Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-06-17 (Monday) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:46:35 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:46:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d11f709f243112b92b3d9b275581ba7"; logging-data="1502645"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uyf+BJNsLs0CBw6cHpUF2w8nnyxrYqj8=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:fYhA/aXO+BWRn+lBTo3CTEGqoVs= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 2196 Ian J. Ball wrote: >. . . >Emily (Showtime via Pee+) - Been meaning to get to this 2022 bio pic of >Emily Bronte, starring Emma Mackey, for a while, and nothing on Tubi was >grabbing me last night, so I decided to watch this. > Hey! This was written and directed by Frances O'Connor - I wasn't >sure she was still around! > The problem here is that this begins with an out-of-sequence opening >scene (unnecessary), and is heavily, heavily fictionalized, making up a >lover for Emily (no mention of this anywhere in Bronte's biographies!!), >and gets basic details wrong, like implying that Charlotte Bronte didn't >write "Jane Eyre" until after Emily died (in fact, "Jane Eyre" was >published a month before "Wuthering Heights"!). They also in some places >make Charlotte the villain, which I didn't appreciate. And the film >completely downplays Anne Bronte's role in Emily's life, which is also >an unwelcome change. We knew all of this when the movie came out, about how it had nothing whatsoever to do with her life. There was no reason not to W/Q this. > Mackey is good in the role though, and the film successfully >convinces you that Emily Bronte was an odd duck (in modern terms, you >have to wonder if she was "on the spectrum"...).