Save us, Andrew Davies! You’re our only hope!
Alert Janeite Lisa sent us an article in The Times about Andrew Davies’ appearance at the Hay Festival, in which he reveals some of his opinions on Jane Austen, as well as some plot points for his upcoming adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. Now, Mr. Davies is known for a perverse enjoyment in Winding Up the Janeites, so keep that in mind as you read.
Davies, best known for his television adaptations of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Charles Dickens’s Bleak House, said: “Austen never really had men in her books on their own, or men without women. I don’t think she really understood them. She didn’t draw out her male characters enough.”
Maybe because the main characters of her books are women? Just an idea.
In his latest project, an adaptation of Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, he plans to remedy matters by hardening up the male characters. “I’ve had to work up the guys to make them stronger,” he said. He has written up the main character, Willoughby, as a “shit”, as he put it.
“I got fed up with that screen version where all the women swooned over him,” he said, referring to the 1996 movie directed by Ang Lee that starred Greg Wise as Willoughby.
In the film, written by Emma Thompson, Willoughby was very much a charmer, just as Wise proved to be in real life. He met Thompson on the set, they fell in love and then married.
He understands that Greg Wise is a real person and Willoughby a fictional character, right? That Greg could be a good guy and play a bad guy in the movies? But then, we soon learn that Mr. Davies apparently is a very literal sort of chap.
Davies will open his BBC drama with a scene from the middle of Austen’s book in which Willoughby, here played by Dominic Cooper, rapes 15-year-old Elisa. Davies says it sums up Willoughby’s true character.
Well, perhaps, but we don’t think it belongs in the first scene!
As we have noted several times, we recently read Fanny Burney’s novel Cecilia, which Jane Austen also read and knew extremely well, and noticed quite a few places in the novel from which Jane could have drawn inspiration for her own novels. (We know that she took the title of Pride and Prejudice from the final chapter of the book; and in Persuasion she refers to a character in the novel, “the inimitable Miss Larolles,” but we found lots of little references and possible points of inspiration here and there.) The connection between Northanger Abbey and Ann Radcliffe’s novel The Mysteries of Udolpho is well-established, though mostly ignored by Mr. Davies in his screenplay. We have formed an admittedly Wild Theory that Jane enjoyed Cecilia and Udolpho very much, but saw some places where they could be improved–and then, in her own novels, did so.
In the case of Cecilia, the villain, Mr. Monckton, is identified as such in his first appearance; we are told he wants to marry Cecilia for her fortune, and is only waiting for his much-older wife, whom he also married for her fortune, to pop off. Cecilia, of course, is as ignorant of this as a babe in the woods, and looks upon Mr. Monckton as a person to whom she can go for advice. The reader, knowing Mr. Monckton’s ulterior motives, also knows that any advice that Mr. Monckton gives Cecilia in romantic matters is suspect, as he is operating not in Cecilia’s best interests but his own.
As we read the novel, it occurred to us that the story would have been much more suspenseful and exciting if the reader did not know Mr. Monckton’s ulterior motives–if we, like Cecilia, thought he was acting in her best interest. When Cecilia would run into a problem and set out to consult Mr. Monckton, the reader immediately knows he’s going to thwart her, even before it happens, which is annoying. Perhaps this thought occurred to Jane Austen as well, and thus in the first two novels she wrote, S&S and P&P, she kept her villain’s infamy hidden from the reader, but with enough hints that the reader does not feel that the author has cheated when the truth is revealed. Not knowing the full extent of Willoughby’s infamy gives the scene in which Colonel Brandon reveals Willoughby’s seduction and abandonment of Eliza Williams so much more impact. It’s subtle and brilliant. That Andrew Davies wants to take it away, in our opinion, tells us more about him than about Jane Austen.
He also plans to have a “wet shirt” scene reminiscent of Colin Firth’s famous emergence from a lake as Mr Darcy in Davies’s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. In his version of Sense and Sensibility, Davies will have Edward Ferrars – played by Dan Stevens – cutting wood in a forest in the pouring rain.
*falls off chair laughing*
Ah, the snark will wax long in January, we think!
Alert Janeite Alana Smithee sent us a link to an article about the same subject in The Guardian.
Reflecting on Hugh Grant’s ‘floppy haircut act’ in the role of Ferrers, the writer said he felt that Austen, who remains his favourite author in any case, could have done with spending time on a second draft of Sense and Sensibility.
