You have the right to remain silent
Oh, so we’re The Austen Cops now, are we? If only, if only!
Emmy and BAFTA award-winning writer Andrew Davies claims not to be overly concerned about the police. A monthslong storm of “cop” communiques on the Web about the British writer’s recent works was probably to be expected. We’re talking here about Davies’ adaptations of Jane Austen’s classics “Northanger Abbey,” “Sense and Sensibility,” “Emma” and “Pride and Prejudice.” As a result, he’s under the scrutiny of “the Austen police.”
Apparently there’s an enormously vocal army of Jane Austen fans out there who are anxiously awaiting the January launch of “The Complete Jane Austen” on PBS’ “Masterpiece Theater.” The series is being touted as the first time on television that all six of Austen’s classics will be presented as a complete collection. Davies has adapted four of these.
The mastermind behind the TV coup is Rebecca Eaton, executive producer of “Masterpiece Theater.” It was Eaton who revealed the presence of who she describes as “the Jane Austen police” in an interview last week in Los Angeles. The reference was actually a respectful nod because Eaton is thrilled that the series already has a groundswell of genuinely interested Austen fans.
Nice job trying to deflect any criticism in advance and pre-shape public opinion. “Don’t listen to those nasty Austen Cops! We know better!” Honestly, if we’re the cops, then, mixing our metaphors dreadfully, the inmates are running the asylum. Because these days those making the films are pretty much doing whatever they darn well please while we just sit here bewildered and powerless to stop it.
But they do tend to make one very aware that every nuance or deviation from the text of the original novels will come under intense scrutiny, Eaton concedes.
The level and intensity of not getting it just staggers one, doesn’t it?
Davies, who is accompanying Eaton on a multi-city tour to support the series and to chat up sponsors, makes no bones about the fact that he has confidently put some very individual fingerprints on the works. “Adapting Austen was pure pleasure in that it entailed copying out the best bits. But what gave me most pleasure was exploring scenes that she herself didn’t get around to actually writing, the back stories of various characters,” he says.
“Copying out the best bits?” Try “Crossing out the best bits and adding my own, inferior bits.” We would prefer, sometimes, sir, that you keep your “bits” to yourself.
Davies unearthed some gaping new opportunities for dramatization — at least as far as television drama is concerned. He notes that scenes are sometimes suggested but never fully explored in the novels, such as the affair between Isabella and Captain Tilney in “Northanger Abbey.” “Did Isabella really believe that Tilney would actually marry her? I mean, it was preposterous.” The affair, hinted at in the novel, becomes a nasty little bedroom scene in the television version with Tilney dismissing the devastated Isabella like a whore.
Nasty, yes; but we still think Isabella had more cunning than to act “like a whore” in the first place.
Additionally, Austen wrote “Sense and Sensibility” a decade prior to its publication but never updated it to address new trends and poets of the day, including Lord Byron. Davies fixes that.
Fixes. Okay. We suppose it’s not at all possible that Jane Austen left out Byron on purpose. It was totally an accident. Isn’t Jane lucky to have Andrew Davies available and willing to “fix” her mistakes?
He professes nothing but respect for Austen’s works while conceding the point that to create a masterpiece in a modern medium clearly requires a revisionist’s touch.
No, not “clearly.” We’ve seen too many really good adaptations where no “revision” is necessary. Contracting, combining, yes; we can forgive a certain amount of shorthand that explains away period oddities; but changing the stories wholesale, changing the meaning and intention of the work, is another thing, especially when other adaptations have shown it is not at all necessary to make a successful work that is enjoyable by modern audiences.
And the thing is, we can’t heap all the derision at Andrew Davies’ door. After all, they also hired the scriptwriter of the 1980s adaptation of Northanger Abbey, which most Janeites (yes, we know not all, but most) regard with varying amounts of bewilderment and contempt, to adapt Mansfield Park, because she did such a bang-up job with the first one. The producers of the three ITV films clearly meant to wring every last pound out of these productions while spending as little as possible in the process, making the adaptations, borrowing a phrase from Hobbes, nasty, brutish, and short. About the only thing they got right was casting, mostly; a very appealing group of actors for the most part who did their best with the material they were given; unfortunately for the thinking part of the fandom, many of the potential audience won’t see past the fresh, pretty faces to recognize the flaws in the storytelling.
The main positive we are taking away from the whole Complete Jane Austen thing is the public and media attention that our favorite author will receive. That doesn’t mean we, as a blog and as a fandom, are going to accept inferior Jane Austen Brand™ products without comment. It can’t be that much more difficult and expensive to make quality products than to do it halfway.
Thanks to Alert Janeite Lisa for sending us the link.
(And we think we’ve got over our blogging malaise. What say you, O Gentle Readers?)
November 9th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Whoa, Mags, you go, girl! Pin on that AustenBlog Badge, buff up your truncheon, and go get those simpleminded producers of inferior Austen rewrites!
