Let the games begin
A season of Jane Austen adaptations on both sides of the pond begins tomorrow with the broadcast of a new adaptation of Sense and Sensibility on the BBC. The Times has an interview with Andrew Davies; the author amused us with her skepticism.
Ah, yes, the famously impudent manner in which Davies invents minor characters to “round out the plot” of the sacred Austen canon, and to make it work better as a screen dramatisation. He does the same by adding sequences that he hopes will give body and motive to the story. These are, of course, the bits that everyone remembers.
Perhaps his former career as an English teacher and university lecturer (at Warwick University) has given him the authority to rewrite Austen, as if she were one of his undergraduates whose work needed sprucing up.
As. If.
Darcy coming out of the lake was Davies’s most famous sexing-up moment; in this latest Austen adaptation, he has the rather weedy Edward Ferrars (played by Dan Stevens) feverishly chopping wood in shirtsleeves and a downpour. It’s a bit like a Georgian Abercrombie & Fitch advert.
Does he hope drenched period beefcake will once more get the ratings soaring? Of course, though he claims some of the more eye-popping moments happen by accident – the firm axe coming down on the pliable wood, and so on. And in the rain, for goodness’ sake. “I never thought about it as a Freudian metaphor,” he says. Oh come on! “I’m shocked,” he says, delighted. “It just happened to be pouring with rain.” Just as the wet-shirt scene with Darcy just “happened”? “That wasn’t deliberate either.” What? “I didn’t think he would keep his shirt on. I never thought a wet-shirt scene would be such a turn-on.”
(Incidentally, we think we stumbled across the wellspring of The Pond Scene a week or two ago. Let’s just say our John Thorpe jokes haven’t been as far off as some might think.)
The Western Mail also has an interview with Mr. Davies that covers much the same territory and gives us a clue as to the marketing frame that has been chosen.
Restrained and rational Elinor, and the wildly romantic, impulsive Marianne are respectively played by newcomers Hattie Morahan and Charity Wakefield.
“It’s thrilling to have such young, vibrant talent as the Dashwood sisters – and to have actresses much nearer their ages,” enthuses Davies.
“The sisters are 16 and 18 in the book, and 17 and 19 by the finish. Now Emma Thompson gave a great performance in the movie, but she was too old. And I think it was really just hope that casting Alan Rickman would do the trick for Colonel Brandon.
We’ve posted this before, but it bears repeating: Kate Winslet was 18 or 19 when she made S&S95. Charity Wakefield is 25, so presumably was 24 when she made this film. If that’s all you got, look out.
“Nobody who reads the book ever remembers that this schoolgirl gets seduced and has a baby.”
No, really, we can read. Really.
Davies is clearly happy with the space afforded by a three-part adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, the first episode of which transmits on New Year’s Day – perfect chocolate-box telly after all the festive exertions of late.
“Jane Tranter, the head of BBC Drama, asked me if I could get four hours out of it, and I said I’d try, but it makes a very natural three hours, in truth,” says Davies. “We did six 50-minute episodes for Pride and Prejudice, but there’s more story there. And the speed of narration gets quicker on television, almost every year.”
And yet there’s room for duels and seductions! Oh, there better not be anything important or interesting left out.
“Edward is dull, he’s hesitant. And Colonel Brandon just seems old, serious, and not very glamorous. Jane Austen doesn’t really convince us that Marianne would move from being so crazy about the young Willoughby to suddenly being in love with Brandon.
“So those two guys needed a lot of work, they both needed to be made to look much sexier, really. We needed to butch them up! Otherwise you’ll never believe that our lovely young heroines would fall for them.”
Interestingly, we very clearly remember sitting in the theater watching S&S95 for the first time. When Alan Rickman rode up, came up to the door, and sat watching Marianne play the pianoforte, we thought: Oh good, they made him sexy! Because we liked Colonel Brandon in the book very much. Because (it bears repeating) we can read.
“This is partly why I continue to do so well. The producers go, ‘This is a famous book, we’ve got Andrew Davies, that’s two parts of the equation – get a sexy-looking cast and we’re on our way’!”
