I have a film-watching routine. It’s the same every time. See film. Love film. Google reviews. Question whether or not the film I’m reading about is the same one I just saw. I always begin the review-reading part of the routine with such awe for the director, such admiration for its actors, such jealousy for the talent of its script writers, only for the reviews to point out what seem like tens of thousands of gaping plot gaps and flaws, and make me wonder if we were even watching the same film at all. I then re-live the film which, until five minutes ago, I thought was a small masterpiece. Was that line really so contrived? Was that a scene which should have been omitted? Was it clunky? What does clunky even mean? Slow-paced? Really? Poor directing? Bad casting? Cringey dialogue? Was that whole section clichéd? I quite liked it. CAN WE NOT JUST ALL ENJOY OURSELVES?
So, when I watched ‘Miss Potter’ I went through this very routine and, after the ‘questioning whether or not the film I’m reading about is the same one I just saw’ stage, decided that it was indeed the same and either I was losing it, too easily pleased or magnifying its few good aspects. Or all three. Or none. Maybe it is excellent and nobody realises but me. Unlikely – and in fairness there are some more positive reviews. However, while critics make some very true points, and some not so true ones (in my humble-not-even-a-film-critic opinion), I did love it. This is why.
It is a beautifully refreshing story. As we are slowly trampled by a raging stampede of romantic comedies, with miraculous love-at-first-sight meetings followed by the perfect relationship, the fall out, the final, dramatic reunion, this was a film about a woman who wanted to publish a book. Who wanted to achieve something she thought she might be good at, and who was willing to break away from the expectations people had of her in order to do that. Yes, she did fall in love with her publisher, Mr Warne (Ewan McGregor), but that was a by-product of something else: her doing what she enjoyed. Critics are at pains to point out that aspects of Mr Warne’s character aren’t actually true to life. He wasn’t so much the inexperienced younger son who hadn’t been given a chance in the publishing business – younger yes, but established more than the film gives him credit for. However if we can manage to drag ourselves past this, the point is the same. Beatrix Potter (Renée Zellweger) did what she loved, and found someone she thought she could love at the same time. She wasn’t looking for that. Surely that should tell us something. Not necessarily that a change of focus will cause the love of our lives to magically appear, that we will spot them across a crowded room and know then and there that we have just locked eyes on THE PERSON WE ARE GOING TO MARRY. Gasp. Just that maybe there are other things in life we are missing out on.
I have nothing against a romantic comedy. In fact, if you asked me what my favourite type of film was, I would say rom-coms, and then launch into an over-enthusiastic spiel about how much I love ‘Notting Hill’, which would then splinter off into a similar spiel about ‘Love Actually’. Can’t beat them. ‘Miss Potter’ was just an energizing change, a different take on a woman’s purpose and role in society. The film tells us ‘a woman’s life is more than marriage and children’ which, depending on your opinion, may or may not be true, but it’s nice for someone to suggest it now and then. It doesn’t mean I love romantic comedies any less (beginning to feel a bit disloyal to Hugh Grant, my life-long love), but I did appreciate ‘Miss Potter’ as a narrative with a slightly different focus.
So yes, it may have its flaws. But there are interesting lessons in this film which have been overshadowed by its criticism. I started watching it in the background while I tidied my bedroom, and by the end I was in my bed, laptop on knee and room in the same state it was in when I started. That must be saying something – and not just about my tidying skills.
ROADS GO EVER ON 