We suppose everyone has heard by now, but Keira Knightley was nominated for an Academy Award in the category of Best Actress in a Motion Picture for her performance in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.

The full list of technical nominations has not been posted yet (slackers) but we understand that the film also was nominated in the Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design and Best Original Score categories.

What, no Best Original Screenplay nomination? </snark>

Well, here’s something to liven up a slow news week…

Although she is candid about many visual touches the director added to her script to make it more cinematic that she feels improved it, she was not happy with the most controversial addition - a passionate kiss between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy at the very end. British audiences were so incensed by this scene that it was cut from the British version, although it will be seen in America because “apparently they thought American audiences have a bit of a sweeter tooth.”

According to Moggach, who wrote an alternative scene to establish the intimacy between Elizabeth and Darcy at the end, “the kiss is so not Jane Austen. They were very powerfully attracted to each other, we certainly understand that. But it was a time of restraint and constriction.”

Really, the kiss is fine. There’s nothing wrong with the kiss. It was the dreadful dialogue that accompanied it that many of us have a problem with. Ms. Moggach’s original conception of the scene (the dialogue for which came from a scene in the novel) was a better fit, in our opinion.

ETA: Because it’s a slow news week, here is the scene from the earlier draft of the script: (more…)

Just to be perfectly clear.

The Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reports that one can see Jennifer Garner’s wedding gown, which was “inspired by a Jane Austen novel,” in the television program “In Style Celebrity Weddings” tonight on ABC.

We suspect it might have been inspired more by the fact that Miss Garner was in expectation of her confinement (as they say in Jane Austen novels) at the time. The empire waistline is excellent for that sort of thing.

We thought our readers would be interested in two comments that were made today in response to older posts.

First, a descendant of Harris Bigg-Wither posted a comment in a post about the upcoming film BECOMING JANE. For those unfamiliar with Jane Austen’s life story, she was engaged to Harris Bigg-Wither for a few hours; changing her mind overnight and breaking the engagement in the morning.

Also, Paul Felipe posted a comment to let us know how much he enjoyed the Jane Austen Evening put on last weekend by the Lively Arts History Association of Southern California.

We were much amused by a column in the Utah State University’s student newspaper about (traditionally) chick flicks vs. guy flicks.

I had to watch all six hours of “Pride and Prejudice” and she had to watch three “Star Trek” movies. And I swear on my death bed that she got the better end of that trade.

Now, I was nice and had her watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek: Generations. But if she had made me watch all six hours of her movie in one sitting, I was going to break out Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Insurrection. If you got that joke, you are definitely a Trekkie.

*cough* We got the joke.

She admitted that she was pleasantly surprised with how good the nerdy movies were, even complimenting the “soap opera” twist in “The Wrath of Kahn.” However, as hard as she tried, she just could not keep a straight face when I tried to explain why the Klingon Bird-of-Prey couldn’t shoot its torpedoes while it was cloaked.

But it went both ways. I must admit, “Pride and Prejudice” was much better than I thought it would be. I was expecting a “Sleepless in Seattle” or “Titanic”-type of chick-flick. You know, girl meets boy, they fall in love, but live on different sides of the country, boy drowns on a big boat, girl still looks for him on the top of the Empire State Building but finds Cary Grant instead. The usual story.

But “Pride and Prejudice” actually had a relatively decent plot. A really, really long plot, but a good one. It didn’t take long to see why girls like this movie. It has romance, relationships, Colin Firth, soldiers, relationships, Colin Firth, romance, guys in uniform, relationships and, did I mention, Colin Firth?

We are fond of Star Trek here at AustenBlog World Headquarters (we suspect Dorothy of a crush on Data but she denies it) and certainly we do not think such an interest precludes an interest in Jane Austen’s work. In fact, the Editrix was a Star Trek geek long before she was a Janeite.

Alert Janeite Down Under Caroline wrote to tell us that the release date for the P&P3 DVD in Australia will be Wednesday, March 8, 2006. It is coded for Region 4 and seems to have the same package of extras as the U.K. DVD.

Alert Janeite Cheryl K. wrote to tell us about a neat event coming up in New York City in April. “A Celebration of Jane Austen” is a discussion of Jane Austen’s novels with Karen Joy Fowler, the author of The Jane Austen Book Club, and Sigourney Weaver reading selections from the novels. The event will take place on April 12, 2006, at Symphony Space at 95th Street and Broadway, and tickets are $18.

More lovely snark on the new populist editions of Jane Austen’s novels.

