The most famous films of writer-director-producer team Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, James Ivory and Ismail Merchant are known for their sophisticated, subtle drama and convincing, thorough period details. Films like A Room With a View, Howard's End and The Remains of the Day take literary sources and give the viewer a feel for what the author might have intended. The team's 1980 film Jane Austen in Manhattan adds a layer of interpretation between the source and the film, however, that obscures the author's personality.

Starting with the auction of a recently discovered manuscript written by Jane Austen as a young girl, the film pits two theater directors with opposite styles against each other in a competition for a grant to produce a play based on the work. Part of the struggle between the two is a tug-of-war over a group of actors who flit back and forth between the two troupes.

This plot description makes the film sound much more "high concept" than it actually feels to the viewer. At times I felt I was watching a foreign language film without subtitles. Austen had a wicked wit but the film doesn't seem to attempt to translate her keen social observations but rather sketches out some vaguely stereotypical characters and lets them flop around on the boards.

The two theater directors at least are played with simple, descriptive performances that help carve them out a little better than the rest. Pierre (Robert Powell) is a creepy, manipulative downtown experimental teacher who runs his theater company more like a cult than a productive artistic endeavor. Lilliana (Anne Baxter of All About Eve fame) is more traditional, hoping to bring Austen's work to the stage with respect for the manuscript intact.

The main drama in the film seems to come from Pierre's hold over the young drones under his wing, especially Ariadne (Sean Young), an ingenue who Pierre stole from her Broadway performer husband Victor (Kurt Johnson). Victor and Lilliana spend a lot of time trying to get Adriadne back from Pierre but neither the film nor Young's limp performance can work up any sort of real sense of danger or suspense. Even the Droog-ish crew of thugs that Pierre uses as male actors doesn't really do much but stand around performing weird acting "exercises."

If Ivory and company intended the film to be a spoof of Off-Off-Broadway quirkiness then they obviously hadn't seen some of the really weird stuff that was old hat even then. The production that Pierre ultimately mounts, while off-putting and stylized, is still pretty straight-forward and dull. That the film is so taken with its "weirdness" is telling. There's less here than meets the eye.

VIDEO:
The full-frame video obviously reflects an older film but preservation and restoration have left this film looking quite nice. There is still some damage, particularly in the beginning, and darker scenes show grain, but overall the images are very nice. Colors are vibrant (look at the jewel-green glow of the World Trade Center at dusk) and the image is crisp and clear.

AUDIO:
The Dolby Digital mono is another fine example of a presentation that may not wow reference-quality seekers but is still quite impressive. Voices are always clear and the separation of dialog and music is excellent. This kind of track proves that mono isn't something to shy away from even in the era of multichannel home theaters. Also, English subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
The disc includes Venice: Theme and Variations, Ivory's film school thesis project. This half-hour production explores the style and history of that great city while examining its art. It's an excellent special feature for the Ivory fan but it's remarkable how upper-crust his work was even as a young man. From the verbose narration to the subject matter, this is work that really predicts his career path.

FINAL THOUGHTS:
Jane Austen in Manhattan struck me as an odd film. Not funny enough to be a comedy and not deep enough to be drama (both styles that Austen mastered) it just sort of putters around until its less-than-satisfying conclusion. Fans of Merchant Ivory's later work may want to check it out along with serious theater fans. I recently reviewed a far worse film that spent time in the theater scene (Naked in New York) and while it's faint praise, Jane Austen in New York is better.