Wrapping it Up: March

Another month, another wrap-up post full of this month's viewings. I spent most of March trying to wrap 2013. It involved multiple lists like my Favourite Performances - Male and Female and most importantly, Favourite Films of 2013. Take a look, if you haven't already and then we can head on to month at hand.

March

Inception(2010)(Re-watch): So I was watching Bull Durham the other day(more about it little down the line) and in it there is a scene where Tim Robbins tells Susan Sarandon to open the door, that he knows she is in there as he can hear 'that weird Mexican lady' singing. And she is listening to is 'Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien'. Generally I wouldn't know shit about stuff like this but in this case, I instantly went "That's Edith Piaf and she is French! Everyone knows that!" That's enough of a reason to watch your all-time favourite, right?

The Social Network(2010)(Re-watch): Another personal favourite I had not watched in over a year, almost two. I was almost beginning to forget lot of its dialogues. After Inception, I had to watch this as well. There are handful of others that contribute as well but these two films are principal reason that I think you can make a strong case for 2010 being one of the best years of decade so far for cinema. It is certainly not better than 2007 but it can certainly be close behind. 

Diabolique(1955): Blind Spot of this month which turned out to be one of the Best films I have seen for this series so far and I have seen a few notable films. Best thing about this film was the way Clouzot keeps on building the tension till the end. Come to think of it, the way this film ends should not be as surprising as it was. There are only a couple of ways it could and it does go that way. But there is something going on constantly that is so interesting that it never gives you time to stop and think about it. And then ending drops!   

30 For 30: Survive and Advance(2013): ESPN probably should stop calling it 30 for 30 because I am pretty sure I have seen about 35 of them by now. I am not complaining because they always fascinate me but it's rather odd that there are 35+ 30 for 30 docs, right? Like all other documentaries, Survive and Advance is an incredible story of one team achieving the impossible. As fascinating as they are, I only fear falling down this pit again, watching as many as I can on binge. I saw a dozen first time I did that.

M(1931): Did anyone else confuse it with Touch of Evil(1958) or was it just me? I don't know why, mostly because I saw Peter Lorre in the poster looking behind and thought he was Orsen Welles. To make matters a little more confusing, M had the dubious honour of being the highest ranked film on IMDb Top 250 I had not seen. Now baton has been passed to Touch of Evil. It is probably to be expected of a 1931 film but it was little jarring technically but I love how well it captures mentality of the whole society and how little hasn't it changed over the years.






Mr. Smith Goes to Washington(1939): I feel like I have watched what could be, or rather should be, Aaron Sorkin's favourite film. This sort of overly idealistic political world we see in his series is probably something we all would love to live in but know for certain will not be possible in million years. I know something like The West Wing(1999) is just a right wing patriot's political fantasy and I still like it. Mr. Smith also treads on similar waters and I like it too but mainly because Claude Rains, Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart's usual earnestness.

In a Better World(2010): With Marty this month, now I have seen 69 Best Picture winners. You know how many Best Foreign Film winners I have seen? 23. Including this. I am going to go after remaining Best Picture winners for now but after that, I will have another goal. As for the film, all I knew about it was it beat Incendies(2010), my favourite film of 2010, for that Oscar. Did I think it was better than Incendies? No way! But I can't hold that against it either as it was quite good. Depressing as hell but good film.

Laura(1944): Probably not one of the most well-known noirs but I certainly had heard a lot about this film before. Almost halfway into the film and I wasn't really feeling it but then it put a spin on it. And even though I saw the end coming before, it only got better from there. It is probably one of the early noirs where not all the tropes were stone etched but I like the way it plays with genre itself. You get murder, shady characters, low key lighting but key ingredient is femme fatale and Laura isn't your typical femme fatale, is she?

The Wild Bunch(1969): So after Marty, I had an impromptu Ernest Borgnine double feature one day with this one. Though it isn't as much Borgnine vehicle as Marty is, watching him play these two so different roles in a day was so worth it. It's a typical Western! Everything and anything you think of when someone says the word 'Western', you will find it here. But it's one of those who just get it right. It's long, it's slow, it's stylish and it's beautiful, intriguing and interesting. Plus, any movie that can pull off that ending wins in my book!

