Though in the course of fifty years I have forgotten much, I have not forgotten that Aunt Jane was the delight of all her nephews and nieces. We did not think of her as being clever, still less as being famous: but we valued her as one always kind, sympathising and amusing. Her talents did not introduce her to the notice of other writers, or connect her with the literary world, or in any degree pierce through the obscurity of her domestic retirement. – James Austen-Leigh
I am having a love/dislike relationship with Miss Austen Regrets, to be aired on PBS’s Masterpiece Classic, February 3 at 9:00 PM EST. On the one hand it is such a relief to see Jane Austen depicted as a strong, intelligent, witty, independent, tough, and mature woman through the person of Olivia Williams. On the other hand, why clothe the film in regret and gloom? On the occasions when Olivia as Jane declares she is happy with the choices she’s made in life and with the men she’s rejected, you don’t believe her for a moment. There is such a somber atmosphere to this film, underscored by the music and the long silent moments when Jane stares into space, or sits by a pond, or looks out of a window, that one is left with a melancholy feeling despite the sparkling words.
These scenes belie Jane’s statements of content. This viewer, instead of watching a movie about a confident and talented woman, was somewhat surprised to watch a film about a middle-aged spinster who, though not necessarily unhappy, seems to constantly ask the question: “What if?’ In addition, although Jane was not known to be a great dresser, there is almost a quakerish feel to the film.
So why does this movie, written by a female, delve so deeply into the ‘what might have beens’? The film opens with Harris Bigg-Wither’s proposal, and Jane’s acceptance, then rejection of it. Her retraction was not only a faux pas as far as Society was concerned, but it was a foolhardy decision for her era. Women were expected to marry, and Jane blew her chance for economic security. Mr. Big-Withers had a comfortable income, and he could have provided for Jane, Cassandra, and Mrs. Austen. In the movie, Cassandra seems to influence Jane for changing her mind, but one gets the sense that Jane would have come to this decision regardless of her sister’s pressure. (As an aside, Greta Scacchi is miscast as Cassandra. She may be the right age to play the role, but she looks much older. Worse, she does not exert the big sister influence that I expect Cassandra to have over Jane, who in real life looked up to her.)
After this dramatic introduction, we meet Jane as an aunt and confidante of Fanny Knight, daughter of her brother, Edward Austen-Knight, a widower with eleven children. These early scenes with Jane and Fanny are lovely, full of fun and mischief, and the dialogue is scintillating. “Want to know the true reason I never found a husband?” says Jane, “I never found one worth giving up flirting for.”
The aunt and niece laugh and dance and snoop on the men after dinner under cover of darkness. Fanny solicits Jane’s opinion about her suitor, Mr. Plumtree.
“Fanny Plumtree,” Jane replies in mock horror, sending Fanny into giggles.
But then Jane gets serious, saying, “I would have you marry because I know you won’t be happy until you are. Single women have a dreadful propensity for being poor. And the best recipe for happiness is a large income.”
The dialogue sparkles with Jane’s wit and truisms culled from her writing, and if the film hadn’t taken such a gloom and doom approach to spinstershood, these lines would have sparkled more. Fanny did indeed go on to marry well three years after Jane’s death to Thomas Knatchbull, a widower with five children. As a young girl Fanny helped to raise her ten siblings, and she went on to have five children of her own. She is never portrayed in the film as a deep thinker, for all she can think of is marriage. In real life her journals bear this out. Fanny wrote copiously during her lifetime, but her dairies dealt with daily events, and she seldom wrote down her thoughts or deeper feelings.
Despite her enormous talent, Jane is human. According to the movie (and the letters on which it is based) Jane liked to dance, flirt, and drink wine, Perhaps she indulged in too much of the latter, and this draws the ire of Rev. Bridges (Hugh Bonneville), her former beau.
