The photography, the costumes, the sets, the hairstyles, ... it's truly a masterpiece! Otherwise, the film is excessively cold and intellectual, with an almost-platonic relationship between two female writers, Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf, in the late 20's, in an exuberant aristocratic environment. From the beginning to the end, I was honestly outside the film, without ever being able to absorb the atmosphere, because of an almost-permanent boredom. Even the gorgeous Gemma Arterton has managed to make myself asleep. Literally incredible!
54 Reviews
Appropriately Restrained
JamesHitchcock1 June 2020
2018 saw several historical dramas about lesbianism, including the fictitious "Tell It to the Bees" and three about real historical figures, even if doubts have sometimes been expressed about their historical accuracy. "The Favourite" dealt with the triangular relationship between Queen Anne, Sarah Churchill and Abigail Masham, and "Colette" told the story of the bisexual French novelist of that name. "Vita & Virginia" is about two more bisexual literary figures, Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf.
As the story opens, in the England of the 1920s, Vita and Virginia are both well-known writers, but do not know each other personally because they move in different social circles. Vita is a politically and socially conservative aristocrat, whereas Virginia is part of the liberal, progressive Bloomsbury Group. Now that Virginia Woolf has become such a well-established part of the canon of English Literature ("From Beowulf to Virginia Woolf"), it seems strange to think that during their lifetimes it was Vita Sackville-West who was regarded as the more significant writer, both in terms of book sales and in terms of critical acclaim.
Vita, however, is fascinated by the other woman's work, and is determined to make her acquaintance. The two women, as portrayed here by Gemma Arterton and Elizabeth Debicki, are very different in personality. Debicki's Virginia is shy and retiring, and physically and mentally frail, whereas Arterton's Vita is outgoing, lively and magnetic. (Was Vita's vitality, I wonder, the reason for her nickname? She was officially baptised Victoria Mary, but was always known as Vita, Latin for "life"). When the two meet, however, they quickly become friends, despite their differences, and eventually lovers. Her relationship with Vita inspires Virginia's "Orlando", one of her best-known novels and her first major popular success.
One criticism that has been made is that Debicki is too young for the role of Virginia, and there is some justice in this. Virginia she was the older of the women by eight years, but Debicki is four years younger than Arterton. At least, however, she doesn't rely upon a false nose like Nicole Kidman did when playing Virginia in "The Hours".
Both women were married, and their husbands play important, if subsidiary, roles in this drama. Vita had a famously open marriage to the diplomat Harold Nicolson, who was himself bisexual and had relationships with other men. In the film he is depicted as having no objection to his wife's lesbian friendships, although he does wish she could be more discreet about them. (Her previous affair with Violet Trefusis caused a scandal which damaged his career). Virginia's publisher husband Leonard is not enthusiastic about her relationship but feels it is for the best if he tolerates it, given her fragile mental state.
Some may think that the film is too passionless, a presentation of a well-mannered, drawing-room form of lesbianism. Again, there might be some justice in this, although I suspect that such criticisms are most likely to come from those who expected, and hoped, that the film would be more sensual and erotic than it actually is. The film was never intended to be a piece of erotica, and I think that there are reasons why it is less passionate than one might expect. In the first place, it deals with events which took place nearly a hundred years ago, a period when the British still believed in the idea of the "stiff upper lip", far more than they do today. As a result people tended to behave in a more restrained manner, at least in public; open displays of strong feelings were discouraged. This was especially true when those feelings existed between two women; although lesbianism, unlike male homosexuality, was never illegal in Britain, it was still the subject of great social disapproval.
Secondly, in the version of events put forward here, Vita has had several earlier affairs with other women, whereas this is Virginia's first lesbian relationship. Debicki plays her not as a woman in the throes of a grand passion but as someone rather uncertainly exploring and discovering new aspects of her sexuality. The result is a film which is certainly restrained, but this seems appropriate to its period and to its subject-matter. It is, in fact, the restraint with which writer-director Chanya Button and her co-writer Eileen Atkins bring to their story which enables them to explore the psychology of their two main characters in such depth. 7/10
As the story opens, in the England of the 1920s, Vita and Virginia are both well-known writers, but do not know each other personally because they move in different social circles. Vita is a politically and socially conservative aristocrat, whereas Virginia is part of the liberal, progressive Bloomsbury Group. Now that Virginia Woolf has become such a well-established part of the canon of English Literature ("From Beowulf to Virginia Woolf"), it seems strange to think that during their lifetimes it was Vita Sackville-West who was regarded as the more significant writer, both in terms of book sales and in terms of critical acclaim.
