What we have here is a failure to communicate
Alert Janeite Marion Fraley sent us a link to an article on The Guardian’s book blog by John Sutherland (whom some of our Gentle Readers may recognize as the author of various literary puzzle books, including several featuring Jane Austen). Mr. Sutherland wonders why the world needs this new set of Jane Austen adaptations, because he thinks they won’t have anything new or surprising. It’s kind of cute, really, this confidence that these new films will be made with care and attention to the original novels. We hardened, cynical Austen whores (middle-aged and otherwise) know better, of course.
The massed ranks of Janeites, the classic reprint publishers and those specialist suppliers of horse-drawn carriages can all rejoice. ITV is taking four of the big six, and has abducted Andrew Davies from the BBC to do Northanger Abbey. The Beeb is hitting back with their own Sense and Sensibility, which makes near enough a full house.
Of course all the Austens have already been done recently for screens large and small. Some, like Ang Lee’s S&S, so well that it seems presumptuous not to leave a decent interval. But Jane Austen is the nearest thing to a church that the British have nowadays. And, going out as they will on Sunday evenings, these serials will attract four times as many as the 2 million or so Britons who attend C-of-E evensong.
This is very amusing, but we begin to suspect that Mr. Sutherland, despite the link in his post to this very blog, is laboring under several misapprehensions. He seems to think that all four ITV films will be new. Of course, we know that the Emma that ITV will show is the one from 1997 with Kate Beckinsale.
Judging by the excitement in the blogosphere it may even generate a “mania”, like the Forsyte Saga or the 1994 Middlemarch. Since ITV promises that the “take” will be “traditional” there are no great surprises in prospect - no nakedness, wet benippled shirts, or rolling in the hay.
Mr. Sutherland, during your visit to AustenBlog (and ta for the shout-out), did you not see the post about the naked Anglican priest? Geez, that was some of our best stuff. Shame you missed it.
The heart does rather sink at the prospect of some 40 hours of viewing.
Um…what? Does he think all these are six-hour miniseries or something? Oh, if only!
For the dull elves in the back: Four films on ITV, ninety minutes to two hours each. Three new, one old. That’s eight hours, rounding up. S&S07 will be four hours. That’s 12 hours total.
There would be more risk, but a lot of fun, if the TV-adaptation industry turned its attention to the fan-fiction, knock-offs and sequels which Jane has inspired. Some of it’s awful, some of it’s crazy, but some is extraordinarily fresh and interesting.
There’s not enough Tullamore Dew in the world. Really.
A little unfaithfulness, then, Mr Davies.
Not to worry. 
February 20th, 2007 at 6:02 am
I’m a card carrying Janeite (and darn proud) and I want to know why we can’t have 40 hours of JA, and when it will arrive in AU. LOL
And I wouldn’t mind seeing some of the sequels and prequels brought to life. That would be kinda fun.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:36 am
I would love to see new movies, if they are accurate, because we can reach to the story in different angles. Also, as I don’t live in United Kingdom, for me it’s reeeaaaaally difficult to see the movies in the TV, so I have to buy them.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I am afraid to even ask, but… how much is Tullamore Dew paying the Editrix? ;D
February 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
“ITV is taking four of the big six, and has abducted Andrew Davies from the BBC to do Northanger Abbey.” ROFL!
February 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“I am afraid to even ask, but… how much is Tullamore Dew paying the Editrix?”
Busted! There goes the subliminal advertising campaign.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
More of Sutherland’s errors:
Of course, all the Austens have already been done recently for screens large and small.
Nope. Not NA.
Wardrobe and set expenses can be merged.
Even if they are filming in different countries?
Production teams can be held together for longer than the few weeks they normally work.
All of the ITV films have been developed by different production companies.
The Beeb is hitting back with their own Sense and Sensibility, which makes near enough a full house.
ITV’s Austen projects will broadcast prior to BBC’s new S&S, but one could argue that ITV are the one’s “hitting back”; IIRC, BBC announced its new Austen project before ITV announced theirs, didn’t they?
I can’t believe the fact-checker missed all of these.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I would like to see Sanditon brought to film. The version by Jane Austen and Another Lady. I own the book and really enjoy it. The other lady did good for not being Jane herself.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I am afraid to even ask, but… how much is Tullamore Dew paying the Editrix? ;D
Just enough to keep AustenBlog World Headquarters in medicinal supplies.
(Actually the name amuses me. I’m really more of a cosmopolitan/margarita girl.)
February 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
lol. Great blog Mags! Very amusing.
I agree with Carmen, I’m always so jealous of the Brits. They always get to see Austen adaptations months before we do (if at all), and the wait is agonizing.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Hi, first time posting, love the blog.
So, I guess I’m a purist, but I don’t like seeing all of these JA novels being adapted. The folks that write the movie screenplays are just “out there” in my opinion. I refused to see the P&P2005 film because I could tell that they took a great deal of poetic license. I was concerned that I’d unconsciously stand up in the theatre and scream “WHAT”??, beat myself over the head with my box of Goobers and storm out in a huff. I did eventually see it on HBO, sat there with my arms crossed, going “Yeah right! She’d really walk around OUTSIDE in a NIGHTGOWN, ALONE! HA!!!”.
