Bridget Jones's Diary
Friday 30 April
Burnout levels: High, Relatability to Ms. Jones levels: V. High, Blinks while reading Bridget Jones’s Diary: 0 (enraptured)
Ugh. Been donkeys since writing post for blog. Bad reviewer. No consistency. No future. Had no idea what to expect when committing to reading BJD for Film Club. Most surprised to learn that it was a British story, as knew that Renee Zellweger was Bridget in film, and last checked she was decidedly from Iowa or something. Just Googled. From Texas. Even more American than thought. Feel totally justified. Also didn’t realize it was a loose Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Love v. high degree of meta with several references sprinkled throughout the story.
Bigger surprise: LOVE this book. Haven’t felt this excited to pick up a book since about 12 years old. Adore format of book, as well as Jones as not so much unreliable narrator, but as narrator with natural human error. Fielding presents the entire story from Bridget’s perspective, but always with a few minutes or hours of reflection on Bridget’s part. Audience is able to see Bridget’s side of things while understanding that her circumstances, mood, and anxieties color facts as she presents them. Maybe it’s due to fact that as I creep ever closer to my 30s (is it really only a few months away???) can relate to her feelings of aimlessness, of constantly trying to determine who I am supposed to please and why, and reconciling with failures that tend to come with trying to improve one’s self, whatever that means. Book’s humour ( with “u”, because so British) is sharp, and added bonus of time stamped entries throughout day encourages sharp cuts in Bridget’s tone to comedic effect. Truth in this format is palpable. How often do I start the day feeling one way and within a couple of hours end up not even recognizing the person I was all the way back at 8 AM. It’s constant. It’s human. It’s brilliant. Book made me run home eager to read in a way I’d forgotten books can. Am ten years old again. Probably not an age-appropriate read for my inner ten-year-old, but it’s what she likes.
Only problem with book (not small one, mind you) is how disgustingly perfect Darcy is. He does not belong in the same sticky world that Bridget occupies. Saintly, always right, in control of every situation. There’s something far too “knight in shining armor” about him, especially in the final few chapters of said book. His eventual role in resolving major plot point of Bridget’s mother, saving day with Bridget’s dinner party fiasco, and rescuing her from Christmas with her family... it’s too much, and Bridget becomes a passenger, merely following Darcy’s lead. Makes me question the entire moral of story. Single status bad? Relationship answer to all problems as long as with perfect man? As much as I adore this book, I can’t deny that this whole Darcy situation doesn’t sit well with me. In summary: book does stellar job pointing out problems, but does not offer much in way of solutions. Book’s as lost as I am, because book is Bridget...
Saturday 1 May
Burnout levels: High, Relatability to Ms. Jones levels: Moderate, Blinks performed by Hugh Grant in Bridget Jones’s Diary film: 1,000,000 (someone flunked out of Michael Caine’s School of Acting?)
Ugh. Wish had seen movie before read book. Feel like one of those insufferable people behind you at the movie theater who complains that events in a Harry Potter film are out of sequence from how they are in the book. Detest that person. Am still going to be that person anyway.
The movie, on its own, is fine to pretty good. That’s me trying to pretend haven’t read book. Sure, it sounds like Zellweger, akin to Natalie Portman (who’s infamously tragic attempt at British accent in V for Vendetta), shared the same bizarrely misguided dialect coach... (Just looked it up and OMG THEY DID!!!! Sorry, Barbara Berkery, but we need to have chat...). Zellweger makes a decent enough Bridget. Interesting casting choice with Colin Firth (given Darcy’snot insignificant role in the novel), though this fact breaks down the universe of the novel and makes brain a tad bit explodey. Entire cast, in fact, does pretty well with what they are given, and therein lies the problem. Don’t particularly like that Darcy is the reason Bridget makes an attempt at life shift in the first place, but do love the detail that she overhears Darcy criticize every aspect about her except her weight, and yet that is the first thing she vows to change and logs each day. If that’s not a prime example of trauma inflicted on women by society, don’t know what is. Know well from first hand experience internal push and pull of wanting to be v.g. feminist who actively defies patriarchal standards of beauty but also giving in to female self-hatred imbued into us from birth and on which society continues to thrive. Felt close to Bridget and her warring inner selves in every sentence of the book, but the movie did a decent enough job conveying this as well.
