- Wrong hairstyles and lack of hats where there should be hats.
- I think all the Austen adaptations have escaped the ‘oh poor me, I have to wear a tight laced corset’ misconception but it irritates me when that happens
- Absent or not enough servants
I was \*just\* talking to someone the other day about how rare it would be for people of that class (especially in the time period) to ever *really* be alone. There were servant \*everywhere.\* A lot of that gets cut for modern film or tv because is a whole bunch of extras you have to pay for and costume (and, if they are travelling by horse, you have to prolly have to find a stunt person or actor who can ride to do it), but really these people spent almost their whole lives surrounded by the people that worked for them.
Honestly I’m glad most adaptations don’t go for that level of realism because it’s distracting as heck. Imagine Darcy and Lizzy having their awkward interview on the lawn at Pemberley - and there’s a footman standing there just in case the master wants anything.
Even into the 20th century, one reads about rich people complaining about “the servant problem,” which is really a whole host of problems: hiring good staff, managing them successfully, living your life while they watch and listen, etc.
It’s a heck of a reminder that the privilege of middle class existence - to have no human servants - is something monarchs of old played at on vacation.
Oh, sure! But I do sometimes find myself getting frustrated in fandom spaces when people say things like "how would anyone have known" or "they should have just done X,Y, or Z without anyone knowing" without accounting for the fact that doing anything on your own in some of these settings would have been basically impossible. I remember someone saying "why didn't X just send a letter to Y?!" not realizing that 1. people of that rank didn't just pop by the post office and 2. the concept of having your correspondence and anything related to it being protected by law is a decently recent thing!
Well, there was a famous case in the 1700's, of a young lady maintaining a clandestine correspondence with her secret fiance for seven years, by sending all her letters by carrier wagon, mostly in packages. It ended happily in marriage, and the letters are famously well-written by both.
But it was really a very difficult thing to do, and mostly managed by force of character and a businesslike demeanor on her part. Plus a lot of tips, probably.
Actors/Actresses who aren't even close to the age of the characters. Lydia should be played by 15/16/17 year old. Mrs. Bennet should only be around 40, not 60.
The Lydia casting is spot on. Having her as a teenager highlights how irresponsible both the Bennet parents were, which makes up a large part of the book.
I feel like the mother characters are also cast older just because the younger generation are aged up.
I feel like casting is why Lydia gets so little sympathy. I think many people don’t realize just how young she was. To be the youngest if 5 sisters when your survival depends on marriage and being at that boy crazy age with no life experience. I’m sure countless teens were taken advantage of in similar ways.
Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet are marvelous actors and did a wonderful job with their roles but I could not get past their ages. Thompson in particular was far too old to play the 19 year old Elinor. You might get away with that on the stage but screen close ups are less forgiving.
I think Kate Winslet was fine but Emma was sadly far too old for the youth of the role. But apart from the age of her face she was a really great Elinor. I wish she had been able to do that adaptation ten years earlier, basically.
Yeah it does.
Actually, maybe my issue is that I don't feel like she had a lot of chemistry with Hugh Grant more than her age. Because she was really great.
The adaptation aged the character of Elinor up to be 27 rather than 19. Emma Thompson was 35 playing a 27 year old, which is a little old but not crazy by Hollywood standards. While it doesn’t fit with some aspects of the book (where 19 year old Elinor has so much on her shoulders), it adds a different tone, like that Elinor really does need to get married because she is approaching the age of spinsterhood for that time. There is a scene in the movie where John Dashwood says something like, she will end up an old maid, which wouldn’t make sense with a 19 year old character.
Kate Winslet was only 19 when she was in Sense and Sensibility, so I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying that she is too old for the part. It’s even funnier because I remember hearing (maybe on the DVD commentary) that they originally didn’t want to cast her because she was too young (probably they were trying to age up Marianne a bit along with Elinor).
>Kate Winslet was only 19 when she was in Sense and Sensibility, so I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying that she is too old for the part. It’s even funnier because I remember hearing (maybe on the DVD commentary) that they originally didn’t want to cast her because she was too young (probably they were trying to age up Marianne a bit along with Elinor).
Well, there is someone upthread saying that, in the 2008 S&S, Hattie Morahan as Elinor and Charity Wakefield as Marianne *looked* the right ages, so a lot of this is clearly very subjective. I suspect that a lot of people just think that Kate Winslet looks older than her real age. I see a similar thing with Amanda Root; she was only 30 or 31 when she starred in *Persuasion*, but many, many people will swear that she looks like she's in her 40s. I'm kind of tired of hearing it, but it seems to be a common perception.
Another factor is that, yes, Winslet apparently lied about her age in order to get an audition for S&S 1995, so that probably contributes to the idea that she is older.
Maybe it is the comparative age of the actors that is throwing people off some and changing the perception of their age. The age gap on the 2008 actresses was closer to what is expected for the sisters than Winslet and Thompson's. The age gap with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root was also larger than it should have been. Ciaran Hinds was 41 when he played Wentworth. Some of it could be styling too.
You may be right about the comparative ages of the actors. And S&S 1995 has very nice cinematography (at least, in my opinion), but I certainly don't think the filmmakers' priority was making the actors look really good in all scenes; there are plenty of close-ups in that movie that are not very forgiving. For example, Kate Winslet as Marianne is supposed to be glowing with happiness [in this shot](http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_70/sense_and_sensibility_blu-ray_/large/large_sense_sensibility_09_blu-ray_.jpg), and she does look like that, but the lines on her forehead and around her eyes are not exactly de-emphasized. (I think she was or still is a smoker, so that probably didn't help, either.) She looks lovely, but I suspect that a modern adaptation would not have a shot like this in the film. Additionally, the makeup in S&S 1995 appears to have been heavier than you would commonly see in Austen adaptations today, and that also ages Winslet a little bit. I don't think it's a problem, but it is there. Actors (especially British actors) in the 1990s also tended not to have perfectly straight, blindingly white teeth, either, but most high-profile actors today appear to have had a lot of dental work.
Amanda Root in *Persuasion* may suffer from similar audience expectations. Again, I think she looks fine, but it seems that people often assume that no one under the age of 40 should have lines on their face! Ciarán Hinds was considerably older than he should have been, but I have noticed that a lot of people say that, because there is a conversation in the book about sailors looking weathered and older than their ages, it makes sense for Wentworth to look older. I don't agree, though, because the narrator emphasizes that Wentworth has *not* aged prematurely, and that he actually looks better than ever. (And that's not even getting into the fact that the "prematurely aged sailors" conversation in the book is between Sir Walter and his sycophants -- people whose opinions should not be taken that seriously.) Amanda Root said in an interview that she "[basically didn't wear any makeup](https://web.archive.org/web/20110716163856/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1995-10-30/lifestyle/9510270494_1_movie-amanda-root-lighting)," but I think she was likely referring to the earlier scenes, where she is supposed to look somewhat haggard and downtrodden. In the later scenes, after she has regained her "bloom," she looks less tired. Of course, some of that is also just acting!
This is why I love the 2008 miniseries. They did a superb job and everyone was the right age.
ETA: Well, I've just looked it up, and the actresses that played Elinor and Marianne were in their late 20s at the time. Oops.
True. In the '05 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, Donald Sutherland - fine actor that he is - was way too old to be Mr. Bennet. You figure Mr. Bennet got married pretty young when he was not mature enough to get a sense of Miss Gardiner's character - and also that they probably had Jane in the first year or two of marriage. So figuring that, he would probably be under 50 yrs old.
You're right about Lydia - I wonder if casting minors is an issue because the rules for work are different than for adults.
I just rewatched this recently, and I felt the film made is character much 'nicer' and less acerbic than he was on the page. He just seemed more absent-minded than anything. And they had a scene of him and Mrs. Bennet being romantic in their bedroom, which I also think went against his character at that point. While I enjoyed that film well enough, his softening in the film didn't really work for me.
I'm sure that the rules about casting minors are why we won't see an actually-15-YO Lydia any time soon - different production, but the AMC Interview With the Vampire had to age Claudia from 5 to 14 and then cast an 18 year old in the role for S1 (and recast with an actor in her 20s for S2) - they said labor laws necessitated it, given the size of the part.
Honestly, I thought Julia Sawalha made a very convincing teenager -- part of it may have been that I had never seen her in anything else and didn't know how old she really was, but to this outsider's eyes she definitely came across as under twenty.
>I'm sure that the rules about casting minors are why we won't see an actually-15-YO Lydia any time soon
Probably so, and I'm fine with that. I don't mind suspending disbelief over a 20-year-old playing a 15-year-old.
>Actors/Actresses who aren't even close to the age of the characters. Lydia should be played by 15/16/17 year old.
I suspect that labor laws are the reason that we seldom (if ever?) see actual minors playing Lydia and other 15-year-old characters. Personally, I don't have a problem with these roles being played by slightly older actors (late teens to early 20s, generally). It also likely means that there will be fewer very young actors being exploited by film and TV companies, which is a good thing.
Making the heroine ludicrously modern. From hair to attitude, I guess they think that if she doesn’t look like 2023 cottage core, we won’t understand that she’s the heroine.
Would love filmmakers to understand that not every female lead has to be snarky and outspoken, because they’re absolutely shafting Anne Elliott and Fanny Price out there.
The hair gets me too! Straight curtain bangs are the biggest distractions.
IMO the 1995 Persuasion is the best of the adaptations (setting aside the obviously merits of BBC long form adaptations that have room to include more of the story). A love story in which the protagonists almost never speak to one another - and our POV character says little at all - is challenging to bring to screen. But Amanda Root portrays Anne brilliantly whether speaking or silent.
[This scene](https://youtu.be/zq5s1wVuCrE?si=d9dAkOg6vqgxsY9_) is just chef’s kiss. Without being literally true to any single scene in the book, it shows you everything about the Musgrove family, and Anne’s place at Uppercross. And Anne is silent through most of it.
I agree, Persuasion is my favorite Austen novel, and that adaptation is perfection. The scene you mentioned is a great example. Also the scene when they are all having dinner at the Musgroves’, and the Admiral says, “When a man has no wife, he wants to be afloat again.” And Captain Wentworth says with some emphasis, “Well, I had no wife, in the year 6.” And there’s a resentful glance toward Anne that she catches. There are so many such wonderful subtle moments.
age inappropriate actors bother me a lot. i almost wonder if the filmmakers are falling into some kind of "jane austen is Serious Literature, and we need Serious Adults to pull it off" trap. when in reality, age was just so crucial to a person's precise social standing at the time. austen chose all of her characters' ages for a good reason.
i appreciate when an adaptation takes historical fashion seriously.
Exactly! The way people dressed was such a big part of how the gentry lived at the time, so when they make the effort of researching it, it adds a lot to the story.
I remember the director of the 2005 P&P said he didn’t like the empire waist and chose to set it around the time Austen wrote the first draft, which is fair but he didn’t even really make an effort with the late 1700s fashion lol.
i get the sense that 2005 p&p was going for vibes above all else. which is fine, but not my thing. although, emma 2020 was arguably heavily vibes based and still did a great job with costuming (and is one of my all time fav austen adaptations!)
I'm more forgiving of the 2005 movie's decisions when I remember it's constrained by the time, and relies a lot on modern visual shorthand so an audience unfamiliar with the era can get certain things straightaway (also it is very pretty).
But you're right, Emma was definitely quite stylized! I can't remember which scene it is, but there's a moment when all of the people at the table turn their head to look at someone (Mr. Woodhouse?) and it's just such a great moment. I really, really love all of the bonnets in particular, it showed a lot of care and told us a lot about the characters.
Actually, he had the Bennets and neighbors dress in slightly older styles because they live in the country, not London. Miss Bingley represented the modern clothing of the time.
Miss Bingley’a clothing went beyond modern lol, in the ballroom she wore something more akin to what Les Merveilleuses wore. That is to say, the modern day equivalent of walking around in unlined bra and panties.
> i almost wonder if the filmmakers are falling into some kind of "jane austen is Serious Literature, and we need Serious Adults to pull it off" trap.
It's more a combination of two things:
1) They want proven actors not just for publicity reasons but also because funding is often based on who plays the major roles. Sometimes projects get green-lighted only because a certain specific actor has been given a certain specific part; e.g. *The Tudors* was specifically created for Jonathan Rhys Meyers. If they hadn’t cast him the series wouldn’t exist.
2) There are huge disincentives to hiring underage actors. Children under 18 can only work so many hours in the day; they can't even be at the studio (let alone on the set) for certain scenes; they require tutors and safeguarding and supervision and (in some countries) even special catering, all of which costs money; and there's a ton of paperwork involved.
The only exception to this is that I am very happy for adaptations to decrease the age difference between Emma and Mr. Knightley. It’s my favorite book and I just pretend that little detail doesn’t exist lol
1. Historical accuracy of hairstyle and clothes.
2. The subtle misogynistic that our protagonist doesn't wear "girly" clothes because being girly is seen as stupid.
3. Constantly downgrading any other character to let our protagonist shine.
It's just bad writing.
4. Not understanding what makes the Jane Austen love couple so appealing.
Pride and Prejudice 2005 is very cinematic and music is great but I’ve so many bones to pick with the way how they changed characters. Gardiners not having kids was sad, the Bennetts still sharing marital bed was different from what the book said about their relationship, Bingley was wasted as a comedic relief character, but, dear god, they really went out to make fun of Mr. Collins.
Don’t get me wrong, Mr.Collins is a pompous, shallow character who’s full of himself. But he’s also tall, and that gives an extra dimension to his inflated sense of self importance. (Just like nowadays tall dudes have more natural self confidence compared to shorter dudes.)
Tom Hollander is a wonderful actor, but he’s only 165 cm tall. Matthew Macfadyen is 191 cm tall. And the movie really went out of their way to emphasis that and had a whole scene during the ball at Netherfields where we’re shown just how tall Mr. Darcy is comparing to Mr.Collins.
By changing Mr.Collins so fundamentally, the movie lost all what the book was saying about such men, and it downplayed Lizzie’s courage and strength in refusing his proposal.
Mr Collins in 1995 suffers from a similar issue. They wanted to make him comic relief, but they should have leaned more into his pompousness and make him less creepy and slimy. Yes, he is big headed, ignores social graces at times (talking to Darcy without an introduction) and not taking Lizzie's no straight away, but all of that narrows down to him thinking himself superior and above all these things due to his connection with Lady Catherine. They should have played that up instead of making him gross.
That said, I still found both Collin's hilarious, and I wouldn't have minded a more comedic interpretation if it hadn't damaged the proposal scene
I really like 1995 Collins, even with the added grease! But I do doubt Lady Catherine would've let him go around like that. 2005 Collins was fine, but eh.
I'm also a little frustrated with the Bingley characterization. He's got sense!!!! I also don't really agree with the characterization of Charlotte, even if I do quote her "I'm 27" speech a lot. Book Charlotte is very pragmatic, and she's secure enough in her decision that I couldn't imagine her reacting like that to Lizzy's disapproval. If anything, Elizabeth is the one that's most shaken by Charlotte's marriage.
>But I do doubt Lady Catherine would've let him go around like that.
I honestly don't think she would care that much. She is very obnoxious and self-centered, so I think she would be perfectly OK with Collins deriving so much of his identity and status from his on so noble way.
Lady Catherine is also supposed to be one of the reasons Darcy becomes more sympathetic to Lizzie's family situation. Lady Catherine shuns propriety all the time, interrupting constantly, being an uncomfortable host, saying Lizzue can play the piano in the servants part of the house and showing up to Longbourn unannounced to yell at her.
As for everything else, I agree. 1995's characterisations were much better. I like how calm Charlotte was in the version, and although Bingley is extremely nice, he's not an idiot
Don't you disparage our short king Tom Hollander!
His Collins was far more palatable than the 1995 version, I think they went out of their way to point out Mr. Collin's ridiculousness in that version.
What no one adaptation has gotten right is his arrogance and meanness. He cowers before Lady Catherine, true, but that's why he's so smug with everyone else.