Vita, however, is fascinated by the other woman's work, and is determined to make her acquaintance. The two women, as portrayed here by Gemma Arterton and Elizabeth Debicki, are very different in personality. Debicki's Virginia is shy and retiring, and physically and mentally frail, whereas Arterton's Vita is outgoing, lively and magnetic. (Was Vita's vitality, I wonder, the reason for her nickname? She was officially baptised Victoria Mary, but was always known as Vita, Latin for "life"). When the two meet, however, they quickly become friends, despite their differences, and eventually lovers. Her relationship with Vita inspires Virginia's "Orlando", one of her best-known novels and her first major popular success.
One criticism that has been made is that Debicki is too young for the role of Virginia, and there is some justice in this. Virginia she was the older of the women by eight years, but Debicki is four years younger than Arterton. At least, however, she doesn't rely upon a false nose like Nicole Kidman did when playing Virginia in "The Hours".
Both women were married, and their husbands play important, if subsidiary, roles in this drama. Vita had a famously open marriage to the diplomat Harold Nicolson, who was himself bisexual and had relationships with other men. In the film he is depicted as having no objection to his wife's lesbian friendships, although he does wish she could be more discreet about them. (Her previous affair with Violet Trefusis caused a scandal which damaged his career). Virginia's publisher husband Leonard is not enthusiastic about her relationship but feels it is for the best if he tolerates it, given her fragile mental state.
Some may think that the film is too passionless, a presentation of a well-mannered, drawing-room form of lesbianism. Again, there might be some justice in this, although I suspect that such criticisms are most likely to come from those who expected, and hoped, that the film would be more sensual and erotic than it actually is. The film was never intended to be a piece of erotica, and I think that there are reasons why it is less passionate than one might expect. In the first place, it deals with events which took place nearly a hundred years ago, a period when the British still believed in the idea of the "stiff upper lip", far more than they do today. As a result people tended to behave in a more restrained manner, at least in public; open displays of strong feelings were discouraged. This was especially true when those feelings existed between two women; although lesbianism, unlike male homosexuality, was never illegal in Britain, it was still the subject of great social disapproval.
Secondly, in the version of events put forward here, Vita has had several earlier affairs with other women, whereas this is Virginia's first lesbian relationship. Debicki plays her not as a woman in the throes of a grand passion but as someone rather uncertainly exploring and discovering new aspects of her sexuality. The result is a film which is certainly restrained, but this seems appropriate to its period and to its subject-matter. It is, in fact, the restraint with which writer-director Chanya Button and her co-writer Eileen Atkins bring to their story which enables them to explore the psychology of their two main characters in such depth. 7/10
muse and muss
ferguson-622 August 2019
Greetings again from the darkness. The historical landscape of relationships is littered with the remains of artist couples who began with a cosmic connection and ended with a sonic boom. Add in the socially toxic matter of same-sex attraction from a century ago, and you have a starting point for the romance-friendship-inspiration between writers Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf. Director Chanya Button co-wrote the script with Eileen Atkins, and it's adapted from Ms. Atkins play and the personal letters of Virginia and Vita ... correspondence that covered many years and hundreds of letters.
Gemma Arterton (TAMARA DREWE, 2010 and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 2008) stars as writer Vita Sackville-West, a successful poet, novelist, and columnist. Vita was also known for her free spirited ways, and sometimes scandalous behavior. Virginia Woolf is played by Elizabeth Debicki ("The Night Manager", THE GREAT GATSBY), and she does really nice work capturing the troubled genius, and the glimmers of hope during her time with Vita. The two women were so very different in their approach to life and writing, although each faced their own challenges.
