Jane Austen movies on Astro

Earlier this week, the BFF kindly sms-ed telling me of JA shows to be aired later this month. Mr. Darcy also noted this for me. Upon asking him what the shows were, he said something along the lines of "some bookclub and sense & sensibility".

I retorted, "Oh Jane Austen Bookclub and what version of SS?" Mr. Darcy shrugged. Typical :-)


Yes, chances are and unless they are pre-90s versions, I would've seen 'em all. Which then caused me to think which versions of the shows I liked best.

So here goes:

Pride and Prejudice
Initially titled "First Impression", PP first published in 1813 was JA's second published novel. PP is perhaps the most 're-made' into movies of all JA's novels. The first movie was made in 1940, followed by 're-makes' in 2003 and 2005. The most notable TV series were made in 1980 and 1995 (my favourite!!). Stage/broadway versions (yes, there were!!) made in 1936, 1959, 1995 (album concept only) and 2008! There were also numerous related works of PP; namely Bridget Jones Diary' (Colin Firth aka Mr. Darcy was Mr. Darcy here!) and Bride & Prejudice. Very good shows too, might I add!

I've only seen the 1980, 1995 and 2005 'true' PP versions. Of these, I am very much in favour of the TV series 1995 starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. Being the longest version (gosh, can't remember the show duration!) it expands the story line better than the 2005 movie. The 1980 version was 'staged', typical of 70/80 TV series work - didn't like it! From then on, all 'other' Mr. Darcys had to knock Firth off his pedestal. He IS Mr. Darcy! Even Matthew Macfadden's " you have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love..I love...I love you" *sigh* couldn't move me....well very nearly did...okay, it did!

:-) As for Lizzy Bennet, Jennifer Ehle was perfect, I thought. She embodied fiestyness, maturity and sweetness all in one! Much better than Keira did - she was little too modern and ugly for my liking, plus she looked like she needed to be fed more than she needed Mr. Darcy!! Finally the WHOLE supporting cast for PP95 blew PP2005's cast out of the water for me.

On the note of Mr. Darcy, Elliot Cowan of "Lost in Austen", a parody of PP was also an excellent brooding Mr.Darcy! Its too bad, the show was NOT a remake of PP, else my loyalty to Colin Firth would be shaken to the core!!

Sense & Sensibility

I have seen Emma Thompson's adaption, SS95. Made by Hollywoon, it boasts of stars! Hugh Grant, Huge Lawrie, Kate Winslet, James Fleet (Didn't make the connection that he is Hugo Horton of Vicar!!) , Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. Yes, celebrities gallore. I really loved the story.

Then I came across Sense & Sensibility 2008, an adaption for TV by Andrew Davies. Amidst the many debates surrounding which version was better, SS08 won me over!

While the general casting of SS95 were excellent, I didn't quite buy Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson as Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood! Hugh Grant was too 'clumsy' and insipid to be Edward and Emma was just way too 'old' to be Elinor. However Kate Winslet, Gemma Jones and Greg Wiese were excellent as Mariane, Mrs. Dashwood and Willoughby! I have mixed feelings about Alan Rickman as Col. Brandon. David Morrissey as Col. Brandon is worse!

In SS08, Hattie Morahan was the PERFECT Elinor! Young, matured and emotionally trapped. A lovely sister and daughter, you understood why Edward fell in love with her from the get go! The casting of Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars caused quite an uproar amongst hard-core JA followers, for being too handsome! Of course JA wrote Edward as being 'boring' and 'plain'; I totally agree but don't complain! He complements the 'wet-shirt' scene beautifully! As for the other cast members, I am not too crash hot about i.e David Morrisey as Col. Brandon was just tooo creepy! Dominic Cooper as Willoughby was too sinister! Charity Wakefield as Marianne was too sappy! Etc etc!

But aside from gawking Dan Stevens and adoring Hattie Morahan, SS08 expands the novel a little more than the movie. Plus I love the proposal scene in the end! Classy!

Ok that's Sense & Sensibility

Next

Persuasion
What can I say about MY most favourite JA's movie! The adaption in 1995 starring Amanda Roots & Ciaran Hinds is so beautiful! This version is more succint to the novel, albeit not that much longer in duration than the newer 2008 version. I find Amanda is just a little haggard but still excellent as the very sad turned very happy Anne Elliot. You can feel her sadness and her wanting to be forgiven by the captain; your heart just goes out to her!And Hinds rock as Captain Wentworth. His long-held anger towards her is evident, yet his eyes betrays still how much he longs for her!! This version, you hear the FULL length of his 'proposal letter "You pierce my soul, I am half agony, half hope" OMG! And oh, how they made up in the end is just so sweet "I tried to forget you, I thought I had" *someone please slap me!*


Andrew Davies (he's a busy man!) made adaption for TV series in 2008, starring Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry Jones (OMG!!!). I cannot say if I like this version better because I wasn't drawn to the rest of the cast. I felt the story line was in 'shambles' and way too rushed. The scene where Anne runs (yes RUNS like a mad woman) through Bath to catch up with Capt. Wentworth was utterly ridiculous!! I was also very 'disgusted' with the kissing-with-spit-hanging-out-in-the-corner-of-her-mouth scene in the end! And with Sally gasping to breathe as she reaches for Rupert! Why couldn't he just jolly well stoop a little to make life easier for poor Sally! And you doNOT get the full length of that famous proposal letter! So apart from swooning over RPJ, this version was so-so!

