User reviews

It is a pleasure to see a film that has believable characters and an engrossing story which both entertains and enlightens. "Hilary and Jackie" tells the story of two sisters, Hilary and Jacqueline Du Pre, from their early years as devoted sisters and fledgling musicians, through their divergent life choices as professional soloist and housewife.

Jacqueline's career as cellist takes off just as Hilary decides to marry and raise a family on a rural farm. The music is integral to the development of the story. Director, Anand Tucker, uses it to comment on the action, much as the piano performances were used in "Shine". The digital stereo sound highlights the richness of the music combined with emotionally gripping sound effects.

Emily Watson shines as Jacqueline in a varied and multi-faceted performance that may well earn her another Academy Award nomination. As the quieter more sensible Hilary, Rachel Griffiths is also effective in a less showy but subtle portrayal.

The key dramatic sequence comes at the film's center where Jacqueline leaves her husband, pianist and conductor, Daniel Barenboim, to stay with Hilary and her family. The surprising favor and request she asks of her sister will not be revealed here. Suffice it to say, this is not a film for children.

The powerful final scenes will remain long in memory. The fine music should encourage those not familiar with the careers of Du Pre and Barenboim to sample their recordings. Put this fine film on your must-see list.

This heavy subject matter is so well done, it left me wanting more! The acting is superb. I have always loved Rachel Griffiths and she doesn't let the viewer down in this one either. She pulls this one off fantastically and IS Hilary du Pré! Emily Watson's performance is unbelievable and should have been recognized with a multitude of awards. It is amazing how well she acts in this. One truly believes that SHE has Multiple Sclorosis. I was amazed at how well she played the scenes. I just can't say enough about this film. I highly recommend that if you want quality writing and acting and are prepared for some realistic yet somewhat disturbing subject matter about life, RENT this film!

Hilary and Jackie is a biographical film about two contemporary English sisters, Hilary and Jacqueline du Pré. Both are musical prodigies as children, but as they mature into women, it is Jackie, the cellist, who moves on to international fame, while Hilary opts for husband and family on an English farm.

The film covers the complex, and troubling relationship between the two sisters, and Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths give brilliant performances in the title roles. What was the Academy thinking when they were both passed over? And the music! It's always in the forefront, and helps move the story as much as the actors and screenplay.

Not to be missed, this is one of the more enjoyable (although not uplifting) movies of 1998. Well worth the cost of the rental.

A superb film, on many levels. Any film that has won or was nominated for 21 awards must be worthwhile!

BUT - BE SURE TO READ the IMDB external reviews, viz. 'The Australian' and 'James Berardinelli's ReelViews'. These articles point out the factual errors (as well as praise).

I hope that this does not lessen the movie's greatness for you. It IS an excellent movie, sensitively done and a vehicle for health, family, sexual issues, etc.

Just don't take it as the absolute truth about Jacqueline du Pré. By the way, neither was the film 'Shine', about pianist David Helfgott.

"Hilary and Jackie" is a film technically beautiful, with magnificent cinematography and music score and top-notch performances, highlighting the lead actresses Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths. However the screenplay telling the personal life of Jacqueline du Pré from the perpectives of each sister does not work well. Jacqueline du Pré is depicted as a selfish and spoiled woman and it is impossible to the viewer to care to the character shown in the film. Consequently the film has no feelings despite the performance of Emily Watson and looks like a tragic soap-opera. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Hilary and Jackie"

Films as intelligent and well crafted as this are hard to come by. `Hilary and Jackie' is an exceptionally well done character study of two real life sisters. Jackie (Emily Watson) is a world-class cellist and Hilary (Rachel Griffiths) lives a normal middle class life. The story is rich in character development depicting the sisters starting from their childhood when both were musical prodigies. Now that they are adults, they envy each other's life. The story follows Jackie's career and explores the sisters' relationship, including the deep resentment and enduring love they have for one another. Director Anand Tucker does a wonderful job of presenting the story. He induces great feeling from each scene and lays the raw emotions on the screen without embellishment whether pure or turbulent.

Emily Watson was superb in the lead role. Her's was an extremely complex character and her command of the range of emotions Jackie required was phenomenal. Lovers of classical music will appreciate the rich soundtrack and Watson's realistic cello renditions. Watson was nominated for best actress by the Academy in 1999 for this performance and I felt she was most deserving of the prize that ultimately went to Gwyneth Paltrow for `Shakespeare in Love'. Paltrow's performance was clever and charming, but had nowhere near the power Watson delivered in this film. Emily is such a talented actress, however, that I have little doubt eventually there will be some other envelope with her name inside.