It seems the reverend proposed to Jane when they were both young. She rejected him, though it is obvious that the vicar, though married, still carries a torch for her. When Jane wonders what would have happened if she accepted his proposal, he casually answers: “You would have wound up as a vicar’s wife in Ramsgate.” Later on he professes to Jane that he would have allowed her to write, and taken care of a mother and sister. Again, the viewer is treated to another refrain of “What might have been.”
“I’d waited for news that you’d married,” he said.
“As every woman knows there’s a scarcity of men in general. And an even greater scarcity for any that are good for much,” was her tart reply.
“You can hide behind your clever words as much as you like,” he answers.
“Good, because my clever words will soon be the only thing that will put a roof over my head. Or over my mother’s. Or over my sister’s. I’m to be my own husband it seems.”
“I’d have put a roof over all your heads, and cherished you, dear Jane, ‘till death us do part.”
Jane’s outburst reveals the constant tension she is under. While her words and actions are those of an independent woman, she is a product of her times. She cannot go out and make a living. Worse, she must depend on the men in her life to act as her agents.
We meet Henry, Jane’s favorite brother, as he and Jane are strolling in London. He frets about Jane’s finances and her ability to support herself through book sales. Jane then explodes, saying, “Sense and Sensibility has brought me a 140 pounds. May I not be proud of that?”
I won’t review the entire film for you. Just suffice it to say that if I had been the director of this tale, I would have emphasized that single women do find fulfillment in pursuing their talents, in nurturing family relationships, and in being true to their vision. I wish the plot had dwelled more on the creative, talented side of Jane, instead of her constant worry for money. Aside from that, I was vastly relieved to hear Jane’s words spoken in such an intelligent manner and with such conviction by Olivia Williams. This movie almost makes up for the fairy tale that was Becoming Jane. Almost, but not quite.
- Click on Remotely Connected for reviews of The Total Jane Austen.
Note: I am off on vacation for a week, and will return to answer any queries you might have.
Jane Austen's World 
[…] Production Blog wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
I never saw Becoming Jane because it appeared to be completely fictitious. Maybe I’ll get in on Netflix. I’m glad to hear that this film will be more based on fact. It sounds like your complaints are not in the realism of the film but only in the emphasis. Looking forward to seeing it!
Have a good trip to London!
Thanks for a very thoughtful review. I am so glad that opportunities have changed for women today. Jane Austen’s choices were so limited. Have a nice holiday. Cheers, Laurel Ann
Thanks for the review. I had been debating whether to watch the movie this weekend, and I think I’ve decided not to. I prefer to let what I’ve read of Jane speak for itself.
[…] Place has her review of it posted at Jane Austen’s World and has mixed impressions… I am having a love/dislike relationship with Miss Austen […]
[…] Place doesn’t hate it, but is dissatisfied. I won’t review the entire film for you. Just suffice it to say that if I had been the director […]
[…] a more in-depth review of the film, visit the Jane Austen’s World […]
It was a bit dreary. Jane seemed to have a fire in her soul that was constantly flickering or dying or suddenly blazing..and then dying again. I couldn’t wait for the movie to end…and then realized it was only going to get worse, even then.
[…] Ms. Place has also posted an interesting review, with lots of pics from the movie, at Jane Austen’s World. […]
After watching the movie, I tend to agree with you that it needs not be so dark and gloomy, although I’ve enjoyed it despite of the atmostphere. BTW, the screenplay is written by a woman, but I don’t think the director is.
I agree that it was dreary. How accurate was it? In one scene Jane doesn’t seem to know how to hold an infant. Jane would have known perfectly how to hold a child. She often babysat neices and nephews during their mothers lyings-in.
Why was it Jane’s duty to take care of her mother and sister? It was her brothers’ duty to take care of ageing parents.
I don’t like to see inconsistencies as it makes me doubt the entire movie.
