Amazon.com
It earned Oscar nods, yet this cinematic look at a genius–that of English cellist Jacqueline du Pré, who enraptured audiences with her bold, emblazoned, and wholly unconventional playing style, and who died at age 42–was criticized for its “lapses” in truth by people who purportedly knew du Pré. Some of the controversy revolved around the other main character in Anand Tucker’s gorgeous, involving movie–du Pré’s sister, Hilary, whose book, A Genius in the Fami… More >>
#1 by Anonymous on April 11, 2010 - 1:17 am
They should have found someone else to play Jacqueline Du pre. Emily Watson does not have the serious, pensive and that emotional energy that jacqueline had. I refuse to see any movie that Emily Watson is in from now on.
Must see “Remembering Jacqueline Du Pre (1994)” directed by Christopher Nupen. It’s on VHS. I’ts a documentary on J. Du Pre and you can see the real Jackie vs. E. Watson’s portrayal. Day and night..
It’s a shame because all the other actors do a phenomenal job.
But buy the soundtrack, great music!
Rating: 1 / 5
#2 by Anonymous on April 11, 2010 - 3:28 am
Ms. Watson’s spitty raspberries every 5 minutes doesn’t help matters. This film is about Jacqueline Du Pre and her sister Hilary — presumably, these are Real People, and, as such, it strikes me as an irresponsible movie. Everyone is despicable to some degree, especially the principals. It’s hard to get behind people whom you have no respect for. (I wonder how the surviving members of this family feel about their portrayal herein. Not good about it, I suspect.)
There are structural problems as well. Because the crucial incidents of the story are told from two conflicting points of view, we are invited to believe neither of them entirely. And, of course, if we can’t believe in the story, there’s little chance that we’ll CARE about the story. You can (maybe, and only if you’re darn good) get away with this sort of thing in novels, but in a 2 hour movie, it’s artistic death.
I thought the actress playing Hilary was quite good, especially considering the despicably sniveling role she had to portray. But Ms. Watson was simply overwrought as the cellist. It was rather a reprise of her role in “Breaking the Waves”. This is simply my opinion, of course, but it seems the plaudits she received from that other film went to her head. She’s really not as good as she so obviously thinks she is.
Wrapping up, gimmicks like subjective points-of-view, Tinkertoy sisterish feminism, and hackneyed scenes of “closure” (particularly when someone is dying of a horrible illness) are all too common here at the end of the decade, and those of us who refuse to be suckered in by such cliches, ESPECIALLY in what purports to be an “art” film, are really wearying of it.
Rating: 1 / 5
#3 by Anonymous on April 11, 2010 - 5:54 am
This movie is too long by half. In fact, ten minutes would be too long for this film. Maybe it had a screenplay, but you can’t tell it from the movie. It feels as if the director said to himself, “I read the book, I’ll just shoot what I feel.” There was probably a deadline, and the editor(s) just gave up, trying to assemble the hodge-podge. At least there was enough money to make it look pretty.
The thing is full of repetetive and confusing flashbacks. I don’t know whether the acting is any good, because the characters are all cardboard cut-outs. According to the soundtrack, Jackie knew a few snatches of Bach sonatas and the Elgar concerto. Maybe she knew Twinkle-Twinkle, too.
Hillary is a goody two shoes, devoted to family. Jackie is a selfish, shallow nonentity, obsessed with sex. In one frequent flashback, where the girls are exchanging verbal abuse, Hillary tells Jackie she is nothing without her cello.
Jackie’s death is a blessing for everyone but her. As for sleeping with Hillary’s husband, it is possible to say “no” even to primadonnas. What does that say about Hillary’s courage; I can’t find any of her flute recordings?
The main problem here are the two new styles of biography. One thinks we need to know about every bathroom break in a person’s life. I’m reading one now on Jefferson, like that–tedious. There is also one on Horowitz. The other new biographic form presents the thesis that the accomplishments and creations of our geniuses and heroes are completely nullified by their character flaws. This movie is one of those biographies. What rubbish! If you want to read others, there’s one on Leonard Bernstein by Peyser and one on Picasso by Huffington.
If this movie is at all true to the book, then preserve us from the love and affection of siblings like Hillary and Piers.
Rating: 2 / 5
#4 by Anonymous on April 11, 2010 - 6:20 am
“Hilary and Jackie” is highly similar to the 2001 film “A Beautiful Mind.” Both films paint intriguing if somewhat embellished portraits of brilliant oddballs, but then how many biographical films aren’t embellished? This movie follows the lives of the musical sisters Hilary and Jacklyn DuPre. In the beginning, a very young Hilary shows promise on the flute while her little sister Jacklyn is introduced to the cello. As the dedicated Hilary struggles to improve, the precocious Jacklyn grows increasingly accomplished and stuns the world with her pyrotechnic playing. All in all the film is a poignant look at the ramifications of genius. Emily Watson is pleasing to watch as the passionate cellist, and Rachel Griffiths (of Six Feet Under fame) does a heartbreaking job of portraying a girl living in the shadow of her brilliant sister.
Rating: 4 / 5
#5 by saskia levy on April 11, 2010 - 6:20 am
this is one of the most beautiful, insightful and deep movies i have ever seen!
i have a very similar relationship with my own sister. we saw it together and wept for hours!
we also ran to buy a hilary dupré cd, directed by baremboim.
i imagine that when i die, it would be like the way she departed; and that i am going to come back through the sea, almost floating, just to say to my sister “everything is going to be ok”…
the actresses are remarkable. also thanks the director for such awsome picture!
saskia levy.
Rating: 5 / 5