The Complete Jane Austen News Roundup: Our Kingdom for Some Duct Tape Edition
We are a little concerned, as Alert Janeite Cinthia, who alerted us to the broadcast of Persuasion (2007) in Mexico last weekend, noticed that some scenes were cut from the original broadcast on ITV. She did a little investigating, and discovered that all of the films being presented on Masterpiece Theatre will have some scenes cut, though full versions will be available to those who purchase the DVDs. We suppose those of us suckers who donated money to PBS in support of Masterpiece Theatre don’t deserve full versions. We are exceedingly put out. It’s not like they need the time for advertisements, and several of the films are too short as it is. Remember, Masterpiece Theatre Is Made Possible By Viewers Like The Editrix, Who Has The Premium Coffee Cup To Prove It.
Now that we’re good and cranky, it’s time for the Two Minute Andrew Davies Hate. We really don’t hate him, of course, but we probably would be a lot less cranky if he would just shut up. Nothing a little judiciously-applied duct tape couldn’t fix.
This popularity surrounds someone who wrote only six books, following plots that now seem standard.
“All the basic stories are in all kinds of trashy romantic novels,” says Andrew Davies, who adapted four of the six novels for the PBS project. “(A) young girl who has disadvantages (and) things in her way gets a man who’s probably rich, handsome, loving, etc.”
Oh, that Emma Woodhouse, she was so disadvantaged.
Some women played music or sang or read. The key Austen characters — especially Elizabeth Bennet in “Pride and Prejudice” — spent much time outdoors.
“She runs everywhere,” Davies says. “She’s got an excess of energy. I think that running everywhere in Jane Austen is a key for being highly sexed, having not enough to do with your body.”
Can somebody please show us all these examples in Pride and Prejudice where Lizzy is running? Not the movie, the book. Please show us. She walks a lot, and when walking to Netherfield to see Jane, she walks at a “quick pace,” but she’s certainly not “running everywhere.”
Matt Roush at TV Guide likes Persuasion well enough.
Strike, schmike. This winter, my favorite TV writer may just be the immortal Miss Austen.
The Capital Times has an article…
They play the piano forte.
They hide their affections for those brooding sorts.
They know their own minds and love to read.
They are the island of common sense in a sea of idiotic relatives and acquaintances.
They speak of “understandings” and “attachments.”
And they’ll be all over PBS this winter and spring.
Just as there’s been no escaping Jane Austen’s heroines in popular culture the past few years, they’ll be coming weekly as PBS’ “Masterpiece Theatre” kicks off “The Complete Jane Austen” on Sunday with a lush production of “Persuasion.”
…as does The Phoenix.
The idea behind most recent Austen adaptations (including the 2005 Pride and Prejudice) seems to be that Jane’s old-fashioned sensibility needs to be updated to suit modern tastes. The irony is that it’s her old-fashioned sensibility that made her popular in the first place.
Not necessarily for everyone. 
The Guardian profiles Olivia Williams, who plays Jane Austen in Miss Austen Regrets.
She admits the plate-spinning of balancing work and parenting did send her “a little bit crazy” in the summer, when she was working on a forthcoming BBC film called Miss Austen Regrets. In an interview last year, Williams criticised the “lazily colloquial” script. But, as with so much else in her life, the finished film proved to be “different from what I envisaged, which is wonderful. It’s much more intangible than your average biopic, the choice of shots gives it a very European feel. It showed me how much I still have to learn.”
About film, or about media training? 
Since the Golden Globes have been, for all intents and purposes, canceled, we would imagine quite a few viewers might turn to PBS. Prepare to be boarded, Janeites!
Thanks to Alert Janeites Anna and Lisa for the links!
January 10th, 2008 at 2:55 am
I suppose Mr Davies dug up the one mentioning of Lizzy “in the habit of running” (in Vol. III, Chapter 7) and - er - run away with it. I do wonder who exactly has “not enough to do with his own body” here, seriously …
January 10th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Jane, who was not so light nor so much in the habit of running as Elizabeth, soon lagged behind, while her sister, panting for breath, came up with him, and eagerly cried out –
“Oh, papa, what news — what news? Have you heard from my uncle?”
January 10th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I was at the special screening of “Persuasion” at the Cooper Union on Tuesday (which was a lot of fun for many reasons) and was shocked as well at how much they cut out. I counted at least seven scenes that were either edited down or removed entirely, most notably the first time Anne sees Mr. Elliot at Lyme and what I like to call the Wet Naval Captains Scene.
