***A Girl Has Got To Do What A Girl Has Got To Do-19th Century-Style- “Jane Eyre” –A Film Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the latest film adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre.

DVD Review

Jane Eyre, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, 2011.

Okay, okay I will freely confess that as a boy I did not, I steadfastly did not, read a girls’ book, Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre. And I did not, as we live a confessional age, read her sisters’ books or even, damned to hell, Jane Austen’s stuff. And you would not have either (or at least not have said so publicly) any place near my corner boys society growing up absurd in the 1950s old North Adamsville neighborhood. See you either didn’t read, and made a big virtues out of it preferring chasing cars and girls, or for those like my corner boy, Frankie Larkin, and me, who did we read mad Jack Kerouac, or besotted Scott Fitzgerald, or best of all, the max daddy mad adventurer Ernest Hemingway. Period.

Moreover if we didn’t read guy novelists then we were crazy (and make that I was crazy) for history books. But not girls’ books, no way. Which is a shame in a way because the trials and tribulations of Jane Eyre (and other female characters created by 19th European women writers, and not just women writers either, like the aforementioned Jane Austen) related experiences of class, race and social oppression (intertwined with a little off-hand romance to sell books then, and now, to the female reading public) that resonate with this writer today.

So it is something of a gift from the heavens that over the past couple of decades many of the writers that I did not read, steadfastly did not read in case you forgot, have had their work adapted to the screen. Happily this is true for the film under review. That means that this reviewer gets to, as he has on other occasions, see the story line of the book unfold in order to determine whether he would decide to read this book after viewing the film.

And the judgment? There is now a high bar for British romances set by Ms. Austen, most notably with her Miss Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darby in Pride and Prejudice in the matter of 19th century sensibility. While that standard was not surpassed in this film Ms. Bronte (and the actors here) did give a very decent sense of the oddball (to our eyes), anti-democratic and socially savage way that women, women of no means (or no known means), were shunted off in the backwoods of society.

But spunk is a value we can all appreciate and to use a more modern phrase than would be proper in jolly old England back in the day to describe the evolving plot line- a girl has got tot do what a girl has got to do. On that level this thing is a classic girl (okay woman, Ms. Eyre) meets boy (okay man, Mr. Rochester) story. And, lo and behold, the girl is actually ten times stronger than the boy. And, frankly, twenty times more interesting. Maybe that is why I, steadfastly, did not read Jane Eyre and the others then. But I will now.

***In The Age Of “The World Turned Upside Down”- D.H. Pennington’s “Europe In The Seventeenth Century”- A Book Review

Book Review

Europe In The Seventeenth Century, Second Edition, D.H. Pennington, Longman,
London, 1970

No question when I think of 17th century European history I am drawn immediately to think about the English bourgeois revolution of the mid-century. That event put paid to the notion that a ruler could rule by divine right and that through various twists and turns, not all of them historically progressive by any means, some rough semblance of democratic rule would work best. Work best then in tandem with an emerging capitalist order (of course the process stretched out for some two centuries but the shell was established then) as the means of creating a stable society.

Aside from kings and queens having to worry, worry to death, about their pretty little necks (ask Charles I and Louis XVI, among others) and having rough-hewn, warts and all, rulers like Oliver Cromwell enter the scene many other things were going on in Europe in the 17th century that would contribute as well to what we would recognize as a modern Europe. What those events were, and their importance, was why when I was first seriously looking at the English Revolution back in the late 1970s I picked up Professor Pennington’s nice little survey (well maybe not so little at six hundred plus pages). And a recent re-reading only confirms (with the obvious acknowledgement of a need for some updating given the immense increase in scholarship in this area since then) its worth as a primer.

Perhaps the most dramatic social change of the 17th century was the long term (very long term globally as it is still working its way through the whole planet) trend toward more efficient agriculture leading to the lessening need for farmer workers (and large farm families as well) freeing up a surplus population to head to the bright lights of the city (maybe) and availability to work in the newly emerging industries that were just beginning to be formed in a way that we would recognize. The old feudal lord-serf relations were beginning to become attenuated, very attenuated with this movement away from the land and its seemingly eternal fixed relationships. Starting with textiles and working through to almost every possible commodity it became easier to buy machine-made products, and usually, except in times of not infrequent economic duress, cheaper.