Hugh Grant’s “floppy haircut act” had nothing to do with the novel. Edward Ferrars is kind of a lamer but is rather more interesting and funny in the book than Mr. Grant’s bumbling, stuttering portrayal indicated. We especially like when Edward gently teases Marianne; he gets her number rather quickly.
‘To be frank, the men needed more work, and this is where we are going to be better than the other film,’ he said. The role of Colonel Brandon, played by Alan Rickman in the Lee film, is also to be enhanced, he revealed. He feels that Austen should have given readers more help to understand how Marianne was able to transfer her affections so swiftly from Willoughby to the gruff Brandon.
Oh, yes, save the Great Ignorant Unwashed, Andrew Davies! You are our only hope at ever understanding Jane Austen! What would we do without you?
As a result, Davies’s adaptation will see Brandon, this time played by David Morrissey, riding a lot of horses very fast.
*falls off chair laughing, redux*
Davies said: ‘There are dark subplots there. The duel is referred to by Brandon, and I thought, why should we not see it on screen?…These things are there and Jane Austen wants us to notice them.’
We have no objection to seeing the duel scene (unless it is as risibly dreadful as some of the other stuff described in this article) but if Jane wanted us to see them, she probably would have shown them to us. Just saying.
May 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Sweet Mother of Jesus! Who does Andrew Davies think he is? The all-knowing and insightful God we humble Janeites should bow to? Ok, sure, he wrote the 1995 P&P screenplay, but the reason it is so wildly popular is that Colin Firth sold it! I’m sorry, but S&S 2008 sounds like a mess! Edward Ferrars cutting wood in the rain? What the hell? Well, at least, as Mags put it, we’ll have a lot to snark about! Maybe we will even have enough material to invent a drinking game with it. *Off to grumble and lovingly dust her entire JA novels collection*
May 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Whoops! I forgot there was already one Julie B. here! I do not want to be accused to pretend being somebody I’m not! Ladies, could you change the name of the first entry for this one: Julie Bertrand. Thanks!
May 27th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
No prob–taken care of. I *thought* that sounded a bit more excitable than our Julie B. gets!
May 27th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Rapes her? Rapes her? Willoughby was a lot of things, many of them unpleasant, but making him a rapist is going a bit far.
And I agree with you, Mags–it’s much better if you don’t know that he’s a villain from the get-go. Then you get to share in the shock that the heroines feel when it all comes out. But I suppose subtlety is too much to expect from Andrew Davies.
Cutting wood…in a forest…in the pouring rain.
*stares blankly*
Why?
I know eventually I will laugh and snark this, but for now I just want to hit my head against something hard. Andrew Davies is a Very Bad Man.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
“I’ve had to work up the guys to make them stronger,” he said.
Trying to overcompensate for something lacking in yourself, Mr. Davies?
May 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Davies said: ‘There are dark subplots there.
Pardon me, but is this the thought du jour? Perverse plots and hidden subtexts all carefully contrived by Jane to confound the dull elves amongst us? I wonder how it is that Andrew Davies has managed to find them out?
May 27th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Easy enough, Helen. He just has to look at his dark underbelly. (Gross.)
Cindy said, Trying to overcompensate for something lacking in yourself, Mr. Davies?
*ouch!*
AD: “Time! I protest. That hit was clearly below the belt.”
Referee: “I know. But there’s nothing there…”
*ouch! redux*
May 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Mr. Davies is pulling your legs, ladies. Don’t let any of his comments get to you. He loves Jane Austen just as much as we do (if not more). He might not like “all” of her books as much as he so obviously loooooves P&P, but I don’t think he means any real harm. Remember all the pretty words he put in Wickham’s mouth–he knows how to write the villian.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:31 am
“As a result, Davies’s adaptation will see Brandon…riding a lot of horses very fast.”
All at once? Sounds like it might hurt. But what skill!
Thanks for snarking the article; too funny!
May 28th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Since we’re going with classic movie quotes…
“Ha! Mr. Davies has made one of the classic blunders! The first is, of course, ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia,’ but only slightly less well know is ‘Never assert that Jane Austen wrote no scenes without women present in the hearing of a rabid male Janrite!’ Ahahaha! Ahahaha! Ah…”
But really, Mr. Davies, you are quite mistaken. Please, do read Mansfield Park, wherein Sir Thomas Bertram and Edmund converse all by their lonesomes, with nary a female in sight.