*buries head in hands*
The Telegraph has an article focusing on the cast on the last day of shooting.
Thanks to Alert Janeites Belle de Jure and Lisa for the links!
December 31st, 2007 at 3:47 am
LOL! Thanks for that Mags. This gets more and more amusing.
*Reads Telegraph article, sees “britches-ripper” and thinks, “Yeah, britches-ripper, that’s what Austen’s novels are all about.” Slaps forehead.*
I now worry that I have totally misread the novels.
Oh well, I hope they at least get very good ratings. Really, it’s still good for generating more Austen interest, methinks.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:29 am
Not remember that Eliza and the baby were really what makes one hate Willoughby???
Not *read* or *remember* what Col Brandon is all about???
Yes I *read* all that and remmember it!!!
Thank you AD
I don’t know whether to be pleased or worried that ‘people’ are introduced to JA because they see these sexy scenes!!!
OK I am looking forward to this Col. Brandon’s ‘piercing’ looks
And yes! I thought Alan Rickman did a very good job of a silent brooding ‘and’ sexy Col Brandon.
So I would say Emma Thompson can do this without the help of ’sexing’ up the book - therefore a far better writer.
Sometimes I wonder if AD feels insecure without ’sexing’ up the novels. That it won’t be a success. That he ‘must’ do it.
Well, if the main thing people remember is the wet shirt, then he has a reason
December 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
What AD says in The Times about what it takes to make the men sexually attractive amuses me…
‘In particular, he likes giving the men in Austen a bit more verve. “It’s all about how to write men so that they are interesting and sexually attractive.” He muses on this a little, and then pronounces: “The general consensus is that you don’t give anything away: you keep the girls waiting; you keep them in the dark. And then you go off and do manly and interesting things. It drives the girls crazy. Apparently.” He sighs, a little. “I’ve been doing it wrong all my life.”’
It seems quite extraordinary to me that he should opt to adapt a novel which any idiot can see is ABOUT women if what he is saying that all the men in the story don’t like being around women very much or that women are boring! The women in the story didn’t get the chance to run off and do “interesting things” because their lives were heavily regulated and they were living in a form of servitude. What planet are we on?
Mr Davies, only REALLY silly women find a perpetual withholding dance attractive. Honestly!
December 31st, 2007 at 9:46 am
It seems quite extraordinary to me that he should opt to adapt a novel which any idiot can see is ABOUT women if what he is saying that all the men in the story don’t like being around women very much or that women are boring!
Women are boring and CAN’T READ.
I’m still a little hung up on that, as you see.
Oh, and we can’t figure out that a guy is a jerk if he’s hot. Really, Willoughby being a cad doesn’t make Greg Wise an iota less hot.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:40 am
“Because (it bears repeating) we can read.”
-Thanks for pointing that out!
December 31st, 2007 at 11:05 am
Am I the only one who thinks of the Tin Man in Wizard of Oz every time “chopping wood in the rain” is mentioned?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I can’t wait to listen to Martin Phipps’ score ! At least we’ll have that even if everything else’s bad.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Am going to rant some more…
As a TV show, it will probably be very watchable and I am not suggesting that Davies doesn’t manage to capture the intelligence of it, because he does [some adaptations like the recent Mansfield Park are torture to watch and leave one feeling suicidal :(] and it does make otherwise awful TV worth watching. But honestly, doesn’t he have an agent or someone to tell him to just put a sock in it? Or worse, does he really think that having been a former lecturer at Warwick gives him licence to be shamefully patronising [flash AD: I know this is difficult to understand given the company you keep these days, but there are people in the world much cleverer than you]? He has said that he became interested in Austen because he wanted to find out what makes women tick. He has also likened his version of S and S to Sex and the City. In light of interviews like this, I am not convinced that he a) understands women at all or b) understands what Sex and the City was about [hint: it wasn't really about sex].
