Colorful conversation. So, at the risk of having my leg pulled, is JonSchaper the bloke you show in your bio photo?
Moving right along, I would have to agree with JonSchaper about the Judy Davis character. I see not so much a creative spirit in this film as a prima donna who can't be bothered to lift a hand with the dishes, and who thinks that stories will emerge from her fertile brain without any help from lived experience. Not having read the semi-autobiographical novel upon which the movie is based, I can't say whether Sybylla is depicted any differently by author Stella Miles Franklin, but I would hope that she is a more substantial persona than the one conjured up by Eleanor Whitcombe and Gillian Armstrong. At the very least, I would suspect that Stella Franklin, who wrote the novel when she was only a teen herself, was far less the luftmensch than her alter ego, Sybylla.
Like the more recent Becoming Jane, My Brilliant Career is about a female writer's realization that comfort and domestic bliss are the enemy, solitude and anguish the necessary soil out of which the author develops her consciousness.
The only problem is that nowhere is it suggested that Sybylla would have to give up solitude, or even anguish, for that matter, in order to marry the scrumptious Sam Neill character, Harry. Her whole decision is implausible and suspect, leaving me to wonder whether Sybylla's hormones are truly in working order. By contrast, the choice that Jane Austen makes in Becoming Jane makes perfect sense in view of the circumstances and the nature of the character.
This film has its redeeming qualities, especially its acting and cinematography, but in other respects is less brilliant, in my opinion, than many reviewers would have us believe.
reply
share
GeorgieGirl-1
17 years ago
No, your leg is not being pulled, Jonschaper was indeed foolish enough to cross oceans to be with me and will be truly trapped next week when our baby is due to arrive.
In truth, when I read the novel and originally saw the film I was foolish enough to consider myself a feminist along the lines of Sybylla and felt that her stance against any form of attachment to a male was a valid one as personal choice would be sacrificed for the sake of convention. In my defence I can only say that I around the age of the author when she wrote the novel. Viewing the film now I am saddened at what Sybylla gave up. Miles Franklin was said to have many suitors but never married. I am left to ponder if no one lived up to the character Harry was based on or she took her protest over women's role in a marriage to the grave.
However, I still feel the film created by Eleanor Whitcombe and Gillian Armstrong created a strong visual depiction of that era in Australia and was remarkably truthful rather than sentimental in it's translation to the screen. These, for me, made the film a valid choice to show my Canadian visitor to give him some idea of Australian cinema.
I also thought Judy Davis was excellent in the role where personality and wit rather than appearance were used to attract the viewer. Women are often their own worst enemy in relationships – always questioning rather than accepting. While the outcome of this behaviour might be annoying it made the movie far less predictable and removed the possible classification of historical romance which would have me pushing it to the back of the shelf.
Jonathan has similar problems with the protagonist, Nora, in "Monkey Grip" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084350/ He is frustrated at reading or watching the "whingy women" that I admired when I was younger. I feel I am possibly over my fascination with them as well. My sister gave me "The Bride Striped Bare" a couple of years ago and I hated it!
reply
share
jonschaper
17 years ago
Frankly, I think I know why Miles always turned down her suitors. Groucho Marx put it best:
"I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member"
reply
share
javajuly
17 years ago
No, your leg is not being pulled, Jonschaper was indeed foolish enough to cross oceans to be with me and will be truly trapped next week when our baby is due to arrive.
But such an entrapment is a labor of love!
Women are often their own worst enemy in relationships – always questioning rather than accepting.
This is true, although a certain amount of questioning is a good thing--just
not at the expense of personal happiness. As I have learned over the years
and grown from.
La vita è grande, l'amore è reale, e la bellezza è dappertutto.
reply
share
eartherealelf
17 years ago
So what is everyone's final verdict on the movie? I have here recently become insanely devoted to Judy Davis, and am probably going to order this. Does it have good acting, even if the storyline is whiny?
reply
share
Greenteeth
16 years ago
If you love Judy Davis, you will want to check out "High Tide."
reply
share
artistathome
16 years ago
The only reason I watched this was for Judy Davis.
But I didn't care for Sybylla. I thought she was a thoughtless crackpot.
Also dishonest. If you want a career, that is one thing. But don't say you have to be alone. That is simply not true. And you don't have to remain childless to be a writer.
she could have said straight out..."I don't want children. Take me or leave me. I don't want the pain and the hassle."
I think she saw her mother's life and put it down to having children--- plain and simple.
If she could have had Sam and no kids, that would have been one thing.
But children would have messed up her life. She was pretty selfish and lazy.
Why date tho? I didn't get it.
Didn't like the movie at all.
reply
share
manderstoke
11 years ago
It's time to move into the 21st century folks. It is not "selfish and lazy" to choose not to have children. In fact, given that the planet is groaning under the weight of too many humans gobbling up and destroying the only world we have, the choice not to produce yet more of our specie is particularly unselfish. Not all women want to be mothers (surprise! you didn't know that), just as many men have no desire to be fathers. For them, being childfree is a sensible choice.
reply
share
JackieBlu
17 years ago
Good points all.
I agree that in movie the choice she made seemed odd. It seemed much more rational to think that she could have it all. But, if I allow myself to add to the movie a bit, and insert some logic that wasn't shown in the picture...
I can imagine making the choice that Sybilla made given that, at the time, marriage equalled childbirth, and probably a large numbers of pregnancies. Even if she was wealthy enough to have nannies, just the number of times she would have gotten pregnant, along with the risks and strains of childbirth, would have sapped a lot of her strength. So, what she appeared to perceive as the isolation and lack of opportunities in the bush, she would also have had to risk her life and her health to have a family. Perhaps those are two facts of life that the author, if not the character in the film, would have considered deeply.
reply
share
King_Of_Fuh
11 years ago
So she chose to not be the long-suffering mommy to a philandering husband. Good for her. I loved Judy's character in this film.
American voters will destroy the economy by 2016. Whoopsy-daisy!
reply
share