Becoming Jane

There's a new film coming out titled 'Being Jane' with Anne Hathaway as Jane Austen.

Have a look at the trailer...
http://www.bvimovies.com/uk/becoming_jane/

It looks soo great!!

Is it only in the U.K.?

I believe so. I get the London Times Online, and it's such a teaser!

Oh. :(

Becoming Jane will be in the States on 3 August, according to www.imdb.com.

I will definitely see it but I'm not sure if I will "love" it. But at least the costumes should be nice. :)

Miss Potter will be at my local theatre next weekend & I'm looking forward to that.

:)

That's even better news MollyGibson..thank you! I'm also looking forward to Miss Potter!

Thanks, MollyGibson! I won't have to missing "Becoming Jane" after all.

Wow, looks great! I'm definitely looking foward to seeing it. Thanks for posting the link =)

I hate to be a wet blanket about this, but I'm boycotting this movie. I think it's a bunch of codwallop about Jane, and there is even a bit of nudity in it, I've heard. That so blatantly violates the spirit of her work and life that I don't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

I'll be in my room rereading P&P, thanks :-)

>9 atimco:, wisewoman, I'm with you in the curmudgeonly corner. If I see this movie, it will be because its on TV at 3am some night when I have insomnia. :)

LOL!

Well, I've gotten some opinions from people who have seen the movie. They were shocked at the pervasive sexual themes running through the movie. This seals it for me. Incidental nudity isn't the end of the world for me, but to put nudity plus overt sexuality in a movie about JANE AUSTEN is the epitome of disrespect.

No thank you.

12: Wisewomen nudity plus overt sexuality

Those things are why I hated the movie Mansfield Park. Not only should they not be in a movie about Jane Austen, they should not be in a historical adaptation of one of her novels.

What can I say about this movie? Hmmh... well I saw it and it was okay. Definitely not great but not horrendous. The first half of the movie had me visiting the concession stand constantly because I needed something to do to pass the time as I was that bored. Anne Hathway was ANNOYING as Jane and she was not all together likeable in this first half. For example she was so upset that McAvoy yawned when she was reading one of her works. This lead her to go to her room and search for other works and she is almost crying. Okay what the heck??? She had just met him, why would she care, especially since he was not outright rude to her as say Darcy was to Elizabeth. And don't even get me started on the ripping off of Austen's work. The characters in this movie quote verbatim from Austen. My goodness, how unoriginal. Just because Jane MAY have been influenced by situations and circumstances around her does not mean that she put in the exact sentence structures and word choices. It was tasking at times and boy people accuse Andrew Davies of sexing up period pieces but even he had nothing on this movie. At one point Jane is discussing Tom Jones with McAvoy and the conversation takes turns that are well ...not very appropriate for a young woman during that time period. Don't get me wrong I am not foolish enough to think that young women did not read Tom Jones in private but that scene was just not necessary. Hathway does improve as the movie goes along and McAvoy is a pretty good actor. All in all if you want to save this for a night when struck by insomnia, I do not blame you.

I will presume to offer second-hand opinions: my mother and sister walked out of the movie. They thought it was boring, and then preposterous.

I wonder, though, whether all the harrumphing about the sex scenes is well-founded. The Regency period was much ... lustier than the Victorian era.

I didn't care for this movie either. I already had my doubts going into it which didn't help. I really tried hard to forget that it was supposed to be about Jane Austen but all the references to P&P made it impossible for me to do. I was hoping I could just enjoy it as a period piece. When it comes out on DVD, I probably will add it to my collection however. Just because...;)

Oh God, yes. I came here for the well justified ranting. What a dreadful dreadful movie - I think I would have tolerated outrages better than tedium but, dear God, it was *dull*. I actually stopped halfway through because I couldn't stand it any more.

I don't actually mind "sexing up Jane" because I think there are definitely very faint undercurrents in the books and transferring a book to a film or a television series has to be a process of interpretation and adaption, not a mere translation.

But Becoming Jane - it was unforgiveable.

For those interested, this movie comes out on DVD on February 12.

So my question is, is the movie so bad that is has to be seen just so I can say with authority, "My God, what a horrible movie!" or is it just to be avoided until it pops up on network TV at some point?

Save yourself pain - run, run away.

You see, being a horrible sort of person, I did think I would enjoy the process of hating it and complaining about it. But it's just too depressing for that.

# 20 stringcat3 - I would suggest renting it first perhaps and making your own decision. I personally didn't like it but some of my friends that are also lovers of Jane Austen didn't have a problem with it. Everyone's tastes vary so you should be the judge. I'm going to rent it just so I can give it another chance.

Yes, the movie is preposterous but I didn't find it dull, and certainly better than the trailer would lead one to suspect, although that's faint praise.

Think of it as "Sense and Marketability".

"Sense and Marketability" - beautifully put.

As a marketer, I protest (not too long or too loudly!). Actually, I wish I'd thought of it ...

"A touch, Watson, an undeniable touch!"

I'm in marketing too, and LOL... funny how "sense" and "marketability" are two separate things :-P

> 26 Especially when applied to upper management ...

I watched the new Masterpiece production of "Persuasion" last night. Somewhat underwhelmed. The pacing was uneven, although I must say the settings in Bath were wonderful. Susan Hawkins as Anne was the weakest point. I much preferred the 1995 movie with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root.

There's a topic on all the Persuasion adaptations. I just posted a rather unhappy rant there :-P

I just saw it last night and being ready for the worst, I didn't really mind it in the end. I liked it better than the PBS Miss Austen Regrets. I felt it was more upbeat and positive, if not as accurate.

