I thought the film very uneven largely because the portrayal of Woolf as a
dreary depressive does not fit anything I know of her. I realize it is only a
day in her life--and she might well have spent many depressive days--but it
opens and closes with her suicide, as if her whole life were moving toward
that. She was often ill, but nothing in her writing is simply depressive.
Quite the contrary--it is intensely aware and joyous much of the time.
Date sent: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:22:02 -0400
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: William Gray <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: OT: After the Hours
To: [log in to unmask]
I also thought the film quite excellent. Every performance is gripping,
especially Julianne Moore's, as you mentioned. Does anyone know if
Cunningham (the author of the novel The Hours) is accurate in his
portrayal of Woolf? There were a couple details about her in the film I
was unfamiliar with.
>>> [log in to unmask] 06/29/03 11:23PM >>>
Wow. I have no idea of why the person in the video store told my husband
it was a Woman's movie. There were no bubbles. He didn't leave the room
once and he realized before I did that the litle boy was the poet with
aids. Where the hell did they get that kid, anyway? Personally, I thought
that the actress who played the 50's housewife was unbelieveably good.
Streep and Kidman both were brilliant, however, even though they couldn't
quite disguise Kidman's physical beauty suffcientlly for the part. I
wonder what Eliot would have made of it, but then he knew Virginia.
Really good; it deserved all the awards.
On another subject, goodbye dear dear Kate.
Regards from Florida, USA