Rebecca Eaton explained that Masterpiece Theatre (or Masterpiece as we’re now supposed to refer to it) had nothing to do with the actual editing; it was handled by the British. She also said Masterpiece Theatre only gets a specific amount of time for each episode, 84 minutes and 30 seconds. Why they can’t be given enough for the entire uncut broadcast, I don’t quite understand.
But still, it was a treat to see it - for the third time
- before Sunday’s premiere.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:30 am
*puts on crankypants*
I forgot about the “less in the habit of running” scene, though one could point out that Lizzy had reason to run in that scene that had nothing to do with an excess of hormones.
V. unhappy about cutting. I paid my freaking membership fee and the stupid things are too short as it is. grrrrr
Apropos of nothing much, there’s a guy on my train who looks like Damian Lewis’ less attractive WASPy brother.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I also went to the screening of “Persuasion” at the Cooper Union. Rebecca Eaton said about 7 minutes were cut, but the full version will be on DVD.
We were one of the first audiences to see the new opening. I greatly disliked the music. It doesn’t have the same emotional impact as the Rondeau fanfare which has been a part of Masterpiece for 37 years. You do hear small bits of it, but it is not the same. I also hated Gillian Anderson’s introduction. It’s her face in front of a blank red screen. I miss the book-lined study. It helped set the mood. The introduction was also badly written.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The movies have been cut!? That’s terrible! I never actually saw the ITV movies as I don’t get that channel, but I heard that they were pretty good, particularly Persuasion. I was so looking forward to seeing Persuasion for the first time…the full version too! It’s the truth- the original length of the ITV Jane Austen movies are very short. Ugh I hate stupid advertisements and publicities.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
This almost makes me not want to tune in. I already pre-ordered Persuasion, Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park on amazon.com. Maybe I’ll just wait and watch the DVDs.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“Prepare to be boarded” indeed! I’m already getting new JASNA membership forms from people who saw the movie at the Cooper Union or on-line. Here we go!
January 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
So, in other words, I’m better off adding the DVDs to my Netflix queue now than tuning in to PBS the next couple of months. A well thought out strategy, that.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
*sigh* My grandmother was going to tape Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, and Mansfield Park for me, but it looks like I’ll have to get the DVDs anyway to see the full versions. Bah! Does anyone know if Sense and Sensibility will be edited down when it airs on Masterpiece as well??
January 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“In her diary, she is specific about proposals … two specifically and probably a third,” Eaton says.” WHAT DIARY??? SHE DIDN’T KEEP ONE!!!
January 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I have noticed that every DVD version of a JA novel that I have bought includes scenes or bits of scenes that were cut from the original TV broadcast version. After watching the DVD several times, the memory of the original fades. My quarrel is with the original script which omits scenes from the book that I suspect could have been included in place of something the director/producer/whatever wanted to add.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Ya’ll might want to actually SEE the movies before you buy the DVDs, if you haven’t seen them yet. Just saying.
I know A&E has never shown P&P95 uncut–and I was hoping that MT would, but it’s looking bad. But A&E has advertising. PBS does not. I really don’t understand why they are showing incomplete versions. On my local PBS station at least, they don’t seem to mind running over for MT–they just slap in an episode of Coupling or something to make up time till the next show.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I am done with giving AD any more chances to redeem himself! News headline: Surprise Duct Tape Attack By Rabid Janeite Fundamentalists!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The local public TV station in Nashville isn’t likely to have heard of Jane Austen. They’re too busy scouring the vaults for reruns of “The Lawrence Welk Show.”
I’m thinking Netflix for watchable versions.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Three scenes were cut, not seven. One was a throwaway, one was a shame, and one was my favorite! But oh well. I suspect that if they had been made with the BBC and not ITV the original films would have fit the time requirement.
Mags, I seriously hope you are complaining to PBS and not just us! Also, apropos of nothing, there was a guy on my train for weeks who looked like Toby Stephens’s better-looking younger brother. It even turned out he was British
January 10th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
We should all write emails to PBS en masse and let them know our discontent. I plan to tell them that they can expect never to get a donation from me again. I’ll use the money to buy the DVD (and not from them on a pledge break). Hopefully, whoever made the decision to omit scenes does not make money on the sale of DVDs or else we the public are just rewarding them by buying the DVD.
The new opening sounds horrid, too. I liked the old Rondeau theme when the whole song played years ago and we had Alistair Cooke’s commentary at the beginning and at the end of the show. I also liked it when Mystery was separate. They’re ruining PBS. Aargh!!!
January 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
LOL Susan, is that the Regency edisode of “The Lawrence Welk Show” when they perform Mr. Beveridge’s Maggot, the Austen redneck episode with Turkey in the ha ha, or my personal favorite episode, the Austen inspired Newgate Prison Woes honouring Elvis?
