Culture at the i Newspaper: Jane Austen Adaptations
Don’t tell them, but I’d have done this one for free.
The i newspaper Culture section asked me if I would
like to watch all the available Jane Austen adaptations, and choose my
favourites and write about them. In the words of Anne Elliot, ‘Would I?’
I watched 24 different versions, and read all the books for
good measure. And this counted as work! My partner, not an enormous JA expert,
would come in, look at the screen, and say ‘silly girl is going to jump off the
Cob again isn’t she?’ or I would say ‘you have 30 seconds to say which book
this is’.
I didn’t get bored, or blasé, or wish it was over – I had
worried that I would be unfair to those I watched later, but that was not the case.
They are timeless stories, and they were entertaining right through to the end.
We kept it focused: no modern versions (I regret only
Clueless), no sequels, no updating, no Jane Austen with zombies, no films based
on her life.
I thought I might discover some lost gems from the 60s to the 80s, but no – the only early item in my list (the
1940 film) is there only as a curiosity, and is NOT recommended. You’d have to
be my age to appreciate (or even understand) my description of ‘the 1970s Persuasion
that looks like the cast of Howard’s Way in Regency clothes, shot in a Berni
Inn.’
Modern Jane starts exactly where you would expect – the 1995
gold standard BBC adaptation.
I could have written twice as much about most of these, and
about the books, so there’s a good chance there’ll be more Jane Austen posts coming
on the blog soon.
In the meantime, you can find my piece here:
I've
seen every Jane Austen adaptation - these are the nine worth watching
There is a limit to how many articles you can access on the
newspaper's website each month, but you may be able to get an idea from this photo:
What a great writeup, Moira! I agree with you that *the* one to watch/start with/etc. is the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice. And there are some others (like the 1940 version) that I haven't seen. Lots to check out, and I appreciate your thoughts on them.
ReplyDeleteThanks Margot - it's always going to be a subjective list, but I hope people find it helpful when choosing their next watch.
DeleteThank you, Moira, for watching them all so we don't have to. Except of course, we WANT to.
ReplyDeleteMy only quibble is the omission of the excellent 1995 Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds. All those wonderfully portrayed characters. The Crofts, the Musgroves, the Elliots.
I think everyone has their own favourites, and that's fine! That version is one that a number of people have mentioned to me. Luckily, Austen fans are polite when they disagree, and simply say what they like about a different one...
DeleteAnd - I did watch that one, and enjoyed it very much.
Really enjoyed this, Moira - though also in agreement with Susan about the 1995 Persuasion which I feel is up there with the best. Chrissie
ReplyDeleteI watched four Persuasions, and it came second!
DeleteI haven't watched many of the newer adaptations but the '95 versions of "Pride and Prejudice" and "Persuasion" are favorites (in spite of Davies' made-up scenes for Darcy --I suspect him of having Rickman-esque ideas about Men's Journeys in Austen). Rozema's "Mansfield Park" gave Fanny a personality transplant which made her more fun but didn't make any sense to me. If Austen had wanted Fanny to be fun, she would have written Fanny that way! I realize that no adaptation will ever match the way I "see" a novel in my head, but some of them just jar me, and the Knightley P& P is one of them. Beautifully made film, just not "my" Austen
ReplyDeleteWe all have our own Austen: I knew when I wrote it that people would be arguing and disagreeing - but as I say, politely! I also think that we want different things from Austen (print and screen) at different times of our lives. I'm sure I was more interested in the romance when I was a young thing, whereas now the family dynamics fascinate me.
DeleteWhat are lists for, if not for folks to disagree about?! In fact it would be highly suspicious if everyone's lists were exactly the same...suggesting something like a Stepford Wives scenario.
DeleteYes indeed, and I love hearing of others' favourites.
DeleteI remember a strange Mansfield Park with Fanny dashing around on a horse (that must be the one that Marty refers to), and have a vague memory of the 1970s Persuasion, which I have in a set of Austen DVDs from a charity shop.
ReplyDeleteI could not get on board with a blond Mr Knightley (Johnny Flynn). It's strange how entrenched some ideas about characters are.
I can cope with blond Mr Knightley; stinking rich Mr Knightley is another matter! He’s a comfortably-off member of the landed gentry whose disposable income isn’t quite high enough to justify his keeping his own carriage horses – most unlikely to be the owner of Palladian bridges, endless statue-lined corridors, a vast room full of Van Dykes …
DeleteI recall seeing and enjoying this version of Emma, but it seems to be mostly the negatives that have stayed with me.
Sovay
I've been racking my brains over the "Handmaid's Tale" hint in this most recent Emma - overnight a memory of the parlour boarders' red cloaks finally rose to the surface.
DeleteSovay
There have not been very many productions of Mansfield Park! The other one stars Billie Piper, and I'm guessing is the one being referred to here. I think you pretty much can't do a modern MP with an authentic Fanny Price, behaving as in the book, it just doesn't work. I thought the Biilie Piper was a brave effort...
