FILM REVIEW: AUSTENLAND

A scene from Austenland.

So bore-joy-see

By Don Simpson

The first film I ever saw at the Sundance Film Festival, director and co-writer Jerusha Hess' Austenland might purport to be about becoming so immersed in the world of fiction that we no longer see reality, but in fact it is about making fun of people’s fantasies. The fatefully named Jane (Keri Russell) is a diehard fan of Jane Austen’s. This is supposed to be showcased by the decor of her apartment which resembles that of a 10-year-old girl with an unhealthy fetish for bric-a-brac from 18th century England; instead, it feels like the production design team threw a ton of nonsensical clutter into Jane’s apartment in the guise of being Austen-esque. We are also informed that Jane’s unhealthy obsession with Austen has hindered her relationships. Her dream man, Mr. Darcy, does not actually exist, so Jane will always be disappointed in whomever she dates.

Rather than accepting reality, Jane runs off to vacation at Austenland, a hyper-dramatized recreation of Austen’s literary universe, complete with actors who are charged with the task making the female guests’ Austen-esque romantic fantasies come to orgasmic fruition. Jane is joined in the Austen motherland by two other women from the former colonies — Miss Charming (Jennifer Coolidge) and Lady Heartright (Georgia King) — who are embarrassing caricatures of American tourists in England and whose motives seem much less innocent than Jane’s.

The three women are expected to compete for the attention of two men, Mr. Nobley (JJ Feild) and Colonel Andrews (James Callis) yet Jane’s attention quickly turns to a man of a much lower class, Martin (Bret McKenzie). This is where things get confusing for Jane — and us — because she also develops a rocky, love-hate relationship with Mr. Nobley; and so the entire third act of Austenland is committed to keeping everyone confused about Jane’s true feelings.

There might be a great movie idea somewhere deep inside of Austenland, but it is totally smothered by so much over-baked cheesiness. Parts of Austenland are just too ridiculous for me to stomach. Ludicrousness is confused with comedy, and plot is eschewed in favor of nonsense. Austenlandturns into an embarrassing mockery of all things Austen, when instead it could have learned a lot from Austen’s toned down approach to romance and melodrama.

FILM REVIEW: HEY, BOO

To Kill a Mockingbird author Harper Lee.

Once was enough

By Ed Rampell 

One of the biggest, most enduring mysteries in American literature is why didn’t Harper Lee ever write another book after the smash success of her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird? Her beloved novel was adapted into a movie only about two years after Lee’s bestseller was published (in contrast, it took Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged half a century-plus to make it to the big screen), and the extremely faithful film version won three Oscars, including for Horton Foote’s screenplay. And who can ever forget Gregory Peck’s sensitive, dignified Academy Award-winning depiction of Atticus Finch, the small town attorney who defends an innocent black man in the 1930s segregated South?  

To Kill a Mockingbird captured the zeitgeist of the early 1960s’ Civil Rights movement, and catapulted the young Lee to fame and fortune. Yet she never wrote again. Why? In her documentary Hey, Boo: Harper Lee and 'To Kill a Mockingbird' writer-director Mary Murphy sets out to find out the answer to that literary enigma and more, with clips from director Robert Mulligan’s 1962 movie, archival footage, original interviews and a trip down to Lee’s hometown of Monroeville, Alabama (called Maycomb in the novel).

Alas, as has been her practice since around 1964, Lee -- who is still alive and in her eighties -- remains camera shy. However, a slew of talking heads shed light on the importance and impact of To Kill a Mockingbird, and on Lee herself. The interviewees include Oprah Winfrey, authors such as Scott Turow and Anna Quindlen, Civil Rights leader Andrew Young, musician Roseanne Cash, former newsman Tom Brokaw, etc. However, the most intriguing interviews are with friends of Harper’s and most of all, with her 99-year-old sister Alice Lee.

Although the quirky, ancient Alice -- who still practices law at Monroeville -- is difficult to understand, especially for Yankee ears, she has much to say about her little sister, their small kid days, family life, Harper’s literary process, brush with fame and why she’s never published again. Alice probably comes the closest to revealing the secret of Harper’s perplexing, troubling decision.

