High Noon at the Austen Corral
The townspeople scatter, snatching up small children as they run for cover…when the dust clears, the antagonists are standing at opposite ends of the street, eyes locked, fingers twitching as their hands hover next to their holstered six-shooters…
At one end, Joe Wright. At the other, the Jane Austen Society of North America.
The audience munches its popcorn and leans forward excitedly. Ohhh, this is gonna be good.
There’s a spot of bother brewing between fledgling Brit director Joe Wright - whose movie version of “Pride and Prejudice” opens tomorrow - and members of the Jane Austen Society of North America.
I’m told that in a National Public Radio report, also scheduled for tomorrow, diehard fans of the 1813 novel voice a litany of complaints about Wright’s mushy, souped-up version - the latest in a long line - of the precise and elegant Austen.
Wright responds with an impolite suggestion.
“They can go jump in a lake,” Wright, I’m told, advises NPR L.A. correspondent Kim Masters for her piece on “Morning Edition.”
Wright sniffs that he’s not interested in “quibblers,” adding that he didn’t make the film for them. “I made it for myself, really,” he reportedly reveals.
The trouble started a couple of months ago when University of Colorado English Prof. Joan Klingel Ray, president of the Jane Austen Society, slagged off the movie in an interview with the U.K.’s Telegraph, criticizing everything from Matthew MacFadyen as the male lead, Mr. Darcy, to the movie’s in-your-face sexual imagery.
“The Darcy in the film does not have the quality of attractiveness that Colin Firth has,” Ray asserted, referring to the star of the acclaimed 1995 miniseries.
She added: “The film is full of sexual imagery, which is totally inappropriate to Austen’s novel. In one scene, a wild boar, which I assume is supposed to represent Darcy, wobbles through a farm with its sexual equipment on show.”
After her interview ran, Ray reveals, Focus Features threatened to cancel a screening of the film in Milwaukee for the Austen Society’s annual convention.
The screening was held, though, and while some Austen aficionados liked the movie, others complained about “lame” dialogue and Keira Knightley’s posture.
I hear that a Focus Features flack actually tried to forbid Masters from quoting Ray because the professor is no longer president of the society.
Wrong. Ray’s term ends next month.
Woo Hoo! Deathmatch!
ETA: We simply must add a TOMBSTONE reference: “You tell ‘em JASNA’s comin’! And HELL’S comin’ with us!”
ETA II: We are informed that Professor Joan Ray will be president of JASNA through 2006. Take that, Cowboys.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:17 am
LOL. getting better and better.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:19 am
LOL! This sounds good…
Freudian slip? Did he mean the lake (pond) in P&P2?
November 11th, 2005 at 1:25 am
I was wondering that myself, Vanessa.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:28 am
I’ll be listening to the show tomorrow for sure!
A bit defensive, are they not?
So, did you see the movie Mags? and when can we expect your review?
November 11th, 2005 at 1:33 am
I’ve seen it twice, hope to post a review tomorrow.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:38 am
I look forward to it with eagerness. And pray, be a snarky as you dare…if the occasion calls for, of course (I say that lest we be accused of wishing to bring the movie down).
November 11th, 2005 at 1:44 am
You know, when I started doing book reviews, I was discussing it on a writers forum to which I belong and I said, how do I handle a situation when I don’t like something but know it’s because I’m a picky-ass crank and other people who are less picky will like it fine? And someone said, when you’re doing reviews, the one thing you owe your audience is honesty. So you will get my honest opinion. And I don’t think anyone will complain, I really don’t.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:51 am
We would not expect anything else from you! Your website is a delight, not to mention a great service to us all. I meant that I hope you will give free rein to your wit whatever your opinion may be, and not mind the people who left those messages on the other thread.
And if you do like the movie, it will be a good omen for me, because then there is a good chance I will enjoy it too. It doesn’t open here till the 18th, I think.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:09 am
A brilliant post.
I was just wondering if Wright made the movie for himself, I’d bet he would find it difficult to, you know, recoup the cost of the film. I hope he really likes it because he’s going to have to see it, like, about a million times.
So I’m thinking that maybe Wright wouldn’t mind if I threw a few hard-earned dollars towards “his” movie, so maybe he shouldn’t be such a snot.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:11 am
I didn’t absolutely hate it. I think that’s a good sign.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:24 am
Bloody brillant. Absolutely bloody brillant.
I haven’t even seen the movie yet and I’m siding with JASNA. Jane’s novels are too good to be washed down into a 2-hour romance.
November 11th, 2005 at 7:19 am
LOL, but sorry, I’ve missed the sexual imagery in the movie… maybe I’m too dumb…
If anyone see it, can you please write it down for me?
I wonder what the JASNA was saying about Mansfield Park… it had obviously more sexual imagery than P&P 3.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Kerstin: naked statuary, naked murals, enormous dangling pig testicles. That’s three right there.
(And Lizzy DOES check out Wickham’s ass.)
November 11th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Oooo! A shootout! Anyone know if this will be recorded and available for download later? Maybe the transcript available? I would like to hear it, but only after I’ve seen the movie.
