How can Jane Austen wreck anyone’s life?

[MsAmerica]

I went to see Jane Austen Wrecked My Life, very dubiously, being a Janeite myself, and was horribly disappointed. But I'm curious if any of you went to see it, and I’m hoping maybe others will convince me that I was wrong.

It’s an okay, if unimaginative, premise: A writer/bookstore worker in Paris is gifted with a two-week residency at a charming English writer’s retreat, and off she goes. Her own writing and her love life are at a dead end, so the audience can only hope that either or both perk up during this holiday.

I’m sorry to admit my own shallowness but, to begin with, I couldn’t get past my assessment of the lead actress, Camille Rutherford, not being attractive, either in her person or personality. And is it just me, or was there no chemistry at all with the male lead? I didn’t mind that it was predictable, but I did mind that there was nothing else to perk it up. Most of the other characters are undeveloped. The humor is mostly feeble. Unlike in Austen stories, no one says anything clever. Oh, and the total mentions of Austen probably added up to maybe 3-4 minutes. And, no, Jane Austen does not wreck anyone’s life.

Feel free to tell me about any wonderful artistry I failed to appreciate or any subtle nuances that I missed.

If you don't mind me asking, where did you see it @MsAmerica? It doesn't seem to be in many places at the moment and none of the big cinema chains here in the UK.

I haven't seen the film, but one thing that irritates me is the idea that she's twee and cosy and snuggly and so on. You know, this association of Austen with china tea cups and floral curtains. Your use of the word "cosy" set alarm bells ringing. In reality, Austen was witty, satirical, razor sharp and a first rate novelist – someone who deserves a place alongside Nabokov and Proust and George Eliot. She is consistently underestimated, and it really annoys me. Same goes for the Brontes.

This! 1000 times over.

I have found that people who think this have never read a word but believe they know all about it because they have seen it on the screen and have a tea towel with the writer's face on it.

@Willowkinsthe release date in UK is June 13.

Thanks @mondaytosunday I've seen that but the nearest cinema screening it on 13 June is the Canterbury Curzon about 30 miles away - it's not showing at the Odeon, Cineworld or Showcase, all of which are closer to where I live. It looks like it's being shunned by the big cinema chains. Ah well.

There's something I find off-putting about Jane Austen-based fiction - I can't quite put my finger on it - as if it's trying to be terribly, terribly clever in an irritating, arch sort of way.

Agree, I think so many people from opinions based on vaguely watching a film adaptation

I agree and I can't quite work out why. I think maybe it's that people do it thinking they are being ever so clever, but they are rarely being as clever as she was so it falls a bit flat.

Oh. I'm in the U.S., and as a matter of fact it seems odd that it's getting as much play as it is. Because I wouldn't give it high marks either as a movie or a draw for Janeites.

Your use of the word "cosy" set alarm bells ringing

?

The OP doesn't seem to have used the word. You're the first to do so on the thread.

Oh, thank you, @Dappy777!

I think there are so many people who miss the point of Austen - especially people who only know her work through the movies. That's one reason I stopped going to most Austen movies. (I mean, new ones. I'll still watch the Greer Garson version.)

Well, that's peculiar. I wonder why.
Thanks.

Lol. You're more alert than I am.

Is it a romcom? In which case, that’s a category error trying to drag Austen into it. Austen didn’t write romantic comedies, she wrote social comedies imo.

I was watching a 2000s romcom recently and it struck me how bland and toothless it was. I think it’s quite an exhausted genre at the moment.

Can I confess? I'm not a Jane Austen fan and this was supposed to be a treat for my DSis (who is). From what you've said, I'll like it more than her.

Funny, I'll bet if you asked fans of most Austen movies, most of them would describe them as rom-com.

I was lucky to have a transformative movie-going period when I saw a lot of classic rom-coms from the 1930s-1950s. As a result, I don't think most contemporary ones are funny, by comparison.

Of course you can confess, and I hope you do like it. But I also hope that maybe you'll give Austen another chance.

I'm hope no-one thinks I'm reviving a zombie thread, but I have just seen it on Curzon Home Cinema and was intrigued to read this thread. The film is not as subtle or amusing as a Jane Austen book, but I really enjoyed it.

It uses some Jane Austen tropes (a woman with two suitors, a mini ball) from which to hang an entertaining plot line. I saw the title as ironic. Jane famously did not have a room of her own and wrote whenever and wherever she could. It was only when Agathe tried to find her own voice and own way of writing that she got anywhere. It certainly filled a damp Sunday afternoon so I'm very pleased to have seen it.

Oh yes, and I thought Camille Rutherford was very beautiful in a Helena Bonham Carter/Emma Watson way. She certainly looked more plausible as someone working in a Parisian bookshop.

Nothing wrote with adding to a thread from a few months ago, and I'm happy that someone was interested.
I disagree about the Rutherford's looks - I find her unattractive, and nothing like Watson or HBC - but I certainly agree that she looked more plausible, unlike the way American films always imagine gorgeous women in the most ordinary jobs.

I saw the film this week and enjoyed it very much. I'm not a Jane Austen fan at all which may have contributed to my enjoying it?

I also thought Camille was very beautiful in a quirky sort of way - which is how I would rather look than be conventionally pretty. (unfortunately I am neither!)

My sister, who is a huge fan, didn't really like it. I think she was expecting a modern twist on a Jane Austen romance.
I have never read any Jane Austen books so had no such expectations. I thought it was interesting but it's only at the end you find out the real connection to Jane Austen.
My main complaint was that the whole thing was obviously filmed in France and their interpretation of Dover was just wrong.

It appears to usually suffer from not having read any Jane Austen.

HA! Lol.
😪

I saw it a couple of months ago. I thought it was a very underdeveloped script. Could have been quite sweet, but characters were two dimensional and lots of cliches rather than much feeling of any authentic romance. It's also not really anything much to do with Jane Austen, just using her name as many things seem to do. I found too many things implausible, which spoiled it for me I'm afraid.

I watched it quite recently. DH got it on DVD. I hadn't heard of it before, and was most unnerved by the Frenchness of it. And there I was thinking I was going into it with no preconceptions. I think that coloured my response somewhat. Anyone expecting too much overt Austenalia is going to be disappointed.
I thought the female lead was very attractive, incidentally.