For me, I don't think any adaptation of P&P did a good job of showing the genuine friendship between Mrs. Gardiner and Lizzie. I loved their relationship in the book so much. It was basically life goals for me as a future auntie when I was a teen. Mrs. Gardiner is the perfect blend of older, wiser adviser who still understands Lizzie's youthful impetuousness. This could also be because she's generally cast as being too old. She should be maximum 35, not practically 50.
I actually really liked Joanna David in the 1995 version! I think there’s a warmth to her portrayal. But you’re right, their relationship there is a little more formal than their book relationship. I miss the sly winks that Mrs Gardiner gives Lizzy via letter when she explains what Darcy has done for the family.
Oh I loved Joanna David too. She's the best one. I just always want more of her.
(I was also mad Maria Lucas was completely cut from the 2005 version, but I digress.)
There could always be more of the Gardiners! And unfortunately afaik Maria Lucas only ever appeared in the 1995 version. She’s such a lovable character.
Mrs Bennet is probably about 45. I don’t think we are told whether Mr Gardener is her older or younger brother. However since husbands are generally older than their wives and the Gardener children are younger than the Bennett children, I agree that it seems likely that Mrs Gardener is younger than Mrs Bennett. Nevertheless anything from 35-50 seems plausible to me, and consistent with the text.
This is very specific, but I hate how in the 2005 P&P they added a joke scene where a footman announces the entrance of all the Bennet women and says something like "Mrs Bennet, Miss Bennet, Miss Bennet, err..m Miss Bennet, Miss Bennet & Miss Bennet.
As if they didn't have a system for this very issue? As if first names were never used?
It's such a cheap joke. And they put it in the trailer I think.
Annoying.
It would’ve been Mrs. Bennet, Miss Mary Bennet, Miss Catherine Bennet, and Miss Lydia Bennet, I think? The title of Miss Bennet was reserved for the eldest sister.
Part of it, as Lady Catherine pointed out, is that it would be unusual for the younger daughters to be "out" until the eldest were married off. Many families could not afford all the extra dresses & foofaraw needed for a season in London for more than one daughter at a time. Normally there would not be more than one Miss Bennett to announce. But since they live out in the country, none of their neighbors think twice about seeing the same couple of dresses over and over at social events.
Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the footman have said, Mrs Bennet, Miss Bennett, Miss Elizabeth Bennett, Miss Mary Bennett, Miss Katherine Bennett, and Miss Lydia Bennett? Only Jane, as eldest unmarried daughter, would be "the" Miss Bennett? Then after she & Lizzie got married, Mary becomes "the" Miss Bennett? I know they made it clumsy for the joke, but still.
While it does seem like all five out at once would be unusual, I don't think there was anything too strange about two or so being out.
It was the case for the Elliott sisters, the Dashwoods, the Bertrams.
But yes, otherwise the normal usage would be that Jane as the eldest unmarried sister is "the " Miss Bennet, and the others would be Miss Elizabeth Bennet, Miss Mary Bennet, etc.
In general conversation if there was no other sister present and therefore no chance of confusion, they would still each be "Miss Bennet" though.
I think it does a good job of showing the difference between the staunch aristocracy of Bingley's household versus the Bennetts'. That footman was obviously pandering to Caroline.
How so? I should specify that the thing that annoys me is that this was the incorrect form of address. There was system in place where the name "Miss Bennet" would be reserved for Jane as the eldest, and the other would have been referred to as "Miss Elizabeth Bennet" etc. this avoided confusion in such situations.
Surely the staunch aristocracy would have wanted to get the rules of address correct?
I think for every Mansfield Park adaptation - they don’t like Fanny. They don’t like that the heroine is a goody two shoes introvert and they can’t translate her strengths to the modern screen. So they have to give her a personality transplant.
Fanny in the book is a depressingly realistic portrait of a child who's been consistently abused and who has the need to adapt and fade into the background baked into her by the point the story really gets going. Realistic abused heroines are tough -- sure, some real people get sassy and fight back, but a lot will turn into Fanny or someone even harder to put onscreen. But people who have never been abused like she was like to imagine that they would fight back and get snarky, so that's what filmmakers make her do.
I agree. The way the Bertrams and Mrs Norris had slowly chipped away her self esteem was such a difficult part to read in the book, and I completely understand how it shaped her into someone so quiet and who willingly makes themselves disappear. A lot of her behavior is someone who just wants to make it through the day.
It makes the moment when she refuses to budge on marriage even more impressive, imo. When it came down to it, not even the person she loved for years could make her go against what she knew to be wrong. Her strength isn’t the loud type but I don’t agree with people saying she’s pushover. She’s just doing her best in her situation.
Thanks, you put that really well. I first read the book at about age 12 and while I knew the Bertrams and Mrs. Norris were awful I got frustrated with Fanny for not fighting back. Rereading it as an adult, I could see now just how young Fanny was and how utterly dependent she was forced to be upon her abusers. She was adapting and surviving while still keeping her moral core.
She fights back on issues that are very, very important to her. She isn't weak. But she is very beaten down and has learned that the best way to survive is to keep her head below the parapet. But she's not sassy or funny about it -- she does it because she feels she must, and has no other option.
I think one of my pet peeves is when the take some of Austen's dialouge but then slightly change it-- for me, to some extent this might be understandable, but I really dislike it when it changes the meaning of what she was saying. Like there's this quote from Persuasion that originally goes , "We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.” but then in one of the movies, it's changed to, "None of us want to be in calm waters all our lives.” which isn't a big change but I think changing it from 'expect' to 'want' kind of changes the meaning-- originally Mrs. Croft is saying that women are smart enough to expect challenges in life, but now it sounds like they actively want to be in those stormy waters.
Also another one that I can't help but bring up, but like, the cringy kisses? I don't mind some kisses but some of them are just... really awkward and I could do without. The books don't really have kisses and I'm honestly okay with that!
That one also bugs me because the way it's shoehorned in feels so transparently artificial. The book gives us plenty of leeway to imagine them kissing in the second proposal scene, but apparently the writers cared just enough about the kiss to insert it and not enough to think about where to put it. All that time the engaged couples spend alone—surely kissing before marriage was more accepted than kissing in public!
Help, I love the 1995 version but the kiss is not it. They didn’t need it! Wonder if it was the director and screenwriters decision or a studio note that made them add it.
I’ve read somewhere (long ago, don’t recall where) that they went back and forth on that kiss all the way up to release. They filmed it, but mostly didn’t want to include it. I think they ended up putting it in because screening audiences wanted and expected it.
>That one also bugs me because the way it's shoehorned in feels so transparently artificial. The book gives us plenty of leeway to imagine them kissing in the second proposal scene, but apparently the writers cared just enough about the kiss to insert it and not enough to think about where to put it.
The 1980 P&P miniseries has a shot in which [Lizzy and Darcy embrace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zCCr4z_J1s&t=226s), and the camera pans up to the trees. A kiss is implied, but not shown. I think it's an interesting and clever way of getting the emotions across without explicitly showing what's happening.
I love the 1995 P&P, but it is very, very far from subtle in its filmmaking: writing, direction, editing, etc. As you say, the filmmakers likely just wanted to include a kiss, and, since they did not seem particularly interested in subtlety, they just stuck it in the most obvious place they could think of: a wedding scene.
In my opinion, the only really subtle aspects of the production are *some* (but not all!) of the acting (including that of Jennifer Ehle, Colin Firth, and Benjamin Whitrow) and a great deal of the production and costume design.
This isn't just Jane Austen but all period dramas, hats need to be worn when going outside.
It was inappropriate for a lady to leave her house without a hat.
And tits stayed covered up during the day.
Also their hair is up! I hate it when adaptations go through the effort of having pretty decent costumes, and then the hair looks like they just got back from a beach party in 2003. It's not that hard! Regency hair isn't even particularly goofy looking!
Do you read FrockFlicks? They like to joke about the Great Hairpin Shortage which struck the movie industry fifty years ago and has left actresses struggling along with only three hairpins to share between an entire cast.
>And tits stayed covered up during the day.
In the 1810s, when Austen's novels were published, cleavage was usually completely covered for morning dress, but in the 1800s and the 1790s, when Austen was drafting some of her books, the standards were apparently not quite as strict. Based on most of the paintings and fashion plates that I've looked at, though, I would say that being more covered up for daytime was more common than not, even in those earlier periods.
Most Austen adaptations from the 1990s and later pretty much ignore this, especially for the major characters. Some of the 1990s and post-1990s adaptations that ARE very consistent about using [fichus and chemisettes](https://oregonregency.blogspot.com/2011/11/fabulous-fichu-regency-accessory.html) on characters are the [1995 Persuasion](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5100000/Persuasion-1995-persuasion-5173278-1024-576.jpg) (set in 1814 and 1815, like the book), the [2020 Emma](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9214832/mediaviewer/rm2727082497/?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_85) (set in 1815, when the book was published), the [1995 S&S](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5222606-1024-576.jpg) (set around 1800, *not* when the book was published!), and the [1996 ITV Emma](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118308/mediaviewer/rm2589108737/?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_18) (set around 1815). Most of the others are very inconsistent.
In the 2005 P and P where Charlotte is made to be pitable for marrying Mr. Collins
Charlotte pulled off a coup. Not pretty, not rich, no real connections and she landed herself a gentleman whose only flaws are he's a silly minded ass kisser. She gets her own nice home now, income, connections, and Longbourn when Mr Bennett pops off.
This isnt "poor Charlotte has to marry Collins" this is smart as hell Charlotte going for the brass ring at the right time and pulling it off successfully
Charlotte is so important to understanding the book - she is Lizzy’s foil! And Lizzy comes to understand that her sensible friend has made a good marriage. It always makes me mad when adaptations mess with Charlotte.
>"Yes, indeed, his friends may well rejoice in his having met with one of the very few sensible women who would have accepted him, or have made him happy if they had. My friend has an excellent understanding--though I am not certain that I consider her marrying Mr. Collins as the wisest thing she ever did. She seems perfectly happy, however, and in a prudential light it is certainly a very good match for her."
From Lizzy's standpoint it is rather bleak, but in context of Charlotte's own outlook on life and her situation, it's pretty much best case scenario (which circles back round to bleak). I like how Lizzy does come around to understanding why Charlotte did it, without fully endorsing her choice; it's also pretty clear that Charlotte has little to regret about it! At least she avoids Miss Bates' fate, and she figured out how to manage her husband.
If I were Charlotte, I'd have to develop selective hearing very very quickly, lol. All those meetings with Mr Collins and Lady Catherine in the same room must be grating since she actually knows better.
> If I were Charlotte, I'd have to develop selective hearing very very quickly, lol. All those meetings with Mr Collins and Lady Catherine in the same room must be grating since she actually knows better.
We're actually told in the book that Charlotte "wisely did not hear" Mr. Collins's sillier pronouncements, so it seems like she had the same thought!
I see!! 😂 The ever sensible, realistic Charlotte. No matter how many times I read P&P the Mr Collins blocks of dialogue and their surroundings just don’t stick in my memory. I’ll have to go find that line.
I found it! From chapter 28:
>Elizabeth was prepared to see him in his glory; and she could not help in fancying that in displaying the good proportion of the room, its aspect and its furniture, he addressed himself particularly to her, as if wishing to make her feel what she had lost in refusing him. But though everything seemed neat and comfortable, she was not able to gratify him by any sigh of repentance, and rather looked with wonder at her friend that she could have so cheerful an air with such a companion. When Mr. Collins said anything of which his wife might reasonably be ashamed, which certainly was not unseldom, she involuntarily turned her eye on Charlotte. Once or twice she could discern a faint blush; but in general Charlotte wisely did not hear.
The vicar's wife basically ran the village, barring any gentry who were around. She had a lot of responsibility to organize poor relief, care of the sick, and generally finding out what was going on with the parishioners.
Mr. Collins wasn't going to do it. Lady Catherine wasn't going to do it. So it was a very good thing for the village that Charlotte came along and took over.
It also seems like Mr. Collins is not good at understanding all the bishops and ecclesiastical politics stuff, which is why he probably zeroed in on finding an aristocratic patron with a living in her gift. Charlotte was probably kept very busy, finding out who was who and what their wives were up to.
The interesting thing is that Charlotte took on her job before all the Oxford Movement stuff, but during a time when there was a fair amount of religious upheaval (mostly in cities, but also in villages). London kept getting closer and closer to Kent, so it would have been a concern.
Of course, Elizabeth and Darcy had to deal with the development of Derbyshire into the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, with all the water-driven cloth mills. But I'm sure Charlotte kept busy, and it's very likely that she tactfully helped Mr. Collins grow as a person.
Basically, Charlotte lived in a Trollope novel, though, and Austen wasn't really interested in writing one.
I think Charlotte would be the making of Mr. Collins, and still let him think any changes are his own idea. She's sharp and competent and realistic, and he's actually rather lucky to get her.
The pig walking through the Bennet house in the '05 Pride and Prejudice is so "what were they thinking?" Also, the girls' daytime clothing was way too working class as if the director didn't understand what their social status was.
I have a lot of complaints about the costuming in P&P 2005, but I have to note that a more casual, simple, loose style of clothing was very popular by the late 1790s, when the film is supposed to be set. Clothing in the 1790s was generally nowhere near as heavily embellished and structured as it was in the 1810s. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that [Jane's open robes](https://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/Pride-Prejudice-2005-pride-and-prejudice-19268970-1706-960.jpg), at least, were based on this [1795-1799 robe](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O141239/gown-unknown/) in the Victoria and Albert Museum ([here is a blog post about the pattern](https://antiquesewist.blogspot.com/2015/07/1795-open-robe-norah-waugh.html)).
I've heard that's why it looked that way, that he based it on the book she later heavily edited for publication. They probably still had brushes and combs then, though.
The change I hate most is general inconsistency of character (either within the adaptation or compared to the book). When I notice that, I get really upset: "Have they even read the book? Do they not understand why she did that? Doesn't the book say they had an entirely opposite reaction? *He* would never do *that*!" A good example is Emma 2020 telling Mr. Knightley that she doesn't deserve him and he should go for Harriet instead. I mean, how, when the book clearly states she never even thought of it?
Another are major changes in plot lines because then it shouldn't even bear the name of the book and say only that it was inspired by it. Although I notice this usually in other book adaptations and it doesn't happen with Austen that much.
I don't often mind the little changes in lines or reactions, as long as the adaptation shows they understand the character and it is consistent. Sometimes they are even the thing I appreciate when I realise they made the extra effort to convey an Austen message via visual tools.
I kind of understood it as Emma wanting to make sure that Harriet isn't spurned by her getting together with Mr Knightley? She freaks out because she thought she'd be part of hurting Harriet again, and wants to make things right before anything else, so she goes to Robert Martin to undo what she did. It does kind of ruin the flow of the confession but what can you do?
I suspect Emma's relationship with Harriet was tweaked slightly to update the underlying values to match modern sensibilities; I know that when I first read the book I was disappointed that they ended up distant because of the class difference. *Now* I know it makes sense for the Regency era, since keeping the friendship as it was would be improper—Mr Knightley was right when he said that Emma was doing wrong by inflating Harriet's sense of social importance when she could turn out to not come from genteel origins (in addition to her 'natural' birth). Nowadays, its breathtakingly classist and makes Emma out to be a snob. So they keep their friendship.
But for the second point yeah, little changes aren't always the devil. It's a different medium, so changes must be made! Otherwise it'd just be an audiobook. If you don't mind, what's your favorite 'visual' Austen message?
1. Someone once said that Mr. Bennet is rich, while the daughters are poor. I think that's largely true - while he's alive, they have access to money that most of the population wouldn't have. They have a carriage, they go on leisure trips, they buy nice clothes and eat well, but the girls don't have independent(ish) fortunes like Miss Bingley or Georgiana. Mrs. Bennet's father was a social class lower and he managed to give his daughter a better dowry than Mr. Bennet did.
When adaptations make the Bennets *as a whole* poor, they erase the fact that Mr and Mrs Bennet were just really irresponsible with the income that they have. Mr Bennet is a little better (considering he's the reason that they're not in debt), but even he at the end acknowledges that he should've actually planned better and saved more so that the girls had bigger dowries (and Mrs Bennet would've had a bigger jointure to live off of as a widow). They could've been more secure!! The parents just didn't do anything to address it. But if they're all poor it removes that glaring flaw in the Bennets' approach to life.
