★ 4 / 10
**Romanticizing Jane.** Jane Austen was a nonconformist. She
Filipe Manuel Neto
**Romanticizing Jane.** Jane Austen was a nonconformist. She was the seventh child of an Anglican priest and belonged to what we might now call the middle…
**Romanticizing Jane.**
Jane Austen was a nonconformist. She was the seventh child of an Anglican priest and belonged to what we might now call the middle class. She had many books at home, and both parents taught her to read and write, supported her, recognized in her the same talent we all know her now. Moreover, she was unlucky in love: it does not seem that her parents sought to marry her, it is quite plausible that she did not want to marry for economic reasons and the love affairs that we know of her were short and fruitless. With the publication, very shy, of her first editions, the writer's financial situation improved, and public recognition begin to appear. Sadly, the author died quite young, without collect the fruits of her talent.
I am not an expert on Jane Austen, but this is, very briefly, the author's biography, almost sketched in a stream. The film focuses on her youth and builds romantic fiction around her. Personally, I'm dubious about much of what happens in this movie. I think much of it is romantic invention, almost turning Austen into one of her own characters, torn between the attention of two very different suitors.
The film is not bad, but it is far from flawless and will never be one of the reference “biopics”, at least in my understanding. Julian Jarrold's direction was effective, but he gives us a work that bets more on the construction of the characters and the story than on the relationship between the film and the real life of the biographed person. The cinematography is good and there are some good effects. The soundtrack is mediocre. The period recreation was reasonably done, resorting to decent costumes and good locations and sets. In between, however, there are some grotesque errors and anachronisms: in the ball scene, Jane appears with a dress twenty years ahead of the time, in another scene we see wedding rings, something that did not exist at that time, and in another one we see Jane being recognized as the writer of a novel when, in fact, she published anonymously several of her books and got very little recognition in her lifetime. Even her epitaph, on her tomb in Winchester Cathedral, ignored her literary output until it was replaced by new text in the late 19th century.
In the midst of all this, the extraordinary dramatic interpretation of the actors stands out, and especially Anne Hathaway, who gave the character a touch of kindness mixed with a marked rebelliousness and nonconformity. She didn't want to be like other women. James McAvoy also does a very interesting job in this film and deserves our full attention. The film also has good performances by James Cromwell, Julie Walters, Maggie Smith and Ian Richardson.
Read full review
★ 8 / 10
Pleasant film
mooning_out_the_window
I have to say that I enjoyed it. I think there were some problems with it, but overall a nice film. Hathaway's accent is very good apart from a couple of very…
I have to say that I enjoyed it. I think there were some problems with it, but overall a nice film. Hathaway's accent is very good apart from a couple of very minor slips that could almost go unnoticed. The film, the person I went with said, was a little too slow in places, but I did not find this so. I think that the director perhaps put a little too much emphasis on Austen's inspirations for her novels and in particular Pride and Prejudice, but I did not mind this too much as that is my favourite novel. The acting all round was very good. MaCavoy played it nicely, giving a lot of energy. I thought that the opening and closing were perhaps a little weak. I don't want to say too much in case others have not seen it yet (though of course most know the ending, they may not know the films interpretation of it). Perhaps the only few weaknesses to the film was the fact that perhaps Hathaway was too pretty to play Austen, though she did a very competent job indeed. I think that Anna Maxwell Martin may perhaps have been more suited?! The other is that I would have liked to have seen slightly more quick wittedness on the part of Jane. She was shown as competent, but not as cutting and quick as I and, I imagine, many believe she was. However, despite this I quite enjoyed the film, and wouldn't mind watching it again. It is better that Pride and Prejudice 2005 adaptation in my opinion. 8/10.
Read full review
★ 7 / 10
Stumbled and fell on an excess of endings
alicefinklestein
I was fortunate to come across an article explaining this film. It is a speculative fiction based upon a few facts. Speculation was aroused by the fact that a…
I was fortunate to come across an article explaining this film. It is a speculative fiction based upon a few facts. Speculation was aroused by the fact that a woman who never married and apparently never had a love affair came to have such a deep and intelligent understanding of relationships. I shan't expand on how potentially offensive that is. But story line is based on a few simple facts. While he was in the country Jane Austen would have almost certainly met Mr Lefroy; while on a journey to see her sister she had a rather long stop off in London during which time she began writing Pride and Prejudice and there was the mention of some letters.
It started out so well; the stifling quiet of a country life broken by our future genius at work. The structure of this opening sequence was very effective. I was thinking I'm going to love this film. But there was a niggling in the back of my mind. None of the reviews had been great, but I didn't know why (I hadn't actually read any only seen the 2 ½ or 3 stars).
I continued thinking it was wonderful through most of the film. James McAvoy was beautifully intense, Anne Hathaway was solid, Maggie Smith delightfully amusing and Anna Maxwell Martin underused. There were some beautiful scenes, some so intense. For example a scene in a ball when they are both standing back to back apparently to talking other people but having a very deep conversation.
But then, as with far too many movies we moved through the climax to an ending of this story line and that story line oh and we'd better conclude this one as well and now everything is tied up in a neat little bundle.
This is a film that would have benefited from an ambivalent ending, because, aside from the fact that we know she ends up the Western World's highest selling female author the film wasn't actually about that. The film was about the journey toward it. To have left us hanging when, perhaps, she was leaving Lefroy or back in her stiflingly quiet house would have been much more effective in terms of the story and strengthened the film. It simply is not a happy ending but they tried their damned well hardest to make it one.
I'm afraid I must give this a very generous 7 rather than what could have been a deserving 8 had the film makers (or the studio or whoever the twats are that decide on these things) the courage to make this a film, not Hollywood.
Read full review
58%
TOMATOMETER
· 140 reviews
74%
AUDIENCE
· 100K ratings
7.0/10
68.9K
•••
This movie is good, I don't know why nobody recommend it.