Nexxxt...

Mansfield Park
I've only seen the adaption for movie in 1999 by Patricia Rozema starring Frances O'connor and Johnny Lee Miller (MP1999) and an adaption for TV in 2008 by Maggie Wadey starring some very weird people, save for Blake Ritson (fiance of Hattie Morahan). Having Billie Piper play Fanny Price is ludicrous! How do you get a tart play a prude?? Go figure!I had so much trouble with this, I couldn't get past the story. I thought Frances was better as Fanny in MP1999. Would be nice to have Blake play opposite her though, but Johnny Lee was good as Edmund too. MP1999 was also better casted.

Nexxxxt

Emma
The 1996 movie version starring Gwenth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam, wins for me. Its was shot beautifully and the casting excellent. Having said that, I have not really seen the 1996 TV version featuring Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong. I can imagine that would be a good one too. I will have to actually SEE it to make a comparison of sort!




Finally

Northanger Abbey
I remember watching a 1986 version of this show. It must've been so unentertaining and unimpressive that I had even forgotten I have the VHS version in my cabinet!! It was a weird show!!

Then I came across the adaption made for TV in 2008 featuring Felicity Jones and JJ Fields. I quite liked the story! Very different from other JA novels but entertaining all the same, with gothic influence (hah, bet you didn't think JA was capable of that!). I think JJ Field was absolutely charming as Henry Tilney but I felt Felicity Jones was a little 'off' as Catherine Morland - yes, like Billie Piper I thought she looked a little tart-ish, all pouty and just waiting to be kissed up! Blech!!

What I find really ironic is that JA wrote about the women; Lizzy, Elinor, Anne, Emma, Catherine and Fanny! Yet in the movies, it's the men that draws the viewing audience. We want to see a dashing Mr. Darcy, Mr. Ferrars, Capt.Wentworth, Mr.Knightley, Mr. Tilney and Mr.Bertram! We want to be swept off our feet by them! Why has JA and movie-makers like Andrew Davies captured our imagination? I guess its because somehow, somewhere (or just hoping that we do!) we identify with the girls! There are bits of Lizzy, Elinor, Anne, Emma, Fanny and Catherine in all of us. I think, anyway. So we would WISH our men are those depicted by screenwriters.

*sigggh* That's it folks. My 10cents worth of opinion, not that anyone really cared :-)

Btw, I have seen JABC and enjoyed it, very much!

Miss Saigon

The time has come.

I don a simple black sleeveless top (it's still hot in Perth, even for a 5pm show) coupled with a black pencil skirt. Shoved a shrug in my bag, just in case it does get chilly. With final touches to my cheeks and lips, I was ready to go. Together with my Miss Saigon tickets in my hot little hand, I managed to sneak in a pack of Kleenex too, as I left my room. After dropping off the kids at my sister's house, we were off on our Miss Saigon adventure.

We arrived early - very early indeed. Finally, at 5pm, we handed in our tickets and were seated. Being about 10 rows from the stage, I was pretty pleased with our prime position, that was until rather tall ladies comfortably took the seats across the aisle infront of me! Listening to the orchestra do their final tunings of the instruments, I was secretly coveting the vantage point of the elevated rows seated behind. Oh well, the show still had to start and elevated or not, I was thrilled!

And start it did.

That last minute reach for the pack of tissue, paid off. The second number "Movie in my Mind" got to my very sentimental heart and the show tugged at me, the whole duration of the show! I had no way of controlling my tears and with every song Kim sang, the dams burst again! Well, the antics and theatrics of the Engineer (who Cy thought stole the scene!) gave me some reprieve from all that crying. He certainly made me laugh.

The lead characters were believable and loveable. You can feel their anguish and their plight. American import, Laurie Cadevida was Kim. As beautiful and flawless her acting were, even with a brilliant voice, I felt she lacked the power of Lea. I had expected a more impressive vocal range, intensity and power that is required of a Kim, what with all that range of emotions she is expected to exude. Laurie was indeed sweet and desperate but she couldn't be loud/aggressive at times. Consequently, she would be drowned out in duets or trios, by any of the other principals.

Australian David Harris (Chris) was a darling. His potrayal of a kind, jaded and angry GI was astonishingly captivating. Some parts in his songs, I braced myself in anticipation of his voice breaking but he managed to pull through beautifully and taking me away with him! Awesome!

