The Hours
SPOILER WARNING!! I finally watched the movie, The Hours, about three women dealing with mental illness in three different time periods. It is based on a book. The first was the famous Virginia Woolf. Though I am an English Lit major, I am not a fan of Virginia Woolf. She was famosly played by Nicole Kidman. I was not impressed with her performance. The obviously fake nose took me out of the film. Virginia Woolf suffers from schizophrenia and her life is controlled by her husband to prevent her from committing suicides, which she ends up doing anyway. Most of the move shows Woolf writing “Mrs. Dalloway.”
Then there is a pregnant housewife in the 1950s who is reading “Mrs. Dalloway” who also goes nuts. She bakes a cake, then kisses a woman. Then she leaves her kid somewhere and tries to commit suicide in a hotel. She changes her mind and instead decides to abandon her family after her baby is born. She said she did it so she could “live again” and be “free” or whatever. (mmmm sounds familiar)
Well, the selfishness of the housewife who refuses to deal with her mental illness and take care of her family affects the next generation. Her son grows up to be a famous poet who turns gay on his female lover named Clarissa and contracts AIDS. Clarissa also becomes a lesbian and has a daughter from artificial insemination. As the poet is sick and dying of AIDS the woman continues to take care of this man, the only one to do so in his life. His gay lover long abandoned him. Clarissa was all the poet had left. He decided to let her be “free” and so he commits suicide. That is when his long lost mother, whom he calls the monster, comes to visit Clarissa and to tell her how she thinks she is so lucky because she had a daughter without needing a father.
I guess you can tell from my tone that I did not like this film. I understand it fine and I think that is why I so dislike it. None of the characters were sympathtic. That is sad since this is a character driven movie. Virginia Woolf pouted and whined through the entire movie and was ingrateful to all those who tried to help her. The one female friend she has, she attacks tries to make out with her in front of the lady’s daughter making her feel very uncomfortable.
The 1950’s housewife is selfish, selfish, selfish. She is bored of her husband and annoyed with him because he gave her flowers and let her sleep in. She freaks out when her cake doesn’t come out perfect so she french kisses her female neighbor in front of her son. This freaks him out. So she decides to try to commit suicide. She changes her mind and decides that it would be better to abandon them. I agree with her son, she is a monster.
The modern Clarissa is a mess. She obviously loves a gay, sick man and lives as a lesbian “only for comfort”. The gay man returns her love by killing himself so she can be “free”. She ends the movie by coldly kissing her lover.
I know this movie is trying to show how selfish mental illness can become. It is not an inspiring movie and not recommended for those who suffer from severe mental illness. The person suffering cannot see the destruction they put into other’s lives. Virginia Woolf made those around her suffer. The housewife destroyed her family and her children. The poet broke the heart of his long suffering friend, Clarissa. They only see their own dark, self absorbed world. If only they put duty and honor before their own suffering, they would find happiness. Or else, take some medication! Clarissa has no excuse living in 2001! I gave the movie 5 out of ten. It is original, but it made me uncomfortable. A very poor character study in my opinion.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Wow–what a rich & rewarding & stress free life you must lead.
You don’t think any of these characters were a little more complicated than their ‘mental illness’, & ’selfishness’ (which could all be fixed by a good dose of ‘duty & honor’.) You think all they did was become selfishly mentally ill & destroy the lives of everyone around them who loved them & tried to help them. You don’t think any of them were talented, tormented, struggling? Would you rather have ‘the pregnant housewife’, not be selfish, stay with her family, through ‘duty & honor’ & make all of their lives even more miserable & live her life as a lie? How aware of her nature do you think she was when this guy she hardly knew came home from the war, told her she was his fantasy & talked her into marrying him? You think her only problem was that she was bored??? (Oh, & selfish, selfish, selfish). You think she french kisses her neighbor because her cake didn’t turn out? I guess you think she has a mental illness because she is not like ‘the typical baby-boomer housewife of the 50’s’. She is different, therefore she has a mental illness, she is selfish because she is not dealing with her mental illness. (And what kinds of treatments do you suppose existed for ‘her mental illness’ in the 1950’s?) She may be the most tormented woman of the three, because she had absolutely no outlet. Her neighbor wasn’t an outlet, suicide wasn’t an outlet, her family & super clingy son certainly weren’t outlets. She could not return the love she felt she was more than she deserved. She was eaten up by guilt & the wrongness of what she probably too hastily had gotten into. She may have left some destruction in her wake, but it was the only thing she could do to survive. Don’t you think she deserved to survive? Should she have tried ‘duty & honor’ instead?
