Why we snark, redux
Looks like it’s time for another history lecture from Professor Mags. Class will come to order. Dorothy, please write the names of the tardy students on the board.
“You have to understand, in that period, women were disenfranchised,” Sutherland tells The Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm. “They lost the right to inherit property. They had to get married. Otherwise, they had nothing. They were in the poor house.”
Sadly, no!
From Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, Vol. I Ch. XIV (14):
“She has one only daughter, the heiress of Rosings, and of very extensive property.”
Just saying.
Looks like we will have to lecture on fine literature as well…good thing we have tenure here at AustenBlog U (Go Fighting Janeites Snarks!)
His wife is two-time Academy Award nominee Brenda Blethyn, who Sutherland calls “exquisite.” And notes the role of long-suffering husband is not the way he plays the part of Mr. Bennet.
“He’s a husband who just adores and loves her. His life is built on having sex with her. It’s just beautiful. Absolutely it is. It’s just bliss.”
Sadly, no!
From Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (is there an echo in here?), Vol. II, Ch. XIX (42):
Had Elizabeth’s opinion been all drawn from her own family, she could not have formed a very pleasing picture of conjugal felicity or domestic comfort. Her father, captivated by youth and beauty, and that appearance of good humour which youth and beauty generally give, had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind had, very early in their marriage, put an end to all real affection for her. Respect, esteem, and confidence had vanished for ever; and all his views of domestic happiness were overthrown. But Mr. Bennet was not of a disposition to seek comfort, for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice. He was fond of the country and of books; and from these tastes had arisen his principal enjoyments. To his wife he was very little otherwise indebted, than as her ignorance and folly had contributed to his amusement. This is not the sort of happiness which a man would in general wish to owe to his wife; but where other powers of entertainment are wanting, the true philosopher will derive benefit from such as are given.
Again, just saying. Looks like we didn’t have to lecture much after all; Jane did the job for us admirably. 
And yes, you in the back, this WILL be on the test.
(Thanks to our Janeite Spy for alerting us to this interview.)
ETA: Kurt Loder of MTV also needs a smack upside the head with the Cluebat of Historical Rectitude.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:55 am
Dear Mags,
That horrid quotation has brought me out of lurkerdom. Gah! Why wasn’t the cast given a crib sheet about their characters? He’s given similar sounding statements in other interviews and why does nobody call him on it? Are we now too PC that criticism is no longer valid? Now KK has been transformed into Marilyn Monroe? I think he likened her to Audrey Hepburn in an another interview. Can’t wait to see what she becomes next- Meryl Streep? Put a leash on this guy right now!
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:13 am
He’s given similar sounding statements in other interviews and why does nobody call him on it?
That’s why I’m here, dear. When snark is needed, who you gonna call? Austen fans, of course.
The other day I found an article in which Keira Knightley said that Jane Austen published anonymously because women weren’t allowed to publish books under their own names in those days. My computer spazzed as I was posting it (and looking up whether Edgeworth, Burney and Radcliffe published anonymously–the answer is, sometimes yes and sometimes no–making me think that had Jane Austen lived and published more books, she might have done away with her anonymity herself) and I had to reboot and then I couldn’t find the bally thing again to snark it.
I find it rather sweet that they’re all so earnest about imparting their wisdom to the Great Unwashed, but they really should just shut up and leave it to people who know what they’re talking about.
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:18 am
I find it rather sweet that they’re all so earnest about imparting their wisdom to the Great Unwashed, but they really should just shut up and leave it to people who know what they’re talking about.
No kidding! Thank you, yet again, for bringing the snark.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:00 am
Dear Mags - thanks ….
OH MY, oh my, oh my …..:(
With much interest I read that some people said the new movie was as a faithfull adaptation as PnP2.
I had the chance to see it a couple of days ago and yes, I agree, it is very faithful….except for the Bennets’s situation, their relations, the Colonel, Georgiana, the Hurst, first proposal, the meeting at Pemberley, and the second proposal…
If I could just forget it is about PnP I think I could really enjoy the movie.
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:01 am
i’m beginning to wonder why they didn’t make up a whole story of their own, since the book seems to be so inadequate to their purposes.
*grrrrrrr*
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:49 am
Can I just ask, why would Darcy not inherit Rosings, if Mr Collins was going to inherit Longbourne? What was the difference, or was there a different law for the upper classes? It is interesting that Donald Sutherland may be right in this case and (horrors) Jane Austen could have been wrong.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:01 am
With all due respect, Mayris, Jane Austen was there and Donald Sutherland was not.
The Bennet estate is entailed, which means it can only be passed on in one piece to the nearest surviving male relative. Entailment was not the law of the land, it was a voluntary arrangement taken up by lots of gentry landowners in order to keep the estates from being subdivided and sold off a few acres at a time by cash-poor and extravagant owners, or owners with five daughters to feed and no sons. Lady Catherine very pompously announces to all and sundry at one point that entailment was not thought necessary in her husband’s family, meaning that the estate produced enough income for legal protections not to be required.
I really logged in to say, though, that I was reading your post, Mags, and thinking “hmm that sounds unusually dumb for John Sutherland” or “I thought Kathryn Sutherland would know better than that” but it seems there is now a third Austen expert called Sutherland for us to contend with. *big sigh*
On the anonymity - I agree, she would very soon have dropped it. Times were a-changing, and the secret had leaked to such an extent that she was becoming a kind of celebrity anyway (as witnessed by the dedication of Emma to Prinny)
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:07 am
Oh, what a nonsense… thank you for your lesson, Mags.. please send it to Mr. Sutherland…
I’ve got another example for ignoration…
In a big German newspaper magazine they’ve compared the political coalition with the books of Jane Austen. No problem with that, but they wrote, that Mr. Darcy was going to marry MRS. Bennet. This was not a typo, it stood there twice… He’s going to marry an older woman with five children who isn’t a widow??? HU?
