The Complete Jane Austen News Roundup: Are We Outraged Yet? Edition
As we mentioned previously, the news flow around The Complete Jane Austen is slowing down some, but has not completely stopped. We found a common theme among some of the latest items: either they express outrage at the latest crop of adaptations, or spark outrage in the reader.
Alert Janeite Surreyhill sent us a review of Mansfield Park from the Flick Filosopher, who apparently took Agent Scully’s ridiculous introduction of MP07 a little too much to heart.
There’s a term for characters like Fanny Price: Mary Sue. And it’s not a particularly nice term. Mary Sues are stand-ins for the author, the author idealized, as Fanny surely must be for Jane Austen in Mansfield Park. Fanny is beautiful, kind, faultless yet modest, noble of heart and spirit but of humble origins that prevent her from being spoiled. She is, in a word, perfect. Fanny may have pleased Austen herself, but she makes for less than compelling drama for the rest of us, at least in the new adaptation of the novel that just aired on Masterpiece Theater, and lands on DVD today.
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
And misses the whole bloody point of the book. Thanks for playing, enjoy your lovely parting gift. (And we’ve thought of another Fact About Fanny Price: Fanny Price knows you don’t like her, and knows it doesn’t matter.)
Alert Janeite Lisa sent us an interview with Virginia Newmyer, who was to lecture on Jane Austen films at the Corcoran, and expresses her opinions very, um, decidedly.
» EXPRESS: Do you think that, overall, the film adaptations have done a good job at capturing Austen’s novels?
» NEWMYER: I can’t say that, because they started adapting “Pride and Prejudice” [practically] in silent films. They’re not all good. I’ve seen most of this stuff and I know the books quite well. I mean, Andrew Davies did the miniseries adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice” — that was absolutely wonderful — but he’s done some of these things that are on television this January that are not worthy of him or of Jane Austen.I don’t insist on faithful adaptations. One of the best adaptations is Patricia Rozema’s adaptation of “Mansfield Park” and she turns it into a modern look at Jane Austen. “Mansfield Park” is the most problematic of Jane Austen’s books — of the good ones — and Rozema removed all the problems.
*head explodes*
There’s more. Keep reading. We shall retire to Bedlam.
Theresa Hogue expresses genteel outrage with the films so far in the Corvallis (Oregon) Gazette Times. We enjoyed it up until…
Of the three so far that have aired in the series, I can safely say that “Northanger Abbey,” was not only faithful to the text,
Not really. How much more “delightful” would Henry Tilney have been if he had been allowed the witty and intelligent dialogue that Jane Austen gave him, instead of a watered-down rewrite?
Many Gentle Readers are no doubt rolling their eyes at the Editrix once again beating that particular dead horse, but this shows why it’s important.
Northanger Abbey, another Masterpiece Theatre piece, was the first of Austen’s novels to be published.
WRONG!
From a modest family, Catherine’s interactions with the group, coupled with her increasing jump into a fantasy land, make it an interesting concept but a flawed story.
As we were saying…
It shows all the hallmark of a writer struggling to find her voice, and the film reflects it.
Uh, no. The narrator in Northanger Abbey is confident and knows exactly what she is doing. Don’t blame Jane Austen for bad rewrites of her work.
Despite all evidence, we’re still looking forward to Miss Austen Regrets this weekend, not having heard any real evil of it (and the producers having presumably learnt from the experience of Becoming Jane to not attempt to dress up a Made Up Story in truth’s clothing and shine on the Janeites with it)…though the reviews are not exactly promising.
Laurel Ann Nattress has written a review for PBS’ Remotely Connected blog:
I admire how the story succeeds in interweaving moments that parallel scenes or lines from Jane Austen’s novels, or is it scenes or lines from her life that make it into her novels? Art imitating life and it is believable. We see Jane represented honestly and with integrity as a strong woman who made a decision to write instead of marrying without love. Her choices would be against the norms of society, disappointing her family and adding pressure and financial stress in her life. How could anyone not regret the outcome of such adversity?
Ms. Place doesn’t hate it, but is dissatisfied.
I won’t review the entire film for you. Just suffice it to say that if I had been the director of this tale, I would have emphasized that single women do find fulfillment in pursuing their talents, in nurturing family relationships, and in being true to their vision. I wish the plot had dwelled more on the creative, talented side of Jane, instead of her constant worry for money.
And Maureen Ryan at the Chicago Tribune thinks it’s a mess.
Far from shedding light on what made Austen a peerless examiner of the human condition, “Miss Austen Regrets” is an irritating, poorly paced misfire.
Ouch! But this part made us happy:
scenes of Jane ruthlessly, even cruelly, satirizing well-meaning clerics and clerks behind their backs.
HA HA! Can’t wait! What was that about Miss Jane Austen would find sarcasm the lowest form of wit again? 
February 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
The Newmyer interview actually lost me in the intro (not by her, admittedly), which says, “Austen’s major characters are mostly very wealthy and/or minor royalty.” Minor ROYALTY? Doesn’t anyone around here bother to actually read these books?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:26 am
The Mary Sue comment from FF is curious because GA’s prefatory comment was that Jane was Mary Crawford, not Fanny!
I know you dislike Rozema’s film and I don’t, but I take issue with the Newmyer quote that it removed the problems–it removed some, took liberties with others (slavery and laudanum), but it did give some shrift to Maria’s dilemma and behavior and to the significant pressure Fanny had to marry Henry Crawford that she didn’t cave into.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am
The Mary Sue comment from FF is curious because GA’s prefatory comment was that Jane was Mary Crawford, not Fanny!
Very true; and it is probably unfair of me to blame it on Agent Scully. And it’s probably unfair of me to call Miss Anderson Agent Scully.
The conclusion (Fanny is a Mary Sue) is still crap, though.
As far as Rozema’s film “removing problems”–I don’t see the problems; I see them as difficulties for an adapter, certainly. As has been said by other commenters, MP is very, very difficult to adapt to film successfully. The way Rozema removed the “problems” is just lazy, in my opinion. A truly gifted adapter would made them work for the film, not change them wholesale.
The thing about MP for me (I stress–for me–mileage may vary) is that I realized on my last re-read that I really don’t like any of the characters in the novel, except William Price, but I still really like the novel a lot, and think Jane Austen was brilliant and gutsy for writing it and for making it difficult. Like I said in the post, jokingly, but still: we don’t have to like Fanny Price. It doesn’t matter to the plot. It just matters that Fanny is as she is, and is true to what she is. I hope that makes sense. It certainly doesn’t make it easy for someone trying to make a film that will be watched and appreciated by a large audience, though. But that’s not a problem, it’s a difficulty. A problem indicates there’s something wrong with the book–and there isn’t.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am
I love the Flick Filosopher, but when she gets it wrong, man she really gets it wrong. Fanny as a Mary Sue?! I would have thought Elizabeth Bennet was a more likely candidate…
I know people pretty much view Austen’s work as unusually well-written wish-fullfillment, but it still surprises me (and ticks me off) when I run into that sentiment.
As for Rozema, I solve the “problem” of that film by admitting it’s bad and just liking it as a guilty pleasure. These newer adaptations, however, don’t even have that going for them!
February 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
NO ONE CALLS FANNY A MARY SUE!!!! *grabs two cluebats and goes into double-swing attack mode*
Ahem. Ok, back to read the stuff about Miss Austen Regrets.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The worst part of Newmyer’s interview (at least of the part quoted above - I don’t have the heart to read the whole thing) is this bit: “‘Mansfield Park’ is the most problematic of Jane Austen’s books — of the good ones….” Um, the good ones? As in, some of them are NOT good? The implication leaves me gibbering (gibbering!) with rage.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I have to admit I love movie adaptations of novels! Atleast the concept of them. And the complete Jane Austen has peaked my interest…. What are the various other versions like? And how closely do they follow the book?
I went back and watched the 1998 version of Mansfield Park and I have to say that in just comparing the 2 I’m obliged to prefer the one from 2007.
Though I neither agree with nor like the comment about the “good ones” in refrence to austens novels, if your look closely you can see a preference when it comes to publication and film adaptation. Though I noticed, and again do no agree, that MP is usually on the lower end of the spectrum with Northanger Abby and Pursuasion.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Meggin, I refer you to the JASNA film page, which is a pretty complete listing of everything that is available.
I would say in general that the older versions from the 70s and 80s are longer and quite complete, though the production values are not the best as they are made for television and obviously cheaply done. The versions from the 90s are the most historically accurate, in general, with a few exceptions, and generally very well done. The most recent adaptations tend to have been subjected to unfortunate “modern” sensibilities such as the use of a handheld camera (”Jane Austen’s Cloverfield”), unique costuming decisions, and a general dumbing-down of the original work.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Mary-Sue’s generally have purple hair and emerging, “special” powers. So I don’t think Fanny falls into that category very well.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
If Fanny Price were truly a Mary Sue, she’d have singlehandedly redeemed the characters of everyone in the story while saving Pug from being crushed beneath the wheels of a runaway carriage.
I like the FF when she is reviewing geek-centric material, but she continually gets the Janeite stuff wrong, and should be banned from future commentary.
Roger Ebert should never review any movie based on the works of Tolkien and the FF should steer totally clear of any and all things Jane.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
With regard to needing to like Fanny for a Mansfield Park Adaptation to grip, I am not sure I agree. Fanny’s character is what it is. I think more pleasing dramatic traction could be gained by enhancing and adding depth to Edmund’s. He seems to be quite left out, yet he gets played by good actors and I think could be made over very well. He is the most interesting character and I think the one with the most modern interest (other than Pug, of course).
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I recently made myself reread Mansfield Park. I read it a couple of times in my 20s and didn’t like it. My reason is the same as that which Mags said in #3: I don’t like any of the characters. So then why is it that, later in the novel, I am wishing so hard for Henry to be able to change and live happily ever after with Fanny? After reading it this time, it occurred to me that maybe this is the point. Maybe Jane Austen makes Henry and Mary Crawford so much more likeable than the hero and heroine so that the reader will feel that pull between what feels right and what is right. I’m sure Edmund is caught in that struggle and the narrator says that even Fanny must have succombed to it in time. I know I always fall for it and then feel a little chastened at the end when I realize that Fanny was right about him after all.
My question is this: If this is the point, is it possible for an adaptation to portray that? I think it could.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
I’m not sure what I REALLY think about Mansfield Park adaptations, but Tina B., you have captured what I think about Jane Austen and her characters, the Crawford’s. I think we are meant to hope they redeem themselves and on every reading they just don’t. I think it is masterful.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I agree with you Tina. I first read MP when I was 18 and I really disliked it. I had never read a book where I didn’t like any of the characters and I really don’t think I was ready for the book. It turned me off JA for years. But I re-read it in anticipation of Rozema’s movie, and I really liked the book. I finally realized that Fanny was not a doormat. That she was, in fact, a better judge of character than the heroine everyone loves, Elizabeth Bennet. Fanny knows her own mind and, again unlike Elizabeth Bennet, she doesn’t need a “lightbulb moment” to make her realize she’s made a mistake. Fanny refuses to do something she believes is wrong, despite the fact that the authority figure in her life is making her life difficult for not doing it. If Fanny doesn’t like someone (namely Henry), there’s a very good reason. I trust her judgment implicitly because her instincts are impeccable. Anne Elliot and Elinor Dashwood are other heroines I might not have appreciated as a teenager, but now that I’m a “woman of a certain age,” I admire them very much.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 am
Fanny has always been my favorite Austen character on the screen and in the book. She’s complex, but sympathetic. I haven’t seen the 2007 Mansfield yet, I’m saving it for a special day. I hope the new Fanny doesn’t let me down!
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Tina B, that’s a wonderful description.
I have started to like Fanny very much. Though I didn’t dislike her at first, I didn’t pay her much attention either - like everyone else in the book
But having read it a few times one manages to enjoy not only JA’s writing (the main reason why I read and re-read her books) but the way she has drawn the characters.
The subtle humour in the book, and the wit - all very amazing.
I think not only should the book be a scriptwriter’s but also a director’s delight to have to deal with the *words* in the book along with these colourful characters.
This brings me to the excellent adaptation of the 80s by BBC. Most of the dialogue in tact, the characters so real, though as expected some don’t like this Fanny (though I think she’s very close).
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Has anyone ever thought about making a fan film of the movies and taking everthing straight from the book? It is one thing to sit around and complain, but another to actually do something about the problem. (just a suggestion!)