Arwen-Undomiel.com
http://www.arwen-undomiel.com/forum/

Becoming Jane
http://www.arwen-undomiel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16306		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Larael [ August 17th, 2007, 11:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Becoming Jane
So, has anyone else seen this sad excuse for [another!] Jane Austen spin-off?

Usually, I'm quite happy with any Austen-book-turned-film, but this was going too far. Though an interesting part of Miss Austen's life to be sure, it isn't entirely accurate. Though I'm sure she was proposed to several times, sources say that she her romance with lawyer, Tom Lefroy, was not taken very far or to the extent that was showed in the movie. She nearly eloped with him for goodness sake! *exasperated noise*

Besides that glaring piece of fact, they cast Anne Hathaway as Jane! Admittedly, she has improved since her Princess Diary days, but not much by far. She's not even British! :eyeroll: [Her faux accent only added to the ridiculousness!] Originally, they were to cast Keira Knightly, Kate Winslett, or Natalie Portman for the role, all of which I think could have done it better.

All that aside, I did find one aspect of the movie rather intriguing. All throughout the movie, Jane writes her acclaimed novel Pride and Prejudice. If you've read the book before, or ever seen the movie, you'll notice how similar many of Austen's real life friends and family are made similar to her book characters. Most obviously Mr. Lefroy is likened to the supposed arrogant and impertinent Mr.Darcy.

Overall this wasn't a fabulous movie. It had some fairly good humour which made up for some of the overall awful bits.

How did everyone else feel about it?
Author:  Gilraen Ringeril [ August 18th, 2007, 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I haven't seen it yet, but I want to. Although now I'm afraid I'll be disappointed :( I have to admit I was a little upset when I heard about Anne Hathaway being Austen (she just doesn't seem right at all to me...) but I had hopes for the rest of the movie. But then again, I probably do not know as much about Austen as you, darling, so maybe I'll like it :teehee:
Author:  The Nightingale [ August 19th, 2007, 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure if
a. I'll get to
or
b. I'll make the final decision to go see it.
Author:  Eä [ August 19th, 2007, 3:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ahhh finally you've seen it dear Larael!

True, true, I wasn't impressed by Anne Hathaway. She looked adorable... or in Jane Austen's own words agreeable but I didn't see any passion in her acting - and her accent was just... not British!
But, like I have mentioned before, I was disappointed by the missing spark between her and James McAvoy.. they didn't succeed in convincing me their displayed love was real at any time.
I would have loved to see Kate Winslet as Jane!

I haven't read Pride & Prejudice (yet), but I've just recently seen the BBC series (yup, did a marathon, 6 hours straight!) so I didn't pick up the references.
And I don't know much about her life either so I can't tell how much matched.. but after all it is fiction and the movie didn't claim otherwise. :-)
Author:  Aramel Elyanwe [ August 19th, 2007, 7:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
I was going to go see this, but I guess not any more. I was kinda bordering on no anyway. :yes:

I love that about AU: you can review movies and warn others what's worth seeing. ;-)
Author:  Johnny's Fan [ August 19th, 2007, 7:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't think it was something I would have been considering anyway. I'm not too interested in biopics, especially ones of recent years, it has to be someone I really, really am interested in, or it has to have a cast of people I like.

Kate Winslett should have played her. 'Nuff said. :closedeyes:
Author:  Gilraen Ringeril [ August 19th, 2007, 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree, Kate Winslett is amazing :)
Author:  Larael [ August 19th, 2007, 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
@ Gily: Hullo.. I haven't talked to you in ages. :) If you don't know much about Austen's life and you don't mind Hathaway's acting skills then I don't see why you shouldn't see it. I guess I'm just too much of a factitious person when it comes to biopics. :P

@ Eä: No passion or spark in her acting or her supposed love for Mr. Lefroy. An overall disappointment on her part I should say.

Oo, you must read P&P and then watch it again! Nearly all of her close family and friends seem to be portrayed as characters in her book.