Virginia Woolf was one of the first acknowledged brilliant women writers. This was not very acceptable in the era she lived. She payed for her genius with the disease of mental illness. Do you think she intentionally destroyed the lives of everyone who loved her? She finally took herself out of the game for rather muddled reasons, but one was certainly, in her mind, to spare her loved ones any more grief in trying to take care of her. On the way she produced some of the most beautiful, touching, and important work in literature. I suppose she should have stuck to ‘duty & honor’ too, & not been so selfish. It’s hard for me to believe you are an English Lit major & allowed yourself to be taken out of the movie by an obviously fake nose. You don’t have to like Virginia Woolf, but don’t you have to at least respect her contributions to literature? Maybe not–remember ‘duty & honor’ & ’selfishness’.
As for Clarissa, she is the most successful of the three. Fortunately for her she lives in a time and place where what I’m sure what you would consider her ‘mental illness’ is hardly even noticed. Of course she has had tragedy and suffering in her life. Who hasn’t? (Well, maybe you, since you don’t seem able to connect with any of it). She has always loved the poet. He is gay. (You said ‘he turns gay’–how exactly does that work? He did it intentionally?) She loves him anyway and knows this, but can’t do anything about it. They still have a lifelong relationship. They hurt each other, but come back to each other. (This does happen in the world, all the time.) She takes care of him when he is sick and crazy. He finally let’s her off the hook. This does not make her happy, but she has others who love her and will help her. (Including her daughter who obviously loves her, and her lesbian lover who obviously loves her.) What makes you think Clarissa coldly kisses her lover near the end?
Well, I’m glad you think you ‘understand the movie fine’, but I have a few questions for you:
Why are you an English Lit major? Wouldn’t you have done better becoming a psychologist so that you could tell people with a ‘mental illness’ to avoid being selfish and handle their problems with ‘duty and honor’, and not be so ’selfish’. After all, can’t they see the ‘destruction they put into other’s lives?’ And if they would look at their own dark, self absorbed lives, and put duty and honor before their own suffering they would find happiness. (This method of treating mental illness, BTW, should immediately go out to all medical schools, mental health clinics, institutions & probably hand outs for the homeless & residents of skid row.) Or they should take medication, which was easily accessible to Virginia Woolf’s generation, the selfish ’50’s housewife’s generation, but mostly for Clarissa, who has the clearest idea of her life and needs and motivations and doesn’t need it. And BTW, this really puzzles me: why has Clarissa no excuse living in 2001? You did not explain this very well (or at all).
It’s amazing to me that this movie made you uncomfortable. After all, you say you ‘understand this movie fine’. For someone who thinks all it was about was three women dealing with mental illness in three different time periods, this makes loads of sense.
Please take some advice: Change your major before you do any more damage.
BTW: How did you like the Academy Award nominated Philip Glass score? Did you understand that as well as you did the movie.
I will be happy to discuss this further: petgigs@yahoo.com
Comment left on January 16, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Clarissa lives in a time when living with a mental illness more acceptable. We understand it better and can treat it. Laura Brown and Virginia Woolf did not.
Laura Brown is no victim. She could have fixed her problem in so many different ways. She is from the pages of The Feminist Mystique.
Clarissa is the best character in my opinion. Though I like the real life Virginia Woolf over the character Virginia Woolf. I am just not a fan of her work. In university, I preferred Renaissance literature over Post-Modern, though I liked The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. Of the works of Virginia Woolf, I like Orlando the best. (wasn’t that inspired by Woolf’s lesbian lover Vita?)
So you see, I despise post- modernism. I am tired of seeing it in my movies, books, and even television shows. I am bored of nihilism, socialism, feminism, just any plain -ism to be honest.
I am also tired of so called “intellectuals” who use ad hominem attacks against those who do not appreciate what you love. I hate post modernism. That means I have a brain and use it to dislike something. I thought about it, studied, and hate it. I love humanity more than to lower it into the mud. Woolf is a tragic character, partly because she suffered from mental illness that was probably brought on by abuse. She is also tragic because of poor choices.
How do I know? Because I was once one of those “tragic” women. I believed in the feminine mystique. I was never happy and suffered daily. Then after giving birth to a daughter (out of wedlock, so I was one of those tragic single women) I decided to stop being a victim and to grow up. Feminism is ugly and traps more than saves women.
If you think I am backwards then so are Camille Paglia (oh no a lesbian! Backwards women like me aren’t supposed to like her right?) Phyllis Schafly (whose son is oh no don’t say it, gay! Little minded women who have no stress but baking cakes like myself are supposed to hate her too right?), Tammy Bruce (lesbian anti-feminist), and so many others.
Wake up, there are many women who are tired of being told that selfish women are victims. Women are better than that. I’d rather haves poems like The Faerie Queen than those who portray women as pouty sex addicts.
Comment left on January 16, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Are you ‘The Happy Homemaker’, or are you also replying to ‘THH’’s thoughts on ‘The Hours’? I’m not sure who I am responding to:
Why does Clarissa have a mental illness? Is being a lesbian a mental illness? Is loving a gay man a mental illness?