We see their first meeting, and the immediate enchantment that occurs as their eyes meet across the room. However, what makes their relationship interesting is the long and winding path to consummation. The interesting parts come as Vita toys with the fragile Virginia, though it's clear their connection is quite strong. Though the connection was strong, the relationship was quite complex. Vita was a fan of Virginia's talent. Virginia was an admirer of Vita's strength and confidence. They seemed to push each other - sometimes for the better, other times for the worse.
The film opens as Ms. Woolf's book "Jacob's Room" is being typeset and printed. It's quite an artistic way to show the mechanics of the process, and credit goes to Cinematographer Carlos De Carvalho for a segment that would typically be little more than filler. We learn about Vita's secretly "open" marriage to diplomat Harold Nicholson (Rupert Penry-Jones) and her constant battle with her mother Lady Sackville (Isabella Rossellini) over scandals and the family reputation. Virginia's husband Leonard (Peter Ferdinando) runs their printing business, and is seen as vital to his wife's emotional stability, despite the void in other marital aspects. Virginia's artist sister Vanessa Bell (Emerald Fennell) is quite an interesting character whose backstory (also a part of the Bloomsbury Group) is teased enough that she might deserve her own film.
The film features a couple of memorable lines of dialogue, both spoken by Vita. During a BBC radio program she boldly claims "Independence has no sex", and in an early discussion with Virginia states "Popularity is no sign of genius". Vita's brazen step traveling as a man with her previous lover Violet Keppel is mentioned, but mostly this is focused on the class differences and the 'snatched moments' for Vita and Virginia. Vita's exotic spirit and Virginia's struggle with mental health are made clear (even using special effects for the latter). "Visions" of conversations bring the words on the letter pages to life, though it does seem that the filmmakers played things a bit too safe in order to capture a mainstream audience. The music of Isobel Waller-Bridge (Phoebe's sister) brings a contemporary feel but it's at times in contrast to the high gloss presentation. For the women who wrote and inspired the amazing novel "Orlando", and led one of the more tumultuous historical lesbian affairs, it could be argued that they deserved a bit more risk taking on the big screen. Still, "X" marks the spot for Virginia's writing room, and we do understand why discretion might be the right call.
Gemma Arterton (TAMARA DREWE, 2010 and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, 2008) stars as writer Vita Sackville-West, a successful poet, novelist, and columnist. Vita was also known for her free spirited ways, and sometimes scandalous behavior. Virginia Woolf is played by Elizabeth Debicki ("The Night Manager", THE GREAT GATSBY), and she does really nice work capturing the troubled genius, and the glimmers of hope during her time with Vita. The two women were so very different in their approach to life and writing, although each faced their own challenges.
We see their first meeting, and the immediate enchantment that occurs as their eyes meet across the room. However, what makes their relationship interesting is the long and winding path to consummation. The interesting parts come as Vita toys with the fragile Virginia, though it's clear their connection is quite strong. Though the connection was strong, the relationship was quite complex. Vita was a fan of Virginia's talent. Virginia was an admirer of Vita's strength and confidence. They seemed to push each other - sometimes for the better, other times for the worse.
The film opens as Ms. Woolf's book "Jacob's Room" is being typeset and printed. It's quite an artistic way to show the mechanics of the process, and credit goes to Cinematographer Carlos De Carvalho for a segment that would typically be little more than filler. We learn about Vita's secretly "open" marriage to diplomat Harold Nicholson (Rupert Penry-Jones) and her constant battle with her mother Lady Sackville (Isabella Rossellini) over scandals and the family reputation. Virginia's husband Leonard (Peter Ferdinando) runs their printing business, and is seen as vital to his wife's emotional stability, despite the void in other marital aspects. Virginia's artist sister Vanessa Bell (Emerald Fennell) is quite an interesting character whose backstory (also a part of the Bloomsbury Group) is teased enough that she might deserve her own film.
