An early review of Becoming Jane
Alert Janeite Karenlee sent us a link to a thoughtful and thought-provoking review of Becoming Jane from someone who must have been in an early screening. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a way to link directly to this review, written by IMDB user Chris_Docker, but at present it is the only user review for the film at the IMDB. Some excerpts:
The 22 yr old Austen is played by the very pretty Anne Hathaway, who you’ll know from Brokeback Mountain and The Devil Wears Prada. We meet her family when her older sister is happily married.
Hmm. This is the second time we’ve seen a claim that Cassandra is married in this movie. Could he be confused with some kind of formal betrothal shown in the film? Or could the filmmakers really have gone there? Though ultimately it’s not that important, as we will address later in the post.
Firstly be warned. If you are expecting a nice feel-good movie, don’t bother. This made me thoroughly miserable. Not just because a poignant lonely destiny is too much to bear, but because it’s a wasted opportunity to bring a great life to the screen.
Yes.
Our ultimate theme Austen’s writing, yet we see little to convince that this bland and photogenic girl has much between the ears.
Ouch!
In Devil Wears Prada, an outstanding script enabled Hathaway to suggest hidden brainpower. In Becoming Jane, the occasionally erudite lines sound leaden and false. Her body language, meant to portray a rebel, seems a bit anachronistic.
What were we saying the other day about glumping and slumping? Have these young actresses no other way to present Rebellion Against The Patriarchy than going about round-shouldered, slack-jawed, and heavy-footed? (Because grace and elegance are such Jane Austen Movie Clichés™, you know, like bonnets and historical correctness.)
Maggie Smith and other strong actors are reduced to ciphers and little more than icing on a badly made cake.
Now, that’s unfortunate. The marvelous supporting cast was pretty much the best thing this film had going for it.
On the other hand, James McAvoy (fresh from The Last King of Scotland) is a revelation. In what seems like a flash of brilliance in the generally myopic casting, he shines in every scene. A talented actor, he also brings his skills in boxing and sport to imbue Lefroy with vibrancy and charisma. It is when he works his seductive charms on Jane that he also brings out the best in his co-star.
*sigh* We imagine that Mr. McAvoy is a very talented actor indeed. This is also unfortunate, not for him of course, but he’s also very cute, so the fangirls will be all *squeeee* and various screenshots with pithy sayings overlaid in curly fonts will be all over teh Intarwebs and there will be mushy music videos on YouTube and the Editrix will be forced to set her hair on fire, get a picture of Edmund Bertram tattooed on her arse, and move in with Britney at the rehab center.
There are many that will love Becoming Jane in spite of its imperfections. The rest of us might wish it had been told better.
Which, for the benefit of all those who have tut-tutted (or outright whined) that we haven’t “given the film a chance,” is pretty much what we’ve been saying all along.
Really, we can nitpick the details that the filmmakers got wrong–the costumes, Cassandra Austen’s marital status, all the Made Up Story details that we have catalogued over the past couple of years–but we fear that if we concentrate on such details, the bigger picture will be lost: that this film misrepresents Jane Austen’s genius. That would be the worst mistake of all.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
This makes me sad. With all of the money that Jane Austen has made for movie makers and the BBC over the years (not to mention books) they should at the very least make a movie that is truthful. But, of course, they have to give the “Hollywood” treatment. Boy meets girl, so predictable! And the focus should be her writing, but I doubt that would get the audience in and make millions.
The part about McAvoy “and various screenshots with pithy sayings overlaid in curly fonts” made me laugh out loud. I was thinking the same thing, he’ll get the “Matthew MacFadyen treatment”!
I finally got to see the trailer. Oh. My. God.
Can I just reassure you that Cassandra is NOT married at any point in this film. She is engaged at the beginning and a very clear point is made just before the closing credits, that neither Jane nor Cassandra ever married.
I made a point of not reading this post until after I had seen the film as I like to make my own judgments. I am not an Austen aficionado but I have the following to say having just seen the movie. I wasn’t going to post here but after the imdb report, I think you might find this helpful.
As always, these are my feelings and Chris Docker is entitled to his. As already mentioned he is absolutely wrong about Cassandra’s marital status so you may choose to take his other ‘facts’ with a pinch. Very early on we witness a formal introduction to the family wherein we meet her fiance. Later on there is a formal gathering to more publicly announce the engagement and wish him a safe posting abroad. This is also blended with Tom’s first sighting of Jane.