Also, the rehash of the “need to add extra to Edward and Brandon” which Emma Thompson also spoke of - doesn’t exist. The reason I love the 95 film’s portrayal of the men is because I recognize Austen’s characters - not some beefed up modern heros. Yes, you have to write a lot of stuff Austen used brief narrative to characteize, but Edward and Brandon are there in the book. You just have to look. Additionally, I worry that S&S 08 will fall prey to Persuasion 07’s trap - going over the same ground that the 95 version (of Persuasion or S&S) with a lower budget and weaker director (which is kinda a given since Ang Lee and Roger Michell are both exceptional directors).
Kay, now those are off my chest, and in all gratitude I must add:
Unpopular Fandom Opinion: I agree that a second draft of S&S might have helped - but mostly for the minor characters, to differentiate them more. Not for the big things.
I agree with Theresa - I think Davies is mostly having fun. While I disagree with a few of his adaptation choices (his sociopathic Frank Churchill and Catherine Moreland Monk fantasy, mostly), he has done more than any single writer to consistently catch Jane Austen’s wit, language, characters, and period (at least for me. And while Nick Dear and Emma Thompson did very well, Dear only did one, and Thompson’s work on the 05 P&P makes me doubt her consistency. Davies, however, started strong with P&P, caught the Emma I loved, and delighted me with Northanger Abbey.) And I do apologize - long parentheses are my joy.
And at least he doesn’t think Jane Austen is boring (like that the lamented Maggie Wadey, who ruined Fanny Price for the second time in ten years - woe is on us, the poor Fanny supporters…) And he sees the passion and emotion so many coughBrontecough miss.
So many words to say - looking forward to it (but please check facts)!
May 28th, 2007 at 4:37 am
“Mr. Davies is pulling your legs, ladies. Don’t let any of his comments get to you. He loves Jane Austen just as much as we do”
I totally agree with what you said there, Teresa!
But I must admit, even I, while I LOVE Andrew Davies’ work, am getting a little bit worried. I don’t think it’s a good idea to start with the raping scene. But I do think it’s not at all a bad idea to put in a ‘riding a lot of horses very fast’ or ‘cutting wood in the rain’ scene, but ONLY when it’s done tastefully, and I think the BBC will take care of that. 
But I wonder why on earth Edward Ferrars is cutting wood in the first place…? Doesn’t really sound like that’s his job, and what would Mrs Ferrars say if she heard her son had been cutting wood in the rain? 
By the way, I absolutely loved Hugh Grant as Edward Ferrars! Perhaps he’s not exactly the Edward from the book, but his interpretation was brilliant. In my opinion no one can beat Hugh’s performance.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Easy now, Janeites!
I believe that Andrew Davies was playing with our affections also
It’s still a while to 2008 and it is all mere speculation.
I’m looking forward to the finished article. Though I did enjoy the snarking. (I don’t believe it could be worse than Mansfield Park 2007.)
May 28th, 2007 at 7:39 am
There is also this article : http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1845233.ece
“Davies, known for ramping up the eroticism of period pieces, calls his Sense and Sensibility “a sort of rural Sex and the City”.”
Good God.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Hiya
I’ve just written about this on my blog (http://belle-de-jure.blogspot.com/) as well as adding a link to this blog which I just love :).
I think that a lot of what he says is hype — getting us worked up before the event so that we can’t resist watching it, and likening it to Sex and the City because he has a good idea as what generally attracts a female audience, and what sells. The final version probably won’t be explicit at all!
I really liked the Thompson/Lee adaptation of S&S, although I agree with him about the casting of Grant. The problem is that Ferrars isn’t meant to be rugged - he was meant to be plain and ordinary and I don’t know how he is going to pull this off without taking enormous liberties. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise though!
May 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I wouldn’t worry too much about the “rape,” either, as all the other articles call it a “seduction” and the reporter might have taken liberties or misapprehended. But I submit it still doesn’t belong in the first scene of the movie.
And Edward Ferrars cutting wood in the rain is hi…wait for it…larious, as they say on Ugly Betty. Probably not supposed to be, but it is…sort of like Lizzy caressing Mr. Darcy’s hairy naked calf.
