a book and a movie rewatch

[rose_griffes]

Austenland, by Shannon Hale: well, it was a book. It didn't end up in the "I hate it so much that I'd like to fling it against the wall" category, but I definitely didn't love it. Which is a bit unfortunate, since it was loaned to me by a friend who was certain that it would be just my thing.

The basic premise of Austenland itself was part of the problem. It's a creative premise, I'll grant that. If you're a rich enough woman (this fictional universe only talked of women clients), and you have enough of an interest in Jane Austen's novels, you can sign up for their package vacation, in which you play a character and interact with other paying participants and paid actors. Heck of a vacation. Add in the idea that the management wants its clients to have a satisfactory Austen-esque romantic experience, and then throw in a leading character who is struggling to figure out why her own love life has been so dismal, and I just ended up feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed. So. Not a ringing endorsement for the book. Maybe ten years ago I would have enjoyed this a lot more.

In more positive news, I just rewatched Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, and it's still delightful. Though I was amused to discover that one scene looked very different in my memory than how it played onscreen, and the ending was far more shippy than I remember it.

It's available on Netflix streaming now, so if you haven't watched it yet and have Netflix, give it a try.

Comments

[millari.livejournal.com]

Btw, did you know that Austenland was made into a movie? I watched it initially because James Callis had a part in it as the ridiculous military colonel character and I'm a sucker for just about anything with him it, of course.

I haven't read the book. I enjoyed parts of the movie on an id level, being a fan of Austen and because the comedy was funny to me if I didn't think too hard; but I couldn't shut my eyes ALL the time, and I definitely had a discomfited reaction too.

I didn't like that we were supposed to think of the lead as pathetic for not being interested in "real men", when it was clear that the men we saw her with had no interest in getting to know her. I understood why she had run away to her fantasy world. I was uncomfortable with the script essentially punishing her for getting joy out of being a fangirl and saying her fandom was stupid and that she was a sucker for enjoying it. The implication was that the travel agent that sold her the vacation was totally taking advantage of her, when in fact, she got pretty much what she paid for - an immersive Austen experience.

Somehow, it felt analogous to the movie mocking me as pathetic for wanting to go to Comicon and be surrounded by thousands of excited fans and cosplayers, and saying I should get a life. And I didn't like that it suggested that she couldn't be happy without a romantic interest.

The script was very silly and I'll admit it did make me laugh a bunch, but guiltily at times. I hated how the American woman was played for laughs as the one nobody in their right mind would want because she's overweight and overbearing. In the movie, the actress did a lot to overcome that characterization by playing her overbearingness as a willful, admirable belief in herself that nothing could assail, though. She really shone.

James and most of the other characters (and actors) were for the most part such unquestioned stereotypes that watching this often did make me uncomfortable even while I laughed. I was supremely uncomfortable with the implication in the movie that the actor playing the Colonel was gay, because it could have been pointed out and explained in an interesting way (even implicitly would have been okay) why he was inserting himself into these situations year after year at Austenland, essentially having to deny his sexuality all the time and expose himself to being groped by women on a regular basis, but it never was addressed, except for laughs. It made him come across as pathetic and self-hating on some level.

The actor playing the Darcy-like character seemed very aware of the line of creepiness and sexism that his character threatened to cross and that was a bit better at least, despite the underlying message of his character being "it's understandable that the guy would think of women so crappily, because his wife had been a cheating whore, after all". The actor brought an uncertainty about the way he was being asked to behave, and a sense of de-entitlement (if I can coin a word) hiding under his Mr. Darcy act that it made me okay enough with him.

Hm, I'll look up Miss Pettigrew. Never heard of it.

[rose-griffes.livejournal.com]

Oooh, different from the book, then: Jane is bequeathed the vacation by a deceased wealthy relative, and it's non-refundable. So either take the trip or get nothing. Much was made in the book of how Jane wasn't super-wealthy like the other women on the trip, which added to the whole "not like those other women" effect... which was another thing that really started to get on my nerves after a while.

Changing it to Jane buying her own way makes the whole thing somewhat less squicky, but I'm not sure I'd like the tradeoff of adding in mockery of people wanting to have a fannish experience, though.

I did know about the movie, though not until after it had left theaters. After reading the book, I'm not exactly in a rush to see the movie. (Not saying never, just... not going to make any effort to do so.) I'm glad that the actress playing "Miss Charming" brought something to the role, because she was part of what made the book such an uncomfortable experience. But even Miss Charming, in all her awfulness, isn't judged as harshly by the novel as Amelia is, because Miss Charming is at least 'real' in her awfulness and Amelia, who turns out to be the consummate Austen fan/bored housewife, is 'fake.' Yeah... did I mention my problem with the whole "not like those other women" element? Bleurgh.

Huh, looking over the wikipedia entry, there were a LOT of other changes from book to movie. It really was a rather slight book, which is part of why I finished: it was too hard to justify putting aside such a short novel. That, and I still have to give it back to the friend who loaned it to me. ;-P