As with the erm….abridgment of the recent Pride & Prejudice, timelines have been condensed to avoid a multitude of ‘two years later’ titles popping up throughout. It is, after all a story telling film, not a documentary (though wouldn’t it be lovely to see one?).
I found the entire film whilst beautiful in many respects also rather messy. I lay a deal of blame for that at the hands of the editor but I have to include the young director as well. The second writer (Kevin Hood) says that it is based upon 60 per cent fact and that is largely as a result of Cassandra burning so many of Jane’s letters. They had to ‘join the dots’.
The film makes no attempt to avoid any period drama traps though the makers would protest that. The opening scene is both visually and aurally the same as P&P.
Neither James nor Anne are made up to look particularly cute or glamorous. This is the least pretty I have seen Anne, to her credit. She has barely any make-up and gives as good a performance as can be expected. My main problem with her is not her fault. She is clearly passionate about Austen but she is not the daughter of a C of E vicar. Her ethnicity is not possible to disguise. They did not even try hair colour or contact lenses. Anna Maxwell Martin’s tiny role was in contrast, realised to the full. I had no problem with Maggie Smith except her lack of screen time. Julie Walters was a rather predictable blend of Julie Walters and Brenda Blethyn. The director was clearly scathing of Brenda’s Mrs Bennet but he did not try too hard to ring the changes with Julie.
You will all be insensed by the flickers of time-line errors. The positioning of her writing the first pages of Pride & Prejudice even confused me for a while….and I know nothing!!
So far as James McAvoy getting the Macfadyen treatment………I’d be amazed if he hadn’t already received that. I will never understand (in respect of ANY actor/actress)this strange desired to massacre a perfectly good film sequence and drub it up against some purile top ten hit. What IS the attraction? It is at this point that I must make a special mention of Lawrence Fox. His pedigree should produce something good but I have never seen him shine in such a gloriously understated way. I was sympathetic to his inadequacies from the first frame he was in. He is the real Darcy comparison and the journey his character takes is much the same as the way Macfadyen played his Darcy. Slow and subtle.
I am not qualified to comment on the costume choices. They are, I imagine more early 19th than late 18th. Do we want to see Jane & Tom grabbing intense kisses? Do we want to see Mr Austen going down on Mrs Austen? I’m no prude but I wonder at the impropriety.
…and with that I should say there are a few too many references to the over-used lines from her books for pure comedic or cognitive smirking. I also found that unnecessary. Congratulation – yes the production team have read more than one of her books. Well done, now stop patting yourselves on the back, already!
I know this will come as no consolation but I urge you all to just go to this film and view it as a period love tale rather than the Jane Austen Story. On that level it is entertaining enough. I was very close to tears during the last few minutes. It is an heartbreaking tale and in that sense it is fairly well told (except for the aforementioned clunky editing) and the music is wonderful. Be mindful that it was made for a paltry £8.5 million and that was only achieved by the inclusion of an American ‘name’ in the lead. Some will say ‘better not to make it at all then’ but it’s a pretty story without the pretty ending……bravery in itself.
I don’t know if this has helped or struck more fear but I have tried to remain objective. It’s an entertaining way to spend an afternoon with a box of tissues – just don’t expect an historical document.
Thanks for you review. Another question regarding Cassandra’s fiance. What name have they given him? At IMBD he appears as Robert, but we know his name was Tom, Tom Fowle. Is it an IMDB mistake or his name has been changed.
BTW, do you know that the characters played by Maggie Smith and Laurence Fox were invented? There is no record of any Lady Gresham and a Mr. Wisley involved with the Austens.
I am pretty ignorant of the details. I did attend a Q & A and the second writer (Kevin Hood) was there. He said some character names were made upl because there were uncertainties and it was easier to make them completely fictional. Cassandra’s fiance was called Robert here because as is so often the case, the studio bosses thought their audience was too dumb to handle two Toms !!!
Just like the audience was too dumb to handle 3 Charleses in Persuasion.
‘Do we want to see Mr Austen going down on Mrs Austen?’
Oh please no, surely not? I haven’t had enough coffee this morning to deal with this!
