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.

I must admit, I couldn't make out what this film was trying to be ... but I did like it.

Was it about Jane Austen's bit of juvenilia, Sir Charles Grandison, and theatrical productions of it?

Was it about Ariadne and her struggles with herself and her need to become a star?

Was it about Katya and her other life as a smoky bar dive singer?

Was it about Liliana and Pierre and the feelings they still had for themselves, years after they had been bedfellows?

Was it about theatre technique and the insecurities of those who live by greasepaint alone?

It is a slow, ponderous film, with some memorable sequences amongst the dull interludes; I like to call the good sequences the bits of gold in the sand!

Jane Austen's play, from what we see here, is hopeless, and I am sure those who paid big money at auction for it were kicking themselves afterwards - but as a starting point for a movie, Merchant Ivory have done a good job with their fresh new setting.

Robert Powell, fresh from Jesus of Nazareth, is good as Pierre but isn't quite charismatic enough to carry off his Svengali-like role. Anne Baxter is excellent in her final film role as the determined and devious Liliana, her appearance in the film is one of quiet dignity and of true star quality, and she can be funny too. Baxter's daughter Katrina Hodiak impresses as moody and mixed-up Katya and gets to perform a few lovely songs (one wonders why she didn't do more movies ... I was also struck by her strong resemblance to her father, 40s star John Hodiak). And Sean Young, in one of her earliest roles as Ariadne, is OK if you get past the big hair, but you would never have believed from this that she would become a star in films to come.

'Jane Austen in Manhattan' takes a fresh spin on an old author but does it by making a dark, complicated (and often yawn-inducing) movie.

However ... for those nuggets of gold, and they are there ... I would happily watch it again.

Having acquired the rights to a play penned by Jane Austen during her childhood, an avant-garde theatre director attempts to do justice to Austen's words and "bring her up-to-date" while a former associate tries to convince his actors to perform the play more traditionally in this little seen Merchant-Ivory film. Robert Powell, fresh from 'Harlequin' (where he played an equally hypnotic character), is solid as the avant-garde director in question who believes that "we all live in clichés" and that his fey vision is faithful. Anne Baxter in her last big screen performance is also well cast as his former associate. It is not, however, always interesting to watch them argue source material fidelity and with much talk and limited atmosphere and action, 'Jane Austen in Manhattan' has found a reputation as Merchant-Ivory's nadir. Such an assessment may be a little harsh, however, this is very much one of those films where the story behind it is more fascinating than the movie itself. Apparently James Ivory acquired the film rights to Austen's play without having even read it. Upon reading the play and finding it insubstantial for motion picture (Austen was, of course, very young when she wrote it), Ivory almost passed it up until Ruth Prawer Jhabvala suggested making a film about those who wish to and attempt to perform the play - not unlike 'Adaptation.', to which the film sometimes has been compared. This in turn renders 'Jane Austen in Manhattan' one of Merchant-Ivory's most intricate efforts, and if a failure, it is certainly an ambitious one.

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.

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.