My Review of 'Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning'

My Review of "Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning"
« on: Today at 10:18:20 PM » Quote Modify Remove

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPOILERS!!!



I live in Texas, and I finally got to see Anne 4. After reading someone else's long, detailed, spoiler-riddled review on a different message board, I swore vehemently that I'd never give this film the time of day. Before I begin my review, I feel compelled to get a few things off my chesat first. This is going to be quite lengthy -- I warn you now.

I've always had a wishy-washy love-hate relationship with Anne 3. Part of me loves it, part of me hates it. It was the disjointed timeline and the break in continuity with Road to Avonlea that irked me endlessly. I'm a Road to Avonlea fanatic, and in order to enjoy Anne 3, I had to pretend that Anne's scarlet fever was contracted from the children she taught at the Hopetown Orphange, and not from her own kids, because, according to Anne 3, she didn't have any. I also had to pretend that most of the people in Avonlea asumed that she and Gilbert were married, when they weren't -- which, I suppose, is typical of a small town. All those times that Marilla was away "helping Anne with the new baby," it was apparantly a child at the orphanage that Anne must have needed outside, maternal assistance with. And yes, perhaps most irksome, was the fact that I had to pretend that Anne and Gilbert were engaged for 8 years (1907-1915), and that in between 1910-1915 Anne was teaching at the orphange, which led me to wonder what she and Gil were up to between the years of 1907-1910.

Being engaged for this long is ludicrous (especially for that era), but hey, Anne's a non-conformist. And I had to pretend that Anne 2 (my favorite film in the series) ended in 1907, despite the 1902 headline briefly seen in the Kingsport Examiner newspaper. It's sad and pathetic that I've had to make these somewhat unrealistic allowances in order to realistically (?) link the first three films and Road to Avonlea together, especially when in several episodes of Road to Avonlea the year is flat-out stated, therefore making it all even more incomprehensible than it already is. It also proves that I must have no life whatsoever! But darn it, I like all 3 Anne films, and I wanted it all to make some sort of sense, even if it was weird! So I have to make excuses! (*sigh*)

In Anne 3, the Jack Garrison subplot never bugged me. It always showed me how human Anne really was. I never had a problem with Anne searching for Gilbert through the war-torn battlefields of Europe, either. I thought that even though Lucy Maud didn't write it that way, that was something Anne would do, and I personally found it very romantic and proof of her love and stuborn determination. I had no qualms with Diana becoming a rich snob --- if you go back and watch the first film, that actually is quite true to her character, and besides, she turns back into the old Diana by the end of the film. I was put off, however, by Anne donning a nun's habit and smuggling Dominic over borders. That was a bit "out there" to me. But I suppose it tried to echo one of Jack Garrison's famous pulp adventure novels. (Too bad they used our Anne to do it.) And in the second film, Anne did say she always wanted to be a nun, even though she wasn't Catholic. Still ... what a ridiculous way to do it! However, WW1 was a dark time that changed the idyllic little Avonlea forever, and I always looked at Anne 3 as a metaphor for the transition from childhood into adulthood, when inocence is lost. Like I say, the only real problem I had with it was the timeline and break in continuity with Road to Avonlea. What does all this have to do with what I thought of Anne 4? I'm getting to that.

Lately, I've suffered quite a few emotioinal setbacks in my life. I was hurt very, very badly by someone I loved and trusted a lot. I was thrown away and forgotten. Plus, my father's illness is getting much worse, and I've been under a lot of depression. For the past year, I've undertaken a collosal amount of work in order to be accepted into the Peace Corps, so that I may be able to move to Eastern Europe and do HIV/AIDS-related medical work for the next two years. Worrying about being accepted (which I found out last week I am!), coupled with the guilt I feel about leaving my father for two years was unbearable. So I finally relented and ordered the Anne 4 package that came with the DVD, the soundtrack, the novel, and the movie companion guide (along with a separate order of two film posters). Anne has always been a great source of comfort for me (and humiliation, because I'm a guy, but that never bothered me), and I've always retreated to the first two films (not so much the third, even though I liked it) as an escape and a means to feel better. With Anne 4 coming out, I needed "new Anne," even though I was terrified to watch the fourth installments because of such highly negative opinions I'd read about it. But I did, and here's what I thought of it.

