If you've left me a rating on either my Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus or In the Valley of Elah reviews...
If you've left me a rating on either my Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus or In the Valley of Elah reviews, please let me know as they are showing up as 'not yet rated' even though at least fifteen of you have rated each one.
Member since:11.07.2000
Reviews:778
Members who trust:81
The young Jane Austen is determined to become a writer. But in England in the year 1795, women are expected only to marry well and be good wives. Those with education are treated with suspicion and those that work, with open hostility. Jane’s anxious parents are trying to steer her into a respectable marriage when she meets the headstrong and charming Tom LeFroy. He is a handsome and clever young Irish lawyer sent away from London to avoid any more scandalous situations.
Julian Jarrold’s background in directing for TV shows itself in virtually every frame of this movie that plays like a cross between Jane Austen’s greatest hits and a feature length commercial for Ireland (where the film was shot). It’s directly appealing to people that would watch one of the BBC’s high-end costume dramas, which is presumably why it so closely resembles them. There are lots of shots of romantic misty views of the countryside, sumptuous balls with equally impressive frocks and neatly choreographed structured ensemble dances. But despite the sweeping vistas and hundreds of extras lurking in the background, this never truly convinces as a big screen outing – there’s something too predictable and almost parochial about it all. It feels more like a television mini series because the pacing meanders and pivotal scenes often end with pithy remarks that would serve as full-stops to an episode but don’t have any purpose here other than to show how witty the characters are.
In order to keep things moving, Jarrold uses montages and jump cutting to compress events whilst showing time passing. This is effective if somewhat hackneyed. He’s also fond of using movie shorthand to suggest changes in mood, from significant rain to threatening clouds. His treatment of the characters is somewhat sentimental and his view of romance
sentimental. He doesn’t attack the concept of the creative process – though Jane may abruptly sit down and start writing, there’s no real sense of excitement about it, only a sense of inevitability. Situations tend to be dragged out, making the hundred and twenty minute running time feel overly generous. If the pacing were a little swifter, it would make the comic moments snappier and give the romance more zing. There are some issues with production values. It often feels like Jarrold isn’t using his locations and equipment to their full extent. There’s one sequence in particular where several of the characters meet years later where poor hair and make-up shatter any illusion that the young cast are twenty years older.
The screenplay by Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams suffers by comparison to other Jane Austen adaptations. It’s essentially a reworking of “Pride and Prejudice”. A young, feisty, educated and intelligent woman goes against the social mores of her time and her mother by refusing to marry for financial security. She promptly meets a man that irritates her intensely by questioning her values before falling for him. Admittedly there are only two sisters in this story and no-one marries someone entirely unsuitable. Indeed Jane Austen and her sister remained unwed throughout their short lives. It uses the same conceit as “Shakespeare in Love”; that the author uses incidents from her own life as inspiration for her greatest works. But the execution is derivative and the laughs fewer and farther between. The story goes through the expected cycle of emotional peaks and troughs and makes no attempt to conceal them. The main family live in genteel poverty, but still remain jolly at almost all times. The romance is presented through rose-tinted glasses and you’re in no doubt that the leads will overcome their mutual antipathy and fall head-over-heels for each other.
The characterisation feels facile because you can tell which of Austen’s protagonists each character is based on. It’s too blatant and makes it far too easy to spot who’s going to do what to whom and why. It also means you never believe in the players as anything other than fictional constructs. The dialogue is so florid you can practically see the curlicued script it is undoubtedly written in. Virtually every character has a perfectly formed pearl of wisdom or snappy retort at their disposal, making the language feel clever-clever. The film doesn’t know when to stop and the addition of a scene set some years later than the main events just drags proceedings out unnecessarily.
It’s difficult to buy into Anne Hathaway as Jane Austen. It’s not just because I know she’s American (and has some occasionally odd vowel sounds in her otherwise cut glass English accent), but also because she’s too pretty. If you see paintings of Austen, she was hardly a beauty and if she’d looked like Hathaway she would clearly have been dogged by eligible bachelors until she married. Otherwise she looks the part of a typical English rose and has enough spirit to convince as a headstrong trailblazer. Her timing is good and she has some nice chemistry with James McAvoy.
I really like McAvoy because he has range - appearing in a variety of different roles and genres. He has natural charisma that makes him a capable leading man and a sense of fun that lends itself to romantic comedy. He’s such a charmer he could have chemistry with furniture if required. He pulls another perfect English accent out of the bag as Tom LeFroy and brings enough attitude to convince as a cocky man-about-town that just needs the right woman. He’s got very good comic timing that works best when he’s playing the character as a preening dandy and is sufficiently disdainful as the worldly man out in the sticks.
The supporting cast comprise many of the great and good of British television and film. Julie Walters is on form as the bustling and often exasperated Mrs Austen, though she can be a touch caricaturish. Dame Maggie Smith puts in a fine comic performance as the sour-faced, strained and often downright rude Lady Gresham. Laurence Fox continues a family tradition of playing restrained aristocrats as Lady Gresham’s nephew Mr Wisley, all ungainly bumbling and propriety. The late Ian Richardson plays yet another irascible authoritarian as LeFroy’s intractable and snobbish uncle. Leo Bill gives a suitably nervy turn as curate Mr Warren, who has a somewhat creepy aspect to him. Anna Maxwell Martin is too wet as Jane’s sister Cassie to be a sympathetic character, while James Cromwell struggles a little with the accent as put-upon husband and doting father Reverend Austen.
The piano-based score by Adrian Johnston lacks originality. It relies too much on simple musical tricks to try to lull the audience into various states of mind, using solo piano to introduce the romanticised idyll where Jane lives before upping the tempo to show her family’s bustling pace of life. Strident flutes and chimes over piano undertones show Tom LeFroy as a different and more daring order of person. Playful woodwinds suggest the nature of the relationship between Tom and Jane. Chamber music is employed during the dances. And then Johnston goes overboard with schmaltzy piano and strings when things come to a head, overturning the ending into unbearable mawkishness.
“Becoming Jane” is a romantic comedy in an empire line dress. It will doubtless annoy Austen purists by fiddling with the facts, ruthlessly pillaging her novels for characters and casting an American in the lead. But it really isn’t that bad – it is a perfectly serviceable exponent of the genre. However, the workmanlike direction, meandering pace and derivative writing make it bland and predictable. I suspect it will suit DVD better than the big screen, as it has a tendency towards televisual production values and timings. If you enjoyed the BBC production of “Pride and Prejudice” or other costume dramas, then this may whet your appetite, but I doubt it will win over many new fans to Austen’s work.
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
Production Year: 2004 - Drama - Director: Nick Cassavetes - Original Language: English - Classification: 15 years and over, 12 years and over - Starring: Rachel McAdams, Ryan Gosling, Gena Rowlands
Production Year: 2000 - Drama - Director: Giuseppe Tornatore - Original Language: Italian - Classification: 15 years and over - Starring: Monica Bellucci, Giuseppe Sulfaro, Luciano Federico, Matilde Piana
great review... I really loved this film. I'm ashamed to say it had me in tears. I think Anne Hathaway's preformance is fantastic and Jame McAvoy is really showing his true colours and becoming a fantastic actor. Gr8 review. Kirsty
MAFARRIMOND 24.05.2007 09:17
This one seems to have passed me by - I don't know how as I think I would enjoy it. Maureen
Jane Austen lit up the world with her words wit and wisdom. But her life too was stoked ... more
by passion and romance. In Becoming Jane Anne Hathaway is Jane Austen a woman who believes in Love but is destined via her parents wishes to marry for money...
Postage & Packaging: £0.00 Availability: 3-5 working days