The film features a couple of memorable lines of dialogue, both spoken by Vita. During a BBC radio program she boldly claims "Independence has no sex", and in an early discussion with Virginia states "Popularity is no sign of genius". Vita's brazen step traveling as a man with her previous lover Violet Keppel is mentioned, but mostly this is focused on the class differences and the 'snatched moments' for Vita and Virginia. Vita's exotic spirit and Virginia's struggle with mental health are made clear (even using special effects for the latter). "Visions" of conversations bring the words on the letter pages to life, though it does seem that the filmmakers played things a bit too safe in order to capture a mainstream audience. The music of Isobel Waller-Bridge (Phoebe's sister) brings a contemporary feel but it's at times in contrast to the high gloss presentation. For the women who wrote and inspired the amazing novel "Orlando", and led one of the more tumultuous historical lesbian affairs, it could be argued that they deserved a bit more risk taking on the big screen. Still, "X" marks the spot for Virginia's writing room, and we do understand why discretion might be the right call.
wrong sountrack
Mace_composer29 August 2019
I have never in my life heard such a wrong music for a particular film. while the costumes, scenography and everything else is aiming to be realistic, historical, MUSIC is completely unrelated to any of that...it doesn't communicate in any way with the rest of the film. it makes it very hard to watch, creates distraction.
Who's in love with Virginia Woolf
kosmasp29 November 2021
I have to admit, I am only borrowing or tweaking a title of another movie because it does fit quite perfectly here. I am not a scholar of either of the two real life figures portrayed here and could not tell you how much of what we see here supposedly happened exactly the way it is shown. Or close to the way it is shown I reckon.
Having said that, it seems to be another forbidden love situation. Extremely good acting and the mentioned setting make this a movie that some will love a lot. On the other hand, since the pacing is slow and the time period may not be to everyones taste, there may also be a lot of dislike to what is being served.
Vita and Virginia - as the title suggests the movie draws its power mostly from the interaction of these two characters - which is more than enough for me.
Having said that, it seems to be another forbidden love situation. Extremely good acting and the mentioned setting make this a movie that some will love a lot. On the other hand, since the pacing is slow and the time period may not be to everyones taste, there may also be a lot of dislike to what is being served.
Vita and Virginia - as the title suggests the movie draws its power mostly from the interaction of these two characters - which is more than enough for me.
Inert
ferdinand193219 August 2019
While the production can't be faltered, and even Virginia Woolf is impersonated quite well, there is a dramatic hole to this which is common with biographical films.
The events and the nature of the people should be more involving, more genuinely dramatic, and yet it is like the reflective scenes from a Chekhov play; somber and infected with a sense of its own importance. It doesn't make the time vivid, so much as refract the events through a literary effort. The result is tedious which is not helped by the intellectual mannerisms.
A good example here is the dullness of the Woolf circle as portrayed whereas in real life they were lively, highly sexual and amusing, amusing to the point of exhaustion. In this film they are dour; sure, we are told they are all licentious and amoral, but what we see on screen is not that.
Woolf was wickedly funny and witty. Sackville-West was verbally dexterous too. It's absent here. They are earnest and plain, and Woolf would not have tolerated that.
The outcome of this love affair is the book, 'Orlando', which if someone hasn't read it, seems a curious object. This, in a way, says much about the film, in that it is a paean to a much adored book.
Novelists, and the business of writing, are not always a success in films. Painters and musicians do better because they are more social arts, but the thrill of writing and words are, paradoxically, not easy to transmit.
The book which emerged from the affair has some prestige, though, for its ardent fans, it's best to avoid Nabokov's assessment of it: he described Orlando as pretentious, bourgeois, nonsense; a view in part, which has tended to loom over Woolf's entire body of work. Nabokov's insight may well apply to this film too. Well, Woolf was very sharp at criticism too.
The events and the nature of the people should be more involving, more genuinely dramatic, and yet it is like the reflective scenes from a Chekhov play; somber and infected with a sense of its own importance. It doesn't make the time vivid, so much as refract the events through a literary effort. The result is tedious which is not helped by the intellectual mannerisms.
A good example here is the dullness of the Woolf circle as portrayed whereas in real life they were lively, highly sexual and amusing, amusing to the point of exhaustion. In this film they are dour; sure, we are told they are all licentious and amoral, but what we see on screen is not that.
Woolf was wickedly funny and witty. Sackville-West was verbally dexterous too. It's absent here. They are earnest and plain, and Woolf would not have tolerated that.
The outcome of this love affair is the book, 'Orlando', which if someone hasn't read it, seems a curious object. This, in a way, says much about the film, in that it is a paean to a much adored book.
Novelists, and the business of writing, are not always a success in films. Painters and musicians do better because they are more social arts, but the thrill of writing and words are, paradoxically, not easy to transmit.
