I just watched a movie on TV that was released in 2007 called The Jane Austen Book Club. I liked it. Afterward I looked up the reviews it got, and the nicest thing said was by the New York Times who reported it was"‘a well-acted, literate adaptation of Karen Joy’s best selling novel, but a formulaic feel-good chic flic". Overall it rated only B minus! Still, without apology, I liked it. I can’t help it, I like feel-good movies with happy endings. Not only that, I think they serve a good purpose during these times of financial insecurity. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, President Roosevelt encouraged cheerful movies. That’s when they made many comedies like those by the Ritz Brothers; flashy chorus-girl films like the Goldwyn Follies; and little Shirley Temple was everyone’s favorite star in films like Little Miss Marker, adapted from a Damon Runyon story.
As for The Jane Austin Book Club, I admit one probably has to be a Jane Austen fan in the first place to enjoy this film about her books. The plot concerns a group of five women who start a book club devoted exclusively to Jane Austen books. A young man is attracted to one of the women, and persuades them to let him to join their club. He surprises them with his erudite criticisms. I like the proposition that a man can take part in a book club that appeals more to women without sacrificing his masculinity. As they say, ‘the plot thickens’, other men enter the scene and, as in all Jane Austen books, difficulties arise, and just when you think all is lost, unexpected turn of events occur and all plots and sub-plots end happily.
I think it’s fair to say that this book follows the same formula used by Jane Austen in all her books. Therefore, can she be described as a formulaic writer? I think so. Her books all have happy endings so they can be described as ‘feel-good’. And the fact they appeal very much to women makes them chic-flics when in movie form. So a formulaic, feel-good flic-chic is not a bad rating after all.
Remember, Jane Austen’s works are considered classics. She wrote them more than a century ago and they are still best sellers in book and movie form. No B minus rating for her! Several other critics, in addition to the New York Times, praised the good acting in this 2007 film, especially by Maria Bello, Emily Blunt and Hugh Dancy. Others in the film are Jimmy Smits, who was billed above Hugh Dancy although his part was less important; and Amy Brenneman, whom I liked particularly because I recognized her from the TV series, Judging Amy. A surprising character was that of Mama Skye, a slobby older woman played by Lynn Redgrave, of all people. That surely was acting!
One thing that struck me all of a sudden, was that I don’t remember ever reading any of Jane Austen’s novels. Surely I must have read at least one a long time ago, but all I remember are the movie versions. So, I have a treat in store for me at the library. And also, of course, in the book form of The Jane Austen Book Club by Karen Joy. You too, might enjoy a lift from reading Jane Austen’s books again.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
I even enjoy rereading the "Lord of the Rings" books to prove that the hero is not always obvious.
The best Jane Austin I ever saw was done in India and it was priceless. It was done after Pride and Prejudice but I can not remember the name of it.
There have been some good film versions of Austen novels. But NEVER as good as the novels themselves.
The Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version of Pride and Prejudice was the best film version. Why? Because of course it was over 6 hours long, so it had time to tell the ENTIRE story that is in the book. When you shorten it to fit into 1.5 hours, it never completely works, because there is always something left out, which always results in it making less sense.
I can't remember ever reading any of Austen's books either. If I have, it was when I was a teenager. They were never required reading for any of my college courses, and I haven't (as an adult) read them for fun.