I prefer the BBC renditions because they take the time to actually pay homage to “the Jane”, which I can respect and all, but I think they should leave well enough alone. Sometimes I feel like Jane Austen is being taken advantage of; and her voice gets lost in all of the corsets, heaving bosoms and strapping blue eyed British actors. When do we stop? How many times can we rehash JA’s books? It’ll be like Menudo; every few years another group of actors take the helm and do the same film. Yawn!
February 20th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I disagree with Kerri. I think it’s great that new JA adaptations are being made, even if some of them might not be as good as their predecessors. I like seeing different perspectives on my favorite novels, and I like having the option of choosing my favorite adaptation among several. I find the “the last one was good, so why make another?” philosophy rather boring. What if Alexander Graham Bell had thought, “well, letters and telegrams are good; what’s the point of inventing the telephone?”. I think we should constantly be trying to improve on ourselves, even though we might not always succeed.
After all, we’re not being forced to watch these new adaptations, right?
February 20th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Sometimes I role my eyes when I hear about new adaptations, but I get really excited just the same. I love to see adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels, but I can also see where people would get annoyed with them and feel like they don’t do them justice (books are most of the time better than movies). I agree with what Kerri said,
but I also agree with what Miranda said. Even though I get annoyed with some of the adaptations, (being the romantic that I am) I’ll never cease to get excited when I hear about the next austen flick.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
btw. I’m new to austenblog and have no idea what the Editrix is. Could anyone explain it to me? thanks.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Miranda, I hope we can agree to disagree? We have very differing opinions. I concede that it would have been a tragedy if Alexander Graham Bell had not invented the telephone, but there is quite a difference between his life changing invention and the BBC’s interpretation of Sense and Sensibility. (Which I might mention, WHY are they making this? Was the Academy Award winning Emma Thompson’s rendition not up to snuff?). See, I’m stuck in my ways and it’ll be hard to change my mind. I’ll just keep re-watching Amanda Root in Persuasion and you all can check out “what’s her head” and I’ll be happy and I’m sure everyone else will be as well.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Glenys, Mags is the exalted and beloved “Editrix” of Austenblog. It’s really another word for Editor, or head honcho, or lady in charge. Not sure if it’s a combination of editor and dominatrix, or just a clever variation. Editress would sound (and read) a little funny.
Kerri, believe it or not there are people who can’t stand Thompson’s version of S&S. No one here will question your right to your opinions. And actually I don’t think the telephone is that great: “…you lose the charm of distance…”
February 20th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I actually think it’s a good idea to get fresh interpretations of the novels, even if they as a whole may not be better interpretations. The 1995 “Pride and Prejudice” I thought was in general exquisite, but there were a few scenes where I wondered, “Why on earth did they do that?” In contrast, the 2005 “Pride & Prejudice” I thought in general was pathetic; but the last scene between Keira Knightley and Donald Sutherland almost rescues the whole movie- it was simply beautiful.
And I’m still waiting for one that shows Lizzy telling her mother about her and Darcy. For some reason, the moviemakers seem to be afraid to really put the finishing touch on Austen’s portrayal of Mrs. Bennet as a chowderheaded ditz.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:19 am
“Editrix” is the female variation of “Editor.” I find it amusing, and also find it amusing to refer to myself in the third person in the blog posts (I don’t bother in comments). I figured I was using the editorial “we” and then when I saw the miniseries of Elizabeth I with Helen Mirren (WHO IS A GODDESS), I realized that it actually was the royal “we.”
As to new adaptations: The latest adaptations of most of the novels came out seven to ten years ago. My favorite Shakespeare play is Henry V and I’ve seen at least eight versions of it, on film and on stage, some more successful than others. (And yes, my favorite is Kenneth Branagh’s. Now despise me if you dare.) There’s nothing wrong with a new take on the novels, but it’s hard to sit through the awful ones, that’s for sure. Of course, Shakespeare’s plays were written specifically to be performed!
February 21st, 2007 at 8:30 am
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, Kerri! While I agree that the telephone and a Jane Austen adaptation aren’t quite the same thing, my point was that just because something is already good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it better. (I try with analogies, but sometimes fail.)
I don’t think that just because they’re making new versions, doesn’t mean that the old ones weren’t “up to snuff”. But the new ones will offer a fresh perspective and probably draw in new readers of Jane Austen. Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion; and I’m not having a stroke over here just because we don’t agree.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
CurtB, I believe P&P1 (1979) showed Mrs. Bennet’s reaction to the news of Darcy and Elizabeth’s engagment. I don’t remember if it actually showed her telling her mother or not.
I am one that doesn’t particularly care for the Emma Thompson S&S. They cut out characters and that bothers me. Emma3 is a good example of a 90 minute film that left all its characters in even if they were minor characters. It can be done. That’s one thing that bothers me about P&P3 also. Back to S&S. It was OK I guess, but besides the character thing there were other things in it that I thought weren’t true to the book.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am
I just read that advertising for the new Jane Austen Season will begin on February 26! Be on the watch for new photos, clips, etc.
http://www.brandrepublic.com
February 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
I’m not a big fan of the S&S film, either, but I just sort of have an allegiance to these films; maybe because these films from the 90’s came out at a wonderful time in my life. I have great respect and admiration for Emma Thompson, as well. And I felt that Kate Winslet was the perfect Marianne Dashwood; but the film was so - so.