Rachel Griffiths also gave a career performance as Hilary and she was nominated for best supporting actress, an award I felt she won hands down. Griffiths' tortured performance was gut wrenching and inspired. She played Hilary with deep sensitivity and handled her emotional conflicts brilliantly. The Academy's choice of Judy Dench was again perplexing as the Shakespeare juggernaut rolled on.

For those viewers who appreciate a powerful and disturbing drama, great acting, complex characters, terrific classical music and extraordinary character development, this film is a must. I rated it a 9/10. Don't miss it.

"Hilary and Jackie" is a good film based upon the famous cellist Jacqueline Du Pré's (and her sister's) life. In the beginning it is a very fascinating story, and Jackie's life is definitely interesting. However, the director/editor makes the mistake of leaving the linear structure of the story telling, by leaving the story at the most interesting point, just to go back and re-tell it from Jackie's point of view (we saw it from Hilary's point of view first). Some people might say that this is good -- I do not agree. Sure, there are facts in Jackie's story that are absolutely crucial in explaining her very odd behaviour in the film, but that could still have been told linear. A bad choice, really, but the film is still rather engrossing and both Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths are wonderful. (6/10)

I've read the 54 reviews here, and agree with most, both positive and negative, but I have a different perspective. Of all instruments, cello speaks to me most deeply. I do not play, I sing (deep bass, centered below the bottom of the bass staff, presently studying music in college after retirement), but still the cello resonates within my soul. I grieve that I never got the chance to see Jacqueline in her prime. But more so, that MS brought her down and killed her.

My wife has MS, is about 2/3 the way through the course of the disease. Its pace for her is much slower than the 20 years it took to kill Jackie. Slower, but just as bitterly relentless. The devastation of the disease is portrayed effectively in the film even though it is compressed in the telling. Some critics challenged the portrayal of incontinence, of tremors, of puzzling mental behavior. Those portrayals were quite accurate and the challenges unwarranted.

The one portrayal I would challenge is the final scene of Jackie being fed reclining. As I understand it, at least from current writings on the subject, the manner in which that was done would guarantee (aspiration) pneumonia and death because of the damage MS does to the swallowing reflex which uses the vocal cords to keep contaminants out of the lungs. I hope that portrayal was inaccurate. Other than this one glitch, I've found the movie haunting, invading my thoughts at quiet times and while drifting in and out of sleep. Sorry critics, I give it a 10, for the ballet of bond and competition between the sisters, for the portrayal of the musical genius of both of them, for the tragedy wrought by MS, for the powerful telling of the tale.....

More than two years ago, I read that Emily Watson would be appearing in this film, and I've been looking forward to it ever since. Someone else said he was expecting a chick flick and was pleasantly surprised. I expected something quite different from a chick flick and was disappointed. (Says something about expectations -- as if we didn't know that already.)

With two suburb actors, wonderful cello music and a fantastic story, how come the movie is such a dud?

Somehow, it seems to me that had this been directed by Ang Lee it would have lived up to promises. His ability to handle family dynamics is needed here. The annoying use of swooping camera shots that seem to plague everything Channel 4 does tends to make me think they have some flash equipment to pay off by using it every chance they get.

Despite the film's failings, Rachel Griffiths gives her usual superb performance. It's many years since I stopped imagining there was any justice in Awards, so it didn't surprise me that she was overlooked this year. Some years ago I was in America and heard someone on National Public Radio describing how acting ability has little to do with Academy Awards. For women, it has to be a character who is in command of her life with the actor's ability of little consequence. (For men, the character has to have some sort of fragility.) I'm reminded of his comments every Awards. Judi Dench fitted the formula this year.

One day both Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths will be recognised. I hope they don't have to do it the way Kate Winslet did.

Jacqueline du Pre is remembered as the beautiful, genius cellist who tragically died of multiple sclerosis at a young age. But this film, though a biopic, avoids the easy conventions of the tear-jerker. Instead, it portrays a talented but capricious young woman who found her rise to fame as difficult to handle, in some ways, as her subsequent decline. Three things lift it out of the ordinary: fine acting from the entire cast; a concerted attempt, in the construction of both plot and soundtrack, to genuinely convey the importance of music in her life; and an intelligent screenplay that uses the viewpoint of her sister Hilary, along with that of Jackie herself, to show her behaviour in two different lights. The veracity of the events has been disputed; but this is a complex, and ultimately moving, film.