Lust, Caution(2007): What I am going to say next is going to sound stupid but I am going to say it anyways. I know Ang Lee is Chinese, Taiwanese to be more precise, and this is not his first Chinese production I saw but I am always surprised to see how authentically Chinese movies are. Ideally I should be surprised at how authentically American his films appear but since that is how I was introduced to him as a director, it doesn't. Lust, Caution has good story, great leads but what I was more impressed with is everything that gives it authentic Chinese feel.

Bull Durham(1988): I don't like Baseball. I now basics of it but it gets boring to sit and watch. I always thought that would be a problem when I'd watch baseball movies. Surprisingly, I have seen quite a few and have enjoyed them to varying degrees. This would probably count as one of the bests. They rarely make us sit through 9 innings of game, up and down and human stories of it is what attracts us viewers more anyway. Better those human stories are, better the film. And it also helps when actors bring their A-Game like Susan Sanrandon does here. She was on Fire!

To Die For(1995): I did not know much about this film apart from Nicole Kidman is in it and for whom I have heard a lot of praises. She certainly was every bit worth it but to me, Gus Van Sant was as much hero of this film for me as Kidman was. Off course, it's Kidman's show and she never drops the ball for even a second but Van Sant's presentation of this film - everyone is talking straight to us as if they are being interviewed by someone - was certainly intriguing and made it a further more interesting.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade(1989): Funny thing about it is I had two almost polorising experiences watching this film. Initially, I was taking it too seriously. It involved a lot of rolling my eyes and shaking my head. But just about when Sean Connery enters, I realized film itself isn't. Why should I? It almost instantly became better. It was a fun, action film and when I looked at it as just that, I really enjoyed it. I might even go back to Raiders and watch it again because, wait for it..., I didn't really care for it the first time. Now that I know how to enjoy them, I just might like it better.

Notes on a Scandal(2006): A forewarning, this will venture into spoilers territories. I am not sure why but I was sort of underwhelmed by this film. If it wasn't for Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett, who BTW looks radiant in this film, I probably would have liked it much less. I guess, I was irked by the dynamics of story - Blanchett, cheating on her husband with her student, a 15 year old boy, and Dench, constantly seeking companionship of a woman much younger than her. And I never got over it.

Julia(1977): There were many female-oriented films I saw this month. Julia was one I saw on Women's Day and I wish I had more positive things to say about it but I don't. I didn't 'not' like it but it was told in such a way that I never really found it interesting. Actual story certainly was; storytelling of it wasn't. Even contrast between Jane Fonda's character and Redgrave's, something Zinnemann must be going for, came off as little off putting. I guess he was going for bleak since original story is so grim but it came to me as little too cold.

Marty(1955): As I said earlier, this is my 69th Best Picture Winner. As a film, it was very charming and easy-going film and Ernest Borgnine was really good in his simple, straight forward everyday man role. As a Best Picture winner, it feels too lightweight, like The Artist(2011). There is no such rule that it has to be heavy, meaningful film to be the best of the year but it is hard to imagine that there was no other film that would represent 1955 better than Marty. Another one that suffers just being an Oscar winner, I guess!

The Mist(2007): This one goes into 'The shit you see on TV' category though it wasn't all that shitty for a couple of reasons. Probably the most important reason was Marcia Gay Harden. She played a character I absolutely loathed and I love that she played it so beautifully to get that reaction out of me. Second is its ending. I knew where it was going but I still like the way it took to get there. It is not some sort of ground breaking, trend setting horror film or anything but it certainly is a generic but above par thriller.

Noah(2014): The month I close books on 2013, I open new log for 2014 with Noah. My first 2014 released film. I know we are already three month into the year but, hey, we are still getting the Oscar releases here. I am actually not sure what do I think about this as a whole. There are parts of it I liked but there are parts, as good as they were, which I felt were completely unnecessary. Aronofsky's films usually are cold and brutal but they usually leave us with some strong emotion. Noah didn't.

Total Count: 18. 16 First Time Watches and 2 Re-watch .

