In which the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness’s summer holiday ends with a bang
A visitor posted a link to Hanway Films’ site. The company apparently is involved somehow with BECOMING JANE, and has a summary of the film on its site. (Click on Our Films, Current Films, and then Becoming Jane–and it’s a Flash site, so one must have the appropriate equipment on one’s fancy thinking box.)
BATTER UP!
22-year-old Jane Austen is in a spot of trouble.
Isn’t this about Jane and Tom Lefroy? That would be January 1796; Jane would have been not one and twenty. (Barely twenty, actually.) Yes, we know, quibbling, quibbling; but heck, if you’re gonna P&P it up, why not go all the way?
Jane’s older sister is happily married,
WHAT? (she shrieked in stunned disbelief)
leaving Jane’s parents with the small but pressing problem of finding her a husband. The family is big in size and small on cash. So when pompous Mr. Wisely,
*coughCollinscough*
the only relative to the wealthy and important Lady Gresham,
*coughLadyCatherinecough*
offers his hand, everyone is delighted. Everyone except Jane, who loves literature, life and above all she believes in happy endings.
Oh dear dawg, they’ve turned Jane Austen into Catherine Morland. Unfortunately, they haven’t quite managed to morph Tom Lefroy into Henry Tilney.
Tom Lefroy is also in trouble. He has enjoyed London for all its worth–a charming rogue who instead of studying law spends his time boxing, drinking and womanizing.
JUST the kind of man that Jane Austen would have fallen in love with! Really, put him up against the wall with Edmund Bertram, take away our spectacles, and it’s darn near a draw.
Now he has to answer for these crimes of pleasure to his uptight uncle, Judge Langlois. The punishment? Spending the summer with his boring relatives in Hampshire and being cut off from his inheritance.
Dude. What inheritance? Why would he have had to study law and be called to the bar if he had an inheritance?
The true story, we fear, is much more prosaic. From Jane Austen, A Family Record by Deirdre Le Faye:
Tom Lefroy (1776-1869) was very slightly younger than Jane, a fair, serious young man, destined by his family for the Bar. He was the eldest son…and his education and future legal career were being mapped out and paid for by old Mr. Benjamin Langlois. Col. Lefroy had a large family, and whilst Mr. Langlois was not averse to providing financial support to his Irish nephew…it was understood that Tom, at least, was expected to ‘rise into distinction and there haul up the rest.’ So far he had fulfilled expectations and dutifully acquired his degree at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1795, but his health and eyesight then gave cause for concern and it was decided he should go to Ashe for a holiday before starting his legal studies. Great-uncle Benjamin considered that Tom had ‘everything in his temper and character than can conciliate affections. A good heart, a good mind, good sense and as little to correct in him as ever I saw in one of his age.’ It was this shy, intelligent young stranger who came to Ashe rectory in the winter of 1795 and with whom Jane danced and flirted at three balls.
Not exactly Mr. Wickham-Willoughby-Crawford described above, n’est-ce pas?
Furthermore, a truly delicious tidbit from Jane Austen for Dummies (which really isn’t for dummies):
But while the two (Jane and Tom) shared a few dances and a few laughs, another woman kept young love from blossoming. Her name was Mary Paul. She was the only sister of Tom’s close college friend back in his Trinity days (beginning 1790). He had met her when he joined his friend’s family in visits to their fine home in county Wexford, south of Dublin, Ireland. By 1797, the young Irish couple, Tom Lefroy and Mary Paul, was engaged to marry, which they did two years later.
In other words, when Tom and Jane were flirting away at balls, Tom and Mary were what the young ladies in the Editrix’s Institution of Higher Education used to call “engaged to be engaged.”
There’s more in Dummies directly refuting other information in the film, but we’ll let our readers discover that for themselves. 
Back to the film site.
The English countryside may seem peaceful on the surface, but the summer parties are decadent and at one of these celebrations, Tom and Jane meet.
From Northanger Abbey, written by Jane Austen not long after l’affaire Lefroy:
Charming as were all Mrs. Radcliffe’s works, and charming even as were the works of all her imitators, it was not in them perhaps that human nature, at least in the Midland counties of England, was to be looked for. Of the Alps and Pyrenees, with their pine forests and their vices, they might give a faithful delineation; and Italy, Switzerland, and the south of France might be as fruitful in horrors as they were there represented. Catherine dared not doubt beyond her own country, and even of that, if hard pressed, would have yielded the northern and western extremities. But in the central part of England there was surely some security for the existence even of a wife not beloved, in the laws of the land, and the manners of the age. Murder was not tolerated, servants were not slaves, and neither poison nor sleeping potions to be procured, like rhubarb, from every druggist. Among the Alps and Pyrenees, perhaps, there were no mixed characters. There, such as were not as spotless as an angel might have the dispositions of a fiend. But in England it was not so; among the English, she believed, in their hearts and habits, there was a general though unequal mixture of good and bad.
