Ouch
<Theoden> And so it begins. </Theoden>
The president of the Jane Austen Society of North America, Joan Klingel Ray, has some harsh words for the new film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.
Prof Klingel Ray thought that the film’s deviations from the 1813 novel were a step too far. She said the rustic look of the film and the obsession with pitting the action against the elements ensured that the film felt like an adaptation of a Brontë or Bridget Jones novel. “The film is full of sexual imagery which is totally inappropriate to Austen’s novel,” she said. “In one scene a wild boar, which I assume is supposed to represent Darcy, wobbles through a farm with its sexual equipment on show. Also much of the action takes place against tempestuous weather which simply isn’t in the novel. None of this is Jane Austen. The passion in Pride and Prejudice is more of a linguistic affair. I read an interview with the writer when she said she was trying to be honest but honest to whom. I feel the whole thing has been de-Austenised.”
Andrew Davies, screenwriter of P&P2, is loyal to his Darcy.
Andrew Davies, who wrote the screenplay for the renowned BBC adaptation, last night concurred with Jane Austen aficionados and said: “Matthew Macfadyen is a brilliant actor, but I cannot imagine him being as good as Colin Firth.”
Jennifer Ehle, however, summed it up quite well, we thought.
Ehle said: “I remember when we were about to make our version of Pride and Prejudice, there were so many letters to The Times and other newspapers saying how dare the BBC spend money on remaking this when the definitive film version already exists with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson. So you never know. Nobody owns Pride and Prejudice. It’s out there in the public domain, and it’s good that people are taking a fresh look at it.”
We agree with Professor Ray’s take to the extent that if filmmakers and writers want angst and atmosphere, see the Brontës, not Austen. There is nothing wrong with taking a good critical look at the film (and it’s so good to finally see a review that isn’t enchanted with the freaking “gritty realism”), which after all is using Jane Austen’s popularity to sell the agendas of the writer and director, but we find the whole “competition” thing rather silly. No matter what any of us think of the film, we’ll still have the book, and that is the most important thing. However, we hate for those who will be introduced to Jane Austen through the film to be brought to expect something different from the “light, bright and sparkling” delight that Jane gave us.
August 28th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
She’s offended by a naked pig? I guess she didn’t grow up on a farm.
Oh well. At least she liked Jane and Lizzy.
August 28th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
hah, true true. also, she thought jennifer ehle was too “heavy” for the role? um, i hope she was referring to her acting style and not to her weight…
well…still waiting to be able to actually make an opinion of my own! i can’t imagine what this site will be like when this ridiculous anticipation finally ends and we’ll have more than speculation and reviews to discuss!
August 28th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
The weather? I am not British, but I’ve been there and I don’t remember eternal sunshine. Maybe in Jane Austen’s time it was sunny spring all year round, who knows?
August 28th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
I sincerely doubt she was offended by the pig, just did not agree with what it was meant to represent. Same with the weather.
Heather, I can’t wait till it goes away and I have my nice quiet blog back. Of course, we are reaping what we sowed here, so I’m trying to adopt a Mr. Bennet-like air of philosophic composure.
August 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Hhhhmmmm. A pig representing Darcy, eh? I dont think so. Now I am going to have to search for said pig when I see the movie.
And when on earth was it nice all year in England?
August 28th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Must a pig running around in the country represent anything other than the fact that they do have pigs running around in the country? Hopefully there aren’t any naked cows then.
Seriously, though, my impression from the piece is that she probably said a great deal more than what is reported and that he just picked the most “juicy” bits for his article. Otherwise her focus on paintings appearing in the background and pigs genetalia seems a bit odd to me.
August 28th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
I suspect Mock Tudor is correct about the picking and choosing, but speaking for myself, who is dealing with the stuff on a daily basis, it’s refreshing to get a review that isn’t a regurgitation of the production notes.
August 28th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
A pig representing Darcy? Strange thought indeed…
I assumed, the pig’s destination was to become the Bennets’ joint for the evening.
But well, you can see, that it is a boar….
Imho, there were no more “sexual imagery” than in Mansfield Park, which offended me much more. The Uncle’s importunate glances at Fanny, the homoerotic attempts of Mary Crawford and at last the embarrasing scene, in which Edmund and Fanny caught Maria and Henry in the act… you won’t find anything of this in P&P 05!
Maybe, the Professor gives her fancy full scope?
August 28th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I too am getting rather tired with all of this competition between the different versions of P&P. For my part, there is something to enjoy, and much to love, in every version (at least of the ones I’ve seen). And in the end, no one adaptation will take away from - or, indeed, come close to - my own personal version that unfolds itself in my imagination when I read the novel.
And I sincerely hope that she wasn’t referring to Jennifer Ehle’s figure in that comment … words fail me if she was!
August 28th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
I agree Mags, I also find it very refreshing.
Furthermore, the Production Notes had a lot of information that is misleading, and I think that has not been mentioned yet, though along this past week at Austen-L some have already adressed some of those mistaken ideas.
August 29th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Why does everbody think this movie is not bright and sparkling? It’s definitely no Brontë “Wuthering Heights meets Pride&Prejudice” version.
The “gritty realism” thing is imho pure nonsense. A rural Bennets’ estate and not so bright colours doesn’t make a movie “gritty realistic”.
Sonja and me wouldn’t have taken fright in confessing our bad opinion, if the movie had emerged as a debacle. And, even if Sonja will throw an angry look at me, I tell you, she dislikes the Brontës. Too dramatic! So, if the movie would have been too Brontë, she would have told everyone!
August 30th, 2005 at 12:13 am
Any review is just one person’s opinion. So why don’t we wait till we all watch the movie and form our own opinions. And we just have to agree to disagree. Till then, I’m not buying anyone’s judgement.
August 30th, 2005 at 4:16 am
No angry look, Kerstin. You tell the very truth. If there would be any piece of Brontë I would cry out loud.
August 30th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
I dont believe this has anything to do with this piece of news, but the UK website has some WONDERFUL clips of the new P&P, plus some new pictures.
http://java.europe.yahoo.com/uk/uip/prideandprejudice/site/flashSite.htm
If you want to see more Darcy, under characters click Caroline Bingley. They have a clip of the reading scene, and Darcy actually talks…:)
August 31st, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Well, the dvd is going nowhere, but really how can she complain about sex, I mean after all, did not Mr Davies pride himself on that very point? I sense a wee bit of prejudice
Boar/boor is just too facile a deduction, oh well.
And I had always thought that the difference b/t the Romantic and the Enlightenment in novels had more to do with character than mist.
Looking forward to seeing anyone’s attempt on the big screen. They cannot do it often enough for my taste!