script, an engrossing story, and all of its elements well put together - The Hours won't fall short of expectation.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: The Hours is rated PG-13. It is, however, unquestionably an adult story with adult situations and themes. Its complexity also doesn't lend itself to enjoyment by the younger set. I suspect that those younger than 16 simply won't have any appreciation for The Hours because they won't "get it". Adults, however, who appreciate a really good drama, should enjoy every minute of The Hours.