2014 YTD Count

Total Count: 53. 48 First Time Watches and 5 Re-watches.

It is certainly not the most productive month I have had, only 18 films. But I think it could be my best month in terms of quality of films I have seen. I usually have most number of films in 3 and 3 and 1/2 bucket. This month it's predominantly 3 and 1/2; almost 50% movies have come from that. And there are couple of movies each in 4 stars and even 4 and 1/2 stars range which is becoming more and more rare. And even those with 3 stars aren't much inferior at all. I feel like saying something like Tarantino. If The Mist is the worst film I have seen all month, I think I will take that month over any other.

So, how was your month? Did you see anything interesting? What do you think of the movies I saw? Any favorites?

End of 2013: Favourite Performances of 2013 - Ladies First!

I feel like I always say this at the end of the year but 2013 was a great year for films. Even though it took me two more months to catch up with it, with 70 films watched and Oscars done, I am finally going to call it done! Like last year, that comes up with End of the year lists but unlike last year, I am going to do them in reverse order starting with this list of my favourite female performances of last year. Probably not as rich as last year but this year offered many good ones to us to choose from. Theses are 10 that I liked the most, that I noticed more and have stuck with me more.

First, Honourable mentions: Amy Adams for American Hustle, Amy Acker for Much Ado about Nothing, June Squibb for Nebraska and special mention for Deshpande Aunty in The Lunchbox who we don't even see but she is such a quintessential character in our society that I loved her presence.

Berenice Bejo for The Past: I will have much more to say on this film a bit later but this films works as much as it does for me because of host of amazing performances from everyone involved. Reason Bejo stands out for me is because her character is at the center of everything. She is the reason previous wife of the guy she wants to marry is in the hospital which is why her teenager daughter and his son throw fits at her. You see that burden weighing on her in every scene, you see that guilt in her eyes all the time and that makes this film so much better(or worse!).

Adele Exarchopoulos for Blue is the Warmest Colour: I saw Blue much later than many of my peers. By then, there were many singing praises of her acting but my first impression wasn't in line with them. To me, her performance felt like no performance at all. Then, I always felt like she is just being there and people feel she is so natural. When I finally saw it, I realized she does so much more than just being there. And her being so natural in those moments is probably her biggest strength, especially when cameramen is so close to you all the time that you could slap him hard on the face and he won't be able to do anything.

Greta Gerwig for Frances Ha: The fact that not only I actually really liked this movie but how much I adored Gerwig's performance in it has got to be the biggest surprise for me this year. Frances is a small kid in grown-ups body. She is oblivious to any social norms or responsibilities any person her age is usually bogged down under. Just this one thing could easily have made Frances an obnoxious, insufferable brat who thinks she is too good for all this nonsense. But Gerwig does an excellent job of making her endearing, personable and even relatable despite all her flaws. To me, she is leaving that life which most of us really want to but can't.

Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine: I think Natalie Portman must be the last actress to dominate awards season the way Blanchett did this season. She must have won every single award that is humanely possible for an actress to win for this role and all for a very good reason. Blanchett is one of those actresses who has always been good in any role she is given but she is absolutely on fire in every scene of Blue Jasmine. Not only her character has similarities to Blanche DuBois, she manages to stand toe-to-toe with one of the best performances of all time.

Veerle Baetens for The Broken Circle Breakdown: Even though there is word breakdown in title of this film, I am not sure I was ready for what I saw. Both lead characters of this film go through a lot but it's Baeten's Elise that goes through biggest transformation starting from a firecracker of tattoo artists to someone who is devoid of any hope or desires. I certainly did not expect it to go where it did till last minute but, as surprising as it was, it was her performance that took me there. It was first time I ever saw her and don't even know how to pronounce her name but she certainly has my attention now.

Julia Roberts for August: Osage County: August: Osage County is one of the films I liked way more than I expected to this year and majority of its credit goes to its script and performances. If it wasn't so hateful that all I wanted was to run as far away from it as possible, it might have made into my favourite films of this year. There is a whole bunch of performances I could have picked from this film including Meryl Streep and I really like Julianne Nicholson as well. Some of them might even be better than Roberts, but the only reason I am picking her over everyone else here is because I have never seen Julia Roberts in a performance like this before.

