BECOMING JANE script report–from one who has read it
I have been meaning to post here because I read Kevin Hood’s screenplay “Becoming Jane” a year or so ago, and wanted to report on it as there has been so much speculation about the script, but needed to find time to reread it first. I should explain that I am a writer (author of Mrs Darcy’s Dilemma, a best-selling P & P sequel) who works as a story analyst at a major Hollywood studio, and was sent the script by a friend. These things get around, and because of my lifelong interest in Austen I have actually been sent no fewer than *four* screenplays about the life of Jane Austen in the past couple of years! Yes, really. And Kevin Hood’s was by far, unquestionably, hands down, the best. He is apparently an accomplished English playwright, and his skill and confidence show in the sheer structural economy with which he introduces the large cast of Austen family characters and manipulates them in a natural and unforced way, with charm and humor. I had to admire it; it was one of the few screenplays I’ve read in years where I actually thought I couldn’t do better myself, despite my knowledge stemming from thirty years’ immersion in the subject. I don’t mean to sound arrogant here: I don’t write plays or screenplays myself, just books, and my job is actually reading novels for the studio, but hundreds of thousands of screenplays are circulated in this town, and the vast majority are ill conceived and written. So to “do better” than most of them is not difficult, and in fact the other Austen scripts were better than most of them, too. But Hood’s is something more than that. He is what Jane Austen would call a reading man, but also possesses a light touch. The other Austen screenplays are by reading people but without the dexterity, or have the light touch but are not by reading people!
Kevin Hood’s drama is *not* a literal, factual, faithful, plodding replication of precise events in Jane Austen’s life, and if you’re going to read (or see) it constantly exclaiming, “But *that* never happened! Jane Austen never had a neighbor anything like Lady Catherine! (That’s your Lady Gresham.) Henry Austen never behaved like that in London! If that character is supposed to be Blackall she never met him that early in her life!” then it’s possible that prejudice might prevent you from enjoying it. Justifiable prejudice, indeed, for no one doubts that we Janeites approach these things with our critical antennae *very* suspiciously extended; but this is a charming story and deserves an open mind. And I can at least explode one misconception that seems to have been assiduously spread by the project’s most ignorant, uninformed man who ever dared to be a press agent (whom I don’t think actually read the script): it does *not* make it appear that Jane Austen up and decided to become A Novelist because she was disappointed in Tom Lefroy! The script presents her as already a dedicated writer, already singular, already unfond of the marriage market and the idea of being a poor animal, before she meets him! (I can hear the collective sigh of relief.)
Yes, it is a love story, in which she has a romance with Tom Lefroy and is disappointed. It takes touches from Mr Darcy and elsewhere and attributes them to Lefroy’s character, a ploy which must be fictional. The poverty of the Austens is played up and surely JA’s parents never pressured her to marry as these do. There are quibbles, but all is accomplished with such panache and confidence that the script finally wins us over. There is invention galore: Eliza is more involved in the Lefroy matter than she could really have been (but why *not* bring her in); and there are scenes such as a sneaking-away to Astley’s and a meeting with Ann Radcliffe that are purely imaginary, but fun. The prominence in the plot of Judge Langlois, some changed names, the presence of Jane Austen at a bloody birth, an aborted elopement - yes, considerable invention. This is *fiction,* but plausible fiction, done in a consistent manner, with an internal truth all its own. Most of all, Hood’s achievement is that the contingencies of the plot actually make you *feel.* How rare is that in a screenplay! I confess that I, jaded I, actually shed a tear, which happens perhaps twice a decade. A very effective script and I will defend it. I will further venture to say that if it is not screwed up in the production (which could easily happen…I am not an Anne Hathaway fan, but then I also wanted to beat Keira Knightley about the head with her own torn off shin bone, to paraphrase Mark Twain), judging by the screenplay alone, this has at least a good chance of being a charming, moving, enjoyable film.
I will now take questions. 
Diana Birchall
www.dianabirchall.com
April 21st, 2006 at 9:05 am
Diana–thanks for the report.
I confess that you have addressed my greatest concern about the script, that Tom Lefroy was the catalyst for Jane’s writing career, which I’m sure you will agree is just insulting both to Jane and the intelligence of Janeites worldwide! And of course everyone is familiar with the excesses of Hollywood publicity folks–ever read the back cover blurb of P2? *shudder* (Not to mention the “nibblers” cover art!)
However, I wish they would make it a lot clearer that this is NOT a true story, that the very few facts known about Jane Austen’s life are sometimes ignored or changed, and that this is mostly a work of FICTION. I fear a generation of uncritical film viewers thinking that P&P is Jane Austen’s autobiography instead of a very purposeful and brilliant NOVEL. I also fear them joining JASNA and annoying those who know better by insisting that it’s so.
I still say: MADE UP STORY! I understand, however, that your argument is that there’s nothing wrong with that.
