This looks like a job for the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness
Our mailbox is full of indignant e-mails from Team Tilney members who, after waiting breathlessly for months for news about NA07, are presented with…this. The Editrix (who is, after all, the Alpha Cultist) feels your pain, ladies. This is just the sort of event for which the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness was carved from a mighty limb of the Tree of Enlightenment. Fear not, all violence will be virtual. Dorothy’s passing out the titanium sporks (Jane Austen Festival 2007 Edition). No pushing. Don’t make us come over there. On to the spork-fisking!
The article is mostly about how ITV is shedding its trashy reality-TV image and, like a starlet who has “accidentally” displayed her Womanly Bits to the paparazzi one too many times, Just Wants To Be Taken Seriously. So what do they do? They embark upon a campaign of Serious Drama. And what says Serious Drama more than naked Anglican priests?
Northanger will have classic Davies moments, like a naked Catherine fantasising about her gothic heroes as she sits in the bath (albeit modestly filmed from behind). And Henry, played by JJ Feild, will be shown naked as he washes one morning. “There was a scene of me naked, but luckily my bum managed to stay out of that shot, even though I’d flown my bum double in from LA for the occasion,” says the actor, laughing.
Wonder if he has a Great!Coat Double? Doubtful. Quel dommage.
*savagely beats in door of Ministry In Charge of Great!Coats, which clearly is not doing its job*
But many still label Northanger as one of Austen’s weaker works.
Blasphemy! Outrage!
Actually we think a couple of “experts” read the novel carelessly and labeled it “weak” and the others simply followed along, sheep-like. Read Austen criticism from the late 19th and early 20th century and you will get a different idea. There was a real appreciation for the humor and brilliant satire of the novel with none of the fashionable modern dismissiveness.
*smacks fashionable modern dismissiveness off the left-field wall*
“The novel is seen as a test bed, really,” admits Jon Jones, the drama’s director. “But there’s lots of wonderful satire there. And Northanger is unique because all the heroes in Austen’s later books have a fortune. They are the established alpha males. In this novel, Henry Tilney [Catherine's love interest] is disinherited, and for once love wins over money.”
In this NOVEL? Oh, we don’t think so. Come here, dear. We have this Cluebat we’d like you to see real close-like.
From Volume II, Chapter XVI:
Of a very considerable fortune, his son was, by marriage settlements, eventually secure; his present income was an income of independence and comfort…
This passage refers to Henry’s income, which comes from two sources: Henry’s late mother had it in her marriage settlement that younger sons and presumably daughters would be provided for; most likely from her own dowry or whatever money she brought to the marriage from her own family. The General hints during the Woodston visit that Henry’s income does not all come from the living, so it is possible that he already came into possession of his share of his mother’s dowry and was enjoying the income from it, and would receive a further settlement from the Northanger estate when the General was gathered to his fathers. These settlements were legally binding. Henry could not be disinherited. Nor can the General take away Henry’s living. Only Henry’s bishop could do so, and then only for very good reasons. Henry would continue to enjoy that “income of independence and comfort” that the Woodston living (and the interest of whatever private fortune he already had been given) provided.
That’s a rather long-winded explanation of the obvious point that Henry, unlike, say, Valancourt, doesn’t present himself to his newly-enriched/entitled bride having gambled away his private fortune or having been cheated out of his inheritance, like a normal Gothic hero, because, you know, it’s a parody, and in real life a proper gentleman like the Rev. Mr. Tilney would not offer his hand to a gentleman’s daughter if he could not provide for her.
ITV filmed Northanger Abbey entirely on location in Ireland, largely thanks to the generous tax incentives offered by the republic’s government. It might annoy purists that Dublin’s Georgian streets have replaced Bath’s honey-coloured stone. “But isn’t that shot of the Royal Crescent in Bath a bit of a cliché?” asks Thompson. “What we’ve done is create our own Bath.”
Some call it cliché. We call it iconic. Especially when the action of the story is set so specifically in locations in Bath that still exist to this day (the scene where Isabella and Catherine have difficulty crossing Cheap-street notwithstanding). There is a reason why the Editrix could not stop grinning when, during a walking tour of Bath, she arrived at the top of Milsom Street and saw “Edgar’s Buildings” carved on the façade. And how often does a film set two centuries previous have its original locations right there ready for costumed actors to step in and go to it? This is a no-brainer. It’s one thing to shoot the indoor scenes somewhere cheap but would a few location shoots in Bath really have killed the budget?
The Editrix, exhausted from batting practice, hands the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness to Dorothy and goes to the clubhouse, where a freshly-brewed pot of Vanilla Rooibos awaits her.
Thanks to the many Alert Janeites who sent us the link to the Independent article…Heather L., Kelley B., Rosa Cotton, Lisa, and -@^@- (a/k/a girlwithglasses).
February 8th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Sigh… Anyway I can get my hands on one of those cluebats? I also saw the link that indicated that Kirsty Alley would be doing the US version of the vicar of dibley.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:05 am
And what says Serious Drama more than naked Anglican priests? ROFL! Good one. Though from what JJ said about his bum double’s bum not being shown, we might be able to safely presume that it’s more like a shirtless-from-behind scene.
I also like you smacking fashionable modern dismissiveness off the left field wall.
The swordfighting through me until I remembered they are adding Catherine’s gothic fantasies to it. Not necessary but could be fun.
I think (or at least hope) that they’re mostly just talking for publicity purposes. And with the exception of Bath being missing, I think it will be a good adaptation. At least it better be, or I may order my own cluebat. Where can I buy one, by the way?
February 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am
oops! that should be “threw” me, not through me.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am
“I could die, I could just die.”
