Lettre ouverte à Jane Austen

An enjoyable film that, for the genre it's in, was not very predictable, and in this way was a very pleasant watch. I really wasn't sure what to expect. I figured with Jane Austen's named tagged onto it it'd be some kind of emotional film with lots of angst. Perhaps it might be a period piece. But this isn't what I got.

I have to admit that I've never cracked a Jane Austen novel, but had seen many a British import on PBS rendering Austen's works for the small screen. And I half expected a costume drama to unfold on the screen, but got something that was a little more cliché in one way, but very unique in another.

The film uses Austen's plots as set piece examples from which the characters learn, apply to their personal lives, and grow. I have to say that I saw some aspects of my own personal life ingrained in this film. One might call it art imitating life, imitating art, only to imitate life once more. As an audience member whose been through some unique experiences as of recent, I found it heart felt. But I digress.

The film is respectably shot. Warm lighting compliments respectable though average cinematography. But then again the film isn't about wowing the audience with stunning visuals. It's about presenting characters and how they relate to one of the great writers of all time and her works.

The humor revolves around the unexpected, as do the more tragic and hurtful points. But even here there's a sort of unpredictable-predictability that, because of its exuberance, can be accepted for what it is. The characters behave as expected, but are surprised with the audience when the unexpected pops up. We can sympathize with them and their situations. It's what might be called the ultimate in character empathy--Austen style.

And isn't that one of Austen's great hallmarks? Her ability to create characters one can believe and sympathize with on all levels? Austen's books are used to create a tapestry of themes to navigate the highs and woes of life. The film's irreverent narrative remains intelligent, adult, somewhat prosaic and marginally didactic, but highly enjoyable for the most part.

A respectable chick-flick. :-) Enjoy!

I have noticed a disturbing and frequent pattern in movies whereby it is depicted as normal for an old man (usually unattractive and overweight) to be in a romantic relationship with a much younger (always attractive and slim) girl. But it's extremely rare to see this in the reverse and when you do see it, it is never a 'normal' relationship, but always something purely sexual, unhealthy and fleeting. I'm assuming that is because it is not of interest nor does it fulfil the fantasies/daydreams of the typical older, overweight and un-attractive men who run the Hollywood film industry.

So, it was such a lovely breath of fresh air to finally have a script where two main characters, an older woman with a younger man, have a healthy, sweet and normal romantic relationship, that is depicted to last. This is far more common and 'normal' in modern real life than depicted in Hollywood movies, not to mention much more interesting to the large female audience.

Emily Blunt's acting is fantastic.

I saw this movie at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival and made a point of learning as little as possible about what it was about and who was in it. Such a refreshing way to be invited into a story.

Though this movie will never win an academy award and it's premise revolves around a well-known British author, this is a very "Hollywood" movie.

The ensemble cast is like a large-scale painting with each character portraying different colours and brush strokes. Their diversity brings perspective and depth to the story.

I loved Bernadette's (Kathy Baker) ballsy and ebullient pseudo-matriarchal figure; and I silently cheered for Jocelyn (Maria Bello) to break out of her disciplined and 'in-control' habits, but it was Emily Blunt's portrayal of Prudie that shone a light giving the sharpest and most emotional contrast of all. She, who steadfastly distanced herself from the social class she grew up in, and worked tirelessly to elevate herself "to the manor born", convinced herself, with her stylish bob, Chanel-esquire attire and fanciful forays into french phrasology, that she was beyond the mundane and ordinary. She convinced me she was both strong and fragile, and my heart broke along with hers. What a lovely performance.

This isn't high-brow film by any means. The audience's biggest challenge is listening for and extracting the many Austen quotes that get zipped and zinged throughout the film. We are ultimately drawn to watching the ever-changing relationships, like petri dishes being poked and provoked.

This movie will be enjoyable even for those unfamiliar with Jane Austen's novels. A visually appealing, emotionally satisfying, safe and somewhat predictable film. Most likely to be pegged as a chick flick because it's heavy on relationships. Guys' loss.

Let's get one thing out of the way, first. This IS largely a chick-flick, although many men who go to see it are likely to get caught up in at least one of the subplots. The litmus test is Love, Actually--if you enjoyed that movie, and are a man, I imagine you'll like this one as well. There are several attractive females, some lesbian domestic affection scenes handled with remarkable matter-of-factness, and the film (and novel) handles the male characters gently and with love.

But it is a movie that with primary appeal to two groups--chicks and Jane Austen devotees, including the male ones. Are there enough of these to make a movie a success? Yes, there are.

