 | |
List Price: $9.99 | | Label: Universal Studios
Salesrank: 13493
Released: November 5, 2002 |
| Our Price: $4.44 |
| Used Price: $2.99 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
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 Family (cowritten with brother Piers), dished some dirt on Jackie's sleeping with Hilary's husband. But don't let that deter you from this ebullient movie experience. The film is a bisected story (each sister's tale is told in the same amount of screen time) teeming with heartfelt drama that belies the cheap shots it received from its detractors. It's stirring, reckless, loving, involving, and rife with unconventional passion; passion for music, life, art, and the delicate relationship between these two synchronous, extraordinary sisters as played by brilliant actors Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths (both of whom earned Oscar nods). Though Watson got the juicy, showy role as Jackie, it's Griffiths who provides the heart, soul, and spine of the film. And director Tucker has that gift of being able to explain through the visual medium what is happening inside of his character's heads. He's helped by a fine screenplay by Frank Boyce Cottrell. No matter what the truth of Hilary and Jackie might really be, this is an exceptional, rare film that is defined and graced by fine acting and writing. --Paula Nechak
Hilary & Jackie Reviews:
A very touching and moving film about passion, devotion and above all else; love... 
2008-08-07 - I love a good biopic, truly adore them. Every once in a while a biopic comes along so outstanding in its power and presence and emotional connection that my love for the every popular genre is reconfirmed to the enth degree. `Hilary & Jackie' is that type of movie, a film that swells with the grace and glory of love and passion as well as the moving aspects of pain and misery. I will admit to having not known a whole lot of the du Pre sisters before watching this beautiful film, but my adoration of everything Emily Watson caused me to seek it out and watch it. Not only is Watson stellar (and so deserving of that Oscar nomination) but the entire film is handled with such delicacy and devotion that one can't help but become swept away as it progresses towards its devastating, yet affirming, end.
`Hilary & Jackie' tells the story of Hilary and Jacqueline du Pre, two talented young sisters growing up in a home that makes music the focal part of their existence. We are given an overview of the young lives of both Hilary and Jackie, Hilary the eldest and at the moment more talented of the sisters. Hilary is a flautist who has won award upon award, and her young sister Jackie just wants to be included with her sister at all times, so she practices her cello and perfects her craft to where soon she is rising above her sister in talent and in recognition. The film then shifts gears to their later life when Hilary has practically given up on her music to start a family with her fiancé Kiffer and Jackie is now world renowned and unhappily settled into a life of fame.
The film is split in sections and tells the same portion of the girls lives through the eyes of each, giving Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths equal time to astound the audience. Watson undoubtedly has the showier role. Jackie is repressed by her talent, struggling every day to find herself in her music. She loves to play, needs to play, but the pressure to perform eats away at her to the point where she begins to resent it in a way. As the film progresses and her health starts to evaporate her performance becomes even more pivotal to the success of the film, and she delivers masterfully. This is nothing against Griffiths though, who devours her characters restrained passion, a passion that has been suppressed by the talent of her younger sister. You can read in her eyes the resentment for her lot in life, yet her undying love for her sister overpowers any and all other emotions in her life. She is committed to her sister, even if it means sacrificing her own happiness.
While Watson and Griffiths are without doubt the biggest selling points of the film, they are accompanied by a slew of phenomenal supporting performances. Charles Dance and Celia Imrie are amazing as Hilary and Jackie's parents, and David Morrissey is fantastic as Kiffer, Hilary's husband.
Some have attacked this film for being untrue and or `stretching' facts, but my question to them is `what biopic doesn't do that?' In all honesty in order to make most non-fiction engrossing to the general public Hollywood has to add layers of fiction in order to embellish truths. Fact remains that simple sequences of silence cannot capture exactly what is going on in someone's head (sure, an actor can emote a feeling with their facial features but one cannot emote a specific thought) and so to complain that the film shows Jackie abuse her cello and yet she (according to you) never did is kind of petty when her resentment of her fame alone would have moved her to wish harm done to the very thing that is causing her grief, her cello. She may have never actually placed it out in the cold, but director's decision to include that scene was an attempt to further impress upon the audience Jackie's mental condition at the time. It may not be true, but does it really need to be.