Overall, I do feel that while the film comes nowhere near the perfection of the first two films, it is an improvement over the third one. They did a wonderful job revealing how Anne came to be Anne ---- her manerisms, her optimism, etc. It all fit perfectly together when I went back and watched Anne 1. I was scared that the film would paint Anne as some pathological liar, but it doesn't. It makes sense that she would've created stories about her parents, given the societal pressures of the time period, and to me it made sense that Marilla would've instinctively protected her once she knew the backstory of Anne's father, particularly if Anne was a few years older by that point.

The real question is: was any of this necessary to begin with? Well, no. But since it was made, it does all come together and make sense. The first time I saw Anne 1 twenty years ago, I remember thinking that Anne must've had an extremely rough life before arriving at Green Gables, in order to hold such a unique appreciation for beauty and wonderment, a backstory even more harsh and discouraging than living in multiple orphanges and staying with several mean-spirited families would have provided, no matter how bleak they must've been.

Although Anne 4 was far from perfect, there was an underlying beauty to it that touched me. It wasn't as emotionally detached as Anne 3. Being an adopted aspiring writer myself, it struck a personal chord with me when the adult Anne said things like, "Not knowing who your real parents are can haunt you," and "I used to long to write." These components truly got to me emotionally.

I know I'm about to raise eyebows here, but the performance of young Anne by Hannah Endicott-Douglas was dead-on pitch perfect, and honestly, it was just as good as Megan Follows' performance in the first film. This little girl is an absolute marvel. As for Barbara Hershey as the older Anne, was she as "un-Anne" as I'd read. No. The Anne she portrayed was older, matured, and slightly sad, but in a few scenes the Anne we all know did shine through. Many people criticize the writing, because Anne's manner of speech in her later years is different than the way she spoke as a little girl. But really --- do you really think that a woman in her late 50s / early 60s is going to continue to have that same unique verbal tic? People grow up. I didn't get a Katherine Hepburn vibe from Barbara Hershey, either, like some did, and the wearing of sneakers and pants didn't phase me at all. It was 1945, and that was common. It was jarring, however, to see a different actress playing Anne in a Sullivan film. I'm so used to Megan's phenomenol portrayal that I had to really try and get past that.

I also read before viewing the film that the film contained reenactments of the Haunted Woods and Lily Maid scenes from the first film, which led me to believe that, in a flashback sequence, these scenes would be literally reenacted with a different cast playing the same characters as in the original scenes. But that wasn't the case at all. They weren't reenacted. They were alluded to with similiarities, but they weren;t flat-out reenacted, like some have said. In fact, they presented more insight into Anne's imagination, and tied in well with the first film. Yes, it's an odd coincidence that Jock's raft sank in Anne 4, and Anne's raft sank in Anne 1 (you would think Anne would remember this lesson when performing the Lily Maid scene in Anne 1), but like I said, the movie isn't perfect.

In fact, some scenes border on dull. I found my mind wandering a few times, something that's never happened in an Anne film before, even Anne 3. (With Anne 3, I was too busy trying to absorb the strangeness of it all, and trying to figure out a way to make sense of that timeline.) Anne 4's story is not as melodramtic as I initially read, but is is convoluted and somewhat confusing at times (but nowhere near as convoluted as Anne 3). Shirley Maclaine is wonderful, and fits her role to a tee. The film's editing is od, too --- smooth in parts and choppy in others. It was also jarring to see someone else in the role of Diana, even briefly and without dialogue, especially when she looked absolutely nothing like the photo we see of Schuylar Grant early in the film that Diana's adult kids are looking at. The film has its flaws, to be sure, and it's understandable why some people hate it.

But you cannot compare Anne 3 and Anne 4 to the first two films, because they're entirely different creatures, which is why they're so detested by many. Anne 1 and Anne 2 are glimpses into Anne's life after she has finally found happiness and a place to call home, as well as a sense of herself as a worthy human being, a girl (and eventually a woman), and a writer. She finds a new set of parents with Matthew and Marilla in an idyllic, beautiful setting that she so richly deserved. Anne 3 is a test of loyalty to both her character and the love of her life, Gilbert, as well as the aforementioned metaphor for the loss of childhood innocence. The world is altering the world, and Anne is trying to deal with that disturbing fact, especially when it reaches into her personal life. Anne 4 is a semi-dark, semi-warm introduction to someone we already know, presenting an explanation that fleshes out Anne's personality before we initially met her in the first film. Now that Gilbert has dies, the older, matured Anne must fill a void in her life by writing a play, finding the answers to new questions regarding a father she long presumed dead and a past she had buried long ago, and reconnecting to that part of herself which she had almost given up on due to her grief --- a writer. I will always prefer the first two films, because I grew up with them and I prefer the warmth of their stories. But I don't dismiss the third and fourth installments, either, because I feel that they, too have many interesting things to offer.