I think the laws of succession didn’t depend on the class you’re in. It depended on how the possession was entailed. It’s like the different royal houses… in some of them, always the oldest child will get the throne, in others it’s the same, but when the oldest child is a girl and a boy is born, he will become king. And then you have some, where ONLY a boy can be king. And it’s difficult to change it.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:31 am
Thanks Laura, as you can see I am one of the great unwashed, but that’s why I love this site, it is so educational. I found the information most interesting, you should forward it to Mr Sutherland.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:45 am
For the love of literary adaptations, if Winona can shoplift and Renee can get a job incognito in a British publishing firm all in the name of “character development,” cannot these actors READ THE BOOK?!? Give it to them, Mags.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:45 am
Yep, what Laura said…if Longbourn were not entailed, I think legally the five Bennet sisters would have inherited it between them. Now there’s an AU fanfic waiting to be written.
If there’s a title involved there are some rules about that, too, I think, but I’m not real clear on it–how property is tied to a title, that is. For instance, in Persuasion, William Elliot will inherit Sir Walter’s baronetcy, because he is the next male in line and only a male can inherit the title, and apparently the estate goes with the title. I’m not sure if that’s a general law or if it was specific to the Kellynch baronetcy. I guess if the land comes with the title, they’re tied up together? Not sure.
There are also considerations from the money the mother brings into the marriage; usually this money is settled on younger children, for instance, the Tilneys of Northanger Abbey. Henry and Eleanor inherited money when their mother died that the General cannot touch when he gets mad at Henry for marrying Catherine. This money was Mrs. Tilney’s personal fortune from HER family and the marriage agreements stated that it would go to the younger children. Henry can be disinherited from anything his father might have given him (though it seems that Frederick Tilney will have the estate) but he can’t touch Henry’s living or the money from his mother, so Henry is quite well provided for in any event. Mrs. Bennet’s father was merely a country lawyer and the fact that she brought very little money into the marriage along with the entailment of the estate are why her daughters are considered bad marriage partners from a purely mercenary point of view. And it is meant to show that Mr. Bennet was foolish to marry Mrs. Bennet for many reasons: first because she was not a fit companion for him intellectually, a situation bound for disaster, which he compounds by being disrespectful to her in front of his daughters, and because her lack of fortune set up a situation where Mr. Bennet would have to exert himself to provide for any children beside a male heir, which he does NOT do.
See what I mean about all the nuance missing in the film?
I don’t want to get into nitpicking every detail of the film, as I understand some of it was done for easy understanding of modern audiences, much as it might pain me, but an example is Darcy’s letter to Elizabeth, where he says “Georgiana is to inherit thirty thousand pounds” and that once Wickham understood that if he married Georgiana he “wouldn’t get her money” he decamped. Um, her parents are dead; she already HAS inherited it. And in an elopement situation, where there are no marriage articles (a Georgian version of a prenuptial agreement), as soon as they are married, legally Georgiana’s money is Wickham’s to do with as he pleases. Georgiana, being only 15, couldn’t marry Wickham in England without her guardians’ (Darcy and Col. Fitzwilliam’s) permission, which of course they would never have given, so G. and W. would have had to run away to Scotland to get married. The letter in the film almost makes it sound like Darcy would have let them get married if Wickham was willing to take Georgiana without control of her fortune! As if!
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:55 am
I love this blog!
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:48 am
“His life is built on having sex with her”…?!
The mind boggles.
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:15 am
OK, Sutherland. Fine. You didn’t read the book. But to present yourself as some lecturing authority?
Get.Over.Yourself.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:33 pm
The other day I found an article in which Keira Knightley said that Jane Austen published anonymously
In other words, it wasn’t enough the film has turned P&P into Wuthering Heights. Now they’re trying to turn Jane Austen into the Bronte sisters.
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:38 pm
The title page of P&P said “by the Author of Sense & Sensibility” - no names named. I’ve seen the press kit for P&P ‘05, and they are trying to make JA’s authorship fit into a romantic Struggletown mould - and it wasn’t easy for her by any means, but it’s utter nonsense to suggest that female authorship was outrageous and impossible.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:09 pm
The Donald did a lot of illicit substances back in the day.
I’m just sayin’
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Karen, LOL! I have recently seen a couple of TV interviews with Mr. Sutherland. He seemed rather confused, and rambled on at times. I do believe that he may be suffering from the old “Ozzy Osbourne” syndrome.
Sarah, I agree, I love this blog too!
I feel so liberated, I am not alone!
November 24th, 2005 at 1:34 am
The thing is, it’s like they’re almost right–like the “women published anonymously” thing, many did, including the three authors I named above (who were more famous in their day than Jane Austen)–all published their first, or first several, novels anonymously, but then once their authorship became known, they didn’t bother anymore, which is why I wonder if Jane Austen might not have bothered after a while. In the cases of Burney and Edgeworth, they were happy to enter the public aspects of literary life; Jane Austen didn’t seem interested in that, she preferred to keep to herself, so she might have hung on to her anonymity a little longer, as Ann Radcliffe did. By the time she died, between Bigmouth Brother Henry and natural curiosity, it wasn’t like she was really anonymous anymore. And all of them employed a male relative as their go-between for business.
And women were limited in what they could do and their legal rights, but society had evolved methods to protect its daughters, such as marriage settlements, which often made sure that younger children would be taken care of and that the woman herself would not be left penniless were she widowed.
November 24th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Oh what a Henry!
November 24th, 2005 at 11:12 am
While we’re all snarking on the various actors, should we not remember that actors are at the mercy of both the writers and directors? Let’s not leave them out of their share of the blame.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Excuse me Lynn, but as a sometime actress, I take issue with that. The first thing that any aspiring thespian is taught in any respectable acting class is: Do your own research. It’s that simple. While directors and dramaturgs can be helpful, it is the actor’s duty to find out as much about their character as they can in order to make that character real for them. Example: This past winter I did a show about the Holocaust. There was one, I repeat one research day scheduled into rehearsal time, and that was it. I read books, studied maps, looked up facts about Polish, Russian and Hebrew turns of phrase and wrote pages upon pages of notes - all on my own time.