It is true that there is nothing more forlorn than a forgotten author, a neglected genius whom fashion and whimsy have dictated must languish in the dusty corners of ill-attended libraries and the unread footnotes of dull reference books. Poor Jane Austen! How long must her devotees petition for her return to favour?

When all Christmas has brought you is a 10th anniversary Pride and Prejudice box set complete with anamorphic widescreen and Dolby digital, you’re bound to feel a bit of nose-out-of-jointedness. And when your most famous character, Elizabeth Bennet, has only been played by Greer Garson, Madge Evans, Daphne Slater, Jane Downs, Celia Bannerman, Elizabeth Garvie, Jennifer Ehle and Keira Knightley, what you really need is a lucky break, the helping hand of fate, a push in the right direction. But why must it always fall to publishers to mop up the wider culture’s oversights?

Apparently there’s some sort of sex scandal involving politicians in Winchester, and the Telegraph has decided to drag poor Jane into it.

Above the usual prattle of tourists, they might be able to make out a strange rhythmic scraping from beneath the stone slabs - the peculiar, but unmistakable sound of Jane Austen gently spinning in her grave.

For while no one can be sure what Winchester’s most famous resident and England’s best loved novelist would have made of the weekend’s sex scandal, it is unlikely that she would have entirely approved.

” Jane Austen may have been protected from the truth but precious little of the truth was protected from her.” - G.K. Chesterton

Just saying.

Amanda Grange, the author of Darcy’s Diary (read the Editrix’s review; Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk), has allowed us the privilege of a peek into Mr. Knightley’s Diary, to be published by Robert Hale possibly as soon as this autumn. We are very excited about this, as we just adore Mr. Knightley (tho’ not as much as Da Man, of course); because there is not enough Emma-based paraliterature in the world for our taste; and also because Ms. Grange writes just the sort of Austen-based paraliterature that we like, with a great deal of attention paid to the novel and less on how Colin Firth (or, we suppose, in this case, Jeremy Northam) looks in breeches and a tailcoat; although we admit both gentlemen look very fine indeed dressed so! Read on for the excerpt, which takes place a few days before Poor Miss Taylor’s wedding to Mr. Weston, while Mr. Knightley is in London visiting his brother and sister-in-law. (more…)

Something fun for a Sunday morning.

“Il maestro di cerimonie la presentò a un giovane molto distinto perché la facesse da cavaliere; si chiamava Tilney.”

. . .

“Ora io devo farvi un sorrisetto compiaciuto, e poi potre mo di nuovo comportarci da persone ragionevoli.”

. . .

“Vi intendete di mussola, signore?”

. . .

“Sí, benissimo; ma sono proprio tutti romanzi dell’orrore, sei sicura che siano tutti romanzi dell’orrore?”

. . .

“Esiste al mondo un solo Enrico che possa essere insensibile a una tale dichiarazione? Enrico Tilney, almeno, non lo era.”

. . .

“La persona, uomo o donna, cui non piaccia un buon romanzo, non può che essere incredibilmente stupida.”

. . .

“–Verissimo — disse Enrico –, e questa è una bellissima giornata, e noi stiamo facendo una bellissima passeggiata e voi siete due bellissime signorine. Oh! È davvero un bellissimo mondo! Va bene per tutto.”

–From L’abbazia di Northanger by Jane Austen, which a friend brought us from Venezia

A reviewer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution thinks the production of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE currently being staged at the Alliance Theatre (which had previous runs in Arizona and California) is too much of a good thing.

The production’s energy level is so frenetic that you sit through the first half thinking that the convoluted story has been abridged and that Elizabeth Bennet (Julia Dion) and Mr. Darcy (Anthony Marble) will get on with their business of lovemaking with economy and efficiency. I wish.

Instead, nearly every plot point, every epistle, every ballroom revelation is recounted with obsequious loyalty to the source material. We’d be better served by a leaner, funnier script.

Beware, for that way lies madness and many Janeite shouting matches.

Perhaps it is a truth universally acknowledged that a producer possessed of a good novel must be in want of a movie, play or musical.

Whatever. Where Austen is concerned, we may be better off getting back to the basics. If you don’t believe me, pick up a copy of “Persuasion” or “Emma.”

Well, of course.

We would love to hear from AustenBlog readers who have seen the play.

(Thanks to Alert Janeite Meghan for the link!)

ITV has listed a contest on its Web site to win a copy of the DVD of P&P3. They have five DVDs to give away, and the grand prize winner also will win an MP3 player.

And no, we are NOT going to tell you the answer to the contest question. Come on now.

