Boys are so cute
All the Boy Movie Web sites and blogs are complaining about feeling emasculated just from watching the trailer for The Jane Austen Book Club film.
From Box Office Psychics:
Thinking of getting a male-to-female sex change but can’t afford those costly estrogen treatments? Just watch this trailer three or four times and you’ll be singing soprano in no time. Hell, I watched it once and immediately started lactating.
Hilarious!
From CHUD.com (warning: ungentlemanlike language):
Not true at all: I cannot wait to see The Jane Austen Book Club.
That was true when the project was announced last year, and it’s especially true now that the film’s trailer has made its online debut. I don’t care if Patricia T. O’Connor raved in the august pages of the Sunday New York Times book review supplement that Karen Joy Fowler’s novel, on which the movie is based, is “that rare book that reminds us what reading is all about.” For starters, O’Connor’s a skirt, so her taste is highly suspect, especially when Ms. Austen is involved; slap Austen’s name on the cover of a Tom Clancy’s Op Center thriller, and I guarantee you a whole mess of chicks’ll be swooning over the tech-laden prose as if it were put down by the Patron Saint of Dowdy Single Women her damn self. For another, even if Fowler’s tome is surprisingly decent, it’s now spawned a literary genre of women sitting around mis-interpreting great books as a means of explaining away their myriad emotional/physical inadequacies, and this I shall not abide.
Charming!
From the creatively titled I Watch Stuff:
The trailer to The Jane Austen Book Club somehow manages to combine all the reasons I’d never join a Jane Austen book club with all the reasons I’d never see a movie. In it, several women (I didn’t count or notice how many) collect to discuss the works of Jane Austen but soon discover their own love lives are mirroring those of Austen’s characters. Like how Monster Squad gave groups of kids that loved monsters the dream of one day encountering real ones, TJABC gives hopes to lonely middle-aged women they might one day find a man willing to tolerate their boring obsession with a long-dead author (though they are equally unattainable goals).
Didn’t they notice the girltouching?
Comments are closed.
I’m glad you enjoyed the hilarity of our posting regarding the upcoming film JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB. We are astonished that there seems to be so many people obsessed with this Austen chick still today and with the pure concept of the film. We will be sending one of our staff to watch the film when it is released so that we can gain insight as to what we are potentially missing out- but I suspect that there isn’t very much for us cro-magnon heterosexual males to get from this kind of film.
You might be surprised!
On the plus side, there’s the cuteness of Emily Blunt. On the minus side, Kathy Baker is possibly my least favorite actress. Every line she speaks in the trailer takes me back to the truly gag-inducing dialogue on “Picket Fences.” Not a big fan of Marc Blucas, either; I never understood what Buffy saw in him. Harsh, but there it is. So, I’m afraid I might have to side with the guys on this one. I’ll just take the night off from being a male-hetero-Janeite and go out with the cro-magnons to see “Good Luck Chuck” (trailer available on Mr. I Watch Stuff’s blog).
Oh my God, how can these guys say such things?! I really feel a bit insulted… But insulting Janeites is probably their purpose so let’s try not to be…
…
Ok, I tried, but couldn’t help it. Just have to complain a bit more!
And so what if this movie is a chick flick? I’m sure it will be a great movie, and really funny! I loved the book and not ‘just’ because Jane Austen’s name is involved. I can imagine that there are people who don’t like it, especially if those people are not Janeites. So when those people read it, they will think ‘oh it’s just a book that is popular because Jane Austen’s name is on the cover, but the story itself is rubbish’, but that’s their opinion because they are not able to understand the jokes!
Didn’t they notice there’s also a MAN amongst the members of the JA Book Club? And not just a man, it’s Hugh Dancy!
Sorry if this post is a bit messy, I hope anyone understands what I’m trying to say!
Oh, Rob! You let me down! I was hoping to pick a fight so the Gentleman Readers could come in on their white steeds and defend us wilting flowers! The best laid plans and all that.