And this isn’t even my real job! Donald Sutherland is being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. You’d think he’d at least put in a little effort.
Thanks for the snark, Mags, it is delicious every time.
November 24th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
I was going to say something clever, but all of the tryptophan from my Thanksgiving turkey has clouded my mind. Oh, well…
November 24th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
I understand Dae’s point, but aren’t some directors more accepting of an actor’s interpretation than others? If the actor’s vision or understanding of their character differs greatly from the director’s vision , isn’t the actor expected to give the performance the director wants or risk being replaced? Even if inflection and expression are at the actor’s discretion, are they not bound for the most part by the words on the page? Films and plays are not created solely by actors working in a vacuum.
As for Mr. Sutherland, I think Dae may have answered her own question: he’s already making hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps he doesn’t feel he needs to make the effort.
November 25th, 2005 at 12:56 am
That’s why I’m here, dear. When snark is needed, who you gonna call? Austen fans, of course. {* How do you quote on this site?]
That’s why I’m so grateful for your snark! This site is refreshing because you are willing to be candid. I’m really not sure why this movie is getting the kid gloves treatment from nearly all quarters. Is it because Austen in any form is considered sacrosanct? Are reviewers behind it because it is/ will be a box office bonanza? Is this the backlash from the success of fan fiction; now any adaptation/sequel is considered equal and above criticism? Direct criticism is usually banned in most ff communities. I’m just struck by the fact that any criticism of this movie is answered so vehemently by those who love it.
Anyways, getting back to DS, I reread his comments and I think he knows that there is a difference between the character he plays and what is in the book. What I’m struck with is that he thinks it is a valid interpretation. [Although what can I expect him to say on national TV? Although he could have said it ironically but I think he was being really earnest about it.]
Even though I don’t think Mr. Bennet is a “long-suffering husband,” I sure as hell know he’s not what DS is portraying. I’m just wondering why DM took the characters in this direction because she seems to have envisioned much nicer [and more boring] people than the ones depicted in the novel. One thing I heard a lot about this movie was that most people really liked the depiction of the closeness between the sisters- they now look and act like sisters. I really don’t get this level of chumminess from the book apart Elizabeth and Jane. Even between them there are moments of silence and boundaries they do not break. I think Mrs. Bennet will always be a silly person and I’m sure that even if she was very well off (say maybe Bingley status), she would still be the matchmaking mama that she is. Her motivation is not solely financial but also to gratify her own ego. I think Mr. Bennet for all his witticisms has moments of cruelty and is an indolent man. Charlotte is not melodramatic- she doesn’t see marriage to Mr. Collins as a sacrifice. It’s quite the opposite- she schemes to bring it about when she sees that Elizabeth is set against marrying him. I think the only thing that grieves her is that she will lose Elizabeth’s friendship but even this is something which she can reconcile herself to and move on.
If realism was the goal then I would think the biggest task would be nailing the characterizations rather than the settings. Also characterization is not a function of the time length or it shouldn’t be in the case of the main characters. I don’t mind DM’s Georgiana because the movie downplays the Wickham plot thread. But for the rest? Maybe those who loved the movie can help me understand what is it about the characters that worked for them.
November 25th, 2005 at 9:15 am
“If realism was the goal then I would think the biggest task would be nailing the characterizations rather than the settings. Also characterization is not a function of the time length…”
Amen, Lynn. Amen to that. Such a good point.
November 25th, 2005 at 9:17 am
oops, sorry, I was referring to Mimi’s post. But I agree with Lynn too…
November 25th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Mimi–You are right on. I think it’s like Mags stated earlier, it is as if they “almost” got it right. The movie, if you take Austen out of the picture, is cinematographically (sp?) beautifully done, the characterization well-acted and the script charming and full of humor. It is in fact, a big budget film (there are calendars and magnets for pete’s sake), and with such publicity and money involved, what can DS say, “I have no earthly idea what the book is about–I saw Bridget Jones’ Diary and have a working knowledge of the plot, and I want the opportunity to prove my thespian skills of being able to mumble in the Queen’s English and that I can cry on cue.”
However for those who have read the book, I am also curious as to why defend this movie so wholeheartedly? It is obviously NOT a truly faithful representation, yet it has been publicized as such.
For those waiting to see the last scene. . . wait for the DVD. Perhaps there will be loads of extra footage for all to see.
November 25th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Lynn - Indeed, your last paragraph sadly hit the nail on the head. ::shakes head::
As for your first paragraph, it is partly true, I suppose, and that makes things all the sadder. My point is that for whatever reason, Donald Sutherland owed it to himself and to his craft to have done his own research on the character. And -if, as I suspect, you are right and the director would have messed everything up anyways - that only serves to make me sigh more. At least I have this one comfort: this would not happen in the theatre!
November 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
(crossposted, but not verbatim, to my livejournal)
However for those who have read the book, I am also curious as to why defend this movie so wholeheartedly? It is obviously NOT a truly faithful representation, yet it has been publicized as such.
For my part, I’m inclined to defend the movie because I think the level of vitriol leveled at it at certain sites (no complaints against the Editrix, however) is disproportionate to the “crimes” it has committed.
I’ve seen all the JA adaptations (I think) except NA and P1, and to my knowledge, this is the only one aside from MP2 that has met with this much anger. MP2 is also the only one I dislike on the grounds of being unfaithful—any others I dislike, it’s because they were boring, or ugly, or both. Now, I don’t think this movie comes anywhere close to the level of travesty that MP2 attained, so I find the rabidity of its detractors to be somewhat bewildering. I mean, at least the makers of P&P3 actually respect Jane Austen and P&P — at least, they don’t go around openly insulting it in interviews. It seems to me like they really tried to be “faithful,” in their own way. There are some unpopular interpretations of characters, but nothing too outrageous. I mean, nobody would actually (I hope) interpret Fanny Price as a spirited, horseback-riding hoyden, but who honestly hasn’t heard the argument before that Mrs. Bennet is actually really very sensible in trying to get her girls married? Who hasn’t witnessed a Shy War? Even if you don’t agree with it, it’s out there.
