The Western Wyoming Community College Department of Theater and Dance presents a production of Helen Jerome’s stage adaptation of Pride and Prejudice starting October 1. As always, if you get to see it, send in your review.

A Times Online article explains the customs and practices involved in traditional arranged marriage in Indian culture. It does tend to explain why Gurinder Chadha chose to adapt Pride and Prejudice when she wanted to make a Bollywood movie for a Western audience.

When parents like the Nayars talk about the difficulties of finding the “right” boy, it becomes clear that it is not just a burden, it’s a nightmare. When girls reach their mid-twenties aunties start twittering, wondering out loud how long it will be before they get settled. Timing is all. Leave it too late and the best boys have been snapped up. If the girls are in their late twenties, whispers go round: “What’s wrong with her? Does she have a ‘past’? Is she still a virgin?”

Mr. Bennet, so loath to give up his little Lizzy to an unworthy man, would have sympathized with the fathers, we think.

Stuck in the middle, between clucking mothers and demanding daughters, are the fathers. Tender and protective, they refuse to become tense or desperate about their lovely girls.

“I just want a good human being for my daughters,” says Mr Nayar. “People come here and are impressed with our address, but that makes me feel uncomfortable. I want them to appreciate our girls, not our bungalow. I’m not going to marry them off to any Tom, Dick or Harry. And if they don’t get married, they don’t get married. As long as they’re happy, that’s all that matters.”

We confess we also had a delightful fantasy of Mrs. Bennet video-conferencing via broadband with Mr. Bingley.

Radio Sargam reports more free screenings of “Bride and Prejudice”, provided by the BBC. The Daily Telegraph has also apparently chosen “Bride and Prejudice” as its movie of the month, and is planning on offering screenings, which have yet to be announced. Keep your eyes posted for details!

Why do modern women still fall in love with Mr. Darcy? The Guardian has an article today asking that very question, and warning women that marriage to a moody git might not be all it’s cracked up to be:

Here is the rub – Austen leaves us to assume that her heroine’s marriages are happy despite portraying very few idyllic marriages in the rest of her texts. Also, Austen’s deification as a novelist is such that one hardly dares to point out that when it comes to marriage and what goes on behind the bedroom door, she herself had no first-hand experience. But as modern women with our wealth of relationship experience and all the benefits brought about by feminism, we should know better. The fact is that dark, smouldering, moody, charismatic, arrogant Darcy types, whom we hate at first sight and then later find ourselves falling in love with, often – particularly after we have married them – turn out to be rigid, dominating and controlling.

Ah, but you see, Mr. Darcy is married to Elizabeth Bennet, whose goal in life is to laugh at Mr. Darcy and teach him to like it. That makes all the difference.

ETA: Heather writes to remind us of this article in the Washington Post, which provides a different perspective. We posted the article when it came out, but unfortunately it got lost amidst the Keira sightings.

An article in the Hindustan Times talks to Gurinder Chadha and asks whether BRIDE AND PREJUDICE truly reflects Bollywood and Indian culture.

Mira Nair’s Monsoon Wedding and Chadha’s own Bend It Like Beckham, both great global success stories, did borrow some elements from Bollywood masala movies, but they remained firmly rooted in an international sensibility. That indeed was the reason why they travelled so well across borders. It would really be in the best interests of Bride & Prejudice if it were not too overtly an imitation of a Bollywood blockbuster.

Kirsty writes to tell us that there is an audio interview with Gurinder Chadha on BBC4’s Front Row.

Chadha talks about how she has interpreted some of Austen’s themes in the book and transferred them across time and cultures. She also talks about the JA community’s reaction to the film and the screening in Bath. It was the first feature on tonight’s show, and lasted for just under 10 minutes.

Thanks for the link, Kirsty!

Heads up, Texas bibliophiles and collectors: the Friends of the Fort Worth Public Library are having their annual book sale starting October 1 through October 5. Among the items for sale at a silent auction are a “vintage 1800s boxed set of Jane Austen novels.”