Oh! And I do have a question: are Madam and the Rev. Isaac Lefroy in the film at all?
April 21st, 2006 at 10:22 am
Diana:
As always–you are a wonderful defender of Austen who is able to keep her logic about her while maintaining openminded acceptance of the different ways in which pop culture will “own” Jane Austen.
Thank you so much for your explanation of the script–what little we knew of the film kept us all wondering, yet your input should help many Janeites come to terms with this new invasion of our world!
MarJean
April 21st, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I totally agree with Mags. It’s a made up story. We Janeites know that, but the rest of the world will think that this is who Jane Austen was and that her life was like how it is represented in the movie. I’m glad, though, that Tom Lefroy isn’t represented as the reason why Jane Austen became a novelist. A sigh of relief indeed!
But still… In my opinion this is not a biopic, this is just a fairy tale based on Jane Austen’s life.
April 21st, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Diana, thank you very much for taking time to post this. With this you have conffirmed it is a 90% (to place a percentage) fictional plot. Yet, it is to be desired that the studio corrects its approach at promoting the film, by also stating it is a fictional, not a true story.
Like Mags, I would like to know if Madame Lefroy and her husband appear in the script. If the plot is playing with paralells between P&P, then I wonder if they might be the Gardiners’ equivalent. Now that you mention Mr. Blackall, then he might become the Mr. Collins
of this story. (I know my speculations on these might be too extreme :)).
Last, but not least, could I translate your comments for my JA’s Spanish speaking group, please?
April 21st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Hollywood has a tendency to rewrite history and this is another example. Why make a film of Jane Austen’s life that isn’t true? What’s the point?
April 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Yes. I would be happier about it if it was promoted as a fantasy instead of the producers going around insisting that it’s a TRUE story, TRUE! TRUE! But happier still if they made a biopic that WAS the facts.
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:38 am
Hullo, it’s me again. I agree with you, Mags - I very much wish they’d just go ahead and promote it as a delightful fantasy/romance about JA instead of sending out these exasperatingly misleading messages that essentially say “It is an absolutely true-to-life biopic based on real scholarly biographies, and it’s all about her intense formative passion for Tom Lefroy that changed her life.” How can our minds not boggle when we read such stuff? The real problem here is that they have PR people with the brains of oysters who have no clue how to promote a film for grownups. They’ve made the picture sound so unwittingly awful, it’s no wonder there’s some backlash before it even comes out. Fortunately it seems that at least *somebody* on the project has brains, because they knew enough to buy and produce a quality screenplay; but when they were dealing out sense, they left out the PR people!
Mags says: I fear a generation of uncritical film viewers thinking that P&P is Jane Austen’s autobiography instead of a very purposeful and brilliant NOVEL.
Well, I wouldn’t worry too much. Lots of us grew up learning English history from Forever Amber and Anya Seton. Those who are really interested will read up on the subject and learn better. Remember what JA had Mr. Knightley say about what would happen to his and Emma’s little niece? “Nothing very bad. The fate of thousands. She will be disagreeable in infancy, and correct herself as she grows older.”
Mags also says: I also fear them joining JASNA and annoying those who know better by insisting that it’s so.
Ah, well, don’t forget about the harrowed feelings of us old ones who came to JA from the novels, and then had to deal with the influx of people who met her first at the movies! We got over it, moved with the times. People learn. (I hope.)
Thanks for comments, MarJean and Franka. Sure, you can translate what I said, Cinthia. Mr. and Mrs. Lefroy do appear in the script, but only in a small way; the fictional horrid Lady Gresham is the major character. I suppose the writer could not reconcile the facts that Madam Lefroy was JA’s close friend yet opposed an attachment with her nephew; he had to create Lady Gresham and make her a Lady Catherine instead. It works dramatically - but of course is pure fiction. Also Blackall is not mentioned, sorry I gave that impression, it was my manner of speaking: I meant JA has suitors in the story, and is being pressured to marry. The suitors are not real life people. Many characters have had names changed (for instance, Edward Knight’s wife is called Margaret).
There are P & P and other parallels, but it’s not simply a pastiche of them, which would be contrived. There are totally invented plot elements as well - JA at one point actually starts to elope with Tom, but turns back because she knows what’s right. This is really throwing the kitten among the canaries, methinks!
Asking for trouble. Yet, it is a very strong, exciting and moving scene. I loved it!
Julie asks the very good question: Why make a film of Jane Austen’s life that isn’t true? What’s the point?