Call me old-fashioned, and just too appreciative of people who are genuinely established and talented, but Emma Thompson was superb in her performance as Elinor and in her adaptation, and as a woman, understood the point entirely. Now, without wishing to pre-judge the thing, I cannot imagine for one moment that the young lady playing Elinor is going to better Thompson, or that Cooper is going to better Greg Wise. It is not an argument against a different interpretation of a novel, but an argument to show some respect! Am seething on behalf of the sisterhood!
As an aside, AD was also quite critical of Hugh Grant’s performance in the 1995 version and I agree that Grant is lightweight. However, they then went and cast, apparently without any irony whatsoever, Dan Stevens who has been described by some (perhaps ungenerously) as the next Hugh Grant. (??)
I do hope that it is a good production and I am really looking forward to seeing it, but with the just extraordinary arrogance with which this has been publicised, I may have a funny turn and start to become a Grant fan…
December 31st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
It is not an argument against a different interpretation of a novel, but an argument to show some respect!
Hear, hear!
I’m not a big fan of Hugh Grant’s performance, because I think Edward (even if he is kind of a lamer) deserved better. He’s not a stuttering idiot, and is in fact rather intelligent and amusing in a dry way. I like how he teases Marianne–he gets her number rather quickly. He’s quite a suitable suitor (ha!) for Elinor.
I should add that AD likes messing with the Janeites and usually exaggerates somewhat in advance of broadcast of his stuff, so take most of what he says with a grain of salt.
That being said, I am in total agreement with you about the repetition of the mistakes of former adaptations. In the Making of P&P book, he talks about how the 1986 NA missed the point of the book–which is very true–and then when he adapted NA, he turned around and did the same thing: made it Gothic and creepy when it’s supposed to be a funny parody of Gothics.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
>I should add that AD likes messing with the Janeites and usually exaggerates somewhat in advance of broadcast of his stuff, so take most of what he says with a grain of salt
Why does he feel the necessity of doing this?
Would the adaptation not draw enough attention otherwise?
Is this a way of brazening out the situation he created?
I know he does a good job with ‘period’ scripts and P&P95 and Bleak House are good examples, but IMO he is very very insecure when it comes to ‘Woman’s’ thoughts and feelings as all JA novels are.
So when adapting these novels he seems to take support by sexing them up, and then because he’s aware he has done this, he brazens it out with arrogant interviews.
And we know that sex sells.
The man is insecure in adapting JA novels!!!!
December 31st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Were I the cynical type, I might speculate that he thinks we’re a bunch of silly bints who can’t read and can’t figure out that handsome guys can be blackguards, so why not have a little fun with the ditzy broads?
Were I the cynical type, that is.
January 1st, 2008 at 12:17 am
Ohhhh no! I am on the US side of the pond, and unfortunately it is not being aired here. And I was looking forward to this! Apparently I will have to wait until PBS decides to show it. ::cries::
January 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
“Were I the cynical type, I might speculate that he thinks we’re a bunch of silly bints who can’t read and can’t figure out that handsome guys can be blackguards, so why not have a little fun with the ditzy broads?”
I suspect that you are probably right:) - that interview pretty much tells us what a low opinion he has of us “broads”!
“I know he does a good job with ‘period’ scripts and P&P95 and Bleak House are good examples, but IMO he is very very insecure when it comes to ‘Woman’s’ thoughts and feelings as all JA novels are. So when adapting these novels he seems to take support by sexing them up,”
I agree. The people involved in this adaptation have said that they don’t understand why the heroines fall in love with the people they do so it is almost like they are playing to people’s base instincts to disguise their lack of understanding of the way these two women think. If they were my students, I’d be giving them a ‘B’ for ‘B*******’, not only for having the cheek to do such a thing, but for having the temerity to think that I wouldn’t notice!:))
If I did what AD does for a living, and was, for example, adapting something like “The Colour Purple” [I know that the comparison is flawed in lots of ways!] I just wouldn’t presume to behave in such a way, and without allowing myself to be very heavily influenced by black women, given that it is a story about black women! Why he thinks it is okay to be quite so presumptuous is beyond me.
I know that these are the actions of — effectively — a salesman doing his job, but when he talks like this he is pretty much spraying over Austen’s work like a Tom cat!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
I was very pleased with Davies work on P&P despite the addition of the pond scene.
