My Guilty Pleasure . . .

Austenland is now on DVD/Blu-ray!  Just in time for Valentines Day.

Can you believe Valentines was a little over a week ago, and just last week all V-Day candy was 50% off.  Yeah, I took advantage of the sales.

Back on topic.

Austenland.  The movie I vowed, after first seeing it, to rate the film 1.5 stars out of 5.  Then, after some thought, and a couple nights sleeping on it, I rated the movie 3 out of 5 stars for the review I wrote.  Oh, was I mad.  But then I had to see the movie again, just to solidify or debate my first opinion.

After seeing the movie 5 times, yes F-I-V-E times in theaters (twice driving up to Salt Lake), this movie has grown on me in a huge way.  I really like it now, and find some parts really charming.

Oh, I still give it a 3 out of 5 stars simply out of stuberness, and the fact that I still believe the PG-13 elements shouldn't have been included, but that's just the proud prude in me.  (I know, pride before the fall, but there you go.)

Still, this movie is super addictive, and laugh-out-loud funny, especially with a bunch of girls, all of us giggling.

When my Mom and I brought the DVD home my brothers moaned.  Robbie still remembers vividly how mad he was after leaving the theater up in Salt Lake.  Steven was none too pleased, either.  Robbie begged that we never watch Austenland while he's home.  

(Now, I must mention Robbie actually Loves, LOVES romantic comedies.  He sometimes craves them.  And he willingly sits down to Pride and Prejudice, Anne of Green Gables, Road to Avonlea, While You Were Sleeping, etc, whenever they're on.  It's the PG-13 bits of Austenland he found infuriating.  Honestly, I understand and respect him for it.)

So that's when I realized something funny and sad: My brothers view Austenland the same way my Mom and I view Sucker Punch.

(I should note Robbie hasn't seen Sucker Punch, despite encouragement from my Dad and Steven.) 

Austenland, Movie Review

(10-27-2015: As a note, this movie has now become one of my guilty pleasures.  It's really quite fun.  I'm afraid to read below to remember what my first impression was!  I remember being quite mad the first time I saw this movie.)

Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars

(As of 9-24-2013 I've bumped it up to 3.5 out of 5 stars, simply because I've seen it in the theater 4 times to date.)

It is a truth universally acknowledge that a good book is in need of a good script, if it is to become a movie, and that any potential good script is in need of a great director and producer.  When this truth is acknowledged amazing entertainment is wrought, but if it is not acknowledged this entertainment is rot.

That was my initial reaction after viewing the film Labor Day weekend.

I took a deep breath and decided to hold off reviewing Austenland, based on the Shannon Hale book of the same name, which I originally gave a 2 out of 5 star rating.

Two main reasons for my original outrage was thus: My brothers, who actually love Jane Austen and romantic comedies, were with me and I could feel their discomfort, and secondly, though I know there's a difference between movies and books, which I'm typically fine with this, I hated the Hollywood sexified aspect that was placed in the movie, but wasn't in the books.  PG-13!!!!??  The book, if faithfully represented, would have been PG.  The PG-13 was earned, and headed up by Mormon LDS women to boot.  (Thanks for that, BTW -_-;; )

So before continuing the original review I choose to reread the book and then re-watch the movie.

In the beginning of the book Mrs. Wattlesbrook, played by the amazing Jane Seymour, is quoted as saying: "For the sake of the experience, we must be proper."  The Austenland in the book is perfect Regency Era proper.  England 1816 proper full of etiquette, rules and manners.  All electronics (minus flushing toilets and some electric lights) are forbidden and kept out of sight.  Mrs. Wattlesbrook would never, NEVER, announce classes and activities over a loud speaker.  And the scene where Lady Heartwright "plays" the piano via cassette tape wouldn't be tolerated as well.

Instead the movie's Austenland has about as much class as a cheap Las Vegas wedding chapel.  Instead of beautiful gardens and regency grace, we're treated by bright colors and gaudy statues.

And then there's all those cheap shots of Men's crotches, taking off shirts, a light porn cheap soap opera scene, statues with well places leaves, drawing attention instead of simply being beautiful, and sexual innuendos.

I do love Jane Seymour, but her Wattlesbrook, who's supposed to be full of fierce respect and dignity, was made silly holding a fake lamb and posing in posters advertizing her business.  James Callis as Andrews was nothing like the book, though he's amazing in Battlestar Galactica. I was expecting a more Lost in Austen Tom Mison.  And the portrayal of Lady Heartwright, Georgia King, was all wrong, though that's more of how the part was written then played, because I don't fault the actress in this.  She performed what was given, but it would have been so much better for the movie if her role remained sophisticated then becoming trashy and dumb.

There were tweaks to the lead characters as well, that I didn't mind.  Instead of Keri Russell's Jane inheriting the trip from her deceased Aunt, she spends her own life's savings, making her seem more desperate and pathetic.  It does work, though it works better in the book.  Martin, played by Bret McKenzie, works with animals instead of gardening, and this change makes a lot of sense for the movie, and leads to some honestly good movie only scenes (pheasant shooting/getting stranded on horseback).

