MovieChat Forums > The Hours (2003) Discussion > Meryl Streep was magnificent

Meryl Streep was magnificent


I have often been critical of Meryl Streep's performances, although she is seldom bad, some of her performances can be overrated by critics and adoring fans. But in this film I thought her performance was absolutely masterful. She is so nuanced, so detailed - its one of her quieter performances, but she reveals everything in her eyes and face. The first shot of her looking into the mirror before she washes her hands - you see all the disappointment, the mundaneness of her existence. The scene where she finally breaks down in the kitchen was utterly utterly moving. She is MAGNIFICENT in this film. Not a vehicle powerhouse performane like Sophies Choice but she gives a much quieter and nuanced performance. Of all the three actresses, I believed her the most.

Nicole Kidman did wonderfully too, very brave move to take on a English heroine. But she did a great job in portraying both the prickly, wicked side of Virginia aswell as the vulnerable, genius too.

The only one of the three leads I wasn't so impressed by was Julianne Moore. It felt a little like a stepford wife caricature. Oscillating between crying and smiling, without really capturing any of the anguish of her everyday existence. Toni Collette in her brief appearance steals the scene from her.

All in all, a decently written, beautifully shot film lead by one very good performance (Kidman) and one great performance (Streep).

reply

Agreed. Streep is simply wonderful in this film. Every moment is subtly nuanced while being alive and emotionally full. She and Moore are riveting.

reply

I agree 100% percent. She was outstanding in my eyes, so subtle, yet so profound at the same time!

reply

The most underrated performance in this film. You need to see the movie several times to get it though.

reply

It's a performance that's in her top 10 personal best (no mean feat). She delineates Clarissa's depression and loneliness superbly, especially with her body language which she also uses to express the artificiality of the character, or rather how artificial Clarissa feels her life is (and on this point I'm thinking of the scenes when she's on walking to the florists and when she's there).

I think that on a first or even second viewing it's likely that some people would, perhaps understandably, find Streep theatrical in this film and I agree that this thought-out, profound and layered performance needs at least one rewatch to fully understand.

reply

Clarissa was not depressed, but she was sad. She was alsoworn out by taking care of Richard and his depression and his narcissistic attitude.

In addition she was nervous about the party. She was very confused actually. She might have also been nervous about seeing the old faces from the past on her party and as the core-scene with Louis Waters showed she felt like she had neglected herself and felt that it should have been Louis Waters that should have taken care of Richard. That intermingled with her general doubts about herself and with a sense of loss.

reply

it's funny how one of the all-times best performances of her career didn't get her any Oscar love... It was a tough year though and I couldn't really take out any ofthat year's Best Actress nominee to make room for Streep`s magnificent portrayal of Clarissa Vaughn. And I think many voters felt that her Supporting nod for Adaptation was enough.

reply

Diane Lane. I would have taken Diane Lane out. If I have to hear any more about that stupid train scene, I will scream. She just sat there.

reply

in my opinion Meryl Streep stole the show, she didn't have a fake nose or old makeup, just perfect acting

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Streep never looked more luminous than in the scene with Julianne Moore at the end. She was ethereal and radiant, like Michelangelo's Pieta in Bruges. Her expressive compassion and understanding was emotionally transcendent.

reply