Andrew Davies Explains It All
Alert Janeite Victoria let us know that Andrew Davies is in Melbourne for the Melbourne Writers Festival and had a chat with The Age.
”I DON’T OBJECT TO THAT sort of slightly cartoonish description of me as ‘the man who sexed up the classics’,” says Andrew Davies blithely. We sit beside a desk strewn with books; the real centre of operations, source of scripts for half the television adaptations you can remember, is next door. At 71, Davies is rosy-faced and avuncular, but he certainly has quite a glint in his eye when we get on the subject of racy subtexts in the perfectly respectable books he has adapted. “I think that so often it is there, but people don’t recognise it, particularly in Jane Austen,” he says. “But I am certainly keen to bring it out.”
Isn’t it nice of him to reveal these hidden parts of Jane Austen for us? *rolls eyes* Actually, we think many readers DO recognize that there is sex (or more properly sexual tension) in Jane Austen, but we also understand it’s part of a much richer whole.
Our visual literacy, he argues, gives us different expectations from the readers of 19th-century novels. Even with Austen - “someone I admire to idolatry” - he will make up not only dialogue, but whole episodes illustrating something she may dismiss in a single, regal sentence. In Sense and Sensibility, for example, she signalled Eleanor and Edward’s destiny simply by stating that a “firm attachment” was clearly developing between them.
“And I can’t help feeling,” says Davies, “that that’s a bit of a cheat, you know. What sort of attachment? How did it happen?” Edward was shy, stilted and a bad reader of poetry; Davies, for one, could not see what Eleanor saw in him. “So really, we have to delve into those private scenes that Jane Austen doesn’t write, just so the audience can be convinced that this chap is interesting and nice enough to fall in love with. Otherwise the audience is going to be saying, ‘I don’t get it.”‘
It’s also quite possible that Jane Austen did it that way for a reason. But figuring that out is not really the job of the screen adapter, we suppose.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Oh, ugh! The writer must not be very conversant with literature if she thinks that Davies can speak with a voice that will pass for that of the author.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
It seems to me that the journalist’s job here is to present Davies’ views not demonstrate her knowledge of literature.
He’s making clear the difference between reading nineteenth century fiction with acceptance of the conventions of that medium, and watching an adaptation. Davies acknowledges that he invents scenes and dialogue to fill in gaps that are acceptable to a reader but not to a viewer.
I think he’s right in that the average modern viewer of an adaptation won’t really understand the story properly without a bit of illustation. A screenwriter can sometimes be more true to the spirit of a story by not rigidly adhering to the detail of the written version.
ITV ‘Northanger Abbey’ is a good example. Much has been made of the fact that Bath was not used as the setting. Yet the scene of Catherine’s arrival captures the feeling in Austen’s description. OK Austen didn’t mean that Isabella had slept with Captain Tilney but how many people today would understand just how despicable her behaviour was? Not many, imo.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Davies seems to be very much like Marianne. Neither of them understand why Elinor likes Edward. A respectable kind man with intelligent opinions, ugh, so booooring.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I’ve enrolled in a day-long masterclass with Mr. Davies while he’s visiting Melbourne. I’ll let you know how it goes!
August 13th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
See you there, Laura!
August 13th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Oh - I didn’t know there was such a thing? When is it on?! (I am in Melbourne too.)
August 14th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Filling in gaps is one thing but changing (sometimes very crucial things, like the book in NA2008) is something entirely different.
And then, forcing *his* ideas on the audience is yet another thing. That ridiculous scene from KBEmma which I guess I should have waited and posted my comment here rather than on Emma novel thread - is a classic example.
I’ll repost the comment here as it fits here very well.
—–
Mrs Elton says;
only objection to gathering strawberries the stooping
So if she was stooping why did they have to show all that fuss over picking strawberries, with servants ridiculously shifting cushions for them to kneel on, in EmmaKB version. Grrrr!!!!
They would have to bend forward in this kneeling position.
I think JA got it wrong. She should have written,
only objection to gathering strawberries the bending forward
LOL!!
—-
Is *this* how he *sees* sex in her books too.