The only possible reason these movies will do anything but make us very very cross is that they may induce a Young Person to actually pick up the books and read them, seeking frantically and in vain for the sweaty sex scenes but gradually coming under the spell of Austen herself, rather than AustenLite as interpreted by Davies et al.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:07 am
But Mags, what do you really think???
November 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
But what gave me most pleasure was exploring scenes that she herself didn’t get around to actually writing, the back stories of various characters,” he says.
Umm…Could it possibly be that Jane finished her novels just the way she wanted them? Mr Davies (as usual) shows his sycophantic side…
November 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Of course, Chief Mags, there is a crying need for the Austen Police Force. After all, where would the Holy Grail now be were it not for the Knights Templar? Somebody has to make an attempt to check this wanton desecration of the Austen spirit. Still riding high on his bogus success from the wet t-shirt scene in P&P, Mr Davies brings this license to new levels, from nude scenes to rape scenes, all in the guise of “fixing” Jane Austen??! Where will it all end? By capitalizing on the venereal sensibilities of the average viewer, he is able to usurp the popularity of Jane Austen to gain the favor of the studios and the unsophisticated filmgoers as well.
Nobody seems to question the severe flaws in his cinematic style of writing, which indeed is sad testimony to the inability of today’s viewers to distinguish between good and bad cinema, and the most distressing part is that most of these neo-Janeites derive most, if not all, their “knowledge” of Jane Austen from the movies without having read the actual novels.
And Mr Davies is not alone. I was most seriously disappointed with Maggie Wadey’s work on Mansfield Park, after having done what I consider a good job writing Northanger Abbey (1986) as well as The Buccaneers (1995). What the hell happened?
But I don’t want to spoil the (remotely possible) fun for those who have not seen this new crop of JA adaptations, so I should stop here. I may have already said too much, and Mr Davies has already done enough spoiling.
(Blogging malaise, Mags? I thought I was the only one going through this lugubrious phase. Glad to be on board.)
November 9th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Does anyone else think that this is just a way for Davies to get his own movies shown to the public? Is he even reading her books? I think he just taking a wonderful plots and characters and re-writing them to be the what he wants, not the way Jane intended. Either that or he has gone completely insane. Either way, Jane Austen and her fans are getting the short end of the stick.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Listen, I am very fond of and own on DVD several of AD’s films, including P&P and Vanity Fair and Emma (and I also really liked Wives and Daughters). None of them were completely faithful but all were quite well-done, I thought. I thought Bleak House was a snore but it’s not my favorite Dickens so I’m not a judge, I suppose. But I think with many popular authors, after a few successful books they don’t get closely edited anymore, and no one seems to consider it necessary to talk them out of their worst ideas. I think it’s similar in this case–they figure he’s had so much success, and his work is so well-received, that anything he does will be okay and anyone who complains is an overly-picky purist who is impossible to please. Or, in my more cynical moments, I think that the comments about Those Austen People and the Austen Police carefully salted throughout syncophantic media coverage is insurance against criticism–and that TPTB engage in such disinformation campaigns once they realize they have a dog (or three or four) on their hands. Could Rebecca Eaton be hearing barking? woof woof!
The thing that bothered me about the linked article is the implication that we’re nitpicking with no reason and that we would never be pleased by anything, which is not the case. The news about Jane Austen Handheld elicited a very positive response, because it’s a really clever idea, the potential to be very funny is obvious, and hello! Stephen Freaking Fry as Mr. Bennet! It’s genius! Whereas Lizzy Bennet in someone’s bathroom? Lizzy Bennet barefoot and messy-haired in the pig wallow? Jane Austen herself acting like an Ann Radcliffe heroine? Not genius.
Janeites are hard to please because Jane’s spoiled us rotten for anything less than brilliance. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I would just like it if one of those people would acknowledge that the enthusiasm of Janeites for the stories in the first place probably helps to get their projects green-lighted, since JA fans obviously provide an audience. We’re paying your salaries, people!
November 10th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I’ve always defended Andrew Davies because I love his work in general, but I heard from several people that he recently ‘ruined’ an adaptation of Forster’s ‘A Room With A View’ for ITV. This, and also what I read so far about the new S&S, makes me worry a little bit, though I still give him the benefit of the doubt, as I haven’t seen anything written by Davies that I didn’t like.
I think though that what Mags just said about his work being so well-received that everyone assumes that his next ‘masterpiece’ will be good too, is very true. The fact that he wrote an (in my opinion) brilliant adaptation of P&P doesn’t mean his S&S will be good too!
November 10th, 2007 at 7:49 am
They say Austen Police like it’s a bad thing :S
November 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Maybe if Sue Birtwistle would have worked with him on NA and S&S they wouldn’t have let this stuff get by. Notice that she worked with him on W&D, P&P2, and E3. From what I have read about Cranford Chronicles that has her name too, it looks like it’s going to be good.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Laurel Ann, a blue blooded, card carrying member of the Austen-squad
would like to shake her finger at Mr. Davies, but she is having too much fun watching P&P for the unmentionable time.
