Conociendo a Jane Austen

The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) was directed by Robin Swicord, who also wrote the screenplay. Thanks to movie adaptations--some great, some so-so--Jane Austen has found a wider audience than she could ever have guessed. Now, second-generation books and films are being made about Austen and her novels. "The Jane Austen Book Club" is one of these.

The premise of the film is simple but irresistible. Six Californians decide to get together once a month to discuss each one of Austen's six novels in turn. The group has some cohesiveness--most of the people are friends, and the group includes a mother and her daughter. However, there is a newcomer--a young man--who is not familiar with Austen, but is charming enough, and eager enough, to be accepted because the group lacks a sixth member.

All of the women are in a lesser or greater crisis at some point in the movie, and the film intertwines their problems with the problems faced by Austen's heroines. The parallel is apt enough--the women, like Austen's heroines, are attractive and reasonably comfortable financially. Most of their problems center around love, or lack of love, which, again, follows Austen's plots.

There's a problem with the movie--every one of the main characters is extremely attractive. Surely, there must be some average-appearing women and men in the Sacramento area. One of the actors--Emily Blunt-- is so beautiful that it's hard to believe she's real. It's also hard to believe that she would have married--and would stay with--her insensitive lout of a husband. (I've never seen Blunt in a film before. When I checked her images in Google, she just looked like one more very attractive young actor. In this movie, she's other-worldly.) I would have liked the movie more if some of the characters had the appearance of people you meet in the real world.

The film will work better if you know Jane Austen's novels and characters. However, even if you don't, "The Jane Austen Book Club" is still worth seeing. Incidentally, it's not a chick-flick. I don't see why men would like the movie any less then women. It's a good film for anyone who likes to read and likes to think.

I have never read Jane Austin. Although I did have a senior Librarian at the British Library, where I am a "registered" scholar-reader, crack a funny and original joke about her to me once. The joke was slow, off-the-cuff (he made it up on the spot), and so droll in the way he told it "au naturel" and spontaneous. HE probably was chortling for the rest of the day. For him it probably was the height of hilarity. I was impressed, and charmed, even though the joke itself was pretty mild. Much like this movie.

The modern day Jane Austen book club members act out love lives and turmoil (and triumphs) very much in parallel with a Jane Austin book, as I understand their plots to be (I have seen them all in movies, but never in print). This reminded me of Shakespeare in Love, where the modern writers performed a brilliant art that went beyond mere parroting or mimicry. I suspect a Jane Austen reader/fan would recognize much, and see in-jokes and intelligent references that I missed. But, I think it is saying something good about the movie to note that I learned something about Austin's books, but also followed the plot, was thoroughly entertained and interested throughout, and felt a involved with what happened. Again, I'm not part of the Austin cognoscenti, but I at least felt "in on the jokes" and in on the plot as well. I was included by the movie.

Some of the plot points veered toward the girlie for a moment, but never completely went off down that road. That is, with the chatty older lady Kathy Baker's character initially showing contempt for men, and hints of a lesbian theme, at first I was ready for a rant. Or at least a put-down of males, like the last 10 minutes of "Steel Magnolias." But everybody lightened up, and basically respect and affection was shown to all, ultimately. Although, returning for a moment to the lesbian thing, I did not for one minute actually buy that the daughter, Allegra, was gay--- not that there would be anything wrong with that (note the Seinfeld reference). But as a comment on the movie, on the narrative and the portrayals, it just didn't FEEL real or true. Not even "movie true." But the actors were competent and otherwise convincing, all around, so I found myself able to dismiss that dissonant note with relative ease.

If you are a guy, don't be afraid of this movie. It's pleasant, and about real-enough things that concern us, too. After all, for most of us, relationships involve men and women, so here's something that is a bit about both, but the perspective is nonetheless clearly from the distaff side, which intrigued me. I enjoyed it! BTW--- I went to a special "art series" showing at the cinema where I am visiting. I went alone. Throughout the movie, however, I could hear many female voices laughing, and seemingly chuckling with agreement when certain truths and characters' foibles were brought to light--- and never in a mean way. So maybe it rings true for the ladies as well.