While the Bridget Jones script is perfectly fine, and at times quite funny, it removes many unique qualities of the book that made me fall in love with it. Of course, film was at disadvantage from offset, with ability to truly depict events solely from Bridget’s point of view out window. Most annoyingly, the screenplay changed in many areas to make it a more formulaic ‘Hollywood’romantic comedy. Fight scene between Mark and Daniel was too long and wholly unnecessary (though the bit where they paused for a moment to sing “Happy Birthday” to a total stranger in restaurant was top of the line comedy. V. British). The entirely pointless complication near the end where Mark is announced to be moving to New York is both annoying and short-lived, and the moment where Mark discovers Bridget’s diary encourages a tired old “chase your lover down street” cliché... none of these things worked for me. And diary itself in final act of film is entirely forgotten until it can serve as a catalyst for this unnecessary plot point.
Most heartbreaking treatment in adaptation of film is that of Bridget’s parents, with her mother’s obsession with artifice and denial almost entirely absent from her character, and don’t get me started on father (can easily start myself, thanks). Was so excited to see Jim Broadbent cast as Mr. Jones. For some reason, had hoped it would be him when reading the book. Felt like he would be able to pull off how incredibly sad said character is in book, while also being an exceptional comic talent. Alas, the entire situation between Bridget’s parents is so fiddled with that it allows no room for sadness of her dad, or unintentional villainy of her mum. Instead, this plot thread is pared down to Mrs. Jones is under-appreciated, and Mr. Jones sighs a little “ah well” as she commences to make what is, in comparison to character in novel’s actions, a tiny mistake of the heart.
Among all of its problems, worst aspects of adaptation from novel to film are actually smallest things. Everything is more subtle in the book. All of Bridget’s mortifications do not stem from disastrously fouling up an introduction or showing her underwear on television. Her embarrassment, confusion, and frustration arise from more human and slight sorts of circumstances. For example, Bridget gets strung along by Daniel, and audience in turn gets false sense of security. A feeling that he is changing. Yet in the book, Daniel helps Bridget construct her Tarts and Vicars costume before he has backed out of the event. It’s a couple’s costume-planning session. This moment got me because it seems like an action that someone who is committed would perform with another. A sort of “we’re in this together so let’s find fun where we can'' moment. However in the film, Daniel’s backing out comes before he helps with selecting her costume, so Bridget has already been let down and has also merely become Daniel’s skanky dress-up doll. There’s not much of a question at this point in the film that his investment in their relationship is dwindling. These may seem like small nitpicks, but I argue that the heart of said novel lies in these little details.
All in all, must admit that had I seen Bridget Jones movie before reading novel, probably would have had pretty great time watching it. Unfortunately, newfound love of novel raised standards for film adaptation, and these standards were not met. Do recommend viewing film, but my more earnest recommendation is to read novel. – Bailey 📖🍸🚬
I went into this month excited to revisit “Bridget Jones’s Diary” in both its film and novel incarnations. I had seen (and enjoyed) the trilogy of romantic comedy films before, and the novel has been on my ‘to-read’ book list for quite some time now. With a determined spirit, much like Bridget, I intended to embrace and immerse myself in the experience of reading, watching, and ‘enjoying’ all things “Bridget Jones.” And then I started to read the book…
To sum up my reaction to the novel in one word: meh. Bridget needs to get over herself and wake up to the fact that the relationship with her boss (Daniel Cleaver) is a gross abuse of power. Sexual harassment in the workplace may have been ‘funny’ at the time this novel was written, but the entire novel, for me, especially the comedy, fell completely flat and became a truly tedious read. As much as I disliked the novel, I found re-watching the film to be a wholly different experience. Bridget Jones’s Diary is the rather rare exception where I believe that the 2001 movie is inherently better than its 1996 book. (Gasp! I know, the utter horror! I’m equally as surprised at my reaction!)
While I think the film is better, it is still not without its flaws, but has a few redeeming qualities that make it just a bit more tolerable than the book. I quite enjoyed the increased presence of Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) compared to his rather minor role in the novel, the choice of music in the film is spot on (as the soundtrack practically becomes another ‘character,’ both comforting and mocking Bridget throughout her escapades), and the fact that the novel made Bridget just a bit ‘heavier’ and independent (but more on that in a moment…). Though these changes might seem slight, for me they increased some of the comedy that I felt was lacking in the book, but which managed to still remain quite faithful to its story (apart from some of the drama surrounding Bridget’s mother, which takes on a much larger role in the novel) and the ‘journal’ style writing present within the novel. The daily musings and vignettes, or overall flavor of the novel, are still really well represented within the film, although less emphasis is placed on Bridget’s obsessive ‘counting’ of things, as stated at the start of each of her diary entries. The film still managed to capture a few of these moments through an effective use of voiceover narration and Bridget’s internal monologues as she narrates her life. I’m honestly grateful that this wasn’t as emphasized in the film as in the book, as the latter quickly became rather annoying to read.