In my opinion, this puzzle has much to do with Monroeville’s other fabled novelist, Truman Capote, who also happens to be depicted in To Kill a Mockingbird as Dill John Megna). Capote spent part of his childhood next door to the Lee household. Indeed, while Harper stubbornly refuses to get in front of the camera, she is portrayed by Catherine Keener and Sandra Bullock in two films about Capote’s investigation of the murders he investigated for In Cold Blood, 2005’s Capote and 2006’s Infamous, respectively. Harper assisted Capote with his research in Kansas shortly before To Kill a Mockingbird was published.

Like her childhood friend, Harper relocated to New York, and Truman, who had already attained literary recognition, was helpful in getting To Kill a Mockingbird published. But according to the film, Capote later resented the fact that Harper won a Pulitzer and he didn’t. I suspect that the toll celebrityhood took on Truman and his talent played a major role in turning Harper away from the limelight. However, the experience of being lauded as a literary lioness also affected Harper’s creativity. Whether or not she did try to write another book, the success of To Kill a Mockingbird provided an annuity for her, so unlike the rest of we scribblers, Harper didn’t have to worry about trifles like, you know, earning a living and paying the rent.

Murphy’s documentary doesn’t delve into Harper’s private life. As far as we know she never married, and who knows her sexuality? Truman, of course, was gay, and Lee may have seen how being a celeb under a magnifying glass in a homophobic society adversely affected her childhood pal. Harper might have preferred not to live in a fishbowl and to retreat to the shadows. We have always thought that the tomboy Scout was supposed to be Harper, but perhaps the truth is that she has been more like the reclusive, elusive, eponymous Boo Radley (Robert Duvall’s first movie role).

In any case, this is a heartwarming, entertaining doc for lovers of literature in general, and of To Kill a Mockingbird in particular. Murphy pays the original novel and movie homage by showing how important both were to the Civil Rights movement and puts To Kill a Mockingbird into historical context -- especially as it was written by a young woman who had, once upon a time, grown up in the segregated South. Its tale of racism and injustice, amplified by Peck’s performance as the attorney Atticus who defends the wronged Tom Robinson (the moving Brock Peters), was the quintessential Civil Rights film of its day. In addition, Mary Badham’s badass portrayal of the tomboy Scout stands in stark contrast to the screen’s prim and proper Southern belles. I do declare, Murphy’s doc points out that in addition to striking a blow for equal rights for blacks, To Kill a Mockingbird also made an impact on the issue of gender equality. 

Thank you, Harper Lee.

     

 

SFIFF 2011: CHILDREN OF THE PRINCESS OF CLEVES

A scene from Children of the Princess of Cleves.

Text-ing times

By Miranda Inganni

In director Régis Sauder’s documentary, The Children of the Princess of Clèves (Nous, Princesses De Clèves), teenagers from a Marseilles high school learn about life and love from the classic French novel, The Princess of Clèves. Using the students to read excerpts from the book, reenact selections and discuss the subject matter with their friends and families, Sauder brings the 17^th century book to life in the 21^st century.

Proving some things are timeless, this documentary is an age-old story of children growing up – testing their boundaries and their parents patience and exploring their own emotions. Instead of the 16^th century royal court of Henri II, the backdrop is a contemporary working class community, but the themes are the same: love, passion, duty, disappointment, jealousy, betrayal, angst, et cetera.

And when the parents get involved in the discussion, it is clear that the kids, being teenagers, are not used to having these issues talked about at home. It’s quite laudable that Sauder gets the conversation going between parent and child during a time when the child is less like to talk and more likely to walk away. There are raw and revealing scenes where it’s clear that some of these young adults still want their parents’ affection and attention, all the while reaching out on their own and rebuking their elders.

Enriched by the ensemble of students featured in the film, The Children of the Princess of Clèves, culminates in the results of their baccalaureate exams. Some pass, some fail, some skip the exam entirely (without his or her parent’s consent or knowledge). In the end, the mobile texting kids seem to have learned a little more about themselves through the exploration of this text -- disproving what French President Nicholas Sarkozy said about it.