LAFF 2015: LOVE BETWEEN THE COVERS

A scene from Love Between the Covers.

Inquiring minds want to know

By Miranda Inganni

Romance writers are often described derogatorily as silly women writing silly books for silly readers. Yet those authors, and the multi-billion dollar industry they create for, are paying the bills for the publishing world.

Laurie Khan’s documentary Love between the Covers focuses on individual authors and the tightknit community that envelopes the romance industry.

While romance authors may write about different subjects (AKA subgenres) -- from Amish Romance to Paranormal Romance and nearly everything imaginable in between -- the one consistent factor about the romance writing industry is the authors’ (and publishers’) desire to give the readers what they want. In particular, happily ever after tropes are a must.

In return, readers are loyal and voracious. So many of the writers are avid readers and many readers are filled with the hope of publishing their own novels. And the women -- both those supplying the product and those consuming it -- are extremely supportive of one another.

Realizing that the infrastructure didn’t already exist in a way that made sense for them, some authors, such as Len Barot (aka Radclyffe) created their own publishing houses. Others, such as Beverly Jenkins, could not find the kind of romance novel she wanted to read (in this case, historical African-American narratives), so she began writing them. Superstar romance writers Mary Bly and Nora Roberts are featured heavily as well.

Presented without great depth and emphasized by goofy graphics, Love Between the Covers almost feel like a few friends got together to chat about their naughty books over a glass of white wine. (In truth, there is nothing wrong with that.) It’s interesting, but the documentary feels aimed more at the existing folks who partake in this particular indulgence than convincing bystanders, let alone detractors, to read about the love between the covers.

 

 

Love Between the Covers screens again at LAFF: June 16, 5:25 p.m., Regal Cinemas. For more information: LBTC.

Read More

FILM REVIEW: AUSTENLAND

A scene from Austenland.

So bore-joy-see

By Don Simpson

The first film I ever saw at the Sundance Film Festival, director and co-writer Jerusha Hess' Austenland might purport to be about becoming so immersed in the world of fiction that we no longer see reality, but in fact it is about making fun of people’s fantasies. The fatefully named Jane (Keri Russell) is a diehard fan of Jane Austen’s. This is supposed to be showcased by the decor of her apartment which resembles that of a 10-year-old girl with an unhealthy fetish for bric-a-brac from 18th century England; instead, it feels like the production design team threw a ton of nonsensical clutter into Jane’s apartment in the guise of being Austen-esque. We are also informed that Jane’s unhealthy obsession with Austen has hindered her relationships. Her dream man, Mr. Darcy, does not actually exist, so Jane will always be disappointed in whomever she dates.

Rather than accepting reality, Jane runs off to vacation at Austenland, a hyper-dramatized recreation of Austen’s literary universe, complete with actors who are charged with the task making the female guests’ Austen-esque romantic fantasies come to orgasmic fruition. Jane is joined in the Austen motherland by two other women from the former colonies — Miss Charming (Jennifer Coolidge) and Lady Heartright (Georgia King) — who are embarrassing caricatures of American tourists in England and whose motives seem much less innocent than Jane’s.

The three women are expected to compete for the attention of two men, Mr. Nobley (JJ Feild) and Colonel Andrews (James Callis) yet Jane’s attention quickly turns to a man of a much lower class, Martin (Bret McKenzie). This is where things get confusing for Jane — and us — because she also develops a rocky, love-hate relationship with Mr. Nobley; and so the entire third act of Austenland is committed to keeping everyone confused about Jane’s true feelings.

There might be a great movie idea somewhere deep inside of Austenland, but it is totally smothered by so much over-baked cheesiness. Parts of Austenland are just too ridiculous for me to stomach. Ludicrousness is confused with comedy, and plot is eschewed in favor of nonsense. Austenlandturns into an embarrassing mockery of all things Austen, when instead it could have learned a lot from Austen’s toned down approach to romance and melodrama.

Read More