Come on AD. Don’t give excuses!!
August 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am
@Lynne
You’ve hit the nail on the head!!
August 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I was going to make a comment on how anything involving Colin Firth, a white shirt and water is ok by me, but I think I’ll use this opportunity to respectfully ask a question:
What constitutes “good” in the Jane Austen periphery? I tried “Mr. Darcy’s Diary” on the basis of the comments the other day, and wasn’t too impressed. The ending, which seemed to include too many smirky references to visiting Elizabeth’s bedroom, felt more like the romance novels that Jane is always being accused of originating. I can’t figure out if everyone is making fun of “Lost in Austen” or can’t wait to see it. And I can honestly say that I wouldn’t be a JA fan today if I weren’t introduced through the back door, so to speak, by seeing some of the adaptations before I had read any of the books. So how about it, all you Janeites? Can you help this poor lost soul?
August 14th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Sue, there really isn’t any agreement, even on Jane Austen’s novels. (Search the Austen-L archives for “the Fanny Wars” sometime.) Some people think Linda Berdoll’s P&P-inspired books are fantastic. I think they’re poorly-written dreck. I liked Darcy’s Diary (I guess you’re talking about the Amanda Grange book? Because there are a few with similar names) because I was not astonished, or at least very rarely, by bizarre behavior by characters called “Darcy” and “Elizabeth” who bear no resemblance to the characters I know from P&P. I like Amanda Grange’s books because she pays a great deal of attention to the original. With some authors, you can tell they never really read the original novel carefully but only watched the films (or let the films get too deeply into their subconscious, to the point where they grafted details from one onto the other). I prefer my Austen paraliterature to be more book-based than film-based. I also like her books because they have a bit of humor and they don’t read like the ghost of Ann Radcliffe was guiding the author’s pen. So that’s my metric of “good.” As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.
I know many readers prefer a great deal of melodrama and incident in their Austen fan fiction and paraliterature, but I don’t think such things belong in anything related to Jane Austen’s novels (other than what is already there, that is).
As to Lost in Austen: I’m very, very skeptical about it. Though I think some Janeites will like it very much and some viewers just can’t get enough bonnets and wet shirts. Again, it’s the characterizations and the changing of the novel’s essential being, which sounds corny but I can’t think of a better way to express it. Of course that kind of adaptation will make changes, all adaptations make changes, but we all have different standards of whether or not the changes are true to the novel. I will add that I would have been looking forward to it with great excitement except for some specifics of the plot that came to my attention prior to the beginning of production that I am unfortunately not at liberty to share. However, it is possible that these specifics have changed; as I said, this was prior to production. I hope they have, I hope it’s great. I really do. I don’t like bad projects related to Jane Austen.
I was really excited about P&P2005 and Becoming Jane when they first began production. Believe it or not, those two films (and a bunch of other projects, books and films, that were rumored) were the reason I began this blog. I thought Bride and Prejudice was going to be a mess and I loved it. Like I said, I hope I’m wrong about Lost in Austen. But I don’t think you’re going to see absolute lockstep agreement about it in the fandom in any case. All you can do is try them and see for yourself.
Another thing: keep in mind that 90 percent of my pre-snarking is based on the media commentary of the project, not so much on the project itself. As a friend once said, a lot of people who don’t know any better like to show their bare arse when it comes to talking about Jane Austen. Mocking these people and the ill-informed commentary is half the fun.
(For instance, the comments by The New Darcy that I linked in the previous post.)
August 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Hey Rosie, that’s great! My email address is on my blog if you want to get in touch beforehand.
AmandaJ, it’s organised by the Melbourne Writers festival.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Thank you Mags. I’m usually more sure-footed where books (even literature-type books) are concerned but for some reason I’m always afraid that I’m missing something with Jane. So blogs (and their comment sections) like this are a great help.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
soft core porn- tipping the velvet- becomming a classic? Only if you are a lesbian!
August 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The cast commentary for Andrew Davies latest JA adaptation (”Sense and Sensibility”) is available on youtube, starting here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KG5rkj48hs
cheers!