Plenty of other adaptations — Emmas 2 and 3, P2, and even S&S2, which I love — make serious changes to the text, but they don’t have gaggles of people bashing them. (Though of course every adaptation is disliked by *somebody.*) So I don’t understand why this one meets with such frothing-at-the-mouth responses. Though I have my suspicions.
November 25th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
However for those who have read the book, I am also curious as to why defend this movie so wholeheartedly? It is obviously NOT a truly faithful representation, yet it has been publicized as such.
Because it’s an entertaining movie with at least some brain in it.
I’ve suffered a very boring summer without any interesting movie, so P&P saved my summer!
Of course it’s not faithfull to the book and deserves the “snark” for it, but it is, if you’re able not to hang on to the book by word, a very nice movie.
November 25th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Gabby, I’d like to know what you suspect.
Well, I saw the movie two days ago and I only stayed past the first proposal because I don’t expect to buy the DVD. I was horrified. I kept saying “Good Lord!” with almost every new scene. I think my worst shock came with Lizzy’s hair when she walks to Netherfield. She looked like a gypsy. Yes, in the book Miss Bingley mentions her hair, but I am sure it was only dishevelled from the walk, not deliberately wild. Longbourn is made to look like the home of Mr. Price in Portsmouth. And I half expected Donald Sutherland to turn to the camera and say “There have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm”.
To me the makers of this movie have no understanding of the book. I don’t think they tried to be faithful at all. They concentrated on props (dirt) to make the point that Darcy was socially above Elizabeth. Like Mags said, all the nuance is missing.
>So I don’t understand why this one meets with such frothing-at-the-mouth responses.
I think the difference is that the director of MP2 from the beginning said that she had changed the story, while this film has pretensions that are not justified by the finished product. They have an outline of the events of the novel, but nothing else.
November 25th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
MP2 was widely disparaged by Austendom when it came out. My intention was not to ask why MP2 wasn’t *more* despised, but why P&P3 seems to have been labelled as the same sort of travesty as MP2.
So is it just that the publicity campaign shot itself in the foot? I can understand wanting to rebel against publicity. Personally, I realized I didn’t like the publicity for the movie, so I stopped paying attention to it. I still liked the movie itself, however.
The thing is, if you’re going to hate one adaptation for changing details, you have to hate all of them, in order to have consistency. But many people love the Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Beckinsale Emmas, or P2, or S&S2, even though they changed and added lots of things. A lot of the complaints against P&P3 — like simplifying the class structure, for example — could also be levied against S&S2.
I enjoy most adaptations, even though every one of them has something in it that I don’t like. I see a lot of complaints about the lack of gloves and the messy house in P&P3, and so on. Honestly. Yes, there were some things about P&P3 that I didn’t like. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s a terrible movie. I don’t like the parade at the end of P2 and I think Ciaran Hinds is ugly, but I don’t condemn the movie because of it.
To me the makers of this movie have no understanding of the book.
This is what I hear a lot of people say, but at the same time, I think most of it comes down to “The makers of this movie don’t have the same vision of the book as I do.”
And what if, as you say, they have “no understanding” of the book? They’re still trying to be faithful to it as they do understand it. They wouldn’t be touting all this faithfulness nonsense if they weren’t. And that is still much more than Rozema did.
I do think the hatred shown to this movie stems from an over-familiarity with P&P2. People are used to that version, they expect to see the same level of detail in every subsequent version of P&P. Which isn’t to say anything against P&P2 or its fans, but I think if P&P2 hadn’t existed, people would be more receptive of this new version.
Of course, if P&P2 hadn’t existed, a lot of us wouldn’t be here at all.
That’s also why I think adaptations of the other novels (barring an MP2-like departure from the novel) are generally more tolerated: adaptations of them are fewer and further in between, and so fans are glad just to have any version.
In any case, we’ll probably get another adaptation of P&P in 10 years. Maybe that one will benefit from this one in no longer being compared to P&P2.
November 25th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I would like to know what is your suspicion, Gabby, please.
Beside what Vanessa has expressed, we have also to take into account that for some of us the 1990’s adaptations were the first ones we ever saw of our beloved novels (though in my case, P&P was the only exception, I had already seen P&P0 and P&P1 before I saw P&P2 -and I’m still waiting to see P&P3 as it has not been released in my country), so perhaps we saw them unexperienced eye, just happy to finally see on the screen those stories we loved and not making many demands and fortunately most of those 1990’s adaptations quite satisfied our untrained expectations (save MP2, which was the last of them, which also had to bear the comparison with what have been done in 2 hours with the other novels) and set up some standards in our minds, but also in the meantime, we have also learnt what to expect from some adaptations and even ideas of what can be translated very well to the screen and what not, etc., so from an unexperienced audience, we have become if not experts, at least a more demanding one and thus so picky on what it is done with any later adaptation.
For P&P, things got complicated even more, IMHO it’s is the most popular and most beloved (polls agreed with that) of all the 6 (no matter that some of us would prefer another), so it is the one that is most known -even word by word- by people, it has become also the most adapted of the 6, so again we have seen what can be done on screen with the story. Of course P&P2 is a high standard to compete with, but then there are too those 2 hour modernizations which do not need to be too faithful, but have managed to convey very well the spirit of the book and the basics of the plot.
With all these information and comparisons, P&P3 goes to test among the fans and it barely reach a ‘tolerable’ rate in the scale.
November 25th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Cinthia, please see my above post. I expressed my own “suspicions,” which are actually quite similar to yours, up there.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:01 am
From Gabby (Sorry I still don’t know how to quote here):
I do think the hatred shown to this movie stems from an over-familiarity with P&P2. People are used to that version, they expect to see the same level of detail in every subsequent version of P&P. Which isn’t to say anything against P&P2 or its fans, but I think if P&P2 hadn’t existed, people would be more receptive of this new version.