It's Mr. Nobley, played by JJ Feild, who saves the film.  He's better then Colin Firth, and the changes made to his character (which I won't reveal for spoiler reasons) only endears him more.  My Mom wanted to see the movie again because of him, and I agreed with the sentiment.

Apparently the showing right after the one I attended on Saturday was attended by the authoress Shannen Hale.  I know this because one of my friends was there.  Shannon had a Q & A afterword, and someone actually asked about the added sexual material.  Shannon Hale said she had little control on set.  Jerusha Hess (who co-wrote and directed) and Stephenie Meyer (producer) should have had some say on set, and if they could have "cleaned it up," having both attended my alma mater Brigham Young University, they should have.  And if not, why not?  To prove what, exactly?  How grown up they are being "Hollywood?"  Rebelling in their own "Miley Cyrus" way?  Not cool.

If the movie stayed closer to the book (though I do love the apartment scene towards the end) the movie would have been amazing.  We watch Jane Austen flicks because we love the gallantry, the manners, the class, of which this movie contains none.     

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some suggestive content and innuendo.

Shannon Hale and Austenland

 

On February 18, 2012, I attended a book signing by Shannon Hale, of the Princess Academy, Honorary Newbery fame.  A book I honestly haven't read.  On this day the only book I had read of hers was The Actor and the Housewife.  The book is about a Mormon housewife who becomes friends with her favorite  movie actor.  I found the book at Costco, started reading it on the spot, and knew I was doomed to buy it and bring it home with me.  The book is kinda controversial due to the subject mater, one of the reasons I had to finish the story, and you either love it or hate.  Personally I enjoyed the read.

Shannon was promoting her newest book, Midnight in Austenland, the second book in her Austenland series.  The first book is going to be a movie, currently in post-production, and according to its IMDb website, it is slated for a December 4, 2012 release.  The movie date is subject to change and it may be a limited release.  I was surprised to find that Keri Russell, of Felicity and August Rush fame, is staring in the movie.  Jennifer Coolidge and Jane Seymour are co-starring.  You can find more information about the movie here.    

Mrs. Hale was delightful and wonderfully down to Earth.  She shared writing tips, which I soaked up, and related what it was like having a book turn into a movie.

This whole event got me thinking: What is the future of book signings?  With Borders closing, I hope Barnes & Noble will thrive.  I downloaded both Austenland books to my Kindle, and if more people continue to do this, the book industry will continue to change.   You can't go and get an ebook signed.  And is it wise to get a Kindle autographed in a Barnes and Nobel?  Don't get me wrong, I still love good old fashioned hard covers, and I hope they wont go away.  After all, You can still buy CD's even with the widespread popularity of the iPod.

   

Austenland is a Jane Austen fan girls dream. It's 19th century larping in its grandest form.  This fictional place, though I wish it was real, is a manor filled with paid actors, maids, and servants.  You leave the 21 century behind for Regency England, complete with authentic costumes, meals, party games, and other period endeavors.  And you may find romance along the way, the problem is, is it real?  Is the man, who is paying you attention, scripted or genuine?  And what of the other players?  What and who can you trust?  That's the main issue in both books.

The first was a cute romance, and as lead characters go I prefer the heroine, Jane Hayes, in the first book.  The plot got a little silly in the love story, but it was a fun, and I can't wait to see the movie adaptation.

The second book was more engrossing, because there is a murder/ghost story that those in Austenland are playing through, though, like the first book, you don't know what is real and not real.  And Charlotte Kinder must sort through the fact from the fiction.  I was annoyed with Charlotte, honestly, with her thought process, though I enjoyed the cast of characters in the second book more then the first.  And the second book, Midnight in Austenland, was more laugh out loud funny.  It is a little more Adult then the first, only because there are marriage like things mentioned in accordance to Charlotte's failed marriage.       

          (Public Domain.  Source information can be found here.)

When reading the two books, it was fun trying to imagine myself in Austenland.  (Come on!  A girl can dream!)  Though I don't think I'd like a man pretending to dote on me.  The whole "is his admiration real or not?" would get annoying fast.  

But in Austenland you're in 1816, and as an American that is a very interesting time period in history, and role-playing as an American in England would be fascinating and devilishly fun.

America was in the throws of the Second Great Awaking, which lasted roughly between 1800-1840, so religion was a heavy topic on many minds.  The American Revolution ended 33 years before 1816.  The French Revolution was still fresh on everyone's minds.  James Madison, father of the Constitution, was President.  And the War of 1812, another war against the British, had just ended, lasting between 1812-1815.  William Wilberforce, in Britain, led to the end of the Slave Trade in 1807, though slavery was thriving in America during that time.  The Brits would have that on me in 1816, because I'm 100% Yankee.  The Regency was an interesting period in History.

And for the record, I'd rather a Gilbert Blythe over a Mr. Darcy any day!  Should I admit that?

Hope you had a good day,

Sarah         

Edit:  I should note that I probably shouldn't claim I'm 100% Yankee, in that I'm still doing my genealogical research, and I have a lot of lost ancestors who seem to want to remain lost.  Only, I relate to my ancestors in the North.  (No offense, southern ancestors.)