Each of Bridget’s diary entry ‘intros’ made me more and more irritated with the character, and, as I was reading, I couldn’t really figure out why. What was it about Bridget that I just could not relate to? Why was I struggling to get through this book that I had been so looking forward to reading? When I took a quick break from reading the novel, watched the film adaptation, and then picked up the book again, it suddenly struck me as to why I have had such a hard time engaging with this novel. Bridget Jones suffers with body image distortion and the novel, and film, have only served as a vehicle to perpetuate the idea that women are not, could not, and should not be comfortable with their bodies if they have curves.
Seriously, when you look at the novel, Bridget weighs about 126 pounds, however the film felt the need to increase Bridget’s weight to around 136 pounds (plus or minus about 5 pounds, at any given point, in both the novel and movie) and cast Renée Zellweger in the lead. (An actress who has been unfairly scrutinized in the media for her real-life weight gains and losses, both before and after, every time she took on the role of Bridget…) Regardless of whether you go by the novel or the film, either way, Bridget Jones is not fat. If anything, Bridget Jones’s weight is decidedly normal; one might even be tempted to say healthy, if it weren’t for the character’s rather poor drinking, smoking, eating, and obsessive calorie counting habits (which leave rather a lot to be desired). For me, both the novel and film are a sad commentary on the current issues plaguing women with regards to the unrealistic standards of ‘beauty’ equating “thinness” that pervades our society. To think that any woman (whether thin, average, or curvy, and all shapes and sizes in between) reading this novel, or watching the film, may question their own body and weight, or ‘read’ too much into Bridget’s obsession with the various ‘flaws’ of her body, makes both texts highly problematic. Women are already put under so much pressure to ‘look’ a certain way that I question the need to perpetuate such self-destructive and negative thinking (potentially influencing future generations of girls and young women) through a fictional character who so many people tout as a pop culture ‘icon.’
Furthermore, I doubt very much that there is even a single page in the book or scene in the film in which the female characters aren’t obsessed with talking or thinking about men or how they can ‘improve’ themselves in order to find fulfillment in their lives by way of a romantic relationship. Reading the novel opened my eyes to how one-dimensional our main character truly is, as Bridget doesn’t have any hobbies, apart (apparently) from writing in her diary. And, even then, her sole focus is the ups and downs of her life by way of her on-again, off-again relationships with her ‘boyfriends.’ I found myself wanting to scream at the character to ‘get a life’ and stop obsessing about the plethora of “fuckwittage” that predominates her relationships and occupies her existence.
As distasteful as I found the novel, I will maintain that I liked some of the added elements of the film, if for no other reasons than the fact that Darcy finds and accepts Bridget’s diary, buying her a new one to start the literal next chapter in her life (as it were). This piece of the plot is missing from the novel (which instead focuses on a rather dull escapade involving Bridget’s mother in a twisted Portuguese Ponzi scheme resulting in the utter financial ruin of several close friends and family members), and yet the film’s ending completely makes the movie. It becomes a rather fitting romcom-esque way for Darcy to prove his love for Bridget by truly accepting her for exactly who she is.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that I probably would not bother reading any more of the ‘Bridget Jones’ novels. The film trilogy is okay, all things considered, and has some very funny moments. I particularly appreciate the recurring “in jokes” of casting Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in the rival roles of Daniel Cleaver and Mark Darcy (respectively), as the main ‘men’ in Bridget’s life. Both actors are mentioned by name in the novel (Grant in the August 16 diary entry, and Firth on October 24), and the film plays up the humor regarding Firth and his then recent casting as “Mr. Darcy” in the 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice miniseries. The comedy, timing, and intertextual references are so completely spot on, easily my favorite part of the entire film. (The casting director clearly had way too much fun and did a superb job with the casting!) All-in-all, Bridget Jones’s Diary is a rather horrible book, but makes for an amusing romcom that is most certainly not without its flaws… but that still does not mean that you are fat Bridget Jones! – Sarah 😕📔
What did you think of Bridget Jones’s Diary? How do you feel after reading our reviews? Share your thoughts in the comments below and stay tuned for our May Film Club Pick!
Copyright © 2021 Sarah Crane & Bailey Lizotte