Another American import, Leo Valdez was flawless as the Engineer. He, hands-down, stole the show for me. I am not a fan of his character but his portrayal of the cynical character is astounding!

I must say tho, I had problems accepting Juan Jackon's operatic take as John. Juan had a powerful and strong voice, strongest of the cast, I reckon. HOWEVER, his operatic overtures made it nearly impossible to hear what the hell he was singing about! He then, would drown everybody else!

The show lasted 2.5 hours with half an hour intermission - I probably cried a good 1.5 hours worth! I am useless when it comes to really tragic movies, but having cried that way in a live production is the first for me!

Jane Austen Run

Watched Sense & Sensibility 2007 last nite...loved it. loved the casting..loved Dan's Steven's Edward Ferrars (better than i do with Hugh Grant's!)..ahh..twas a breath of fresh air! Just for the record, replayed the ending where Edward proposes to Elinor, over and over again!

And then there was Persuasion BBS 1995 version - which i thought was ok..but felt the chemistry between Anne and Wentworth a little lacking for my liking. Now I am really hanging out for the 2008 version with yummy Rupert Penry-Jones. Ahh that one will be worth pining for! I am already partial to this unseen version already!

"You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever." Wentworth writes to Anne.

Becoming Jane DVD Review

By Kelvin Cedeno

Jane Austen has been deemed one of the greatest and most influential writers of all time. Whether or not one agrees with that sentiment, there's no denying the impact her work has had on the literary world despite her publishing only four novels in her short lifetime (and two more posthumously).
It's extremely common for classic literature to be adapted to film, and Austen's works (particularly Pride & Prejudice) have been transferred to this medium an overwhelming number of times. Therefore it seemed inevitable that a film would be made about her life. As she was very private, little is known about her as a person, though this didn't daunt Miramax from releasing 2007's Becoming Jane.
This slightly biographical feature tells of Jane Austen's (Anne Hathaway) experiences as a young woman shortly before becoming an established author. Understood only by her father (James Cromwell) and sister Cassandra (Anna Maxwell Martin), Jane's quick wit and creative tendencies make her a bit of an outcast in her large rural family. When privileged law student Thomas Lefroy (James McAvoy) is sent by his uncle (Ian Richardson) to live in the countryside, he and Jane are immediately catty with one another. The two can't avoid regularly running into each other in such a small town, and with each meeting, they only tolerate each other's presence. Such tolerance finds its way into love, but Jane's mother (Julie Walters) insists she marry Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox) for financial security and an upstanding reputation.

Anyone watching Becoming Jane for historical accuracy needs to look elsewhere. The movie takes some known facts of Austen's life and connects them together using elements from her own novels. In other words, this is historical fiction. While some Austen purists have been deeply offended by that approach, there really is no reason why this simply can't be taken as entertainment. Nowhere does it claim to be a factual account of Austen's early years, and it certainly doesn't set out to smear the author's famous good name. Taken strictly as a film, Becoming Jane succeeds rather nicely thanks to its two leads.
Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy both carry the film, and virtually no scenes exist without their involvement. Even with an inconsistent accent, Hathaway infuses charm into Jane and shows a flair for spouting out the writer's witty, long-winded speech. McAvoy also delivers his similar dialogue naturally and with just the right level of cheekiness.
The production as a whole is of remarkable quality. Sets and costumes look and feel authentic and lived-in rather than the pristine, stagey look of similarly-themed pictures. Despite being a character drama, definite care has been given to the appearance and presentation, and it shows. Any flaws Becoming Jane may possess stem from its storytelling. Jane and Tom (or, rather, Anne and James) certainly share good chemistry, but there's very little transition between the loathing and loving stages. It's not a jarring turnaround, but the progression doesn't flow as smoothly as it could. Another quibble is in regards to the supporting cast. Many talented actors are onboard here, but they're given little to do. Perhaps this is the best approach in order to further exemplify Jane's isolation from people in general, but one wishes to know certain characters, such as Mrs. Austen, better than permitted.

Becoming Jane may not be very strong narratively, but its performances, craftsmanship, and sophisticated dialogue all help make this a pleasing effort. The Austen references used to flesh out the story are often done quite cleverly and succeed in making the audience wonder just what real-life experiences influenced her work. The film is proof that not every period piece needs to be a grand, sweeping drama. Sometimes character-based simplicity can be far more potent, and this is certainly a philosophy Jane Austen herself would've agreed with.
DVD Details