Just saying.
A game of cat and mouse ensues, sparks fly and over the summer they fall in love. However, with Tom’s reputation and Jane’s family saga, the affair can have only one outcome. But this is Jane Austen
Beg to differ!
and there’s always got to be room for a happy ending.
You know, the candlelit picture is lovely, and this is probably a very nice story (and yes, we said “nice” on purpose, thank you, Henry), and anything written about any of Jane Austen’s romances would require a certain amount of speculation and suspension of disbelief, but this is beyond comprehension. One hopes the producers will not continue their laughable practice of claiming that it is even an attempt at anything close to Jane Austen’s biography.
Say it with us, Gentle Readers, stronger than ever: MADE UP STORY!
*beats silly movie description and horrid Flash into terabytes and pixels with Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness*
August 25th, 2006 at 7:10 am
When I saw that picture of Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy I was so excited! Such a beautiful picture!
But then I didn’t read that stupid storyline yet…
I just can’t believe that now there finally is a movie coming up about Jane Austen’s life, it’s going to be so horribly wrong! How on earth can they write that Cassandra was happily married, or that Tom Lefroy was a drinking womanizer! It really is a MADE UP STORY and the whole world should know that…
This all makes me REALLY angry!!!
August 25th, 2006 at 8:00 am
I also loved the picture but i was surprised at the description.
Even P&P3 was not described quite as flowery.
I will see the film because it is Austen but i am already disapointed.
Hopefully they will have beautiful costumes, wonderful locations and a fantastic score to make up for the storyline. ~R
August 25th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I fear that this is worse than the made up of ‘Shakespeare in Love’, or that movie about Einstein with Meg Ryan. And the worst is that we all go to cinemas to see it, do not you think so?
I think you can do a movie about an intelligent writer with fantastic or real elements (remember that old movie about Brothers Grimm, by example) and you can put together even the writer and his/her characters, or even other strange things (Rosencrazt & G. are dead by example)
But I think you can not fake JA’s life in such a way. People who does not know Jane will believe she had another life.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:43 am
A little birdie on imdb posted that he/she a preview of the movie and it was actually quite good but very SAD.
I asked him the dreaded question of whether or not it was like Shakespeare In Love to which he sad NO, so I guess its not that bad.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:30 am
This is pathetic.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I think its gonna be an awesome movie. Everyone knew that it is a made-up story and if u dont like it then dont watch it but I will,because I like the storyline and Anne Hathaway a lot..The picture was awesome by the way!!
August 25th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Anonymous Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am e
I think its gonna be an awesome movie. Everyone knew that it is a made-up story and if u dont like it then dont watch it but I will,because I like the storyline and Anne Hathaway a lot..The picture was awesome by the way!!
Well, that pretty much says it all, I think.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:48 am
This is pathetic.
It’s obviously a made-up story. I suppose now the only question would be whether the promotion of the writings of Jane Austen is well served by such stuff. Some would say even a bad adaptation of Pride and Prejudice gets people to read it.
Will this new movie get people to read Jane Austen? Maybe the Hollywood adage may be true here, that even bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.
The only way to give this movie any redeeming social value (or signs of life) will be if they portray Jane Austen as the real Elizabeth Bennet.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I stopped trusting Hollywood a LONG time ago when it comes to making movies dealing with real life figures and Becoming Jane should be no exception.
Its a little too early for us to be passing jugdment on how much they have changed the story line and how ” made up ” it is.
I can’t trust any plot outline which any site posts right now until the movie comes out.
And in a previous post someone who had read the script said she wasn’t that worried and the the director knows what he is doing, so I don’t think they can mess it up to a boiling point.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:23 am
All I can say is WOW! I was actually looking forward to this movie. I knew already that it was going to be a Made Up story but this is just ridiculous! The whole story, from the way they describe it, sounds like something Jane Austen would have written a very witty, biting parody about. Not something she lived! It’s too bad because I really think the film makers had a chance to do something great with the opportunity to make a film about JA. Seems as though they’ve squandered that chance miserably.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:28 am
>Why would he have had to study law and be called to the bar if he had an inheritance?