January 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Regarding the Andrew Davies comments: I can’t believe a guy who says incredibly stupid and misleading things like these about Austen’s novels gets chosen to write the adaptations. And then he gets interviewed left and right and his comments get published like they were an intelligent analysis of Austen’s novels. He sounds like he is fit to be committed.
Mags, you have a great website here. Why waste space by repeating obvious nonsense like this from AD? I don’t even find this latest BS from him funny, but demeaning, because whatever Austen had to say in her novels, the romantic aspect was the story, the plot, but not the message (and I’m not saying something that Austen fans don’t already know). I mean, if he had something intelligent and substantial to say, that would be another thing.
I still love your website.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Mags, you have a great website here. Why waste space by repeating obvious nonsense like this from AD?
The mission of AustenBlog is to present news about Jane Austen in pop culture. Bonehead comments from Andrew Davies qualify. And I’ve taken it as part of the mission to point out when the emperor is wearing no clothes. Also, from a practical point of view, they’re fun to snark.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Yeah, I guess I knew that, Mags. The latest round of comments from him were just so absurd that I had my dukes up after reading them. Snark away!
Francesca, about the diary, I think maybe Eaton misspoke and was really referring to Austen’s letters. Also, is it a certainty that Austen did not keep a journal? I was kinda holding out hope that she did and that the journals just haven’t surfaced yet, or are being closely guarded by the family. But I guess the odds for that would be small. But, why not? Henry Tilney, after all, was quite certain that Miss Morland kept a journal (Volume 1, Chapter 3):
“But, perhaps, I keep no journal.”
“Perhaps you are not sitting in this room, and I am not sitting by you. These are points in which a doubt is equally possible. Not keep a journal! …”
January 11th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Marybeth, I was at that screening too, and I’m the big-mouth who asked Ms. Eaton why the cuts were made. I was very gratified to hear the *gasp* from the rest of the audience when I asked my question. Luckily the DVDs will be “unexpurgated.” Even more luckily, I already own the Region 2 disc and just might watch that Sunday night instead. What was your reaction to Ms. Eaton’s comments as to “inappropriate laughing?” I thought Sally Hawkins looked like a fish in that scene; obviously other people did too. As an aside, will you be at any of the Borders gatherings? I’ll most likely be at the 57th/Park group.
As for PBS, they most definitely do have advertising. They don’t show ads during the program, they just show them in between programs. I haven’t given them a red cent since I read “PBS, Behind the Screen.” Those people are making money hand-over-fist.
Last but not least, as to Andrew Davies, I guess he forgot that Miss Bates was known to scurry about. Does that mean she was a smoldering sexpot too? Puh-leeze. He’s just an overrated, dirty old man and I wish he’d get his grimy little paws off Austen.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am
What was your reaction to Ms. Eaton’s comments as to “inappropriate laughing?”
Oh, do tell!
Last but not least, as to Andrew Davies, I guess he forgot that Miss Bates was known to scurry about. Does that mean she was a smoldering sexpot too?
Oh, now you’ve done it: we’ll get a lot of theories about how Harriet Smith was Miss Bates’ daughter and Jane Fairfax was pregnant and/or that Anna Weston was really Jane Fairfax’s child and all kinds of other tinfoil-hat nonsense.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Also, as to the journal comments: Henry was being funny, but he didn’t necessarily mean that Catherine kept a journal like, say, Pepys. More of a Franklin Planner sort of thing, marking down (as he said) what one wore and where she went and how she did her hair. Record keeping. Jane Austen might very well have kept such a journal (in fact, the “bits of ivory” might have been a reference to such) but it wouldn’t have been especially informative to 21st century Janeites. We wouldn’t have read her innermost thoughts about Tom Lefroy, Harris Bigg-Wither, etc. in it, just that she was wearing her sprigged muslin and plain black shoes the day that HB-W proposed.
And if Jane did keep such a journal, Cassandra probably put it in the fire with all those letters. And good for her, I say. I wish she had burnt all the letters sometimes.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am
What was your reaction to Ms. Eaton’s comments as to “inappropriate laughing?”
Oh, do tell!