I only have a few things to say about this film. First of all, I found the directing and script to be very convoluted. For example, by the end of the film I had no idea that Jackie was 42 years old. Did you? Perhaps the makers of this film could have come up with a better way to present the time lapses. Anyway, the second thing I have to say is I really enjoyed Rachel Griffiths quiet craftsmanship in this film. Her portrayal of Hilary du Pre` is the kind of performance that is too often overlooked. Griffiths displays such startling restraint in her performance which is so hard for most actors to do. So many times I see these big, over the top performances that just do not impress me. Life is filled with small, unique gestures and far off glances, not huge, dramatic hoopla. Rachel Griffiths is a truly gifted actress and the highlight of this film. Oh yeah, Emily Watson wasn't too bad either.

Hilary and Jackie is a film that can be appreciated on many levels. The performances of Ms. Griffith and Ms. Watson as the title characters were superb, but so were the actors that played the parents and husbands, and the two young actresses playing them as girls were terrific. All the people in the film were interesting. The film gives insight into the life of a musical genius with its rewards and triumphs as well as conflicts and sacrifices. There is also a psychological aspect at the heart of this film. From the beginning the two sisters have a bond, almost a symbiotic relationship, yet there is also intense competition. To make the presentation even more interesting the relationship is presented in two "acts", the first told from Hilary's perspective and the second from Jackie's. Whose is more real? Does it make a difference? The final scenes as MS is taking its toll on Jackie are gripping. Both actresses were deserving of their nominations. This was great entertainment! Three and half stars!!!

"Hilary and Jackie" gets off to a weak start, but by the end of the film it has become quite engaging. In fact, the last hour or so of the film is good enough to almost warrant a recommendation, but the first 30 minutes are too rough for me to do so with a good conscience, and the middle hour simply isn't engaging enough.

The film tells the story of two sisters, Hilary and Jacqueline DuPre. Hilary is a flautist, while Jackie is a cellist. The film chronicles their lives as children, where they were torn between being best friends and competing with each other, and their adult lives where jealousy and alienation both tore their relationship apart and also made it stronger.

The problem with the film is not the actors, but the director. "Hilary and Jackie" is a very multi-layered drama, but director Anand Tucker has a hard time keeping it all straight. The result is a film that wants to tell a story, but lacks the focus to tell it in an effective manner. The result is a poorly-focused film that struggles to get its point across.

The acting, however, is magnificent. Emily Watson is terrific as Jackie. She has a love/hate relationship with her cello-playing. One one hand, playing the cello is something that she's good at, but on the other hand, it alienates her from what she wants in life. Although Watson has the more showy part, Griffiths is by no means a lesser performer here. Griffiths is torn between helping her sister, and living the life she wants with her husband and family. Based on his reputation and his stiff performance in "The Water Horse" (ironically also starring Emily Watson), I didn't think that David Morrissey had the capacity to act. Fortunately, I was wrong. Morrrissey gives an energetic performance as Hilary's husband Kiffer. He loves his wife, but sometimes that comes at a price. Likewise, James Frains is a far cry from his performance as the villain in "Into the Blue." He's also a musician, and his relationship with Jackie is an example of who romances between artists can be very difficult.

There's some good stuff here; the music is beautiful, and the scenes where Jackie plays are effectively executed. But it's just put together quite well enough to warrant more than a "see it if you must" verdict.

I have before me a 1965 vinyl LP record with a beautiful portrait of the then twenty-year-old Jacqueline du Pré and her cello. On it she plays the Elgar and Delius Cello Concertos, classics in her repertoire which have never been bettered. Indeed, years later, the "gran maestro" Mstislav Rostropovich on being asked why was it that he had never made a recording of the Elgar Concerto, said that a young English woman had already made the definitive version to which he had nothing to add. I also have various remastered CD recordings - with or without her then husband, Daniel Barenboim as accompanying pianist or orchestra conductor, ranging from Paradis and Saint-Saëns to Fauré, Franck and Dvorák, as well as Sir Edward Elgar's beautiful "Enigma Variations".

Jacqueline du Pré was born just a few months before me and we thus celebrate 60 years on this iniquitous planet. Which is the best that can be said about the film "Hilary and Jackie" - iniquitous, "gross", vulgar............ When I learned she had got multiple sclerosis and had stopped playing her cello, I cried for a week; and when she finally died, another week. She shall be remembered for her exquisite music, not for the trashy version of a film like this one.

I am sorry, but I just could not bear seeing the film to the end. It had nothing to do with the Jacqueline du Pré whom I loved as a sensitive, intelligent, brilliant musician. Everything which this film lacks.