However I’m not pleased with what he has said in the above quotes. I can’t stand it when people can’t be true to Austen’s characters! I watched the Hollywood version of Mansfield Park and was so disappointed in it and I’ve heard that the new BBC one is even worse. I know that Fanny is a hard character for many modern women to relate to but that doesn’t mean one should change her.
And who does he think he is that he knows what women think about Brandon & Farris in S&S? I loved Brandon & Farris in the books. Both characters were believable to fall in love with. I thought that Thompson’s Farris was a little weak but my mom loved him, so maybe it’s just me…but I can’t believe he said this:
“Edward is dull, he’s hesitant. And Colonel Brandon just seems old, serious, and not very glamorous. Jane Austen doesn’t really convince us that Marianne would move from being so crazy about the young Willoughby to suddenly being in love with Brandon…So those two guys needed a lot of work, they both needed to be made to look much sexier, really. We needed to butch them up! Otherwise you’ll never believe that our lovely young heroines would fall for them.”
The nerve of him! If he had any understanding of the times in which Austen wrote even he would be able to understand why Marianne went from being crazy over Willoughby to being in love with Brandon.
January 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I think that Austen’s heroes are interesting and sexy enough for the heroines to want to jump them. They don’t need Andrew Davies for that. It takes more than just sexual attraction, which was clearer in his adaptation of P&P, but he seems to have lost that understanding completely.
January 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Happy New Year to all!!!
I’ve heard that the new BBC one [Mansfield Park] is even worse.
Just a tiny clarification, Anna. Of the 4 new adaptations, Persuasion, Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park were produced by ITV (the other British television chain) and its production quality for period dramas is far inferior to BBC, that is one of the many reasons why they have been a disappointment. Only Sense and Sensibility has been produced by BBC and despite Andrew Davies’s comments, there are some of us who still have faith in BBC production quality that make us hope that at least this new adaptation could be better. In a few hours, those in UK will be able to tell us if that hope is well founded or not.
January 1st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
>some of us who still have faith in BBC production quality that make us hope that at least this new adaptation could be better.
I have this feeling too, and have had it all the time mainly because of it being BBC and and three hours long.
My belief has been shaken up a bit by the comment that this adaptation has the most number of invented scenes.
If these scenes meld with the rest of it, that is OK too.
My fingers are crossed, even as those in UK are watching it on TV at this very moment.
I hope someone will come along and post a comment during the break
January 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
And a Happy New Year to everyone!!!
January 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Mr. Davies did a very good job with P&P, but compare some of his comments on it to his comments on the other books. P&P, he says (paraphrasing), didn’t need much work to bring it to the screen. I just copied, and then added a few scenes. S&S, however, should have been rewritten before publication. I think the difference is that he likes P&P, and not the other books so much. I think that is the difference in all the good films–P95 for instance, you can tell was made by people who loved and respected the book. And even then, there are things I would change. It’s not perfect, but I love it so much anyway! We can’t blame him for all the recent bad adaptations.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Well, I have to say that I think Emma Thompson did her fair share of making additions to the male characters of S&S in order to make them more appealing, and I know I’m not alone in thinking this.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 am
>I think the difference is that he likes P&P, and not the other books so much.
I made a similar comment way back about three years ago, because I was disappointed with his E3.
He had some really vile comments to make about almost all the characters in the book, and clearly said he didn’t like the book.
I could feel that in E3.
Then he has said things about Henry Tilney.
Now it’s S&S which he thinks should have been rewritten. I like it as it is, Thank you Mr Davies.
I blame him for depriving us of one more hour of this S&S (they wanted a four hour adaptation)
I haven’t heard any comments about Persuasion or Mansfield Park from him, which might speak for itself.
Yes, P&P95 was very good and I loved it. In fact I was completely obsessed, watching it again and again.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 am
Reeba, I also like S&S as it is. It is Austen’s genius that even if S&S is not as finally polished in the minute details of sentences as P&P (my humble opinion), that it still comes out as a beautifully written novel, with language that has the power to mesmerize and astound me. I love this novel, I really do.