Lost in Austen News Roundup: Jane Give Us Strength Edition
Jane give us strength, because we actually have to do a bally news roundup about this thing. Zero hour approacheth, fellow Janeites, and we feel a disturbance in the Force.
Alert Janeite Helen sent us a review from The Times, and it is hard to tell if it is unkind or if the reviewer is just being snarky.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that any predictable drivel ever written about Jane Austen has to begin with those six words. In this respect alone, ITV’s big-budget, time-travel costume drama Lost in Austen does not disappoint.
In nearly all other respects, however, it does. At some point in the preliminary meetings for this stupid, stupid programme I bet you somebody will have said “Life on Mars meets Pride and Prejudice!” And somebody else will have clapped, and decided that this was a very good idea. These people were morons. Take them out, ITV, and shoot them.
Well, that seems clear enough.
Seriously. It’s not enough here to have once seen the movie, and to know that Austen’s book is basically about some chippy tart in a big crumbly house, mooning over a soggy stuffed shirt with a stick up his arse.
But–it’s–not–oh, never mind.
You need to know details: that Bingley is supposed to fancy Jane; that stuff happens at a dance; that Jane sets off for Netherfield in the rain, the works. And, while knowing all this, you still have to be stupid enough not to have minded all that crap about the secret door in the shower cubicle. Who are you? Do you work for ITV? Do you mind that I hate you?
But we DO know the details, and we DO mind the crap about the secret door in the shower room. Very uncreative method of time travel, in our opinion, or even of travel-into-fiction. (Where are Thursday Next and Miss Havisham when you need them?)
The characters are fairly well drawn (by Jane Austen), the acting isn’t bad, and there are nice touches, such as the way Amanda keeps checking her mobile.
It doesn’t work in Fictionland, does it? DOES IT? Geez, we can’t even get a signal in the subway tunnel! Well, moving on. There are feature articles on several of the stars of the show. Jemima Rooper has a rather gushy piece in the Sunday Herald, which features a rather interesting bit about the film:
Exactly how punchy Guy Andrews has made Lost In Austen is evident in one telling early scene. Thinking she may actually be in a very cruel reality TV show, an angry Amanda flashes Lydia Bennett, who has crept into bed beside her in the night.
“What have you done to yourself?” asks the wide-eyed Lydia, staring at the naked midriff. “Oh,” says Amanda, looking down. “That’s called a landing strip’ in London. Pubic topiary.”
Lovely! In the Evening Post, Jemima begs us to “give it a chance.”
“I think the problem is and with most things, is Austen fans will probably read a tiny bit about it and write it off.”
You mean like “pubic topiary?”
Jemima said: “What I loved about the script was you get these characters that most people know and love and you just get to see them all over again but in a totally new situation.”
Nothing wrong with a bit of what-if, dearie, but when you change one aspect (the story), the other aspects, such as characterization, cannot change, or, well, you just have a different story altogether, and putting Jane Austen’s name to it is simple pandering. See how that works?
We know there is a certain constituency that always wants to know all about Darcy, so here he is. First The Times serves up a dollop o’Darcy via a Q&A with Elliot Cowan, curiously in the women’s section. Oh, no, they’re not pandering or anything.
Are you prepared for the sex symbol status?
I haven’t really thought of him in those terms.
Hard not to, isn’t it?
He is iconic and he has been done on the TV a hundred times, but the literary figure is more intimidating and less sexy. I know people swoon and fall over backwards when they think of Colin Firth getting out of the lake all wet, but I’ve had to concentrate on none of that getting in the way.
Unfortunately, that is all that passes for anything germane to the subject at hand in the piece, but by all means go read it if you’re interested in the details of Elliot’s workout routine. Thanks to Alert Janeite Lisa for the link. The Lincolnshire Echo also has a short piece on Elliot.
He added: “I was most excited on my mother’s behalf as well because she had always been a big fan of Colin Firth’s rendition of the character, and I was more pleased to be able to tell her I won’t die in this and also I’m playing a guy that you kind of dig quite a lot.”
Oh fine, ruin Darcy for Mum FOREVER. “Gah! That’s MY SON in the sexy clinging wet shirt! GAAAAH!” 
The Times also has a feature on Gemma Arterton, who plays Elizabeth Bennet, but it has almost nothing about Lost in Austen in it.