2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Dolby Digital 5.1 (English, Spanish)
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish
Closed Captioned; Extras Subtitled
Release Date: February 12, 2008
Single-sided, dual-layered disc (DVD-9)
Suggested Retail Price: $29.99
Black Keepcase Housed in Embossed,
Holographic Cardboard Slipcover
Also available on Blu-ray Disc
VIDEO and AUDIO
Becoming Jane is presented in a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer. New films have become pleasantly predictable in the transfer department, for they're usually presented very well. This feature is no exception. The image is spotless and suffers from neither print flaws nor digital ones. Color palettes alternate between the warm and vivid variety and the cold and sterile type, depending on the scene requirements. Both cases appear to be replicated well on this disc. Sometimes the image is a bit soft, but for the majority of the picture, detail is pleasing.
Those expecting demo-quality audio will come away disappointed, but the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack does the job it needs to. A dialogue-heavy film such as this has little use for surround channels, and these are only utilized for the mellow score and for distributing the extensive speech. Both come across cleanly and intelligibly, and that's good enough for a low-key production of this sort.


BONUS FEATURES, MENUS and PACKAGING
The disc's modest supplements begin with a fairly robust collection of thirteen deleted scenes (19:29). Many of these re-emphasize points already made clear in the final film,
but they're still entertaining and contain some nice supporting character moments. Interestingly, the scenes are presented open matte, clearly exposing a boom mic every few seconds.
Next is an audio commentary by director Julian Jarrold, screenwriter Kevin Hood, and producer Robert Bernstein. The track itself is something of a mixed bag. On one hand, the trio openly discusses what in the film is artistic license and what is based on actual fact. On the other hand, all three men aren't the most engaging of speakers. It's difficult telling them apart without the aid of the (thankfully included) subtitle track, and their quiet comments don't always sustain one's interest. The following two features provide much of the same information in more entertaining ways.
"Discovering the Real Jane Austen" (17:00) concerns itself partially with the production and partially with the real Austen. The former aspect features behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with the commentary participants along with some of the cast. The latter is covered by interviews with various historians who compare the film to what is known about the actual Jane Austen. Despite the short running time, quite a bit is packed in here, with the most fascinating bots involving the references to Austen's novels peppered throughout the storyline.
Finally, there's "Becoming Jane Pop-Up Facts and Footnotes." As the title suggests, this is a subtitled trivia track that runs concurrently with the main feature. Information relevant to the scene in question appears, and the topics cover both history and this production. The facts don't pop up as frequently as one would like, but they're still enlightening and even occasionally amusing.
At the start of the disc, there's an anti-smoking advertisement that's immediately followed by trailers for Disney Blu-ray Disc, Wall-E, and Dan in Real Life. All of the trailers, though not the anti-smoking ad, appear under "Sneak Peeks" along with more trailers for Enchanted and "Greek". Unsurprisingly, no trailer for Becoming Jane itself is included.
The main menu presents scenic shots from the film with an animated, light-green overlay evoking trees and leaves. The piano-heavy score accompanies this and the subsequent, and similarly-designed, static menus. The disc is housed in a standard black Amaray case, which slides into a lightly embossed and holographic slipcover. Inside the keepcase is a two-sided insert with scene selections on one side and an Enchanted advertisement on the other.

CLOSING THOUGHTS
Becoming Jane has quite a lot of talent involved both in front and behind the camera. While not all of it is used to its full potential, the film does far more right than wrong. It offers a sweet and classy "what if?" story involving one of literature's best-known yet most mysterious authors. It is presented well on DVD visually and aurally, and despite the light supplements, there's quite a bit of information to be found. This DVD earns a recommendation to fans of Jane Austen's work and a rental to anyone interested in a light, unpretentious period drama.

BJ review - Part 2

Imagining a Far-From-Plain Jane
By Stephen HunterWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 3, 2007; Page C05

Little-known facts about the brilliant English Regency novelist Jane Austen: She was (a) a babe; (b) a hot dancer; (c) a Girl Who Just Wanted to Have Fun.
That's the argument of Julian Jarrold's new "Becoming Jane," which manages to be both literate and wacky at once.

