Jane Austen in Manhattan

a quirky experiment

I'm a Jane Austen freak and devoted to Merchant Ivory movies. This one is early and quirky. It's about art and acting. It's about two quite different ways to bring Jane Austen to life in Manhattan: a traditional, aristocratic way, and an avant garde liberatory way. Watching the two ways interact on the screen (and almost merge at the end) while trying to follow the story of who abducted who and how she felt about it ties your mind in unexpected knots. I think one needs to have read not only Jane Austen's juvenilia, but also Richardson's now-impossible once-best-seller novel Sir Charles Grandison to understand all the allusions and satire. If you happen to have experienced the artistic circles in New York in the 60's and 70's - from the upper class patrons of experimental avant garde art to the struggling young would be actors - then you MAY enjoy the movie. Many people seem to have really disliked it. I loved it. January 22, 2006

What a Dissapointment!

The blurb about this movie made it seem like something I wanted to see, even buy. I rented it yesterday. Thank goodness I did not buy it! It is bizarre' to say the least, and lousy, to say the truth! My husband is a former film maker and even he found nothing good to say about the technique, script, lighting, acting, et al. The whole thing has almost nothing to do with Jane Austen-a lost piece of her work sold at auction to the leader of misguided would-be actors in New York under his spell. He passes himself off as some sort of avant-garde coach, when he is actually creating some kind of cult in which he alone reaps any benefits. He takes everyone's money, practically holds them prisioner, and puts on ridiculous scenes in the name of creating genius. Only Anne Baxter added anything positive to this film as an actress who wants to put on a real production of the Jane Austen works, but even she can not pull this stinker out of the loo. Save your money and your time. May 7, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...