What Would Jane Cut (2007)

SEVERAL YEARS AGO, when was a student in the UCLA screenwriting program, attended a special screening of The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. Before the show, the screenwriter talked about the book--why he'd chosen it, how much he loved it. Afterwards asked him why he'd so altered the ending. He said something to the effect of I didn't want people going home and slitting their wrists. I'm pretty sure my question surprised him; I'm pretty sure he thought should have been able to figure that out for myself. But this is what actually figured out: fidelity to the book is not the goal of the screenwriter. The goal of the screenwriter is to tell the best story possible. Of course, mileage varies as to the best story possible. didn't much care for the new ending. Every book lover has her own list of disappointments. Books love and movies hate: The Accidental Tourist. The English Patient. The Return of the King. Certainly every Austen lover does. All want in an Austen movie is perfect fidelity. Jane Bennet is supposed to be prettier than Elizabeth. Is she? Is Mr. Knightley much, much older than Emma, as written? Has Edward Ferrars been made sexier and more charming than he should be? don't want a more romantic version. don't want a happier ending. What want is no monkeying about. So when heard there was to be a movie based on my own book, The Jane Austen Book Club, my feelings were more mixed than you might think. I've done a screenplay myself of my first novel, Sarah Canary, know I'm not an easy writer to adapt. My books tilt away from plot. They have twisty timelines and my characters think a great deal but seldom do much more than talk. The Jane Austen Book Club is episodic and has six main characters. My style depends on voice, and my voice is digressive. Novels are long and messy enough to contain digressions. Movies not so much. By the time learned there was to be a movie, the screenplay had long been completed. Robin Swicord was both the screenwriter and the director for the movie. like it when the writer and director is the same person; trust the vision of the writer more than any group-think. And already knew Robin's work from her Little Women script, which admired. So she'd already adapted a book loved with results loved. (I had an issue or two with the casting. Not her fault.) was cautiously optimistic. And curious to read the script, see how she'd solved the problems presented by my book. One of Robin's first scenes involves a funeral for Jocelyn's dog. recognized the dog's death as being from my book. In the book, Jocelyn, Sylvia, and Daniel go together to the vet to put the beloved dog down. This happens at the end of the first chapter, a chapter in which we've learned that Daniel is divorcing Sylvia. The story about the dog represents the connection they all once had, and underscores the fact that Sylvia's loss of Daniel is also Jocelyn's loss of Daniel and that Jocelyn's loss is significant. In the movie, the scene is comedic. Rather than representing a long ago moment of community, it's been moved into the present where it represents the opposite. Daniel is halfway out the door where his marriage is concerned, though we haven't learned that yet, and there is no suggestion that he cares deeply for Jocelyn or vice versa. Throughout the script, wherever possible, Robin moved things from the past into the present. The characters' histories make up a large part of the book. Robin saved what she could of these. If she wasn't able to bring them into the present, they're cleverly alluded to in dialogue. In interviews Robin has said she wanted a story that took place in the here and now, and I'm sure this is true. also suspect it made financial sense. In the book, if you remove Bernadette's history, the character is left with little to do. I'm guessing this is wily Robin gave her a larger role in the contemporary story. …