From roguish to feckless
New York Magazine has an article about Anne Hathaway, who is doing publicity for THE DEVIL WORE PRADA, so we dare say we’ll be seeing a lot of her the next few weeks. The only item of interest to our Gentle Readers is that filming on BECOMING JANE has wrapped. We also were intrigued by the following tidbit:
And she’s just wrapped the lead role of Jane Austen in Becoming Jane, a Miramax period piece about the young Austen’s romance with the feckless law student Tom Lefroy, which has breakout potential.
Ah, yes, “breakout potential.” That’s why they cast the flavor of the month in these snooty costume flicks, isn’t it? So that they can be Taken Seriously For Their Art? But really we were intrigued by the adjective that we bolded describing Tom Lefroy: feckless.
feck·less
adj.
1. Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.
2. Careless and irresponsible.
Is this a new meme? In practically all the press to date, Tom Lefroy has been described as “a roguish Irishman.” That’s a far cry from feckless. There, chew on that for a while.
Also, at pain of distressing the Hathaway groupies that insist on hanging around here and making nuisances of themselves, we draw your attention to a comment in another post, because it amused us and because it is actually somewhat germane to the topic.
Anne Hathaway is a very nice girl–and perhaps, on occasion, a good actress, though I don’t see it–but I have grave misgivings about her playing Jane Austen, and really, the film “Becoming Jane” as a whole. This isn’t so much on account of that exercise in futility, the Knightley version of “Pride and Prejudice,” or even Hollywood’s penchant for the maudlin (though both certainly play some part), but rather because I saw Hathaway, in a little known Milne adaptation of Pride and Prejudice,” assume the mantle of Elizabeth Bennet and she was dreadful. The show itself wasn’t great, mind you, but her performance I found particularly bad. I am no actor myself–and certainly no expert on dramatic craft–but I do know Lizzie, and that was not her!
I will say one specific thing about the acting, however: even to a layman such as myself, it was clear she hadn’t mastered the basic elements of her craft–namely, elocution, projection, enunciation. Three quarters of the way through what proved to be a long show, an audience member from the front row, with typical New York aggravation, shouted: “Speak up already.” He was not alone in his displeasure either; several people complained during intermission.
For the record (please pay attention, O Lurking Media): our concern about the film still lies with the concept in general and the refusal of the producers to publicly admit that it is a Made Up Story in particular. Failure to comprehend this simple fact will earn one a forcible introduction to the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.













June 21st, 2006 at 11:05 am
Feckless? Really? Been digging in the old thesaurus again, dearies?
June 21st, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Miss Hathaway is too much of a girl in real life… ‘not yet a woman.’ Then again, the script itself may not demand that much.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 am
I don’t think I made myself clearly understood—I’m less troubled with Hathaway qua Austen as I am with the implication this potentially bad stroke of casting portends. Or, in other words, if they really thought she’s appropriate to play Jane, what hope can we have they got any of it right?
Now, I’m not really bothered by the element of historical speculation per se (a love affair based on a few scant mentions in a letter seems acceptable, if handled properly), or even the taking of other liberties regarding biographical details, as long as they keep these deviations within certain bounds and do not claim the banner of historical fact, but I am concerned that they will turn the Regency into a soap opera, with friends and family convenient proxies for her characters and our Jane a simpering, lovelorn young woman who wrote some of the finest English literature as a consolation for romantic disappointment.
No one, I think, wants that. She deserves better; we all do.
P.S. – Oh, and thanks for quoting me: even if I was being used as a convenient weapon, it flattered my vanity immensely.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Hi, IR! Not using you as a weapon–I just really got a kick out of your comment.
I added my comment at the end to make MY view of the matter clear–didn’t mean to indicate that yours was the same. Sorry if anyone misunderstood! That seems to be happening to me a lot lately…
I am concerned that they will turn the Regency into a soap opera, with friends and family convenient proxies for her characters and our Jane a simpering, lovelorn young woman who wrote some of the finest English literature as a consolation for romantic disappointment.
No one, I think, wants that. She deserves better; we all do.
We totally agree there.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
That’s quite alright. I really just wanted an excuse to talk more and put my criticism of Miss Hathaway in perspective.
I love this blog; I’m hooked.