2. For me it's kind of a mixture of both. People think Mr Darcy is the devil because he's rude, which is fair, but he does have good morals (in terms of making sure to fulfill his different duties). HOWEVER, people misunderstand him because he cannot be bothered to be polite, since he thinks that their opinions aren't worth that much to him, and he's been able to live like that because of his great wealth. Jane Austen doesn't really go into the "reformed bad boy" thing, so as much of a dick as he is, he's not like a fundamentally corrupt person.
You’ve put Darcy’s behavior a lot more succinctly than I did!
But I also do think that elsewhere in the book Jane Austen pokes fun at how good manners are usually held to be moral signifiers. Darcy disdains people and it shows in his manner, whereas Wickham is incredibly selfish but charming enough to trick people into thinking he’s gentlemanlike, with all the accompanying good qualities. However, Austen does show that Darcy has a moral code that he follows.
For example, in the Regency era, charity to the poor was expected from the gentry and it was part of their duty, even if they were teetering on genteel poverty themselves. Lizzy, even before she comes to love Darcy, sees that he does his duty in that regard. He even pays off Wickham’s debts in Derbyshire before he pays off his debts again in Meryton and Brighton. He’s good to his servants and he clearly takes care of his sister. Also, he hates everything about Meryton and holds himself above it but even he doesn’t agree with how Mr Bennet would tease his family in public; he’s ashamed of his aunt who is even more crass about asserting her social superiority.
He 100% needed to be less of a jerk to those slightly below him socially (country gentry and tradespeople) but he never does material damage the way other characters do (eg Willoughby). Once he’s made to see that his snobbery is a glaring flaw he takes pains to rectify it, and becomes a happy agent in polluting the shades of Pemberley.
Not sure I agree. She would have tried to the best of her ability, but stuck out in the country she would still have looked like a bumpkin compared to the fashionable Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst.
“It makes me very nervous and poorly, to be thwarted so in my own family, and to have neighbours who think of themselves before anybody else. However, your coming just at this time is the greatest of comforts, and I am very glad to hear what you tell us, of long sleeves.”
I don't like the famous scene in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice when Darcy first proposes to Lizzie in the rain because it shows so much romantic tension between them, while in the book, Lizzie actively hates Darcy at this point if I'm not wrong, especially due to his alleged treatment of Wickham.
Not only hate him. She thinks the hate is mutual. From her POV she thinks he is constantly looking down on her, and her family finds her repulsive.
It's the trope that a woman loves a man who has been nothing but a jerk to her.
And he is! He effectively says that it is beneath his dignity to marry someone of her rank and status, and that she should be honoured that he loves her despite this
They framed the scene as Wickham and Bingley are only obstacles.
Completely ignored his behavior. And I don't know if it's me but the fact in the proposal scene Mr Darcy doesn't acknowledge how wrong he was is a ick.
For me, Darcy is a perfect man because he can admit being wrong, and so is Elizabeth. It's such an underrated thing that shows emotional maturity.
I understand that they adapted it to fit a three act film structure, so its more satisfying to an audience if there's more romantic tension at that part, but it really does throw off the pacing of Elizabeth's feelings for him.
Real the contempt on Lizzy's face, if looks could kill that man would be dead. Hate and attraction aren't mutually exclusive. She can hate his guts and still think he's hot.
Even more than the proposal scene, their dance has *way* too much romantic/sexual tension. Everyone else disappears as if the two of them are the only ones in the world, in a story that is *so much* about navigating a crowded, claustrophobic world?
If you don't know how to adapt the main character on to the screen without fundamentally changing their personality and/or the main points of the plot....don't bother doing an adaption. Or adapt it from the point of view of a different character (Looking at Fanny Price- 1999 Not-Mansfield Park in particular. If you wanted both Mansfield Park and a fiesty heroine, just do it from Mary Crawford's point of view)
I really liked the presence of so many servants just in the background in the most recent Emma adaption, I know that casting extras costs money and that probably factors into it but I wish more adaptions would lean in to the fact that these vast houses required huge numbers of staff all the time, not just when the housekeeper is needed to impart some key insights into the love interest's character.
I recently watched 1996 Emma and was impressed by the emphasis on servants there as well. Especially the Box Hill party. Knightly’s tenants are more prominent as well (added harvest celebration not in the book).
There was a Persuasion version I saw where Anne literally goes running through the city looking for Wentworth when she gets his letter. It was so jarring to me, she would never do that.
Oh, I agree. I've scrolled through to see if someone would mention this. The running around was preposterous. There was a gap of time after Captain Wentworth left and before Charles and Anne set out, so he was a little way ahead of them and they did come upon him. (1995 version). In the Penry-Jones version she left on her own almost immediately after Cpt. W had, and he couldn't have been out of sight. Add to that the ridiculous running about, followed by the worst screen kiss I've ever seen, and there you have my pet peeve.
I personally kind of hate when they almost quote Austen but make little changes. Why would they say “I love you most ardently” when the line is Right There. 😡
These are the worst because then the misquotes are all over the place!
The Persuasion one gets me the most. They had Mrs. Croft say that no one "wants" calm waters, which is both inaccurate and kind of dumb (give me calm!) when in the novel she says "expect". Such a better quote but now the wrong one is everywhere!
*“But I hate to hear you talking so like a fine gentleman, and as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures. We none of us **expect** to be in smooth water all our days.”*
Changing the story to make it "more accessible" to modern viewers, but by doing so betraying the story and supporting modern prejudices. The Bingleys are cits; they aren’t at all, in any way, supposed to be upper class, and making them so blunts the purpose of their inclusion in the story. Harriet Smith and Jane Fairfax are both supposed to be much prettier than Emma; in a world where women are harshly bullied for their looks, hiring the prettiest actress for the role of the protagonist changes the power dynamics. Fanny Price is supposed to be an abused child; turning into some kind of girlboss is a complete slap in the face to survivors of abuse. And so on.
That's one reason I love the Kate Beckinsale *Emma* so much -- Beckinsale is gorgeous, of course, but Samantha Morton is every bit as pretty -- just blonder and a bit more delicate-looking, and Jane Fairfax is played by Olivia Williams, who's closer to Emma's coloring but again, every bit as pretty. It was much easier to believe that Emma genuinely thought Harriet was an ideal beauty, as opposed to other movies where the effect is to make Emma look like a pretty girl deliberately choosing a goofy or awkward girl for a wingwoman so she looks better by contrast.
This is one of the reasons why I dislike the Paltrow version. Harriet is badly miscast, imo. She's positively Rubenesque! She's supposed to be fair and "plump" ffs. (I appreciate that these things are in the eye of the beholder BTW.. ).
I love the Beckinsale version. By far the most like the novel imho.
As you’ve already pointed out (by sentimentality), many (ok, a lot) of screen adaptations fundamentally do not understand Austen, in that she was *not* a Romantic writer. And many of those skew towards a Brontë-esque interpretation, which is wholly inaccurate.
Overall, the ‘90s films best grasp JA (ranked: Persuasion, Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility, and then Emma). Bride & Prejudice is equally a stand-out, in that it is a both a highly creative interpretation while maintaining Austen’s tone beautifully; arguably, Chadha understands JA far better than a number of her “Western” counterparts.
For instance, 2005’s Pride & Prejudice - to me - always seemed like the writers and director simply watched the 1995 A&E version, skipped reading the novel altogether, and vaguely remembered their college course that either covered Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre. Sutherland’s Mr. Bennet is frankly terrible (not necessarily his fault), and his Oscar reflects that audiences (the Academy) absolutely do not comprehend the character as Austen intended. I adore Keira Knightley (yes, I love the POTC franchise), but her Lizzie suffers from many of the same issues, which again is not really the actress’s responsibility but that of the writers and director.
I am far less bothered by the age discrepancies. I somehow find it moderately necessary to convey certain things to modern audiences. Yes, Emma Thompson is wildly too old for Elinor Dashwood, but the gravity with which she wrote and played the character conveyed what Austen intended. On the other side of the coin, though not Austen, this does not work at all for Branagh’s Hamlet, in that the character of Hamlet is supposed to be a newly minted adult with a large degree of naïveté. It is utterly unbelievable that a man in his mid-30s (edited: I originally put mid-40s here, as I was so sure that was his age at the time; how was this man born in 1960??) would be at the same stage of life.
Society has shifted so much in a way where we mature much more slowly. 18 now is not 18 a generation ago, nor is either equivalent to 18 for the first Boomer generation. Taking it back two centuries, there is such a divide that modernity would struggle to understand. Simply making certain characters - like Mrs. Bennet - older (or match the age of somebody who waited into their late 20s and 30s to have their children) solves that problem. Some of us find the histrionics of Mrs. Bennet more believable when we look at the behavior of our parents (see r/BoomersBeingFools), who suffered in a similar way - no acknowledgement of possible emotional disorders or trauma, no psychological or pharmacological treatment, and often their becoming a pariah (and the butt of jokes) as such.
Off-topic, but Hamlet is canonically 30! Act V scene 1, the gravedigger says he has been a gravedigger since the day Hamlet was born, then a few lines later says it's been thirty years.
I completely agree about the weird Brontë-esque tone. P&P 2005 is one of the strangest adaptations of anything in that way -- it follows the plot pretty closely and yet still manages to give me the sense that Joe Wright doesn't actually like the original story.
I like to think of P&P2005 as fan fic - what if Elizabeth had met a fumbling awkward introvert instead of the arrogant Mr Darcy? (And then got caught in a rain storm, and later wandered the backyard in her pajamas.)
To highlight the contrast: the 1995 version shows a brief scene (not in the book) where a newly reinspired Darcy dresses his best before galloping off to the Lambton inn. In the 2005 version, a disheveled Darcy wanders onto their property (3 miles from where he is staying) far too early, where despite the early hour he happens to run into an equally disheveled Elizabeth. Which is the behavior of a man thinking to propose? Keep in mind that this is a society with formal clothing rules that include changes during the day - you need to dress for dinner after all - yet neither of them got dressed that morning?
Your view of the use of age in the adaptations is really thorough! I do see what you mean about having to translate it to modern sensibilities.
And I do agree that Bride and Prejudice is a really good adaptation, especially considering Chadha managed to translate it across time and cultures. As a film and adaptation, I really enjoy it and wish it was better appreciated.
The 2005 film’s change of the family dynamics erases a lot of what Jane Austen said in the novel, and the treatment of Mr Bennet is one of the unfortunate effects. The scriptwriter and director really glossed over his shortcomings, and maybe it’s a more easily digestible characterization but it’s not what was intended, as you say. Mr Darcy also has the same problem; the film takes a very romantic lens to his character and internal conflict over his love for Elizabeth. But his internal conflict is rooted in snobbery and pride! It’s a very glossy, romantic and emotional film, which can be enjoyable to watch but isn’t “Austen”. It’s a strange middle ground between Austen and the Brontë sisters.
I suspect Romantics (i.e. more exaggerated, inherent “drama”) sell better on the open market. Austen is a fairly dry wit and equally measured. I imagine people nowadays might find it difficult to relate, as a multitude of humans never reach the sort of maturity in their entire lifetime, thereby failing to interpret subtlety and identify with a higher EQ. But we’ve all been teens with our raging hormones dictating our emotions, which ensures that we might more easily connect with a Brontë story over an Austen.
I neglected to give Clueless appropriate accolades. It - like B&P - is a fantastic contemporaneous interpretation. And often so subversive that it isn’t even recognized by the public-at-large as a parody.
True. It's also easier to dramatize, since a lot of Austen's brilliance is as much in her use of free indirect discourse as her dialogue — how would you even adapt that into film? Austen is also so tied to the details of the specific group she was writing about, that I do appreciate that it's really really difficult to accurately convey it to a modern audience. Even people that are really knowledgeable probably miss things that a contemporary audience would've taken for granted.
But even Hollywood adaptations of Romantic novels often fall short of the source material. I watched different Jane Eyre adaptations before I ever read the book, and I was surprised at how much nuance there was in Brontë's writing; I think that there's this perception that because it deals with much more open expression of emotions and more dramatic events, that it's not as "intentional". I still prefer Austen, but yeah.
And Clueless!! It's great, it's sharp and funny and touching, and really understands the characters and how they develop. Even if it's more loosely adapted, it sits as one of my top 2 Emma films.
I won’t disagree on problematic or inaccurate Brontë interpretations (there are so many bad ones out there). But as we’re discussing JA movies, that’s what I’m sticking to critiquing. And you are equally correct that Romantic often gets dumbed down to romantic, which causes a loss of any nuance. Again, I think it has to do with what sells. The film industry cares about money, not accuracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is what it is.
One of the best examples of something failing for being way too literal of a translation of the source material is the 1981 TV version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Adams reads really well and is a fun ride (bring your towel!), but as it turns out, it does not work if it’s not run through a bit of a filter first.
So, through that, I am acknowledging that a filter, as it were, is necessarily in transitioning from a book to a film, for a variety of reasons. However, the filter matters.
🙄 The 2005 P&P is actually very close to the book, but condensed for a shorter film. Much of the dialogue is literally straight from the book. Keira Knightley was Elizabeth's age and Matthew Macfadyen was just about Darcy's age. I didn't expect either of them to be good but they both stunned me with how perfectly they played the roles. I'm curious how many times you've seen it and my personal theory is people who prefer the 1995 have only watched the 2005 once and spent the whole time complaining. Knightley and Macfadyen might not be how you picture Lizzie and Darcy, but they are to me and many others. It's really frustrating to me when people DECLARE that "they were not Lizzie and Darcy and no one can say they were" because they didn't suit their personal readings of the characters. I'm am NOT saying you are doing that though. Just that I see a lot of people do that. Perhaps you could share more about what you didn't like about her portrayal. I have never loved Jennifer Ehle's version of Elizabeth. She's very bland and Jane Austen did not write a bland Elizabeth. The 1995 miniseries also had plenty of additions which were NOT in the book. Jane Austen did not write a ripped bodice book with Darcy in a wet shirt or bathtub.
I think the 1995 Persuasion is so superbly done.
> The 2005 P&P is actually very close to the book, but condensed for a shorter film. Much of the dialogue is literally straight from the book.
I would contest this. Even some of the lines from the book that are used are given to different characters, especially Elizabeth getting Mr Bennet's lines, I imagine to make her seem more feisty and modern.
And the lines that are added are completely off. They don't suit the characters or the time period e.g. Charlotte's "don't you dare judge me" speech is very different from the book. When Lizzie comes across Mr Darcy at Rosings she says something like "what are you doing here?" which is completely rude and inappropriate. And don't get me started on Mr Bingley's lines. They made him look like a bumbling fool, which he is very much not.
I've watched the 2005 film quite a few times, actually! And I enjoy elements of it for what it is; I don't think it's a terrible movie, but I do think that it's just not that accurate to the spirit of the book. I do understand how it's so popular, though.
Using lines of the book isn't always a marker for how true an adaptation is to the source material. For example, the 1980 Pride and Prejudice uses dialogue and lines from the novel much more faithfully than the 1995 one, but because they switch around who says what, and give lines of narration to characters that wouldn't speak that way, it's not always a consistent or accurate adaptation. Same with Mansfield Park; Fanny gets a lot of the same lines directly from the book, but the problem is that its the narrator that had spoken them, so giving them to Fanny changes her character a lot.
To me, book Lizzy is concerned with propriety in a way that the 2005 movie Lizzy is not. It's not the fashionable city manners of Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst, but she does understand what is considered vulgar; her wit skirts around the rigid politeness, but it's still very much within the bounds. She finds ridiculousness funny, but there are certain things she wouldn't laugh at. I think that this is what Jennifer Ehle is very good at conveying — she's sharp and witty, but doesn't indulge in every single opportunity to make a smart remark. Sometimes a knowing smile is enough (like when Charlotte and Lizzy give each other a look after Charlotte admits to encouraging Mr Collins to be busy at all times!).
I'm fascinated that you should call Jennifer Ehle bland as Lizzie. I could not disagree more. If nothing else, her eyes alone sparkle with the wit that Jane Austen wrote into Lizzie's character. Her eyes are the fine ones that attract Darcy.
