I went to see Bright Star with a young literary man-friend of mine last night. (He's not particularly sad, though he is stressed about grad school. I can relate.) We both enjoyed the film a lot, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in Keats or in feminism, for that matter. The film follows the courtship of Fanny Brawne and John Keats from about 1818 until Keats' death in 1821 from tuberculosis (spoilers: he dies!) and is told entirely from Fanny's perspective. But to describe the movie as their courtship really doesn't square with the fact that the film is explicitly framed as an ongoing contest between Fanny and Charles Brown, Keats' erstwhile "friend" and patron (full disclosure: I loathed Brown from the first scene onward), with Keats' attention and affections as the prize. He's pretty to look at, and his poetry is beautiful, but it is Fanny who is the active partner in their relationship; he's very much an object of desire, not its subject, which is an interesting switch from most movies. I think the movie does a good job of rehabilitating Fanny from whatever calumnies later (male) critics have heaped on her, and even from the venomous slander Brown utters in the movie itself. ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
coffeeandink argued that the movie didn't go far enough in creating a female gaze, since Fanny voices her desires through Keats' poetry about her, and while I don't disagree I think that Fanny's mode of self-expression--her fashion and her sewing--does in fact express her desire, at least sporadically, when she makes things for Keats or frets about the state of his clothing. (Side note about fashion: Did all Scotsmen of the period dress awfully, or just Charles Brown?) (Side note after the side note: Who else was reminded about Georgiana's line in The Duchess about fashion/clothing being women's only mode of self-expression?) And, apropos of fashion, I was struck by how, well, contemporary much of the clothing arguably appeared--high-waisted gowns with double-frogged, very high-cropped jackets, anyone?--and also by how much gender dynamics haven't changed. At one point Brown sends Fanny a valentine that actually threatens her with violence (because he's angry that she's aroused his desire by wearing a gown that highlights her eyes), but when Keats confronts him Brown immediately claims that "it's a joke" and then proceeds to insult her (though not in so many words) as an empty-headed fashion-loving whore. It's a joke because the man says it is, and the woman is just supposed to accept his description of the situation, and his threat of violence against her. Ugh.
Still, though, beautifully shot, and brilliantly acted, particularly on the part of Abby Cornish, who plays Fanny.
Relatedly, I finally figured out my problem with this article about the difference in how sexual assault is investigated and prosecuted in the 70s versus now: it's not that the victim in the Polanski case was 13--though she was!!--it's that she said, "No" and he had sex with her anyway, which is the definition of rape. It's not that she was underage, but that he raped her.
ETA: And the article's bringing up the movie (which is based on a memoir) An Education in passing is a completely offensive red herring. The teenager in question in the movie/memoir was 17, over the age of consent in Britain, and she gave her consent. That's right! She gave her consent! If Polanski had raped a woman his own age, or a woman 30 years older, it would still be rape, and that would still be the real crime.
coffeeandink argued that the movie didn't go far enough in creating a female gaze, since Fanny voices her desires through Keats' poetry about her, and while I don't disagree I think that Fanny's mode of self-expression--her fashion and her sewing--does in fact express her desire, at least sporadically, when she makes things for Keats or frets about the state of his clothing. (Side note about fashion: Did all Scotsmen of the period dress awfully, or just Charles Brown?) (Side note after the side note: Who else was reminded about Georgiana's line in The Duchess about fashion/clothing being women's only mode of self-expression?) And, apropos of fashion, I was struck by how, well, contemporary much of the clothing arguably appeared--high-waisted gowns with double-frogged, very high-cropped jackets, anyone?--and also by how much gender dynamics haven't changed. At one point Brown sends Fanny a valentine that actually threatens her with violence (because he's angry that she's aroused his desire by wearing a gown that highlights her eyes), but when Keats confronts him Brown immediately claims that "it's a joke" and then proceeds to insult her (though not in so many words) as an empty-headed fashion-loving whore. It's a joke because the man says it is, and the woman is just supposed to accept his description of the situation, and his threat of violence against her. Ugh. Still, though, beautifully shot, and brilliantly acted, particularly on the part of Abby Cornish, who plays Fanny.
Relatedly, I finally figured out my problem with this article about the difference in how sexual assault is investigated and prosecuted in the 70s versus now: it's not that the victim in the Polanski case was 13--though she was!!--it's that she said, "No" and he had sex with her anyway, which is the definition of rape. It's not that she was underage, but that he raped her.
ETA: And the article's bringing up the movie (which is based on a memoir) An Education in passing is a completely offensive red herring. The teenager in question in the movie/memoir was 17, over the age of consent in Britain, and she gave her consent. That's right! She gave her consent! If Polanski had raped a woman his own age, or a woman 30 years older, it would still be rape, and that would still be the real crime.