Someone (I think it was even our Regional Coordinator) asked Ms. Eaton what her thoughts were about laughter at what could be considered “inappropriate” points in the movie. I immediately thought of the kiss, because the audience just laughed at it. They also laughed at the Bath Marathon (why in the world would they put that in, yet leave out stuff that really happened in the book???). Ms. Eaton’s response was that because the audience knew the story so well, they laughed “in anticipation” (her words, not mine) of what was to come. The 2 women sitting behind me and I looked at each other, rolled our eyes and laughed again. The end of the 8 1/2 year separation of Anne and Frederick is supposed to be a beautiful, tender, romantic moment. It is not supposed to be the cause of giggles and guffaws. People were aghast at the scene where Frederick picks Anne up and dumped her onto the back of the carriage like a sack of potatoes. This moment is swoon-worthy in the book and in in P95, but in this film it was nothing short of absurd.
What gets me is that, even though I am not short of nitpicks about this movie, I didn’t hate it. Go figure.
Last but not least, as to Andrew Davies, I guess he forgot that Miss Bates was known to scurry about. Does that mean she was a smoldering sexpot too?
Oh, now you’ve done it: we’ll get a lot of theories about how Harriet Smith was Miss Bates’ daughter and Jane Fairfax was pregnant and/or that Anna Weston was really Jane Fairfax’s child and all kinds of other tinfoil-hat nonsense.
I’ve heard those theories and just have to laugh. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:12 am
AND THE AWARD GOES TO - ANDREW DAVIE!!!
FOR SAYING NOT JUST THREE, BUT MORE THAN THREE VERY DULL THINGS!!!
Will Emma Woodhouse please come forward and present it to him!!!
Miss Bates!! Miss Bates!! Please move out of his way! Do, do take your seat Miss Bates, I beg you!!
January 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I think I understand why AD doesn’t teach Literature any more — he can’t (in my humble opinion) have been very good at it! While I am not a member of the Eng Lit academic community, (as AD was once) I can’t imagine that he would get away with making comments of that nature without being massacred!
The reason he gets away with it by and large is because (as your previous excellent post suggests) we now live in a society where people don’t have the concentration span to read books, [most of the audience for these adaptations won't have read Austen's books] and soon, we’ll have people reading abridged versions and thinking that they are The Oracle!
Hooray for Austen Blog for giving the space to snark at him!
As for cutting versions that are going to be shown, are we really that surprised? Giving Austen the artistic integrity she is due - well, let’s just say that that ship has sailed!
January 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Bath Marathon? Do you mean Regency Runners? Would you kindly elucidate?
January 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I’ve been calling it the Bath 5K. You’ll understand once you see the movie, Allison.
I didn’t hate it, either. More than NA and MP, it seemed like the people putting it together cared a little bit and weren’t trying to scrimp every nickel and dime possible. That sort of thing comes through and I think many Janeites forgive much when they sense it.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’ve been calling it the Bath 5K.
All I know is, when I saw this movie with 2 fellow Janeites at my apartment last year, my first thought was that Nurse Rooke is a miracle worker!
January 11th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I’m disappointed, but not in the least surprised, that PBS is cutting several minutes from the Jane Austen productions. Last week some friends and I were discussing how PBS seems to edit every British production they air, including Mystery! and Foyle’s War, which are both aired with about 9 minutes cut out. When I dislike something on PBS, I often wonder if it’s because they trimmed it or because it’s just a bad production.
It’s interesting that Eaton said ITV and BBC dictate the edits. I suppose they get a cut (the monetary cut, not the timing/editing cut
on DVD sales in the U.S. Never thought of that before.
I’ll probably watch the Austen shows on PBS and then decide if any are worth hunting down the DVDs. Bother.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
It’s not just PBS that cuts things.
I firmly believe that one of the reasons MI-5 (known in the UK as “Spooks”) didn’t do very well on A&E is that it was cut to shreds to fit into the regimented US timeslots. Each individual BBC episode is around 55 minutes or so, but they had to chop off a good 15 minutes of that to make it fit into A&E’s 1 hour time limit. I remember trying to watch it on A&E and thinking it was boring. But I’ve since watched midway through season 4 and I’m hooked on it. A&E being, of course, the same people who cut scenes out of P&P95 to fit into their timeslots.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
PS…
I didn’t hate it, either. More than NA and MP, it seemed like the people putting it together cared a little bit and weren’t trying to scrimp every nickel and dime possible. That sort of thing comes through and I think many Janeites forgive much when they sense it.
Of the 3 movies I’ve seen (my region 2 copy of S&S should be on its way soon), I also liked P the best. My least favorite was NA — I guess this isn’t very surprising, given who wrote the script. And I didn’t dislike MP as much as other people seem to.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Northanger was my favourite of the ITV films. I liked Catherine and Henry
Although the script did suck, and Henry is WAY funnier than that.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Julie P., thank you for asking that question about the cuts. I was hoping someone would. The woman sitting next to me and I bonded quickly over all the scenes that we noticed were missing. The thing is though that one scene in particular that they cut - the Wet Naval Captains scene - is what I felt made 2007 unique from the previous versions because it gave us Wentworth’s POV.