I could not disagree anymore with all of the negative responses to this movie. This story was so realistic and touched me very deeply! There are few dramatizations that manage to entertain my extremely critical attitude toward movies, especially in today’s world of fluff on television, and in theaters. I long for truth of the true human condition to be portrayed in a realistic fashion. Jane was portrayed as a woman who knew in the end what her purpose truly was in her short-lived life, but the real beauty of this film was how her innermost longings, desires, yes, regrets were so masterfully and subtly portrayed. The moments of her gazing in deep thought, were expertly carried out by Olivia, and were such a necessary aspect of the story of a woman in conflict. I found myself reading her mind. She was so transparent at those moments, and then would compose herself and revert to her witty, detached, demeanor so as not to ever let the delicate side be truly known to others, except for maybe Casandra. I could speak about the mastery of the casting in this film as well, but need to go to work! Let me just mention one more wonderful part of this film . . . the sexual tension Olivia displayed toward the doctor in the end transported me back to when I met the love of my life.
I think I loved this film more than her actual stories because it was so true to life in general. Maybe not perfectly true to hers, but who cares? I was thoroughly rapt.
Oh, bibliophylia, I hope my review did not influence you from seeing the movie. While its tone and atmosphere were too somber for my taste, Olivia Williams’ beautiful performance was worth watching. And I liked this movie so much more than the simplistic Becoming Jane.
Arti, thank you for the correction, which I made. This teaches me to not write in such haste before a trip.
Sue, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I have talked to people who love the movie as you do and for similar reasons. It IS an intelligent, reflective film, and they are rarely made these days.
However, there are others, like me, who would have liked this rendition of Jane’s life more had the tone been slightly less somber. The stance this film takes is that Jane was in conflict. My question is: was she truly? Someone who is at the top of her game, as Jane was during this period, feels a surge of creative energy and power. She was writing furiously at this stage of her life, and creating some of her best work. I think that all of this surging energy would leave her in a state of wonderful discovery and excitement, not in a state of conflict. I think that before she fell sick she must have felt a great deal of internal strength and power. Had Jane married and born children, she would not have been able to see her talents come to such rich fruition.
The statement that Olivia as Jane made at the end of the film rings so true. She was not willing to let go of her life, not when she still had so many books yet to write and stories to tell. That one regret spoke most directly to me.
“Jane Austen Regrets” confirmed the views I had of her life during the nineteeth century. She is woman so far ahead of her time and an inspiration to women of the twenty first century. I do not believe that Jane Austen was waiting for or in search of her own “Mr. Darcy.” Her only regret was that a failure to do so, created a financial hardship for her beloved sister Cassandra and her mother. Her illness did not allow her the time to continue to pursue her writings and provide her family with much needed financial security. This is a tragedy all Jane Austen enthusiasts regret.
[…] 9, 2008 by Ms. Place I wrote a half hearted review about this movie, based largely on the somber tone of the film, which sometimes belied the […]
I enjoyed Olivia Williams’ portrayal of Jane Austen very much. The actress seems as intelligent as she needed to be to do justice to Jane Austen, as well as a fine actress. Overall, I think the production did very well in conveying the plight of women before the Reform Act, when they were still, essentially, property, and trapped in their society and circumstances. I do believe that women felt this; indeed Austen’s novels are filled with examples of women using their cleverness (which they were presumbed to possess in lesser quantities than men) to achieve their goals.
I believe the bit about Cassandra wishing to keep Jane from marriage to Bigg-Withers (because Cassandra wanted him???) was a bit cheezy, and I agree that the choice of actress for Cassandra, and her somewhat mousey personality, was a weak point.
However, I disagee that the film was too melancoly – it was sad that Jane never found what she wrote so well about, and that she didn’t, if indeed Persuasion was written autobiographically by a sick, declining Jane Austen, get a second chance later in life. Indeed, it is very, very sad that she died so young; I can’t keep from feeling this sadness when I think of her.
I think one of Jane’s main attributes that both trapped and liberated her was the fact that she didn’t stay in her place as a woman of early 19th century England.
Ron, Thank you for your insights. I agree with most of them. I, too, feel sad when I think of how short Jane’s life was, and how she did not live to write all the stories inside her. And, yes, it is frustratingly sad to know that she didn’t experience the same sense of romantic fulfillment that her heroines did.