I suppose he must have felt that seven hundred a year would not be enough for his *menus plaisirs*.
Making Tom Lefroy the obvious inspiration for Henry Crawford…
August 25th, 2006 at 10:40 am
My previous post got sent when I hit a wrong button before I was done.
Since it is so obviously a made-up movie, we can only hope it has some redeeming social value. The problem is that the only way many people recognize Jane Austen is as an author of old books. (She is not known as a great lover, for instance.) People will believe anything they are told about a “classic author”.
For the sake of entertainment, we can only hope she is portrayed as an Elizabeth Bennet (witty and upbeat, actually closer to her true character) and not a Fanny Price (serious and downbeat, if not beaten down).
Who knows? Maybe the Hollywood adage is true, that even bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. It doesn’t have to be factual or even make sense.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Now he has to answer for these crimes of pleasure to his uptight uncle, Judge Langlois. The punishment? Spending the summer with his boring relatives in Hampshire and being cut off from his inheritance.
This makes Tom sound like he’s thirteen or something. Dude! Your uncle is such a square! Bummer!
August 25th, 2006 at 11:36 am
What?! *she screetched rather unladylike* Oh dear, and I was actually looking forward to seeing James McAvoy in this (he’s so dreamy). Then again, I’m not terribly surprised…I never expected them to get it right. But this is way off the mark. Oh well, at least they got the names right!
August 25th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Anyone who actually enjoys reading knows that Hollywood is full of ego and money driven fools who haven’t picked up a book in years–but the fact is, they show what the people will pay for–even if the actors aren’t even close to what the characters are actually like. The only people out there really who come close are BBC and A&E, but since there are time limits to movies and readers use their own personal imagination–there will always be debate.
Be happy–Jane is out there!! Perhaps it will open today’s girls (who have a serious lack of heroes) to her book and see how amazing she really is (present tense since she is always alive in my heart and head). Have hope, and enjoy it (much like life) in spite of its flaws. Like I always tell my students–love is love, and if it isn’t hurting anyone else, cherish it!
PS…Please don’t put down my dearest Joesph Finnes in “Shakespeare in Love”–despite its rediculousness, it is a classic love story. I try my hardest not to disagree with you on the choice of Mr. Darcy in P&P3…
August 25th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
>…The only people out there really who come close are BBC and A&E..
August 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Perhaps Hollywood and the Powers That Be think about Jane Austen’s real life the same way Mrs Guiton thought about Emma: too natural to be interesting.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Oh, grrrr! I don’t really know what happened to the rest of that post. It was meant to say:
>…The only people out there really who come close are BBC and A&E..
August 25th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Sandra–first of all, I know what you are trying to say, I think!!!
But, just post it and don’t try to quote. I’ll see if I can combine them for you.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
The only thing I can do is to laugh at this ridicoulous plot that Hollywood wants to pass as Jane Austen’s life…I certainly have no interest in it!
August 25th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
“and this is probably a very nice story (and yes, we said “nice” on purpose, thank you, Henry)”
More nice than wise, perhaps… Weren’t the filmmakers dropping hints before that Tom Lefroy was supposed to be the inspiration for Darcy? Because that description of him above is nothing like! The whole thing is inexplicable, but this is the most so, I think. What is the point of making him the sort of character we’re meant *not* to like in Austen’s own novels?
August 25th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
So poor jilted Jane goes off and skewers Mr. Lefroy in all of her novels for the rest of her spinsterly days. ROFL
I’m with the BBC/A&E crowd. If you want it done right, make it a miniseries. Very few books have ever been tolerably translated to the big screen.
I happen to like Shakespeare In Love, but then I’ve never thought it contained anything close to reality. I just appreciate it’s entertainment value.
People who are truly interested in (and appreciative of) Jane Austen and her talents will not be looking to a film to learn about her life. Austen fans are readers first and foremost, so I doubt many would balk at picking up a decent biography. As always, true Janites will survive.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Apologies again. Apparently I are an idiot. It always looks okay on my screen.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Unfortunately, I think this is worse than just a made-up story. It puts me in mind of that dreadful movie Elizabeth which was cinematically beautiful and very interesting, but trashed the character of almost every person in it–all of whom were real people, about all of whom there is a great deal of surviving contemporary information. That information was ignored and the director’s/screenwriter’s “vision”/opinion took its place. Sadly, some people thought it was at least reasonably close to being historically accurate, because they wouldn’t lie about real people, would they? Uh, yes, they would.