Please note that the contest is open only to residents of the United Kingdom.

ETA: The contest is open! Enter away!

Alert Janeite Mandy sent us a link to an editorial from Michael Gove in the Times that has a little fun with the news about the newly-packaged editions of Jane Austen’s novels, about which we have blogged previously. (Scroll down to near the bottom.)

Thrilled as I am by the decision to reissue Jane Austen’s novels in “chick-lit” covers, complete with glossy titles, pictures of swallows and silhouettes of whip-wielding dandies, I can’t help thinking that the publishers are still missing a trick.

Why have they stuck with those dreary old titles, such as Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey, which sound like the names of gated communities in the Home Counties? Why not attract even more new readers by properly rebranding the stories themselves? If Hollywood can turn Heart of Darkness into Apocalypse Now, surely a truly 21st-century publisher can do better than reissue a tale of late-flowering lust with the dreary single-word title Persuasion?

So, how about renaming Emma Confessions of a Toffaholic, reissuing Pride and Prejudice as Bad Heir Day, turning Mansfield Park into The Plain Girl’s Guide to Having it All, making Sense and Sensibility into Divine Secrets of the OK-Yah Sisterhood, selling Northanger Abbey as Catherine Morland and the Overactive Imagination and attracting a whole new audience to Persuasion by pitching it as The Private Pleasures of Navel Contemplation?

Most excellent snark, sir; but wouldn’t that be Naval Contemplation?

Awards season trundles on, and P&P3 has been nominated for six BAFTAs, including Outstanding British Film of the Year, Best Adapted Screenplay, Costume Design, Makeup and Hair, Special Achievement by Debut British Director, and a Best Supporting Actress nom for Brenda Blethyn.

We found an amusing tidbit from the Golden Globes:

My friend Sydnie called me Monday from Beverly Hills, where she was escaping the Seattle rain and had promptly rented a convertible. “Pammy, the Golden Globes are next door to my hotel tonight!” she said breathlessly. “Wish I had you here because I have no clue which stars are which.”

I didn’t have the heart to tell her that no, that probably was not in fact Jane Austen she had spotted outside the Beverly Hilton. Maybe she meant Keira Knightley, the nominated star of the Austen-penned “Pride and Prejudice.” Gotta love her.

Sydnie, if you’re reading this, you’ve won a free session with the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness. See the Editrix to collect your prize(s).

The Editrix’s hometown newspaper is representin’ for the Janeites with an editorial by Paula Marantz Cohen, a professor of English at Drexel University and the author of Jane Austen in Boca and the upcoming Jane Austen in Scarsdale. Professor Cohen makes us feel all warm and fuzzy by reiterating a point we keep trying to make in discussions about the film: getting bogged down in the little details of costume and art direction misses the larger point of whether or not the film represents the book it is purporting to adapt, not to mention whether it represents the things that keep us reading Jane Austen’s novels 200 years after their publication.

Many reviewers will commend a Jane Austen adaptation if it looks authentic - which seems to translate into containing a lot of mud, having characters with bad teeth, and showing the plight of the servant class. But just because country balls in regency England were headache-inducing affairs, does that mean that we have to experience them that way?

When there is too much scenery, costume, and decor to look at - however accurately and interestingly these things are portrayed - the singular human interaction inevitably recedes into the background. Austen’s novels are not historical documents but novels of manners. The visits, dinners, and balls are important as conduits for relaying essential character. Only the fools and villains in Austen’s novels pay too much attention to surface detail.

We find that in a well-researched and presented historical film (for instance, MASTER AND COMMANDER), the details do not distract us from the story, because everything is as we expect it to be. When the details are “modernized” or incorrect or just plain weird, it can be distracting from the story.

However, in the discussion that has gone on about this film, there has been a lot of attention paid to nitpicky details and less to the larger picture, in our opinion.

(Thanks to our Janeite Spy for the tip about the Cohen editorial.)

Barbara Whelehan, writing for Bankrate.com (via Yahoo!), uses examples from Jane Austen’s work to illustrate the negative effects of carrying excessive credit card debt.

The inability to live within one’s means goes back a long way. If fiction reflects reality, consider the character John Willoughby in Jane Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility,” published in 1811. Willoughby’s “estate had been rated … at about six or seven hundred [pounds] a year; but he lived at an expense to which that income could hardly be equal, and he had himself often complained of his poverty.”

Credit cards were nonexistent in those days, so the quickest way to wealth was to marry well. Willoughby used this strategy, and in the process broke the heart of the pretty and poor protagonist Miss Marianne, whom he had been leading on. A sympathetic friend of Marianne assessed the scoundrel this way: “Nothing in the way of pleasure can ever be given up by the young men of this age.”

