But there are a few points that I don't think is doing enough. The first is Austin's meanness and clumsiness. Austin's meanness must resonate with all her regular readers. Or maybe I shouldn't use the derogatory term mean, but strict. She is a person of very high standards, morally, intellectually, and character-wise, and that's why we can see her brilliant, sharp and unassuming irony. But in this work, what Austen says is more playful than mean. And her behavior, I personally think, is too frivolous and even too flirting. Austen herself obviously disapproved of frivolous behavior, and even the Elizabeth, whom she loved very much, revealed between the lines that Elizabeth was a little unsteady, compared with Jane. Of course, Lizzy is smart, and Jane is too honest. So Austin will still prefer Elizabeth, and thus be less demanding of her behavior. But the Austin standard is there. Eleanor, Fanny, and Annie, all of whom Miss Austin loves, except Elizabeth, who is a lively character she admires, are all stable and generous. Some people may say that Emma is also very lively. But Miss Austen's tone in describing Emma was clearly joking. She felt that Emma's behavior was not calm enough, and sometimes she was a little silly, but she was very happy, and this girl was also lovable, so she didn't have the heart to be too harsh and mean to her, so she was merciful, but she still wrote her attitude.
That's why I don't really appreciate the portrayal of Miss Austin as a flirtatious communicator. She herself would never approve of such an attitude. Of course, my personal guess is that maybe the director feels that if he wants to express Miss Austin's sharpness and cunning through images rather than words, he needs to make her demeanor a little more lively and her speech playful, rather than really make Miss Austin clumsy With neuroticism, this would probably displease her readers. But if I say that, the real old readers will understand a truth, that is, the fact that the text is like a person is not so superficial. The writing is like a person, which refers to a deeper temperament, not the style of writing, which is as simple as the style of life.
Take Eileen Chang as an example, Eileen Chang's typical style of writing can be described as witty and cold, but Eileen Chang herself is not the one who is laughing and witty in the crowd. Eileen Chang's words are full of sophistication, but Eileen Chang is the one who doesn't know how to deal with the world and is clumsy in social behavior. Because her intelligence is not reflected in more specific affairs, and her innocence is not in language style. Many people have a misunderstanding, that is, a person who is good at writing sophistication, and who writes sophistically and deeply, must be a person who can be a man, because he sees it so clearly. However, a person who is really too sophisticated can't actually write anything. Because everything is pleasing to the eye and acceptable, it lacks attitude, and lacks observation and self-examination. The writer must have an attitude, bystander, and introspection. I can't understand it, but if I understand it too much, it's harmful. A person who can write very sophisticated, must be a more or less naive person.
The same is true of Miss Austin, in fact, the real Miss Austin (or more accurately, the Miss Austin in my mind) is a bystander rather than a participant. At least I have a hard time imagining that a woman who is busy dancing and flirting with people at a banquet can write a very complete and well-proportioned banquet scene, and will write the expressions of various people and the personalities behind them. Human energy is limited, and only bystanders will record all this in her way with a black-bellied smile. And the Drama Queen? No, no, she's so busy that she doesn't have time to care about people other than herself.
Therefore, the first half of this film, I can only say that it is qualified, although I actually love the actress of this film, her eyes, her smile, her calm look, and a proper love for gossip. Nosy, which is really in line with my vision of Austen, it's a pity the director didn't let her fully play. But the second half of the film, or near the end, I really like it. But what I like is not so much the personality of Miss Austen shown in the film, but her suffering that moves me. Her embarrassing financial situation, the blame, guilt and angry love of her family towards her, her own questioned (both external and self) but ultimately firm emotional outlook, and two middle-aged people at dusk The last hand in hand made me feel very emotional.
But I still want to recommend this movie to Austin fans, because the success of the lead actress Austin and supporting actress Cassandra is really half the battle. I really want to say, I think that only when an actor is in his/her middle age can he really hone and accumulate acting skills, and can he accumulate a lot. When you are young, you may have an amazing appearance, but after all, you are thin. When it comes to middle-aged and elderly people, not only have they accumulated acting skills, but also accumulated life experience and experience, and they have truly become actors and actresses. But the unfortunate situation is that the old actors always have to serve as a foil for the young actors, and can't fully exert their real strength. And the actor may still have the recognized "uncle" charm when he is in his 40s and 50s, and start the second spring of his acting career. But actresses are often considered to be old Xu Niang when they are over forty years old, and they are rarely the top performers. But I really love those wrinkled eyes of women, and eyes that contain sophistication, keenness, wisdom and compassion.
Because of you, I choose freedom. - Jane said to Cassandra.
View more about Miss Austen Regrets reviews
