Thanks for the response, Miss Channing.
I just find it such an odd film, similar to how I felt when stumbling across the Rock Hudson/Jane Wyman/Douglas Sirk effort ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS. (Only my reaction is similar; the two films haven't much in common, but they are both marvelous while also teeth-gritting with incredulity -- if that makes sense.)
With HOUR, the child and elder actresses are so over-the-top I just want to holler at them to stop being so stupid and horrible. The performances and characterizations are very much of their era, i.e., not very subtle.
James Garner sometimes strikes an odd note to me. He seems rather rakish for being a marriage-minded local physician, but when he is serious he acquits himself well.
As for the lead actresses, they really shine. I find their different complexions somewhat fascinating. MacLaine's light hair and skin sort of fade compared to Hepburn's dark hair and brilliant eyes. I suppose Hepburn is like that in all her movies, but she just captures your attention just being on the screen. And she's the most thoughtful and rational person, trying to please everyone while being firm with her charges. Kind of sad MacLaine has the unhappy part, but that's her character in the film, and she's good.
To me, speculating on the nature of the two ladies' relationship is beside the point. That Mac had invested a lot of emotional energy into Hep doesn't surprise me, and not wanting to lose that closeness, for some people, is completely understandable no matter the subtext. And the whole mess having gone out of control over a misunderstanding and a mean little girl is so tragic.
It just has a lot of depth on the one hand while being somewhat ham-fisted on the other. Over all, it just strikes me as a very unusual film for it's time, and not much talked about.
Not a great movie, but a great attempt at a very interesting film.
reply
share