Jane Austen in Manhattan

I certainly do not agree that this is in any way a minor Merchant-Ivory film. It can only be considered that if we over value his films that are based on authors such as Henry James or E. M. Forster. With ' Jane Austen in Manhattan ' he clearly realised that there was little substance in a 12 year olds play, however famous the author was. He cleverly puts the spotlight on Manhattan in the last year of the 1970's and the experimental theatre that was taking place at the time. In doing this he shows us a very different Manhattan than today when Lofts were used for artistic purposes and not chic over priced places to live in. He shows us the streets of Manhattan, and there is very little glamour in what he shows. Cleverly he depicts two rivals played by Anne Baxter ( in one of her finest roles, and sadly her last ) and Robert Powell. They both want to put on this trivial play in very different ways and the film becomes an elegy for a lost New York when people could be playful with themselves, unaware of the cold wind of the future when a lot of the fun of living there would succumb to a terrible epidemic which would wipe out so many people; people who loved creativity for itself and not just in monetary terms. Watching it in 2024 is like seeing another world, another way of existing. Visually it is less polished perhaps than films like ' A Room With A view ' but in many subtle ways it is more profound. The acting is excellent and fresh, and the characters fully rounded with their schemes and their light hearted change of partners. Baxter has two scenes when she reflects on theatre and life, and recalling her performance in ' All About Eve ' and bearing it in mind a perceptive viewer can see and hear that very same Eve Harrington, willing to fight for what she wants. To sum up this film is a great film and its time capsule is brilliantly conveyed.

It seems that a manuscript of Jane Austen's play "Sir Charles Grandison" was in fact discovered fairly recently. I have not read it, but I cannot believe that Ivory-Merchant-Jhabvala could really have understood it. Austen's young writings are brilliantly comic, but if there is anything funny in `Jane Austen in Manhattan' I missed it.

The film could have been a good satirical comedy. Maybe parts of it are funny to the Manhattan in crowd of the off-off-Broadway theatre, but you will have to know the participants in that activity a lot better than I do to enjoy this movie.

The central figure seems to be that played by Sean Young. James Ivory does not bring out any aspect of competence or charm this young woman may have, thus making the contest for her participation in the two competing efforts to produce a play pointless.

People who read the title, Jane Austen in Manhattan, are likely to come to this film expecting something other than what James Ivory and his frequent collaborators present us. It's not the sparkling comedy of manners, of love and money, that Ivory gave us in A Room with a View. It's more of a drama, and it's not about Jane Austen really at all.

But it's not a lost cause, thanks to some fine performances, especially from Anne Baxter, in her last starring role. Sean Young is luminous, with her big, intoxicating eyes. Robert Powell has a more difficult role of being hypnotic to some while being openly transparent to others.

This very long1980 movie isn't the worst Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala movie (that would be "Jefferson in Paris") but is numbingly dull even to an admirer of many of their movies. I'd assign blame mostly to Jhabvala's screenplay about two radically different troupes vying for the chance to première a (real) recently discovered play written at age twelve by Jane Austen. From what we see of it, Austen wasn't much of a playwright at age 12 (who is?!).

Jhabvala imagines a charismatic experimentalist Svengali (Robert Powell) pitted against a socially well-connected aging actress whom he had used and abandoned earlier (Anne Baxter in her last big-screen role paying off the sins of Eve Harrington?). She wants to stage an operatic version. It defies plausibility that the experimentalist actors have operatic voices, but the audience has to simply accept that, while trying to care about any of the characters struggling to survive whimsical arts patronage. I could muster a bit of sympathy for Baxter, and more for the very handsome spurned husband played by Kurt Johnson, but couldn't care less about the "star" played by Sean Young (in her first screen role) or about which absurd production got supported and mounted off- Broadway.

First off I want to say that this is more of a drama with comedic overtones. The comedy is very subtle and dry. Of course, I'm not very familiar with Austen's work, so I'm certain that some of the jokes were completely over my head.

This film is too flawed for me to recommend, but I wouldn't dismiss it either-you know the type. It is somewhat pretentious and at times incomprehensible. The pace is very slow; a trait which here works equally for and against it I think.

What I did like was that, for a drama/comedy, it has a very weird vibe, almost dark at times. Or maybe it was just me.

It all adds up to a film that was alternatingly boring and intriguing. I say only check this out if you like seeing something different and don't mind a slow pace. I would be interested in seeing what a Jane Austen fan thinks of this film.