The question puzzling the gang at AustenBlog World Headquarters today would be, “Who the heck donates this stuff?!?”

(That quote is from Rudyard Kipling’s story “The Janeites,” by the way.)

The Miami Herald has some suggestions for entertaining bored kids during a hurricane, including reading a book together.

Do as they did in the Dark Ages (pre-1990s) and read a book together. Some titles on summer reading lists the world over: Kidnapped, Treasure Island, The Call of the Wild, The Swiss Family Robinson, The Hobbit, or, if you’ve got preteen girls, introduce them to the hilarity of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. For the thespian in you, pass around the book and let different family members read different characters. Heck, act out the whole thing as a play. You’ve got plenty of chances for rehearsal.

The Guardian has an article on the late literary critic Edward Said that touches on his controversial views of Mansfield Park.

When Culture and Imperialism was published in 1993, the chapter on Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park aroused anger among some critics, because of his discussion of the “dead silence” (Austen’s phrase) that occurs when its heroine, Fanny Price, asks her uncle about the slave trade. The family owns a sugar plantation on Antigua, and Fanny is troubled by this, though to no real narrative purpose (the film in which Harold Pinter plays Fanny’s uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, draws on Said’s discussion to make the point more sharply).

Discussing the novel, Said argues that it is silly “to expect Jane Austen to treat slavery with anything like the passion of an abolitionist or a newly liberated slave”. Said refused to engage in what he termed “the rhetoric of blame”, and attack Austen retrospectively for being “white, insensitive, complicit”. Rather, he criticised card-carrying postcolonial critics for such attacks, and insisted that Austen’s novel is a “rich work” whose “aesthetic intellectual complexity” requires a longer and slower analysis. Austen belonged to a slave-owning society, but we should not therefore jettison her novels as “aesthetic frumpery”.

IC Birmingham thinks that fans of P&P2 will also enjoy BRIDE AND PREJUDICE:

Girls will be delighted to know this ‘Will Darcy’, played by American hunk Martin Henderson, gives Colin Firth a run for his money.

But the sweaty wet T-shirt look is this time left to equally rugged Daniel Gillies, as dastardly Wickham, running out of the waves in Goa.

The Times of India is bemused by the culture clash of Austen vs. Bollywood, but thinks both profit by the association.

India boldly begins its public takeover of English classics such as Jane Austen with Bollywood’s version of Pride and Prejudice getting its very first outing in the Georgian city of Bath, which the novelist loved, lived in and immortalised, on Saturday.
[. . .]
Describing Austen’s much-loved novel, which regularly tops public polls as Britain’s favourite 21st-century read, as “the perennial Indian story”, Chadha said her version might have different cultures and settings but it’s still about people marrying from different backgrounds.

According to This Is London, Keira Knightley will fly to Los Angeles on Monday to start rehearsals for her next film, DOMINO.

Paul Johnson writes a column in Forbes that ruminates on the definition of rich vs. seriously rich, using examples from Jane Austen’s novels.

But none of this answers the question, “When is a person rich?” In Jane Austen’s day–when society was as upwardly mobile (and just as watchful for signs of wealth) as it is today–a tradesman’s success was reached when he “set up his carriage,” something requiring a stable, horses, a coachman, grooms and the vehicle itself. This act marked the point at which a family changed class in a decisive way. An important part of the plot of Emma hinges on news of the decision by Mr. Perry, a local man of business who is rising into gentility, to take this financial step, with its profound social implications. In Austen’s day there were a number of such manifest indicators. To be considered seriously rich, one had to have an income of £10,000 a year. This was Mr. Darcy’s position in Pride and Prejudice. In comparison, Mr. Bingley, who was merely rich, had £4,000 or £5,000 a year.

We think Mr. Johnson might be taking the gentlemen’s respective incomes a trifle too literally, but otherwise he’s spot-on. He seems to be an historian of Austen-era society.

Justine put a link to her Jane Austen weblog in Polish in a comment. (Beautiful costume photos!) The title of the weblog translates as “In the Light World of Jane Austen.” That is a sentiment we can get behind at AustenBlog.