Was Laura Brown really mentally ill? Or did she just have feelings and desires that were not acceptable in the 1950’s.
Sorry, I am not familiar with ‘The Feminine Mystique’, but I don’t think Laura Brown was a ‘victim’ either. She saved herself the only way she knew how. But I would be curious to know what some of her other options were, other than making a clean break. Should she have stuck around & dragged everyone through the divorce courts? Should she have tried to get ‘counseling’ (in the 50’s that probably would have led her to take the pills in some anonymous hotel room). What were the ’so many different ways’ she could have solved her problem?
I am happy to know your preferences from university, but I’m not sure how it ties into you despising post-modernism, or even what you mean by that. If you hate it in your movies, book & even tv shows, go read & watch something else, something you do love. I think this is still a free country. I’m so sorry you don’t appreciate so called ‘intellectuals’ using ad-hominen attacks against those who don’t appreciate what you love. That’s a real bummer. I’m not quite sure how your brain led you to the conclusion that humanity is being lowered into the mud. By whom or what? The movie? The ad-hominemian intellectuals? I lost you there.
I agree Woolf is a tragic character, partly for some of the reasons you gave, although I don’t think you can draw a straight line between mental illness and abuse. I think some of Woolf’s brain was not wired properly–she did hear voices, have violent mood swings (I wouldn’t go near a term like ‘bi-polar’ near you, or ’schizophrenia’), & was generally a major depressive. (I also think her ‘manic’ periods occurred when she was writing & that that’s where her genius & creativity lay–we usually call genius’ eccentric). I’m sure this wasn’t helped by the times she lived in or by her upbringing. As for her choices, if she really was mentally ill (& I think we both agree that she was) how could she not make poor choices? Any choice she made would have been a poor choice (except, of course her choice to write.)
I’m sorry your life has been so tragic. I’m sure you’re the only one who has had to struggle in life. (Remember, you don’t know a thing about me & I am not going to parade my life as an excuse for anything.) I’m ecstatically happy for you that you have decided to stop being a ‘victim’ (one of my favorites is ‘whatever works’) (also, ’shit happens’). But just because we happen to be discussing three women here, why are we also discussing ‘feminism’? I don’t see it stamped on anything in this movie, or in ‘THH’s review.
If you see others seeing you as ‘backwards’, that’s your problem–this movie is not about ‘feminism’. It is about 2 trapped women & one healthy woman making tough choices.
Who said selfish women are victims? I sure didn’t. I don’t think any of these women are selfish. And I don’t think the women in this movie were portrayed as ‘pouty sex addicts’. You gave it that interpretation. If that justifies your choice to hate ‘feminism’ to justify your choosing not to be a victim, that’s fine (whatever works). But please don’t take it out on this movie–it wasn’t about that.
BTW: How did you like the Academy Award nominated score by Philip Glass? Isn’t that worth the movie all by itself? I would recommend buying the soundtrack & forgetting about the movie if you are so ‘disturbed’ by it.
Again, feel free to contact me–I’m not afraid of the big words you are trying to use on me:
petgigs@yahoo.com
Comment left on January 16, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Big words? I thought that maybe you also majored in Literature since you were so defensive about it.
I don’t care that the women or men were gay. The homosexuality was not the main point of the movie. I think the homosexuality was in there to give the story a different perspective. I just thought the kisses between the women (except Clarissa) were unnecessary and a little weird to be honest. “I am stressed out, so I will kiss my best friend to see if I feel better.” I thought that was strange, and something a woman would not do in real life. In the novel Mrs. Dalloway the heroine meets up with a male lover, not a female friend.
The characters, however, did have emotional problems. That was the whole point to the story. The movie reminded me of the many feminist stories and novels I read like “The Yellow Wallpaper” and “The Awakening” with an added lesbian kiss. Did the writer of the Hours believe that Peter of Mrs. Dalloway represented a lesbian lover and so replaced the former boyfriend with a lesbian crush since homosexuality can be talked about without embarrassment in today’s society? If so, I still thought it took away from the story. Now we wonder if they are having problems because they are struggling with homosexuality or are just sick? Either way, abandoning your kids so you can feel alive like Septimus and throw yourself out a window is just selfish, not noble.
I will write a post about why as a student I so loved stories like “The Awakening” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” and why at the same time I hate them today.
Comment left on January 21, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
You’re just a bundle of contradictions, aren’t you?
No, I wasn’t a Lit major. I read your review because my ‘Philip Glass google Alert’ pulled it up, & when I saw how thoroughly you not only misunderstood the movie, & so harshly judged the characters & their problems & wrote them off so easily, I was upset by your uncaring, flippant, & judgmental attitude.
How do you get to “I’m am stressed out so I will kiss my best friend to see if I feel better?” That makes no sense either in or out of the context of this movie. That’s just plain weird.