Franka, I think the girltouching will get these guys in the theatre before anything else, frankly. I’m a little astonished they didn’t notice it. Are my stereotypes outdated?
Mags: So sorry to disappoint you, but it looks like Tony and John can come to the rescue on this one. If you wanted to pick I fight with the cro-magnons over “Clueless,” I would have been there for you.
Um, there doesn’t really seem to be any girltouching in the trailer, which is why they may have missed it. Because, you know, they couldn’t be bother to actually READ such a thing.
I thought I felt my right ear burning, and sure enough…!
Didn’t they notice the girltouching?
Very sapphic, indeed—and always a turn-on for Cro-magnons… and Neanderthals too. (Great, now I’m gonna get it from those cavemen in those TV commercials.) The problem is that dem boys need a bigger cluebat to get it, get it? The (you call them) girltouching (I call them lezzy) scenes were far too short for them to notice. They should have given them more exposure, like maybe a full minute?
Not to worry, though. I’m no head candler by profession, but I bet those Hollywood execs are not about to give up on netting that beer-drinking crowd. All a matter of economics, don’t you know? Things will work themselves out, courtesy of greed.
But I’m surprised nobody even pointed out Mary Newman in one of the scenes. Yum!
Diana, sure there was girltouching. The bathtub scene, 44 seconds into the trailer, lasting less than two seconds, alas! And again, at 01:01, about three seconds, what I call the stethoscope scene.
Oh, and one more treat for the boys—Prudie (Emily Blunt) pulling off her bra!
Tony obviously was taking notes.
Tony obviously was taking notes.
And those notes don’t seem to include Hugh Dancy.
Who’s Hugh Dancy?
I was most stoked that they made Grigg less dorky than the book, but I did note Emily Blunt. Several times. Stunning. “Ummmm!”
There are lots of red-blooded men who read Jane Austen, as Peter Leithart never tires of pointing out: “Real Men Read Austen” is the mantra in his book on Emma. I am in negotiations for the T-shirt.
You don’t know Hugh Dancy?! He’s the guy who plays Grigg!
He’s a very talented, handsome, British actor and I’m a huge fan… You might know him from the BBC drama ‘Daniel Deronda’, for example, or the Channel 4 drama ‘Elizabeth I’. And this is the first Jane Austen related production he’s doing so I’m very excited about it and can’t wait to see it! 
Here is his IMDb list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0199215/
So now you can include him in your notes, Tony!
I suspect Tony was kidding with us.
Franka, no offense, but you need to sharpen that snarkness radar of yours. I suppose, for the sake of some of us here, I should have written:
Who’s Hugh Dancy? Just kidding! *smiley* *smiley*
You see, unlike your idol, Mr Andrew Davies, most of us Janeites prefer not to be too obvious with what we say. I even avoid using smileys because I believe that words alone should be able to convey what I want to convey. That is the essence of wit, and irony… and intelligence—part of the legacy imparted to us by dear Jane.
Unlike Mr Davies, we don’t want to be spoon-fed the details and twists of the story; we prefer to be allowed to think for ourselves—as Jane intended for it to be. So I hope that you can understand why a number of us here have very strong feeling about the work of Mr Davies. Personally, I feel that his manipulation is an insult, not only to Jane, but to the thinking Janeites here.
But if you love his work, we respect that too. And we shall try to understand why you are so quick to defend him every time something ill is said about him. Please try to understand us back. *smiley*
Although those smileys do add some color to the page, don’t they? Nay! I will not be tempted!
OK, I’ll stick my neck out. I liked the book, and I like the trailer, but it makes me want to get the DVD cheap from e-bay when it comes out, rather than go to the movies.
Tony, sorry if I’m using too many smilies, but English isn’t my first language, and sometimes I feel I need them when I try to express myself, because I’m not always able to write things down in English the way I would write it down in my own language. I agree with you that words alone should convey what you what to convey, but that’s not always easy. I bet you would need quite some smilies when you try to express yourself in Dutch (my language)!
