Jane Austen

[Mercutio]

Yes. Austen's first few books published were written "By a Lady."

"Sense and Sensibility" was credited "From the author of Pride and Prejudice."...or vice versa (?). It was a little later when people really started guessing her authorship and her brother Henry started publicizing (readily admitting that his sister wrote such witty and popular novels).

^that kind of got off track

[sun-star]

I saw the new P&P film yesterday. I'll put my thoughts in spoilers because, even though I think we all know the plot some of you might not want the details spoiled.

The first thing to say is, I think the experience of watching this film is completely changed by whether you've seen the BBC adaptation or not. I've seen it more times than I can count, I can quote lots of it by heart, and I don't really think it can be improved in essentials. For me it is the definitive version. So in watching this film I couldn't help comparing the two at almost every moment, which meant I didn't approach it in a wholly unbiased state of mind - it had a lot to prove to me so as not to seem like an attempt to cash in on a popular book by hiring some cute young movie stars. That's certainly not what this is - but neither is it really Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Unlike the BBC version, which IIRC was six hours long, this film only has two hours to get through the whole plot. They fit the important things in well - mostly sacrificing minor characters (Sir William Lucas, Mrs Phillips, the Hursts etc.) and reducing Darcy's letter of backstory to a few sentences. Not much is wanting in plot terms. But in character, a lot of depth seemed lost to me, especially in the development of Darcy and Elizabeth's feelings towards each other - especially her transition from amused dislike, to hatred, to respect and then love. The real problem was Keira Knightley - she just can't carry off Lizzy's intelligence and wit, or convincingly suggest the growth she experiences when she learns her prejudices can be wrong. P&P is not just a light romantic comedy, as some people claim - it also concerns questions of self-deception and a firm core of moral judgement (I recommend C.S. Lewis' essay on the subject). This film lacks all of that and doesn't convey why something like Lydia's elopement is morally shameful as well as socially embarassing. Darcy's decency to his tenants isn't mentioned, so his essential goodness (such an important thing for Lizzy to discover at Pemberly!) just isn't there. I really can't decide about Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy. I like him as an actor, and he's good-looking enough if that's what matters, but it's difficult to judge someone's awkwardness in playing a character who is meant to be awkward all the time I think he was good. But I don't know. The film certainly looks nice. It's Romantic (with a capital R) - lots of pouring rain, full moons, dramatic piano music, and a proposal scene which would be more suited to Wuthering Heights. The actors playing Jane, Charlotte Lucas, Mrs Bennet and Mr Collins, and Judi Dench as Lady Catherine, were all sufficiently different enough to the other adaptation to be interesting. Unfortunately, Bingley is portrayed as rather an idiot, a kind of Hooray Henry, and Miss Bingley isn't very haughty. Mr Bennet isn't the clever, cynical man of the books (and seemed to me to be struggling with his accent). Georgiana Darcy isn't shy at all, and Wickham is an Orlando Bloom looklike (seriously!), weak rather than deceitful. I liked the ending - no sickly double wedding, it just finishes with Mr Bennet giving his consent. As I said, the second proposal scene seems to have come in from a different film, and I don't like Heathcliff!Darcy striding across the meadows, but the first proposal isn't too bad. The meeting at Pemberly is much better than the BBC's wet shirt take on it, with a nice scene between Darcy and Georgiana while Lizzy is spying on them. So, in conclusion, very enjoyable, with Keira Knightley the worst thing about it. She seemed to be doing a Jennifer Ehle impression some of the time, but that wasn't enough to save her acting

[Mercutio]

Interesting, sun-star.

I recently watched the old (197?) BBC production of it. I think that was equal to the Ehle/Firth version. The older one did had even more depth than Ehle/Firth...in part because they had a lot of Elizabeth's thoughts and more narration.

[cee2lee2]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Interesting, sun-star.

I recently watched the old (197?) BBC production of it. I think that was equal to the Ehle/Firth version. The older one did had even more depth than Ehle/Firth...in part because they had a lot of Elizabeth's thoughts and more narration.

I haven't seen anything since the old BBC version because I loved it so much. In fact, loved it so much I bought it when it became available. Never did see the new BBC version. Based on sun-star's review, I'll probably just watch the old one again instead of going to the movies. And it's probably about time to just read the book again, too.