Gabby, I would to some extent agree with you here. At first the criticism was mainly from people who were enarmoured and familiar with P&P2. Those poor people were basically told to shut it because you can’t compare a 6 hour version with a 2 hour version. To some degree, fair enough. Although to tell you the truth the time caveat is starting to get tiresome- the time length strenghtens DM’s characterizations and the romance angle. Romance needs a shorter time frame in order to suspend disbelief otherwise it gets ridiculous. With all the cliche scenes in this movie, the shorter time length was one of the saving graces in keeping the viewer engaged.
But there are critics who base their views just on the book. From this angle it becomes mainly a debate about the limits of interpretation. The main difference between P&P2 and P&P3 is that the latter was created post-fanfic. Fanfic is ultimately a democratic way of reading and every interpretation is equal. I think that’s why the support for this movie has been so strong[ I actually think the opposite of you- overall I feel the reaction to this movie has been mindblowingly positive]- it’s threatening when people say an interpretation isn’t valid. However,as an English major, I think interpretation does have limits and they should be respected. Therefore, not all interpretations are equal and some are just plain wrong. I still believe this even though I love ff- but the creativity, craziness and zaniness of ff is contained within communities and has it’s place which is why its valuable.
So should we just consider this fanfiction? I don’t think so because for me the process of creation is different. Plus, if you use the name Pride and Prejudice, I think you do have the obligation to make sure the views of the author are first and foremost. But this is the approach others have taken and so fairplay to them.
I would be interested to see whether if in 10 years another adaptation is created and is more horrible than this one, would the same support be given? Especially if the basis of supporting this one is that DM and JW’s intentions were sincere. And that they were genuinely representing what they thought was in the text. So is that all it takes to make it a valid interpretation?
Finally, I think this new movie would never have existed without P&P2 because hasn’t DM said in interviews that her motivation was that she didn’t agree with previous representations of the Bennets? Also, I think the popularity of P&P2 created ff- as it exists today within the various Austen communities. Although I admit, I’m slightly unsure about this point. Was there a form of ff- where authors and readers were in direct contact- prior to P&P2?
November 26th, 2005 at 1:33 am
WELL…this is certainly an interesting discussion!
First of all, some housekeeping: there isn’t a “quote” function per se as in discussion forums, but you can put quotes in a box to set it off by using <blockquote> and </blockquote> with the quote between the tags. I sometimes just use italics tags: <em> and </em> or <i> and </i>.
Now to the discussion: I think the reaction has been mostly positive, too. I have mostly confined my snark to the publicity surrounding the film than to the film itself. I agree with Gabby, the film is not awful the way that MP2 was awful, not even close. I just felt it was disappointingly dumbed-down and I didn’t agree with many of the characterizations.
I think I have mostly snarked because I become angry when the film is changed and dumbed-down for whatever consideration–that the screenwriter and director have their own ideas or because they think it’s too “hard” for their audience to comprehend, who knows–but at the same time they try to make everyone think they are doing just what Jane Austen meant, that they’ve communed with her spirit via seance or something. I cringe every time I hear the commercial for the film and they say “Keira Knightley in Jane Austen’s masterpiece!” No, no, a thousand times NO. If her work isn’t good enough to stand on its own, then don’t use her name to sell it. And in that way, I consider the people involved with this film to be as much at fault as the people involved with MP2. They did the same thing, and then when experts, people who study Jane Austen as their life’s work, disagree with their interpretation, they mock them and put them down. The treatment of Joan Ray, for instance, has been absolutely disgraceful.
I also agree that there is an atmosphere in the Jane Austen online fandom of not saying sh*t if you have a mouthful (sorry for the vulgarity). There is a squeamishness of constructive criticism of fanfic and sequels and, yes, film adaptations that is unusual and present in no other fandom that I’m aware of. I have a theory that the lack of constructive criticism has created an atmosphere where lesser-quality productions are tolerated and a lack of critical thinking toward them inadvertently encouraged. In any other fandom would an abomination such as Mr. Darcy Takes A Wife have been tolerated? Though I don’t care for them, I think Emma Tennant’s work has more literary merit.
I have been honest about my feelings about the film because I care less about forcing people to care about my opinion than to teach them to think for themselves. That’s why I point out when the emperor is wearing no clothes. I think it is necessary in this fandom and I wish it happened more often. It’s kind of sad that learned criticism is less tolerated in this fandom than crappy productions, including fan fiction, published paraliterature and film adaptations.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:59 am
Re: Reactions to changes in other adaptations.
I think in order for an adaptation to retain the essence of a book, it must answer one crucial question: what is this book about? Everything may change in the story (the setting, the culture, even time period), but if that question is satisfied, the spirit of the story will come through. The other adaptations you mentioned had several changes, some I disliked quite a bit, but imo they did not fail that test.
I say that the makers of the movie have no understanding of the book because they ignored the transformation of the characters. Mr. Darcy is misunderstood in this movie. Lizzy was “wrong about him”, and they are both “similar” and “stubborn”. Lizzy’s reproof and its effect on Mr. Darcy is not there as it should be. Perhaps the intended audience would not understand what being a gentleman means and that is why they ignored its significance.
To me P&P is not about a poor woman who is rescued from squalor by the richest man in Derbyshire. It is about a woman who knows her own worth as a human being and refuses a man she dislikes and who thinks she is beneath him, regardless of the worldly advantages of being his wife. He is humbled and realizes his mistake. I think most people would agree with this vision of the novel. I am not asking for perfection, just accuracy.
Joe Wright says that Lizzy has her feet in the mud and reaches for the stars. As if marrying a rich man were a gift from above. The point is that she refuses him because he does not deserve her. To me the film does not show this. It takes a lot of time showing a dirty house, a menagerie of farm animals and a bunch of giggling girls.
As for P&P2, I find that there are people who like the new film because it is not P&P2, and put forth excuses and justifications for changes that they decry in the miniseries.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:00 am
Another thing: I think many fanfic writers are going to be able to spot discrepancies more quickly because we tend to read and re-read the book and know it very well and think a great deal on the characterizations, because we need to know them to write convincing fan fiction.