There is plenty to nitpick in all the versions, but I will say I love 85% of P07, NA07 is a vast improvement over 86, and MP07 is at least a start to recovering from MP99.
I’m hoping to get to the Borders in Queens at least once because that’s in my neck of the woods, but I might try the 59th and Park since it’s relatively close to work. Hope to see you there, Julie P. Oh, I had to laugh at your comment about Nurse Rooke. I’ve had a picspam ready to coincide with the US premire which I hope to post to my soon-to-be-launched costume drama blog, and I say the same thing: “Whatever Mrs. Smith is paying Nurse Rooke, it’s not enough. A miracle worker that woman!”
And here’s a complete aside, Mags, I went to school with someone my friends and I referred to as Soames because he was the spitting image of Damian Lewis. An uncanny resemblance.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
@Marybeth
>NA07 is a vast improvement over 86,
Yes! I agree. ‘The Mysteries of Udolpho’ was a silly book to be reading in the novel and in NA86. ‘The Monk’ is far far better. After all it is full of erotica, masochism, and just the kind of book Catherine’s character should be reading - and fantasizing
just what she should do!!¨I heartily agree!!
As for the dialogue! Much much improved. After all it’s AD’s dialogue
NA86 had only JA’s words - during the Beechan Cliff walk, the marriage vs dance sequence and almost the whole of the film. AD’s was far far better!! 
Catherine Morland??’ She was Great!! Why should she feel ashamed of making a mistake of thinking what she did and getting caught in Mrs Tilney’s room? It wasn’t her fault. She had been reading ‘The Monk’!¨And thinking different things. It was Henry Tilney who put the idea in her head!! She told him off very well!!! Good job!¨
All in all a great improvement on NA86 and the novel!!!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I’m glad you put in those smilies. I was beginning to feel nauseated. I’ve never seen NA86, but I have seen Lynne Marie Macy’s NA and it’s my absolute favorite adaptation of this book.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:32 am
@ Reeba:
I, like Marybeth, liked the 2007 version of NA better than the 86 version. Mostly because IMO it was casted better, was lighter and funnier than said other adaptation.
Of course there were still many things amiss with it and I am sure, we all would have made a way better job than AD with this one. (Only a tiny bit of snark here.)
All in all a great improvement on NA86 and the novel!!!
However, nobody said that NA07 was better than the book. We won’t start to act all AD-ish and lay words in people’s mouths, that never were said, will we?
January 12th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Well, not to put words in Reeba’s mouth ;-), but I think her point is that “better than the other one” is not good enough for some NA fans.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:11 am
@ Sylvia L
>However, nobody said that NA07 was better than the book.
No, I said that. An addition of my opinion to Marybeth’s to give weight to the excellence of this adaptation.
It’s a wonderful film without having much of the book’s stupid dialogue and plot - Just some bits in the beginning and at the end so that people recognize it as NA - at least those people (I don’t mean you or even Marybeth) who find the book so boring that they read the beginning and the end - or have not read the book in ages and that’s all what they remember about it
Now NA86;
No one can deny that this bad adaptation had the bad dialogue from the book, almost throughout and so was the plot to a great extent.
Whether all this was put together very well or not is then ones own opinion.
A sqirming writhing Catherine Morland in bed (in addition to other similar scenes) sort of puts a dirty smudge on this adaptation.
One cannot change the book Catherine reads for any other gothic book. It changes the plot.
NA07 as a fan fiction might pass.
Like P&P from Darcy’s POV.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
One cannot change the book Catherine reads for any other gothic book. It changes the plot.
NA07 as a fan fiction might pass.
Like P&P from Darcy’s POV.
It’s no coincidence that these were adapted by the same individual. An individual who thinks he’s improving upon Austen. Such chutzpah.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It’s a wonderful film without having much of the book’s stupid dialogue and plot.
…
Ah, yes. I see your point now. *backing up slowly*
And I just want you people know, that it IS possible to love the TV adaptations AND the books. And I deliberately put the TV adaptions first, since they were - for me, as an not native English speaker - mostly what I knew first about Jane Austen’s works. They also were what made me curious to read the novels, the exception being NA, where this Blog and it’s Editrix made me pick up and fall for da man the book, way before any DVD found it’s way into my collection (and I own both versions now).
So, choose to snark as much as you want, but expect me defending at least P&P95, my precioussss!