I also don’t think Andrew Davies gets an automatic pass because of P&P95. I’m still traumatized over Angsty!Henry and will not soon forgive it.
But all his “improvements” seem to work under the dictum of “the audience is too stupid to understand.” What does that say about us?
May 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I agree with you! He laugh at us too much…although it can be fun in the begining (P&P95 or Emma), it can turn into real changes in the novels in the last ones. I didn’t like what he did to Catherine or Herny (Monk, Monk, Monk!), and I hope, that he has recovered his original touch for Sense & Sensibility.
I really recommend you to watch another very interesting Edward Ferrars (the 80’s version), maybe not so attractive for some people, but it has the things that Grant’s Edwards can lack in the Thompson’s film.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I love this adaptation of S&S Carmen, and I must say that this Edward Ferrars is quite like as in the book, though I love Hugh Grant as EF too.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Rape? I know Eliza was under age and Willoughby should not have done this to her, but didn’t she fully consent to this seduction? Sure she probably expected him to marry her, but she should have known better then to let him lead her off like that.
Where in the book would a wood chopping scene be appropriate? Barton cottage? I just don’t know.
I hope the BBC cleans this production up, but they didn’t seem to care about cleaning up the recent Jane Eyre.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Well all I can say is, ‘you go Mr Davies you go!’
Keep’em animated; keep their hairs bristlin’; keep caterin’ to us ‘unwashed, uneducated, too-stoopid-to-understand’ masses, who might - just might - pick up an ole’ dirty beaten Austen paperback at their local used book store or some neighbor’s garage sale and - wonder of wonders - actually read it through to the end after watching one of your Austen adaptations.
As for directors of commercial TV Austen adaptations who are woefully constrained to two hours (a good 30 minutes of which are disgustingly dedicated to actual commercials/adverts), how can one not think that those directors would not give their eye teeth (not to mention thinking - at least in passing - of giving their first born) for the opportunity to release a ‘director’s cut’ of their works? And how can one not think they wouldn’t have loved the opportunity to make and do a theatrical release of their work…like Michell and Lee?
I for one would love to see what Adrian Shergold could do with a theatrical type release of his Persuasion, without the 90 or so minute constraint, and given all the footage that most likely ended up on the cutting room floor.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I’m a bit confused as to where Davies says we’re too stupid to get it - I understand him to merely be excited about Austen and his vision of her world. While as I said before, not all his choices are successful, but I really enjoy his enthusiasm. He seems more like he wants to share than condescend - but that’s just how it sounds to me.
And yes, he does like to tease, but what do livd for but to make sport (or snark) of our neighbors, and be made sport of in our turn?
May 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Edward Ferrars, woodsman. Edward Ferrars, lumberjack. Edward Ferrars, rain-drenched sex-god.
This is going to be an S&S to remember. Sure, Davies could pull it off (chopping firewood for poor Elinor’s family; cut to Marianne, wandering dejected, also in the rain; cut to Elinor, pacing and looking worried; cut to Edward swinging an axe behind Barton Cottage– suddenly, an open door illuminates the scene; cut to Elinor, looking worried, in the doorway; cut to Brandon, riding a fast horse around the countryside, looking for Marianne?), but… this will be fun.
Also, good to note that there will be plenty of character development, for Col. Brandon. I always did want more of him and Marianne, after she realizes that Willoughby is bad news. Riding a lot of horses (or even riding the same horse a lot) was not how I would have done it, but… actually, I can’t think of a defense for that. But more Brandon is always good.
PS: I’ve added an “also” to my name, as I don’t think that I’m the only Elizabeth. Julie Bertrand reminded me. (Thanks!)
May 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
And how can one not think they wouldn’t have loved the opportunity to make and do a theatrical release of their work…like Michell and Lee?
Michell’s Persuasion is 104 minutes. 14 more minutes. I think they should all be at least two hours. And there’s no reason for time constraints in a television production. Blame that on ITV. But then, Andrew Davies wrote a 90-minute treatment of Northanger Abbey seven years ago that is pretty close to the one that ended up being filmed. If he thought it should be longer, wouldn’t he have written a longer script? And if the scriptwriters ARE forced into time constraints, I submit it would behove them to not put in extraneous wood-chopping, bathing, etc. scenes while sacrificing better stuff that was actually in the book.