The same thing will happen here. If that plot summary is correct, the movie will bear no resemblance to reality but people will think that it is reasonably close to being true. Tom Lefroy by all contemporary accounts was a respectable man. If I was one of his descendants I would be seriously ticked. Not to mention all the other things that are outright lies.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:37 am
If they wanted to make a story of the period… inspired by Austen’s work, with some melodramatic mushiness thrown in… why not just do it? Why label the characters with real life names? Arg.
Does Jane become Jane at the end of the film? When is Jane not Jane? The entire endurance of the film?
When this movie does come out, I would be gratified amused to get some reputable opinions on it. Namely, Jane Austen’s, Lizzy Bennet’s, Henry Tilney’s, Mr. Knightley’s (”badly done! badly done indeed!”)…?
The most critical of the bunch.
August 26th, 2006 at 2:53 am
I don’t mind that it’s a Made Up Story, to be honest with you, I mind that they’re trying to pass it off as some recently discovered “facts” about Jane Austen’s life. We’ll see as the media frenzy approaches. The Cluebat may be busy.
Or perhaps, encouraged by our example *modest cough* they may choose to change publicity tactics.
And if someone was going to make a film about What Inspired Jane Austen To Write and make it all speculative, a combination of The Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea and l’affaire Bigg-Wither would have been much more interesting and to the point, IMNSHO.
August 26th, 2006 at 10:38 am
“Great-uncle Benjamin considered that Tom had ‘everything in his temper and character than can conciliate affections. A good heart, a good mind, good sense and as little to correct in him as ever I saw in one of his age.’ It was this shy, intelligent young stranger who came to Ashe rectory in the winter of 1795 and with whom Jane danced and flirted at three balls.”
Oh my goodness! He was Edmund Bertram! Deffinately not the model for Darcy or even, as the movie sets forth, JA’s villians such as Wickham, Crawford or Willoughby!
This is going to be far worse than we ever expected! I’ll just keep repeating to my self and any others who wish to see it that Becomming Jane is a “made up story, made up story, made up story!” Oh, auntie Em, what have we done to deserve this?!
August 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I fear a dreadful mistake has been made somewhere along the way during the production of this film. And that mistake was a spelling error. Obviously, “Becoming Jane” is actually a film based on the life of another English author, that of Jayne Austin, and thus should rightly be called “Becoming Jayne.”
Jayne Austin, as I’m sure you all remember, wrote in the early part of the 19th century and was a contemporary of Jane Austen. Among Austin’s more notable works were “Cents and Sensibility,” “Proud and Prejudiced,” “Emily,” and “The Persuaders.” Austin and Austen share many similarities in their respective lives so it’s very easy to see how all this whole mix-up got started, though it surprises me that this film even got made considering hardly anyone ever reads Austin anymore. It’s nice to see she’s finally getting the recognition she (probably) deserves.
I think to avoid confusion in the future, I’m going to refer to this film as “Becoming Sally,” Austin’s middle name.
August 26th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Well you guys can watch the movie yourself and judge then. Someone on imdb who lives in New York said they are showing special previews for the movie at the Loews cinema on 68th & Broadway.
So any one here who lives in New York city can get a chance to watch the movie.
P.S I don’t know whether to trust the person who posted about the previews or not, but if I lived in New York I would go check it out.
August 27th, 2006 at 4:01 am
“Be happy–Jane is out there!! Perhaps it will open today’s girls (who have a serious lack of heroes) to her book and see how amazing she really is”
Why just GIRLS?
August 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Very fun Marybeth and Laurie!!!
We did not understand well the plot and heroes!! They do not talk about our miss Austen
Anyway, we will have previews, trailers and more promotional material to see if the thing is going in that way. And then, we will be able to make comments in justice
August 28th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
“Why just GIRLS?”
Boys should definitely get into Austen as well, but unfortunately, the “stereotypical” boy will have nothing to do with that “mushy stuff”. If they had a little more common sense, they would read up on our favorites and learn how to woo us properly! (Perhaps my own Capt. Wentworth would be in my arms if they did!)
But also, boys don’t have that many heros today as well–where is a hero(ine) when we need one!
August 28th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Alright, I know this is a lame way of doing it, but I can’t make my new keyboard do italics in this form. Apologies for my ineptitude.
Mags said: Sandra–first of all, I know what you are trying to say, I think!!!
Sandra says: Yep, I bet you do.