The book which emerged from the affair has some prestige, though, for its ardent fans, it's best to avoid Nabokov's assessment of it: he described Orlando as pretentious, bourgeois, nonsense; a view in part, which has tended to loom over Woolf's entire body of work. Nabokov's insight may well apply to this film too. Well, Woolf was very sharp at criticism too.
Not bad but not good either
bob99814 August 2019
First, let me say I'd go see Gemma Arterton reading the phone book: she has the rare facility of being able to play period stories as well as contemporary ones. She's great as Gemma Bovery and the Duchess of Malfi. She's well supported by Isabella Rossellini as Lady Sackville who tries without success to call Vita back to reality.
Second, what quirk of casting gave us Elizabeth Debicky, not yet thirty, as Virginia Woolf who started her three-year relationship (1925-28) with Vita at age 43? She just can't carry off the part of a woman in early middle age, and what's more she has this irritating drawl/vocal fry that put me off for most of the picture. So if you wish to see this interesting story, be aware it's been handled before (Portrait of a Marriage, The Hours) and sometimes better.
Second, what quirk of casting gave us Elizabeth Debicky, not yet thirty, as Virginia Woolf who started her three-year relationship (1925-28) with Vita at age 43? She just can't carry off the part of a woman in early middle age, and what's more she has this irritating drawl/vocal fry that put me off for most of the picture. So if you wish to see this interesting story, be aware it's been handled before (Portrait of a Marriage, The Hours) and sometimes better.
So boring!
ukxenafan120 August 2019
I'd been looking forward to this - literary lesbian tale with two actresses I like. Sounds perfect. My unease grew with the modern music on the soundtrack but the main problem was the dull dialogue. Poor Gemma Arterton, Elizabeth Debicki and the other talented cast member were like goldfish, mouthing nothing. There was no real tension and to be honest no plot to speak of. Debicki probably comes out of it the best but a hugely disappointing, dull pudding of a movie.
Exudes Seductive Eloquence
Gabbie_Mara26 August 2019
With all the scathing reviews, Vita & Virginia still had me from beginning to end.
Its prose exudes seductive eloquence; call me a hopeless romantic but the picture as a whole is like a beautiful ballad or poetry. The synth-pop-esque score feels refreshing against the 1920s backdrop, it doesn't feel out of place; and the cinematography is sleek (I immediately developed a particular fondness towards Virginia's 'hallucinations'). When it comes to the love scenes: less is more, n'est-ce pas?
(Vita and Virginia) is carefully, delicately weaved and it's beautiful in every sense of the word. Rarely do I show this much affection towards a film I've only seen once; but this had me, it just did.
Don't let other reviews deter you from giving it a chance...all it really needs is the right audience.
Its prose exudes seductive eloquence; call me a hopeless romantic but the picture as a whole is like a beautiful ballad or poetry. The synth-pop-esque score feels refreshing against the 1920s backdrop, it doesn't feel out of place; and the cinematography is sleek (I immediately developed a particular fondness towards Virginia's 'hallucinations'). When it comes to the love scenes: less is more, n'est-ce pas?
(Vita and Virginia) is carefully, delicately weaved and it's beautiful in every sense of the word. Rarely do I show this much affection towards a film I've only seen once; but this had me, it just did.
Don't let other reviews deter you from giving it a chance...all it really needs is the right audience.
Smoking - poor job
Bill-41221 September 2019
Tedious movie, too much focus on the few sex scenes, more talking than doing sex. Debicki smokes very little, and even then it is faked. Woolf smoked a lot, so did Kidman in The Hours. Why hire an actress who will not represent the character? Dozens of other actresses could have acted the role and smoked so much better.
Just didn't work for me
Partnerfrankreich15 July 2019
I know that this was adapted from a successful play and somebody obviously gave a huge amount of attention to re-creating the period atmosphere and successfully exploiting the transition from stage to film by providing some awe-inspiring photography, scenery and sets, but they lost both my wife and me almost at the beginning by the dialogue -- every line seems to have been written with the intention of eliciting a response of "my, wasn't THAT profound!" from the audience.