And apropos of nothing much, I begin to think the mascot of AustenBlog U. ought to be the Fighting Snarks rather than the Fighting Janeites.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:13 am
Go Fighting Snarks!
November 26th, 2005 at 2:19 am
Rah Rah Rah!
We need a fight song.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:47 am
I was very disappointed in the movie mainly for the reasons Vanessa pointed out above.
However, the friend who accompanied me loved the movie and was curious enough about what she was missing that she borrowed my copy of P&P the next day.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Gabby, I hope you forgive my lateness in replying. It seems that while I was writing my reply, you were submiting yours, that’s why I was not able to see it, it’s not that I had not payed attention, if I had seen it, I would not have been so clumsy to ask for it. Thanks.
And I also agree with what Vanessa and Mags have said lately. I am also going to see if what IMHO it is the main theme of the book (the pride and prejudice of both main characters) is present in the new adaptation. And yes, fanfiction is another factor to take into account in the equation. There has been very good Austen fanfiction around in these ten years (Mags’ among them) and they have been able to give another interpretations and excellent characterizations and dialogues in them. So then again, we see that it can be done properly, and it seems P&P3 could not do even that (I’m planning to watch it in that perspective, as a fanfiction on screen).
November 26th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
PS - I forgot to mention Mimi and Lynn in the credits
November 26th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Ugh, that sounds familiar. But that’s another rant for another fandom.
I would never wish to impede anyone’s snarkage. Snark is fun, as well as a just plain good coping mechanism, and there are plenty of reasons to snark on this movie.
When snarking turns to snarling is when my eyebrows go up.
Mags, I was going to mention fanfiction, as well, but thought maybe there were some people on this blog who aren’t that into it. Most JA fanfiction is about P&P, so again, it makes sense that people would be more invested in it than, say, Emma.
On the other hand, there’s also the possibility that fanfiction plays a detrimental role in interpreting the book, due to the excessive amount of fanon that has developed. Witness the disappointment many felt upon seeing a Colonel Fitzwilliam who was not handsome.
And Cinthia, I had a feeling that was what had happened.
Outside of the Austen-verse, it has, certainly. I personally never expected it to be so acclaimed. Within the Austen community, however, I think it’s been quite different. It has its supporters, obviously, but the positive reviews tend to get ignored while the negative ones get a bunch of “Amen’s!” and other remarks, occasionally veering into rabid “Boycott!” territory.
Again, not really surprising, given the reactions since the movie was first announced, but still …. rather bewildering to those of us who take a more detached view of the fandom.
Yes, I believe you said that before, but some people think there was no Great Transformation. That’s my point. Obviously you disagree with them, but another one of my points was that in no way is ignoring Darcy’s transformation as outrageous an error as transforming Fanny Price into a smart-mouthed artiste.
Not saying everybody should like the movie. I’ve disliked adaptations for similar reasons before; nothing at all wrong with it. Just saying, don’t assume someone is stupid or hasn’t read the book if they do like it. It’s not all about what’s written in plain text. There are other elements to look for.
Also, I’d like to give it credit for getting one thing right: Jane. I loved Rosamund Pike as Jane.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Just saying, don’t assume someone is stupid or hasn’t read the book if they do like it.
Is this directed at me, or anyone here, personally? I hope not.
And I hope you have not misconstrued my comments as an indictment of anyone who does like the film. I speak only about *my* opinion of the movie, which, you will concede, I am entitled to express as strongly as I wish. I would rebell against anyone imposing her views on me, so I give the same courtesy to those with whom I am in disagreement. I understand very well that one half of the world does not understant the pleasures of the other.
By the same standards you advocate, nobody should assume that those people who criticize the film do so with a premeditated agenda, an ulterior motive designed to see the movie fail, or a desire to disparage the film’s admirers. If we dislike the film, why should we not say so? Why should we not scrutinize every detail of a film that purports to dramatize the work of a writer most of us read every day? Jane Austen is not a stuffy old classic gathering dust on my shelves. She actually means something to me.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Not at all; more of a general tone in the community as a whole, by no means directed at this board or anybody in particular. Nor do I think there are any “premeditated agendas” afoot here. I do, however, find the strident nature of some of the complaints against the movie disturbing, considering the volume of the complaints and the relatively low offensiveness of the movie in question. What disturbs me fascinates me, hence my ponderings on this issue.
I have not been keeping track of your comments in particular, so I don’t know how you are in the habit of expressing your opinions. Of course you are entitled to express your opinions. But there have been people who have declared the movie is terrible because it does not conform to popular or their personal interpretations, and that is what I am talking about here. If somebody’s opinion differs from mine, I don’t care. I’d just like to be allowed the courtesy of my own opinions, as well, without being made to feel somehow like an inferior sort of fan because of them. Speaking of which:
What makes you think she’s not important to me?
Anyway, I’m sorry if I’ve come off as hostile or snippy. That was never my intention.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Gabby,
We all perceive things differently. The complaints against the movie seem strident to you, but to me they are not. I find them justified and well within the bounds of civil discourse, at least on the websites I visit and where I participate. And offensivenes is relative, is it not? It may be low to you, but not to me. So it seems to me that we judge according to the side of the debate we take.
And if anyone has tried to make you feel like an inferior fan because of your opinions, perhaps you should reconsider favoring them with your company. I know that nobody here would do such a thing.
Did I say that she did not matter to you? Pardon me, but you are ascribing to me words and opinions that I have never uttered or suggested. I think it is very clear that my comment was meant to support the two rhetorical questions immediately preceding it. It did not refer to anyone else, and it meant to give a reason for my speaking up about the movie, regardless of my liking or disliking P&P3.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
Gabby, I don’t hang out much at RoP and the DWG anymore, so I was mostly exposed to publicity and general media commentary, which was almost uniformally positive, and the comments of posters here, which was mostly people looking forward to the movie and excited about it. (For the record, I was looking forward to it with reservations; really, I expected to post a review where I would amusingly eat crow for my pre-snarking. I knew it would not be as OOC as MP2, and I’ve never not liked an adaptation that wasn’t before, at least a little bit.)