No, homosexuality was not the point of the movie, I agree with you. but it was part of the searching & confusion the women (except Clarissa, I’ll agree to that, too) were going through, among other things. I’m not sure what ‘different perspective’ you mean when you say that was why the homosexuality was in the movie. Different from what? I also don’t understand what you mean by ‘are they having problems because they are struggling with their homosexuality or are just sick’. What do you mean ‘just sick’? And if they are ‘just sick’, what are you saying about their homosexuality?
Yes, the characters had emotional problems, that was there, & the movie was about a lot of things. The movie had depth, & layers & dealt with personal problems, relationships, confusion, questioning oneself, the nature of courage, commitment.
I got your point about turning away from feminism, I can understand it, but please stop looking at this movie for proof that YOU made the right choice about casting away your old beliefs & adopting new ones that help you cope better. There’s nothing wrong with that & if it works for you, fine. (If you’re not sure, that’s something else.) You don’t have to continue justifying your decisions to the world & doing it by attacking & not trying to understand the characters in this movie & what this movie is about. It’s not that simple in this case. (Most things aren’t.)
You have to think a little deeper–these are not one dimensional characters, this movie is not about a struggle with one’s sexuality. This is not an exercise in ‘I did the right thing in abandoning ‘Feminism’ & I’ll prove it to the world every chance I get’.
Use your brain to think deeper.
Comment left on January 27, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Whoa whoa whoa! Just because I have a different point of view doesn’t mean I misunderstood the characters. I seem to be “a bundle of contradictions” because you automatically assume things about me.
I don’t like The Hours. How do you know that I didn’t think deeply?
Maybe that is why I even talk about feminism. . . or Virginia Woolf . … or how I hate a character. . . .mmmm that means I gave this movie more thought than it deserves! I even understand the role of Laura Brown and Clarissa and that Richard Brown is Septimus. I get it! Laura Brown was affected by the book. Her son and his friend live it. Ok cool, but if you dislike the characters and the theme of the entire novel you dislike it. Try analyzing the Triumph of the Will or Mein Kampf? I get it, but I don’t like the movie or the book. I feel the same way about the Hours.
I think you need to be more open minded as you are judging me. I think I am your Septimus. I have jumped out of the window of your typical thinking and decided to hate something you love and I am a literature major and a woman who loves art! See I am the artist throwing myself out of the window because of people like Virginia Woolf or like Nietzsche or Marx. They made my room dark and shadowy and I no longer want to be there. I am tired of modern writers and movies telling me that life is dark and miserable. Unlike Septimus, I escape like Daedalus not flying too close to the sun.
We focus a lot on Icarus, but I think more emphasis should be on the more practical Daedalus and Woolf and Laura Brown need to listen to his advice!
Maybe it is time for another Mrs.Dalloway to be written or an Anti-Virginia Woolf to be born. . .
Comment left on January 28, 2008 @ 11:26 am
I’m not judging you, I’m judging your shallow thinking. I don’t know anything about you except what you say in your blog (which is pretty good for what it is). Go ahead & drop in all the books, characters–name drop everything you think will impress me–you still dismissed these characters without thinking about them. If you are going to put your ideas & thoughts out here on a public forum, you owe a movie review more than a thoughtless, flippant dismissal. You are very judgmental. That’s what comes through, & that is what I’m basing my thoughts on–not you. If we have different points of view, that’s fine, too, but don’t mistake that as some kind of personal attack.
The only ‘assumptions’ I’m making about you are what you say in your reviews. Our ‘different points of view’, come more from your callow, throw away judgments. I am just urging you to think more deeply, I am suggesting that the characters in this movie are multi-dimensional, & that there are layers of meaning. That there are layers in the plot. You seem to have made up your mind, justified it by negative experiences you have had, & put it on the Internet. The reason I don’t think you don’t think deeply, is in your review, and in the other discussion we are having.
Your ‘contradictions’ come out that way, too. They made a movie of ‘Mein Kampf’? You should try writing more carefully.
Where I went to university, ALL students were required to take 3 Quarters of Freshman English. This was teach us to write clearly, to organize our thoughts, to write to make sense no matter what we write about. It doesn’t look like your university had this requirement.
I don’t care what you like or don’t like. And we probably do disagree on this movie. All I am suggesting, is that you need to devote more thought to what you write, when you are not writing about recipes, cooking & your kids. (Please don’t take this the wrong way–that’s what your blog is really about, & that’s fine. I am not belittling your blog.) I am not belittling anything. I still think you gave this movie & its characters short shrift, did not understand the subject matter, & you were very judgmental–not because of who you are or assumptions I’m making about you, but because of what you are saying & the way you say it.
THINK MORE DEEPLY!
Fran T
Comment left on January 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm