A public service announcement of the Janeite Broadcasting Network
We want to clear up a few rumors and misapprehensions we’ve seen bandied about the Intartubes the past couple of weeks.
1. Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, and Mansfield Park were two hours long when they were broadcast in the UK and only 90 minutes on the Masterpiece broadcast and Region 1 DVDs!
Those three films were all broadcast at 92-93 minutes (this is according to the Region 2 DVD cases). They were never two hours long. Ever. Even in script version. (We shall comment on that presently.)
1b. They would be so much better if we could see the whole thing!
From someone who has seen the “uncut” versions: Afraid not. Really. 
2. Andrew Davies did a hack job on Mansfield Park and Persuasion!
Andrew Davies had nothing to do with writing the scripts for those two films. He also had nothing to do with Miss Austen Regrets, which has yet to be broadcast. The PBS press releases were confusing; we had previously corresponded with one journalist who claimed in an article that he wrote the scripts for “the four new films,” so we made bold to write her a friendly note correcting her error. She wrote back insisting, “That’s what the press release said.” It didn’t, but she thought it did. So there’s a lot of confusion on this point.
Don’t blame Masterpiece for the first three films only being 90-some minutes long. That’s what they bought. Blame ITV. Though why anyone thought 90 minutes was sufficient time for any of these is beyond us, and why limit the running time of a TV movie anyway? Why not make it a two-parter? Two 60-minute episodes? We can speculate, a little bit. We have a copy of the original script of NA, which is 89 pages long. The generally assumption is one page of script equals one minute of running time. The script that we have is nearly the one that was shot; minus one scene in which Catherine walks in on Henry while he is bathing and plus the visit to Woodston, such as it was. The apple-picking scene was not in the script, but there is a similar “montage of General-free fun at NA” sort of thing in there. But generally it is the same.
Cub Reporter Heather L. has a good history of the long journey from page to screen of this particular production in her NA review at Remotely Connected. The script came into our possession while it was owned by Miramax and seemed dead in the water. (Our understanding is that it was being seeded around the Internet to raise interest amongst Janeites. We’ve been complaining about it ever since. 
) There were a few false starts, but nothing really positive until after the success of P&P05 and the resulting resurgence in interest, at least among the entertainment Powers That Be, in Jane Austen.
So we’re not sure why the script was written to be 90 minutes. It could be that Andrew Davies felt that the best length for the film. It could be that was the length he was originally given by London Weekend Television. In that case, one could hardly “blame” Mr. Davies for the length of the film. However, if he was unhappy with that length, why wouldn’t he then rewrite it to be, say, two 60-minute episodes? So we presume it’s exactly the length he thought it should be.
Further speculating (we stress that this is SPECULATION, but it makes an awful lot of sense): ITV bought one script at 90 minutes. It therefore would make sense that it would contract for the other two films in its planned series to be approximately the same length.
We also have comments on record from Mr. Davies that the BBC originally wanted his new version of Sense and Sensibility (which is getting good reviews, but many thought was a little too short for a TV series) to be four 60 minute episodes, but he thought three was better. Why? When Pride and Prejudice, a novel of similar length, required 6 50-minute episodes, or five hours? And even his Emma was 107 minutes, which is a little better (but still too short–the theatrical film is 120 minutes).
So, while we can’t place direct blame on Mr. Davies for Persuasion and Mansfield Park, it is clear that there is a pattern with him of contracting Jane Austen’s novels to short films–perhaps shorter than they should be–and we can speculate that the length of his script for NA dictated the length of MP and Persuasion, all of which, it is generally agreed, would be improved with at least an extra half-hour. One of the selling points of the ITV “Jane Austen Season” was that “each generation deserves its own Jane Austen adaptations.” Too bad this generation gets the short-attention-span versions.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I’m happy to hear they weren’t cut as much as I thought they were, but I still think it’s a shame they are neither being broadcast nor sold in their entirety for Region 1. Even three minutes can make a difference in a story and thus in the overall effect of a film (though that would be hard to imagine for MP, which I’m currently watching on my DVR). I totally agree that 90 minutes is too short to adapt a novel, as would be 93 minutes. Even two hours is quite a challenge, especially if one has a hope of translating the subtleties and wit of Austen to the screen.
My own speculation, aided by the recent L.A. Times article about the rebranding of Masterpiece, is that the powers that be fear the short attention spans of their viewers would not withstand a five-parter (or even a three-parter, apparently). Add that to low-budget ITV (93 minutes is a lot cheaper to produce than 120 minutes or more), and you’ve got these ultra-short adaptations.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yes, but they’re also showing Cranford, which is five hours, and by the way is much shorter than any of Jane Austen’s novels, even with the two extra novellas that they’ve added to the story.
(And which is quite excellent, by the bye. Judi Dench and Francesca Annis are goddesses.)
And what about P&P? Five hours. They’re showing it anyway. They must be doing that for a new audience, for the diehards have it on DVD already.
Also, what are two of the biggest film franchises in recent memory? Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Both appeal to the youth market. LOTR theatrical cuts were all in the neighborhood of three hours, and the directors’ cuts were closer to four hours EACH. The HP movies are all well over two hours. If they can sit still for that, they can’t sit still for an hour a week of Jane Austen? Sorry, I don’t buy it. I don’t get it. I don’t understand. Other than that they’re too bloody cheap to pay for it, or Andrew Davies doesn’t want to spend time writing anything longer, because as I said, it all goes back to him. If he had written a two-hour NA, it would have been made.
