Just as we suspected
It’s rather refreshing to hear someone admit it out loud.
“We didn’t shy away from the mention of Jane Austen. She’s a brand,” Focus marketing prexy David Brooks says. “This book is the most popular of her work. We embraced that.”
So can we Janeites bring suit for dilution of the Jane Austen™ brand with “Jane Austenesque” products?
December 27th, 2005 at 8:07 am
Just got around to reading this. I really wish the article continued from this point because the rest of it was just rehashed.
I wonder what they mean by the Jane Austen brand. I know in one of your later posts you mention that you thought P&P3 was a wasted opportunity to make a film that could be more faithful to Austen’s vision. But i’m wondering whether this concept of a “Austen brand” will actually prevent this dream from coming true. Obviously Austen brand doesn’t mean faithfulness
December 27th, 2005 at 9:38 am
What I suspect he means is that anything sold as “from the novel by Jane Austen” will have a built-in audience. My problem with that is that they are making the film with an eye to making as much money as possible and not because they love the source material and want to bring it to the screen. That’s why we got Modern Spunky Grrl Lizzy and Misguided But Well-Meaning Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Bennet Who Loves His Wife and The Bennet Sisters Who Love Each Other SOOOOOOOO Much rather than the less accessible, pricklier, much more enjoyable to the discriminating mind true Jane Austen. The former is easier to sell to the mass market.
Also they’ve diluted the Jane Austen brand into being perceived as generic mushy romance instead of the complex and nuanced books that she wrote.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:57 am
Sorry, Mags, that post was unfinished. I left it onscreen while I left to do something and whoever used the computer next just posted it.
I totally agree with your sentiments that money not love is promoting the “Austen brand”. I also felt that the characters were simplified while the romance was made predictable in P&P3. However, I’m curious as to what audience “Austen brand” is targeting. I’ve heard a lot about how the new movie will bring new readers to Austen- almost like the movie is doing Austen’s legacy a favor by breaking the ice for new readers. IMHO that’s a load of crock- Austen doesn’t need help to bring new readers in especially cinematic help. Her influence in literature is great enough that if you read enough and have a healthy curiosity, you will eventually come upon her. If new readers do come to Austen based solely upon the movie then kudos to the movie but it’s a bit devious to suggest that this is the movie’s intention. It’s like the Nike marketing campaign- “Just Do It”- inspiring enough message but you’re kidding yourself thinking that Nike’s goal is anything but to sell the shoes.
The real target audience for “Austen brand” seems to be the large audience generated by the Austen-mania of the 1990s. But the thing I’ve noticed the second time around is earnestness with which historical truth and what I label audience attraction is being carried out. The film is praised for its attention to history through realistic costumes and settings. It’s too bad they forgot they were adapting a work of fiction- where history is interpreted and twisted to suit the author’s own purposes. They forgot to be truthful to the fiction Austen created. That’s why the completely different Charlotte Lucas- maybe P&P3 captured the desperation that a “real” single woman might have felt but it was an injustice to Austen’s Charlotte. I don’t know why our society has become so obsessed with reading fiction through the lens of history- I mean it’s a very valid approach but it’s not the only approach or it may not even be the right approach for certain authors. On the other hand, the audience also wants to learn something about themselves through the work- we want to see ourselves reflected in the work- I call this audience attraction. It seems P&P3 really struck a chord with people because it portrayed a loving Bennet family. It’s funny that many of the endearing traits identified in this new version of the Bennet family are things that we’ve been conditioned to recognize through sitcoms- the messy house, the giggling sisters, the ever-bickering but loving parents, true love as equals. It’s so trite and nauseating. I remember grimacing during the scene where Mr. Bennet goes to comfort Mary after the humiliating debacle at the piano- it conveys the exact opposite of what Austen wrote and why people love it, I will never understand. Although many say- that’s how real families are supposed to interact. I think it’s just too bad that it’s not in the book.
I think this earnest approach has limited scope and this will eventually bring “Austen brand” down. It’s not that historical detail or audience attraction are bad in themselves. You need a bit of both in all adaptations but in this production both were done with such condescension that it really overwhelmed Austen’s meaning. It may seem a novelty now but what if they start releasing similar productions every two years? Then Austen will become so watered down or predictable that “Austen brand” will become a bit of a tired joke. I think only when “Austen brand” dies is there the real possibility for an adaptation that pays homage to Austen a la P&P1 and even P&P2 [although I agree that the homage motivation can be questioned given the prominence of Davies’ interpretation of Darcy] .
December 29th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Mimi–that’s so interesting about the sitcom family–you’re right, the Bennets in P&P3 remind me of Dan and Roseanne Conner! And didn’t one of their daughters elope with a weasel?
I think they made it less historically “realistic” than history viewed through a modern interpretation. Mrs. Bennet viewed as sympathetic and just trying to do the right thing for her girls is, to me, a very modern construction. If she was that concerned, she wouldn’t have tried to marry off Lizzy to someone completely unsuited to her or been overjoyed that Lydia married a weasel. Mr. Bennet understands. Compare their reactions to Lizzy’s engagement to Darcy: Mr. Bennet tries to talk her out of it because he thinks that Lizzy is only marrying Darcy for his money and worries that she will be unhappy in her marriage and possibly end up having an affair, which could really destroy her life. Mrs. Bennet, though she hated Darcy only a few hours before–and, as far as she knows, Lizzy did too–wants them to get married by special license–meaning no banns, no waiting period, no contemplation of a very grave step being taken. It’s strange because while Jane Austen’s stories have a modern feel to them that her contemporaries don’t have, at the same time it is perceived that the sharp edges must be ground down a bit. Foam Padded Austen, sanitized for your protection.
The characterizations in the novel are quite brilliant but they are modernized and niced up for the film, because the modern audience wants to go home feeling good. Why not give them something to think about and discuss?