I’m a bit confused as to where Davies says we’re too stupid to get it
Right here:
He feels that Austen should have given readers more help to understand how Marianne was able to transfer her affections so swiftly from Willoughby to the gruff Brandon.
Actually a careful reading of the book reveals that Brandon is just as romantic as Marianne, and thus her perfect partner. Actually, I don’t think the “how” or “why” are important, just that she had enough brains to fall for a really good guy. Really, why does anyone fall in love? The importance to Marianne’s journey is that she was able to recognize Brandon as someone she should think about as a life partner; someone solid and worthy who would cherish her, as opposed to Willoughby, who lived above his means and encouraged her to impropriety.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:39 am
To Mags,
There definitely should be no reason for time constraints in a television production. If it were the BBC - or HBO or Showtime for that matter - there would be none. Unfortunately there are too many commercially financed television broadcasters out their like ITV and not like the BBC or HBO or Showtime. Where their money comes from and how much, is the bottom line unfortunately.
And unlike what Rupert Penry-Jones said (I think it was him anyway) about Austen fans wanting every adpatation to be five hours long, two hours would suffice as you say, for most of Austen’s stories I think anyway. Enough time to tell the story and do it proper justice, and still give the film makers time to include the atmospheric and cinematic elements that is part and partial of the art form.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Hmmm - but he seems to be saying “readers” and including himself - not that he is the great reader and we normal readers must figure it out only after he explains it. Perhaps I’m giving him too much credit - seeing enthusiasm instead of condescention and oversimplification, but I still don’t feel like he’s dumbing it down for us poor swots. Sensationalism, questionable interpretation, certainly a possibility, but pride? Not so sure.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Interesting to see that the hallmark of a great novelist is alive and well - that of being subject to various interpretations through the ages. Jane’s novels will prevail, Andrew’s interpretations will not. Plain and simple.
And that has me falling off a chair laughing.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Really, Andrew Davies is a marketing genius. He knows exactly what words and sentences will get him headlines and lots of media space.
I must say that I love his work (from his Austen adaptations to Vanity Fair, including House of Cards etc.) and I am very much looking forward to his S&S adaptation. I am one of those few that think that Emma Thompson’s S&S was a fine movie but only a so-so adaptation. ET is a fantastic actress but no Elinor, and (heresy, I know) I am not too fond of Alan Rickman as Brandon and of the Fanny, Lucy and Mrs. Jennings caricatures. I think that the outstanding elements were Kate Winslet as Marianne (perfection) and Patrick Doyle’s soundtrack. In fact, I think that S&S1 from the 1980s is a much better adaptation.
It’s true that his recent Northanger Abbey was kind of disappointing. But still, compared to the horrible MP3 and P3, it made me smile and enjoy myself until the end. So I don’t think that he has lost his touch.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Specially to Reeba & Elizabeth,
I think, that in some aspects, the 80’s version is better than Thompson and Lee’s film. As you have said, Emma is not Elinor, she is more like the 80’s one. Marianne’s actresses (Kate and the other girl) are wonderful in their roles. And I would like to see a less sad Brandon, like in the 80’s; Rickman is too dramatic.
I finally think that Davies likes marketing, he knows that all of us will finally see the series. He hasn’t lost all his touch, but he has replaced a bit of it with spice, unfortunately. Haha! I’m talking as if he were a ‘chef’
May 29th, 2007 at 5:24 am
I wonder if AD’s actually **thumbing his nose at us**
After all he *always* gets his way while we (at least I) am left fuming.
I have had to suffer a mean, Emma of his interpretation and now recently a Catherine (who loves to read The Monk)and Henry (who looks so suppressed) from Mars.
I did like his P&P95 very much, so I am not really prejudiced.
But that seems to be (to me at least) his only good script(not perfect) for JA adaptation.
@ibmiller
“Hmmm - but he seems to be saying “readers” and including himself - not that he is the great reader and we normal readers must figure it out only after he explains it.”
I think he *is* explaining it to us, if he changes the way it is told in the book - or worse still - trying to **make it better**.!!! Shocking!!!!!
May 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Davies will have Edward Ferrars – played by Dan Stevens – cutting wood in a forest in the pouring rain.