That little spurt into what we would now call the industrial revolution changed many other aspects of the European outlook as well. Science became a more pressing social concern as the need to understand the physical work and its laws became more pressing. Religion which drove conflicts of the previous century, while still important to the plebeian masses, was lessening its grip on a more urbanized population. And, of course with that change, without becoming enthralled with a “Whig” onward and upward progressive interpretation of history came a dramatic increase in more secular interest for the arts, education, thinking of new ways of governing beyond the old time divine right of kings theories, other more radical political ideas about the family and other social relationships, and the extremely important fact that the a “right to rebellion” if not in official dogma then in practice became a legitimate form of plebeian expression.



Needless to say, as with every century, wars, wars for possession, succession, or just plain hubris, highlighted by the Thirty Years War, get plenty of attention. And, at the governmental level, that way to resolve conflicts not unexpectedly takes up much of the book. But the real importance of Professor Pennington’s survey is that it gives the “losers” in that century, places like Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Denmark their “fifteen minutes of fame,” information that when I first read the book I was not award of since many presentations, including general surveys, are front-loaded toward looking at the “winners” in various periods. England and France get plenty of attention, especially at the end of the book (and the end of the century setting up the big rivalries of the next couple of centuries. I will admit though that trying to keep up with the various partitions, dissections, intersections, and the like would drive me mad-if I was a cartographer. If your grasp of 17th century European history could use a little brushing up this survey is just fine. Then you can use the extensive bibliography and end notes (over one hundred pages between them) and move on to get the inside story of places, people and events that interest you.

***Once Upon A Time In China- Somerset Maugham’s “Painted Veil"- A Film Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the film, The Painted Veil.
DVD Review

The Painted Veil, starring Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, based on a novel by W. Somerset Maugham, Warner, 2006

Several years ago I reviewed a film, Reds, about the torrid love affair between pre-World War I radical journalists John Reed and Louise Bryant where the Russian revolution of 1917 was used a backdrop for much of the story line. I commented then that that approach had the focus in reverse of what was compelling about the film, the love affair small against the backdrop of the great historic event that swept the pair up in its wake. I then stepped back and went on to tip my hat to the right of an artist to use whatever creative license was at hand in order to tell his or her story. Those same sentiments apply here where the film under review, a film based on British author W. Somerset Maugham’s novel of the same name, The Painted Veil, tells the story of another tortured love affair set against the backdrop of the Chinese revolution of 1925-27. Except here the revolution is even more of a background echo.

Of course the period in question, in the aftermath of the decimation of the flower of British youth of all classes in the devastation of World War I, is the period of the slow decline of the British Empire. That empire however still included a not unimportant outpost in tumultuous China. And the bulk of this story takes place there. And a rather old-fashioned Victorian story it is. A younger daughter of the upper-middle class under pressure to get married (and married properly, but mainly married), played by Naomi Watts, and a British civil servant doctor stationed in that British outpost in Shanghai and in need of a wife, played by Edward Norton, meet in London, get married despite barely knowing each other and leave for China. However , as is plain, this is not a marriage made in heaven, no way. Like many such arrangements it is merely a matter of convenience.

And that mismatch, that inevitable tension, is just the kind of plot line that Maugham was good at in previous efforts of his that I have viewed (and also read) The Razor’s Edge and the more famous Of Human Bondage. The pair are trapped in a no man’s land so, of course, someone has to stray off the reservation. In this case Ms. Watts has an affair with another British civil servant in order to get out from under. Said British civil servant already is married, very married, and in no mood to get divorced. Such stories clutter all of literature although not all are filled with perfidious civil servants with meal ticket wives as an excuse.

Naturally Mr. Norton stumbles onto the affair, ruefully offers a divorce under conditions that cannot be met, and so the unhappy couple are held together by some unholy glue as they are off to the outback in order to stem a cholera epidemic. And here is where Maugham’s plot line shines. Through a very tortured set of ups and downs they actually come to under stand and love each other, although in the end it is only for one bright moment. Thus Maugham is forgiven, just this minute, for back-dropping the Chinese revolution. This is strictly an old-fashioned love story that may not appeal to the more modern sensibility, but it should.