While I'm sure that the written correspondence between the principals actually did employ such language (they were both writers, after all), I can't believe that they spoke to each other (and to the other persons portrayed in the film) in such a manner uninterruptedly. After a while, you begin to long for somebody to make a less poetic/witty comment for once; unfortunately the only person who speaks directly and to the point is Lady Sackwell, Vita's mother, who is obviously the villain of the piece, so the viewer begins to equate directness with nastiness.
Beautiful and captivating film
av431 September 2019
I was surprised by the negative reviews this film has received but it seems that you either hate it or love it. I personally found myself glued to the film. Things that caught my breathe away were the beautiful and at times eerie cinematography, atmospheric storytelling, the fascinating contrast between the historical setting and the contemporary score by Isobel Waller-Bridge, and the always captivating Elizabeth Debicki and Gemma Arterton bringing Vita and Virginia and their letters alive. Don't expect Vita & Virginia to be a documentary and go see it when you're feeling quiet and introspective and you may end up loving the film!
Don't Be Afraid of Vita & Virginia
pfscpublic9 July 2019
Virginia Woolf may be one of those authors you've noticed but never been curious enough to read whilst the then more popular Vita Sackville-West isn't even on the bookshelf.
This film sheds some of light on them both during the British Interwar period when only heterosexuality could be expressed in public whilst same sex relationships took place behind closed doors.
It's a relatively low budget film focussing, mostly indoors, upon the relationship between two female authors with a Downton Abbey or Brideshead Revisited feel to backdrops at Knole House or Bloomsbury in London , a story about angst and surging passion within the British white aristocratic and middle classes.
Both characters have huge and complex back stories, so this movie could only focus on one story, being how and why Virginia Woolf came to write Orlando.
This movie launches in the same week as Pride Week 2019, a salutatory reminder just how hypocritical the British can be when it comes to their attitudes towards same sex relationships, identity and the expression of them at a time when Populism is on the rise again.
If you prefer watching adults prancing around in capes dropping American cliches in front of big budget CGI backdrops then this movie isn't for you, but if you are curious about English literature, it's context in 1920's London and want a grownup story then this even-paced movie is.
I left more curious and less afraid now to pick up and read one of Woolf's books, perhaps Orlando, to contrast sexuality in the British 1920s and 2020s.
This film sheds some of light on them both during the British Interwar period when only heterosexuality could be expressed in public whilst same sex relationships took place behind closed doors.
It's a relatively low budget film focussing, mostly indoors, upon the relationship between two female authors with a Downton Abbey or Brideshead Revisited feel to backdrops at Knole House or Bloomsbury in London , a story about angst and surging passion within the British white aristocratic and middle classes.
Both characters have huge and complex back stories, so this movie could only focus on one story, being how and why Virginia Woolf came to write Orlando.
This movie launches in the same week as Pride Week 2019, a salutatory reminder just how hypocritical the British can be when it comes to their attitudes towards same sex relationships, identity and the expression of them at a time when Populism is on the rise again.
If you prefer watching adults prancing around in capes dropping American cliches in front of big budget CGI backdrops then this movie isn't for you, but if you are curious about English literature, it's context in 1920's London and want a grownup story then this even-paced movie is.
I left more curious and less afraid now to pick up and read one of Woolf's books, perhaps Orlando, to contrast sexuality in the British 1920s and 2020s.
Dull, Dull, Dull
phil-9903031 July 2019
I will acknowledge that I wasn't massively bothered about this film, however my wife wanted to see, and she has to put up with my choices, so fair is fair.
I really can't understand why this film was made, and also, why, after it was finished, it was released. It really was one of the most tedious experiences that i have ever had.
Nothing happened. Then nothing else happened. Followed by nothing else. The end. Hurrah.
The rush to exit the cinema by the majority of the audience was the most exciting part of the evening.
I have given it 3 stars simply because I heard some people laughing occasionally, so figured that they must be enjoying it.
Avoid at all costs
Don't really understand it
Gordon-1130 April 2020
Better than expected
SB1009 June 2020
This film attracted poor reviews and I bought it only because of an interest in both of its subjects, though I knew little of their interaction together. I found it better than most reviews had led me to expect, though it is far from perfect. Biographies of writers are often difficult on film, in any case and one has to take on trust that the books referred to are as good as claimed.