DeleteEven the most popular and revered versions are not truly authentic - things are always changed. Of course everyone has their own ideas, but it is just personal choice.
Yes Sovay, spot on - it's the line of boarders in their red cloaks and giant bonnets, they appear more than once.
Speaking of difficult characters to convey to a modern audience – the words any young actress hoping to be cast in “Emma” must dread to hear: “We’ve cast Emma but we’re still considering you for Jane Fairfax”. Such a thankless role, consisting almost entirely of playing the piano and moping – though I seem to remember that in the most recent “Emma” Jane does have a splendid “Take THAT, patronising Miss Woodhouse!” moment at the piano.
DeleteI’m not sure how one can put over to a non-historically-minded audience just how precarious Jane’s situation is and how very badly Frank Churchill behaves towards her – “Clueless” got round it very effectively by simply not having a Jane equivalent, but that’s not really an option if you’re adapting the original novel.
Sovay
Yes indeed, thankless, and yes I very much enjoyed her piano-playing.
DeletePoor Jane - not a single happy moment since she agreed to the secret engagement, and those glimpses of her misery as Emma swans around.
I often think about casting moments - waiting to hear WHICH Bennet sister you might be seen as? Or the notably plain Charlotte Lucas.
And - more modern times - in Downton Abbey there were the two beauiful sisters and one plain one...
If one has to be a second string Bennett sister, better Mary than Kitty. Which reminds me that somewhere in the TBR piles is "The Other Bennett Sister" (P&P from Mary's POV) - I should dig it out.
DeleteSovay
That might be interesting - I'll leave it to you to tell me if I need to read it.
DeleteI am convinced that I read somewhere recently that someone (I think a quite well-known novelist) was writing a book from Charlotte Lucas's POV, which also could be interesting, but haven't been able to track down the reference. I read so much about JA in the past few weeks, there's a mass of information unsorted in my head!
Wondering if you have seen a better Mrs Bennett than the wonderful Alison Steadman? Chrissie
ReplyDeleteShe was marvellous, and so was Brenda Blethyn in the 2005 film - I'd have trouble choosing between them.
DeleteI thought she got the essence of the character very well, but her voice was a little too piercing sometimes! I wonder that the rest of the family didn't have a bad case of nerves, they must have learned selective deafness when Mrs B was on a streak.
DeleteI would fully expect her to have a piercing voice! and that the whole family had their strategies for dealing with her...
DeleteI loved the 1940 p&p BECAUSE it got the story all wrong. They just blundered ahead merrily. I also watch the zombie one a lot. Shows my bizarre taste in movies.
ReplyDeleteGood for you - and you'd probably enjoy the Bridgerton-style Persuasion.
DeleteThere is a Dutch adaptation entitled "The Four Bennet Daugthers". Not hiding that they made changes to the storyline, at least.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember much description of fashion in the books, but I think that is a draw for the TV adaptations.
That's hilarious. I wonder which one they missed out - presumably either Mary or Kitty.
DeleteNo, virtually no clothes descriptions - mentions of white dresses, and Lizzy's muddy petticoat.
Going back to the 1940 film, and moving the action forward - apparently there were the Gone With the Wind costumes, but also a feeling that the Regency gowns we are all so familiar with weren't attractive at all, too much like nighties. Whereas now, I would agree with you, they are much enjoyed by viewers, we like the look. there is usually a classic shot of Mrs Bennet and her daughters all making their way to the village in a lovely line.
I looked up the first episode. Its Kitty that gets dropped. Presumably based on the idea that we do not need a younger version of Lydia. But maybe we do, to emphasize how poor the Bennet's parenting is.
DeleteI suppose that's the obvious choice - although I think Kitty is older than Lydia. And more interesting than Mary, because JA obviously saw Lydia as irredeemable, but Kitty less so. Mary much more of a fixed person, not going to change. Better for instant comedy, but less nuance.
DeleteI enjoyed the Sense and Sensibility series a lot (still available free on BBC iplayer) and would be hard put to choose between that version and the Emma Thompson film, though the film was funnier.
ReplyDeleteA costuming niggle in the Andrew Davies P&P - if Darcy, thinking himself unobserved as he clearly does, decides to take a dip in the lake, would he really keep his shirt and breeches on?
Sovay
I always thought he isn't 'going for a swim', he is just jumping in becasue he is so hot and dusty from his journey, like a child running into a fountain....
DeleteYou may be right ... housekeeper's not going to be impressed though - the shirt will wash but I fear the breeches may be ruined.
ReplyDeleteSovay
Perhaps he can keep them for gardening when they are dry?
DeleteThis made me laugh out loud, Moira. No-one actually does anything as plebeian as gardening, do they, in Jane Austen? Except the lower orders, of course. Or am I mistaken?
DeleteOf course not - I was just transferring discussions that happen in my modern-day house! (much smaller than Pemberley)
DeleteThanks for sharing this great post buy sex toy in india
ReplyDelete