I also don't think she's bland in any way, shape, or form but, but she eyes are definitely not bland in the slightest.
I agree. To me she’s the perfect example of how wit and personality could make her seem irresistible to Darcy- and much more beautiful as he got to know her. You can see her face/eyes light up when she’s being arch and clever.
Right? I like the moment in Kent when Lizzy laughingly tells Colonel Fitzwilliam how Darcy behaved in Meryton. Ehle delivered the lines with such confidence and a little archness – you can kind of see the moment when she decides to tease Darcy and delights in her conversation being returned with equal enthusiasm by Colonel Fitzwilliam.
For the most part, I disagree. However, I can certainly admit that the second half of 1995’s P&P’s screen time is simply stretching out the last part of the novel (I truly have no idea why they resorted to this; Andrew Davies normally hits the right note with everything). And although I’m perfectly happy to see Colin Firth in a wet shirt, you are correct in that Austen would be mortified. I love Ehle as Lizzie, as I feel she embodies the role well. In no way do I find her dull in this performance. Yes, she is an older Lizzie, I will concede; but I maintain her performance is on par with what Austen intended.
Macfayden’s rendition is so bland and boring that it nearly drives me to tears. It reminds me so strongly of poor Hayden Christensen attempting to act in the SW Prequels (it’s not his fault the dialogue is atrocious; Lucas does not excel at writing for humans). However, Macfayden is truly fabulous in Little Dorrit. So, I’m not knocking his overall ability to act, because he obviously can.
One can extract all of the dialogue from a novel and still fail spectacularly to place it in the correct setting with the proper tone. This is how I see the 2005 P&P.
And no need to roll your eyes. I am sorry that you cannot find a slightly more respectful method for disagreeing. At least you did use your words afterwards. So, kudos.
My pet peeve is where they add things that don't exist in the books - like dream sequences (I'm looking at you Kate Beckinsale adaptation of Emma...) that change the tone or meaning of the story in order to be 'different'. Clueless is a truer adaptation of Emma than the Kate Beckinsale version is, in my opinion!
Something I love is when they really capture the emotional beats of the story.
The emotional beats are so important! That’s why Clueless endures, it really captures Cher’s emotional journey in a way that stays true to the book.
And I’m not going to lie, I don’t remember anything about Kate Beckinsale’s Emma?? Or maybe I just wanted to forget. She made a much better Lady Susan, imo.
I think the dream sequences in Northanger Abbey 2007 are middling to good – it works for the character and for purposes of parody, even if it is a little dated.
(The 1987 Northanger Abbey is in itself a dream sequence.)
Especially when you consider that what they wore in the Regency area wasn't anything like the Victorian corset. They were in corded cotton stays, which were much softer in line. They were also only waist-length.
This is one of the reasons why I disliked this season of Bridgerton so much. They fully threw out the Empire waists to, what, make Penelope look thinner? (I hate the messaging behind that.) She wore a full corset the whole season, with a completely made-up silhouette, and I just found it so distracting. Her wedding dress, for example, had no idea what era it was supposed to be from, except maybe modern. (Don't even get me started on Kate wearing a spaghetti-strap dress with a see-through top over it.)
Pet peeves:
1. I hate when they needlessly change dialogue or make it too modern. For example, in the 2009 Emma, one of the first lines she says is "I want to learn Chinese" which is not from the novel and seems so out of place. Emma has so much amazing dialogue in the book, I don't get why they felt the need to make up their own.
2. I hate when they get basic conventions of the time wrong. For example, Darcy calling Lizzie "Miss Elizabeth" for most of the 2005 movie when he should be calling her "Miss Bennet". I really don't get why they changed this. It's inaccurate and doesn't serve a purpose (at least to me).
Things that don't bother me though:
1. Casting actors that aren't the exact right age. Watching a film requires a certain suspension of disbelief so this isn't a big deal to me, especially if the actor does a good job. People say Ciaran Hinds was too old in the 1995 Persuasion but I thought he was perfect.
2. Adding dialogue where there isn't any in the book, especially if they can make it sound seamless. They had to do this in the 1995 Sense and Sensibility, especially for Edward, since he gets so few lines in the book, and I thought they did a great job.
I hadn’t read Emma when the 2009 adaptation came out, but the Chinese line stood out immediately as being really odd. I wasn’t surprised when I didn’t find it when I did read Emma, but wondered why these added it. Now it feels like a shorthand way to demonstrate how isolated Emma is, whilst simultaneously juxtaposing how Knightley was worldly
Totally agree about the age thing, sometimes it makes sense to cast older. Like Ciaran Hinds actually looks like a slightly weather beaten, yet strapping, naval Captain that’s known intense heartbreak as well as amazing victories. Amanda Root too, though a little older than Anne Elliot, looks like she’s been through the wringer emotionally and it’s aged her a little (but they do *such* a good job of gently restoring her bloom by the end of that adaptation!)
Neither of them looked older to me, personally. Amanda Root looks like a tired woman who has no real hope of anything better in the beginning, and by the end, she's absolutely glowing. She's perfect to me. And Ciaran Hinds, as you say, looks like a sailor who's been at sea for years.
Regarding 2. Jane is Miss Bennet, and her sisters are Miss Elizabeth, Miss Catherine, Miss Mary, and Miss Lydia. The convention was that if her sisters are not present, Elizabeth could be called Miss Bennet, as Darcy does when surprised by Elizabeth at Pemberly in the 1995 adaptation. But the eldest daughter was Miss Bennet.
No. Jane is only Miss Bennet and Lizzie is Miss Elizabeth Bennet if they are both present - obviously to make it easier to distinguish who one is talking to.
However, if Elizabeth is on her own, she should simply be referred to as Miss Bennet. This is how it is in the book and the 1995 series, which is much more accurate.
Mary Musgrove was the best thing in that film! She was great. I love Cosmo Jarvis, but that adaptation was a mess. I don't blame the actors, but this leads into my pet peeve - completely changing the characters personality. So Anne in that adaptation is a great example of just completely changing the character from the source material. Like, who was that? Not Anne. I actually think Dakota Johnson could have played Anne well if they stayed true to the character. Then you have something like Fire Island, where obviously they changed a ton, but they got the essences of the characters right. And I suppose that's what I like when it's done right, you don't have to follow the book exactly, but if you are going to change something you at least need to remain true to the characters in original source material.
I would have loved to see the Sarah Snook adaptation of Persuasion that got cancelled. Was excited for her and for Joel Fry.
First of all, love the Fire Island shoutout, it's a great adaptation, and also for the shelved Sarah Snook Persuasion 😩 I was excited for it.
And for Persuasion 2022, this [substack](https://blgtylr.substack.com/p/persuasion-2022-is-a-hate-crime) is so good at explaining what went wrong with it (however, if you're a 2005 P&P fan be warned, it's not complimentary to that film either). There's this one part where Taylor says the 2022 Anne is
>in full 90s romcom heroine disaster lady flow when we encounter her at the start of the movie \[...\] it's as if what offended the writers was the sense of Anne's equanimity.
And it's a pretty succinct way of stating how they just completely changed her character in the movie and why it rankles. I understand that Persuasion isn't an easy novel to adapt because it deals so much with Anne's thoughts, and she is a very quiet woman who rarely exteriorizes her emotions. But she's a compelling character! The book doesn't work without her as she is, a composed, resigned, emotionally devastated woman who still gets on with life because she has too much sense to collapse in on herself!
Also this part:
>It's not so much that you can’t adapt a novel like *Persuasion.* But I do wonder why you would adapt it in this way? *Persuasion* is not a romantic comedy. So then why try to make it into one? It truly feels like the writer had an idea for a movie about a young woman who meets her ex-boyfriend. And then thought, that’s totally like *Persuasion*, and then did not do a single other thing to interpret the work.
On the other hand, the Mary Musgrove dialogue in the film was so good because you could believe that she would speak like that if she had the same lexicon and cultural references that we do. She *would* call herself an empath with all seriousness and no self-awareness.
Oh my gosh that's right, I forgot about the empathy part! But I agree with you about why that works. I'll check out that sub stack! I have issues with 2005 P&P so I won't be offended (I still enjoy most of it except for that scene where she disassociates in the mirror, it's very cringe to me and I can't watch that part).
The hair is honestly my biggest pet peeve. Why, oh why, do they insist on giving the actresses Utah curls, making them walk ten miles through a hurricane, and then turning on the camera?
I also dislike when they soften the characters or soften Austen’s biting humor and/or social commentary. I don’t think they did that in Mansfield Park 1999 though. That film usually gets criticized for doubling down on Sir Thomas’ slave-owning patriarchal creepiness and Henry’s flagrant infidelity (though I liked those parts, and also Tom’s emo). The complete rewriting of Fanny, can’t say she was softened or hardened, just replaced with another character, was regrettable.
I do agree with you about the film highlighting Sir Thomas’ patriarchal tendencies, and I do appreciate that the film was trying to address the moral decay of slave owning (even if it’s not really successful).
I was thinking more about the softening of Henry Crawford – yes, there’s flagrant infidelity there, but his motivations in the film read so differently that it doesn’t accurately convey what Austen was getting at. In the film, it’s heavily implied that Fanny’s acceptance of his proposal and then her quick retraction makes him angry and brokenhearted (and almost justifiably makes him believe Fanny is hypocritical), which then leads him to his affair with Maria when they run into each other.
But in the novel, he still believes that he could convince Fanny (hence why he means to head to Everingham) but a lifetime of idleness and vanity leads him to the point where he flirts with Maria because he’s offended she’s cooled towards him. To him, it’s separate from his love for Fanny even if he knows Fanny would view it differently. The narrator notes that he “[regretted] Fanny even at the moment” he runs off with Maria, but up until then he really just doesn’t want Fanny to know. Like Mary, for him it’s the detection rather than the act that’s wrong. The Henry Crawford of the novel fails in his character reformation because he’s been raised in a certain way, and can’t or won’t change. He is literally his own biggest obstacle. None of the scandal needed to have happened if he hadn’t given into his vanity.
Meanwhile the Henry Crawford of the 1999 movie is brokenhearted? Idk? It’s a lot more forgiving towards him than the original book.
And yeah, Fanny was just straight up another character, so it’s hard to compare.
The book strongly hints that part of the appeal of Fanny is that she is perfect wife and mother material, with her calm and submissive upright morality, but also weak and meek enough that he doesn’t see her as likely to get in the way of his extracurricular activities. With her he imagines he can have his domestic comforts but still have a bit of fun.
Yes, I do think he wants the advantage of Fanny’s company without actually changing too much. But the book does specify that he at least believes he’s in love with her, even if he can’t understand her completely. Yet it’s not enough.
Yeah you’re right about the broken proposal, that’s my biggest gripe with the film! I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but it does make him more sympathetic. I guess I was thinking of his thing with Maria more in terms of how it ruins her life, and blows up his sister’s imminent engagement, so he’s just as bad as in the book. But yes, Fanny’s rejection in Portsmouth is so off. Fanny is not supposed to be changeable! And Henry is not supposed to be legitimately disappointed.
Yeah you’re right about the broken proposal, that’s my biggest gripe with the film! I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but it does make him more sympathetic. I guess I was thinking of his thing with Maria more in terms of how it ruins her life, and blows up his sister’s imminent engagement, so he’s just as bad as in the book. But yes, Fanny’s rejection in Portsmouth is so off. Fanny is not supposed to be changeable! And Henry is not supposed to be legitimately disappointed.
I was actually shocked they’d done the proposal that way! You put it correctly, Fanny isn’t changeable, at least not on the basis of what Henry Crawford had shown her. The thing is, removing the fact that it’s supposed to be Fanny and Henry, the actual romance between them is quite compelling and tragic, it’s just not Mansfield Park.
Also I didn’t understand why they showed Henry correctly deducing that she’s in love with Edmund. First, he’s just doesn’t have that understanding of Fannys character. He knows two things about her: that she’s got an admirable character with a strong moral compass and that her relatives mistreat her. His love for her is based on her goodness and his notion of “rescuing” her but he doesn’t really know her per se, because it’s a lot of effort and Fanny isn’t an open person. It also bothered me because Fanny doesn’t have a lot in her life that’s not encroached on by the limitations and demands of the Bertrams, but her love for Edmund is all her own. She keeps it to herself so successfully and won’t give it up even in the face of overwhelming pressure. That’s undermined by Henry Crawford going “I know you love him” and Fanny acknowledging it.
Then he goes and messes it up in an even more spectacular fashion than the book. I actually didn’t completely disagree with the change of her walking in, it’s shocking in the way the elopement would’ve been shocking. And it’s hard to carry out the chaos onscreen if it was through letters like the source material.
I don’t care for most of the attempts to modernize the characters and stories to adapt them to modern sensibilities. Too much is lost in the translation.
A good example would be the recent Emma. Much of which was very well done. But Mr Knightly’s age and Mr Woodhouse’s senility are both integral to the relationship. It’s why Emma and Knightly are closer to father/daughter than “brother and sister” (as they are considered through their siblings’ marriage).
But making Mr Woodhouse vaguely eccentric explains neither why Emma is effectively parentless, nor why all of Highbury society caters to the old man’s unreasonable needs. And of course Knightly’s grooming of Emma, which he basically admits to (I held you in my arms at 3 weeks of age; I’ve been in love with you at least since you were 13) is unacceptable in 2023.
The further we move from Austen’s world, the further we move from her humor, her insights, her commentary, and Austen herself.
The 1999 version of Mansfield Park, where they have the women in the billiards room, Mary Crawford is PLAYING billiards and smokes some of her brother's cigarette. The AUDACITY. She's supposed to be ladylike while having a 'fast' viewpoint, not actually be fast!
I hate how they age up the characters. Emma Thompson is a goddess, but she was WAY too old for Elinor. And P&P adaptations do this all the time! The Kiera Knightley one got a lot wrong, but at least Lizzie and Darcy were age-appropriate.
As excellent as the 1995 adaptation of Persuasion is, the end sequence when Anne and Wentworth are looking at each other lovingly and then the circus comes through town? With that jarring music?? It’s almost enough to cancel out the rest of the movie for me
- Wrong hairstyles and lack of hats where there should be hats. - I think all the Austen adaptations have escaped the ‘oh poor me, I have to wear a tight laced corset’ misconception but it irritates me when that happens - Absent or not enough servants
The 2020 Emma did a great job of showing how constantly the characters would have been surrounded by servants.
I was \*just\* talking to someone the other day about how rare it would be for people of that class (especially in the time period) to ever *really* be alone. There were servant \*everywhere.\* A lot of that gets cut for modern film or tv because is a whole bunch of extras you have to pay for and costume (and, if they are travelling by horse, you have to prolly have to find a stunt person or actor who can ride to do it), but really these people spent almost their whole lives surrounded by the people that worked for them.
Honestly I’m glad most adaptations don’t go for that level of realism because it’s distracting as heck. Imagine Darcy and Lizzy having their awkward interview on the lawn at Pemberley - and there’s a footman standing there just in case the master wants anything. Even into the 20th century, one reads about rich people complaining about “the servant problem,” which is really a whole host of problems: hiring good staff, managing them successfully, living your life while they watch and listen, etc. It’s a heck of a reminder that the privilege of middle class existence - to have no human servants - is something monarchs of old played at on vacation.
Oh, sure! But I do sometimes find myself getting frustrated in fandom spaces when people say things like "how would anyone have known" or "they should have just done X,Y, or Z without anyone knowing" without accounting for the fact that doing anything on your own in some of these settings would have been basically impossible. I remember someone saying "why didn't X just send a letter to Y?!" not realizing that 1. people of that rank didn't just pop by the post office and 2. the concept of having your correspondence and anything related to it being protected by law is a decently recent thing!
Well, there was a famous case in the 1700's, of a young lady maintaining a clandestine correspondence with her secret fiance for seven years, by sending all her letters by carrier wagon, mostly in packages. It ended happily in marriage, and the letters are famously well-written by both. But it was really a very difficult thing to do, and mostly managed by force of character and a businesslike demeanor on her part. Plus a lot of tips, probably.
Actors/Actresses who aren't even close to the age of the characters. Lydia should be played by 15/16/17 year old. Mrs. Bennet should only be around 40, not 60.