And there are really a lot of people who don’t know Hugh Dancy, and because I’m such a fan I’m only too willing to tell people about him.
About Andrew Davies, I think that there are quite some other Janeites who love his work. But I also understand why a lot of Janeites don’t like it. And of course I respect their opinion! But remember that these productions are not made exclusively for Janeites; they are there to attract wider audiences. The BBC, for example, started making period drama decades ago to introduce classic novels to a more ignorant audience. And Andrew Davies is exactly doing the same thing when adapting Jane Austen’s work, and I think he manages to do that quite well, without losing anything of the spirit of JA’s work. I’m looking at these adapations not only from a Janeite’s but also from a film and television student’s point of view, so perhaps that might explain why I have a different opinion about his work than most people here? But I must admit that even I have my doubts about some things AD is doing with the new S&S adaptation he made for the BBC…
But perhaps I was taking your post too seriously again! And see, I can write messages without using smilies!
Dear girl, no apologies needed with regard to the smileys. There was no intention on my part to disparage their use in any way—just teasing and having fun with the ladies. After all, they do add color to the page… My resolve to not use them is strictly between me and myself. I find it a challenge to try and express one’s self on a forum such as this one with the use of words alone, and am aware of the perils of being misunderstood by some.
But that’s part of life, is it not? If living had been so safe and easy, where would be the fun in that? For sure, Jane would not have had anything to write about if that had been the case.
For what it’s worth, I do know about Hugh Dancy, but thank you for all the information you provided. But I will stay with Emily Blunt, if you please.
Now don’t get me started with Andrew Davies! [smiley here] Seriously, I am aware of his role in all this, but some of us get carried away and speak from the point of view of purists, which is not bad either. My main gripe is that he tends to insult everybody’s intelligence by the way he writes the screenplays, not merely Jane fans. And he tends to bow too much in favor of commercialism and the studios by sensationalism and unnecessary embellishments, (although in the case of Tipping the Velvet he had to actually tone it down or it might not have gotten past the censors—which I find quite amusing).
And perhaps you were taking my comment a bit too seriously. Many of the other readers here, I am sure, once they see my name, immediately raise an eyebrow. Honestly, I had been waiting for a chance to bring out my opinion on Mr Davies in a more sedate and rational manner (the other times were rants), and I took this opportunity to do so because I had a feeling that you were kind and understanding enough to not take (too much) offense.
Congratulations on being able to write a rather lengthy post without a single smiley! But, please, don’t let me keep you from using them—they add color to the page, right ladies? Oh, by the way, English is not my first language either.
Kathy Baker irks me to no end too. And yes Hugh Dancy is cute as a button but 10+ years too young to play Grigg and not nearly nerdy enough! But that’s what happens when a book gets adapted for the screen. I’m used to accepting changes and try to go in with the attitude that the movie will be a completely separate animal from the novel and can still be enjoyed.
I oscillate between loving AD (He made Middlemarch watchable. I take my hat off to the man), and being excessively frustrated with him for the reasons Tony mentions. He tends to be a little tabloidy and sensational for me; “Emma” was good (although nasty to Emma herself), the emphasis on sweaty and naked men gets him some female fans, but tends to annoy me, and I don’t like his sometimes tendency to shoe-horn his own likes and dislikes into the text; although I admit were I a film-maker, I couldn’t stop myself from doing the same.
The most enigmatic moment in Northanger Abbey was when General Tilney suddenly, for no apparent reason, decided to force Catherine out of the Abbey. The explanation for this was not given until the end of the book. But what does Mr Davies do? He decides to drop hints about this impending trouble all throughout the movie. Hello! Does the word “spoiler” mean nothing to him? How about “dramatic tension”? “Suspense”?
Was he concerned that the audience would be so stupid as to not understand what happened? Talk about insult.
