When Good People Get Together: a review of The Jane Austen Book Club (film adaptation)
We were a little surprised when we heard that filming was going forward on The Jane Austen Club. Not because we didn’t like the novel that inspired it; on the contrary, we loved the novel, but were at a loss as to how the plot, with its timeshifts and flashbacks, could be rendered on film without severe evisceration, which, if not done with due care (as we Janeites certainly know), can have some ugly results. We were further alarmed by the casting of actors who all were at least a decade younger than the characters in the book. Fortunately, we are delighted to report that The Jane Austen Book Club is a funny and smart film that keeps the spirit of the original even while it takes some severe departures from it.
For the benefit of those who have not read the book, the six members of the group are brought together by mutual acquaintances, each of them grieving or confused or lonely, to read Jane Austen as “the perfect antidote to life.” They read and discuss and argue and flirt and fall in and out of love, using Jane Austen’s novels as emotional touchstones as her stories pop up in their lives in the most surprising ways. It’s not a modern-set version of a Jane Austen novel, like Clueless or Bride and Prejudice; Jane’s work is present and informs the proceedings, but the touch is light, almost ghostly. You probably won’t be getting any new insights into the novels. It’s more like the audience is the seventh member of the book club, listening to the others approach the novels through their own experiences, and, well, prejudices.
For those who, like us, read and loved the novel, we were pleased how much of the original six stories were preserved. The flashback scenes were excised, but in some cases the characters were able to tell part of their backstories. Allegra’s story in particular is almost intact, and Maggie Grace has managed to repeat Kate Winslet’s astonishing feat of making Marianne Dashwood likable. The rest of the cast also is excellent, without a single weak link; no flavor of the month starlet casting, thank Jane. Kathy Baker renders Bernadette almost perfectly from the book as the warm-hearted, sweet-natured, ever so slightly ditzy Earth Mother of the group. We’ve already waxed gushy about Hugh Dancy’s hilarious turn as Grigg, a single geek in possession of a good fortune, who is enthusiastic about reading–especially about reading whatever Jocelyn tells him he should read. Jimmy Smits plays Daniel against type, dumping his wife cruelly and bringing his new love to “her” Whole Foods, and oh! How we detest him for his perfidy! Not unlike how we detest a certain sea captain when he is cruel to a certain Miss A— E—–; but like that other gentleman, he makes up for it. (And when he was sitting on the beach discussing Persuasion both of our ovaries pretty much exploded simultaneously. Ow.)
As in the novel, the Austen references shift and sneak up one. Some will likely go over the heads of non-Janeite audiences, and probably they will never miss them; they are little treats for Janeites. Yes! This film does not forget the Janeites! Shocking, we know, after suffering a series of directors and screenwriters and actors who said publicly that they did not care what Those Austen People thought. Robin Swicord, who wrote the screenplay and directed, is one of us, and we are not forgotten. Although not all members of her cast are Janeites, she gets them to buy into the Janeness, and yet manages to avoid major eggheadedness that would make the Great Unwashed run screaming for the exits. Non-Janeite friends, family, SOs, and spouses need not fear this film. Janeites, for that matter, need not fear this film, even if one has been disappointed by recent efforts in her name. We laughed a lot, we cried a little, and we enjoyed the way the ending wrapped up all the stories harmoniously–just like Jane.
Those who have not read the novel should have no problem following the film, and those who have read the novel will enjoy it, we think, whether or not you liked the book. It’s witty and clever, much like Jane herself, and celebrates her novels and the community of readers who have loved them for 200 years. You, Gentle Reader, are part of that community; go and celebrate.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:45 am
GREAT review Mags, you touched on all the emotional aspects of the book that I so enjoyed and peaked my interest on the film. I’m off to surf Fandango to see if I can catch the film when it opens here in Seattle on Friday!
Such dediction to post this at 1:47am! More caffine rushes?
Cheers, Laurel Ann
“Old bibliophiles never die, they just read away.”
September 26th, 2007 at 8:07 am
FINE review.
I have a couple of comments. I thought the movie was right to leave out most of the flashbacks; the characters’ pasts were perfectly well-illuminated by a few lines of dialogue. This was particularly true of Prudie–having her tell Trey about her mother and the imaginary birthday parties, etc. was more effective to me than seeing it in flashback because it not only told us a lot about Prudie but showed the dangerous intimacy that was springing up between her and Trey–one suspected that she had never even told Dean (her husband) these things else he’d not have been so tone-deaf as to offer to dump her mother on her as compensation for not taking her to Paris. I thought that was really effective, from a screenplay sense.
Jimmy Smits was spot-on. He managed to make Daniel sympathetic even before he started gushing about Persuasion, though the natural impulse would be to hate him for leaving his wife like that.
The weak link of the cast for me was Sylvia. I had a tough time with her in the novel, too. Here, I got the sense that it wasn’t so much Jane and shared friendship, as it was a good conditioner which helped her to get over Daniel enough to go on enjoying life.