We liked the Telegraph’s feature on Alex Kingston, an actress whose work we’ve always enjoyed; and we agree with the scriptwriter that Mrs. Bennet was always meant to be an attractive woman in her mid-40s, so it will be interesting to see what Alex does with the part. (We also really like the idea of Hugh Bonneville as Mr. Bennet, and it’s only too bad that he won’t be playing the “real” Mr. B.)
Kingston’s one worry about the series was the potential reaction of the militant Jane Austen fans – known as “Janeites”. Lost in Austen messes with the most sacred of Janeite texts. Kingston says, “I kept thinking, ‘We’re going to get slated by her fans. The Jane Austen Society are going to hate this.’ But when I saw the finished product, I was pleasantly surprised. I don’t think the fans will complain because it’s done with such love. It’s about someone who totally adores Jane Austen.”
That’s a good start; but even those who love something are capable of screwing it up.
Now, cue the parade of brand-new-to-AustenBlog types who think it’s just a SMASHING idea to enter your favorite novel, because they’ve always wanted to! Won’t that be grand! Disturbance in the Force, indeed. And there’s three more weeks of it…because ITV decided Lost in Austen was worth 4 one-hour episodes, and MP, Persuasion, and NA less than 90 minutes. Don’t forget that, because it’s important.
August 31st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
This is not artistic license, that was ITV’s NA and we put up with it. This is not taking grievous liberties with the original, that was Becoming Jane and we slated it justly. This is just NOT AUSTEN. At all. PI mean, pubic topiary? Were the scriptwriters high? The more I read about it, the less likely it’ll be that I watch it. Atleast not without a bucket handy.
August 31st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“Take them out, ITV, and shoot them.”
Well, that reviewer sure one-upped the Cluebat! Behold the .44 Magnum of Janite righteousness!
Isn’t it odd how the worst movies get the most fun reviews?
August 31st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Add another quibble, the locations, I’ve been reading the Press Pack where a few of them are mentioned, then searching the net more details have surfaced.
The Press Pack mentions 3 houses in Yorkshire used as locations: Harewood House, Bramham Park and Weston Park, but it was not specified identified which will be which (Netherfield, Rosings and Pemberley) none seems to fit for Longbourn. A brief comment that in Bramham Park a ball was filmed leads me to believe then that it is used as Netherfield.
http://www.bramhampark.co.uk/welcome.htm
IMHO it looks too grand for Netherfield, but it is funny that the man who commisioned the building was the 1st Lord Bingley.
Then in Harewood House’ official site, it is mentioned that it is the new Pemberley:
http://www.harewood.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template.htm&a=174
(the ‘news’ are from last February and I think we -or rather Google Alerts- did not notify about it). And though in general IMHO it is a better choice than Chatsworth was, I still do not like the idea entirely as it seems to be a relatively new building and… with trade money!!!
built in the mid-18th century with money made from the West Indian sugar trade says the site.
By elimination, perhaps then Weston Park features as Rosings. By the number of its windows, it could be well match the idea ;), but I still do not like tha it is older (built in mid-17th Century) than the new Pemberley when in the novel is the other way around IIRC.
http://www.weston-park.com/
August 31st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Dear Lord. And I thought I’d seen it all. Maybe if we pretend that it’s all a farce, the pain will go away.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Ally @#1 said: This is not artistic license, that was ITV’s NA and we put up with it.
We did?
Valerie @2 said: Behold the .44 Magnum of Janite righteousness!
Go ahead, ITV. Make my day.
August 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
.44 Magnum of Janeite Righteousness. I like it.
September 1st, 2008 at 2:02 am
It won’t be long before the WMD of Janeite Righteousness is called for….
September 1st, 2008 at 5:34 am
Isn’t it ironic that they make a TV series to cash in on us while assuming at the same time that we’re too narrow minded to appreciate it? They didn’t worry about our views while writing the script, why worry now? Of course if we don’t like it it won’t be their fault!
I love how Rooper insists that the series recreates the characters as we know and love them. I don’t know about her, but I like Darcy for NOT being Edmund Bertram, lusting after first wench he sets his eyes upon.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:09 am
You lot are all so funny.
I love reading this blog. The VENOM based entirely on snatches of hearsay and other people’s reviews, no doubt coming from an agenda as full of hubris and ignorance as yours, is quite sweet really.
Bless you all. Do you need a cuddle?