Miranda, I hope you’re not having a stroke! Discussion in important and differing opinions keeps things interesting. If we all agreed this would be boring.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
S&S 95 is a lovely film - Alan Rickman is to die for - but I must admit that Emma Thompson’s age just bugged me throughout. Elinor is only supposed to be 19, not in her thirties. I’ve been wanting a new S&S with an Elinor closer to her age in the book and one who doesn’t look like Marianne’s mother instead of sister. :\
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Mags, I thought it was like that good ol’ Mountain Dew, but here is some Tullamore Dew name trivia:
“Tullamore Dew was first distilled in 1829 in the small town of Tullamore in County Offaly in the heart of Ireland. The name derives from the initials of an early owner, Daniel E Williams - DEW.”
(from http://www.tullamoredew.com/about-tullamore-dew/default.asp )
I do like this quote from the article:
“Jane Austen is the nearest thing to a church that the British have nowadays.”
Hallelujah, Holy Janeites! (Sorry if that seems blasphemous to any UK churchgoers)
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Okay, I am going to double dip, and hope I don’t get disciplined by the dominatrix oops I mean Editrix. Do you have to wear boots for that role?
I think the quote about Jane being like the British church these days is amusing in that she has come to represent that more moral time when manners mattered and that is exactly why I cannot stand to hear Anne Hathaway imply things like perhaps Jane had sex behind closed doors with Tom Lefroy. And why I think there is a reaction against adaptations being sexed up.
I do see Kerri’s point “Sometimes I feel like Jane Austen is being taken advantage of; and her voice gets lost in all of the corsets, heaving bosoms and strapping blue eyed British actors.” I own all the BBC adaptations and the 1995 P&P, and love to watch them, but they will never replace the sheer joy of chuckling away with my head immersed one of the novels or any of Jane’s wry writings. Her turn of a phrase on the page can never be superseded by a movie. And it would be a shame if someone only saw the films and never got the full experience of how delicious her writing is! And what a private experience it is.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 am
>>“Jane Austen is the nearest thing to a church that the British have nowadays.”
>>Hallelujah, Holy Janeites! (Sorry if that seems blasphemous to any UK churchgoers)
Well, there is a plaque at the church in Steventon that proudly announces “JANE AUSTEN WORSHIPPED HERE’ which did make me giggle as I imagined the liturgy for the Holy Church of Jane. Tee-hee!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Greetings, we are gathered here to honor our beloved Jane Austen. This morning we will have a reading from the book of Emma, followed by a disertation on what qualities make the best Mr. Knightly for a film adaptation, whether or not the Eltons marriage was a love match, and what was up with Ewan MacGregor’s hair in Doug McGrath’s version.
Please join us next week as we discuss adapting Mansfield Park for the stage, and the reasons behind the secular world’s rejection of the most moral and upright Miss Price in favor of the unprincipled (but arguably more fun at a party) Miss Crawford.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
LOL! Very funny, Ina!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
So, we named our daughter Emma after the novel, does that make her the new messiah? She’ll be thrilled.
Also, thanks to Jessica for the shout out.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Jane Austen Worshipped Here. Amen.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:26 am
I own all the BBC adaptations and the 1995 P&P, and love to watch them,
Jessica Irene, the 1995 P&P WAS a BBC adaptation. A&E supplied some cash, but that’s about it.
P1 (1970) was not a BBC production. It was done by Granada, but the Beeb got the rights to include it in their boxed set.
Personally, I have no problems with new adaptations. Frankly, I’d love to see a version of S&S that actually had Austen’s dialogue in it. Emma Thompson freely admits that her version only has about 5 lines from the book. But not an Andrew Davies version. I find him to be decidedly overrated as an adaptor. I am not as fond of P&P2 as most of you are, and his version of The Way We Live Now had me seething. All that focus on sex and titillation, and not enough focus on what the stories are really about.
So, as much as I love P2, there is room for another adaptation in my heart. Rupert P-J will bring a different perspective to my favorite hero, Peter Wight will most certainly be a lovable Admiral Croft, and I am looking forward to seeing it.
Every single one of us has our own ideas as to what the characters look like and act like. When P&P2 came out, I wondered why, since the 1980 version was so good, did they need to make another? Well, I then found out that not everyone loves P&P1 as much as I do, and the 1995 version fit their expectations. The more I watch it, the less it fits mine. But I did like P&P3 (no cluebats please) and I hope to like some of these new adaptations. You notice I said “hope.” From everything I’ve read, some of these new adaptations don’t bear much resemblance to the source material. I don’t think my heart could take another MP2.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Julie P., I like P&P3 as well. I don’t worship it by any means but I find myself defending it against overly harsh criticism from time to time. And I agree with you about MP2. That has to have been the worst Austen adaptation ever! And I hadn’t even read the novel yet when I saw it. Just hated it on instinct.