Although set largely in England the film was made in Ireland, no doubt for tax reasons and because of all those Georgian terraces. The director was foolish enough to also allow some shots of well-known Dublin landmarks to appear briefly, which is not helpful. But for most of the film the filming location makes no real difference. The film attempts to deal with Vita's strong attachment to Knole, but this is a bit of a diversion from the main story.
I thought the two leads played their characters well, getting across the other-worldly intellectualism of Woolf and Sackville-West's amoral and passionate nature. The pace is measured and there is no sense of rushing to get the story over. Rupert Penry-Jones also plays Harold Nicholson (Vita's husband, with plenty of his own faults) well; he is a believable man of his time and class. The other characters, except perhaps Mr Woolf, are not introduced very well, and those unfamiliar with the history of the Bloomsbury group might consequently find them confusing.
In one respect the casting of the two leads is unfortunate; much is made - at least at the beginning - of Sackville-West's 'manliness' and striking physical presence (and she duly appears in some mannish costumes); but Gemma Arterton is too good looking to carry this off successfully, and more damagingly, is significantly shorter (at 5 ft 7 inches) than her very tall co-star. Consequently the physical relationship between the two is not what it should be, compared with the portrayal of Sackville-West and Violet Keppel in 'Portrait of a Marriage' TV series with Janet McTeer as Sackville-West.
Although set largely in England the film was made in Ireland, no doubt for tax reasons and because of all those Georgian terraces. The director was foolish enough to also allow some shots of well-known Dublin landmarks to appear briefly, which is not helpful. But for most of the film the filming location makes no real difference. The film attempts to deal with Vita's strong attachment to Knole, but this is a bit of a diversion from the main story.
I thought the two leads played their characters well, getting across the other-worldly intellectualism of Woolf and Sackville-West's amoral and passionate nature. The pace is measured and there is no sense of rushing to get the story over. Rupert Penry-Jones also plays Harold Nicholson (Vita's husband, with plenty of his own faults) well; he is a believable man of his time and class. The other characters, except perhaps Mr Woolf, are not introduced very well, and those unfamiliar with the history of the Bloomsbury group might consequently find them confusing.
In one respect the casting of the two leads is unfortunate; much is made - at least at the beginning - of Sackville-West's 'manliness' and striking physical presence (and she duly appears in some mannish costumes); but Gemma Arterton is too good looking to carry this off successfully, and more damagingly, is significantly shorter (at 5 ft 7 inches) than her very tall co-star. Consequently the physical relationship between the two is not what it should be, compared with the portrayal of Sackville-West and Violet Keppel in 'Portrait of a Marriage' TV series with Janet McTeer as Sackville-West.
Beautiful Story That Unfortunately Lacks Depth and A Fitting Soundtrack
a24wang22 August 2020
I wish they'd fleshed out (the beginnings of) the relationship with more details, dialogues, letters or even gazes. subsequently, even though the acting was pretty good, the characters and their relationship felt shallow and i couldn't really connect with them or their feelings. the relatively slow pacing didn't help with that, and at some points it even felt to me like nothing was happening at all? there was so much more room for a deeper exploration of their relationship, especially because of the intensity and lasting consequences it really had.
my biggest issue with this movie was the soundtrack though. i love soundtracks and i actually always listen to the soundtrack while writing a review on here, it kinda helps me stay in the "mood" (don't know if that's weird), but i, on my part, didn't really feel like this score fit the movie. instead of emphasizing the action on screen and making everything feel more immersive, the heavily electronic-sounding track distracted me and actually made the movie less engaging for me. i wish they'd gone with something more reminiscent of the time the story takes place.
Great acting but no story
ikeblake2 April 2021
I love Elizabeth Debicki, so I gave this movie a shot. The acting and sets and costumes were excellent, and the only reasons I even rated it a 5. The script, editing, and music were awful. The music was nice actually, but did not at all belong in this movie, and was just one little piece played on repeat.
The worst thing about this was that I was entirely aware that I was watching a movie the whole time. I never felt like I was welcomed into the film. I didn't get drawn in or attached to the characters or story. It was like one long boring soap opera episode you'd find on a Wednesday afternoon.
