Customer Reviews

Jane Austen in Manhattan - The Merchant Ivory Collection

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

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.

In Manhattan, two theatre companies, one avant-garde, one traditional, are putting on productions of the same long lost play by Jane Austen.
The actors, directors, angels, techies and hangers on of both groups all seem to know each other, and complications, romantic and otherwise,ensue. Also, at several
points, the plot of Austen's play becomes real and you see dramatic events unfolding in a wild landscape.
The storytelling here is rather a mess, and much of the acting, especially by the younger performers, is weak.
Anne Baxter delivers some of her lines in a wonderfully acid tone. Of the younger group, only Sean Young went on to have a major career. Although she is very beautiful here,
there is little indication of the skills, both comedic and serious she would reveal in later years.
Marginally a comedy, there are few laughs to be had.
If you love lower Manhattan, you will enjoy looking at this, but it is certainly the weakest film in the Merchant-Ivory catalog.

This was the worst movie that ever had the audacity to put the name of Jane Austen in the title. I may know little about film but this one is to be avoided!
I'm a big Jane Austen fan and when I saw something with her name in the title I ignored all the reviews to see it myself. Save yourself the trouble and don't make the same mistake!
One word to sum it up, bleh!

I have read all of Austen, including the juvenilia, can watch almost any Austen (or Austen-related) movie or program. I'm also a big fan of Merchant-Ivory films, so I was excited to see this movie, which I'd never heard of. I was bitterly disappointed! This is one of the most self-involved, badly acted, plotless, and pointless pieces of filmmaking I have ever seen. Don't waste your money.