Jane Austen's work stays current because she wrote about timeless themes--how do you choose the best person to marry? Is love enough, or even required for lifelong contentment? How do you deal with difficult or embarrassing family members? How best to handle a family crisis? How do you learn to tell true friends and quality persons from those who are perhaps flashy and amusing, but will end up betraying your friendship and trust or, heaven forfend, tempting you to abandon your own principles? Whether you live in the age of Blackberries and Hybrid SUV's, or the age of sealing wax and barouches, every person comes smack up against many or most of these vexing problems throughout their lives.

The conceit of this movie and the book it is based upon is that a shared love and appreciation of the works of Jane Austen can provide the currency through the exchange of which modern women (and a few selected men) can confront, share, and come to better understand their personal challenges and in the process, form bonds of friendship or even romance. The strength of this movie is that even if you have a tough time with that conceit, you will still enjoy the humor of it, and the strong performances. It's pleasant to watch, like curling up with a favorite book and a frothy cup of chocolate. It is true to Jane—no explosions, the villains aren't completely evil, the primary problems of the characters stem from incomplete or willfully-faulty understanding of themselves and those around them, there is no melodrama or Gothic touches except of the parody sort, and the lone death happens off screen.

I have this weird little theory about why P&P is the MOST beloved of all of Austen's books. Sure, Darcy is a smoldering hunk of tightly-controlled passion and Lizzie is as spirited and intelligent a heroine as ever nanced through a foot of mud to get to the bedside of an ailing sister, but that's not it.

In all the other Austen pairings, you had a sense that they were pairings which would truly happen in real life because deep down we know nothing has really changed from Austen's day--women's beauty and youth and social standing is factored into a certain equation which determines how handsome, wealthy, charming, accomplished, or respected a man she is able to aspire to. In no case, other than P&P, does this basic equation get violated. Lady Catherine De Bourg had it right. A shocking match, indeed! The Lizzie/Darcy romance, therefore, is the lone Cinderella story, and don't give me Edmund and Fanny, as Edmund was a younger son most in need of a virtuous wife who wouldn't ever embarrass him and was never laid out as a man of wildly attractive appearance while virtuous Fanny's looks were improved enough to attract the flirtatious Henry Crawford.

So, we women, all of us, are madly in love with P&P precisely because it is the ultimate fantasy of this amazing guy who will love us JUST FOR OUR QUICK WIT, GOOD HEART, and FINE EYES. There are no Mr. Darcy's, just like there are no characters of the sort commonly played by John Cusack, so get over it, already. There is possibly a Mr. Rochester, but remember, he had a crazy wife locked in the attic, a creepy housekeeper, an insipid ward, a bit of a sarcastic streak, and was once played on screen by a pudgy Orson Wells. In other words, a lot of baggage. And he still wasn't able to be brought up to scratch by Plain Jane Eyre until his fine big house had been burned down, his eyes put out, and his arm messed up. Now THAT is reality.

It is true in real life that single dog breeders can, and do, meet nice men and fall in love and maybe even get married. It is also true that nice, handsome, heterosexual men join book clubs*.

But this movie serves up impossibly cute Hugh Dancy in the role of an implausibly unattached, adorably geeky Grigg Harris who loves reading, older women, and can dance gracefully despite being too clumsy to artfully sip a cocktail. The statistical probability of such an attractive and unspoiled man (one who admits he is willing to be "directed") like this joining your book club and then actually wanting to develop a romantic relationship with an unattached woman older than himself is approximately the same as seeing one of the Dragonriders of Pern barnstorming over an Iowa cornfield.

In the RL JABC, Grigg would be gay and Allegra would be straight and Bernadette would be queuing up for the Early Bird Special at Cracker Barrel. And your cheating ex-spouse, Jimmy Smits, ain't never coming back, and if he did, it would be after a series of weepy drunken whiny pathetic phone calls at 3am. There will be no "letter". This movie is a little bit cruel to imply otherwise.

But that's OK. The world would be a very unkind place without at least the notion of dragons and rocketships, Darcys and Griggs. And that is why we loved it.

*with wife.

I'm not a Jane Austen fan. I have not read any of the books and I have only seen two movies based on the books. However, I liked "The Jane Austen Book Club" more than either of those movies.

While it is not particularly realistic, the characters are interesting and likable, the acting is good, and it is not filled with violence and vulgarity, something that seems to be hard to find in the movie theater right now.

All the actors are good but Emily Blunt really stands out. She could end up being a big star. And who knew that Maggie Grace was a real actress and not just the bimbo she played on "Lost."

"The Jane Austen Fan Club" is not a masterpiece and you can probably wait for it to show up on video, but with the poor variety currently available in the theaters, it is the best thing out right now.