As the Spanish actor Paco Rabal once said: No god could be so cruel.

This film is cruel.

Even today, I show the LP recording with the beautiful portrait to my teenage students in an endeavour (mostly wasted) to persuade them to stop picking their noses.

I give this film a three out of ten - ONLY because there are fragments of her own music in it; as for the rest of the film - ZERO.

As a child Hilary was the talented musician on the flute and the younger Jacqueline was encouraged to keep up if she wanted to accompany her sister on trips to musical events. So Jackie practiced hard on her cello to do so, gradually becoming better than her sister. As adults Hilary is now very much in the shadow of her brilliant sister Jackie, who is booked solid for shows. However where Hilary finds happiness and support from her partner and husband Kiffer, Jackie grows increasingly isolated from others. The pair's relationship drifts apart but comes together again to produce one traumatic moment in their relationship.

I'm sure it has been done many times but I still found this film's structure to be pretty clever. The central traumatic act in the narrative occurs halfway through the film; up until then we follow things from Hilary's point of view and then in the second half we jump backwards and work up to it again (and beyond) from Jacqueline's (more or less). The effect is that the first half of the film is engaging as it develops along lines we don't know while the second film is engaging as it underpins the reasons for Jacqueline's character and where she goes from there. I put of watching the film because I had no knowledge of the characters and no real interest in their music, however now that I have watched it I am glad I did as it is well made and interesting. It is very character driven and evenly paced, which will annoy some viewers but for me it worked really well and produced a story that didn't require you to know the people involved because you felt you did by the end.

Watson leads the cast really well, bringing out the innocent of her character as easily as she does the spite within Jackie. Griffiths yet again shows her talent in taking on yet another accent and strange character and pulling it off. They work well together although their best scenes are early on. Support is good from Frain, Morrissey, Dance, Imrie and others but the film is lead well by the main two actresses who work well with the material given them.

Overall this is a well paced film that will annoy some but is heavy in quality. The character development in the script is strong and the cast respond well to it. Tucker controls it all well with a good eye for a scene and some imaginative visual touches and brings out a film that is well-structured and engaging even if it won't be to everyone's tastes.

"Hilary and Jackie" tells of two sisters who share a love of classical music and each other but take contrasting paths through adult life. A much lauded film worthy of its critical acclaim, "H&J" does have a peculiar twice-told tale approach to its presentation which tends to make it interesting but so complex as to dilute its effectiveness. Nonetheless, this British film with a typically "stiff upper lip" approach to its sentimentality, is well shot, scripted, and acted. A good watch which will be a little "over the top" for many.

There is an inherent worthiness about serious biopics of artists of any sort; as if any criticism of them will identify you as a fool. There is also a proverbial problem that these pictures have in dealing with 'genius'. In general genius manifests itself as a sort of disorder. Here that disorder is both psychological and physical. DuPre was blessed with her ability and thus cursed with mental illness and M.S. The movie makers are spared the difficulty of dealing with the roots of her art, they simply point to the perceived price paid and that must serve as insight.

That said, this picture works well most of the time. I agree with those who have pointed out that the time scheme is unclear. I was amazed when, we were told it was 1987. I was convinced we were still in the era of bell bottoms and fondue, when Michael Fish (well known British Weatherman) turned up to plant us in the 1987 hurricane. Most credit goes to Rachel Griffiths, who deserves an Oscar - and just might get one.

One can not help but be overwhelmed by the power, the stunning brilliance, and incredibly amazing performance by Ms. Emily Watson that assuredly deserved an Academy Award and which shames the Oscars forever because a Paltrow, Berry, or other flunky has received a statue and Watson has been brutally robbed. This is acting at its absolute finest and a role so perfectly realized by Watson that it can never be forgotten by anyone who has seen it. Never in the history of cinema has any actress so completely captured the very soul of a character and transferred it so expertly to film. It is indeed a film for the ages because of what Watson brings to it, the fire and passion she ignites the screen with, and the unbridled superbness of craft she puts forth. One is almost blinded by such brilliance and I was not the only member of the audience to stagger from the theatre upon first viewing of this film, breathless with astonishment and trembling with emotion as I tried to find words to express the depth of my feelings to my evening's companion. I could barely speak the word "Emily" and could see from my companion's eyes she was equally affected by what she had just witnessed and we shared the awe in silence as the dazed audience around us wandered as if numbed into the night. Rarely has a performance touched me in this way and yet with Emily Watson it is par for the course due to an unequaled talent that few if any other actor can begin to approach. I felt pummeled by her work, bruised by her electric might, and singed by her passion. That night was one I will never forget. I have never seen an audience literally struck dumb by a performance in a cinema. Since seeing this film I have found Watson routinely splendid and spectacularly superb in role after role. There is no doubt she is the single greatest living actor working in the English language today and this film serves as a perfect showcase for her magnificent genius.

