Becoming Jane...

[fajrdrako]

Another Jane Austen movie. Not a story by her this time, but a story about her: the story of her brief (and probably mostly apocryphal) romance with Tom Lefroy.

I enjoyed it in spite of myself. It's a good historical movie, well extrapolated from fact, well acted - especially by the beautiful Anne Hathaway as Jane Austen. I wanted to find fault and really couldn't. The sets, the costuming, the acting - all first-class. I found myself comparing it in my mind to the Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice, which to my mind was so unlike the period. I was almost more interested in the the romance of Jane's brother Joe (played stylishly by Joe Anderson) with a wealthy widow, than I was in Jane's relationship with Lefroy.

I also found myself wishing for the umpteenth time that they'd make regency movies that weren't about Jane Austen or her novels. Movies about people of the period whom I find fascinating, like Byron and Shelley and Mary Shelley, or Napoleon and his connections, or more Hornblower and Sharpe; and especially I'd like to see movie versions of Georgette Heyer and the Regency romance genre. They could. They should. They don't.

Becoming Jane made me cry, though. I particularly liked the scene where Jane met Mrs. Radcliffe. I also liked the scenes where we saw Lefroy without Jane - when he was in court, for example.

Does this movie have Jane Austen herself rolling in her grave, or at least rolling her eyes in polite disgust? I'm not sure what she would have thought about being cast as a heroine of romance, even if it is gently doomed romance enlivened with its share of ironical wit.

I was reading an article in Macleans magazine from August 13 that articulated so well why I don't generally like Jane Austen's books, even if there are many things I like about them - very mixed feelings. Persuasion is my favourite and I think it has somewhat different attitudes from the others. But this article by Lianne George, called "The Opposite of Sex", saying:

She's a pragmatist, an economist... In the 19th century, Charlotte Brontë famously rejected Austen's work as lacking warmth, enthusiasm, or anything heartfelt: "...The passions are perfectly unknown to her." ...Her works conjure- rightly or not - some quaint, if unrealistic notion of dignity and restraint.

It is precisely because Austen is not a romantic that her stories resonate today.

They don't resonate for me. I remain a romantic, ujnable to appreciate Austen's cynicism. I'm firmly in the Charlotte Brontë mould, with a deep distrust of Austen's distrust of passion. Austen is witty, but cold.

She isn't cold in Becoming Jane. The movie restores passion to the story of her life, and I'm not sure if that's true to her biography or fair to her legacy.

Comments

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I really want to see this even though it's fictional. Interesting two cents.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not entirely fictional. Jane Austen did know and 'flirt' with Tom Lefroy, though the rest of her relationship with him is unknown. The bits about her character and her family are real enough, as far as I know. Everything but the actual plot!

And yes, it's well worth seeing.

And for what it's worth, I cried buckets.

[walkingowl.livejournal.com]

"A deep distrust of Austen's distrust of passion." I love the way you talk.

And I love the Kaylee image.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well. Gotta love Kaylee. The cutest mechanic ever.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

This film was out a while ago over here. I think it's a) dishonest to embroider so much about a real person, and b) taking the idea that "everyone/thing in the novels must be based on biographical events" is pretty insulting to any novelist, even one as uninteresting as Austen. The much-vaunted 'wit' I found pretty lame, and the plots have launched a million Mills & Boons. They're like being at a polite tea-party where nothing much happens but you're expected to say how much you enjoyed it… Chekhov or Ibsen would have enlivened things with the random duel or suicide. Someone dropping a biscuit would be thrilling by Austen standards.

Frankly, I have detested Austen and her works since being forced to read 2 of them at school: not the sort of thing I would read under my volition. (This is why I refused to consider doing English at university: I was fed up of 'set books' I wouldn't touch with a bargepole by choice.) I'm not that keen on Charlotte Brontë, either: I think Emily and Anne were far more talented, but, because she lived longer (and thus wrote more) and tried to control their images posthumously (there is the nasty suspicion of manuscript burning) Charlotte is overrated. (My nickname for her has long been 'The Poison Dwarf'.)

I value dignity and restraint; some passion, but it needs to be on a leash as it can be deeply destructive. There should be a half-way house between the two.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think we sound like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I cetianly don't like Emily Brontë's writing, and I don't think I've ever read anything by Anne. But Charlotte, I adore!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I loathed Austen when I was forced to read her in school; I was too young and the books were presented without background.

I loved Austen when I was asked to give her another try about 8 years later. I don't see her as cold at all. A snarky satirist, but not cold - she writes about the little people, and she doesn't gild some of the nastier home truths about life in her age - particularly the one that since getting married was the only career a woman could have.