And speaking of hair…Maria Bello’s. I had several “Her HAIR, LOUISA!” moments in this movie. What is it with the dead, greasy-looking hair? I could scarcely concentrate on Hugh Dancy’s alarming cuteness in the meet-up scene in the hotel bar because of my horror over Maria Bello’s hair. Mine is certainly never going to grace the cover of Vogue, but at the very least I DO wash it and blow it dry or put it up NEATLY when I am getting ready to meet my fellow dog people. Watch Westminister KC on tv…the female and male exhibitors are extremely well-groomed.
I was happy to see as her interest in Grigg blossomed, her hair improved.
The only thing I really objected to won’t bother most of the audience, but it bugged me a lot. I am actually a sighthound breeder/exhibitor at about the same level of achievement in that hobby as Jocelyn is. Further, I’m second generation–my mother is QUITE well-known in those circles, so I’ve seen a lot of that little strange world and while I know that all enthusiasms and passions can look a bit strange to those on the outside, I wonder why in a film where they got so much RIGHT they got this so terribly wrong. I don’t think the author really quite understood it either–clearly, she’s done her homework enough to toss around some terms, but the funeral for Jocelyn’s dog was waaaay over the top. That’s more something that James Herriott’s “Mrs. Pumphrey” would do for her Pekingnese “Tricky Woo” than a top breeder of Ridgebacks would do for her old stud dog. While she might be privately devastated to lose a “heart dog”, the funeral with the coffin and the priest would be considered evidence of complete insanity by anyone in my sport. I really don’t think it was necessary. I never seen anything of the sort in all my years in dogs. We already have enough whack-job stereotypes to deal with thanks to “Best in Show”.
Well, enough of that.
This movie rests well on my mind and I think would stand up to several viewings. I DID enjoy the novel but recall complaining to Mags that I wished for the price of the hardcover copy, it had been longer without quite so many flashbacks, but more book discussion and also more scenes between the characters in present tense. Also, I wanted more Grigg and less Sylvia. I think this movie did satisfy that longing for me.
I only gave it 8/10 on imdb.com, but that was primarily due to the fact that as a MOVIE, it’s nice-looking but not terribly cinematic. It won’t lose a thing on the small screen.
Karen
September 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I am SO looking forward to this film.
I’m glad the director didn’t abandon we few Janeites!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“Jimmy Smits plays Daniel … (And when he was sitting on the beach discussing Persuasion both of our ovaries pretty much exploded simultaneously. Ow.)”
You’ve sold me on seeing the movie, even though I never warmed up to the book!
Nuff said.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I’m really glad to hear that it’s good!
September 26th, 2007 at 11:11 am
K, how funny–you did the hair review! I usually do the hair review!
I thought Amy Brenneman was quite good as Sylvia. She went from emotional devastation (because it really was a nasty, cruel dumping, I thought) to anger to acceptance and finally to forgiveness. She’s not the saint that Anne Elliot is, that’s for sure, but who is? And I loved her bit about Fanny Price being Horton Hatches the Egg.
I’m a huge fan of Jimmy Smits since L.A. Law (still remember the first time I saw him, my jaw dropped and I was all “Hello there good-looking!”) and I’m still bummed I didn’t get to see at least one Santos administration on The West Wing, but I have to say I did not find him remotely sympathetic until he started talking about Persuasion. He was kind of a jerk early on, making fun of poor Jocelyn (though one can hardly blame him) and then being really, really mean to Sylvia, who clearly still loved him very much. I sneered at his lawn-mowing and liked it when Sylvia told him he couldn’t just come to the house when he wanted to–it wasn’t HIS HOME anymore, because he had made the decision to leave. And then when he saw her having lunch with Grigg and was all jealous I was all “HA HA HA! SUCK ON THAT!” But as I said in the review, I’m the same way with Wentworth. Though really Anne is the dumper and he the dumpee in that one, but he does behave quite badly.
As far as Maria Bello’s hair goes–WORD UP, my friend. I guess I’m so used to seeing women dressed up in pretty frocks with rubber flip-flops and those kind of sloppy “ponytail buns” that I’m hardened to it now. Let’s face it, we live in a degenerate age.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Mags and Karen, now I want to move to PA just so I can go to the movies with the two of you. You crack me up enormously. By the bye, the other fandom missed you both in Halifax but managed to have a smashingly good time nonetheless.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
There is something I want to compliment here:
“For the benefit of those who have not read the book, the six members of the group are brought together by mutual acquaintances, each of them grieving or confused or lonely, to read Jane Austen as “the perfect antidote to life.” They read and discuss and argue and flirt and fall in and out of love, using Jane Austen’s novels as emotional touchstones as her stories pop up in their lives in the most surprising ways.”
I wrote a review for imdb and I had the HARDEST time trying to come with the right term or word to use to describe how Jane’s works were being used. “emotional touchstones” is a very elegant way to put it. I wish I’d thought of that!!!
I did think the entire cast was good. Kathy Baker was particularly delightful.
Karen
p.s. Howdy Ensign Sandra!
September 26th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Great review. I saw the movie on Saturday since it was a monsoon here in New York and I wanted to get out of the rain. It was the perfect antidote.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Once again I must wait for a movie. We in Richmond live in a cinematic backwater, so once again I’ll be among the last to see this movie. Your review has me champing at the bit. Robin is smart and savvy. I imagine she did Jane proud!