Whenever Channel Four Films associate themselves with a film, it seems like it is a guarantee of high quality. This time they are merely the distributors, but still... the formula works!

This film is quite a controversial one, especially since it refers to a true story and the real life survivors do not agree between them on the interpretation of things. It refers to the relationship of the Du Pré sisters as they grew up together only to follow different routes as adults. Jacqueline Du Pré (Emily Watson - The Boxer (1997), Breaking the Waves (1996)) became the famous cellist, while her sister Hilary Du Pré (Rachel Griffiths - Bettina in My Son the Fanatic (1998), My Best Friend's Wedding (1997), Jude (1996), Muriel's Wedding (1994)) became a mother and a housewife. Although the film became known for what was supposedly catalytic to their relationship, the event of Jackie sleeping with Hilary's husband, it seems in the actual film that this fact was totally irrelevant. It seems like it is the different nature of the two sisters, as well as their different experiences, that separate and/or connect them.

The unknown director Anand Tucker manages to extract magnificent performances from his cast with no exceptions, notably from James Frain (Daniel Barenboim, Jackie's husband), David Morrissey (Kiffer Finzi, Hilary's husband), Charles Dance and Celia Imrie (Derek and Iris Du Pré, the parents). The very interesting story line, told independently from either sister's side, is of course "decorated" by wonderful classical music, another subject of controversy between the owners of Jackie's recordings and the publishers of the film's soundtrack. For the exceptional sweetness delivered to eyes and ears, 7 out of 10.

The movie starts off with a few shots of Hillary and Jackie, the two sisters after whom the film has been named, playing on the beach as young girls, which demonstrates the closeness that was felt between the two sisters. This is also a myth that is demonstrated throughout the film; that siblings are extremely loving and caring towards each other. Obviously, this is ideal, but it is rarely ever true, especially to the extent that Hillary and Jackie are.

The negative affects of stardom are hinted at early in the film when the girls first enter into competitions, and Jackie, the younger sister, is shown driving herself constantly to be as good as her older sister so that she can compete with her. Later in the film, Hillary puts her musical talents on the proverbial `back burner,' and settles down with a husband, planning on a family life. Jackie, on the other hand, continues playing her cello for larger and larger audiences, becoming a more and more successful musician. Unfortunately, before too long she is confined to a wheelchair which, if I remember correctly, is the result of a stroke. I think that this misfortune was meant to be seen as a possible and maybe even probable consequence of a relatively typical young girl who drove herself too hard. This is an example of the theme that, unfortunately, genius is often associated with madness.

There was a lot of emphasis on the sky and the water in the first few scenes. The audience's attention is called to the beautiful sunset, as well as the calm ocean, conveying a sense of peacefulness and freedom. Later in the film, after Jackie has begun her descent into madness, there was a lot of rain and overcast skies. This kind of weather usually gets a rather gloomy, depressing reaction.

Another element of cinematics that I noticed in this film was the way that Jackie's descent into madness was presented. The film's audience would see her playing beautiful music on her cello for a large on-screen audience, and then there would be a close-up of her head, and almost all of the sound would be cut out, except for a few deep, under-water sounding hums and gurgles. This showed that Jackie, although playing her cello outstandingly, was drifting in and out of reality. It was a method of foreshadowing that something was about to go very wrong with Jackie, and the moment that this is known for sure is when she finishes a concert and is unable to stand up on her own, needing to be carried out. This cinematic technique is very similar to that used in the movie `Shine,' with Geoffrey Rush, one of my personal favorites.

Hilary and Jackie is an excellent character study that is presented as part of an engaging drama filled with beautiful scenery as stunningly convincing performances. It is a very realist film, and it's effects are very well achieved through the quality direction, story, and cinematography. Don't miss this one.

This movie left me with a bad impression of the cellist. Must we know everything about an artist? Is nothing to remain private? She left her beautiful music behind for generations to enjoy. Now, her brother and sister, through the book and the movie, have shared with us what should have remained hidden. Jackie tells her sister that she wants to sleep with her husband, the sister actually agrees, and the husband allows himself to be talked into it. I don't buy the idea that she was is such emotional need that only a screw with her sister's husband could "help". The fact that she ended up with a particularly dibilitating form of MS is, of course, a tragedy. But etched in my mind as I listen to her recordings will always be the tragedy of this terrible threesome.