Anne Hathaway as Jane Austen and James McAvoy as Tom Lefroy in the circumstantial-fact-based romantic drama "Becoming Jane." (Colm Hogan - Miramax Films)
The movie, earnest and not quite charmless, takes off from a brief surviving couple of passages in letters Austen wrote her sister Cassandra in which she admitted to flirting with a visiting Irish law student named Tom Lefroy. But there's no account anywhere of an actual crazed, frenzied, heavy-breathing, kissing-by-moonlight affair that the movie imagines, proceeding so far as to dramatize the haunted lovers running away to flout society's moribund rules.
So I expect the Janeites who love the author will feel themselves ill-served by the film, which appears to have even less basis in fact than "Shakespeare in Love" or, to go back even further in time in the genre of writers' biographies, Greg Peck as Feodor Dostoevski in 1949's "The Great Sinner." As for the rest of us, the question is simpler -- is it worth the eight bucks?
I would vote yes, primarily on the basis of performance. If "Becoming Jane" is a little light in the head, it gives the young American actress Anne Hathaway a chance to show herself off more delightfully than she did in "The Devil Wears Prada," while allowing Scots bad boy James McAvoy to get himself even closer to the coveted rank of A-list stud as he does a passing imitation of Albert Finney's lascivious importuning in the great "Tom Jones." And the rest of the cast has the languid brilliance of most made-in-England productions, with the great Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Ian Richardson and the excellent American James Cromwell walking around in wigs and frocks and what have you. The rustic English country houses, the glorious English countryside, the rolling English hills, those dark, romantic woods that could conceal guerrillas as easily as poets, all are oh so easy on the eye.
The gist of the story is that our Tom -- he went on to become the chief justice of Ireland -- was a wild youth, a kind of Jonesian rake, all for the squeezing of anything round and plump, from apples to grapes to peaches to, er, the round and plump parts of a woman described in the credits as a "wine whore." What does that mean -- she'll do anything for a '74 Lafite-Rothschild?
In danger of being kicked out of his London law apprenticeship, he is sent by his imperious uncle (Richardson, who does imperiousness brilliantly) to the country, where his cutting-edge wardrobe (those black taffeta waistcoats do the trick every time) and wit and macho style (he's a good athlete, loves to bare-knuckle box) make him the hot item in the eyes of Austen.
So the movie attempts to evoke a Jane Austen-type relationship between Austen and Lefroy, even going so far as to imply that Lefroy was the model for Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice," arrogant and aloof upon first encounter but later mellowing into someone more passionate and romantic. When they start out fencing snidely with each other, probing for weakness, looking for petty victory in parlor wit and dinner table jousting, you think: Kids, get a room.
In those times, of course, before you got the room, you had to get to the church on time. The movie makes a point that Austen made herself, that the system that denied young women any access to the means of production meant that they had to marry someone of class with a few bucks or they were thought horrendous failures and cruel burdens to families that had to support them. This was particularly true of the impoverished clergy of the sort the Rev. George Austen (Cromwell as Jane's father) represented. It also gave social power to young bachelors who could be choosy (though they were of course encouraged to marry for money, not love, as well) and to those who controlled young men. Thus Lady Gresham (Smith), the aunt of the dim but decent and wealthy Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox), another (if entirely fictitious) Austen suitor, makes a fine villainess, a Cruella De Vil of the social world. She enjoys her corrupt power and connives to keep or even increase it at the expense of the flotsam and jetsam of society like the Austens, rich in beautiful daughters, but cash-poor -- as Mrs. Austen (Waters) makes clear when she sniffs self-piteously, "Look. I have to pick my own potatoes."
Through all this, Hathaway hath a way with quip, rejoinder, uplifted eyebrow, pursed lips, and the silence that kills. Keira Knightley would have been better, of course, or any of a dozen English actresses, but Hathaway brings no shame to herself. I found her a bit cowed by Meryl Streep's rapturous vileness in "Prada," but here, among so many exquisite talents, she holds the camera and the movie. And she's one of the very few Americans who can get away with a British accent in the presence of actual Brits. McAvoy is, one supposes, an acquired taste; I can't get over seeing him as the faun in "The Chronicles of Narnia," and even in "The Last King of Scotland" he seemed frail and wan. Here, he's aged, glows, plays a bounder tamed by love quite well.
Of course, if you know how Jane Austen's short life (41 years) turned out, you know where the movie has to go. At least it's not revisionist; it clings to an old-Hollywood value, portraying its star-crossed lovers not as corrupt but as too noble for happiness. They'd rather please their souls than their libidos, one reason why now is so different than then.
Becoming Jane (115 minutes, at area theaters) is rated PG for brief nudity and mild profanity.

BJ Review - Part 1

Chapters In the Writer's Life
1775 Austen is born in Hampshire, England, on Dec. 16, the seventh of eight children born to a clergyman, George, and his wife Cassandra.
1787-1793 Austen writes short stories and parodies for her family.
1795-96 Austen works on the novels that will later become "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility."
1802 Austen accepts, then rejects a marriage proposal from Harris Biggs-Wither, the brother of one of her friends.
1803 Austen sells a version of "Northanger Abbey" to a publisher, but he fails to print it.
1815 Austen suddenly falls ill -- possibly with what we now know as Addison's disease.
1817 Austen dies on July 18.

