From what we know about Jane Austen, she was not especially attractive nor was she lucky in love. She was, merely, a brilliant woman with a cunning wit and keen insight into the human psyche. Becoming Jane seeks to overcome this handicap.
I adore Jane Austen as a hilariously brilliant and cynical writer with a keen ability to write characters. I adore that she was much more a smart ass than a romantic fool, using romance mostly as fodder for cynicism. What I do not adore is Miramax having Austen come into her own under the instruction of a man. I also do not adore that people find women more accessible when their lives are defined by relationships (romance is sweet; independent success, just sad and somewhat unnerving). The woman saw with her brain – we can’t owe that ability to a dreamy man in town for a month. Here are some quotes from Austen’s personal letters that show the snarky Austen I love, as represented by herself and not by Miramax.
“I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal."
[On the birth of a son to one of their sisters-in-law:]
"I give you joy of our new nephew, and hope if he ever comes to be hanged it will not be till we are too old to care about it."
[On another of their nephews, then about three years old:]
"I shall think with tenderness and delight on his beautiful and smiling countenance and interesting manner, until a few years have turned him into an ungovernable, ungracious fellow."
"I could no more write a [historical] romance than an epic poem. I could not sit seriously down to write a serious romance under any other motive than to save my life; and if it were indispensable for me to keep it up and never relax into laughing at myself or other people, I am sure I should be hung before I had finished the first chapter."
6 comments:
Once again, you make some excellent points. I do think that you should see the film before passing final judgement, but maybe you can wait for it to come out on DVD so that you can shout at the screen in the privacy of your own home. I remember how irritating I found Newt Gingrich for criticizing "Trainspotting" as promoting drug use when he had neither read the novel or seen the movie. That book (and the toilet scene in the film) is the reason I just said "no" when that dude on the tram offered me some smack. (Okay, he didn't really offer, but I still ran the other way when I saw him.) Not that I am in ANY way comparing you to ol' Newty, but true critical analysis requires one to view the primary source, not just reviews. Thus said, I totally agree with you and I haven't seen the movie, either.
I also like both cats and Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
I know, I know, but what fun is an educated opinion when compared to an unsubstantiated knee-jerk reaction? (And I totally agree about "Trainspotting"! I finished the movie in the fetal position, softly muttering, "Just say no, just say no…") If "Becoming Jane" was about a fictional Victorian woman named Jane Smith, I’d go in the name of a fun chick flick romp. It looks cute. But don’t be messin’ with my woman, Miramax. Of all the letters we have of Jane's, they chose the few about flirtation when creating the story of Austen’s self realization. It hurts, Fiz, it hurts. I'll watch it one day, and then blog again.
AND, to make matters worse, the local indy theatre is showing "Becoming Jane" in lieu of "Two Days in Paris." I can’t support such poor decision making.
And I can also relate to the pet and ice cream loving, as you know. But again, what fun is original thought when compared to a good ol’ cliché? Now, allow my feminist self to return to my bra burning and man hating…
Point 1:
Couldn't one make the argument that Miramax is simply excercising their rights as post-modernists by appropriating "Jane Austen" and interpreting her meta-realistically?
Point 2:
Is Miramax really to blame? Don't they simply reflect the tastes of their customers who want, nay, demand, a female character who is nothing without her man. You live in 2007 America, feminist chick, and the problem is much more systemic than you acknowledge.
Point 3:
I haven't seen the movie either, but I heard that it claims that Jane Austen, in addition to being a woman, didn't even write any of the novels that are attributed to her (except Northanger Abbey, which everyone knows is her least regarded work, anyway). If this is true, then the movie is indeed deplorable.
Point 4:
What's this about "Two Days in Paris"? Isn't that just the sequel to the Da Vince Code? Why do you want to see that?
Regards,
M & B
Ahhh, M&B, it's been a while! Glad to have you back. In response to your comment:
1. Yes, but because it is not as I imagine her, it is wrong. I re-imagine Austen as a professional soccer (er, football) player out to score not only a publishing contract and a husband, but a World Cup win for England.
2. I also blame Miramax for bad hair days and my dogs' inability to act normal in front of company. "Why yes, that is the girl dog humping the boy dog. We don't get it either."
3. I do believe the movie charges Austen with the offense of being a woman; however, I have to say "Mansfield Park" is the weakest of Austen’s work. Freakin’ Fanny Price, man. Congrats, Fanny, you married a guy who's practically your brother. Score! (rolls eyes)
4. Right. Now that we know that Jesus married Mary, it comes out that he also fathered Dumbledore AND Voldemort! If you look hard enough at The Last Supper, you see Neville Longbottom peeking in a window. Spoiler alert!
Are you saying Jesus was a Slytherin? I would have picked him for a Hufflepuff.
You're right, Jesus is total Hufflepuff. That would be an interesting topic: the Sorting Hat for religious, historic or literaty figures. MLA conference, here I come!
Post a Comment