![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When Becoming Jane was initially released I had absolutely no desire to see the film. The trailer read as a romantization of a ficionalized account of a historical figure. It also read as if they were trying to turn her life into one of her novels. I didn't like the idea at all and as it turns out, I didn't like the reality either.
Anne Hathaway is cast as Jane Austen and although I think she does a great job looking the part, there were things that I found irking about her acting the part. That said, I doubt, with the exception of her stiff, slip-shod British accent, that it was really her fault. I like Anne Hathaway. I think she is a talented and competent actor, so I lay the blame for Becoming Jane squarely at the feet of the director and screenwriter.
Becoming Jane lacks the snap and wit of Austen's books and the better movie adaptations (the BBC versions, the Hollywood versions of Sense and Sensibility and Emma, hell even Bridget Jones' Diary). This probably wouldn't have been a big deal except that the screenwriter very deliberately lifted scenes and characterizations from Austen novels to flesh out the characters and pad the story. Truthfully, there isn't enough information about Tom LeFroy and Jane Austen's relationship. Now, having done lifted the bits and pieces and smooshed them together on top of various historical information and suppositions, I found it all rather distracting. I kept thinking of how the movie didn't do justice to the texts that they were stealing from and oh, wasn't that a shame.
There's much made of the relationship and I was also rather offended by the implication that Tom LeFroy had any real influence on Jane Austen as a writer. By that I don't mean subject matter, but style and ability. Tom suggests to Jane that if she ever wants to progress beyond writing sadly lacking juvenila and write on par with the brilliant male authors of the world then she needed to read Tom Jones. She does and is suitabily inspired, one supposes, to write,with her courtship with Tom as inspiration, the beginnings of First Impressions, the text that would later become Pride and Prejudice. Having read all of Austen's novels and some of the juvenelia, and being a writer myself, I do not doubt that her writing improved over time because that is what judicious and careful writers do. They look for ways to grow and improve. However, I seriously doubt that Tom LeFroy had anything to do with it.
Austen is presented too much as a wan heroine, with brief moments of her independent streak flaring. Tom and Jane running away together seemed particularly stupid to me. If we know one thing, it is that Jane Austen was very aware of the human condition and the responsibilities and vagaries of life. I cannot imagine her doing some of the things that the movie would like to suggest. Although I do not generally mind fictionalized adaptations of real events, there was something about this movie that totally put me off. Perhaps it was how much the truth was monkeyed with. I'm sure part of it was watching scenes from Austen's books be played before my eyes as if she had to have experienced everything that she ever wrote about. I mean, it's not like she has what most writers have, imagination! It's not like she can't extrapolate a plot from the experiences of others and with a dash of her own imaginings thrown in, right? Heaven forbid.
So, yeah. Not so much. I rolled my eyes alot. Groaned out loud quite a bit as well. I watched it with the BFF's Mom and she laughed at me the entire time. In fact if it weren't for what happened earlier in the week and my desire to get out of my house, I probably wouldn't have gone over to watch.
There were,however, some things that the movie did well"
- James McAvoy was BEAUTIFUL and did a great job with some crappy dialogue. I think that I am quite in love and even though I have no real desire to see Atonement, I will. I may also have to see Wanted, which I didn't care to see despite Angelina Jolie.
- Loved Laurence Fox who played Mr. Wisely. He was terribly restrained and yet terribly in love with Jane and you could, like, feel it. Really, really liked him. I was also surprised that he came across as so likeable.
- Anna Maxwell Martin played Jane's sister Cassandra and I loved her. The scene after she finds out that her fiance has died was particularly painful. Kudos to the actress for playing that so well. She was lost and miserable and hurt and gods, I almost cried. The way she walked up and down and all around, totally unable to settle! Loved it! Loved!
That would be about it. After that ... very meh ...
Becoming Jane completely lacked the charm of a Jane Austen novel and if they're going to lift from the novels and do so, so very blatantly, then I would think that they'd try a little harder to make the movie read like one of her novels. There were no real caricatures, a very haphazard comment on the socio-economics disparities of the period or on the gender and power dynamics. I mean, it's weird because there were but then again not enough or maybe not presented well enough that I actually cared. Too much was about love and affection and marrying for that and not for money. Jane's insistence that she would earn her living by her pen and be a spinster yada yada yada yawn.
Not interested.
