I spent a hilarious evening at the cinema last night, watching Becoming Jane.
Now, I'm sure it's not meant to be a slide-splitting comedy, but that's the effect it had on me and my friend, fellow dedicated Janeite Miss M. It was pitched as a heart-felt romance, giving the audience an insight into the life-changing relationship that set Jane Austen on the path of literary genius.
And I'll admit that Miss M and I went along expecting to find ourselves nit-picking over details of inaccuracy. What we didn't expect to be doing was muffling our giggles right from the first few frames. Its opening was so similar to Pride & Prejudice 2005 that we were left in no doubt that this film should have been called Becoming Lizzie.
See Jane be snubbed by a handsome man at a social gathering in the country. See Jane be prejudiced about said handsome man before recognising and falling for his great goodness. See a supercilious wealthy Lady ask Lizzie (whoops, Jane) to take a walk with her in a pretty little wilderness in the garden in order to discuss an impending engagement.
The sum total of all of this suggests that it wasn't Jane Austen's extraordinary imagination that gave life to Pride & Prejudice, but her canny ability to take real life experience and turn it into a best selling novel. According to this film, the expression "It is a truth universally acknowledged" was used by Jane following a chance remark by someone else.
There were some goods points in Becoming Jane. The acting was good overall - Anne Hathaway is lovely, Anna Maxwell-Martin terrific, James McAvoy yummy. The cinematography was very pleasing. They resisted the urge to turn Mrs Austen into Mrs Bennet. And it did make us laugh - albeit unintentionally.
But overall is was pretty dreadful. Jane Austen playing cricket, being bowled to overarm and hitting it for the required four runs? And the costuming was so various in mood and period that I found it completely distracting. It's as if the film makers couldn't decide where to place the film in terms of timing, that they threw everything in for good measure. The mobility of waist lines made me giddy.
Plus, there is a very basic problem with the concept of this film. It is trying to be a Jane Austen film, but it is not based on an Austen novel. When her novels are turned into a 90 minute film, they tend to become a light retelling of the main storyline, which is how the heroine gets her man. Austen's novels are of course much richer than this; funny, insightful and moving stories about how people interact with one another, told through the rituals of courtship.
While the four or five hour mini series format is perhaps best suited to an adaptation of such rich work, Jane Austen's novels have been very successfully turned into moving, satisfying films - the 1990s versions Sense & Sensibility and Persuasion were both wonderful interpretations of her work. There was also a lot to be enjoyed in the 2005 big screen version of Pride & Prejudice; it wasn't perfect but it managed to communicate some of the tenderness of the Darcy/Lizzie romance.
By attempting to turn Jane Austen's own story into another version of Elizabeth and Darcy, Becoming Jane failed spectacularly. For a start, we're watching a not particularly convincing romance (although the two leads try hard), and we know that they won't end up together. And we also know that it won't end in tragedy, so it lacks poignancy too. There's also no My Brilliant Career at play here either; Jane isn't seen to be choosing her life as a novelist over her great love for Lefroy. All in all, the film completely lacked dramatic tension for me.
It's a shame. Jane Austen led a very interesting - if quiet - life, and was in herself a fascinating character. Becoming Jane is a wasted opportunity to tell the story of her life.
2 comments:
I disagree entirely :)
Becoming Jane was an incredibly beautiful movie. Breathtaking, in fact. A movie is a movie - meant to stretch the truth for better entertainment. Whether or not all the facts are true, it does not take away from the movie at all. Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy - the whole cast, really - did an amazing job. I also have to ask, what is wrong with Jane playing Cricket? And most people don't know the story of Jane Austen, so for most people (unlike yourself, of course) the ending WAS a surprise. All in all, I absolutely love this movie. Which is why I felt the need to leave a comment on your post, to set the record straight. So thank you. :)
To set which record straight? I agree that it was a very pretty movie, and that Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy did a very nice job. But my point is that it is a made up story - it isn't actually the story of Jane Austen's life. To say that it is - which is what the film marketers did claim at the time of BJ's release - is misleading.
May I suggest perhaps that you seek out the film My Brilliant Career which plays with the same concept of a young woman choosing between love and her passion to write. This is a stunning film, beautifully told (and true to its source in Miles Franklin's novel).
BTW,there is nothing wrong with Jne playing cricket, but I - and my cricket-mad friend who watched the film with me - found it a bit rich to see her hitting the winning run for six!
Post a Comment