And then inventing all those dream sequences may have had some dramatic effect—especially the nude scene—but by doing so, by the time we come to Catherine’s horrific experience in the abbey, it has lost it’s impact because the audience has been so desensitized to such scenes.
Thank you so much, Mr Davies!
Excellent point Tony. I would only further it by saying I thought Mr Davies ruined General Tilney as a character throughout the movie by having him appear antithetical to the way Jane had drawn him for the reader:
That General Tilney, instead of disliking, should admire her, was very delightful; and she joyfully thought that there was not one of the family whom she need now fear to meet.
However, Mr Davies, (apparently not seeing the value of this portrayal of the General), chose instead to make him appear not only disagreeable, but threatening as well. As Tony has emphasized, this removed the startling surprise of his later behavior. Why ruin it, I ask you, when sticking to the original would have been just as easy?
I find his adaptations to be too garbled by his own whims for my liking.
Wait a minute. I’ve forgotten now. Who’s Hugh Dancy?
JK
LOL!
Tony, I think we’d better agree to disagree about AD! And I think you (and Helen A) have a point there about what he did to General Tilney. The new NA wasn’t a perfect adaptation (personally I was having trouble with AD leaving lots of famous clever lines from the novel out) but I enjoyed it very, very much nevertheless. I thought it was quite a good film, especially compared to the new MP and Persuasion, which were, in my opinion very bad adapations, leaving important things out (especially in MP), mixing things up (talking about the last half an hour of Persuasion), adding silly things that are not accurate (waltzing, a girl alone running through the streets in Bath, having a ball in the garden) and did not have much humour in them at all. NA was in my opinion a wonderful movie, not perfect as an adaptation, but very enjoyale!
There were also dream sequences in the BBC’s NA, by the way. I think they are necessary in a film adaptation of NA to depict Catherine’s ‘fevered imagination’…
Absolutely! I agree… to disagree. [Takes off kid gloves.] I won’t say you were silly, but I think one of us was silly, and it was not me. (You had better ask your Mr Davies where that line came from.) I have had the pleasure of your acquaintance long enough to know that you find great enjoyment in occasionally professing opinions which in fact are not your own. You and me both.
Where so many hours have been spent in convincing myself that I am right, is there not some reason to fear I may be wrong? Nah! Never! Of course your Mr Davies has his place in all this, catering to his horde of mindless subordonnés. But what do I care? I have spent enough time, for now, thinking about the guy—he does not deserve the compliment of rational opposition.
And who said NA ’86 was any good in the first place? Sure, compared to dung, you have a good chance of coming out smelling… not too bad.
Hey! Why is AD taking up so much air time here? This blog page is supposed to be about The Jane Austen Book Club, the movie. And about Hugh Dancy.
My apologies, Mags.
Tony — after reading your comment #12 (and laughing) I realized I have never seen a Hugh Dancy film. Between that and the Gender Genie telling me I write like a boy, I fear one of my X chromosomes is in danger of being repo’d. So I for one hope Box Office Psychics’ assessment of The Jane Austen Book Club is correct, because apparently I could use some cheap estrogen therapy.
Heather — Maybe we just need to perform a partial writing transplant. The Genie told me I write fiction like a girl and nonfiction like a boy. What fun! I’m not planning to see “The Jane Austen Book Club.” What I need is a good dose of “The Bourne Ultimatum.”
Fascinating, Heather. I never came across The Gender Genie before and I will definitely do a self-test. Do you wait a few minutes afterwards, and then look to see if it’s a (+) or (-) in the little window? Or maybe, in this case, an (X) or (Y)?
Heaven forfend if it is indeed true that you write like a boy. You may have to resign yourself to writing sequels from the point of view of the hero. Ah! What tragedy.
In a way, you are fortunate to not have seen a Hugh Dancy film before—this way you are not burdened by preconceptions and associations with his past characters. I wonder what it would be like if they had cast Colin Firth for the role instead? And I also wonder, is this strange attraction to Hugh Dancy by the ladies due to his name sounding like “Darcy”?