Nirmat Kaur for The Lunchbox: Whenever I make any kind of 'Best of' lists, I feel like I have to have a spot for Bollywood on them. Let me assure you, this is not that spot. Nirmat Kaur, like Sridevi Last year, is here purely based on her craft at display in another movie I will have more to say soon - The Lunchbox. I don't remember seeing her anywhere else and that probably works to her advantage as this is such a simple, non-glamorous role. Nirmat Kaur brings a lot of depth and honesty to this role and, like Adele, looks so natural while doing so that it is hard to imagine she is putting up a performance.

Sandra Bullock for Gravity: Gravity was a spectacle to behold. It remains to be one of the two or three films that made me think that 3D can be useful somewhere than just moneymaking machine for studios. Obviously, Lubezki's work with camera and Cuaron's direction, for which both deservedly won their Oscars, deserves much of praise for this but I kept on thinking that Bullock's equally courageous work somewhere took a backseat to them. Maybe Blanchett's clean sweep also has something to do with this as in any other year, she easily could have gone home with that statuette but I really liked Bullock's work as well.

Lea Seydoux for Blue is the Warmest Colour: These next two performances are supporting turns, sort of companion pieces that makes their leads, as good as they are and they certainly are great as both have featured in this list earlier, even better. Blue hs always been in the news since its premiere at cannes and as overshadowing sexuality of this film has been, what makes it work is brilliant understated and at the same time uninhibited performances by both its leads. Adele is more understated though she has many momemts where she lets her emotions flow. Seydoux is exactly opposite - as audacious, as extrovert as she is, her understated moments like one in the cafe near the end are what make her performance noteworthy.

Sally Hawkins for Blue Jasmine: As good as Blanchett is in this role, she probably would not have been if not for Sally Hawkins holding her own in every single scene and I am so happy to see her acknowledge that. Hawkins' performance in Blue Jasmine is probably 'the' definition of supporting turn. She makes every scene better just by being in it, and she is in almost every damn scene, but she never becomes the centerpiece of it. She never diverts your attention from where you are supposed to look at but somehow always manages to accentuate it. Those are the best kind of roles!

Keep your eyes and feeds open people! Men shall follow soon... and by soon I mean this weekend.

Profile of a Director: Hayao Miyazaki

Earlier this month, Hayao Miyazaki took the stage at the Venice Film Festival after the screening of his latest film The Wind Rises(2013) to announce his retirement. Miyazaki is no stranger to retirements; he was in a semi-retirement after Princess Mononoke(1997) but then returned with wonderful and his most successful film, Spirited Away(2001) then back into retirement only to resurface in 2004. However this time he says he is serious. Only time will tell us if he is but if at all he is, that is indeed a sad news, especially for someone like me who has always been in love with his films and Studio Ghibli for many years. Miyazaki is one of the most well-known and respected directors in the world of animation and has left his unmistakable print on the medium in more than three decades of his career as a director. I am taking this opportunity to look back on his career, in the usual style of these posts, with the help of every film he has directed. Let me make few things clear first; this is a profile of a ‘Director’. So I am only looking at the films he directed and I am looking at only his feature films. I would’ve loved to include his shorts as well as they are just as wonderful but I just couldn’t get hold of all of them. With that, let’s get right into it.

