My Blog Design

Hey all two people that read my blog!

I just wanted to give you an update about my blog design. You may or may not have noticed that it went through a drastic change. My amazing and wonderfully talented friend Ashley Scott did it all. Seriously. The only thing she didn't do was write my posts.

I mean, look at that cute little hedgehog reading that book. HE'S ADORABLE.

I am beyond thrilled with her work. I can't recommend her enough for graphic design, which is just one of her many awesome skills.

If you love what she's done with my page as much as I do and want to hire her immediately - which you totally should - please check out her website and contact her!

http://ashleymarjoriescott.wix.com/design

Hang in tight, guys - new post coming very soon.

Cheers!

An Austenland Comparison

My friends and I like to get together and watch really cheesy movies, and pretty much just tear them apart. Think Mystery Science Theater 3000, but instead of one dude and several robots, four giggly, snarky females, who may or may not be high on sugar.

Anyway, we purposely pick movies we think sound awful. One such gem was Medieval Park, which was. . .*shudder*. Just don't watch it, okay? It hurts your soul. But you can imagine that when I heard about Austenland, I immediately told my sisters in arms, "This. This is the next thing we watch." They enthusiastically agreed. We knew it was either going to be the worst thing we'd ever seen, or the greatest. Turns out, it was the latter.

And imagine our excitement when we found out that the movie was based on a book! I had to read it. The movie was great, and I could only assume the book would be even better (as they usually are). And the book was good! I reviewed it not too long ago - you can find it in the archives and check it out if you want.

Like any book to movie translation, however, there were some things the movie did better, some things the book did better, and some things that were simply different. This review will take a look at what the movie did well, and what it failed majestically at.

Characters

The Bad

*Sigh* Jane.

Jane is just. . .wrong. In the book, she is a strong, everyday chick who supports herself and doesn't let anybody use her as a doormat. And most of the comedy comes from her wit and sarcasm. In the movie, she's awful. She lets people interrupt her in the middle of sentences. She never stands up for herself. She lets Martin treat her like crap, including when he leaves her abandoned - without a horse, in the rain - and then is still interested in him.

UGH. Very disappointed in Movie Jane. Can I blame this on Stephenie Meyer's producing? Using that gif of Nobley was also absolutely necessary. Because reasons.

The Good

The GREAT news is - all of the other characters are much more fleshed out! I appreciate that a lot. In the book they don't get any attention. Captain East becomes this hilarious, melodramatic soap opera star, instead of someone with literally no personality at all. Andrews becomes this dashing, obviously (instead of subtly) gay gentleman. Charming transforms entirely, from being a bitchy, complaining, boring nobody to being Jane's greatest ally and an incredibly funny and blundering character. And she's...well....charming! For god's sake - at one point she smokes a pipe super casually. SMOKES A PIPE. The woman is amazing. Heartwright is still nice, but she has more character now. She is oddly eccentric in speech and movement, and has a serious hard-on for East. Not kidding. Wattlesbrook also has more development that establishes her as an uptight tyrant. Even Molly, Jane's best friend, gets more characterization. EVERYONE gets more characterization. Oprah just jet-packed in and gave away free personalities.

The Different

Nobley perhaps has less screen time than he does book time, but he is still effective at being utterly swoon-worthy and perfect. He doesn't spend quite as much one-on-one time with Jane, but he makes up for it. And the actor who plays him, JJ Feild, absolutely nails the musicale scene. NAILS. IT.

Martin comes across as being genuinely interested in Jane and having a relationship with her, versus casually flirting and making out. His dismissal of her seems quicker, though. Their quasi-relationship feels longer in the book. Martin also woos Jane in the beginning by playing the sax, singing horribly, dancing a bit, and assisting with the birth of a horse. This is in place of McDonald's and root beer and fuzzy Knicks games. It perhaps makes him seem more sketchy. In the novel he does seem like a real down-to-earth guy. The movie makes him seem too good to be true - especially when he births the horse. That scene is so ridiculous, you will fall out of your chair laughing the first time you see it.

Plot

Not Good or Bad Stuff - Just Different

Jane sketches with pencils instead of paints, and she brings them herself, instead of Nobley giving them to her. Which is kind of sad - I liked when he gave her the paints. It showed how considerate he was.

Nobley flies to America by himself instead of following Jane. This could be considered an even bigger show of his dedication, but at the same time, he's not afraid of flying in the movie. So you could say those two things cancel themselves out. Nobley's also not an actor in the movie, which I love. He's a history professor, and Wattlesbrook is REALLY his aunt. Poor guy. I think actors a bit over-romanticized, and being a history professor just makes Nobley seem more...normal. More real.

Charming buys out the park at the end and turns it into a REAL amusement park, with lots of frilly pink things. I kind of like the idea of her ripping it out from under Mrs. Wattlesbrook's feet.

Instead of only having a mild obsession with Mr. Darcy and being interested in Austen, Jane is an Austen/Darcy fanatic. I think they had to show that to make her problem with Darcy understood, because they need to show, not tell. But in the book it's more subtle. She's not a full-fledged fangirl.

Her Great Aunt Caroline doesn't leave her the trip in her will. Instead, Jane pays for it with her own money. I don't think there's really a huge difference in this, other than showing again how obsessed with Austen Jane is in the movie. In both cases, she's going there to find something because her life is in a rut.

Jane has the 'copper' package that expressly excludes her from doing a lot of things in Austenland, versus having pretty much free reign in the book. There also weren't as many organized activities in the books as in the movies. There is much more prejudice against her in the movie based upon her economic status, as well. In the book, it is just casually mentioned a few times.

The comedy. In the book, we mostly get Jane's snark and criticism via internal dialogue. In the movie, there is more physical comedy, and more people to participate in it. Bask in the beauty that is Jane playing the piano and the end credits sequence. Here's just a little taste of that.

Also, the fight scene stays almost entirely true to the book, but I honestly think it turned out better in the movie. Seeing it was so much butter than reading it, just because of how ridiculous it is. And the Hobbit joke is spot on. Nearly killed me.

All in all, I think that while it didn't stick straight to the plot or stay true to the bland background characters, this was an amazing interpretation of the book. Since I saw the movie first, perhaps it made me like it a bit more than if I had read the book beforehand. But I still think this movie is amazing - even without its association to the book. It's sincerely worth watching. I love it more every time I turn it on, and it never fails to make me laugh. Guaranteed for a good time and a lot of laughs.