1) To make money. 2) To make money by attracting audiences. 3) To be entertaining so as to attract audiences so as to make money. (Is that clear?) A straight, BBC-like, perfectly truthful biopic about any author, even the most popular woman author ever, will not attract as large an audience as a romantic drama about said author. This is Received Wisdom. And I have to say frankly that I think it’s correct. I’d rather see a romantic, imaginative dramatization than a straight biopic myself. Why? Because there are so many holes and mysteries in Austen’s life, we don’t really know what that life was like. Not her inner life. Not who she loved or how she loved. We try to guess clues from her novel texts. (”She knew Anne Elliot’s feelings so well, she had to have felt that way herself!”) We try to get at her life by being scholarly/pedantic, raking over all the little evidences for leads. But we can’t really ever find out, partly because she unfortunately died so early and Cassandra burnt so many of her letters. (They believed in privacy in those days.) So we have to use our imaginations. Kevin Hood used his. It will be fun to follow his flight of fancy. What did JA say? Imagination is everything.
Diana
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:10 am
Very well said Diana. I am quite looking forward to the movie myself. I reconciled myself to the fact that it would be a fun work of fiction a while ago. With such a wonderful cast I don’t think it can be all that bad.
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Thank you for taking the time to post these views Diana. But I must say something in defence of PR people (athough not those associated with the MADE UP STORY)? Some of us are actually very sensible … and even studied Jane Austen’s novels at university!
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Thanks Diana! It was so nice to read your account of the script. I agree with you, in that I don’t mind that most of the movie will be made up.
On the screen, I want to see romance and passion, and any other little flourishes that they may add are okay with me. When I want a completely accurate account of Jane Austen’s life I’ll pick up a copy of her biography. It was refreshing reading your take on things. Thanks again.
April 23rd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
thanks, Diana. It does not upset me that the movie is loosely based on Jane’s encounter with tom lefroy. we know very little about what happened, other than a few letters. and cassandra burned so many other letters. the facts are a departure for a movie. why not?
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Agreed that any biopic of Jane Austen has to be mostly speculation, but I still think that it’s possible to make an interesting film by building on the facts instead of ignoring or changing them to make them “more like a story.”
If it does well, one wonders if we will see a sequel, DEVOLVING JANE, based on Persuasion.
Frankly, if they had to pick one of Jane’s novels to project onto her life, Persuasion makes more sense to me…but as Elizabeth Jenkins wrote, Jane was not Anne Elliot, because Anne Elliot could not have written Pride and Prejudice. (At least, I *think* it was Elizabeth Jenkins…the bios do sort of meld together after a while.)
I work in marketing, and I’m rather cynical about how marketing folks can get exactly what they want into the press. And it wasn’t a lowly PR person running off at the mouth, it was one of the producers of the film, who presumably should know better! Which makes me think that the message we have received so far is exactly what they want to get around. I’m also cynical enough to think they are trying to manufacture a kerfluffle to get press.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Diana, thank you so much for your permission. I’m torn between the 2 ideas. I agree that a fictional film would be more attractive for the general audience, and that a more formal bio-pic would be material more for cultural tv/BBC like than for cinema, but as Janeite I would prefer the later to the former. Mags, I think we would have to produce it :), pencil it along with your own NA script, please. So it is definitive, the closest there is for the moment is “The Real Jane Austen” (time to petition its DVD release to BBC America’s shop), if only we could have had 50 minutes more of it.
With apologies to the capable and discerning PR people, the point is still valid. Those involved in Becoming Jane leave much to be desired. IMNSHO, with Internet, many things have changed and many have missed how much it could be gained by listening the fans from the very early stages.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
As I said about P&P3, they’re not really making this movie for the Janeites.
They know we’ll see it. They’re making it for the Great Unwashed. THE REAL JANE AUSTEN, though I have not yet seen it, sounds more like something made for Janeites.
I still like my comparison to Julia Roberts’ character in PRETTY WOMAN: “You don’t have to seduce me. I’m a sure thing.” That’s us. We’ll go see it even if it stinks, just to snark it if nothing else.
May 8th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Your review of the script has greatly heightened my anticipation of this film! Thank you!
However, I was wondering, do you think will there be any objectionable content in it?
May 8th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Marrim, that depends upon your definition of “objectionable.”
May 9th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Well, alright, anything you wouldn’t want your ten year old watching?
May 9th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
I can’t imagine a ten-year-old being interested in this film.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
You’re kind of missing my point!
What I mean is, will there be anything worse then PG in it?
May 11th, 2006 at 4:59 am
Despite how it seems they’re going to be twisting and stretching Jane’s life story, I seriously doubt there’ll be content a parent would find objectionable. This is the late 1700s, after all, dealing with well-brought up, upper middle class people. So no drugs, swearing, steamy sex, scary violence. Reading Diana’s comments on the script, the only thing that sounds like it could be disturbing is Jane’s presence at a ‘bloody birth’.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Marrim, I’m not missing your point. MY point is, I see no reason to dumb down a movie for children who will be uninterested in it. Janeites are not such delicate flowers, or shouldn’t be, as Jane was not one herself.
May 11th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
No no, I’m not asking for an opinion about a child, really. I was just using that as a example. I’m asking for myself, frankly.
I don’t like seeing much worse then PG, unless it’s just for violence or tense scenes or something to that effect.
Karenlee, alright, that’s what I thought, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks!