Becoming Jane

Although I can be considered a Jane Austen addicted, it took me a long time before watching this movie, since I feared it was a melodramatic, sentimentalist and inconsistent pseudo-biography of the English novelist. Indeed, my fears were confirmed when I saw it, the movie proves much inconsistency, and has nothing to do with Austen's life and inner world, as it can be inferred from her novels, since we do not know much about her biography.

Let's say that this story between the roguish Tom Lefroy and her is pure fiction, this man in only mentioned twice in Jane's letters to her sister Cassandra, but no love story has ever been recorded. I think the director and the producer, on the wave of Jane Austen's cinematographic revival and success of recent years, aimed at making a pleasant, audience-attracting movie (and in fact they chose an Anne Hathaway, whose stunning beauty is by itself attractive, but very far from Austen's physical appearance). They made a work of juxtaposition between her literary production and her quite unknown personal life, and interpreted her life according to the plot of her novels, mainly Pride and Prejudice, but again disregarding the true nature of her inner struggles and motivations. This improbable, mainly considering Austen's secluded and never independent life, love story is romantic, seductive, but the complexity of her inner world and the world of her heroines, is totally missing.

In this way, the final product is enjoyable, the always charming English (and Irish) locations contribute greatly to an overall agreeable perception. Whenever I see or visit some English countryside, or mansion, I immediately fall in love with them, that's why I could probably never dislike such a movie completely , but it totally missed the point, and leaves much to be desired, in terms of rendering something vaguely true about the English novelist (but this was not probably the point of the production, as I said before). In the end, the movie can be viewed as a pleasant, amusing, and well acted fiction of a young, beautiful lady, fond of Jane Austen and trying to experience in life what she read in novels, wanting to become Jane but never turning into her.

I thought it was a great story and very well cast. I didn't enter the theatre with expectations of learning the truth about Jane Austen's world, who was in it and what made her tick. I understood the movie was loosely based on the life of Jane Austen. The writers have simply devised a beautiful and clever story from only a small shred of evidence that there was a true love in her life. From what I gather the movie was really meant to be an fictional intervention in her life devised from what was known of her. I thought Becoming Jane was funny, beautifully shot and it made me giddy with lust over McEvoy. I loved the sexual energy and meeting of the minds between the love interests. I saw quite a few parallels between this story and Jane's novels. I really believe that Jane would absolutely adore this version, if not find it amusing how it was crafted. I do agree that to create a story about a much loved female author is risky territory, as there are devoted fans of Austen's who are looking for a representation that they personally feel fits their idea of what motivated her as a writer.

Hollywood can't seem to get enough of dead female English writers. Hot on the heels of Miss Potter, and in advance of films about the Brontes, we have this romantic confection about Jane Austen's youthful fling with Irish barrister Tom Lefroy.

There have already been howls of criticism from outraged Janeites that the film is historically inaccurate. It's true that English teachers will have a fit at some elements of the story: at best speculative and unsubstantiated, at worst downright erroneous. The filmmakers admittedly didn't have a lot of historical material to work from. The true background to the story is contained in a couple of letters written by Jane Austen to her sister Cassandra, and an admission by Tom Lefroy in old age that he had once been in 'boyish love' with the writer. On this slightly shaky platform, the filmmakers have built a story of repressed passion and defiance of social mores that is a work of fiction worthy of a novel in its own right.

This doesn't really matter. Nobody in their right mind would ever accept the version of events presented by a Hollywood biopic as historical gospel. The only viewers who will be taken in by the story seen here will be those who are too lazy, too uninterested or too credulous to do the modicum of research needed to find out the real facts, and who cares what such people think? This film may be largely untrue, but what really matters is whether it works on its own terms, qua film.

Unfortunately, it doesn't, or at least not entirely. The main reason for this is the underlying premise. It is implied that without Jane and Tom's youthful affair Jane Austen would never have written her six great novels, and in particular (perhaps because it's the most familiar to audiences) Pride and Prejudice. We see Jane angrily destroying a juvenile story criticized by Tom, and later, in the throes of love, bashing out the first draft of P & P (in a single night, which shows an impressive turn of speed). It's plain that, as Tom tells her, 'experience is vital'.

