In re: the P&P2 DVD contest
Please note: THE BRIDGET JONES MOVIES ARE NOT JANE AUSTEN ADAPTATIONS.
Also please note: the word “actor” can refer to a man or a woman.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled snarking.
(Yes, the Editrix is back, refreshed, renewed, and energized with much Jane Austen wub at the JASNA AGM–can’t tell you how many folks spotted us in our “Team Tilney” t-shirt and guessed our secret identity! Wifi connection not what we had hoped, so no liveblogging, but a full report to come, possibly tonight.)
October 31st, 2006 at 12:06 am
When I did a search for JA adaptations, Bridget Jones showed up in the list, along with several other modern ones. So, at least according to some people, it is indeed an adaptation.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:14 am
I don’t think so–one could make a pretty solid argument for the books being adaptations, but for the movies they took out a lot of the Austen stuff.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:54 am
In the Bridget Jones I DVD Ms Fielding does indeed affirm that she started off writing the Bridget Jones diaries having the plot of Pride and Prejudice in mind, with Mark Darcy actually resembling stuck-up Mr. Darcy as well as Daniel Cleaver being a mock-up of Wickham. She also says this was somewhat due to the P&P BBC adaptation with Colin Firth having just broadcasted, and that this was also the reason why she wrote the role of M. Darcy with Firth in mind. So Bridget Jones IS in fact a twist, and an adaptation of the P&P plot.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:30 am
Helen Fielding’s books used Pride and Prejudice, and later Persuasion as an inspiration, but if you look at both the books and the films, the parallels are difficult to draw. I think what we were going for with the word adaptation was essentially “the film version of the original novels.” BJD would probably be considered an adaptation of an adaptation. It’s sort of like calling your third cousin once removed your first cousin.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:31 am
I agree that the Bridget Jones movies are by no means adaptations of P&P and Persuasion. They are only loosely based on the BJ books, which are loosely based on P&P and Persuasion. It’s not a modern adaptation as, for example, Clueless is an adaptation of Emma. That might be considered an adaptation, but Bridget Jones is not.
Don’t get me wrong, though: I love the Bridget Jones books and the movies! The fact that they’re loosely based on Jane Austen’s work just gives it something ‘extra’. But they shouldn’t be considered adaptations.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:47 pm
I don’t know about the second BJ movie, but in the first one there are a few references to P&P - for example the publishing company is called Pemberley Press, and in the “wiping Saddam Hussein’s *ss” scene Crispin Bonham-Carter waves some kind of poster on the background.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:01 pm
They make allusions to Austen’s works, yes, but they are not adaptations. They are adaptations (and not very good ones in my opinion) of Helen Fielding’s novels. I didn’t see the second film, but my understanding is that the Persuasion content from the novel was entirely removed. In the first one the P&P content was ramped up a bit in the beginning (the Turkey Curry Buffet scene) but entirely removed at the ending (in the book Mark goes to rescue Bridget’s mum, a la Darcy rescuing Lydia, but that was taken out of the movie for an entirely new ending). So no, they are NOT adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels. There are allusions to the novels, certainly; like there were allusions to Persuasion in THE LAKE HOUSE but no one would call it an adaptation.
Incidentally, there is a very good answer to the question that is NOT Colin Firth. If you sent in Colin Firth, feel free to enter again. We’re going to wrap up entries tonight, I think, and then do a drawing from all the correct responses.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:48 am
More allusions about P&P: You have got mail or even a chapter from Futurama!!
And there more, and more!!!