As far as the supposed `hokiness' of the opening (and closing) beach sequence I have only this to say; "you missed the point." As one reviewer mentioned, the film hints towards a slight psychic connection between the girls (as is common among twins and has been known to express itself in `close' siblings) and this little detail adds a layer to the genius surrounding these two talents. I think that the opening and closing sequences add closure to the film and actually brought a tear to my eye.
In my opinion the few areas of inaccuracy within the film (granted I have not read the book and am basically going off of what some reviewers have mentioned as falsities within the film) shouldn't deter anyone from embracing the movie for what it is. It tells the tragic tale of the du Pre sisters (I think we can all agree it was tragic in a touching sort of way) and I think that in the end it paints a beautiful picture of unrivaled love between siblings that endured to the end despite any persons faults.
Quick ship - Perfect Condition
2008-07-10 - The only reason I gave this movie 5 stars was for the acting and directing. Superb!! But the story is very one-sided, being based on the book by Hilary. I think Jackie's story would be very different. I was very young when I had the honor of attending a concert of Jacqueling du Pre. To say that she was great, impressive, fantastic - all understatements. She had talent such as had never been and has still not been. Her private life is not very interesting compared to seeing her play the cello - and hearing the sounds that only she could bring forth from that instrument. After having said all that, I really enjoyed the movie! As I said, it was so well acted and directed that it would be difficult to dislike it. Having seen Jaqueline play, Emily Watson was Jaqueline du Pre - on stage.
Excellent Movie!
2008-03-11 - Excellent Movie, I am a cellist and I can tell you that this movie won't disappoint you.
Good Presentation.
Fast delivery.
Two great actresses playing two disturbed sisters...WOW!!!
2007-06-07 - HILARY AND JACKIE is still one of the most disturbing and unsettling pieces of film that I have ever seen! From the very beginning of the film there is a looming foreboding and an uncomfortable uneasiness that follows through every frame in this account of the lives of sisters Hilary and Jackie Du Pre. Rachel Griffiths and Emily Watson are each disturbingly terrific and I am always amazed at the incredible performances.No small wonder that each actress has gone on to such acclaim in their respective careers.
It is essential to remember that this screenplay is adapted from Hilary and Piers Du Pre's account A GENIUS IN THE FAMILY.The book as well as the film is extremely intimate and disturbing at best. What is positively fascinating is how this film 's narrative runs. The story commences with a portrait of the two sisters and their childhood as musical prodigies together. Then the film diverges in their teen years and tells the remaining story and timeline through each of the sisters' perspectives with gut wrenching honesty that balances each girl. Though I was well acquainted with the music of Cellist Jacqueline Du Pre and her husband pianist/conductor Daniel Barenboim as a conservatory student in the 1970's, it is not really essential to know anything about music or these people to be totally immersed in a truly good story that is informative and very revealing about the mechanics of genius, motivation and family.
If you offended by the exposing of warts and "speaking ill of the dead" perhaps HILARY AND JACKIE will not be for you. If you are willing to accept that this account of the lives of the Du Pre sisters COULD be true, then by all means come with an open mind and be blown away by what you see! Whether true, not true or somewhere in between, HILARY AND JACKIE presents two great actresses playing their hearts out for all of us to behold.
This film is a historical farce and should not be associated with Jacqueline du Pré in any way 
2006-09-17 - There is a certain school of thought which holds that biopics have no obligations to historical accuracy -- that this is the exclusive province of documentaries or books. I happen to disagree. There are plenty of documentaries that "dramatize" real-life events in the form of dialogue, and many Hollywood films (e.g. _Pollock_, or _My Left Foot_) which were made with concern for accuracy and respect for the memories of specific historical events or characters. If a movie uses real-life names, locations, etc, then misinformation would be malicious that infect the perceptions of mass audiences who see (and for the most part believe) them. A movie that denies the Holocaust or tramples over the memories of war veterans cannot be said to be ideologically unmotivated, but still more callous is such misinformation that is made for purely monetary reasons.