Ideally, we would have seen 2 one-hour episodes each for NA and Persuasion (better yet, 2 90-minute episodes) and 4 or 5 one-hour episodes each for S&S, Emma, and MP. It’s television. It’s being served up in 60-90 minute chunks for the short attention span/early bedtime crowd. What’s the bloody rush?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
My take is that I think the length is mainly down to ITV scheduling. About 93 minutes, making two hours with advertising, appears to be the standard timing for their feature-length dramas, and they tend to cram any costume dramas into this format. Over Christmas, they showed a similar-length adaptation of Dickens’ ‘The Old Curiosity Shop’ - since the book is about 900 pages long, not very much of it survived into the film! ‘Cranford’ was made by the BBC, who tend to allow more time for dramas because they aren’t funded by advertising and so aren’t as worried about ratings.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Just finished watching S&S08 on DVD and I must say it is worth watching - mainly because of its length, and of course the very good main actors.
I fear that the problem lies in the belief that they have to make a love story and that can’t take so long to tell. 90 minutes or so should be enough.
If only they would accept that the aim of JA’s books are other than a happy ending even though they all end happily.
That’s why some people find the endings of her novels rushed, like MP and NA. In his interview AD complains about the lack of any development as to how Marian falls in love with Col. Brandon. JA didn’t deal with it because her point was made. She didn’t show Edward as more of a man (in AD’s words) because her point was different.
So I think if a writer would just follow the book and develop what JA herself thought to develop with wit it should do the trick and give us excellent adaptations.
But this belief in working hard towards making a love story ending in happily ever after marriage does take a short time because they go round the main plot to arrive at boy meets girl and they get happily married after successfully getting rid of bad boys and girls.
I think it will be another 10 years till we get another round of adaptations, and I hope we get a writer who really loves JA’s novels. A woman perhaps????
January 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I wonder if regular audiences would tune in for a second evening of Persuasion or NA? (Of course, Janeites would have it blocked off on our calendar in PERMANENT INK for months!)
Persuasion is my favorite of the JA novels, but it IS low-keyed when compared to P&P or S&S.
If someone did a faithful adaptation of NA with really fine actors, it might interest viewers a second night. But this latest one?….92 minutes may have been too long!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Mags, you make some excellent points, as do Reeba and Judy. I simply don’t get this decision to make short adaptations. Perhaps it comes down to a misguided notion that it’s really all about girl-meets-boy / girl-gets-boy, add a few bonnets and carriages, throw in a pretty mansion, and nothing else matters. And sure, you can do that in 90 minutes. Or 93 minutes. Which misses the genius of these books. I did think that NA captured some of the wit and spirit of the book, but the others were sadly truncated.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
But if the writers knew they had two hours (or better yet, more) to tell the story, they might have made better decisions throughout. Or maybe not.
I think Judy has a point about ITV vs. BBC, too. But ITV is giving that Lost in Austen nonsense FOUR HOURS. FOUR. There’s no reason, since they were doing it as a sort of series anyway, not to have at least two one-hour episodes per book.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:50 am
I find all of the latest adaptations of my books quite awful. And I am highly certain that I will not like Miss Austen Regrets either. The woman who is playing me looks like the Pug in Mansfield Park. ITV, shame on you!
January 29th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Er, Miss Austen? “Miss Austen Regrets” is BBC. I know it’s hard to keep them all straight.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Laurie Viera Rigler, I know I am repeating myself, but couldn’t resist
Your comment;
I did think that NA captured some of the wit and spirit of the book, but the others were sadly truncated.
Spirit of the book;
in the spirit of the book??
Like if she read *Tarzan* she could dream about being Jane
some of the wit;
Sans the witty moments (the marriage vs dance, the conversation at Beechan etc.) was the wit in some of AD’s own invented moments?’
I do agree with you that it was better than the others but not as a JA adaptation. Only that it told most of the non JA stuff in a much better way than the others.
A very pretty chick-lit fan fiction.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I criticize AD as much as the next person but his NA was way better than P and MP! and I give him credit. It is funny that some people assume he has written every period novel adaptation there is.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Mags, I thought Davies *had* written a longer version of NA which he has been trying to get made for years without success (I think it was originally commissioned by the BBC and then cancelled), so in the end he cut his script back to 93 minutes to fit the ITV slot! I have heard a talk by him where he said it is very difficult to get period dramas made, although he didn’t mention NA in particular…
I think Baja Janeite is right that networks like ITV are nervous about whether enough people would tune in for a second night of a period drama, although I take Mags’ point that they have managed to find four hours for ‘Lost in Austen’. Possibly that one counts as a comedy and comes under a different set of rules!
January 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Judy, I’ve had the script for five or six years, I think–from shortly after it was axed by Miramax and dead in the water. Long before ITV was involved. And it’s very, very close to what was eventually filmed. I think the date stamp on it is 2000, but I’m not sure. It is the script he was trying to get made for years, and it is 89 pages long. It was originally going to be made for London Weekend Television (not sure if they contracted it or Davies pitched it), which was taken over by Granada and eventually became ITV. The BBC was never really involved as far as I know.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
P.S. As far as not tuning in a second night: if Part I is good enough, they’ll tune in for Part II.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:18 am
Mags, many thanks for the info re the NA adaptation - interesting to know that it was always planned to be short. Maybe I just assumed he had written it longer to start with!