Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
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: <v4sa4q$1drdl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <UBI20240617@dont-email.me> <v4s98i$1d9be$2@dont-email.me>
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 <ijball@mac.invalid> 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"...).