November 11th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Here you go, Sophia:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5008725
I don’t know how long that will be available. Might just be for one day, and it’s not downloadable that I can tell.
November 11th, 2005 at 11:40 am
That Professor Ray has a dirty mind. No way did I think that Darcy was represented by the pig, nor does anyone else I know. I was amazed at the suggestion. As for sexual imagery, heavens above in this day and age it was mild, just a few beautiful statues. Honestly, some people! I’m on Joe’s side, let them jump in the lake!
November 11th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Actually, Mayris, from what I’ve read, the sexual innuendos are intentional. I think what Joe Wright was trying to say was that he didn’t really care about being historically accurate and “true” to Jane Austen. I have to agree with Ray and the others, the film IS oversexed. (Not that it’s a bad thing, though!) IMHO, people have to look at this as a FILM, not an ADAPTATION. I think it’ll make criticism much easier.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Also, as a professor of literature, she is trained to look for metaphor. And just because you don’t notice it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
“The Darcy in the film does not have the quality of attractiveness that Colin Firth has,”
Mags, i love austenblog. But i don’t think selecting the above quote from JASNA president’s interview does JASNA or its president any credit. From an intelligent Austenite, who’s also a college professor, i’d expect a better-constructed argument. As it stands, her statement simply begs for “De gustibus non disputandum est” (one should not discuss personal tastes”) and a shrug. I’m disappointed.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Personally, I find the studio’s reaction to Joan’s comments, and the attempt to “punish” JASNA and quash negative commentary, much more interesting than Joan’s comments. That really is why I posted this item.
Plus, let’s face it, it’s comedy gold.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Thanks so much for the link!
I agree that punishing JASNA for expressing valid criticism is odd/funny/interesting. And immature.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
I thought it was interesting, too. The report itself had that suppressing ring to it. Its ending note was definitely siding with the studio. Like JASNA represents nitpicking, obsessed-with-meaningless-detail manias that just can’t relax and enjoy the ride. LOL
I found Joe Wright’s comment about going and jumping in the lake rather amusing, though. I felt sorry for the poor fellow. I don’t think it’s a Freudian or whatever “slip”. He always said he never saw and cared about the 1995 version, but it sure has always been on his mind. Bless!
November 11th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Lawdamercy, shades of the interview with the director of “The Jacket”.
No, I’m sorry. If you want to make movies for yourself, then you should make them on 8mm and screen them in your living room. If you expect the public to pony up 10 bucks (not including gas, babysitter, etc.) to see them then you have to think about what will please your audience. And you can’t make a movie based on a Jane Austen book and not care what Jane’s most ardent fans think of the film.
November 11th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
OTOH, I do wish they’d not included that remark about MM not having the same quality of attractiveness as Firth.
MM was not served up to us in as attractive a way as Colin Firth was in the BBC version, but I think he is every bit as attractive in his own way. Remember that Firth was not thought of as a screen hottie or hunk until he played Darcy. I’d venture that Matthew has a lot of years of being an onscreen heartthrob left if he chooses to go that route. What he lacks facially compared to Firth, he more than makes up for in terms of physical presence. I wouldn’t write him off. He was really quite sexy towards the end. He just wasn’t served up to us with so many sexy and gorgeous trimmings as Firth’s Mr. Darcy was.
I also think Firth’s acting ability, which was more mature because he’d been acting longer–let’s face it–allowed him to project a sexier image onscreen. He really understood how to work “the look”. MM looked more like a pitful kicked puppy sitting on the doorstep wanting to be let back inside so as to be warm and out of the cold rain than the sexy smoldering look of raw hunger and longing. But he got better as the movie unfolded.
I don’t love this film, but I did think MM deserves better than a comment like that.
Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, surely. There’s nothing wrong with Matthew McF.
November 11th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Oh damn.. *sorry*
Of course I’ve seen the naked statuary… but I really didn’t saw them as sexual imagery. Those Greek statues supposed to be naked or half-naked, aren’t they? I just thought, that the Achilles supposed to be the hurted Darcy.. hitten by Elizabeth sharp words.
I found this room stone-cold, literally, so I never thought of sex in that moment.
And Lady Catherine’s murals.. have anyone been to the Louvre? There you can see a vast number of naked flesh. Quite shocking!
So she only has typical paintings in her parlor…. 
But if you are searching for something like that, you will find it… I’m sure.
Although I’m a true fan to Mr. Firth’s Darcy, I was very surprised of MM… I really liked his performance, maybe because I never tried to compare their acting.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:12 am
The comment on the film being filled with sexual imagery may have some truth in it but the example them use is the most pathetic one ive ever seen, a wild boar to represent DARCY?!?!?! how dare they!!
And to hell with the Colin Firth Prejudice, Matt actually brings a whole new perspective to Darcy which stands alone, as the aforementioned Colin Firth darcy stands alone. Neither takes the higher position to my mind. >> and i can definatly say that from the people i know who’ve seen it, Matt does have the same attractiveness rating, swooning seems to be fairly common in those wandering out of the P&P 2005.