Another movie about Jane Austen. Why can’t movies be more realistic? Jane is played by Anne Hataway ( ” The devil wears Prada”) who’s far too cute to be Jane Austen. Anyone who has a doubt go and check what Austen looked like – and you will have a clue why she remained a spinster. Now if the actress had been closer to reality and as spirited as Jane was, you would have had a very interesting movie. But sadly, the director stuck to the cliches. As he couldn’t possibly give a happy ending that never took place, he gave Jane the illusion that she ended up saving her family from poverty and misfortune through the talent of her pen. As far as I know, her survival and her family’s were due to her brother Henry.
So what? The movie shouldn’t have been called Jane…? I don’t know. One good nice point was that the complexity of the matter of the the heart and the rigidity of the morals of the time were well exposed, but there again, it is only worth it if you have absolutely no clue what those days were like.
I read somewhere ( Wikipedia I believe) that when reading her biography you might be shocked by the fact that marriages were usually arranged, mostly according to the finances of the parties involved. Ha, somebody could please tell me what is so different today?. if you marry someone richer, you are classified by many as a gold digger. Someone from another ethnicity…don’t get me started. I trust that all these facts are unconscious but still the customs are ingrained in our minds and most of the time we marry accordingly.
So the movie was worth being seen. Sure. Anne Hathaway is real cute and McAvoy too. I prefer him in “Shameless” though. But I am looking forward to see him more on the big screen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s