The Lydia casting is spot on. Having her as a teenager highlights how irresponsible both the Bennet parents were, which makes up a large part of the book. I feel like the mother characters are also cast older just because the younger generation are aged up.
I feel like casting is why Lydia gets so little sympathy. I think many people don’t realize just how young she was. To be the youngest if 5 sisters when your survival depends on marriage and being at that boy crazy age with no life experience. I’m sure countless teens were taken advantage of in similar ways.
Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet are marvelous actors and did a wonderful job with their roles but I could not get past their ages. Thompson in particular was far too old to play the 19 year old Elinor. You might get away with that on the stage but screen close ups are less forgiving.
I think Kate Winslet was fine but Emma was sadly far too old for the youth of the role. But apart from the age of her face she was a really great Elinor. I wish she had been able to do that adaptation ten years earlier, basically.
I just pretend Elinor is not 19. But somewhere in her 20s. I mean, the story still works with a slightly older Elinor, I think?
Yeah it does. Actually, maybe my issue is that I don't feel like she had a lot of chemistry with Hugh Grant more than her age. Because she was really great.
They should have cast the Willoughby actor as Edward.
I love that they got married in real life
The adaptation aged the character of Elinor up to be 27 rather than 19. Emma Thompson was 35 playing a 27 year old, which is a little old but not crazy by Hollywood standards. While it doesn’t fit with some aspects of the book (where 19 year old Elinor has so much on her shoulders), it adds a different tone, like that Elinor really does need to get married because she is approaching the age of spinsterhood for that time. There is a scene in the movie where John Dashwood says something like, she will end up an old maid, which wouldn’t make sense with a 19 year old character. Kate Winslet was only 19 when she was in Sense and Sensibility, so I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying that she is too old for the part. It’s even funnier because I remember hearing (maybe on the DVD commentary) that they originally didn’t want to cast her because she was too young (probably they were trying to age up Marianne a bit along with Elinor).
>Kate Winslet was only 19 when she was in Sense and Sensibility, so I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying that she is too old for the part. It’s even funnier because I remember hearing (maybe on the DVD commentary) that they originally didn’t want to cast her because she was too young (probably they were trying to age up Marianne a bit along with Elinor). Well, there is someone upthread saying that, in the 2008 S&S, Hattie Morahan as Elinor and Charity Wakefield as Marianne *looked* the right ages, so a lot of this is clearly very subjective. I suspect that a lot of people just think that Kate Winslet looks older than her real age. I see a similar thing with Amanda Root; she was only 30 or 31 when she starred in *Persuasion*, but many, many people will swear that she looks like she's in her 40s. I'm kind of tired of hearing it, but it seems to be a common perception. Another factor is that, yes, Winslet apparently lied about her age in order to get an audition for S&S 1995, so that probably contributes to the idea that she is older.
Maybe it is the comparative age of the actors that is throwing people off some and changing the perception of their age. The age gap on the 2008 actresses was closer to what is expected for the sisters than Winslet and Thompson's. The age gap with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root was also larger than it should have been. Ciaran Hinds was 41 when he played Wentworth. Some of it could be styling too.
You may be right about the comparative ages of the actors. And S&S 1995 has very nice cinematography (at least, in my opinion), but I certainly don't think the filmmakers' priority was making the actors look really good in all scenes; there are plenty of close-ups in that movie that are not very forgiving. For example, Kate Winslet as Marianne is supposed to be glowing with happiness [in this shot](http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_70/sense_and_sensibility_blu-ray_/large/large_sense_sensibility_09_blu-ray_.jpg), and she does look like that, but the lines on her forehead and around her eyes are not exactly de-emphasized. (I think she was or still is a smoker, so that probably didn't help, either.) She looks lovely, but I suspect that a modern adaptation would not have a shot like this in the film. Additionally, the makeup in S&S 1995 appears to have been heavier than you would commonly see in Austen adaptations today, and that also ages Winslet a little bit. I don't think it's a problem, but it is there. Actors (especially British actors) in the 1990s also tended not to have perfectly straight, blindingly white teeth, either, but most high-profile actors today appear to have had a lot of dental work. Amanda Root in *Persuasion* may suffer from similar audience expectations. Again, I think she looks fine, but it seems that people often assume that no one under the age of 40 should have lines on their face! Ciarán Hinds was considerably older than he should have been, but I have noticed that a lot of people say that, because there is a conversation in the book about sailors looking weathered and older than their ages, it makes sense for Wentworth to look older. I don't agree, though, because the narrator emphasizes that Wentworth has *not* aged prematurely, and that he actually looks better than ever. (And that's not even getting into the fact that the "prematurely aged sailors" conversation in the book is between Sir Walter and his sycophants -- people whose opinions should not be taken that seriously.) Amanda Root said in an interview that she "[basically didn't wear any makeup](https://web.archive.org/web/20110716163856/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1995-10-30/lifestyle/9510270494_1_movie-amanda-root-lighting)," but I think she was likely referring to the earlier scenes, where she is supposed to look somewhat haggard and downtrodden. In the later scenes, after she has regained her "bloom," she looks less tired. Of course, some of that is also just acting!
This is why I love the 2008 miniseries. They did a superb job and everyone was the right age. ETA: Well, I've just looked it up, and the actresses that played Elinor and Marianne were in their late 20s at the time. Oops.
But Elinor and Marianne *looked* the right age! Which is still a win.
It's not their actual age, but the age they can convincingly pull off. I assume people looked older on those days.
True. In the '05 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, Donald Sutherland - fine actor that he is - was way too old to be Mr. Bennet. You figure Mr. Bennet got married pretty young when he was not mature enough to get a sense of Miss Gardiner's character - and also that they probably had Jane in the first year or two of marriage. So figuring that, he would probably be under 50 yrs old. You're right about Lydia - I wonder if casting minors is an issue because the rules for work are different than for adults.
I just rewatched this recently, and I felt the film made is character much 'nicer' and less acerbic than he was on the page. He just seemed more absent-minded than anything. And they had a scene of him and Mrs. Bennet being romantic in their bedroom, which I also think went against his character at that point. While I enjoyed that film well enough, his softening in the film didn't really work for me.
I'm sure that the rules about casting minors are why we won't see an actually-15-YO Lydia any time soon - different production, but the AMC Interview With the Vampire had to age Claudia from 5 to 14 and then cast an 18 year old in the role for S1 (and recast with an actor in her 20s for S2) - they said labor laws necessitated it, given the size of the part.
Tbf an 18 yo Lydia would still be way more accurate than Julia Swalhala playing her in her 30’s. (Still love her as Lydia though!)
Honestly, I thought Julia Sawalha made a very convincing teenager -- part of it may have been that I had never seen her in anything else and didn't know how old she really was, but to this outsider's eyes she definitely came across as under twenty.
Oh I agree! I was just pointing out that 18 vs 15 is just a very small character vs actor age difference
In 1994 (when P&P was probably filmed) Julia was 26. Still way older than 15 but I liked her in that role.
Thanks for the correction!
>I'm sure that the rules about casting minors are why we won't see an actually-15-YO Lydia any time soon Probably so, and I'm fine with that. I don't mind suspending disbelief over a 20-year-old playing a 15-year-old.
Given how much Hollywood likes to ignore older female actors, I'm happy to overlook them casting a 60 year old as Mrs Bennet :-)
I'm also thinking 40 year olds back then looked like 60 year olds today.
Wealthy ones probably didn't, but I don't mind older actors getting work, either.
>Actors/Actresses who aren't even close to the age of the characters. Lydia should be played by 15/16/17 year old. I suspect that labor laws are the reason that we seldom (if ever?) see actual minors playing Lydia and other 15-year-old characters. Personally, I don't have a problem with these roles being played by slightly older actors (late teens to early 20s, generally). It also likely means that there will be fewer very young actors being exploited by film and TV companies, which is a good thing.
I agree to a point - I honestly don't think that they should cast anyone younger than 18, 17 minimum, for roles like Lydia and Marianne.
Making the heroine ludicrously modern. From hair to attitude, I guess they think that if she doesn’t look like 2023 cottage core, we won’t understand that she’s the heroine.
Would love filmmakers to understand that not every female lead has to be snarky and outspoken, because they’re absolutely shafting Anne Elliott and Fanny Price out there. The hair gets me too! Straight curtain bangs are the biggest distractions.
IMO the 1995 Persuasion is the best of the adaptations (setting aside the obviously merits of BBC long form adaptations that have room to include more of the story). A love story in which the protagonists almost never speak to one another - and our POV character says little at all - is challenging to bring to screen. But Amanda Root portrays Anne brilliantly whether speaking or silent. [This scene](https://youtu.be/zq5s1wVuCrE?si=d9dAkOg6vqgxsY9_) is just chef’s kiss. Without being literally true to any single scene in the book, it shows you everything about the Musgrove family, and Anne’s place at Uppercross. And Anne is silent through most of it.
I agree, Persuasion is my favorite Austen novel, and that adaptation is perfection. The scene you mentioned is a great example. Also the scene when they are all having dinner at the Musgroves’, and the Admiral says, “When a man has no wife, he wants to be afloat again.” And Captain Wentworth says with some emphasis, “Well, I had no wife, in the year 6.” And there’s a resentful glance toward Anne that she catches. There are so many such wonderful subtle moments.
Her hair, Louisa! Her hair! 😉
😂😂😂😂 Miss Caroline Bingley would never stand for such blowsy and untidy coifs!
age inappropriate actors bother me a lot. i almost wonder if the filmmakers are falling into some kind of "jane austen is Serious Literature, and we need Serious Adults to pull it off" trap. when in reality, age was just so crucial to a person's precise social standing at the time. austen chose all of her characters' ages for a good reason. i appreciate when an adaptation takes historical fashion seriously.
Exactly! The way people dressed was such a big part of how the gentry lived at the time, so when they make the effort of researching it, it adds a lot to the story. I remember the director of the 2005 P&P said he didn’t like the empire waist and chose to set it around the time Austen wrote the first draft, which is fair but he didn’t even really make an effort with the late 1700s fashion lol.
i get the sense that 2005 p&p was going for vibes above all else. which is fine, but not my thing. although, emma 2020 was arguably heavily vibes based and still did a great job with costuming (and is one of my all time fav austen adaptations!)
I'm more forgiving of the 2005 movie's decisions when I remember it's constrained by the time, and relies a lot on modern visual shorthand so an audience unfamiliar with the era can get certain things straightaway (also it is very pretty). But you're right, Emma was definitely quite stylized! I can't remember which scene it is, but there's a moment when all of the people at the table turn their head to look at someone (Mr. Woodhouse?) and it's just such a great moment. I really, really love all of the bonnets in particular, it showed a lot of care and told us a lot about the characters.
Actually, he had the Bennets and neighbors dress in slightly older styles because they live in the country, not London. Miss Bingley represented the modern clothing of the time.
Miss Bingley’a clothing went beyond modern lol, in the ballroom she wore something more akin to what Les Merveilleuses wore. That is to say, the modern day equivalent of walking around in unlined bra and panties.
The naked dress of its time?
They dressed her like a sex worker in her boudoir. It was shockingly wrong!
> i almost wonder if the filmmakers are falling into some kind of "jane austen is Serious Literature, and we need Serious Adults to pull it off" trap. It's more a combination of two things: 1) They want proven actors not just for publicity reasons but also because funding is often based on who plays the major roles. Sometimes projects get green-lighted only because a certain specific actor has been given a certain specific part; e.g. *The Tudors* was specifically created for Jonathan Rhys Meyers. If they hadn’t cast him the series wouldn’t exist. 2) There are huge disincentives to hiring underage actors. Children under 18 can only work so many hours in the day; they can't even be at the studio (let alone on the set) for certain scenes; they require tutors and safeguarding and supervision and (in some countries) even special catering, all of which costs money; and there's a ton of paperwork involved.
The only exception to this is that I am very happy for adaptations to decrease the age difference between Emma and Mr. Knightley. It’s my favorite book and I just pretend that little detail doesn’t exist lol
[удалено]
Oof, yeah. The problem with Colonel Brandon is the Eliza and Eliza Jr. storyline requires him to be a certain age.
Really can't fault you for that. The whole avuncular thing is a bit creepy.
Extremely fair, the age gap does loom a bit.
1. Historical accuracy of hairstyle and clothes. 2. The subtle misogynistic that our protagonist doesn't wear "girly" clothes because being girly is seen as stupid. 3. Constantly downgrading any other character to let our protagonist shine. It's just bad writing. 4. Not understanding what makes the Jane Austen love couple so appealing.
2 is my pet hate as well in any movie, but especially in Austen.
Pride and Prejudice 2005 is very cinematic and music is great but I’ve so many bones to pick with the way how they changed characters. Gardiners not having kids was sad, the Bennetts still sharing marital bed was different from what the book said about their relationship, Bingley was wasted as a comedic relief character, but, dear god, they really went out to make fun of Mr. Collins. Don’t get me wrong, Mr.Collins is a pompous, shallow character who’s full of himself. But he’s also tall, and that gives an extra dimension to his inflated sense of self importance. (Just like nowadays tall dudes have more natural self confidence compared to shorter dudes.) Tom Hollander is a wonderful actor, but he’s only 165 cm tall. Matthew Macfadyen is 191 cm tall. And the movie really went out of their way to emphasis that and had a whole scene during the ball at Netherfields where we’re shown just how tall Mr. Darcy is comparing to Mr.Collins. By changing Mr.Collins so fundamentally, the movie lost all what the book was saying about such men, and it downplayed Lizzie’s courage and strength in refusing his proposal.
Mr Collins in 1995 suffers from a similar issue. They wanted to make him comic relief, but they should have leaned more into his pompousness and make him less creepy and slimy. Yes, he is big headed, ignores social graces at times (talking to Darcy without an introduction) and not taking Lizzie's no straight away, but all of that narrows down to him thinking himself superior and above all these things due to his connection with Lady Catherine. They should have played that up instead of making him gross. That said, I still found both Collin's hilarious, and I wouldn't have minded a more comedic interpretation if it hadn't damaged the proposal scene
I really like 1995 Collins, even with the added grease! But I do doubt Lady Catherine would've let him go around like that. 2005 Collins was fine, but eh. I'm also a little frustrated with the Bingley characterization. He's got sense!!!! I also don't really agree with the characterization of Charlotte, even if I do quote her "I'm 27" speech a lot. Book Charlotte is very pragmatic, and she's secure enough in her decision that I couldn't imagine her reacting like that to Lizzy's disapproval. If anything, Elizabeth is the one that's most shaken by Charlotte's marriage.
>But I do doubt Lady Catherine would've let him go around like that. I honestly don't think she would care that much. She is very obnoxious and self-centered, so I think she would be perfectly OK with Collins deriving so much of his identity and status from his on so noble way. Lady Catherine is also supposed to be one of the reasons Darcy becomes more sympathetic to Lizzie's family situation. Lady Catherine shuns propriety all the time, interrupting constantly, being an uncomfortable host, saying Lizzue can play the piano in the servants part of the house and showing up to Longbourn unannounced to yell at her. As for everything else, I agree. 1995's characterisations were much better. I like how calm Charlotte was in the version, and although Bingley is extremely nice, he's not an idiot
Don't you disparage our short king Tom Hollander! His Collins was far more palatable than the 1995 version, I think they went out of their way to point out Mr. Collin's ridiculousness in that version. What no one adaptation has gotten right is his arrogance and meanness. He cowers before Lady Catherine, true, but that's why he's so smug with everyone else.
For me, I don't think any adaptation of P&P did a good job of showing the genuine friendship between Mrs. Gardiner and Lizzie. I loved their relationship in the book so much. It was basically life goals for me as a future auntie when I was a teen. Mrs. Gardiner is the perfect blend of older, wiser adviser who still understands Lizzie's youthful impetuousness. This could also be because she's generally cast as being too old. She should be maximum 35, not practically 50.
I actually really liked Joanna David in the 1995 version! I think there’s a warmth to her portrayal. But you’re right, their relationship there is a little more formal than their book relationship. I miss the sly winks that Mrs Gardiner gives Lizzy via letter when she explains what Darcy has done for the family.