I agree with #29... if you go into the movie expecting nothing or less than nothing, it's not too bad. And hey, if nothing else... James AcAvoy is fun to look at...

Thus far I've felt that the new PBS "all Jane" effort has been rather lame, with the exception of Miss Austen Regrets. I thought that latter was commendable for showing us that she was quite lively, not some meek little spinster who holed up in her room to scribble. I think she would have been a hoot to know.

But agree that James MacAvoy is a cutie. He was a terrific faun in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

Especially when applied to upper management ...

I watched the new Masterpiece production of "Persuasion" last night. Somewhat underwhelmed. The pacing was uneven, although I must say the settings in Bath were wonderful. Susan Hawkins as Anne was the weakest point. I much preferred the 1995 movie with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root.

It's Sally Hawkins.

so, almost two years ago to the date, I said "If I see this movie, it will be because its on TV at 3am some night when I have insomnia." Well, that time has come and gone & must report that this movie was so bad that it wasn't even worth watching 20 minutes of.

Ha, thanks fanny! You have borne out my stubborn determination to never watch this.

>34 atimco:, Glad to help! :)

But the sound track is pretty good:

http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Jane-Anthony-Pleeth/dp/B000RIWAXU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=U...

Yes, Johnston is a very fine composer. He also wrote a wonderful score for the recent film version of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, which also shared the same director and seems to be similarly aggravating as an interpretation of an author's life/work.

I watched this for the first time last week, it being required for a college class I'm taking ... and I didn't particularly like it. It is beautifully shot, has a very nice soundtrack—Julian Jerrold is a composer to look out for, I tell you—and quite a fine cast. But I was generally unimpressed by both the screenplay and the direction, and the failed elopement was the height of ridiculousness. That simply would never have happened in those days; it was quite improper. And it really didn't add anything to the storyline either. Overall, entertaining, but pure Hollywood cheese nonetheless.

As an Austen biopic I much prefer Miss Austen Regrets.

I just finally saw this last week, and I was bothered by it. Talk all you want about whether it was too sexed, or too boring, or acted well or not, etc. Those aren't the 2 biggest problemsi have with it. First, the story didn't happen! There's little known about Austen's relationship with LeFroy, certainly not enough to ring out this sappy, unbelievable storyline. Keep in mind that this movie was promoted as true; the book version is sold in the biography section, not the fiction section. Second, the movie implies that Austen wasn't much of a writer until Lefroy come around to "inspire" her. If I remember my timetable correctly, she'd already written a few of her novels before she ever would've met him. One of the things I like about Austen as a woman was that she didn't "need" a man to be a successful woman. This movie throws that out the window.

On a personal note, Lefroy was a jerk in the movie. I know they were going for the arrogant Darcy-like quality, but it wasn't there for me. He was a womanizing, petty, cocky little boy, and I hated the fact that Jane Austen was portrayed as someone who would fall for that.

LSS, I agree with you on one point, but disagree on another:

1. Indeed Jane Austen did not need Lefroy to inspire her to write, and in particular, did not require him to point her to Tom Jones as an inspiration. The reality of their relationship was precisely the opposite. He was a moralizing prig (as evidence of which, read his Memoir--he lived till 90!--and you see he is the LAST person in the world to be recommending to anyone to read a sexually charged secular tale like Tom Jones--it was Jane Austen who had long since been aware of Fielding and all the other edgy literature of the 18th century long before she met Tom Lefroy).

I think McEvoy is a fantastic actor, but the Tom Lefroy he played was NOT the Tom Lefroy of real life!

2. There unquestionably WAS something between Lefroy and her that stayed in her mind for a long whle after he broke off with her-you are not correct that there's "little known"--there's lot of evidence which is very suggestive of something significant between them that ended abruptly.

But I thought there was something in her letters that said she and LeFroy discussed Tom Jones in "a very forward manner" or something of the sort. She had already read it, of course, but I believe they discussed it. And the significance of their relationship is a matter of debate among scholars ... it was certainly a significant flirtation, but more than that is difficult to tell.

I agree 100% with everything you said, LSS.

"But I thought there was something in her letters that said she and LeFroy discussed Tom Jones in "a very forward manner" or something of the sort. She had already read it, of course, but I believe they discussed it."

Here is what she wrote in Letter #1:

"After writing the above, we received a visit from Mr. Tom Lefroy and his cousin George. The latter is now very well-behaved, and the other, has only one fault, that time, I hope, will eliminate completely - that his jacket is much too light. It is a great admirer of Tom Jones, and then, I suppose, as with the same colors that he wore when he was injured."

If you've read enough of Jane Austen's letters, especially Letter #1, which is the earliest surviving letter (written when she was only 22), you know that Jane Austen loved to fill her letters with little jokes, put-ons, ministories where it is impossible to tell how serious she is being, or even if the event she is describing actually occurred, or was made up by her for her sister's amusement.

What I am reasonably certain of, in that context, is that the above passage is not reflective of a serious literary discussion between Jane and Tom. Certainly there is nothing there to suggest that Tom opened Jane's eyes to the worthiness of Tom Jones as a novel--it is very clear from the consistently wild level of absurdism in Jane Austen's Juvenilia, written by her during her teen years, that she already had a strong affinity with the absurd campiness of a writer like Fielding, and in particular Tom Jones.

So the depiction of Jane in the movie as ultraserious, and needing Tom Lefroy to tell her to basically chill out and lighten up, and pay attention to Fielding, is to me an absurd interpretation of that passage from her letter.