But none of her heroines were neurotic or stupid (with the possible exception of Emma and Catherine, who learn better through the course of their stories.) That alone puts her head, shoulders, and elbows above the current mob of "chick lit" writers, IMO, because they seem to think that women are only going to sympathize with neurotic nutbags like Bridget Jones, who substitute designer names for character development.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I loathed Austen when I was forced to read her in school

Happily, I was never forced to read her in school. I tried Pride and Prejudice at some point in my early teens, found it deadly dull and stopped reading. Tried again with Northanger Abbey when I was a little older - still not eighteen yet, but older - and quite enjoyed it; then read Persuasion, loved it thoroughly, and moved on to read all the others. Austen has moments I love, but her prosaic attitude to romanticism and her sense of satire just aren't the literary qualities I most enjoy. To my eyes, she not only lacks warmth, she lacks empathy for all but the more detached and witty characters who most resemble her own attitude. I usually want to beg her to be just a little sentimental, just for a while, for a change of tone.

she doesn't gild some of the nastier home truths about life in her age

No, but she doesn't deal with many of them either. She deals with hypocrisy (for example), but writes entirely about the situation and viewpoint of a woman of her own class and style. You would hardly know the war with Napoleon was going on, or that there was a seedy side to life, or even a sexual side, or a masculine side, or people to whom the social structure she writes about doesn't even apply. I'm not saying she ought to go beyond what she offers us - it makes a fine package - simply that her view of her own world is more narrow than it is complete, and completion of the picture isn't what she is about. She's an excellent example of an author who writes what she knows - the kind of life that Austen herself had actually experienced. It's a slice of life, but not a complete picture of her times.

I agree that her heroines are good people, attractive and intelligent, and that's one of the strengths of her works. Even though the whole plot of Pride and Prejudice is about Elizabeth Bennet's misunderstanding of Mr. Darcy, Austen manages to make the plot work without Elizabeth ever appearing like a total idiot - even if the reader twigs to the truth before Elizabeth Does. I'm not terribly fond of plots where the whole story is centred on an error on the part of the protagonist. Austen pulls it off admirably there but it still isn't my preference.

Ann Elliot is my favourite of the Austen heroines by far, because Persuasion is the only one of the books in which I think the theme is actually romantic. I don't think the satire is compromised by this, either. And it doesn't all hinge on Ann being wrong about something, though it does hinge on an error she once made. And since the error was one of caution rather than passion, I'm much more sympathetic to the theme!

And don't get me started on Bridget Jones, the most annoying character in modern literature! Austen is infinitely better than that, granted, but that isn't setting much of a standard!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It's a slice of life, but not a complete picture of her times.

No sin there. By keeping a lot of the historical details out, I think she managed to strip her plots to the bare essentials, which is why they continue to resonate, where a book that went into the scandals of the Regency or the war would seem much wierder and harder to grasp for the modern reader.

Persuasion was not a favorite, but I have a copy. Ought to give it another try. Northanger is actually my favorite, mostly because I've made many of Catherine's mistakes.

And don't get me started on Bridget Jones, the most annoying character in modern literature

Yes, but Bridget is based on Pride & Prej, and is the best example of 1) how the barebones plot is still compelling and 2) how deeply modern authors Don't Get It. (There's also a mystery series about a character named Jaine Austen - not to be confused with the mystery series using the historical person - and the first book was cute but by the third book I wanted to Hurt both author and character.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

No sin there.

No, not at all. I was replying there to the comment that Austen 'doesn't gild home truths', and was just pointing out that the is selective in what home truths she decides to present. I can see why she resonates with our age, but it's in ways that I don't resonate with my own age, so while I can admire her stories and themes, I don't love them as I do the works of other authors.

I've made many of Catherine's mistakes.

LOL. I'm much more like Elizabeth Bennet in both my flaws and my strengths, which may be the reason I am particuarly critical of her.

Jane Austen inspired Georgette Heyer and the whole genre of Regency romance and romantic comedies of manners. Add to that the new mystery series, and the Jaine Austen you mention, and the movie industry - she's responsible for so much!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

she's responsible for so much

Some of which, I think, would horrify her!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think so! But she might also be amused.

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

There was ample death and sorrow in Austen's life without having duels or suicide. The temptation to see wounds under the cynicism isn't new to this movie.