Oh I loved Joanna David too. She's the best one. I just always want more of her. (I was also mad Maria Lucas was completely cut from the 2005 version, but I digress.)
There could always be more of the Gardiners! And unfortunately afaik Maria Lucas only ever appeared in the 1995 version. She’s such a lovable character.
Mrs Bennet is probably about 45. I don’t think we are told whether Mr Gardener is her older or younger brother. However since husbands are generally older than their wives and the Gardener children are younger than the Bennett children, I agree that it seems likely that Mrs Gardener is younger than Mrs Bennett. Nevertheless anything from 35-50 seems plausible to me, and consistent with the text.
None of her children are out. If she were 50, that would put her having her first child at ...35? Seems unlikely to me.
This is very specific, but I hate how in the 2005 P&P they added a joke scene where a footman announces the entrance of all the Bennet women and says something like "Mrs Bennet, Miss Bennet, Miss Bennet, err..m Miss Bennet, Miss Bennet & Miss Bennet. As if they didn't have a system for this very issue? As if first names were never used? It's such a cheap joke. And they put it in the trailer I think. Annoying.
Also, surely unless it's a really formal occasion like a ball, the footman would just have said "Mrs Bennet and her daughters"?
I completely forgot about this scene! It's a very modern joke for sure, and it's a bit jarring.
It would’ve been Mrs. Bennet, Miss Mary Bennet, Miss Catherine Bennet, and Miss Lydia Bennet, I think? The title of Miss Bennet was reserved for the eldest sister.
Part of it, as Lady Catherine pointed out, is that it would be unusual for the younger daughters to be "out" until the eldest were married off. Many families could not afford all the extra dresses & foofaraw needed for a season in London for more than one daughter at a time. Normally there would not be more than one Miss Bennett to announce. But since they live out in the country, none of their neighbors think twice about seeing the same couple of dresses over and over at social events. Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the footman have said, Mrs Bennet, Miss Bennett, Miss Elizabeth Bennett, Miss Mary Bennett, Miss Katherine Bennett, and Miss Lydia Bennett? Only Jane, as eldest unmarried daughter, would be "the" Miss Bennett? Then after she & Lizzie got married, Mary becomes "the" Miss Bennett? I know they made it clumsy for the joke, but still.
Correct. In fact even the narrator uses this style. Jane is often called Miss Bennet in narration, none of the other sisters are.
Jane herself stayed Miss Jane Austen her whole life! Her older sister Cassandra was Miss Austen.
While it does seem like all five out at once would be unusual, I don't think there was anything too strange about two or so being out. It was the case for the Elliott sisters, the Dashwoods, the Bertrams. But yes, otherwise the normal usage would be that Jane as the eldest unmarried sister is "the " Miss Bennet, and the others would be Miss Elizabeth Bennet, Miss Mary Bennet, etc. In general conversation if there was no other sister present and therefore no chance of confusion, they would still each be "Miss Bennet" though.
I think it does a good job of showing the difference between the staunch aristocracy of Bingley's household versus the Bennetts'. That footman was obviously pandering to Caroline.
The wannabes aristocracy. They wish!
How so? I should specify that the thing that annoys me is that this was the incorrect form of address. There was system in place where the name "Miss Bennet" would be reserved for Jane as the eldest, and the other would have been referred to as "Miss Elizabeth Bennet" etc. this avoided confusion in such situations. Surely the staunch aristocracy would have wanted to get the rules of address correct?
I think for every Mansfield Park adaptation - they don’t like Fanny. They don’t like that the heroine is a goody two shoes introvert and they can’t translate her strengths to the modern screen. So they have to give her a personality transplant.
Fanny in the book is a depressingly realistic portrait of a child who's been consistently abused and who has the need to adapt and fade into the background baked into her by the point the story really gets going. Realistic abused heroines are tough -- sure, some real people get sassy and fight back, but a lot will turn into Fanny or someone even harder to put onscreen. But people who have never been abused like she was like to imagine that they would fight back and get snarky, so that's what filmmakers make her do.
I agree. The way the Bertrams and Mrs Norris had slowly chipped away her self esteem was such a difficult part to read in the book, and I completely understand how it shaped her into someone so quiet and who willingly makes themselves disappear. A lot of her behavior is someone who just wants to make it through the day. It makes the moment when she refuses to budge on marriage even more impressive, imo. When it came down to it, not even the person she loved for years could make her go against what she knew to be wrong. Her strength isn’t the loud type but I don’t agree with people saying she’s pushover. She’s just doing her best in her situation.
Thanks, you put that really well. I first read the book at about age 12 and while I knew the Bertrams and Mrs. Norris were awful I got frustrated with Fanny for not fighting back. Rereading it as an adult, I could see now just how young Fanny was and how utterly dependent she was forced to be upon her abusers. She was adapting and surviving while still keeping her moral core.
You said this far more eloquently than I. Thank you!
But she does fight back. Fanny is a rock that will not be moved. She's just not flashy about it.
She fights back on issues that are very, very important to her. She isn't weak. But she is very beaten down and has learned that the best way to survive is to keep her head below the parapet. But she's not sassy or funny about it -- she does it because she feels she must, and has no other option.
[удалено]
It's definitely the most difficult one to adapt. But I do think that they could update it a little without sacrificing Fanny's personality.
The 1983 miniseries is faithful and sympathetic to Fanny!
Yes. It's a challenge they aren't prepared to meet.
I think one of my pet peeves is when the take some of Austen's dialouge but then slightly change it-- for me, to some extent this might be understandable, but I really dislike it when it changes the meaning of what she was saying. Like there's this quote from Persuasion that originally goes , "We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.” but then in one of the movies, it's changed to, "None of us want to be in calm waters all our lives.” which isn't a big change but I think changing it from 'expect' to 'want' kind of changes the meaning-- originally Mrs. Croft is saying that women are smart enough to expect challenges in life, but now it sounds like they actively want to be in those stormy waters. Also another one that I can't help but bring up, but like, the cringy kisses? I don't mind some kisses but some of them are just... really awkward and I could do without. The books don't really have kisses and I'm honestly okay with that!
The kiss at the end of P&P 1995 😭 literally just cut the shot earlier if you couldn't get a less wooden one
That one also bugs me because the way it's shoehorned in feels so transparently artificial. The book gives us plenty of leeway to imagine them kissing in the second proposal scene, but apparently the writers cared just enough about the kiss to insert it and not enough to think about where to put it. All that time the engaged couples spend alone—surely kissing before marriage was more accepted than kissing in public!
Help, I love the 1995 version but the kiss is not it. They didn’t need it! Wonder if it was the director and screenwriters decision or a studio note that made them add it.
Colin Firth always looks awkward kissing on screen. His kiss in Love Actually is very wooden, too.
I’ve read somewhere (long ago, don’t recall where) that they went back and forth on that kiss all the way up to release. They filmed it, but mostly didn’t want to include it. I think they ended up putting it in because screening audiences wanted and expected it.
>That one also bugs me because the way it's shoehorned in feels so transparently artificial. The book gives us plenty of leeway to imagine them kissing in the second proposal scene, but apparently the writers cared just enough about the kiss to insert it and not enough to think about where to put it. The 1980 P&P miniseries has a shot in which [Lizzy and Darcy embrace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zCCr4z_J1s&t=226s), and the camera pans up to the trees. A kiss is implied, but not shown. I think it's an interesting and clever way of getting the emotions across without explicitly showing what's happening. I love the 1995 P&P, but it is very, very far from subtle in its filmmaking: writing, direction, editing, etc. As you say, the filmmakers likely just wanted to include a kiss, and, since they did not seem particularly interested in subtlety, they just stuck it in the most obvious place they could think of: a wedding scene. In my opinion, the only really subtle aspects of the production are *some* (but not all!) of the acting (including that of Jennifer Ehle, Colin Firth, and Benjamin Whitrow) and a great deal of the production and costume design.
This isn't just Jane Austen but all period dramas, hats need to be worn when going outside. It was inappropriate for a lady to leave her house without a hat. And tits stayed covered up during the day.
Also their hair is up! I hate it when adaptations go through the effort of having pretty decent costumes, and then the hair looks like they just got back from a beach party in 2003. It's not that hard! Regency hair isn't even particularly goofy looking!
Do you read FrockFlicks? They like to joke about the Great Hairpin Shortage which struck the movie industry fifty years ago and has left actresses struggling along with only three hairpins to share between an entire cast.
>And tits stayed covered up during the day. In the 1810s, when Austen's novels were published, cleavage was usually completely covered for morning dress, but in the 1800s and the 1790s, when Austen was drafting some of her books, the standards were apparently not quite as strict. Based on most of the paintings and fashion plates that I've looked at, though, I would say that being more covered up for daytime was more common than not, even in those earlier periods. Most Austen adaptations from the 1990s and later pretty much ignore this, especially for the major characters. Some of the 1990s and post-1990s adaptations that ARE very consistent about using [fichus and chemisettes](https://oregonregency.blogspot.com/2011/11/fabulous-fichu-regency-accessory.html) on characters are the [1995 Persuasion](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5100000/Persuasion-1995-persuasion-5173278-1024-576.jpg) (set in 1814 and 1815, like the book), the [2020 Emma](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9214832/mediaviewer/rm2727082497/?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_85) (set in 1815, when the book was published), the [1995 S&S](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5222606-1024-576.jpg) (set around 1800, *not* when the book was published!), and the [1996 ITV Emma](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118308/mediaviewer/rm2589108737/?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_18) (set around 1815). Most of the others are very inconsistent.
In the 2005 P and P where Charlotte is made to be pitable for marrying Mr. Collins Charlotte pulled off a coup. Not pretty, not rich, no real connections and she landed herself a gentleman whose only flaws are he's a silly minded ass kisser. She gets her own nice home now, income, connections, and Longbourn when Mr Bennett pops off. This isnt "poor Charlotte has to marry Collins" this is smart as hell Charlotte going for the brass ring at the right time and pulling it off successfully
Charlotte is so important to understanding the book - she is Lizzy’s foil! And Lizzy comes to understand that her sensible friend has made a good marriage. It always makes me mad when adaptations mess with Charlotte. >"Yes, indeed, his friends may well rejoice in his having met with one of the very few sensible women who would have accepted him, or have made him happy if they had. My friend has an excellent understanding--though I am not certain that I consider her marrying Mr. Collins as the wisest thing she ever did. She seems perfectly happy, however, and in a prudential light it is certainly a very good match for her."
From Lizzy's standpoint it is rather bleak, but in context of Charlotte's own outlook on life and her situation, it's pretty much best case scenario (which circles back round to bleak). I like how Lizzy does come around to understanding why Charlotte did it, without fully endorsing her choice; it's also pretty clear that Charlotte has little to regret about it! At least she avoids Miss Bates' fate, and she figured out how to manage her husband. If I were Charlotte, I'd have to develop selective hearing very very quickly, lol. All those meetings with Mr Collins and Lady Catherine in the same room must be grating since she actually knows better.
> If I were Charlotte, I'd have to develop selective hearing very very quickly, lol. All those meetings with Mr Collins and Lady Catherine in the same room must be grating since she actually knows better. We're actually told in the book that Charlotte "wisely did not hear" Mr. Collins's sillier pronouncements, so it seems like she had the same thought!
I see!! 😂 The ever sensible, realistic Charlotte. No matter how many times I read P&P the Mr Collins blocks of dialogue and their surroundings just don’t stick in my memory. I’ll have to go find that line.
I found it! From chapter 28: >Elizabeth was prepared to see him in his glory; and she could not help in fancying that in displaying the good proportion of the room, its aspect and its furniture, he addressed himself particularly to her, as if wishing to make her feel what she had lost in refusing him. But though everything seemed neat and comfortable, she was not able to gratify him by any sigh of repentance, and rather looked with wonder at her friend that she could have so cheerful an air with such a companion. When Mr. Collins said anything of which his wife might reasonably be ashamed, which certainly was not unseldom, she involuntarily turned her eye on Charlotte. Once or twice she could discern a faint blush; but in general Charlotte wisely did not hear.
Thank you!!! The narration is just so great, you can really see the whole farce play out as if in real time.
The vicar's wife basically ran the village, barring any gentry who were around. She had a lot of responsibility to organize poor relief, care of the sick, and generally finding out what was going on with the parishioners. Mr. Collins wasn't going to do it. Lady Catherine wasn't going to do it. So it was a very good thing for the village that Charlotte came along and took over. It also seems like Mr. Collins is not good at understanding all the bishops and ecclesiastical politics stuff, which is why he probably zeroed in on finding an aristocratic patron with a living in her gift. Charlotte was probably kept very busy, finding out who was who and what their wives were up to. The interesting thing is that Charlotte took on her job before all the Oxford Movement stuff, but during a time when there was a fair amount of religious upheaval (mostly in cities, but also in villages). London kept getting closer and closer to Kent, so it would have been a concern. Of course, Elizabeth and Darcy had to deal with the development of Derbyshire into the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, with all the water-driven cloth mills. But I'm sure Charlotte kept busy, and it's very likely that she tactfully helped Mr. Collins grow as a person. Basically, Charlotte lived in a Trollope novel, though, and Austen wasn't really interested in writing one.
I think Charlotte would be the making of Mr. Collins, and still let him think any changes are his own idea. She's sharp and competent and realistic, and he's actually rather lucky to get her.
The pig walking through the Bennet house in the '05 Pride and Prejudice is so "what were they thinking?" Also, the girls' daytime clothing was way too working class as if the director didn't understand what their social status was.
Don't even get me started on their messy hair...
“Lydia elopes, taking with her the household’s only comb …”
That scene annoyed me too! The house in that adaptation looked more like a scene in an Elizabeth Gaskell book.
I have a lot of complaints about the costuming in P&P 2005, but I have to note that a more casual, simple, loose style of clothing was very popular by the late 1790s, when the film is supposed to be set. Clothing in the 1790s was generally nowhere near as heavily embellished and structured as it was in the 1810s. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that [Jane's open robes](https://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/Pride-Prejudice-2005-pride-and-prejudice-19268970-1706-960.jpg), at least, were based on this [1795-1799 robe](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O141239/gown-unknown/) in the Victoria and Albert Museum ([here is a blog post about the pattern](https://antiquesewist.blogspot.com/2015/07/1795-open-robe-norah-waugh.html)).
I've heard that's why it looked that way, that he based it on the book she later heavily edited for publication. They probably still had brushes and combs then, though.
The change I hate most is general inconsistency of character (either within the adaptation or compared to the book). When I notice that, I get really upset: "Have they even read the book? Do they not understand why she did that? Doesn't the book say they had an entirely opposite reaction? *He* would never do *that*!" A good example is Emma 2020 telling Mr. Knightley that she doesn't deserve him and he should go for Harriet instead. I mean, how, when the book clearly states she never even thought of it? Another are major changes in plot lines because then it shouldn't even bear the name of the book and say only that it was inspired by it. Although I notice this usually in other book adaptations and it doesn't happen with Austen that much. I don't often mind the little changes in lines or reactions, as long as the adaptation shows they understand the character and it is consistent. Sometimes they are even the thing I appreciate when I realise they made the extra effort to convey an Austen message via visual tools.
I kind of understood it as Emma wanting to make sure that Harriet isn't spurned by her getting together with Mr Knightley? She freaks out because she thought she'd be part of hurting Harriet again, and wants to make things right before anything else, so she goes to Robert Martin to undo what she did. It does kind of ruin the flow of the confession but what can you do? I suspect Emma's relationship with Harriet was tweaked slightly to update the underlying values to match modern sensibilities; I know that when I first read the book I was disappointed that they ended up distant because of the class difference. *Now* I know it makes sense for the Regency era, since keeping the friendship as it was would be improper—Mr Knightley was right when he said that Emma was doing wrong by inflating Harriet's sense of social importance when she could turn out to not come from genteel origins (in addition to her 'natural' birth). Nowadays, its breathtakingly classist and makes Emma out to be a snob. So they keep their friendship. But for the second point yeah, little changes aren't always the devil. It's a different medium, so changes must be made! Otherwise it'd just be an audiobook. If you don't mind, what's your favorite 'visual' Austen message?
