BJ:EOR not a hit with the critics
We have been avoiding posting reviews for BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON because they’re mostly pretty grim, and as the Editrix is well-known in some circles to be a militant Book!Bridget fan who thought the only redeeming value of the first film was the charming sight of Colin Firth doing his patented Darcy Smoulder in designer suits, we have thought it might be best to wait for the good reviews. But heck, it’s a slow week (see below) and besides, this review is spot-on (at least about the first film–haven’t seen the second one yet so won’t judge) as far as the Editrix is concerned.
One of the most infuriating, pervasive elements of the 2001 movie Bridget Jones’s Diary is its insistence that misguided heroine Bridget was actually fat. A blond, wispy, Texan actress (Renée Zellweger) was cast in the role of the brunette, calorie-obsessed, chardonnay-swilling English love pariah.
Zellweger was forced to gobble down Krispy Kreme doughnuts and, egads, probably something truly devilish, like pasta. All this to transform into what looks like an American size 12.
But anyone more than vaguely familiar with the Jones books, or the British newspaper columns from which both were adapted, knows that average-height Bridget always hovered around the 130-pound mark. She was hardly a heifer; she was just an average thirtysomething woman who despaired over her inability to whip herself into shape like a “lean teenage greyhound” and give up salmon pinwheels, wine and cigarettes, or to go to the gym “not merely to buy a sandwich.”
YES! YES! Remember, when she DID get to her dream weight everyone said she looked sick and too thin! And she wore designer clothes! She didn’t swan around like a dimwit in a see-through shirt! ARRRRRGH!
(*Will not harsh the buzz. Will not harsh the buzz. Will not harsh the buzz.*)
Do you want to read another bad review? No? Ah well. We promise to post the good ones, really. And we do confess that we are looking forward to the fight in the fountain. 
(Private to Ms. Phoebe Flowers: If you’re in the vicinity of AustenBlog World Headquarters, stop by for a cup of tea and a dish session, will you?)
ETA: Well, this is a little better. Not a review, good or bad, but an article about Colin Firth and the Fitzwilliam/Mark Darcy phenomenon.
“When the producers of Bridget Jones’s Diary called my agent to offer me the role of Mark Darcy he asked who would play Colin Firth if they ever made the sequel,” recalls Firth. “This whole Mark Darcy thing, in one form or another, has been going on for me since 1994. It’s definitely had its bizarre and surreal moments.”
We think the interview would be rather interesting in a surreal way.
November 11th, 2004 at 4:46 pm
Go on and harsh the buzz Mags. You know you want to. And nobody else could do it with such panache!
Frankly, if I hear the words “Bridget Jones” one more time I think I’m going to puke. I love the book, and enjoyed the movie. But mostly the Bridget Jones phenomenon seems based on the fact nobody realized this was *satire*; plus a large dose of Colin Firth gushing, which obviously I find annoying and boring. I mean, yeah, he’s a good actor, but jeez…I love Bridget but I wish she’d go away now.
November 11th, 2004 at 6:42 pm
THANK YOU! I totally agree! Bridget was what I call a Normal Human Being(TM)! Hello! She has obsessions and neuroses! I felt like the whole “let’s fatten Renee” thing just invalidates the pressure that even skinny women feel to lose weight.
November 12th, 2004 at 11:44 am
It’s nice to know I’m not alone! The thing is, I feel terribly guilty ragging on the film when so many others enjoy it so much. I don’t want to be a party pooper.
November 12th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
I didn’t even particularly enjoy the book, so I’m in a really bad spot as far as guilt goes. The one really bright part of the book was the Colin Firth/Bridget interview. The rest of the book just seemed to be as series of humiliations of Bridget followed by meetings with Mark while in the humilating situation.
I’m also in a true minority because I find Bridget annoyingly inept, and her relationship with Mark improbable. I think I’m being impacted by the Movie!Bridget too, but while I was laughing hysterically at the blue soup scene in the book, I also couldn’t help thinking that a thirty-something adult who couldn’t manage to even cook an edible dinner was really pathetic–probably because I was also a thirty-something adult who had managed to cook edible dinners while simultaneously nursing an infant, chasing a toddler and entertaining a pre-schooler.
November 12th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Julie, better not come to Chez Mags for dinner then! My dinner parties are disastrously close to Bridget’s. I can follow a recipe to the letter and something will still go wrong. I’m just not a cook. I have learned to concentrate my energies elsewhere.
I also identify strongly with Bridget’s constant determination to get organized that never succeeds, and her laundry crises. However, I’m not as neurotic about getting married. (Actually, I’m not neurotic at all about getting married.) I can, however, bake very well, so that’s something.
As a Persuasionite, my favorite moment in the second book was when Bridget’s mum finally browbeat her into getting her colors done and then the color person said, “I could have sworn she was a winter, but she’s a spring.” I literally burst into tears. It was SUCH a Persuasion moment!
Also I think that we forget that Bridget’s diary is from her own neurotic point of view. I think most people saw her differently than she saw herself; I’ve already talked about her weight issues, which were nonexistent for anyone else. It’s possible that to herself she’s a bit of a mess, but to Mark Darcy she was an attractive, intelligent, modern woman. Just like how to Lady Catherine, Lizzy Bennet was an unacceptable marriage partner for Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pemberley, but to Darcy she was worth putting up with her annoying and vulgar relatives.
However, much like the film reviewers, I never understood the Thailand trip. I think it was a desperate attempt on Helen Fielding’s part to add some sort of social commentary to a very lightweight book by commenting on the terrible human rights abuses of the Thai prisons or something.