The Novels Of Jane Austen
(In the order they were written)
"Pride and Prejudice" (published 1813) A spirited young woman, Elizabeth Bennet, is repulsed by haughty Mr. Darcy until she sees an unexpected side of him and falls in love.
"Sense and Sensibility" (1811) An independent young woman, Elinor Dashwood, sets her sights on Edward because she admires his practicality, and surprises herself by falling in love.
"Mansfield Park" (1814) A shy young woman, Fanny Price, shocks her rich guardians by refusing a marriage proposal, but her cousin Edmund is impressed enough to fall in love.
"Emma" (1815) A well-meaning young woman, Emma Woodhouse, plays matchmaker to her friends but doesn't realize when she herself falls in love.
"Northanger Abbey" (1817) An imaginative young woman, Catherine Morland, invents a murder mystery at her friends' castle, and along the way falls in love.
"Persuasion" (1817) An impressionable young woman, Anne Elliot, breaks off her engagement to the man of her dreams, but 10 years later gets a second chance to fall in love.
-- Monica Hesse

Pride and Provocation
A New Film Imagines Jane Austen in Love. It's Stirring All Sorts of Passions.
By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page N01
Call it the return of romance or just a love of Empire waistlines, but it seems you could make anything Jane Austen wrote -- a captioned doodle? a grocery list? a penmanship exercise? -- into a box office smash. All six of her novels have become feature films or miniseries; in January a "Masterpiece Theatre" project will introduce new adaptations of four; and Friday brings yet another Austen-related work to the screen.
This time, it's personal.
"Becoming Jane," starring Anne Hathaway, is a romantic dramedy based on the life of the author herself. To which fans might say: Holy Mr. Darcy's wet smock! And to which Jane Austen scholars are saying: Uh-oh.
Jan Fergus teaches a course titled "Jane Austen and Popular Culture in the 21st Century" at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. She's written two Austen biographies. But will Friday find Fergus at the multiplex? Not likely: "I would not be able to sit through what looks like a tissue of fabrications and nonsense."
Why the fuss, you ask?
The main drama in "Becoming Jane" -- loosely based on Jon Spence's 2003 biography, "Becoming Jane Austen" -- comes from her secret-wet-kisses, let's-run-away-together romance with Tom Lefroy (played by a devilishly dishy James McAvoy). It's all very be-still-my-beating-heart. And though we hate the idea of the truth getting in the way of a good chest-heaving historical chick flick, here are the scant facts:
True, a 20-year-old Austen did flirt with a law student named Tom Lefroy when he visited in 1795. But the most dirt we have on the pair is that they danced at three Christmas balls before he went back to school and that Austen was "too proud" to ask his aunt about him two years later.
In fact, the author's life is short on provable facts all around. She died (unmarried) of an illness (undiagnosed) at 41. Her sister, Cassandra, destroyed most of her letters. Her only authenticated portrait is a rough sketch done by Cassandra, who was not an artist.
Being a Jane devotee is thus an ascetic pleasure. It means both gleefully analyzing the 200-year-old ephemera that remains and getting one's knickers in a twist when other fans don't agree with your theories. Very few authors have fans who refer to themselves with ga-ga diminutives of the writer's first name: Austen scholars are called Janeites (by themselves-- not even by mocking Hemingway profs).
And so it is a truth Hollywood-ily accepted that a film director who decides to make a Jane Austen love story could be in some very deep trouble.
"It was very . . . daunting," says director Julian Jarrold diplomatically. "Austen fans can be quite passionate. We had various communiques with the Jane Austen Society. They were afraid we would dumb her down or turn her into a chick-lit writer."
But Jarrold didn't let the wrath of the Janeites dissuade him. The filmmaker was propelled by a desire to see Jane find love -- something her fans can sympathize with, too (more on that later).

The press materials released with the movie hedge any bets: The film "spins the few known facts" of a "seemingly brief" and "apparently rapid" romance into a "boldly imagined" love story about Austen and the man who "perhaps, might have stolen her heart" and "awakened" her talent.
It is this definitive love story that inspires such consternation.
"The idea that Tom Lefroy sparked Jane's brilliance is totally foolish," says Deirdre Le Faye, author of "Jane Austen: A Family Record." "She came from a very smart family. By the time she met Tom she was already an accomplished writer."
And yet, there Movie Tom is, roguishly criticizing a young Jane's sophomoric writing and introducing her to grown-up novels like the racy "Tom Jones" -- which historians say Austen had actually read long before meeting Lefroy.
We won't suggest it's anti-feminist. We'll just suggest Elinor Dashwood would be appalled.
(At least the film fills in biographical gaps with relevant material: As you watch wealthy Tom and underprivileged Jane frolic through English balls, pretending to hate each other but wittily falling in love, resist the urge to call them Mr. Darcy and Lizzie Bennet. Indeed, Variety's review calls it "an ersatz 'Pride and Prejudice' in all but name.")
"It's a very masculine production; you can tell it was male-directed," says Park Honan, emeritus professor of English at the University of Leeds and author of "Jane Austen: Her Life." "And it has an unfounded view of creativity, supposing you must be in love to write about love."
Lest you think he is being an overly prissy academic, Honan, who also wrote a biography of William Shakespeare, points out that he saw the movie "Shakespeare in Love" six times.
"[That movie] has irony to it," Honan says. "It laughs at itself. No one would walk out of it wondering if Shakespeare had really had an affair with a woman named Viola." It has irony where "Becoming Jane" has sentimental earnestness, something that Honan says could easily confuse Austen neophytes.
Just ask the Jane Austen Society in London, where the film opened in March. Its members have already begun receiving queries from viewers anxious to learn about Austen suitor Mr. Wisley.
(There is no Mr. Wisley. He is a romantic foil invented for the film.)
Foils, fabrications and fudging aside, we're rooting for the doomed couple, but why ? We're perfectly able to handle the writerly miseries of other artists -- Shakespeare losing Viola or, more realistically, Hemingway drowning in drink -- so why the burning need for Jane to find love?