Three lumps of snark, if you please. The only way to … make it … humor … and understanding.
But it gave me an idea for an interesting story.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Well, ANYTHING would be better than the version of Northanger Abbey we have now, with the open-mouthed Catharine and cheesy saxophone music in the background. Just thinking about it makes me throw up a little.
And anyway, Davies random bits of ‘nudity’ don’t seem to have too much of an effect. I’m pretty sure we see Darcy at least 2 times in his bath and then in the infamous lake scene in P&P2, but that’s hardly what I remember about the film. So…I’ll reserve judgment until I see it I suppose.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I refuse to consider “better than NA1″ as an acceptable level of achievement. I have seen a spectacular adaptation of NA (the play by Lynn Marie Macy) so it can be done.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Ok, this sentence is not just ridiculous in terms of Henry’s fortune, but in terms of all Jane’s novels:
“In this novel, Henry Tilney is disinherited, and for once love wins over money.”
Oh yes, and in all of Jane Austen’s novels money wins out over love. That’s why Darcy marries Caroline Bingley, because it’s a good financial match. And Edmund Bertram married Fanny because she was rolling in dough. And what about Edward Ferrars, who does get disinherited but proposes to Elinor anyway and is accepted?
It’s just ridiculous.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Well, I certainly agree that just because it is better than NA1 doesn’t mean it will in of itself be a good production. I’m just saying that I look forward to an adaptation from someone else. In essence, I believe it can be done! I do think one of the tricky things about NA, though, is that the quality of an adaptation hinges on how they choose to introduce the satirical gothic elements…it has a tendency to go astray when it comes to that aspect of the story.
But anyway, I try not to give too much credence to these press reports; if I’ve learned one thing from being a Harry Potter fan it is that the press is often wrong, misinformed or they don’t understand what is going on period…thus, the same rules apply for me here. It helps me keep my sanity.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“He makes it a bit racy, a bit more erotic than it could have been, but it is quite an erotic story anyway.”
Er… Did I miss something the last time I read NA?
February 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Is Davies’ script the same one he wrote several years ago that was brought by Miramax, or he did start from scratch for this production?
February 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
In this novel, Henry Tilney [Catherine’s love interest] is disinherited, and for once love wins over money.”
*headdesk* Noooooooo, that was Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility. Didn’t this piece have editors? Stupid question. Rhetorical anyway.
Read Austen criticism from the late 19th and early 20th century and you will get a different idea. There was a real appreciation for the humor and brilliant satire of the novel with none of the fashionable modern dismissiveness.
I have a vague theory about that which is people, especially in the 19th century, were still reading those gothic novels and knew what Northanger Abbey was satiring and got it whereas now, it’s all Da Vinci Code, Nicolas Sparks and Dannielle Steele.
Or I’m just reading too much into it.
BTW,
And what says Serious Drama more than naked Anglican priests?
FOC!!! Indeed. *wipes tears from eyes*
February 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Cindy: No.
Rosa: Actually Davies wrote the script for a planned television production originally. Miramax was planning their own production and bought it, supposedly to combine the productions. After it became clear that Miramax did not plan to film his (or any other) script, some online Janeites (including me) were given copies of that script. Later, he bought it back from Miramax. Both bathing scenes described in the article are in that script. Every photo of the filming, all information we’ve been given through the media, and the previews available online indicate that script has been filmed with little to no changes.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
*nods* Okay. Thank you for the explanation Mags.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:45 am
I loved Macy’s version of NA. I’ve seen it twice and enjoyed it both times.
But I am not nearly as impressed with Andrew Davies as he is with himself.
Naked Anglican priests indeed. Bleagh.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:14 am
[...] Steph from the C19 forum scanned the photos from the Independent article that we snarked yesterday. Alert Janeite Sylvia M. received permission to share the scans with the Gentle Readers of AustenBlog. [...]
February 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am
So Mags, what did you think of the script?
February 9th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Unfunny, melodramatic, and basically the anti-NA.
Since you asked.
Not as weird and wacky as NA1, though. Just kind of ordinary and blah.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Well when I make my version it will be filmed in Bath for the scenes that take place in Bath, and it will become as beloved as P&P2 ever was. (no! don’t wake me up! I like this dream!)
February 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Am I out of place here?
I love NA1 inspite of the saxophones
I love it, I love it - I just love it. It’s one of my favourite adaptations.
NA2 will never be better than NA1, because at least NA1 followed the book, and NA2 doesn’t seem to.
But what can you say when the success of NA2 is going to be measured by the number of viewers, which I am sure will be very large.
Which means NA2 will be accepted as a good adaptation. **shudder**
February 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Reeba, surely you know that Austenblog members don’t care about ratings and how many people see it. We can’t really tell for sure whether NA2 will follow the book until we’ve seen it. And I’m sure no one here would question your right to prefer whichever adaptation you wish. I haven’t seen NA1 yet, so I haven’t commented on it at all. Though saxophones strike me as out of the proper time-period, when I do see NA1 I won’t care that much about the instruments if the story is well conveyed.
NA2 may well be a good adaptation. But from what we know of it, it is fairly safe to say it’s not likely to be considered a great adaptation.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:17 am
[...] during your visit to AustenBlog (and ta for the shout-out), did you not see the post about the naked Anglican priest? Geez, that was some of our best stuff. Shame you missed it. The heart does rather sink at the [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Is it very bad, when I say I’m a tad disappointed in not going to see Henry Tilney’s bum? ;P
February 27th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Heh. I am, after all, a fangirl, so I’d say likely not; but I prefer to see such things, if at all, NOT at the expense of other, more interesting scenes (such as the Woodston visit).