This movie portrayed many emotions between siblings masterfully. I found myself at one moment despising the sisters and then feeling deep sympathy for both. The ending was quite heart wrenching and left me emotionally undone. Take kleenex and see this movie.

True story about two musician sisters, one a cellist and one a flautist, and the mental illness that plagued the latter (played in an Academy-Award nominated performance by Emily Watson).

Rachel Griffiths is the cellist, the more grounded and dependable sister through whose perspective the story is told. There's really not a tremendous lot to distinguish this film apart from the solid performances of the two lead actresses. This film came so closely on the heels of "Breaking the Waves" that I remembered thinking it was already beyond time for Watson to do some light comedy, or at least play a character who wasn't mentally unhinged. She would soon delight me in films like "Cradle Will Rock" and "Gosford Park."

Grade: B

Note: The following is a condensed version of my Amazon.com review, to fit the word limit:

In terms of raw ability and potential, Jacqueline du Pré was arguably the greatest cello talent in modern history. At her height in the 1960s, concerts with her and Barenboim would make the world forget (for a while) Rostropovich and Casals. For listeners of classical music who kept up with her releases and watched her performances, she seemed to be an embodiment of talent -- dynamic, joyous, ethereally gifted, tragically cut short by multiple sclerosis. To those of us who kept Jacqueline's recordings in our psyches, her death was agonizing particularly for the sense of loss -- for what *could have been* (the breadth of her repertoire having been severely limited by MS).

This loathsome and abominable film, based on the controversial memoir by du Pré's siblings ("A Genius in the Family"), viciously insults and debases Jacqueline's memory. The errors of omission and commission are too many to name here, but the portrayal of Jacqueline in this film has been condemned by her friends and colleagues (including Rostropovich) as a vicious travesty of her character. Everything about this movie is -- as a previous reviewer stated -- iniquitous, gross and vulgar. Nothing here reminds one of the sensitive, joyous, brilliant musician that is seen in video reels and recalled by her acquaintances. Instead, the depiction is based on an exclusive (but loose) focus on a very dubious memoir, focusing on the gratuitous and doubtful details of her sex life and relationship with her sister, Hilary (who obviously has a chip on her shoulder and happens to be the author of the memoir upon which this is based). Clare Finzi, Hilary's daughter, wrote and contested the film account of events as a "gross misinterpretation, which I cannot let go unchallenged".

To add insult to injury, the director doesn't even care about accuracy, stating that "it (truth) doesn't exist" due to divergent viewpoints. (One wonders what he would have made of Holocaust denial.) It's the height of hubris and irresponsibility to popularize sensationalist claims against a person's character without any concern for truth or respect for their memory. A New York Times critic posed the question of whether the film was a "travesty or painful truth", which is not the primary issue at all. 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 and unsubstantiated beliefs to a mass audience -- qualifying this posthumous attack on Jacqueline du Pré's character as a vicious and appalling act.

Taken at face value then, this film is worthless, totally worthless. The response may be that biopics have no obligations to factual accuracy -- that this is the exclusive province of documentaries or books. But a film can be both fictional and offensive (for e.g. denying the Holocaust or defaming war veterans). Those who admired Jacqueline du Pré and studied her life and work do not take this film seriously as fact. Nevertheless they will watch it with a sinking feeling, until they can't bear to have their recollections maimed any further by emetic (and completely fictional) scenes that have nothing to do with the cellist they adored. There were several times during the viewing in which I literally wanted to gouge my eyes out -- but even if I did so, the scenes would stay in my mind forever.

Then there are those who -- noting this -- will still enjoy the movie. In that case they don't care anything for the real-life Jacqueline du Pré at all (and probably wouldn't have even if they didn't see this movie, so that's no loss). But others would do better to peruse the biographies of her 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. These were directed by Christopher Nupen who, unlike Tucker, actually knew and cared about his subject matter.

Good biopics are done with a serious respect for the subject's memory, concern for truth, and historical substantiation. _Pollock_ is one of them, _My Left Foot_ is another. This one isn't. It would have made a decent _Forrest Gump_ or _Good Will Hunting_, if the director had the integrity to use fictional names and locations. Why on earth did they not just leave it at that and left Jacqueline du Pré's memory in peace? She did nothing to deserve such defacement, nothing at all.