Please tell me he’ll be singing as well! “I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay. I sleep all night and work all day. I cut down trees, I eat my lunch, I go to the lavat’ry. On Wednesdays I go shopping and have buttered scones for tea.”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
I actually get a little annoyed with the “he’s just saying it to get a rise out of you” excuse for Andrew Davies’ comments. If it’s true, it makes him seem childish and also implies that the stories can’t sell themselves without a little controversy to attract attention. Plus, he made plenty of comments about changes he made for NA2 and many of those turned out to be true. I’m also a little offended by his suggestion that Austen ignores the men in her novels and how he feels it’s his duty to beef them up. I liked them the way they were Mr. Davies!!! And is it wrong of me to think that maybe - just maybe - the stories are more about the heroines?!
May 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Well, as I said before, I’ve loved all his work. If others don’t, I definitely understand reading his remarks negatively. And though I tend to think S&S is not Austen’s greatest work, I do get uneasy when people claim to be improving literature for film. It is rather arrogant - just as being inflammatory is rather childish. But I have great hope for S&S. But I by no means wish to make others like it or Mr Davies - I just don’t see the condescension so many see in his comments. But one half the world does not understand the pleasures of the other.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Doesn’t Emma Thompson say similar things about beefing up the male parts in the S&S screenplay and diaries? If Davies is trying to set his version apart from the Ang Lee one, that seems a silly way to go about it.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
And does it sound to anyone else as though, despite his “I’m so radical, I’m making Willoughby the bad guy for once!” stance and his apparent dislike of the character, his method of making Edward and Colonel Brandon more “manly” involves making them more like Willoughby? Which is…odd, to say the least.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Well, maybe not that excitable, but I do confess that my blood pressure spiked a little when Davies said he didn’t think Austen “understood” men. What a fool.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Alright, no snark this time. This is what I think of Mr Davies’s work, from the point of view of a film critic. My biggest problem with his style of writing is that he seems to be so obsessed with making the film perfectly clear and understandable to every one of the audience—thereby going for the least common denominator.
The result is that he has to dumb-down the screenplay in order to achieve this. Let me point this out by citing the movie that he is best known for, Pride and Prejudice. When we come to the part when Lizzy received news of Lydia’s elopement, he (Davies) then shows Darcy heading out to London the following day, afterwards doing his detective work in town, tracking down Mrs Younge, and finally locating Wickham and Lydia.
Now let us turn to the book. Lydia elopes with Wickham. We are not told at all about Darcy’s movements. The first time we learn of what he did was when Lydia made a slip and told Lizzy about Darcy’s involvement in the wedding arrangements. Even then, we do not know what his real motive was for doing so—whether from a sense of responsibility because of his connection with Wickham, or out of love for Elizabeth. Why did Jane write the story this way? Hello? What screenwriter has not heard of dramatic tension? Or suspense? How about mystery? Maybe Jane Austen never studied any of these plot devices at writer’s school, but she certainly had the instinct to create the proper setup to keep the reader’s interest.
But Mr Davies chooses to spoon-feed the plot, in linear fashion, to the audience, to make sure that they don’t miss anything. The problem is, the audience ends up missing the best part, the real genius of Miss Austen. And he does this every time, over and over.
In Northanger Abbey, 2007, he keeps on giving us clues, obvious ones at that, to reveal the General’s motivation for inviting Catherine to the Abbey. We are not supposed to know this until very close to the end of the story. Did Jane do this to prevent the reader from understanding the story? No need to answer that one.
He does the same thing with Eleanor’s suitor. But that character is supposed to remain faceless—a MacGuffin of sort. And in the end Jane makes a brilliant and amusing sense of the laundry lists that Catherine had found in her room. Film historians claim that this plot device originated from the early part of the 20th century. Was Jane ahead of her time or what?
And then, for dramatic effect, we are bombarded with these gothic/erotic images throughout the movie, supposedly justified because they are mere imaginings of a highly imaginative girl. By the time we come to the really “scary” part, when Catherine spends that wild night alone in her room in the Abbey, the audience is not moved at all because they have been so inured by the previous “scary” scenes. There’s anticlimax for you. Stupid, stupid man.
So is it so unreasonable on the part of the Austen fans to ask Mr Davies to give us the credit that we deserve? But maybe his target audience necessarily excludes Janeites because he knows that however he does it, he will never measure up to the original work. And there is the issue of box office revenue. After all, his reputation, and wallet, depend on the bottom line, does it not?
Oh my, I think I just contradicted myself. Mr Davies is doing the right thing after all. How could I have been so mistaken?