Before that, Erin said:The only people out there really who come close are BBC and A&E,
Sandra (and legions of others!) says: A&E jumped the shark a long time ago. It’s all “Dog the Bounty Hunter” anymore. But take heart, we are not the only fandom to encounter the pigheadedness of writers/producers/directors who just can’t believe that the real people might be interesting enough to capture an audience and thus insist on adding nonsense for “dramatic effect.” Mr. Cranky has much to say on this topic at http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/invincible.html
August 28th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Really like the picture! So cute. I’d much rather see a sweet shy (true to life) Tom Lefroy than a stereotypical libertine Henry Crawford!Tom Lefroy.
*SPOILERS*
Why do they say “room for a happy ending” when everyone knows it ends sad? Made me get my hopes up for a sec. –I ardently dislike sad endings (except Tale of Two Cities and I Capture the Castle) and love happy endings. I know, Mags, it would be even more MADE-UP, but what’s changing the ending when the beginning and middle are totally mixed up already?
*END SPOILERS*
August 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Forgot to say: Why in the world are they marrying off poor Cassandra?!?! Did they send the coast guard to save her fiance?
August 28th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
LOL at the Coast Guard, Chantel!
Actually the “happy ending” might be that Jane went on to write her wonderful books.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I really can’t see the point of “Be happy–Jane is out there!! Perhaps it will open today’s girls to her book and see how amazing she really is.” People who feel drawn to Jane Austen’s work by movies like that will only be disappointed when they pick up an actual book.
August 29th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Marybeth wrote:
“Becoming Sally,” Austin’s middle name.
ROFL!!!
August 30th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
The release date of Becoming Jane has been pushed from the 2nd of February to the 16th of March 2007. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416508/releaseinfo
August 30th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Erin, you’ll be happy to know that my sons adore “Pride & Prejudice.” The 6 year old is a miniseries snob, and the 2 year old prefers the the new movie. My boys will continue to appreciate Jane Austen as long as they continue to live in my house.
Can’t wait to see “Becoming Sally.” LOL
September 11th, 2006 at 7:19 am
I am so naive! When I heard that BECOMING JANE was being released I got so excited I told everyone I could see. Finally other people would appreciate the Austen we all know and love and not just have some vague notion of Mr Darcy and Elizabeth. Then I heard about all these terrible mistakes or ‘poetic license’ and couldn’t believe what a missed opportunity! Its not as if the story isn’t interesting on its own! It may not be the most romantic story but pardon me for thinking that its just as intersting to try and look into the mind that these amazing stories came from! To me they’re giving her less credit than she deserves by suggesting that she could look no further than her love interest for all of her male characters, Mr Darcy, Henry Crawford or any others that they can pass off!
On a lighter note I still think that the film’s going to be a fun watch even if it is a bit far from reality! I loved Shakespeare in Love and I would certainly have fallen in love with Shakespeare if he looked like that, the perfect man! The difference is however that they never tried to pass that off as a biography, where as I think many people might be taken in by BECOMING JANE. People just don’t want to beleive that the greatest romantic of our time never had a true rom ance of her own. After all we are all romantics at heart.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Hi Sinead–sorry you got caught in the spam filter!
Righteous rant–and I agree with you. I don’t know if I can relax and enjoy it because as someone who has written about Jane and taken pains to be correct factually, even while taking the speculative leaps that are necessary when filling in the missing gaps in her biography, it is annoying to see such purposeful rewriting of the facts, especially since, as you said, the real story is quite interesting. Why else would there be such a plethora of Jane Austen biographies–and not just general biographies but closer studies of different aspects of her life. And you are also absolutely correct that the idea of Jane having to be inspired by a man to write is just insulting.
I’ve said before, I don’t think SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is the appropriate comparison, as that was delivered with a big wink; I don’t think we’ll be seeing Jane sipping tea from a mug that says “Souvenir of Steventon, Hampshire–Jane Austen Country” (though that would be way cool). The producers have already claimed in the public press that this is based on biographies and scholarship and I think that claim is just ludicrous. It’s a Made Up Story. Even if they end up admitting that it is a Made Up Story, I still maintain that the Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea and l’affaire Bigg-Wither and their influence on Jane’s decision to dedicate herself to writing as a profession would have made a much more interesting film.
That being said, I’m beginning to wonder if this company was not correct about Cassandra being portrayed as married–maybe just happily engaged, as she would have been at this time; they wouldn’t have heard about Tom Fowle’s death for a few more months, I think. Well, we’ll see.