(Incidentally, we have many talents but speaking Polish is not among them; we used an online translator.)

She also has lots of photos from the P&P3 production, compared with their counterparts in P&P2. We haven’t seen them side by side like that before. It is quite interesting.

EDITED to make title correction.

We direct your attention to the comments of this post, in which Felix gives his approbation of the “Jane Austen” operetta (I don’t know what else to call it) currently touring Australia. We rather hope that this production makes it to the States at some point. Thanks for posting your review, Felix!

Joanne writes from Edinburgh with a delightful review of the stage production of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE currently touring the U.K.

Hello Austenblog

I had the very great pleasure of going to see the infamous stage production of Pride and Prejudice with John Leslie last night and thought you may be interested in the views of a Janeite to go along with all the official reviews.

Having read the various articles that have been posted on your site I didn’t go along expecting a top class production – in fact I was mostly looking forward to being amused more than anything else. I wasn’t disappointed. It was, for the most part, average verging on not very good. As one of the reviews commented, John Leslie was not the worse thing in it. (Actually, I ought to say he was quite good for someone with no acting experience. Very tall though.)

Things which stood out:

• “It is a truth univerally acknowledged…” was used three times. Slight overkill there….
• One actress managed very admirably to play Mary Bennet, Miss Bingley and Lady Catherine.
• I shuddered when Mr Bennet suggested to his lady that if instead of worrying about having 5 unmarried daughters he would be more than happy to try again for a son. Jane would not have approved.
• What was Miss Jane Bennet doing in Derbyshire, pray?
• Every scene change (and there were many) ended with a member of the cast providing some music and some others performing some very odd looking dance moves.
• Lizzy may have noticed Mr Darcy changing from unappealing to appealing but the audience certainly didn’t.
• Mr Collins was perfect and provided more than welcome amusement.
• Mr Bingley and Mr Wickham wearing kilts in the last scene provided some definite bemusement. Was this just for the Edinburgh audience?

I am probably being a little too harsh. As I know the book so well I could spot every amusing line before it was uttered (and indeed joined in with a few myself….) and probably looked askance every time there was a line not straight from the book. I did find the whole thing entertaining and I’m pleased I went but I must confess that I found myself looking at my watch and wishing it was Colin Firth on stage instead.

I will not attempt to describe the views of my poor long suffering boyfriend. Let us hope he enjoys Bride and Prejudice a little more….

To finish, I’d like to say thank you for AustenBlog. It’s great fun and very informative (if it weren’t for you, I probably wouldn’t have gone to see the play!)

We are amply repaid by your great review, Joanne. Thanks for sending it along! (And your boyfriend gets the Mr. Knightley Award for escorting you!)

P.S. KILTS?!?

Radio Sargam reports a promotion for BRIDE AND PREJUDICE by the UK magazine HEAT. If you live in the UK, and want to see a special screening of B&P, grab the latest copy of HEAT and run to your nearest cinema! The promotion is “first come, first served”, so move quickly!

“Bride and Prejudice” now has its own website, complete with a gallery, trailer, and cast biographies. The site has a lot of graphics, and might a while to load – but the wait is definitely worth it!

JANE AUSTEN IN MANHATTAN, a film about two teachers attempting to put on a play written by Jane Austen, is out on DVD today.

Charles Spencer reviews the stage production of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE that is currently touring the U.K.:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a tatty touring company in possession of a naff production must be in want of a C-list celebrity. And so it proves with this ghastly staging of the best loved and most sparkling of all Jane Austen’s novels.

[. . .]

Otherwise this is a lamentable evening, and one that all true lovers of Jane Austen should make strenuous efforts to avoid.

Ouch.

On the other hand, the production currently in Indianapolis is getting lovely reviews.

The Age (Australia) has a review of the “Regency Cabaret” featuring the ghosts of Jane and Cassandra Austen.

There is wit in the loving sibling rivalry between the two women. Jane, for example, confesses that, if in the early 19th-century Pride and Prejudice had been on TV, “we would have watched it religiously”.