The same clunkingly literal idea – that an artist must experience emotions in order to write about them successfully - underscored Shakespeare in Love, but there it was handled with a rather lighter touch. Here we are asked to believe that Pride and Prejudice was not a distillation of all Jane Austen's youthful experiences enlivened by a vivid imagination, a sharp sense of humour and a dollop of literary genius, but the next best thing to a true story. The reasons for this approach are obvious: cinema can dramatize Johnny Cash learning the guitar, or Picasso experimenting with paint, but the spectacle of a writer sitting at a desk dreaming and scribbling palls pretty rapidly.

The irony of a film that takes such wild liberties with the facts relying upon this trite old idea would certainly have been apparent to Jane Austen, whose mastery of irony is emphasized rather unsubtly throughout. Moreover, it's intellectually dishonest; lacking the ability to create a Mr Darcy, the filmmakers borrow freely from Jane Austen's characterisation in creating Tom, and thereby cheekily suggest that the author was the one who lacked the imagination to make such a person up.

These reservations aside, does the film have anything going for it? Yes. The script has some witty moments and at least makes a decent stab at realistic 18th century dialogue. Ireland is a surprisingly effective and gorgeous substitute for Hampshire, and the autumnal palette of washed-out greens and greys is appropriately sombre. Anne Hathaway is an attractively skittish and impetuous Jane, and she has excellent chemistry with James McAvoy, whose performance as Tom, by turns mercurial and obsessive, is well up to his usual high standards. Reliable support comes from James Cromwell, Julie Walters, the late great Ian Richardson and Maggie Smith, who essentially reprises her character from Gosford Park. The problem is that the lovers' behaviour never really convinces us that this relationship was the foundation of Jane Austen's later literary success, and ultimately peters out into a series of implausible endings, the number of which gives Hot Fuzz and The Return of the King a run for their money. Becoming Jane isn't an awful film, but it doesn't make the grade as a Regency Brief Encounter.

This is an imagined semi-biographical story of Jane Austen. It's around 1795, and Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) is a rebellious young woman before her great works. She forms a combative relationship with rogue Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy) while her family wants a more aristocratic match in Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox) and stability of money.

It's very doubtful that this has much relationship to reality, but it's still a very good movie. Hathaway and McAvoy are great young actors, and they have magnetic chemistry. It's really an interesting way to create an Austen-like story by using her own life. And I do like the ending and the depressing tone no matter how little it has to do with her true life. We must allow for poetic license. I do wish for a faster start to the drama. Once it gets started, there are great performances such as Julie Walters as Jane's mother in addition to the two leads. I like to think of this as a Jane Austen novel that she never got to write herself.

Today Jane Austen is recognized as one of the greatest writers in the English speaking world. Not so in 1795 when this story takes place and she's a young woman who wants to marry for love something unheard of in those days.

Jane's middle class parents have a suitable match for her. Dull Laurence Fox who has some family connections to some of the landed gentry in the Great Britain of George III. But Jane sets her sights on James McAvoy, a wild Irish lad and both the wild and the Irish are objected to in equal parts by parents James Cromwell and Julie Walters.

Anne Hathaway who does a wonderful job playing all kinds of bright and eager young women is a bright and eager Jane Austen. In an age when women tended to the sewing and weren't supposed to have opinions, she has them by the wagon load. No one, least of all her parents will tell her whom she is to love and marry.

As for McAvoy, he's a lawyer and a wild child who likes to have a bit of fun and delights in slumming at the grog houses and even getting into prize fights. Those matches were long before the Marquis of Queensbury set down any rules as you'll see.

The passion does burn bright between the two, but as we know Jane never did marry and died relatively young. Why is what you see the film for.

Hathaway and McAvoy will charm you as Hathaway goes on her life mission in Becoming Jane.