To say that Davies is unfaithful to Austen is a bit of a stretch. I found for the most part his dialouge to be almost word for word, and I personally am not complaining about the wet-shirt or bathtub Darcy!
I have not seen the ITV adpations yet, so I might change my mind come January. I think that he should take some adyvse from his public and not make statements like “exploring scenes that Jane Austen herself did not write”. Wow! My first impression was that he and his publicists or the studio hacks wrote the speach for him to illicit the rath of the Austen police, in the hope that our reactions to such blatherings would make us look like pedantic fools in the eyes of the general public.
Ok, you can get out the cluebat and beat me silly now.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
You haven’t seen the new NA? Oh, just wait.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Screen writers have a history of cannibalizing the works of great writers, as well as each others scripts. To suit their notions of what the audience wants, they think nothing of changing words and plot.
Anyone who has authored a publication, be it a review, article, nonfiction book or literary masterpiece, knows how it feels when someone comes in and REWRITES something of yours. I am not talking about proofing and editing, which is part of writing, and with which I am very familiar. This is a process every writer must go through and learn to deal with. I mean taking your creative work and fabricating an addition, or “summarizing” what you said using words that would never have come from your pen. It happened to me and all I could sputter was, “How DARE you do this without my input or knowledge?” Thankfully the editor of the journal reconstructed my article and proofed and edited it using a more traditional method.
I wonder how Mr. Davies would feel if someone took his own creative writing and just starting adding bits and pieces because they looked or felt good. Jane Austen and other great, classic writers are no longer around to defend themselves. Indeed, current authors are becoming acutely aware that when they sell the rights to their novels to movie makers, they lose all rights to their words and plot. The director of The Bourne Identity conceded that except for the first 15 minutes of the movie, which was loosely based on the novel by Robert Ludlum, all the rest was fabrication.
Jane’s words and plots are good enough for me. Frankly, I understand that the cinema is a visual media and that there are severe time constraints, but faithful renditions of Jane’s novels can and have been made, no matter how pressed for time.
I always search for the credits first. If they say, “Based upon a novel by so and so,” or “Inspired by the works of…” then I know the rewrites will be extensive.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
You know, this just really ticks me off.
They do the same thing to us (they are talking about us, right?) that they’ve done to some of Austen’s novels, which is COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN. Good grief, no one expects or wants a Chris Columbus/HP-style literal translation of a novel to the screen. But lovers of Austen are supposed to sit primly by when someone creates an adaptation that guts a “most beloved” novel?
It’s like dealing with my tween and teen sons (being a Middle-Aged Austen Whore my children are getting to “that age.”) I say, “You can’t go roller skating unless you have your room picked up.” Instead of saying, “OK, I’ll go pick up,” I get, “OH SURE! NOW I CAN NEVER LEAVE THE HOUSE AGAIN BECAUSE I HAVE TO DO CHORES EVERY SECOND I’M NOT AT SCHOOL.” It’s so much easier to wail about unreasonable demands by impossible to please villains than actually listen to some constructive criticism.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I think few will argue that there must be absolutely no changes at all, and all of us understand the need for cinematic shorthand. But when one loves a novel and loves a story, it’s hard to see the intent of the story changed as much as the story itself. For instance, making NA creepy and Gothic, when it is supposed to be a parody of Gothics. I think modern audiences are familiar enough with creepy movies and stories to get the general gist of the parody, even if they aren’t fans of Mrs. Radcliffe, and it strips all the fun and humor out of the story–which then had to be replaced with juvenile prurient content that isn’t nearly as funny as Jane Austen’s original. And then we’re all supposed to sit there and take it like good Stepford Janeites, or be belittled as The Austen Police, purists who nitpick silly details. They’re really not silly details.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Another thing that occurred to me: while later directors in the Harry Potter series were not as faithful as Chris Columbus, they might have made better films but they missed a few really important details–like the latest film, leaving out the part in Snape’s memory in which he called Lily Evans a “Mudblood” turned out to be awfully important, though no doubt it seemed an unimportant detail. I think a few things that were left out for cinematic purposes will come back and bite them in the butt in later films.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I just finished reading, if you can believe it, the comic book version of season eight of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which contains this precious piece of dialogue:
Willow: Serious magic is kinda like improv, Dawn. You can’t just stop it cold; you gotta adapt.
Dawn (who has been turned into a giant): Is that why I’ve got an army of the undead playing Pride and Prejudice around my ankles?
Now, there’s an adaptation I’d love to see! Pride and Prejudice adapted by Joss Whedon, with zombies.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I’ll come down on both sides, I think Davies has done a good job; but, I also think the best P & P is the 1980 BBC with Elizabeth Garvie, who I wish would come do her show in New Orleans instead of Tunbridge Wells. The reason it is the best is that it has the most genuine Jane Austen language. The 2005 version actually takes jane austen scenes with sentences she wrote and rewrites!