Last year’s ignored and reviled biopic Fur carried the subtitle “an imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus”. In doing so it acknowledged the extreme liberties it took in its attempt to convey its subjects peculiar artistic temperament. Becoming Jane, the new biopic on beloved author Jane Austen, has more of an excuse to play with the facts. Jane Austen’s life was not an open book so what are the facts exactly? Despite its relatively casual relationship to reality the new film is largely a safe and traditional piece and, as such, it’s unlikely to provoke as much ire as Fur did but in its own way it’s more maddening. The earlier film overreached in concept and underperformed in execution. Becoming Jane has small if infuriating goals as a portrait and it achieves them modestly.
There’s good news and there’s bad news. Which do you want first?
The good news. This fluffy biopic offers up charismatic stars who are finer fits for their roles than they might initially appear. Anne Hathaway is a glamourized version of Jane Austen but on this point why quibble -- for what Hollywood biopic is free of the sin of beautifying its subject with a marquee name? Hathaway’s performance isn’t the kick in the pants that Keira Knightley managed with her great read on Elizabeth Bennett in Pride & Prejudice (a film to which this movie owes a huge debt. Or a royalty check) but she does right by the limited view of the material. She continues to be one of Young Hollywood’s best bets for enduring stardom. James McAvoy, another rising star, is also strong as her would be lover, the charming rogue Tom LeFroy. The young stars read a touch modern for the time frame but that works for the film since it’s a high concept romantic concoction rather than a serious period piece. The supporting team is also fine if unimaginatively cast. The reliably hilarious Maggie Smith may be phoning it in as the snooty economic force in town but she still manages huge laughs. Best of all the period does allow for the usual eye candy that such films provide for their fan constituency including pretty but not too pretty dresses (the Austens aren’t wealthy) by Eimer Ní Mhaoldomhnaigh whose credits include The Wind That Shakes the Barley and Breakfast on Pluto. The director Julian Jarrold who previously made the listless Kinky Boots has improved too. He manages to infuse more energy into this follow up, though I shouldn’t overstate -- Jane is hardly caffeinated.
The bad news. As pretty or as fun as the individual contributions are the movie has a shaky foundation. The basic conceit of the screenplay by Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams is that Jane Austen’s masterpiece Pride & Prejudice was a thinly veiled autobiography. There’s a certain easy “in the know” enjoyment that can be had in this type of conceptual approach to a famous person’s work (Shakespeare in Love is a stellar example): the audience is free to congratulate themselves for the dots they can connect between the work they know (plays, books, music, whatever) and the movie’s version of the artist’s life. The shadow side to this approach is that it’s arguably demeaning to the subject at hand if the connections are too blatantly drawn. Though I don’t believe that Becoming Jane is purposefully cynical or intends disrespect to Jane Austen, it suggests that she just wrote what she heard and what she knew. If you stop to consider it, that rather undermines her great talent, unparalleled wit and narrative imagination. In other words: this painting may be lovely but the portrait is still unflattering.