@ Aramel: Lol. Glad I could be helpful. Although I don't want to put anyone off seeing it just because I thought it was bad. My review was written in the view of a die-hard Austen fan. :yes:

@ JF: No, you definitely wouldn't've liked it, even if you did have a fancy for biopics. Trust me.
Author:  Johnny's Fan [ August 19th, 2007, 10:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well I'll take your word for it. I'm a bit sniffy when British parts get given to foreign actresses, unless said actresses are amazing at being able to potray characters of different nationalities to their own (Cate Blanchett for example). So that would probably have annoyed me for starters. I'm also wary of bio's as they tend to exaggerate what really happened in that person's life. Normally this doesn't bother me, and with older biopics I don't even question it, but modern films tend to exaggerate it so much that even I start to ask myself "did this really happen" and then of course, I go to Wiki, and find half of what happened didn't. (Finding Neverland is guilty of this, but the film outweighed the exaggerations so I'll let it off. ;))
Author:  Ms.Gamgee [ August 19th, 2007, 11:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh, Lar, I dont think you should be terribly hard on the film.
The director did always say that it was going to be "a fictional biography", and it was always intended to stray away from Jane Austen's life, I'm sure it was nothing like that at all, i did still really enjoy it.
It was better than I expected in the least.

I do agree about Anne's accent, but it's not like she didn't feel the pressure of making a movie like this, and almost quit because she thought she wouldn't give a good performance, so she did try her best.
Plus, James McAvoy was totally worth sitting down for.
But maybe that's just me.

One of the things I did really like was how she titled the book "First Impressions" when she started writing P&P. Because in real life too, that was what she had originally named the book, and i did like that bit.
Author:  Larael [ August 19th, 2007, 11:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
@ JF: You have confirmed it then. I definitely wouldn't go see this movie if I were you. They definitely take her romance with said lawyer, Lefroy, to the extreme. Very, very exaggerated.

@ Ms.G: I am being a bit hard, aren't I? It's just, I was expecting something really well done, but it just came out over-exaggerated. I guess I'm just too much of a die-hard Austen fan, so I was expecting something a bit more... accurate. Anyway, I'm glad someone enjoyed it at least. :)
Author:  Johnny's Fan [ August 20th, 2007, 12:03 am ]
Post subject: 
My question to the film makers is this: if the person's real life was not interesting enough to make into a film then why not scrap the idea and move on? Why bother with a "fictional biography"?

Why not be original and not take the story of a real person's life and make up 80% of it, why not create a person, a writer, make out they were real, and make the film a "fictional biography"?.

People complain about the unoriginality of films these days, and 95% of the films that reach the cinema screens are unoriginal. Biopics and remakes have to have a really good reason for their existance in my opinion. They are just taking up screen time for films that are different and unique and are not based on a real person and exaggerated or twisted. [/rant]
Author:  Larael [ August 20th, 2007, 1:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
A very good point m'dear. Of course, I'd rather see something accurately based off the person it's about rather than something almost made up.
Author:  Johnny's Fan [ August 20th, 2007, 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Me too. But I like it when they make "biopics" of people who actually never existed, but in the film they are real, if you know what I mean.
Author:  Larael [ August 20th, 2007, 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm confused.. how can it be a bio of the person is made up? Maybe I'm being really thick or something, but I can't wrap my head around that.
Author:  Johnny's Fan [ August 20th, 2007, 4:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gah, I can't think of the film or the person, but they did make one.

For instance, let's just say they made a film about someone who was the first person to cross the Sahara in a paddleboat. But the thing is, this person never existed, but in the film they treat it like he/she did. You may even get a little title credit at the end of the film saying "so and so after becoming the first person to cross the Sahara in a paddleboat, inpsired thousands to try crosing different landscapes in boats. He/she lived on until on March 22nd 1987, he/she passed away".

So it is the biographical film of someone completely invented. Sometimes the actual scenario is correct, say the Signing of the Declaration of Independance, but the person the film is concentrating on, is comepletely made up.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/