Because Jane loved love. Emma Woodhouse and the Dashwood sisters did not just find good matches, they found wildly perfect soul mates. We want Jane to find love because thinking of her living without it makes us feel sad, and vaguely guilty for reveling in those fictional romances.
And because Jane played by the rules. She did not abandon her family (Shakespeare), act promiscuously (Wilde), or become an alcoholic (HemingwayFaulknerFitzgeraldSteinbeck). She was the type of well-behaved person our meritocratic society believes deserves happiness. A loveless Jane Austen? How Dickensian.
These fanciful wishes for Austen might explain why the British press was mostly kind to the film: The Daily Mirror called it "delightful and nicely made"; the Times deemed it "giddy as champagne bubbles" despite the "few liberties" taken.
And there are some Austen scholars who welcome the movie.
Leading the pack is Spence, who was tsk-tsked for suggesting in his book a deeper romance between Austen and Lefroy than had previous scholars. (Not nearly, however, as passionate as the film implies; read: Frenching in the courtyard!) "The film captures Jane Austen's spirit and her values," Spence says. "I think she would have rather liked it. Besides, could you really make a movie where Jane flirts with a man and then never sees him again? What kind of a movie is that?"
Movie quality aside, there is also the likelihood that the film will draw popular attention to Austen -- the woman, not just her work. "Yes, it's a blend of fact and fiction," says Marsha Huff, president of the Jane Austen Society of North America. "But hopefully some people will be inspired to dig a little deeper and find out which parts are true."
Therein lies a quandary. When your entire career is spent toiling in relative obscurity, studying the life and slim six novels of a dead writer, how do you react to your one moment in the spotlight? Do you quibble about factual liberties taken? Or do you excuse its foibles in the name of "Please, oh please allow Jane one clandestine affair!"
Jarrold not surprisingly insists that it's possible to do both. "We have this image of Jane Austen as a middle-aged spinster," the director says. "But there was a time when she was young and vibrant." Veracity aside, he says, "in terms of human relationships, [the story line is] true." In some ways the idea of a stoically teary-eyed Jane makes us appreciate the happy-ended worlds of her heroines even more.
Even the doubting Le Faye hopes some good can come from the film. But, says the author: "It still ought to be marketed with a health warning."

Becoming Jane - Part 2

now about the truths and fallacy enshrined in the film.

i have been reading some findings on the life of Austen/Lefroy to better appreciate for myself, the premise surrounding these two lives. without a shadow of a doubt, the love/romance aspect of the movie is purely based on speculations. i can't say i agree with the potrayal of Tom's dissolute in the film but i guess it worked for the film and i suspect, is all that matters. The truth, however, elucidates Tom as an admired, well-respected and an up-standing character altogether dedicated to the call of his profession and honourable duties towards his impoverished family. yup, kinda difficult to get angry with Tom, at this point!

i will not attempt to list down my lengthy findings of Austen facts (hoards of them in cyberspace) with biases for Jane and biases for Tom. I do find myself symphathising with both compelling biases. for example, one finding stipulates that Tom never reciprocated Jane's affections, reducing the perceived romance to be merely a one-sided juvenile fliration, very much on the Jane side! and it also describes Jane as being an over-exhuberant tease, totally misguided by Tom's sincere yet plutonic intentions. There was even speculation that during their first encounter on Christmas day of 1795, Tom was already involved with a young lady from Country Wexford, who would afterwards, be his wife. Seriously, who knows!

On the other hand, another find s stipulates that Tom did fall wrecklessly in love with Jane and for socioeconomic reasons and his duties to family, their non-union was fated. Nonetheless, all through the years Tom remained very fond of Jane, which he allegedly confessed to a nephew, later on in his long life! golly miss molly, he even named his eldest daughter (who purported to be his favourite!) Jane Christmas Lefroy. now, that WOULD say alot about you, in my books, if your ex-boyfriend honoured you in that manner, hmmmm....?

this beautiful, poignant movie, with all its liberties chose to meander down the path of the latter. i am glad they did, for a JA film based on non-reciprocated-juvenile fliration and jilted love wouldn't make for a romance of the year movie, one would imagine! so with all the liberties, taken by BJ, i can see how the film can bring about such a hulabaloo (and from reading reviews, it certainly has done its job!) amongst Austen-purists.

anne hathaway's potrayal of Jane is fair - she's gorgeous and breathes new life into the person of Jane Austen. i can imagine, how JA would usually be conjured up by the general misinformed public - a dull and dowdy, middle aged spinster! some of anne's mannerism, intonation and pronounciation is still evidently very american thus isn't quite so english, but still as a whole, anne did well for the film.