Surely there would be no need to introduce Cassandra’s fiancee to the family since, IIRC, the Fowle brothers had all been pupils of Mr Austen?
Sorry, I might have mislead you. The Austen family were introducing themselves (including the Fowle brothers) to erm……..some other people (SO sorry that I’m not completely on top of the historical facts/characters)
Sorry, I might have mislead you. The Austen family were introducing themselves (including the Fowle brothers) to erm……..some other people (SO sorry that I’m not completely on top of the historical facts/characters).
…by the way, I couldn’t post using 6point7 because it told me I was repeating myself!
6point7…is that your usual nom du net or is that your rating for the film?
(and thanks for explaining your change of name–the spam filter can be tetchy, sorry about that.)
Thanks for your clarification of Cassandra’s marital status. I figured they wouldn’t go there but you never know.
I have to say I’m less concerned about the specifics of the timeline and moreso about the bigger theme that Jane wrote P&P as a roman à clef. That’s also one of the big reasons that I fear I won’t be able to relax and enjoy it “as a movie.” It strikes me as tremendously unfair to Jane.
The roman à clef is a tricky one. They have left it wide open for people to compare characters and events to P&P but those comparisons are really very thin. I think the overall sentiment they are trying to convey is that her relationship with Tom etc is the basis of the authority with which she was able to write such honest and detailed accounts of the social history of her time. Lest she should be regarded as an inexperienced spinster, I suppose.
I wander around cyberspace with that tag and it sometimes hangs heavy!
I know this will come as no consolation but I urge you all to just go to this film and view it as a period love tale rather than the Jane Austen Story.
*sighs* Well, I shall definitely try. I’ve been thinking about it. Although I agree with Mags that this interpretation of the origin of her genius is unfair to Jane, the fact of the matter is that it’s the books that ended up making her the icon that she is today. Jane was no Beau Brummel or Caroline Lambe whose names are still known to us because of their personalities and the waves they raised in society. I’m already wincing to think a whole new wave of those unacquainted with Austen’s works is going to probably swallow the Made Up Story whole. However if it makes only a few of them read one of her books for the first time, it’s something I can live with. We’re all such fans here that she and her relatively unknown life feel pretty much sacred to us. But the main reason Austen Lives, is because Austen Wrote. It’s what flowed out of her pen that, in the long run, is more important than the how, what and why, or even what really happened in her life. I think I can resign myself to just shrugging my shoulders if filmgoers are convinced Jane almost eloped with Tom, if the M.U.S. interests or inspires them enough to make the acquaintance of Elizabeth, Anne, Emma and the others.
She does not elope with Tom in the film. I hate giving too many spoilers but ………there is an attempted elopement sequence but the carriage they take gets stuck in soft ground. Tom has to help release the wheels and Jane holds his coat containing a letter from his mother detailing how dependent his family back in Ireland are upon the income from his Uncle, half of which he sends to them regularly. When they subsequently stop to change horses Jane takes him to task and says she cannot compromise all his dependents by eloping and therefore cutting him off from his Uncle’s generosity and allowance. She takes the next coach back home and is greeted by an empty house while everyone is looking for her but she is only gone for a matter of hours.
The film ends with her at a soiree and a couple of people recognise her as the amazing writer but she shuns their attention. In the distance she sees Tom for the first time in 20 years and he falters at the door, turns and runs. I think it is Jane’s brother who runs after him to bring him back and he enters with a (guess) 14 yr old girl at his side who is his daughter. She is beside herself with joy at meeting THE Jane Austen and Jane generously takes her into a private room and talks with her………The End.
It sounds really mushy in my clumsy words but I think there is enough respect for Jane and I don’t think they have twisted known truths to their own end but merely filled in a few gaps with details they could not possibly verify.
I may not have remembered every detail correctly but she does not run away with Tom for a life of blissful poverty!
The social etiquette regarding the privacy of letters addressed to another was extremely strong in that day and age and, judging by passages in her own letters and books, very much so in Jane Austen. She would never have read a letter addressed to another – even someone she was on the point of eloping with. *sighs* Here I go getting wound up again. I thought I told myself I was going to stop that.
I never thought they actually got married, but even an attempted elopement is beyond the pale! Jane wouldn’t, she just wouldn’t. That was behavior reserved for the Lydia Bennets of the world.