THE HOURS: Book and movie

I read the book some time ago, plainoldme, haven't seen the movie, but I think the theme of the book was other than one must be gay to be happy. Although there were hints of that, I thought the theme was more along the lines of: Happy moments are fleeting and must be treasured--or they're lost forever.

Which, come to think of it, may be my world view. Do we sometimes see in books and films what we want to find?

Hi, D'Artagnan,
Well, let's see. I think Michael, the author, was trying to reconcile having simultaneous sympathy and dislike for his mother in particular if not for women in general.

However, the characters and their situation were structured in such a way as to make homosexuality an enviable choice.

As for looking for something...well, I'm not certain what you mean here. Was I looking for a gay agenda? No. What I was looking for and what I expected to find was an updating of Woolf ... bringing her mindset into the next century. That was stronger in the movie than in the book.

Re: THE HOURS: Book and movie


Plainoldme, when I see statements like this one, I can't help wondering why the authors idea can't be that some people will never be happy unless they are gay. I disagree with most arguments that say all people are or should be a certain way in their personal nature. I say the world is full of many sorts of people.

I agree Hazlitt - some people just can't get the point that stereotyping people and generalizing about them is a bad thing.

Plainoldme: When I said we tend to find what we're looking for in art, I didn't mean that you were looking for a gay theme in "The Hours". I did mean that about my own perception about the happiness being fleeting.

I'm not sure this is a conscious process. Of course, all good art allows for multiple interpretations...

I have to read Woolf -- at the present time, I am reading, "The Quiet American," by Graham Greene -- to see what the character of Mrs. Dalloway was like.

I think happiness is fleeting but misery lasts forever. I also think we tend to remember being miserable more than being happy.

I thought there were some miscues in the conception of Meryl Streep's character, Clarissa Vaughn, and in Laura Brown. I thought Streep's character was far too easily undone while Laura Brown was too sweet in her old age.

I did like the way the movie Laura Brown was able to tell the movie Clarissa Vaughn how lucky she was to want a child. For Laura, there was no choice.

You couldn't PAY me to read the book OR see the movie. They both sound like limp, depressing drivel. Plus I hate Meryl Streep. Who would want to see a movie about depressed and suicidal people with no redemption?

I am in stitches because someone wrote to me in private that any minute now, larry richette will write a note about how you couldn't pay him to watch the movie, "The Hours."

Which does make me wonder why he is responding to this question.

He just wants to be sure we know how he stands on this issue, in case anyone missed him denouncing Woolf and/or the film in two or three previous discussions.

I didn't particularly like the film, and I fear it was my fault. I didn't read the book, and I avoid reading reviews before seeing a film. I was constantly trying to find the relationship between the characters, an actual relationship which of course didn't exist (except for the son and that was actually immaterial.) How could I have avoided this problem? I'm sure I would have enjoyed the film more had it not been for my futile search.

Plainoldme, I think your statement about happiness and misery might be true for some people, but certainly not for all. Sometimes a happiness will go on for a very long time. Sometimes it comes and goes. There was a point in my life when I came to the realization that certain cares about which I'd been miserable for years had simply gone away. I have no explanation for this having happened, but I'm not complaining.

D'Artagnan,
People have odd ways of expressing neediness.

Do you know anything about topics being locked? My topic on Writing was Everything is locked.

flyboy,
I'm not certain what you mean by there having been no relationship between/among the characters.

Richard Brown, played by Ed Harris, had briefly been Clarissa Vaughn's (Meryl Streep) lover. I had read the book first (thankfully, I didn't have to pay for it: it was a souvenir of a temp job in public radio), so I knew this but, thinking back on the movie, I'm not certain that the film made that matter abundantly clear. Their relationship was referred to, but in a murky way.

On the other hand, Laura Brown had greater identity in the book -- that the woman in CA was his mother was quite plain -- but her purpose at the book's ending was unknown. The movie put her in NYC at Clarissa's request. Much clearer and more interesting.

One critic of the movie suggested that Clarissa's duaghter was unnecessary to the movie but that daughter was the purpose of the film: to express that women should be mothers only by choice.

WOW!!! THIS COMPUTER IS SLOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!