September 1st, 2008 at 8:17 am
@ Cinthia #3
I’m wondering if the Harewood House website has made a mistake? In reading the press pack’s interview with Alex Kingston (I like her too, Mags) the actress refers to Harewood House as having been used for Netherfield. At first I thought the mistake might have been hers, but then I thought she probably wouldn’t have been present during the filming of scenes at Pemberley. This makes me think that Kingston is not the one mistaken, plus she has a connection to Harewood House:
September 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Anne @9: No, here’s the question: what’s your stake in proving us wrong?
By the way, we’d love to be wrong.
September 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Maisy, your conclusion might be right. According to us, Mrs. Bennet could not be in Harewood House if it would represent Pemberley, it is more logical to think she is in Netherfield. But then later on, Guy Henry mentions that they had a scene together when they were sipping tea on the beautiful terrace of Mr Darcy’s house. I do not know if Henry’s got it right or was confused, or also that in LiA the plot has changed to such degrees that we will have Mrs. Bennet and Collins at Pemberley. It is too much confusing. Nothing could be cleared until the programm is broadcasted, I am afraid.
BTW, does any one has the impression that Guy Henry was miscast as Collins. I mean, I like him well enough as John Knigthley in Emma3 (the one with Kate Beckinsale, and it is not my favourite Emma adaptation), but he does not fit with the character’s description from the book (I still think that Malcolm Rennie, from P&P1, has been the best Collins). The only reason I can find for his casting is the popular assumption that Collins is creepy.
BTW, I am beginning to think that perhaps LiA might be playing with that, with popular assumptions made about P&P and its characters. Not with the real thing. What I mean is, that though I do agree with our dear Editrix that a “disturbance in the Force” can be felt, perhaps a possible approach to digest this programm will be that they attempt to mock the popular and massive devotion that there is both towards P&P and P&P2. I think I am not making myself clear.
I do love both P&P and P&P2 devotedly, but I am also aware that there is such a crowd of people who love them almost with equal passion but which have not bothered to acquire more knowledge about both book and miniserie and all other things Austen. That is the difference between the average and common fans and the true Janeites. Perhaps, in there could be the some fun in LiA, that it will laugh at the crowd’s obssession. And the question is that if it is a subject that is laughable enough. I’m not saying that this is what LiA aims, it is only an idea that has occurred to me, an hypothesis.
I also adhere to Mags’ statement. We would love to be proved wrong and discover that LiA could be really fun. But so far, there is little evidence that it could be possible.
As for ignorance that our visitor Anne has mentioned. I do wonder when will people like that see that our arguments have been fundamented, we are not just whining just because we like to do so. We observe and analyse the information we have gathered. We read as others seem not to do so.
September 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I will readily admit that anything that makes reference to a “pubic topiary” tends to bring out the VENOM in me.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
The synopsis says that Darcy invites Amanda and the entire party from Hunsford to Pemberley, so it seems Mrs. Bennet will be there too (she was at Hunsford).
Anne @9 Alternate pairings are extremely unpopular in Austen fanfiction, and this series will be a filmed fanfiction. The authors made an assumption about us (Austen fans), hoping to cash in on us, without making any attempt at learning something about us. They just think that we all must want to be their Amanda. I find it offensive enough to not care how they have resolved the rest. It’s the principal idea that bugs me. It may be even very well done, but what does it matter if I don’t like the story?
IMHO The series should be called LOST AUSTEN without the IN in the middle.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
She flashes Lydia a what?! Oh, my! Well at least that wouldn’t alter Lydia’s character any… I can visualize a great next scene, in which Lydia, with scissors and tweezers, is trying for a “W”.
And since this is bound to be a great hit, we need to prepare for the next installments: Amanda Sue introduces Fanny to assertiveness training! So Fanny clocks Mr. Crawford on the jaw when he gets pushy and Sir Thomas, astonished and horrified, tosses her out without a penny. Fanny gains a close acquaintance with dirty clothes and less pleasant gentlemen than Mr. Crawford…
September 1st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I’m sure the film itself couldn’t be as entertaining as Mags and others’ comments.
My major crib is - WHY??? WHY??? 4 hours for this and those measly number of minutes for the various adaptations?????
What’s the matter with ITV????
@9 Anne, you seem upset. Do *you* need a cuddle?
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Ahh, thanks Cinthia and Sylwia, good points. Something else also occured to me. As often happens, it could be that some of the stately homes in the production will serve multiple functions (interiors, exteriros, ballroom from one house, staircase from another house, etc.).