_Hilary and Jackie_, a film dramatization of the life of English cello prodigy Jacqueline du Pré, is one of these. It presents a very heterodox portrayal of Jacqueline's overall character, and has been denounced by her friends and colleagues who knew her throghout her life (Barenboim, Rostropovich, et al) as a complete distortion of the Jacqueline they knew. For e.g., she is remembered by her students and colleagues as being emotionally vibrant with an impassioned love of her craft, while in the film she is portrayed as an insufferable bunch of neuroses who despised her cello -- it having a negative influence on her self-esteem. She is depicted making an indulgent demand to have a sexual relationship with Finzi, her brother-in-law. Her sister Hilary (the apparent heroine of the story), ever selfless, obliges for the benefit of her apparently disturbed sister. The movie ends with Hilary at Jackie's side during her death throes even though (it is made clear) Jackie never did anything for Hilary in her life. If you take the movie's account, it was clearly more than Jackie deserved.
The account here generally follows "A Genius in the Family", the controversial memoir written by Jacqueline's siblings. But her siblings would be less reliable on most points than her colleagues who spent a larger amount of time with her (e.g. at her death when she chose to surround herself with her friends instead, contra the events in this film). That is to say nothing of the fact that the two sisters weren't on speaking terms for much of their life (though Hilary claims there was a reconciliation before Jacqueline's death). Clare Finzi, Hilary's daughter, wrote and contested the film account of events as a "gross misinterpretation, which I cannot let go unchallenged." She was referring to the actual events between her father and aunt, but the errors of omission are even significant, and at the same time worse. The film depicts Jacqueline as being unsympathetic, ignoring the aspects of her personality that made so many sympathize with her. Nothing here reminds one of the flamboyant cellist that is extensively recorded in Nupen's excellent documentaries _Remembering Jacqueline du Prée_ and _Jacqueline du Pré in Portrait_.
More importantly, the film is guilty of irresponsible revisionism. Biopics don't have to be historically accurate to the letter, just the general spirit of the characters. But as so little is substantiated about the specific events of Jacqueline du Pré's personal life as presented here, this is probably a movie that wasn't supposed to be made in the first place. W. K. Clifford famously said that if we cannot ascertain the grounds for a belief, we have no business in believing it. I would add that we have even less business in popularizing heterodox theses to a mass audience without compelling evidence -- something this film lacks. The director Anand Tucker admitted to not caring about such accuracy; he claimed that "it [truth] doesn't exist" because of alternate viewpoints. (One wonders what he would have made of Holocaust denial.) The action of popularizing an extremely tendentious and dubious memoir of Jacqueline's life to audiences who are mostly unfamiliar with her is a unprovoked act of slander -- a base and callous smear against her memory.
The above point is something missed by the critics who defend _Hilary and Jackie_ as portraying "another side" to Jacqueline's personality or offering a corrective to "official" documentaries or biographies. To the majority who watch the movie unreflectingly, there is only one "side" shown. That gets me back to the core of what I dislike about this film: its historical irresponsibility. Jacqueline du Pré obviously achieved much and suffered much in her life, and whether you agree with this film or not, it isn't a constructive tribute to her life's work as an artist and teacher. Integrity demands us to treat unsupported claims with caution, not proselytize them to an unwary audience. Jacqueline du Pré was a great cellist who contributed much to the art was well liked by her colleagues and acquaintances. Her pedagogical legacy survives in the generation of cellists who studied under her tutelage. If she is to be remembered, it should be for that and not the dubious details of her sex life as "played out" and vulgarized in sensationalist media.
One would do better to peruse the biographies of Jacqueline du Pré by Carol Easton, Elizabeth Wilson and, yes, the du Pré siblings (if you read between the lines). Or better yet, listen to her music and watch the documentaries of her which contain clips of her life and performances. The latter were directed by Christopher Nupen who, unlike Tucker, actually knew and cared about his subject matter. For if even a fraction of the money the BBC and the Arts Council gave to _Hilary and Jackie_ were diverted to Nupen's program (which they, instead, rejected), great gains would have been made; gains to music, as well as to our conscience.