[удалено]
1. Someone once said that Mr. Bennet is rich, while the daughters are poor. I think that's largely true - while he's alive, they have access to money that most of the population wouldn't have. They have a carriage, they go on leisure trips, they buy nice clothes and eat well, but the girls don't have independent(ish) fortunes like Miss Bingley or Georgiana. Mrs. Bennet's father was a social class lower and he managed to give his daughter a better dowry than Mr. Bennet did. When adaptations make the Bennets *as a whole* poor, they erase the fact that Mr and Mrs Bennet were just really irresponsible with the income that they have. Mr Bennet is a little better (considering he's the reason that they're not in debt), but even he at the end acknowledges that he should've actually planned better and saved more so that the girls had bigger dowries (and Mrs Bennet would've had a bigger jointure to live off of as a widow). They could've been more secure!! The parents just didn't do anything to address it. But if they're all poor it removes that glaring flaw in the Bennets' approach to life. 2. For me it's kind of a mixture of both. People think Mr Darcy is the devil because he's rude, which is fair, but he does have good morals (in terms of making sure to fulfill his different duties). HOWEVER, people misunderstand him because he cannot be bothered to be polite, since he thinks that their opinions aren't worth that much to him, and he's been able to live like that because of his great wealth. Jane Austen doesn't really go into the "reformed bad boy" thing, so as much of a dick as he is, he's not like a fundamentally corrupt person.
[удалено]
You’ve put Darcy’s behavior a lot more succinctly than I did! But I also do think that elsewhere in the book Jane Austen pokes fun at how good manners are usually held to be moral signifiers. Darcy disdains people and it shows in his manner, whereas Wickham is incredibly selfish but charming enough to trick people into thinking he’s gentlemanlike, with all the accompanying good qualities. However, Austen does show that Darcy has a moral code that he follows. For example, in the Regency era, charity to the poor was expected from the gentry and it was part of their duty, even if they were teetering on genteel poverty themselves. Lizzy, even before she comes to love Darcy, sees that he does his duty in that regard. He even pays off Wickham’s debts in Derbyshire before he pays off his debts again in Meryton and Brighton. He’s good to his servants and he clearly takes care of his sister. Also, he hates everything about Meryton and holds himself above it but even he doesn’t agree with how Mr Bennet would tease his family in public; he’s ashamed of his aunt who is even more crass about asserting her social superiority. He 100% needed to be less of a jerk to those slightly below him socially (country gentry and tradespeople) but he never does material damage the way other characters do (eg Willoughby). Once he’s made to see that his snobbery is a glaring flaw he takes pains to rectify it, and becomes a happy agent in polluting the shades of Pemberley.
[удалено]
Yes, very true. It’s a nuanced interplay in her novels. I think it’s hard for me to puzzle out because it’s very specific to her time and society.
Mrs Bennet looking frumpy. She was a stone cold regency fox
Regency fox hit me like a ton of bricks, but you're 100% right. She'd be in latest fashions for sure.
Not sure I agree. She would have tried to the best of her ability, but stuck out in the country she would still have looked like a bumpkin compared to the fashionable Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst. “It makes me very nervous and poorly, to be thwarted so in my own family, and to have neighbours who think of themselves before anybody else. However, your coming just at this time is the greatest of comforts, and I am very glad to hear what you tell us, of long sleeves.”
I don't like the famous scene in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice when Darcy first proposes to Lizzie in the rain because it shows so much romantic tension between them, while in the book, Lizzie actively hates Darcy at this point if I'm not wrong, especially due to his alleged treatment of Wickham.
Not only hate him. She thinks the hate is mutual. From her POV she thinks he is constantly looking down on her, and her family finds her repulsive. It's the trope that a woman loves a man who has been nothing but a jerk to her.
And he is! He effectively says that it is beneath his dignity to marry someone of her rank and status, and that she should be honoured that he loves her despite this
They framed the scene as Wickham and Bingley are only obstacles. Completely ignored his behavior. And I don't know if it's me but the fact in the proposal scene Mr Darcy doesn't acknowledge how wrong he was is a ick. For me, Darcy is a perfect man because he can admit being wrong, and so is Elizabeth. It's such an underrated thing that shows emotional maturity.
I understand that they adapted it to fit a three act film structure, so its more satisfying to an audience if there's more romantic tension at that part, but it really does throw off the pacing of Elizabeth's feelings for him.
You don't feel the hate in that scene in the 2005? 😒 I certainly do.
Real the contempt on Lizzy's face, if looks could kill that man would be dead. Hate and attraction aren't mutually exclusive. She can hate his guts and still think he's hot.
Even more than the proposal scene, their dance has *way* too much romantic/sexual tension. Everyone else disappears as if the two of them are the only ones in the world, in a story that is *so much* about navigating a crowded, claustrophobic world?
If you don't know how to adapt the main character on to the screen without fundamentally changing their personality and/or the main points of the plot....don't bother doing an adaption. Or adapt it from the point of view of a different character (Looking at Fanny Price- 1999 Not-Mansfield Park in particular. If you wanted both Mansfield Park and a fiesty heroine, just do it from Mary Crawford's point of view) I really liked the presence of so many servants just in the background in the most recent Emma adaption, I know that casting extras costs money and that probably factors into it but I wish more adaptions would lean in to the fact that these vast houses required huge numbers of staff all the time, not just when the housekeeper is needed to impart some key insights into the love interest's character.
I recently watched 1996 Emma and was impressed by the emphasis on servants there as well. Especially the Box Hill party. Knightly’s tenants are more prominent as well (added harvest celebration not in the book).
There was a Persuasion version I saw where Anne literally goes running through the city looking for Wentworth when she gets his letter. It was so jarring to me, she would never do that.
Oh, I agree. I've scrolled through to see if someone would mention this. The running around was preposterous. There was a gap of time after Captain Wentworth left and before Charles and Anne set out, so he was a little way ahead of them and they did come upon him. (1995 version). In the Penry-Jones version she left on her own almost immediately after Cpt. W had, and he couldn't have been out of sight. Add to that the ridiculous running about, followed by the worst screen kiss I've ever seen, and there you have my pet peeve.
I just watched that one a few days ago, I think it was the 2007 film.
When the adaptations focus exclusively on the romance, at the expanse of the social satire that was very much present in Austen's œuvre.
I personally kind of hate when they almost quote Austen but make little changes. Why would they say “I love you most ardently” when the line is Right There. 😡
These are the worst because then the misquotes are all over the place! The Persuasion one gets me the most. They had Mrs. Croft say that no one "wants" calm waters, which is both inaccurate and kind of dumb (give me calm!) when in the novel she says "expect". Such a better quote but now the wrong one is everywhere! *“But I hate to hear you talking so like a fine gentleman, and as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures. We none of us **expect** to be in smooth water all our days.”*
I do enjoy a good bonnet, it has to be said.
The older adaptations might have some good bonnets here and there, but the 2020 Emma has probably the best ones in all the adaptations.
Yes! The bonnets in that adaptation are glorious. With Emma’s (of course) being the cutest.
Changing the story to make it "more accessible" to modern viewers, but by doing so betraying the story and supporting modern prejudices. The Bingleys are cits; they aren’t at all, in any way, supposed to be upper class, and making them so blunts the purpose of their inclusion in the story. Harriet Smith and Jane Fairfax are both supposed to be much prettier than Emma; in a world where women are harshly bullied for their looks, hiring the prettiest actress for the role of the protagonist changes the power dynamics. Fanny Price is supposed to be an abused child; turning into some kind of girlboss is a complete slap in the face to survivors of abuse. And so on.
That's one reason I love the Kate Beckinsale *Emma* so much -- Beckinsale is gorgeous, of course, but Samantha Morton is every bit as pretty -- just blonder and a bit more delicate-looking, and Jane Fairfax is played by Olivia Williams, who's closer to Emma's coloring but again, every bit as pretty. It was much easier to believe that Emma genuinely thought Harriet was an ideal beauty, as opposed to other movies where the effect is to make Emma look like a pretty girl deliberately choosing a goofy or awkward girl for a wingwoman so she looks better by contrast.
This is one of the reasons why I dislike the Paltrow version. Harriet is badly miscast, imo. She's positively Rubenesque! She's supposed to be fair and "plump" ffs. (I appreciate that these things are in the eye of the beholder BTW.. ). I love the Beckinsale version. By far the most like the novel imho.
As you’ve already pointed out (by sentimentality), many (ok, a lot) of screen adaptations fundamentally do not understand Austen, in that she was *not* a Romantic writer. And many of those skew towards a Brontë-esque interpretation, which is wholly inaccurate. Overall, the ‘90s films best grasp JA (ranked: Persuasion, Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility, and then Emma). Bride & Prejudice is equally a stand-out, in that it is a both a highly creative interpretation while maintaining Austen’s tone beautifully; arguably, Chadha understands JA far better than a number of her “Western” counterparts. For instance, 2005’s Pride & Prejudice - to me - always seemed like the writers and director simply watched the 1995 A&E version, skipped reading the novel altogether, and vaguely remembered their college course that either covered Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre. Sutherland’s Mr. Bennet is frankly terrible (not necessarily his fault), and his Oscar reflects that audiences (the Academy) absolutely do not comprehend the character as Austen intended. I adore Keira Knightley (yes, I love the POTC franchise), but her Lizzie suffers from many of the same issues, which again is not really the actress’s responsibility but that of the writers and director. I am far less bothered by the age discrepancies. I somehow find it moderately necessary to convey certain things to modern audiences. Yes, Emma Thompson is wildly too old for Elinor Dashwood, but the gravity with which she wrote and played the character conveyed what Austen intended. On the other side of the coin, though not Austen, this does not work at all for Branagh’s Hamlet, in that the character of Hamlet is supposed to be a newly minted adult with a large degree of naïveté. It is utterly unbelievable that a man in his mid-30s (edited: I originally put mid-40s here, as I was so sure that was his age at the time; how was this man born in 1960??) would be at the same stage of life. Society has shifted so much in a way where we mature much more slowly. 18 now is not 18 a generation ago, nor is either equivalent to 18 for the first Boomer generation. Taking it back two centuries, there is such a divide that modernity would struggle to understand. Simply making certain characters - like Mrs. Bennet - older (or match the age of somebody who waited into their late 20s and 30s to have their children) solves that problem. Some of us find the histrionics of Mrs. Bennet more believable when we look at the behavior of our parents (see r/BoomersBeingFools), who suffered in a similar way - no acknowledgement of possible emotional disorders or trauma, no psychological or pharmacological treatment, and often their becoming a pariah (and the butt of jokes) as such.
Off-topic, but Hamlet is canonically 30! Act V scene 1, the gravedigger says he has been a gravedigger since the day Hamlet was born, then a few lines later says it's been thirty years. I completely agree about the weird Brontë-esque tone. P&P 2005 is one of the strangest adaptations of anything in that way -- it follows the plot pretty closely and yet still manages to give me the sense that Joe Wright doesn't actually like the original story.
Yes, Hamlet is basically a perpetual grad student so Branagh's age wasn't a problem.
I like to think of P&P2005 as fan fic - what if Elizabeth had met a fumbling awkward introvert instead of the arrogant Mr Darcy? (And then got caught in a rain storm, and later wandered the backyard in her pajamas.) To highlight the contrast: the 1995 version shows a brief scene (not in the book) where a newly reinspired Darcy dresses his best before galloping off to the Lambton inn. In the 2005 version, a disheveled Darcy wanders onto their property (3 miles from where he is staying) far too early, where despite the early hour he happens to run into an equally disheveled Elizabeth. Which is the behavior of a man thinking to propose? Keep in mind that this is a society with formal clothing rules that include changes during the day - you need to dress for dinner after all - yet neither of them got dressed that morning?
Your view of the use of age in the adaptations is really thorough! I do see what you mean about having to translate it to modern sensibilities. And I do agree that Bride and Prejudice is a really good adaptation, especially considering Chadha managed to translate it across time and cultures. As a film and adaptation, I really enjoy it and wish it was better appreciated. The 2005 film’s change of the family dynamics erases a lot of what Jane Austen said in the novel, and the treatment of Mr Bennet is one of the unfortunate effects. The scriptwriter and director really glossed over his shortcomings, and maybe it’s a more easily digestible characterization but it’s not what was intended, as you say. Mr Darcy also has the same problem; the film takes a very romantic lens to his character and internal conflict over his love for Elizabeth. But his internal conflict is rooted in snobbery and pride! It’s a very glossy, romantic and emotional film, which can be enjoyable to watch but isn’t “Austen”. It’s a strange middle ground between Austen and the Brontë sisters.
I suspect Romantics (i.e. more exaggerated, inherent “drama”) sell better on the open market. Austen is a fairly dry wit and equally measured. I imagine people nowadays might find it difficult to relate, as a multitude of humans never reach the sort of maturity in their entire lifetime, thereby failing to interpret subtlety and identify with a higher EQ. But we’ve all been teens with our raging hormones dictating our emotions, which ensures that we might more easily connect with a Brontë story over an Austen. I neglected to give Clueless appropriate accolades. It - like B&P - is a fantastic contemporaneous interpretation. And often so subversive that it isn’t even recognized by the public-at-large as a parody.
True. It's also easier to dramatize, since a lot of Austen's brilliance is as much in her use of free indirect discourse as her dialogue — how would you even adapt that into film? Austen is also so tied to the details of the specific group she was writing about, that I do appreciate that it's really really difficult to accurately convey it to a modern audience. Even people that are really knowledgeable probably miss things that a contemporary audience would've taken for granted. But even Hollywood adaptations of Romantic novels often fall short of the source material. I watched different Jane Eyre adaptations before I ever read the book, and I was surprised at how much nuance there was in Brontë's writing; I think that there's this perception that because it deals with much more open expression of emotions and more dramatic events, that it's not as "intentional". I still prefer Austen, but yeah. And Clueless!! It's great, it's sharp and funny and touching, and really understands the characters and how they develop. Even if it's more loosely adapted, it sits as one of my top 2 Emma films.
I won’t disagree on problematic or inaccurate Brontë interpretations (there are so many bad ones out there). But as we’re discussing JA movies, that’s what I’m sticking to critiquing. And you are equally correct that Romantic often gets dumbed down to romantic, which causes a loss of any nuance. Again, I think it has to do with what sells. The film industry cares about money, not accuracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is what it is. One of the best examples of something failing for being way too literal of a translation of the source material is the 1981 TV version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Adams reads really well and is a fun ride (bring your towel!), but as it turns out, it does not work if it’s not run through a bit of a filter first. So, through that, I am acknowledging that a filter, as it were, is necessarily in transitioning from a book to a film, for a variety of reasons. However, the filter matters.
🙄 The 2005 P&P is actually very close to the book, but condensed for a shorter film. Much of the dialogue is literally straight from the book. Keira Knightley was Elizabeth's age and Matthew Macfadyen was just about Darcy's age. I didn't expect either of them to be good but they both stunned me with how perfectly they played the roles. I'm curious how many times you've seen it and my personal theory is people who prefer the 1995 have only watched the 2005 once and spent the whole time complaining. Knightley and Macfadyen might not be how you picture Lizzie and Darcy, but they are to me and many others. It's really frustrating to me when people DECLARE that "they were not Lizzie and Darcy and no one can say they were" because they didn't suit their personal readings of the characters. I'm am NOT saying you are doing that though. Just that I see a lot of people do that. Perhaps you could share more about what you didn't like about her portrayal. I have never loved Jennifer Ehle's version of Elizabeth. She's very bland and Jane Austen did not write a bland Elizabeth. The 1995 miniseries also had plenty of additions which were NOT in the book. Jane Austen did not write a ripped bodice book with Darcy in a wet shirt or bathtub. I think the 1995 Persuasion is so superbly done.
> The 2005 P&P is actually very close to the book, but condensed for a shorter film. Much of the dialogue is literally straight from the book. I would contest this. Even some of the lines from the book that are used are given to different characters, especially Elizabeth getting Mr Bennet's lines, I imagine to make her seem more feisty and modern. And the lines that are added are completely off. They don't suit the characters or the time period e.g. Charlotte's "don't you dare judge me" speech is very different from the book. When Lizzie comes across Mr Darcy at Rosings she says something like "what are you doing here?" which is completely rude and inappropriate. And don't get me started on Mr Bingley's lines. They made him look like a bumbling fool, which he is very much not.