Hazlitt,
I think people are shaped more by their misery than by their happiness; that misery causes us to act with greater urgency than does happiness. On the simplest level,it is easier to complain than to compliment. We tend to correct more than cheer.

Plainoldme, First, I saw the Hours, and thought it an excellent movie. I did understand that Richard and Clarissa had been lovers. Either the movie made that clear, or I jumped to that conclusion.

Second, you are probably right that in most cases (note, that I really hate to say that all people react alike)misery does cause us to take action faster than does happiness. I also think happiness is likely to lull us into a dreamy lethargy in which we do stupid things, such as taking happiness for granted. This may well lead to misery.

I've been thinking about movies and the books that generated them. This year, I have read several books because of movies and teleplays. It has been interesting.

Almost finished with The Quiet American, which might be the best of the three books that formed this adventure. The Foryste Saga is a magnificent work that has one or two logic flaws. The Hours just wasn't that well done, despite the monumental linguistic skills of Michael CUnningham. Perhaps this book was semi-autobiographical and, if Cunningham was able to get things off his chest, he'll write better books in time.

On to Mrs. Dalloway!!!

Well, I only saw "The Hours" a few days ago - and I loved it.

If I think it had a message it was about the need to be totally honest and brave in recognizing what life means to you - and going for it - no matter how difficult and dangerous it is - as in Woolf's decision to return to London - despite knowing it will likely trigger her madness and her death - and Leonard's great and wise love, shown by his ability to go with her choice, as Richard's father would presumably not have been able to do. She also chooses death above continuing misery for herself, and her husband - mirroring the choice of the Richard character (is it? The man dying of AIDS) to kill HIMSELF - thus freeing Clarissa - (whom he has, in a sense, by naming her Mrs Dalloway and maintaining her close to him because of his need for her - and her need for him to need her - condemned to a sort of half-hearted life, with suicide at the end of it) to live her own life fully - to stop being Mrs Dalloway, (or Richard's mother) and begin being fully herself.

The meeting with Richard's mother seemed to me to be a totally necessary one artistically, as she had not only formed so much that was Richard, but through him had formed so much of Clarissa. they HAD to meet in reality - not simply through the medium of Richard's picture of her.

I found her characterization, and also the acting of the boy playing the young Richard, immensely moving and terrifying - the hurt and abuse being suffered by him through her unhappiness and desperation was awful to witness, as was her desperate unhappiness and near madness and her trappedness in the suburban world created as her cage by her loving husband.

I WAS annoyed at the picture drawn by the writer of Vanessa Bell, Virginia's sister - who was seemingly seen simply as the happy earth mother - despite her own distinguished career as a painter - but this is a cavil with the writing, not the film.

dlowan,
You've had lots of great thoughts about the movie, The Hours.

I was particularly struck by the comment made in the movie, which was not in the book, upon Laura Brown's entrance to Clarissa's apartment: (I think that it was Clarissa's daughter who said) "So that's the monster." She wasn't a monster at all. In the book, you get more of a Laura's inner thoughts which reveal that Laura (a homely woman ... notice they toned down what'sherfaces bright hair) was surprised by her own marriage and just sort of went along with the whole thing.

Also, I liked the actor's (bad memory for names! grrr!! Nominated for best supporting actor for his work in Chicago) interpretation of the character. He wasn't an evil man but a simple one who would have been surprised had his wife spoken out about what was bothering her. I think he played the character simply and with respect for a man whose only "crime," if crime it was, was not thinking deeply and being a little too unobservant.

I recently listened to the audio-book of "The Hours", and I loved it!! I haven't seen the movie yet. Listening to the comments made here in this thread, I'm thinking that the movie, as usual, is 'Hollywood-izing' the book, by picking-and-choosing the scenes that sell.

My first impression of the book, was the way that Cunningham toyed with time. He did an excellent job. And I totally agree that he painted beautiful mental scenery.

From listening to the audio-book, I did not get the impression that Cunningham was saying that people are shaped by their misery. Maybe that was part of the 'Hollywood-izing' of the book?? However, when the term "the hours" were brought out in the story, as I remember, the term referred to the time immediately following an event and how that event would be perceived in the future.