I'm not a Jane Austen fan. I have not read any of the books and I have only seen two movies based on the books. However, I liked "The Jane Austen Book Club" more than either of those movies.

While it is not particularly realistic, the characters are interesting and likable, the acting is good, and it is not filled with violence and vulgarity, something that seems to be hard to find in the movie theater right now.

All the actors are good but Emily Blunt really stands out. She could end up being a big star. And who knew that Maggie Grace was a real actress and not just the bimbo she played on "Lost."

"The Jane Austen Fan Club" is not a masterpiece and you can probably wait for it to show up on video, but with the poor variety currently available in the theaters, it is the best thing out right now.

An enjoyable film that, for the genre it's in, was not very predictable, and in this way was a very pleasant watch. I really wasn't sure what to expect. I figured with Jane Austen's named tagged onto it it'd be some kind of emotional film with lots of angst. Perhaps it might be a period piece. But this isn't what I got.

I have to admit that I've never cracked a Jane Austen novel, but had seen many a British import on PBS rendering Austen's works for the small screen. And I half expected a costume drama to unfold on the screen, but got something that was a little more cliché in one way, but very unique in another.

The film uses Austen's plots as set piece examples from which the characters learn, apply to their personal lives, and grow. I have to say that I saw some aspects of my own personal life ingrained in this film. One might call it art imitating life, imitating art, only to imitate life once more. As an audience member whose been through some unique experiences as of recent, I found it heart felt. But I digress.

The film is respectably shot. Warm lighting compliments respectable though average cinematography. But then again the film isn't about wowing the audience with stunning visuals. It's about presenting characters and how they relate to one of the great writers of all time and her works.

The humor revolves around the unexpected, as do the more tragic and hurtful points. But even here there's a sort of unpredictable-predictability that, because of its exuberance, can be accepted for what it is. The characters behave as expected, but are surprised with the audience when the unexpected pops up. We can sympathize with them and their situations. It's what might be called the ultimate in character empathy--Austen style.

And isn't that one of Austen's great hallmarks? Her ability to create characters one can believe and sympathize with on all levels? Austen's books are used to create a tapestry of themes to navigate the highs and woes of life. The film's irreverent narrative remains intelligent, adult, somewhat prosaic and marginally didactic, but highly enjoyable for the most part.

A respectable chick-flick. :-) Enjoy!

Sylvia (Amy Brenneman) and her husband, Daniel (Jimmy Smits) have been married for a little over 20 years. But, one day, Daniel drops the big bombshells that he is seeing another woman and that he wants a divorce. Sylvia is heartbroken, so much so that her young, beautiful, lesbian daughter Allegra moves back home to keep an eye on her. Close friend, Jocelyn (Maria Bello) is also hovering over Sylvia and decides to create a book club so that the jilted lady will be surrounded by friends, conversation, and hope. Joining the club is a six-time divorcée (Kathy Baker), an uptight young French teacher, Prudie (Emily Blunt), and Allegra herself. But, because they decide the club will be devoted to Jane Austen and her six books, they need one more member to put someone in charge of each, distinct book discussion. Therefore, Jocelyn invites Grigg (Hugh Dancy), an attractive young man she met at a hotel bar, to join them. In truth, he has eyes for Jocelyn and, although a science fiction fan, would read almost anything to get to know her better. Thus, the discussions start, but the repartee is, at times, only a brief breather from the continuing problems of the club members. These troubles include death, near-infidelity, sky-diving crashes, crazy mothers, and more. Will the club work to the benefit of its members? This is a lovely film about the friends and relationships that make human existence bearable. As the bosom buddies, the movie's fine cast members are all quite wonderful, with Blunt, especially, still managing to make her flawed, confused character, endearing. The California setting is beautiful, naturally, and so are the costumes. Then, too, the script is lively and refined, echoing Austen's great books. Indeed, there is enough of Jane's novels worked into the film's content to satisfy the fans of her highly esteemed works. In short, book yourself a showing of this film and invited your friends to join you at the viewing. Forgive me, but you will "club yourself" if you don't!