[sun-star]

Oh dear, I hope I haven't put everyone off the new film! It's had good reviews and is top of the box office charts after the weekend, so I'm sure some people liked it. It just wasn't true to the way I read the book.

[cee2lee2]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Oh dear, I hope I haven't put everyone off the new film! It's had good reviews and is top of the box office charts after the weekend, so I'm sure some people liked it. It just wasn't true to the way I read the book.

You haven't put me off the film. I just love the book so much that I'd rather read it again than watch a movie. And when I get to the point that I want a visual representation, I'm very content with the old BBC version. I really appreciate your perspective on the movie. One of these days I might even watch it, but I probably won't make a great effort to go to the theater now. Of course, that would presuppose that it even makes it to our little town's theater!

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Oh dear, I hope I haven't put everyone off the new film! It's had good reviews and is top of the box office charts after the weekend, so I'm sure some people liked it. It just wasn't true to the way I read the book.

I was already put off the film anyway by Keira Knightley, funnily enough. Now, I have a terrible memory so I probably won't notice much if they cut some things about, but really, a 2 hour long P&P movie? Even I would notice omissions. And I can get really pedantic about character portrayal (e.g. Faramir, esp in TTT)
Anyway, my point was I'd probably be very annoyed by the film and Miss Eternal Pout anyway.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Yes. Austen's first few books published were written "By a Lady."

"Sense and Sensibility" was credited "From the author of Pride and Prejudice."...or vice versa (?). It was a little later when people really started guessing her authorship and her brother Henry started publicizing (readily admitting that his sister wrote such witty and popular novels).

^that kind of got off track

Sir Walter Scott's "Waverly" novels are actually not about Waverly, which was his first. The reason some of his books are "Waverly" novels is because his name wasn't published with that first book, and they put "By the author of Waverly" on each of his subsequent novels.

I won't say anything about the new P&P except this: Keira Knightly isn't fit to play an Austenian heroine. She doesn't belong in that type of movie, she just doesn't look the part.
And has anyone heard that Anne Hathaway is going to playJane Austen in a bio pic? Anne Hathaway is skeeny. Jane is healthily plump (in the portrait I saw).

[Linaewen]

Anne Hathaway, of Princess Diaries fame? o.O Can't quite picture her as Jane Austen... at all.

[cee2lee2]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

Anne Hathaway, of Princess Diaries fame? o.O Can't quite picture her as Jane Austen... at all.

Nor can I.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I am currently reading Mansfield Park. I've never seen any movie based on it, so it is a different expirience of Jane Austen (the other two books of hers I've read--Sense and Sensabilitly and Pride and Prejudice--I read after watching movie versions.

[Linaewen]

Did you know that the director, Joe Wright, of the new P&P film, hasn't even read the book?

[Mercutio]

Really?! Did he just read the screenplay someone else wrote?

[cee2lee2]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

Did you know that the director, Joe Wright, of the new P&P film, hasn't even read the book?

Wow!!! That certainly will make me think twice before seeing it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

Did you know that the director, Joe Wright, of the new P&P film, hasn't even read the book?

WHAT!!!! Thats not legitimate! that's illegal!

[Linaewen]

Yeah, I know. A bit disturbing, huh? I read it here
(Note that it's the 2nd page of the review)

[Count Comfect]

Actually, it is supposed to be a really good adaptation, except for the very last scene (this is according to my entryway tutor, who is a Jane Austen obsessee, so I trust her). The last scene was only added for American audiences. Which - boo.

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Actually, it is supposed to be a really good adaptation, except for the very last scene (this is according to my entryway tutor, who is a Jane Austen obsessee, so I trust her). The last scene was only added for American audiences. Which - boo.

So what's the last scene? (I guess you should put the answer in spoilers )

[Rían]

I just saw a preview of the new P&P - it looks good ... *cross fingers and toes*

What in the WORLD would they add for American audiences?!?!?! They better not mess wi' my JANE!!!
(Jane Austen, not Jane Bennet)

[Count Comfect]

I don't really know - my teacher said she didn't want to spoil it, just that the British ending was at

"If any young men come for Mary or Kitty, send them in, for I am quite at leisure"