Sad News
James McAvoy, star of Becoming Jane, has a Little Problem. It seems the poor dear *whispers* can’t read.
He’s to appear in “Becoming Jane”, a lauded biopic of Jane Austen. Not that he’s a total fan. He tells Eve magazine that Austen’s genre-forming classic Northanger Abbey is “one of the worst books I’ve ever read in my life -full of badly written giggly girls”. Isn’t that the point of Jane Austen?
So unfortunate. One never knows what to do in these situations. Buy flowers? Bake a cake? Beat him senseless with the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness? It’s a puzzle.
ETA: But wait, there’s more! The BBC has a report on the film premiere, including this comment from Mr. McAvoy:
He said: “Definitely without a doubt she had a relationship with this man and they did many outrageous things for the time such as holding hands in public and doing more than five dances in a row.
More than five dances? We were not aware there was an official count anywhere.
“Shortly after he broke up the relationship, she burned all the letters from him.”
So what did Noted Austen Scholar Anne Hathaway spend a month in British Library reading then? 
Really, where did they get some of this half-baked information?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Oh dear, I’m afraid I’ll have to defend James McAvoy here. I’m glad to see that he DID read the book! That he doesn’t like it is just his opinion. I totally disagree with him, though, but still…
Ok, ok, ok! Perhaps he shouldn’t have said that it was badly written. Nevertheless, I think it is just a matter of opinion whether someone likes Jane Austen’s work or not. I feel sorry for those who are not able to enjoy it as much as we do, but I think everybody should have the right to give his opinion.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I don’t know, Franka, this goes further than “tried it and didn’t like it,” which as you said is understandable. But in what universe is NA about “a bunch of giggling girls”? That is Cluebat-worthy.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Wait, I missed the giggly girls part of NA - is he referring to Isabella or something? Everyone has a right to dislike a book, but I’m wondering what version of NA he read…
March 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
This reminds me of the movie, The Exorcist when, during the filming many of the cast and crew reported about “mysterious” and frightening events taking place. It is interesting to note, however, that the biggest skeptic among them was Max von Sydow himself, who played the character of Father Merrin—by necessity the biggest believer among all the characters. He simply did not buy into any of it.
The point is, an actor does not have to personally think the same way as his/her character. Let us just hope that Mr. McAvoy is a good enough actor to hide his misguided ideas from coming through onto the screen.
But I bet he’s not such a dreamboat after all, is he, ladies? What did you expect of a hooligan anyway?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I know I shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I know I should be tolerant. But hey, why bother? Worst book he’s read in his life? How many books has he read? I don’t mean to be cruel, but even if you loathe Austen, at least she is quite accessible and readable. Maybe he should try Joyce’s Ulysses…
Sorry, he is dead to me.
Still trying to work out the ‘giggly girly bits’.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I vote for the Cluebat. *cringes* You were just in a movie about Jane Austen dear. Try to say something nice.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Clarification: I like James McAvoy as in actor in the (two, maybe) movies I’ve seen him in. I just think that remark goes a bit beyond stupid. Sorry for the double comment.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
What does one expect from a penniless pugilistic rogue?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Wait!
I actually do think he was misquoted here. He was talking of the new film version of P&P and found it “full of poorly dressed giggling girls”. Yep, that’s it.
Or he did google wrongly in preparation of his role and ended up at the amazon reviews of P&P. (More a matter of not being able to type then.)
March 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Okay, from now on I am going to not feel guilty about my feeling that this movie is Mr Tumnus meets Andrea, the perky writer/assistant to a fashion maven. Obviously being a magical creature has gone to his, um, brain.
If it’s really dorky, I can always imagine him with hairy legs and hoofs inside the boots and breeches. And her with Jimmy Choos under her petticoat-that’s-three-inches-deep-in-mud. (They have to get that bit in somehow, don’t they?) And a cellphone under her bonnet.
Yes, that will save my sanity. Maybe.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
lol, Sylvia.
I have much liked James McAvoy till this point, and probably will again in the future, but I vote for the cluebat for this one!
The “badly dressed” bit - all I can think of is Henry’s muslin conversation with Mrs Allen about Catherine’s dress: “‘It is very pretty, madam,’ said he, gravely examining it; ‘but I do not think it will wash well; I am afraid it will fray.’”
James McAvoy, how can you be so strange?
March 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
And a cellphone under her bonnet.
A Sidekick. (she said in terms of utter loathing) (no offense to anyone who has a Sidekick; but Jane would have a Treo, or at least a BlackBerry)
March 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
McAvoy must have been sleeping when Henry Tilney said, “The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.”
Seems intolerably stupid Mr. Tumnus could take a note from Mr. Tilney.
And if “the point” of Jane Austen is “badly-written giggly girls”, I am going to join a cave society.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Very sad. My vote is for the Cluebat. Maybe a soft one … … Is there a soft one?
“But I bet he’s not such a dreamboat after all, is he, ladies?” — Tony A
“No indeed! Quite ill-favored,” a la Mrs. Bennet in P&P2.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Yeah, what on earth did that mean: “Isn’t that the point of Jane Austen?” I don’t even understand it enough to be angry at it.
I can’t wait for this movie to come out, make its run at the theatres, come out on DVD, and be over with. My poor DH has had to put up with my rants about its publicity every night. Luckily, he’s sympathetic to my anger, as a comic book geek who sees his favorite books occasionally massacred on screen as well. But they haven’t yet made Becoming Stan Lee, so until then he won’t completely understand.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Oh, and Tom Lefroy never wrote Jane any letters, right, or am I missing something? Jane would not have entered into a correspondence with a man she wasn’t engaged to.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Now he is just making things up. Really!
March 6th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Just as we do not look to great cities for our best morality, we also do not look to actors for cohesive and intelligent thought.
I’ve never been bowled over by McAvoy to begin with so I don’t feel remotely disappointed. Though I like the idea that he merely Googled wrongly, I think it more likely that he missed the satire part when he read it. I’m starting to think some people shouldn’t be allowed to read Austen.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I am inclined to give Mr. McAvoy credit, at least for his creativity. For once someone from BJ is talking about an Austen novel other than P&P. Perhaps we can envision BJ as another one of NA’s gothic fantasys?
March 7th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I’m starting to think some people shouldn’t be allowed to read Austen.
Ina, I like the idea. Should we have a pre-screening test?
Questions:
1. Do you have a sense of humor?
2. Do you have a heart?
3. Do you appreciate sharp witted women who may prove smarter than you?
If so, you can be allowed to read The Jane.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
More than five dances? If a gentleman danced more than twice with a lady he had definitely singled her out and the gossips would have them married straight away. But dancing twice meant four dances, as they were danced in pairs before you changed partners, so more than five dances in a row meant asking the same lady to dance on three consecutive occasions. Definitely bad form.