The worst thing about this was that I was entirely aware that I was watching a movie the whole time. I never felt like I was welcomed into the film. I didn't get drawn in or attached to the characters or story. It was like one long boring soap opera episode you'd find on a Wednesday afternoon.
loved every minute
show_me_art6 September 2019
I truly do not understand the hate and bad reviews. The movie is stunning. It is like visual poetry... like watching emotions and thoughts flow like water in a river.. at times soft and streamlined while chaotic and violent at others.
spoilers... based on the true love affair.
ksf-221 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers *** we know this is a fun film, because isabella rossellini plays vita's mother. The story of vita and virginia, somewhat biographical, of vita sackville-west and virginia woolf, brought to life by gemma arterton and elizabeth debicki. Based on the letters to each other, the film highlights the ten year affair they had. Very minimal script, with long interludes of ethereal music. They go out of their way to show symbols of virginia's mental illness; usually, films so this verbally, but here, its ravens and grass growing indoors. According to wikipedia dot org, both vita and virginia had a list of lovers over their lifetimes. It's very good. Discussion of virginia's epic work "orlando", where she tries to capture vita's essence, in the forms of man and woman over time. Of course, it didn't end well for virginia... with all her mental health issues, she drowned herself at 59. And vita lived another twenty years after that. Directed by brit chanya button.
An aesthetic and stylish bore
artabuneta21 May 2020
There are frequent interruptions in the narrative as it shifts its point of view between Vita and Virginia, which prevent sustained interest. Every scene is perfectly staged, a set-piece for the eye. The haphazard sequence of scenes and a lack of introduction to and the director's seeming disinterest in any character except the central protagonists renders these into extras and scene-fillers. The film, however, pre-supposes at least a passing acquaintance with these people, their social circle, their work and their ideas. Without this, much of what is said sounds like gibberish. One very good example is Vota's first visit to Charleston.
Worst, the whole film is as bloodless and aloof as Virginia herself. There is no passion and thus the whole exercise, a film about love, comes across as loveless,
Worst, the whole film is as bloodless and aloof as Virginia herself. There is no passion and thus the whole exercise, a film about love, comes across as loveless,
A Moving Literary Love Story
Pairic12 July 2019
Vita and Virginia: A story of the romance between Vita Sackville-West (Gemma Arterton) and Virginia Woolf (Elizabeth Debicki). Both were novelists and though Vita outsold Virginia she envied her literary standard. The vulnerable Woolf and the flamboyant West made for a troubled relationship. They first meet at a party where Virginia is dressed in male Elizabethan costume, bringing to mind Tilda swinton in Orlando. Their growing friendship is related through letters where the actors speak to camera, when problems de coeur occur, one of them will remain tight-lipped. Virginia was regarded by many as just being mad but her illness was central to her genius as the film so richly illustrates. The novel Orlando by Woolf was inspired by her affair and friendship with Vita. Director and co-writer Chanya Buttons delivers an interesting snapshot of a period in Woolf's life, the Bloomsbury set and the decadence of the British Ruling Class in the 1920s. 8/10.
A movie that can pass the time
kiradykesky21 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
There is probably no more romantic thing in the world than Virginia 's epic love letter to Vita, but Vita gave it to her new lover. V & V is such two independent individuals who are too different, too pioneer women beyond the times, the feelings between the two are really complicated and subtle. It is worth mentioning that there are three names engraved on the desk of Vita's writing in his later years, one of which is Virginia. Chanya Button is a director worth watching.
Strange casting
jacqueestorozynski6 April 2020
As someone who is steeped in reading about the Bloomsbury Set I was keen to watch this film but I couldn't get over the very strange casting, I had no problem with the acting although I did get irritated by Elizabeth Debicki constantly staring into space. The film was so slow it almost came to a standstill. Added to which, Vita was known to be a tall, manly woman but Gemma Arterton as Vita nipping at Virginia's heels was almost comic, like Little and Large. Rupert Penry Jones was wasted as Harold Nicholson and who on earth was behind the casting of Adam Gillen as Duncan Grant should get another job. He seemed to be playing the same part as he did in Benidorm, twitchy and comic.
All in all it was a disappointment .
All in all it was a disappointment .
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