Now, doesn’t that sound like something you might hear today? (Add “women” to obviate sexist overtones and make it more current.)

OK, things have changed since the days of horse-drawn carriages and letters sent by post. For one thing, up until around the mid-19th century, those who were unable to meet their obligations were often sent to debtor’s prison for the “wantonness of pride, the malignity of revenge, or the acrimony of disappointed expectation,” in the words of Samuel Johnson, who sympathized with imprisoned debtors, not creditors. No wonder: The litterateur of the 18th century suffered poverty most of his life.

Following in our unintended theme (though we are enjoying it) of discussing various editions of Jane Austen’s novels this week, Alert Janeite/Brontëite Cristina let us know that Pride and Prejudice is available as a BedBook, both in hardback and paperback editions.

“What is a BedBook?” you may well be asking. They are books printed sideways so that one might more easily read it while lying on one’s side in bed. From the BedBooks site:

Bed Books are specifically designed to be read when lying on one’s side.

The patent pending sideways text layout of Bed Books affords total comfort and eliminates the back and neck strain associated with the contorted body positions normally required for reading conventional books while lying down, and usually propped up, in bed.

While this is rather clever, we think that reading whilst lying on our side would make us dizzy. We tend to employ the time-tested “prop it on the tummy” method.

Alert Janeite Jessica sent us a link to an interview with Allegra Goodman, author of the novel Intuition.

Why did you call your book “Intuition”?

It’s Austen-ian, I think. It’s like her “Persuasion.”

Is Austen your hero?

I’m interested in realism. I am interested in writing about people with all their strengths and all their flaws. I love Jane Austen. I love George Eliot. I love Charles Dickens and his engagement with the social and political sphere.

And yet creative-writing teachers are always telling to you to write about what you know, so now we have countless novels that sound like unedited therapy sessions.

At some point you have to move beyond that. You have to know more, you have to learn more. If we all wrote about our childhood forever, books would be rather monotonous.

Somebody apparently got wind of the fact that some Janeites were a little miffed at having Jane Austen compared to Barbara Cartland and Danielle Steele. As we reported previously, Headline Books is releasing new editions of Jane Austen’s novels, jazzed up to look like modern chick lit novels. The first article said that the novels were being repackaged to make Jane Austen seem more like Cartland or Steele, but in a Reuters article (via Yahoo!), a Headline representative insists they are doing nothing of the sort.

That accusation was strongly disputed by Headline’s Evans who said: “It is not making them like Barbara Cartland or Danielle Steel. This is not making them look like Mills and Boon.”

The reception is still mixed amongst U.K. Janeites.

Patrick Stokes, chairman of the Jane Austen Society which boasts 2,000 members in Britain, was delighted: “I am all for it. Any publicity is good publicity — as long as it is within the bounds of decency.”

But the bid to update the author of “Pride and Prejudice” for a new generation was greeted with derision by Patricia Clarke of the London branch of the Jane Austen Group.

“It is a pity that everything has to be dumbed down. I know it gets people into books but I think she is classic and pure. If you dumb down, you turn her into (mass produced romance specialist) Mills and Boon.”

We concur to a point.

He said that in Britain last year, a total of 160,000 copies were sold of all Jane Austen’s books compared to 190,000 for just one Danielle Steel novel.

Possibly because many people already own them? Just saying.

The article also contained a better image of all six covers (above) but they’ll never top our favorite cover of a Jane Austen novel.

We linked this in another forum, commenting that Captain Wentworth appeared to have fallen off an Old Spice bottle, and a friend responded, “Don’t worry, Regency Barbie is there to rescue him!”

An article about the PBS program Masterpiece Theatre included the tidbit that the 2007 season will include the new production of SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, to be adapted by Andrew Davies. There also is some news for our friends at the various Brontë blogs.

Future episodes of “Masterpiece Theater” include an adaptation of the life of Casanova starring Peter O’Toole and David Tennant and, in 2007, a new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre” and a co-production with BBC of Jane Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility.”

In reference to the main part of the article, we are amused, bemused, and slightly apprehensive at the idea of “Oprah Winfrey Presents Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility.”

For our U.K. readers, to the best of our knowledge, the new series will be shown on the BBC sometime in 2007.

ETA: Brontëana posted in comments about this yesterday, but it got caught in the spam filter…she has more at her blog, including a link to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Brontëblog has also posted about the new production of JANE EYRE, included in the same press release.