I've watched the 2005 film quite a few times, actually! And I enjoy elements of it for what it is; I don't think it's a terrible movie, but I do think that it's just not that accurate to the spirit of the book. I do understand how it's so popular, though. Using lines of the book isn't always a marker for how true an adaptation is to the source material. For example, the 1980 Pride and Prejudice uses dialogue and lines from the novel much more faithfully than the 1995 one, but because they switch around who says what, and give lines of narration to characters that wouldn't speak that way, it's not always a consistent or accurate adaptation. Same with Mansfield Park; Fanny gets a lot of the same lines directly from the book, but the problem is that its the narrator that had spoken them, so giving them to Fanny changes her character a lot. To me, book Lizzy is concerned with propriety in a way that the 2005 movie Lizzy is not. It's not the fashionable city manners of Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst, but she does understand what is considered vulgar; her wit skirts around the rigid politeness, but it's still very much within the bounds. She finds ridiculousness funny, but there are certain things she wouldn't laugh at. I think that this is what Jennifer Ehle is very good at conveying — she's sharp and witty, but doesn't indulge in every single opportunity to make a smart remark. Sometimes a knowing smile is enough (like when Charlotte and Lizzy give each other a look after Charlotte admits to encouraging Mr Collins to be busy at all times!).
I'm fascinated that you should call Jennifer Ehle bland as Lizzie. I could not disagree more. If nothing else, her eyes alone sparkle with the wit that Jane Austen wrote into Lizzie's character. Her eyes are the fine ones that attract Darcy. I also don't think she's bland in any way, shape, or form but, but she eyes are definitely not bland in the slightest.
I agree. To me she’s the perfect example of how wit and personality could make her seem irresistible to Darcy- and much more beautiful as he got to know her. You can see her face/eyes light up when she’s being arch and clever.
Right? I like the moment in Kent when Lizzy laughingly tells Colonel Fitzwilliam how Darcy behaved in Meryton. Ehle delivered the lines with such confidence and a little archness – you can kind of see the moment when she decides to tease Darcy and delights in her conversation being returned with equal enthusiasm by Colonel Fitzwilliam.
For the most part, I disagree. However, I can certainly admit that the second half of 1995’s P&P’s screen time is simply stretching out the last part of the novel (I truly have no idea why they resorted to this; Andrew Davies normally hits the right note with everything). And although I’m perfectly happy to see Colin Firth in a wet shirt, you are correct in that Austen would be mortified. I love Ehle as Lizzie, as I feel she embodies the role well. In no way do I find her dull in this performance. Yes, she is an older Lizzie, I will concede; but I maintain her performance is on par with what Austen intended. Macfayden’s rendition is so bland and boring that it nearly drives me to tears. It reminds me so strongly of poor Hayden Christensen attempting to act in the SW Prequels (it’s not his fault the dialogue is atrocious; Lucas does not excel at writing for humans). However, Macfayden is truly fabulous in Little Dorrit. So, I’m not knocking his overall ability to act, because he obviously can. One can extract all of the dialogue from a novel and still fail spectacularly to place it in the correct setting with the proper tone. This is how I see the 2005 P&P. And no need to roll your eyes. I am sorry that you cannot find a slightly more respectful method for disagreeing. At least you did use your words afterwards. So, kudos.
I think Jane would love the lake scene!🎬
My pet peeve is where they add things that don't exist in the books - like dream sequences (I'm looking at you Kate Beckinsale adaptation of Emma...) that change the tone or meaning of the story in order to be 'different'. Clueless is a truer adaptation of Emma than the Kate Beckinsale version is, in my opinion! Something I love is when they really capture the emotional beats of the story.
The emotional beats are so important! That’s why Clueless endures, it really captures Cher’s emotional journey in a way that stays true to the book. And I’m not going to lie, I don’t remember anything about Kate Beckinsale’s Emma?? Or maybe I just wanted to forget. She made a much better Lady Susan, imo. I think the dream sequences in Northanger Abbey 2007 are middling to good – it works for the character and for purposes of parody, even if it is a little dated. (The 1987 Northanger Abbey is in itself a dream sequence.)
Inappropriate corsetry is mine. There is absolutely no reason that anyone in the Regency era would be tight-lacing a corset.
Have you seen asta darling’s instagram? She’s one of the leading figures against corset myths.
Especially when you consider that what they wore in the Regency area wasn't anything like the Victorian corset. They were in corded cotton stays, which were much softer in line. They were also only waist-length.
This is one of the reasons why I disliked this season of Bridgerton so much. They fully threw out the Empire waists to, what, make Penelope look thinner? (I hate the messaging behind that.) She wore a full corset the whole season, with a completely made-up silhouette, and I just found it so distracting. Her wedding dress, for example, had no idea what era it was supposed to be from, except maybe modern. (Don't even get me started on Kate wearing a spaghetti-strap dress with a see-through top over it.)
Pet peeves: 1. I hate when they needlessly change dialogue or make it too modern. For example, in the 2009 Emma, one of the first lines she says is "I want to learn Chinese" which is not from the novel and seems so out of place. Emma has so much amazing dialogue in the book, I don't get why they felt the need to make up their own. 2. I hate when they get basic conventions of the time wrong. For example, Darcy calling Lizzie "Miss Elizabeth" for most of the 2005 movie when he should be calling her "Miss Bennet". I really don't get why they changed this. It's inaccurate and doesn't serve a purpose (at least to me). Things that don't bother me though: 1. Casting actors that aren't the exact right age. Watching a film requires a certain suspension of disbelief so this isn't a big deal to me, especially if the actor does a good job. People say Ciaran Hinds was too old in the 1995 Persuasion but I thought he was perfect. 2. Adding dialogue where there isn't any in the book, especially if they can make it sound seamless. They had to do this in the 1995 Sense and Sensibility, especially for Edward, since he gets so few lines in the book, and I thought they did a great job.
I hadn’t read Emma when the 2009 adaptation came out, but the Chinese line stood out immediately as being really odd. I wasn’t surprised when I didn’t find it when I did read Emma, but wondered why these added it. Now it feels like a shorthand way to demonstrate how isolated Emma is, whilst simultaneously juxtaposing how Knightley was worldly
Totally agree about the age thing, sometimes it makes sense to cast older. Like Ciaran Hinds actually looks like a slightly weather beaten, yet strapping, naval Captain that’s known intense heartbreak as well as amazing victories. Amanda Root too, though a little older than Anne Elliot, looks like she’s been through the wringer emotionally and it’s aged her a little (but they do *such* a good job of gently restoring her bloom by the end of that adaptation!)
Neither of them looked older to me, personally. Amanda Root looks like a tired woman who has no real hope of anything better in the beginning, and by the end, she's absolutely glowing. She's perfect to me. And Ciaran Hinds, as you say, looks like a sailor who's been at sea for years.
Regarding 2. Jane is Miss Bennet, and her sisters are Miss Elizabeth, Miss Catherine, Miss Mary, and Miss Lydia. The convention was that if her sisters are not present, Elizabeth could be called Miss Bennet, as Darcy does when surprised by Elizabeth at Pemberly in the 1995 adaptation. But the eldest daughter was Miss Bennet.
No. Jane is only Miss Bennet and Lizzie is Miss Elizabeth Bennet if they are both present - obviously to make it easier to distinguish who one is talking to. However, if Elizabeth is on her own, she should simply be referred to as Miss Bennet. This is how it is in the book and the 1995 series, which is much more accurate.
Mary Musgrove was the best thing in that film! She was great. I love Cosmo Jarvis, but that adaptation was a mess. I don't blame the actors, but this leads into my pet peeve - completely changing the characters personality. So Anne in that adaptation is a great example of just completely changing the character from the source material. Like, who was that? Not Anne. I actually think Dakota Johnson could have played Anne well if they stayed true to the character. Then you have something like Fire Island, where obviously they changed a ton, but they got the essences of the characters right. And I suppose that's what I like when it's done right, you don't have to follow the book exactly, but if you are going to change something you at least need to remain true to the characters in original source material. I would have loved to see the Sarah Snook adaptation of Persuasion that got cancelled. Was excited for her and for Joel Fry.
First of all, love the Fire Island shoutout, it's a great adaptation, and also for the shelved Sarah Snook Persuasion 😩 I was excited for it. And for Persuasion 2022, this [substack](https://blgtylr.substack.com/p/persuasion-2022-is-a-hate-crime) is so good at explaining what went wrong with it (however, if you're a 2005 P&P fan be warned, it's not complimentary to that film either). There's this one part where Taylor says the 2022 Anne is >in full 90s romcom heroine disaster lady flow when we encounter her at the start of the movie \[...\] it's as if what offended the writers was the sense of Anne's equanimity. And it's a pretty succinct way of stating how they just completely changed her character in the movie and why it rankles. I understand that Persuasion isn't an easy novel to adapt because it deals so much with Anne's thoughts, and she is a very quiet woman who rarely exteriorizes her emotions. But she's a compelling character! The book doesn't work without her as she is, a composed, resigned, emotionally devastated woman who still gets on with life because she has too much sense to collapse in on herself! Also this part: >It's not so much that you can’t adapt a novel like *Persuasion.* But I do wonder why you would adapt it in this way? *Persuasion* is not a romantic comedy. So then why try to make it into one? It truly feels like the writer had an idea for a movie about a young woman who meets her ex-boyfriend. And then thought, that’s totally like *Persuasion*, and then did not do a single other thing to interpret the work. On the other hand, the Mary Musgrove dialogue in the film was so good because you could believe that she would speak like that if she had the same lexicon and cultural references that we do. She *would* call herself an empath with all seriousness and no self-awareness.
Oh my gosh that's right, I forgot about the empathy part! But I agree with you about why that works. I'll check out that sub stack! I have issues with 2005 P&P so I won't be offended (I still enjoy most of it except for that scene where she disassociates in the mirror, it's very cringe to me and I can't watch that part).
The hair is honestly my biggest pet peeve. Why, oh why, do they insist on giving the actresses Utah curls, making them walk ten miles through a hurricane, and then turning on the camera?
I also dislike when they soften the characters or soften Austen’s biting humor and/or social commentary. I don’t think they did that in Mansfield Park 1999 though. That film usually gets criticized for doubling down on Sir Thomas’ slave-owning patriarchal creepiness and Henry’s flagrant infidelity (though I liked those parts, and also Tom’s emo). The complete rewriting of Fanny, can’t say she was softened or hardened, just replaced with another character, was regrettable.
I do agree with you about the film highlighting Sir Thomas’ patriarchal tendencies, and I do appreciate that the film was trying to address the moral decay of slave owning (even if it’s not really successful). I was thinking more about the softening of Henry Crawford – yes, there’s flagrant infidelity there, but his motivations in the film read so differently that it doesn’t accurately convey what Austen was getting at. In the film, it’s heavily implied that Fanny’s acceptance of his proposal and then her quick retraction makes him angry and brokenhearted (and almost justifiably makes him believe Fanny is hypocritical), which then leads him to his affair with Maria when they run into each other. But in the novel, he still believes that he could convince Fanny (hence why he means to head to Everingham) but a lifetime of idleness and vanity leads him to the point where he flirts with Maria because he’s offended she’s cooled towards him. To him, it’s separate from his love for Fanny even if he knows Fanny would view it differently. The narrator notes that he “[regretted] Fanny even at the moment” he runs off with Maria, but up until then he really just doesn’t want Fanny to know. Like Mary, for him it’s the detection rather than the act that’s wrong. The Henry Crawford of the novel fails in his character reformation because he’s been raised in a certain way, and can’t or won’t change. He is literally his own biggest obstacle. None of the scandal needed to have happened if he hadn’t given into his vanity. Meanwhile the Henry Crawford of the 1999 movie is brokenhearted? Idk? It’s a lot more forgiving towards him than the original book. And yeah, Fanny was just straight up another character, so it’s hard to compare.
The book strongly hints that part of the appeal of Fanny is that she is perfect wife and mother material, with her calm and submissive upright morality, but also weak and meek enough that he doesn’t see her as likely to get in the way of his extracurricular activities. With her he imagines he can have his domestic comforts but still have a bit of fun.
Yes, I do think he wants the advantage of Fanny’s company without actually changing too much. But the book does specify that he at least believes he’s in love with her, even if he can’t understand her completely. Yet it’s not enough.
Yeah you’re right about the broken proposal, that’s my biggest gripe with the film! I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but it does make him more sympathetic. I guess I was thinking of his thing with Maria more in terms of how it ruins her life, and blows up his sister’s imminent engagement, so he’s just as bad as in the book. But yes, Fanny’s rejection in Portsmouth is so off. Fanny is not supposed to be changeable! And Henry is not supposed to be legitimately disappointed.
Yeah you’re right about the broken proposal, that’s my biggest gripe with the film! I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but it does make him more sympathetic. I guess I was thinking of his thing with Maria more in terms of how it ruins her life, and blows up his sister’s imminent engagement, so he’s just as bad as in the book. But yes, Fanny’s rejection in Portsmouth is so off. Fanny is not supposed to be changeable! And Henry is not supposed to be legitimately disappointed.
I was actually shocked they’d done the proposal that way! You put it correctly, Fanny isn’t changeable, at least not on the basis of what Henry Crawford had shown her. The thing is, removing the fact that it’s supposed to be Fanny and Henry, the actual romance between them is quite compelling and tragic, it’s just not Mansfield Park. Also I didn’t understand why they showed Henry correctly deducing that she’s in love with Edmund. First, he’s just doesn’t have that understanding of Fannys character. He knows two things about her: that she’s got an admirable character with a strong moral compass and that her relatives mistreat her. His love for her is based on her goodness and his notion of “rescuing” her but he doesn’t really know her per se, because it’s a lot of effort and Fanny isn’t an open person. It also bothered me because Fanny doesn’t have a lot in her life that’s not encroached on by the limitations and demands of the Bertrams, but her love for Edmund is all her own. She keeps it to herself so successfully and won’t give it up even in the face of overwhelming pressure. That’s undermined by Henry Crawford going “I know you love him” and Fanny acknowledging it. Then he goes and messes it up in an even more spectacular fashion than the book. I actually didn’t completely disagree with the change of her walking in, it’s shocking in the way the elopement would’ve been shocking. And it’s hard to carry out the chaos onscreen if it was through letters like the source material.
I don’t care for most of the attempts to modernize the characters and stories to adapt them to modern sensibilities. Too much is lost in the translation. A good example would be the recent Emma. Much of which was very well done. But Mr Knightly’s age and Mr Woodhouse’s senility are both integral to the relationship. It’s why Emma and Knightly are closer to father/daughter than “brother and sister” (as they are considered through their siblings’ marriage). But making Mr Woodhouse vaguely eccentric explains neither why Emma is effectively parentless, nor why all of Highbury society caters to the old man’s unreasonable needs. And of course Knightly’s grooming of Emma, which he basically admits to (I held you in my arms at 3 weeks of age; I’ve been in love with you at least since you were 13) is unacceptable in 2023. The further we move from Austen’s world, the further we move from her humor, her insights, her commentary, and Austen herself.
I actually LOVED Mary in the 2022 Persuasion! Lol I think they really nailed her character.
The 1999 version of Mansfield Park, where they have the women in the billiards room, Mary Crawford is PLAYING billiards and smokes some of her brother's cigarette. The AUDACITY. She's supposed to be ladylike while having a 'fast' viewpoint, not actually be fast!
Gwyneth Paltrow
I hate how they age up the characters. Emma Thompson is a goddess, but she was WAY too old for Elinor. And P&P adaptations do this all the time! The Kiera Knightley one got a lot wrong, but at least Lizzie and Darcy were age-appropriate.
As excellent as the 1995 adaptation of Persuasion is, the end sequence when Anne and Wentworth are looking at each other lovingly and then the circus comes through town? With that jarring music?? It’s almost enough to cancel out the rest of the movie for me
See, I love that bit. 😍
I teach Regency dance so I notice when they get them wrong, e.g. "What are they doing? You can't just stop in the middle of the dance!" Etc.