When I posted my friend Kathleen’s “Dude, Where’s My Hairbrush” review (which I did mostly because I thought it was hilarious) it was like there was this great big sigh of relief, “Oh, we can say we are not happy about the film!” among the commentary that followed. It was like they were afraid of expressing their opinions because there was some kind of unwritten rule about being all positive and happy about it. I was surprised by this because like I said, I’d been having some fun with the publicity, etc. all along and yet comments remained uniformally upbeat here.
I don’t think commenters here were afraid to express positive opinions–and I think if you read the comments of my review, for instance (which I thought long about posting–I almost didn’t), that was the case. Lots of people who liked the movie apparently felt comfortable enough to post their opinions. In some cases they wished to debate my review, which was fine with me. I like to be challenged, it keeps me on my toes.
As far as Col. Fitz goes–I remember seeing P&P2 the first time, seeing Anthony Calf and saying, “Hey! He’s not supposed to be handsome!” Somehow, though, I’ve found it hard to mind much.
But my main reaction to Col. F. in the new film is “When did he join the Navy?” (I still have anyone yet to tell me that any Army regiment wore a coat like that. I’d be interested to hear that they did.)
Gabby, you and I seem to have been exposed to different fan groups; I tend to keep more on top of the general media commentary than the various web communities, especially as I was away with very limited Internet time just before the film was released, in both the U.K. (my annual Jersey shore vacation) and the U.S. (my trip to England). We seem to have had a different concept of what is being said. Your comments have been really interesting, thank you for posting.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Just for the record, I never meant to say anything against this particular site. I can tell the difference between snarking and reviling, as well as between the movie itself and the publicity.
I would also rather not name specific sites, as I hold no grudges against them, either, and would very much wish to avoid more, erm, heated discourse.
I will concede that at least at RoP, the general attitude seems to be “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” But I don’t go there much anymore, either.
November 27th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Just for the record, I never meant to say anything against this particular site.
I knew that, I was speaking in generalities, and like I said, I’m finding it all very interesting. I’m a bit of a frustrated sociologist, which is probably why I like Jane Austen so much!
I would also rather not name specific sites, as I hold no grudges against them, either
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that I wanted you to gossip, again, I was speaking in generalities.
Most of the snarky stuff I was hearing was from my JASNA buddies, some of whom hate the movies in general and some of whom like them but, like me, are more book-oriented Austen fans, and from my Horatians buddies, who are, like me, history geeks and champion snarkers–though in both cases there have been people who liked the film very much. Everything else I’ve been hearing was mostly here at AustenBlog and from the general media, so I’m surprised to discover there are a lot of negative opinions around, though I probably should not be.
November 27th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Mags, I would like to address a few things.
Firstly, I didn’t discover this site until recently, as I was born quite a bit before the ‘computer generation’. I think that it seems to be an excellent source for those sharing a passion for all things Jane Austen. However, I noticed that everyone seems to almost pathetically agree with all of your opinions. Those who don’t are reprehended most harshly by you and your other loyal followers. You are entitled to your opinions, to be sure. However, I think that if the rest of the people, yourself included, could be a little more open to the views of others there could be much more positive discussions. Frankly, I cringe to see what people will say after I post this.
Secondly, I have read Pride and Prejudice exactly sixty-two times. I think that one could fairly assume that I know a great deal about the story. When the BBC series of Pride and Prejudice came out, I was terrified that they would utterly mutilate my beloved book. However, I think that they did a wonderful job. I only cringed to think of what the next adaptation would be like. When I read that a new movie was coming out, I was positively horrified. I wondered how one could possibly fit all of that into two hours. When I went to the movies, I was expecting to be immensely disappointed. I was wrong.
The filming was superb. I was utterly enraptured by it. I loved the angles.. the raw reality of it. The Bennets’ home looked exactly as it probably would have when the book was written. It was messy, to be sure. Yet so real. Perhaps it was not quite as perfect and flawless looking as previous adaptations, but it made me feel so much more involved in the experience. I thought that the first proposal was amazing. To be sure, this movie did not cling to the exact wording or the book, but should that be expected? The screenwriter was faced with a daunting task; they had to crush what could be a twelve-hour movie into two. Naturally some changes were inevitable. I also thought that the acting was exceptional. I read in one of the reviews on here that keira knightley seemed like a bratty little girl. I wonder where anyone got that impression. She seemed like a love-crossed young woman. The woman who played Mrs Bennet took a different approach to the role, yet did a fantastic job. Matthew MacFadyen had the most wonderful facial expressions. I thought that in whole, the cast was exceptional.
So, perhaps this movie was different than the book. It was incredibly different from the BBC adaption. I think that this is admirable. Why would anyone want a movie that is trying to live up to something they can never own to? It’s impossible to even come close to the quality of the book; it’s an amazing masterpiece. However, I think that they made an excellent, heartfelt movie.
This should be objectively kept in mind by all you Austen fans.
November 27th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
However, I noticed that everyone seems to almost pathetically agree with all of your opinions. Those who don’t are reprehended most harshly by you and your other loyal followers.
I’ll let you in on a little secret: Dorothy stole Keira’s Domino practice numchuks. They have proven excellent at keeping order.
Also, I give the syncophants chocolate. Sorry, you don’t get any.
all you Austen fans
Having read P&P exactly sixty-two times (I am always fascinated by these exact counts, but never mind), I would think you would include yourself in that number.
November 28th, 2005 at 7:45 am
I watched a show on the making of P&P with interviews with the cast and MM (as much as I adore him as Darcy and find him incredibly sexy and imagine him to be a very intelligent man) basically stated that he thought the character of Darcy was just misunderstood, he was just shy and was NOT proud, pompous etc…it made me reel actually because the whole point of the book is that Darcy IS proud and arrogrant and becuase of his deep deep love for Lizzy he changes that.