The first few pages of Fay Weldon's book "Letters to Alice on First Reading Jane Austen" are available to be read on Amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Alice-First-Reading-Austen/dp/0786706880/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/002-5228170-0984006?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187869920&sr=8-3
It doesn't get to the part where she offers her (fictional) niece money to read some of the "classics," but that's one of the interesting bits. I think her idea extends to having schools pay students to read some books that are supposed to be read but not thought desirable by said students.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

There was ample death and sorrow in Austen's life without having duels or suicide.

I agree, and I'm not a fan of Chekhov either. I don't want Austen to be more depressing. Just more... emotionally involved. Her happy endings are one of the things about her books that I do like.

I would have loved having someone pay me to read! What a dream! As it was, I made it a point to read anything I thought might ever be assigned reading in school, because I tended to love books I read on my own and hated books that I read because I had to. This technique worked delightfully. I discovered a lot of good authors that way, too.

I do remember a few happy discoveries among the assigned reading - I loved Steinbeck and Hemingway, for example. Who'd have guessed?

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

The controversial experimental program in NYC that will pay parents for developing good habits includes paying them 50 dollars to get a library card
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/84684

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Wow. I'd like to be paid to get a library card. Mind you, if reading books really did prevent poverty, wouldn't my income be a lot higher?

Anyway, I hope the plan works. It does sound a little like bribery and corruption, but it does look like a good cause.

[skywardprodigal.livejournal.com]

I adored Jane Austen's books the third go I gave them. They came on the recommendation of a woman with whom I used to sing, this American-born Chinese woman of diamond intellect and purity. She came off like a rigid puritan was gracious and kind and surprising in many good ways.

I'm ever grateful to her for encouraging me to give Austen a third chance.

Persuasion is one of my favorite books.

That said, I think your essay is powerful. Thank you for giving me another frame with which to consider Austen's works. I'll be rethinking, and rereading, Shelly and Bronte.

Thanks so much!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

What a lovely icon - ! Where did you get it?

I probably needed three tries at Pride and Prejudice, though at this point Persuasion is the only Austen novel I would reread for fun - in contrast to looking something up in Pride and Prejudice to compare it with a scene in one of the movies, or something like that. I did love Persuasion and just about everything about it.

Your friend who encouraged you to read Austen sounds wonderful. Don't you love meeting someone like that, who is more than they might be, and influences you besides?

I'm glad you enjoyed my comments. I'm looking forward to hearing your reactions, if you feel like sharing them.

[myfavouriteplum.livejournal.com]

The only book of Jane Austen that I love is 'Persuasion'. And the only book of Charlotte Brontë that I enjoy is 'Vilette'. What's about me and the last finished work of female novelists? *g*

I'm somehow looking forward to this movie. One does begin to wonder if Miss Austen had some deep regrets about one of two brief romances, after reading 'Persuasion'...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Definitely Persuasion is my favourite Austen, and I always think of it as uncharacteristic - less detached, less ironical than the others.

I love Villette and Shirley too, but Jane Eyre remains my favourite Brontë novel.

My favourite Dickens is Our Mutual Friend - his last finished work.

It doesn't always work that way, but sometimes there's something about later novels that makes them exceptionally good.

[teaphile.livejournal.com]

I much prefer Austen's emotional distance. I have a strong distaste for people who rush into things, especially relationships, without regard for practicality or without considering personal history. Some things are too important to do rashly; I think that's what Austen's getting at most of the time. Attaching yourself to someone, especially in that time and place, directs the rest of your life. You'll always bear the emotional scars, so why not protect yourself the best you can?

The only book by any Bronte that I've liked (granted, I haven't read them all, or even most) is Anne's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.

Cold? Cynical? Calculating? Sure. I don't believe in love at first sight, either. But neither do those leave you devoid of love and deeper feeling. Not showing it doesn't mean you don't have it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I have a strong distaste for people who rush into things, especially relationships

Hee - there you have it! The opposite end of the spectrum. And (probably) never the twain shall meet. I think you are more in line with the attitudes of this century. I'm more of an anachronistic anomaly.

You'll always bear the emotional scars, so why not protect yourself the best you can?

You'll have emotional scars whatever you do, whether you act or don't act. Protecting oneself from good experiences - and deeply felt desires - isn't always wise. Which Austen herself believed: it's the whole theme of Persuasion.

Now, having said that, I also firmly believe this is an individual matter of preference and temperament, and everyone is different in this regard as to what's right for them. Which is why it's so confusing: there's no one way that suits everyone. What works for you wouldn't work for me even if I could pretend it might. But there's no way I could cultivate the Austen attitude without being a total hypocrite.

I haven't read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Perhaps I should!

I do believe in love at first sight - I've experienced it.

Everyone's pattern of loving is unique.