Anne Hathaway is cast as Jane Austen and although I think she does a great job looking the part, there were things that I found irking about her acting the part. That said, I doubt, with the exception of her stiff, slip-shod British accent, that it was really her fault. I like Anne Hathaway. I think she is a talented and competent actor, so I lay the blame for Becoming Jane squarely at the feet of the director and screenwriter.
Becoming Jane lacks the snap and wit of Austen's books and the better movie adaptations (the BBC versions, the Hollywood versions of Sense and Sensibility and Emma, hell even Bridget Jones' Diary). This probably wouldn't have been a big deal except that the screenwriter very deliberately lifted scenes and characterizations from Austen novels to flesh out the characters and pad the story. Truthfully, there isn't enough information about Tom LeFroy and Jane Austen's relationship. Now, having done lifted the bits and pieces and smooshed them together on top of various historical information and suppositions, I found it all rather distracting. I kept thinking of how the movie didn't do justice to the texts that they were stealing from and oh, wasn't that a shame.
There's much made of the relationship and I was also rather offended by the implication that Tom LeFroy had any real influence on Jane Austen as a writer. By that I don't mean subject matter, but style and ability. Tom suggests to Jane that if she ever wants to progress beyond writing sadly lacking juvenila and write on par with the brilliant male authors of the world then she needed to read Tom Jones. She does and is suitabily inspired, one supposes, to write,with her courtship with Tom as inspiration, the beginnings of First Impressions, the text that would later become Pride and Prejudice. Having read all of Austen's novels and some of the juvenelia, and being a writer myself, I do not doubt that her writing improved over time because that is what judicious and careful writers do. They look for ways to grow and improve. However, I seriously doubt that Tom LeFroy had anything to do with it.
Austen is presented too much as a wan heroine, with brief moments of her independent streak flaring. Tom and Jane running away together seemed particularly stupid to me. If we know one thing, it is that Jane Austen was very aware of the human condition and the responsibilities and vagaries of life. I cannot imagine her doing some of the things that the movie would like to suggest. Although I do not generally mind fictionalized adaptations of real events, there was something about this movie that totally put me off. Perhaps it was how much the truth was monkeyed with. I'm sure part of it was watching scenes from Austen's books be played before my eyes as if she had to have experienced everything that she ever wrote about. I mean, it's not like she has what most writers have, imagination! It's not like she can't extrapolate a plot from the experiences of others and with a dash of her own imaginings thrown in, right? Heaven forbid.
So, yeah. Not so much. I rolled my eyes alot. Groaned out loud quite a bit as well. I watched it with the BFF's Mom and she laughed at me the entire time. In fact if it weren't for what happened earlier in the week and my desire to get out of my house, I probably wouldn't have gone over to watch.
There were,however, some things that the movie did well"
- James McAvoy was BEAUTIFUL and did a great job with some crappy dialogue. I think that I am quite in love and even though I have no real desire to see Atonement, I will. I may also have to see Wanted, which I didn't care to see despite Angelina Jolie.
- Loved Laurence Fox who played Mr. Wisely. He was terribly restrained and yet terribly in love with Jane and you could, like, feel it. Really, really liked him. I was also surprised that he came across as so likeable.
- Anna Maxwell Martin played Jane's sister Cassandra and I loved her. The scene after she finds out that her fiance has died was particularly painful. Kudos to the actress for playing that so well. She was lost and miserable and hurt and gods, I almost cried. The way she walked up and down and all around, totally unable to settle! Loved it! Loved!
That would be about it. After that ... very meh ...
Becoming Jane completely lacked the charm of a Jane Austen novel and if they're going to lift from the novels and do so, so very blatantly, then I would think that they'd try a little harder to make the movie read like one of her novels. There were no real caricatures, a very haphazard comment on the socio-economics disparities of the period or on the gender and power dynamics. I mean, it's weird because there were but then again not enough or maybe not presented well enough that I actually cared. Too much was about love and affection and marrying for that and not for money. Jane's insistence that she would earn her living by her pen and be a spinster yada yada yada yawn.
Not interested.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-31 05:58 pm (UTC)From:*needs an Ehle icon*
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 07:40 am (UTC)From:Anway, I didn't see the point of the movie prior to seeing the movie and I don't see the point after having watched. I took a great deal of offense to the premise and I really don't see how Austenites anywhere could possibly be enamored with the film. It's fiction and largely balderdash. Her books, and by extension quite a few of the the movies, are far, far, far more entertaining. This was lacking in pretty much everything that makes you think Jane Austen. It's just a charmless, romantic period drama. Mediocre at best.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-01 05:43 pm (UTC)From:Oh, and it's good.