The Castle of Cagliostro(1979): Miyazaki had been working in various departments of an animated studio for almost two decades. He even had directed episodes of couple of TV serials but this marks the first time he put on the director’s cap for a feature film. Coincidentally, this was the last of his films I saw. As a film, there is nothing quite wrong with it per say. This is actually quite a decent film; albeit a little amateurish in both story as well as in animation. It’s just that it is such an odd-man-out from Miyazaki’s filmography. Every film he did since then contains many very specific things that everyone now kind of expects from any Miyazaki film, or any Ghibli film in general, and Cagliostro is void of every single one of them. These traits definitely make his films richer in context and more layered and the lack of them doesn’t necessarily imply inferiority but it is kind of distracting, especially when you know the director so well. Grade: B.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind(1984): Success of this film made way for creation of Studio Ghibli next year. Even though this wasn’t under studio’s banner, it fits perfectly into that cannon. We have Nausicaa, a young, dynamic female protagonist that loves everything in the world she lives in and as bad the things get, has a confidence that it can still be saved and does everything she can to save it. We have Kushana, an antagonist to start with but with redeeming qualities and Asbel, Nausicaa’s male counterpart who helps her in getting the things right. Story is strongly influenced by Japanese philosophy and motifs like commercial greed and their disastrous effects on the environment play very important part in it. It can be very warm and fuzzy when needed but also gets very dark as the things get worse. In a way, it was a test case for everything we know Studio Ghibli for now as all these features play very important part in every single film he directed and help form their own identity. And it works so wonderfully well even after almost 30 years. Grade: A

Laputa: Castle in the Sky(1986): In 1985, along with fellow animator Isao Takahata(who later went on to direct wonderful and heart wrenching Grave of the Fireflies(1988)) and producer Yasuyoshi Tokuma, he started his own animation production company, Studio Ghibli. Castle in the Sky became the first film produced under that banner. If you ask me to pick a film to introduce someone to Miyazaki and Ghibli, I will pick this one. It is very sweet, easy to get into and unlike some other films, is not too dark or violent but still leaves you with a great message. There is something wonderful about Sheeta and Pazu and their friendship that always warms my heart. In a typical Miyazaki fashion, these are kids wise beyond their years but they haven’t lost their innocence. And that iron robot at the end is just the cherry on the top. As a matter of fact, this is my favourite film Miyazaki directed. One of the motifs of his films has always been morally ambiguous antagonist with various redeeming qualities. This is one of the only two films of Miyazaki to have a clear villainous character; other being The Castle of Cagliostro. Grade: A

My Neighbour Totoro(1988): Many of his other films might have been bigger critical or financial successes but I don’t think you can find a more beloved or popular character than Totoro in this film. Most of his characters are inspired by the Japanese philosophy. Totoro, however, is created completely from his own imagination and is based on his own childhood experiences. Miyazaki also created Cat bus for this movie which I am quite sure is more popular than some of his movies. Another character that I dearly love is Mei; she is just the cutest little thing you will ever see. Unfortunately, I don’t have the highest opinion of the film in general as I think it gets a little too sweet after a while but I am eagerly waiting for an opportunity to introduce this film to my 4-year old niece. However I will agree that the darkness of this film is deceptive, very well hidden under all the cuteness and can point to more serious themes if you want to look at it that way. Grade: B+

Kiki’s Delivery Service(1989): Another film that can serve as a good entry point for Ghibli newbie’s is this coming-of-age story of a young girl about developing her confidence but is little lighter and less ambitious than Laputa. However let me tell you that of his ‘lighter works’(Totoro, Kiki, Ponyo and maybe even Porco Rosso), I like Kiki the most. In yet another typical Miyazaki way, plot of his film itself is principle point of attraction – a 13-year-old girl has to leave her house and spend one year away as a mandatory part of her witch training before becoming a full-fledged witch. That just gets me instantly interested and I haven’t even mentioned Jiji yet. If not for last 15-20 minutes of this movie; where I think it loses its focus a little in an attempt to give Kiki one final, big task before she can pass her test; I really like this film. Miyazaki’s father was the director of Miyazaki Airplanes which produced rudders for the fighter planes during World War II. Miyazaki seems to have developed quite a fascination for aviation since his early years as it features quite prominently, in some form or the other, in many of his films including Kiki flying on her broom. Grade: B+

Porco Rosso(1992): Miyazaki also wrote every single one of the films he directed and in many cases also created Manga strips for them. Porco Rosso is one such film. In many ways, even this is quite a deviation from what we have come to expect from Miyazaki movies. Even though Fio can fit as a typical Miyazaki heroine, protagonist of this film is not a young female – Fio - but an adult male – Porco , a WWI pilot in 1930’s Italy transformed into an anthropomorphic pig who now works as a bounty hunter. It also lacks the usual environmentalist tone of his films and is more about the code of honour. Once again, it is the final few minutes of this movie – the duel between Porco and Curtis – that diminish my overall opinion of it. Grade: B-