November 28th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Mags: I love the semi-sweet, but it’s a little rich; can you switch me to the pralines for next time, if that’s OK with you.
tx!
November 28th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
From one of the followers (BTW I feel honoured with that naming, it is quite becoming also since it is one of the sites of the High Priestess :), but perhaps the correct term is acolyte :P).
Eva, have you read A cub reporter’s take on P&P3? Please do so, you may notice that not everyone is agreeing with Mags around and she is allowing them to have their say.
I admit it might be true that people is perceiving a lot of negative opinions (more criticism than praises) at the Austenblog, but IMHO perhaps it is also because it is one of the sites (I am not naming) that has allowed people to say that they do not like the new film and why. So maybe that’s the reason of the seeming negativism, the dissenters (those who has not like it) have come here seeking refuge.
I can assure you there are a lot of places where people are just overwhelmingly singing praises on the new adaptation, and just as here some people is feeling tired to hear criticism, please believe me the same can be said the other way around for other sites, one can get tired (and worse) of hearing only enthusiastic accounts.
Are you still cringing, Eva? Please, we will not eat you, at least not yet ;). And after using the phrasing pathetically agreeing, I wonder who is harshly reprehending for not agreeing with one’s opinion. :).
I hope with what I have said in before the quote, it can be explained why it seems we are agreeing so strongly with Mags and support what she is doing around here. For those of us who also keep visiting other Jane Austen sites, here is where we find, thanks to the critical point of view, the breath of fresh air.
It is not an unreasoned (just follow, like automats) agreement, it is not only question that some of us share the same point of view that Mags, I think there has been exposed several well argumented reasons of that agreement. Furthermore, perhaps there are also people who are more than sharing a moderate negative opinion, I believe there are around those who feel a very passionate dislike and hatred for this new film but forbear to say so because it would border in rudeness then prefer to alineate with the moderated view that has been expressed here, and thus defend this moderated negative opinion fiercely.
On a final note, and once again. Thanks Mags, keep up the snark!!!
And now for my chocolate of the day ;), he, he.
November 28th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Boy, it’s a good thing Dorothy stocked up on chocolate this week.
I’m rather enjoying having minions. Can I get some sharks with laser beams in their heads now?
I admit it might be true that people is perceiving a lot of negative opinions (more criticism than praises) at the Austenblog, but IMHO perhaps it is also because it is one of the sites (I am not naming) that has allowed people to say that they do not like the new film and why. So maybe that’s the reason of the seeming negativism, the dissenters (those who has not like it) have come here seeking refuge.
Cinthia has a point, but I think it’s not so much that we allow it, I’m sure other sites allow opinions from all sides as well, but that folks have perhaps felt more comfortable posting, shall we say, less than positive opinions here.
That being said, I hope our visitors have felt equally comfortable to post positive opinions. Reading the comments to my original review, I do think that is the case, and I’m glad of it.
I like to engage in discussion and debate. If that comes off as “attacks” of another’s opinion, I’m not sure how to change that perception. I know I can be overwhelming when I start throwing text around (and I can pull quotes pretty much out of my butt, or know where to find them quickly for copying and pasting purposes) and again, I’m sorry if that comes off as an “attack.” It’s not meant that way. To me, it’s the only proper way to engage in a debate: make an argument, and prove it.
November 28th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Lory says:
If I could just forget it is about PnP I think I could really enjoy the movie.
same here
November 29th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Eva, you said the following:
When the BBC series of Pride and Prejudice came out, I was terrified that they would utterly mutilate my beloved book.
Which BBC series? The one with Garvie and Rintoul, or the one with Ehle and Firth?
My personal preference is for the Garvie/Rintoul version. Yes, the production values are pretty bad, but, as alfredlordbleep said in another thread, this version has most of the lines that fans of the book miss from other adaptations. Weldon took some liberties, to be sure, but I find that this is, overall, the most faithful of the adaptations.
Regardless, I love P&P3 as a film in its own right and encourage people to read the book whenever possible. Because, with the exception of Flambards, the book is always better.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
I agree with much of what Eva wrote. I, too, have read P&P many, many times (closer to 30 than her 62, but still). And I’ve seen every filmed adaptation at least a few times (and I’ve also seen the Mollywood – Mormon – version from a couple of years ago). While P&P3 is not terribly faithful to the beautiful language of the book, I still loved it and found it faithful enough to the spirit of the book to be enjoyable. And it has inspired many of my friends who have not read the book to pick it up, so that makes me happy.
Yes, it’s true that Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are quite happier as a couple than JA wrote them. Lady Catherine would not show up in what seemed like the middle of the night, etc. But there is so much to love in this adaptation. I thought nearly all of the performances were wonderful. Keira Knightley is a big fan of the novel (I heard her speak after a screening in August) and while Donald Sutherland is not, there’s still a lot to admire in his portrayal of Mr. Bennet (not that I don’t have some quibbles). Matthew Macfadyen I thought did an absolutely marvelous job in showing Darcy’s shyness, pain and unease (and you still see the pride, at least early on). I thought the first proposal scene was amazingly filmed and acted. Yes, I missed the original language of the book, but still thought it was a very interesting and compelling approach to the scene. I could go on.
But I have to say that the one thing I’m still having trouble with in this adaptation (and was surprised not to see any posts on this – maybe I missed them, I am new to the site) is in the portrayal of Jane. I thought Rosamund Pike did a great job, but Jane’s criticizing Darcy throughout the film is just plain out of character (even as the character is described within this filmed adaptation). She’s described as never finding fault with anyone, but contradicts that repeatedly in comments about Mr. Darcy, whom she defends throughout the book. I also thought her calling Caroline Bingley “pernicious” was a bit strong for what Jane would say, even after she realizes Caroline has deceived her.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Julie, i was referring to the adaption with Jennifer Ehle :), though both are excellent.
i, in turn, find it interesting that my comment brought about some of the things i’ve read.