Ahh, our dear Mr. Tom Lefroy! What can i say - James, so divine, is a genius and perfect potraying that rogueish yet kind love interest of Jane. his little gestures are so effortless and captivating, that you just cannot get enough of him. someone said, "I could certainly see why Jane would have been attracted to Tom Lefroy if he was anything like this portrayal by James McAvoy!" yes, if i were Jane, OMG, I would too - so totally head over heels and i wouldn't let no broad from Wexford get him!

seriously, we love our James, don't we? i am not complaining that, he, with this sexy scottish accent and yummelicious looks, is up and coming as an actor.

*sigh*

Becoming Jane - Part 1

What can I say?

I wished I had caught this show on the big screen much earlier. But alas, now my life with kids, going out to the movies is the thing of the past. Nonetheless, I loved the show nevermind it being on DVD!

I scoured the net for BJ reviews.

Which, turned out to be a big-mistake, as i got majorly annoyed at the mixed reviews the show received (more specifically, the BAD ones!!). Many conflicting opinions on what I perceive to be a very simple, truly heartfelt depiction of the illusive life of Jane. a speculated, emotive and thought provoking story of a romance found wanting, that is certain to tug at your heart strings for weeks on end!

I AM, afterall, a true romantic at heart and being a poignant film that it is, BJ impressed me for a long time. I've watched the DVD that many times (my 3 year old daughter, knows now that's "mommy's show") replaying my most favourite pieces and still be so overwhelmed (and miffed at the same time). Yes, scenes such as The Ball and The Kiss finds me skipping a heartbeat each time!

Jane Austen: [she has just kissed him] Did I do that well?
Tom Lefroy: Very. Very well.
Jane Austen: I wanted, just once, to do it well.
Tom Lefroy: I am yours, heart and soul. Much good that is.
Jane Austen: Let me decide that

Of course, you will catch me weeping at scenes where (that imperious uncle of Tom, has just rejected the notion of Tom and Jane's union) Tom had to let Jane go and when Tom pleads in earnest for Jane to not leave him after reason had subdued Jane not elope afterall. out of this, comes the most profound of statement about truths and of love..

Tom : no, Jane..I will never give you up..Dont speak or think.. just love me.. Do you love me ?
Jane : yes, but if our love destroys your family, it will destroy itself ..
Tom : No ...
Jane : yes, in a long, slow degradation of guilt and regret and blame
Tom : that is nonsense
Jane : truth, made from contradiction, but it must come with a smile.. or else i shall count it as a false and we shall have had no love at all .. Good bye ...

And the dam burst again at the end, seeing how very much afflicted Tom still was upon seeing Jane again perhaps after 15 years! Tom was still tormented by his affection and devotion for Jane, which was so very evident in his eyes. and oh, the tension i can sense, when he introduces his daughter, Jane to Jane! Yes, although knowing how this had to end, privately i still held my breath, wishing that Jane and Tom would end-up together in the end. drats!

knowing very well, how this film had to end, i still found myself very much distraught at the idea that this girl, who gives her heroines romantic happy endings, did not, in her short life, find the love. that someone so noble and good, would trade her own happily-ever-after, for the happiness of others. i felt pity for her at the same time, so proud of her. i felt angered at Tom, yet sympathise with him. even if the plot is somewhat deviant from what really happened (still a matter of contention amongst true Austen followers!), the film sits well with me...

it is these characters of JA that got me thinking at length about myself, my life, my own perspective, my aptitude (i hope) for what is noble and right, at how much I can identify with Jane on that. I marvelled at her selflessness and courage to take and make the unsurpassable sacrifice, being her own happiness. Her pursuit for noble decisions, as oppose to frivolous choices, is one i truly admire and esteem. Yet, she is no means a weakling or a conformist in any way! She is fiercely independent and single-minded, does not lack ambition yet has a healthy regard and respect for the order and boundaries of the day. Amongst her many predictaments, I am sure, other than of being an unmarried woman of her time, she deftly finds solace and perfectly breathes life into her writings, altogether beautiful, witty and truly inspirational.

Inspite of all the review (i am guilty of agreeing with SOME of them!) i loved the film. And like so many JA fans, is my favourite romance film for thus far.


Jane Austen: Could I really have this?
Tom Lefroy: What, precisely?
Jane Austen: You.
Tom Lefroy: Me, how?
Jane Austen: This life with you.
Tom Lefroy: Yes.

ahh, be still me beating heart....