Woolfâs life: the moment in Richmond immediately prior to her return to London. But itâs still a serious problem that little about this frumpy cinematic Woolf suggests just why she loves London so much; you get no sense of Woolf as the confident, gossip-loving queen of Bloomsbury, the vivid social figure, the amusing diarist, the impressively productive journalist expertly maneuvering her professional obligationsâand relationships. (Thereâs a lot more of the real Virginia Woolf in her Clarissa Dalloway than this film would ever lead you to believe.) If anything, the filmâs Woolf is just one half (if that much) of the real Woolf, and itâs no coincidence that itâs the half that satisfies a certain cultural fantasy, going back to early biographies of Sappho, about what creative women are like: distracted, isolated, doomed.
Â
There are other transpositions in the new film that distort the female characters of Cunninghamâs novel just as drastically, and to similar ends. It is strange, coming directly from the novel to Daldryâs movie, to see the central element of Clarissa Vaughanâs storyâthe unexpected visit from Richardâs old lover Louis, who bursts into tears; a canny reincarnation, as weâve seen, of the scene in Mrs. Dalloway in which Clarissaâs old flame Peter Walsh comes to see her and weeps uncontrollablyâturned inside out. For in the film, itâs Clarissa who goes to pieces in front of Louis. âI donât know whatâs happening,â Meryl Streep says as she stands in her kitchen, cooking for her party. âI seem to be unravelingâ¦. Explain to me why this is happeningâ¦. Itâs just too much.â Her voice, as she says these lines, cracks on the verge of hysteria. Cunninghamâs (and Woolfâs) book places Clarissa at the center of her story: she is the subject of ruminations about objects that are maleâsurprisingly weak or emotionally fractured males. Daldry and Hareâs film may look as if itâs putting Clarissa at the center of her storyâStreepâs the star, after all, or one of the three gifted starsâbut what the makers of the film are doing, it occurs to you, is exactly what Woolf worried that men did in their fictional representations of women: seeing women from the perspective of men.
In the film these men include, indeed, not only Louis, who in the scene Iâve just described sympathetically comforts the helpless Clarissa, but Richard too. In Cunninghamâs novel, thereâs a passing moment in which Clarissa Vaughan ruefully thinks to herself that she is âtrivial, endlessly trivialâ (sheâs fretting because Sally, a producer of documentaries, hasnât invited her along to lunch with a gay movie star); but in the film, sheâs worried that Richard thinks sheâs trivial. âHe gives me that look to say âyour life is trivial, you are trivial,ââ Streep says, her voice quavering. For Hare and Daldry, a âwomanâs storyâ must, it seems, involve the spectacle of women losing their self-possession in front of their menâmen within the drama, and outside of it, too. Their subtle recasting of Cunninghamâs words makes the character into an object (of Richardâs derision, of the audienceâs pity) when she had, in the original, been a subject.
This shift in emphases is even clearer in the Laura Brown portions of the film. Gone are Lauraâs darkness, her hidden âbrilliance,â her foreign looks and last name: here, she is transformed into the exceedingly fair Julianne Moore, who has made a name for herself in a number of films about outwardly perfect young women who are losing their inner balance (as in this yearâs Far from Heaven , and the 1995 film Safe ). But to make Laura into a prom queen inverts the delicate dynamic of the novelâthe structure that makes you aware of Lauraâs