Princess Mononoke(1997): This film has a distinction of introducing Miyazaki to the western world. I don’t belong to that world anymore but it was my introduction to him and to Ghibli as well; a start of love affair that has lasted since. I haven’t even mentioned the best thing about Miyazaki’s films that make them dearer to me than many other modern animated movies and that is they are traditionally animated. Even though this was the first film that Miyazaki used some kind of CGI for, he is believed to have drawn 80,000 drawings for this film himself. There is something about those drawings that makes them so much more relatable and personal and I love that way more than CGI. Mononoke is no doubt a great film with amazing characters and wonderful message; a natural double feature with Nausicaa but it is also much darker, more violent(one aspect of anime films that I am not most fond of though I will have more to say about it a little later). It also is the first animated film to win the Japanese Academy Awards and was the highest grossing film ever in Japan then. Grade: A-

Spirited Away(2001): I watched both Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away in pretty quick succession back in 2010 and that 1-2 punch quite literally knocked me. I really hoped to re-watch both before this post as I haven’t seen them since but unfortunately, couldn’t fit it in. To tell you the truth, I don’t remember every single detail of either of the film but I definitely remember liking this one better than the former. The fact that I can remember this way more than Mononoke even after watching both in quick succession also supports my claim. I am usually an advocate of making a little denser, intelligent kids film and majority of Miyazaki’s films are perfect example and off course, the hand-drawn animations in it make them more likable to me. Phenomenal financial success of this film also indicated that even people are ready to embrace them. Spirited Away not only promptly became the highest grossing Japanese film then and is his most financially successful film to date but went ahead and also became first anime film ever to win an Oscar for the best animated film. Grade: A

Howl’s Moving Castle(2004): Miyazaki came out of his second semi-retirement after the original director of this film, Mamoru Hosoda, passed away suddenly to make most violent movie from his filmography but also earned his second nomination for the Best Animated Film of the year. I have noticed it on various occasions that, mainly in anime movies, I am turned off by excessively violence because most of them tend to lose their focus once all the fighting ensues. Maybe it’s my Ghibli-toned sensitivities that play major part in it but many people consider Akira(1988) as one of the best anime movies ever and I really couldn’t get into that movie. Same thing happened with Paprika(2006) when things start getting stranger and stranger. I will say that Howl wasn’t that bad an experience but I wasn’t much emamoured by all the destruction in it either. Grade: B

Ponyo(2008): After Porco and Cagliostro, this is Miyazaki's third film with Male lead. This is my least favourite of all his films and unfortunately not because one of them had to be. I actually found it to be quite childish, something I never thought I will say about a Miyazaki film. I liked Sosuke enough and his house on the cliff was amazing but I really couldn't get into it once the effects of Ponyo's metamorphosis start materializing. It goes without saying that I am really excited for The Wind Rises(2013) but I am happy that he is directing it because I really don't want his last film to be my least favourite film. I really hope I like it too. Grade: C

Previous Profiles:
David Fincher
Quentin Tarantino
Paul Thomas Anderson
Wes Anderson
Billy Wilder
Christopher Nolan

Sidney Lumet
Martin Scorsese

Woody Allen

The Hours

More often than not, most film bloggers are obsessed with lists. We may have love-hate relationship with them but we cannot help ourselves getting obsessed with them. Like reviews, they are inherent part of this world. We not only make our own lists, we also follow the lists someone else makes for us – 1001 Movies list, Sight and Sound list, All the AFI lists or Academy Award winners list. I am no exception. I keep track of all the lists mentioned above. However there are two which I usually ignore, probably because I do not score well in either of them. First is Best Actor winning films in Oscar where I have seen exactly half of them right now, but the worst is Best Actress winning films where I am at about 36%. Today I got a chance to knock one more title off of this list and nudge a little forward with Stephen Daldry’s The Hours(2002).

