It's been quite succesful. Rene Zellwegger was hilarious as portly publicist Bridget Jones and wonderful when she played Beatrix Potter. Gwyneth Paltrow impressed us all as Lady Viola in Shakespeare in Love and was excellent opposite John Hannah in London-set Sliding Doors.
Becoming Jane, the new biography of Jane Austen, rather daringly follows this movement by casting the stunning Anne Hathaway as Britain's most enduring female author.
Does it work?
Almost, but not quite. Which is pretty much how I felt about the entire movie.
Becoming Jane is a highly fictionalised account of Jane Austen's early years, as her financially strapped parents struggle to find her a suitable husband. Headstrong Jane rails against the notion of marrying for anything but love - and defies society by promising to 'live by her pen.'
Now I know what you're thinking. This does sound an awful lot like the plot of Miss Potter. Except without the animated rabbits. But read on...
While living in Hampshire with her parents (although the movie was filmed in Ireland, hence why the countryside looks nothing like the rolling hills around Winchester) Jane encounters Thomas Lefroy, a reckless, arrogant Irish lawyer. In a plot that mirrors Jane's magnum opus, Pride and Prejudice, Lefroy and Jane overcome their initial reservations and fall madly in love.
Their parents fail to approve, but Jane and Tom pledge to marry whatever the obstacles...
Oh, wait, this sounds remarkably like the plot of Miss Potter as well. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Anyway. Complications arise, fiction reluctantly follows fact and Jane dies a spinster, her books only just becoming popular.
I managed to sum up the plot in two short paragraphs. However writer Kevin Hood managed to spin this yarn out across two interminable hours. Where the Tom/Jane love match looked like faltering, some interesting subplots were teased along and my biggest complaint about this film is that they wound up being far more interesting than Jane's life story itself.
It's such a pity too. Almost every other facet of this film is promising. Anne Hathaway's performance is almost excellent, her British accent perfect and her screen presence undeniable. However Kevin Hood gave her such a negligible role it was impossible for her to get her teeth into it.
The rest of the all star cast, including James Cromwell and Julie Walters, fared much better, really rising to the occasion and lighting up the screen as they were given the best lines and most dramatic scenes. But like a Sunday roast, cramming the plate with trimmings is unsatisfactory if there's no real meat to enjoy.
The film looks beautiful as well, although cinematographer Eigil Bryld indulges in some cheap MTV camera tricks on at least two occasions, which really jar with the peace and pacing of the rest of the film. The score is flat and predictable, seemingly lifted note-for-note from one of the recent Austen adaptations, but in a regency drama like this, I'm not sure what else they could have used which wouldn't have seemed out of place.
Once all the pieces have been assembled, the entire movie looks and sounds good. It's only the horrible writing that really makes it fall down flat. I found myself looking at my watch several times, waiting to see when the story was going to wrap up to it's predictable conclusion. That in itself was a cinematic crime that can't be ignored.
I'd recommend this film only if you're an avid Austen fan - although prepare to be disappointed. Despite what little actual plot Kevin Hood scribbled down, most of it is highly fictionalised.
No comments:
Post a Comment