And yet I feel strongly that in her final productive years, Jane was a creative, powerful and self-actualized woman. I can’t believe that someone whose mind and talents were so wholly engaged in her craft, and who flexed her mature creative muscles with such brilliance when she wrote her last novels, would dilute her precious energy for a melancholic regret over not having married. In this regard, I felt that the tone of the film was wrong.
I must point out, though, that Kaye Daycus, whose opinion I value, agrees with you. She discusses “regret” from a more philosophical angle. Mine is visceral. As a woman who has been single for a long time, and who was married for half her life, I know first-hand that nothing will keep my creative juices from flowing or make me second guess my decisions. There are no regrets over my life’s choices, and I suspect it was the same with Jane. Wistfulness? Perhaps. But life’s too short for what ifs. My reaction to this film was personal – hence, the title.
[…] on BBC on April 27th. Click here to see the stills I pulled from the film, and here for my review, Miss Austen Regrets Perhaps a Bit Too Much For My Taste. Learn more about Olivia Williams on this PBS press […]
[…] Williams’ complex and mature performance.I wish the tone of the movie had been less somber (read my review here), and had concentrated more on Jane’s sparkling wit and amazing publishing success, but many […]
[…] Williams’ complex and mature performance). I wish the tone of the movie had been less somber (read my review here), and had concentrated more on Jane’s sparkling wit and amazing publishing success, but many […]
It makes sense to me that an older Jane would be reminded of the alternatives tothe poverty stricken life style that she might have had if she had married. Jane never made much money from her writing during her lifetime. Was she happy with her choice? In the end, happy or not, she must have been conscious of poverty and conscious that her muse would not have allowed her to make another choice. She seems to have had brothers who cared for her and Cassandra, but in her time many male relatives considered a dependent spinster relation a burden.
We need to remember that Jane died at 42, and perhaps diminishing male attention in comparison to that given to her younger nieces would have made her more conscious of her age.
Jane made an unusual and courageous choice for her time, but it did not make her financially self-sufficient; she was hardly the modern independent woman, and there may have been times when the material poverty stung her and caused her to become reflective on lost opportunities. If you read about the last period of Jane’s life, it is somber, and the director is faithful in spirit to that. The most heartbroken remarks in biographies of Jane are made by her bereft sister, Cassandra after Jane’s death. The simplicity and poverty of her funeral is also very poignant.
I wish they would of dwell on her success in life instead of the regrets.
I did shed a tear watching it :(.
i do not agree with your review. I think that you are imposing a modern of of singlehood onto jane austen’s time period. To be a spinster in jane’s time and to be poor would not under any circumstances be joyous, and while jane would find fulfillment in her writing, it would be very natural for her to regret that in her later life she had not the means to be a support to cassandra and her mother as she could have if she would have married Harris Big-Whithers. She could have offered her sister and mother a home, and not have relied on her brothers for support, having to spend most of their time after their father died split between their brothers, until they moved to chawton. Moreover, Mr. Knight’s reaction to jane’s writing as one of shame is most likely to have been the family’s position, and while jane might have been proud, it must not have felt good to have her whole family think her profession shameful. I have read both of the family biographies written a little after she died, and the one that was written closer to her death almost apologizes for a “lady” taking up any profession other than needle work.
Now while we, the modern reader, see this as chauvenistic, Jane austen would have thought it natural, and perhaps even right. we can credit jane austen with unique thought but I do not think with a thought pattern that was modern. she was evidently very concerned with money as (you will notice) all of her characters marry VERY wealthy men, or at least wealthy enough to support them.
While perhaps we the modern woman would want jane austen to be a “modern” woman and content in her single status, I do not feel that this is accurate. if anything her topic, always love, shows that she herself yearned for such affection and did not have it.
[…] Jane Austen’s World: Miss Austen Regrets Perhaps a Bit Too Much for My Taste […]
[…] https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/miss-austen-regrets-perhaps-a-bit-too-much-for-my-t… […]