The movie essentially tells us 3 different stories in 3 different timelines that are somehow connected to each other. First one is Virginia Woolf herself working on her novel “Mrs Dalloway” in England in 1923. She is fighting her own demons with schizophrenia and has been shipped out of London, into the quite of Richmond to help her clam down and work on her novel by her husband. However the buzz of London is exactly what he yearns for. Second storyline takes us to Los Angeles in 1951 where Laura Brown, a housewife, is reading the novel Virginia Woolf is writing in the first story. She seems to have a decent life – a loving husband, a kid. She is also pregnant with another but that is all just on the outside. Inside there is something that seems to drag her down incessantly. We see her fighting through this depression, trying to find some joy, some meaning in her life and fail every time.

Third storyline follows Clarissa Vaughn in 2001 New York City. She is preparing for a party in honour of her friend and ex-lover Richard who is going to be awarded some literary award later in the day but is dying of AIDS. Clarissa has been taking care of him through his illness and though she is in relationship with her girlfriend Sally for 10 years and Richard has had other relations as well, still thinks she might still be in love with Richard. The Hours follows all the three storylines simultaneously for a day in their lives, cutting across each other; the day all 3 ladies take a decision that will have some serious repercussions on the rest of their lives. All the three stories follow a remarkably similar structure to arrive at their eventual conclusion. All the stories have a visitor, a party of some sort, a kiss and a suicide that directs the course of each storyline.

This film has one of the best casts you can imagine. Just for a while, let us forget about the three central characters. There are a bunch of characters that appear for a very limited time - most of them just for one scene - and it is remarkable that every last one of them leaves their impression on you. I would’ve named some but there are far too many and I don’t want to do disservice to anyone by not including them. This is a heavy material that demands a lot out of the actors but it is hard to imagine any one of them could have done anything better. As for the three leads, any one of us will be hard pressed to find three more versatile, more talented actresses than Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep working in 2001. Technically, Kidman is the lead and other two are in supporting role but personally I don’t think structure of this film supports this claim. There are three stories with almost equal importance to all of them and each one of them is the lead in their own story. I am pretty sure that distinction was only for the awards purposes.

However I did have a clear favourite of three – Nicole Kidman. Moore and Streep are brilliant and as effortless as they are in every other role we have seen them play. But if I didn’t know it is Kidman playing that role, I never would’ve guessed. She completely vanished behind Virginia Woolf’s persona, her smugness and her demons. I imagine playing Streep’s role would be little more challenging since Clarissa Vaughn is a very normal person giving you very less to work on. Kidman had flashier role but subtleties of her performance even in most mundane moments impressed me more. I remember her being hugely touted to win the Oscar for Moulin Rouge!(2001) a year earlier. I don’t remember what her chances were this year because of the incredible line-up but given a choice I think, as much as I like the film and her Satine in it, I will choose her Oscar winning performance in this over Moulin Rouge!.

For a story that simultaneously goes through three different storylines in three different time periods, this isn’t Cloud Atlas(2012). It is an incredibly easy story to follow since, even though all the stories are connected to each other in some way or the other, they do not have any dependence on each other. There are obvious connections between the stories. The novel Woolf is writing in one story, Laura Brown is reading in her story. Mrs Dalloway’s first name in novel is Clarissa and we see Clarissa Vaughn essentially living that day in third. And Richard that Clarissa is giving this party for is Laura’s son. However what really connects all the stories together are the motifs like regret and loss and loneliness that the characters in them feel. As anyone would expect form the film that deals with such topics, The Hours is mostly depressing film. But I would like to think that the way we see all the three stories end, there is some kind of silver lining to each of them.

There are two other aspects of this film that I think deserve to be mentioned here. First, Editing. One of the major reasons why this movie works despite multiple storylines is in the editing. Just take a look at opening sequence where we see all three women waking up. In just about two minutes it sets up the whole movie beautifully. Another aspect is production design. There are not only three stories but three different times and three different locations as well. That would mean a lot of time and energy spent in getting the setting and costumes but we get every single detail just right. The Hours is a heavy movie that deals with heavy subjects. Based on the way various characters react at multiple points, I am also sure it is also possible to interpret in multiple ways. However way you want to look at this film, the three leads and their compelling storylines make it a worthy watch.

Rating(out of 5):