Is this how I myself would've written it? No way. Like many, I would've loved film adaptations of the books, because I'm a big fan of books 1-5, and book 8. But it could've been a lot worse.

What I find odd about Anne 4 is that older Anne never considered the possibility that her father might be dead. Maybe she didn't want to admit it. And how could Hepzibah possibly be alive in 1946? She would have had to be well past 100 years old! That, to me, was sloppy and unbelievable, not Anne's pre-Green Gables backstory.

I had no idea that the character of Hetty King would make a cameo appearance, but even though you couldn't really see her, I was ecstatic about it nonetheless. It was great to see Rachel again, and it's nice to know she and Hetty remained friends. (What a sweet homage to Road to Avonlea fans.) Yes, I wish Rachel had some dialogue, just as I wished that her part had been lonfger in Anne 3 and that we had seen her at Anne and Gil's wedding. But the movie wasn't about Anne's friends. It was all about Anne herself.

Since they used the same actress to play Mrs. Hammond, it was wise not to completely zoom in on her face, as she's clearly much older now and this us a prequel. But because of this, it was also weird that they cast the same actress. Some stock footage of trains was lifted from the film Lantern Hill, but that was okay. I LOVED the music in this film more than in any of the other films (I hope lightning doesn't strike me), and the ending was absolutely beautiful, nowhere near as sappy as I'd read. Plus, the scene with Anne stretched out on Gil's grave was heartbreaking.

Which leads me to another point. Some people are upset that Gilbert is dead. Well, would you rather have Jonathon Crombie in old age makeup playing opposite Barbara Hershey? Or would you rather have a different actor playing Gil alltogether? There was a point to Gil's death, which furthered the story. It was Anne's grief over Gil and her worrying of Dominic that fueled her motivations to rediscover herself as a writer. It's a shame, though, that Matthew and Marilla never got to know any of Anne's children, and vice-versa. I mean, think about it. Kevin Sullivan was legally forbidden to adapt any more stories from the novels. But he did want to give the fands more of Anne. So when he does, everyone retaliates against him with dissatisfaction. I honestly feel sorry for the man. He did what people asked him to do, with limited resources other than his own imagination, and everyone still griped about it. It could've been worse. He could've made Gil die in WW1 and Anne run off with Jack Garrison. He could've had Green Gables not be reconstructed after it burned down (and there was significance in its burning). He could've had little Anne in part 4 be some sort of pathological liar, and older Anne marry her friend Gene Armstrong. Even though the later films deviate so drastically from the novels, everything Sullivan did was pretty true to the spirit of Anne (in my opinion), even if it was his own fan fiction. If Anne 3 and Anne 4 were fan fictions presented on this message board, rather than actual movies, people would be going wild with how much they loved them, saying things like, "That would make a great movie!"

I mean, really --- who cares if Anne wasn't truly an orphan by the true definition of the word? All that matters is Green Gables and beyond. I think this entry provides an even more interesting layer to the first film, which I have since rewatched in order to see if everything from part 4 tied into part 1, and it did. People are making a mistake comparing the movies to the books. They're two completely separate mediums. I like the fact that we have two different Anne universes, those of the books and those of the films.

And Anne 3 is barely mentioned in Anne 4, with the exception of Dominic. There are no references to Anne running through battlefields searching for Gil, or Green Gables burning down, or the slimy Jack Garrison. If you truly loathe part 3, you can watch part 4 and imagine Dominic was a child that Anne adopted (which makes sense), and that she had given Green Gables to Fred and Diana at some point in her life.

Here's how I grade the films:

Anne of Green Gables: A+
Anne of Green Gables --- The Sequel (Anne of Avonlea): A+
The Road to Avonlea: A
An Avonlea Christmas (Happy Christmas, Miss King): B-
Anne of Green Gables --- The Continuing Story: B-
Anne of Green Gables --- A New Beginning: A-

Of course, nothing will ever top the second Anne film for me.

----- Larry