MovieChat Forums > The Hours (2003) Discussion > The very first scene: Woolf at 59?

The very first scene: Woolf at 59?

posted 8 years ago by tosca-46201
4 replies | jump to latest

The first scene, where Woolf drowns herself, takes place in 1941. The next scene involving her part of the story takes place 18 years earlier, in 1923, and yet she and Leonard both look exactly the same age. There is no way a 59-year-old (as Woolf was when she died) could look as young as Kidman does in the first scene. It seems surprising that the makers of this film forgot to give the actors any ageing makeup! In fact, everything (clothing, backdrop) is so exactly identical that it gives the impression the drowning takes place directly after the subsequent scenes. Has nobody pointed this out before?

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

I was so confused by this that I thought Stephen had thwarted her first attempt. Then it registered what year had been shown just before the second scene in this part, and as they looked just the same, I was *totally* thrown off. I finally read the basics of her Wikipedia bio to find out when she died, and started the movie over from the beginning in case I'd read the dates wrong!

Frustrating! especially given that they did such a great job of aging Laura.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

It was odd and yes, Leonard looked little different too.🐭

[–] TheKeel (102) 2 years ago

All so true. The makeup in this movie was disappointing (except for the aging of Laura, which I thought was excellent). The Kidman nose was such a distraction - check out photos of the real Virginia Woolf and you'll see her nose was not bulbous and was in graceful harmony with her face.

[–] rnmboon (381) 7 months ago

That's "artistic license" for ya. With two thirds of the story already being fiction I wasn't bothered by it. It is somewhat heightened drama and not a biopic.