You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Jane Austen’ tag.
Did you know that Mr. Darcy, gentleman that he was, was really a menace. This YouTube video proves it. Well, it proves the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice does have an interesting sub-text when remixed a bit. The narration on this video is a little forced, but it is interesting how many images from the movie fit the narrator's theme. Great use of remixing the audio over the silhouette of Lizzie in the last shot of the video.
And YouTube recommended the following video because I watched the above. Yes, I always did think Laura Ingalls Wilder was a horror writer…or at least the TV show kind of turned it into horror with all the silly drama they added. I wonder why the video creator left out the blowing up and burning down of the city in the last episode? I mean, come on, that was right out of LIW's books; right. Here's a clip of the Little House horrors:
PBS aired part 1 of the last adaptation in their Complete Jane Austen with the BBC’s new Sense and Sensibility. And, wow, finally one of these new adaptations that is not only decent, but pretty good! It’s not perfect, but none of the adaptations, even Pride and Prejudice (1995) are perfect. But this one might actually rival the mid-90s S&S with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. Hard to believe, but true. At the very least, they compliment each other. This version is longer and includes more characters and scenes, but is not as funny as the Thompson adaptation. We’ll have to see if it can continue it’s good pace next week in the conclusion.
A few nit-picky comments on the good and the bad:
- The actresses playing Elinor and Marianne are both very good. My only complaint here is that the Elinor presents many of her lines with the same delivery and intonation as Emma Thompson did…on purpose? But her heart is the center of the story and she carries it well.
- This Barton Cottage, which always seemed too nice, particularly the exterior, in the mid-90s version, is clearly a major step down in situation for the ladies. It’s so bad when the arrive, one must question Sir John’s rudeness for not better preparing it for them.
- A wonderful Colonel Brandon!
- This Edward is more home-spun and charming than Hugh Grant’s, but (HELLO) Edward is supposed to be shy! This Edward might not be Tom Cruise on Oprah, but he wouldn’t mind being interviewed by Oprah and that’s just not Edward…still, he was well acted and believable.
- It’s a little too obvious that Willoughby is the villain. For example, he doesn’t seem upset when he’s ordered to order to leave, almost relieved to escape. Plus, although Brandon doesn’t like Willoughby, this adaptation makes him suspicious and that’s incorrect.
- Mrs. Jennings is too flat, but maybe she’ll liven up in part 2.
- Why were Marianne and Margaret (Meg?!?!) referring to Fanny as "aunt?" Not right. (Fanny must be a delightfully fun part to play!)
- A few times the music is over melodramatic…especially in the Willougby scenes. And how many shots must we have of Margaret’s (Meg’s) wind-chime sea shells?
Overall, I enjoyed this adaptation and am looking forward to part 2 next Sunday night. Part 1 re-airs at 2:00 A.M. in Chicagoland on Tuesday, April 1.
If I was more awake, I’d type more, but this will have to do for now. Did anyone else catch the show?
The first episode of PBS’s "The Complete Jane Austen" has just aired. They started with the novel Persuasion, which is one of my favorite Austen books.
Hmm, what to say about the adaptation. Overall it was a fairly decent production, but…and there are some huge BUTS:
- The ending was very odd and to be honest…a disaster! What’s with all the running around Bath? The Anne Marathon? What was the purpose of that? Were they simply trying to be different than other adaptations? Being different for the sake of being different is not good writing. There should be a point, and this Anne Marathon seemed silly and pointless, not to mention inappropriate for the time. Anne running around Bath…HA!
- How did invalid Harriet Smith manage to get out of her home and meet Anne on the streets at the beginning of the Anne Marathon? She’s an invalid and extremely poor, so how she managed to get across Bath is a mystery Jane Austen never would have been so stupid as to include.
- The Kiss at the end of the Anne Marathon was very breathy and strange.
- Captain Wentworth could NOT purphase Kellynch even if he wanted to…it’s entailed!
- Why did Anne’s conversation with Captain Harville about the fickleness of women vs. men bounce from the end of the story, where it is critical to the plot, to a plotless-meaningless-private conversation with Captain Benwick in the middle of the story?
Those are my major disappointments. But it also seemed rushed. That might be the fault of the edits mentioned in this post or that might be the fault of the script…probably both. This could/should have been a longer production. And there are a lot of characters in Persuasion and they really crammed them all in; more time would have better served the characters and the story.
Why did they have Anne looking straight at the camera so many times? And Anne’s looks are supposed to re-blossom during the story, but that was missing.
But, the settings, locations, costumes, and the beginning of the adaptation were very good. This Captain Wentworth was dishier than the 1995 Wentworth, but not a better actor.
I think I’ll watch this again to let it set in and sort of simmer about my thoughts. In the meantime, what did you think? Do share!
As I mentioned here, this coming Sunday night PBS will begin airing adaptations of all six Jane Austen novels…ode that there were more. PBS is calling this the "Complete Jane Austen."
But is it really complete? PBS has acknowledged that they are airing shortened versions of each adaptation. This is not a surprise, it seems to me that PBS does this with all the British shows they air. Persuasion, the adaption airing this Sunday night will be about 7 minutes shorter than what aired in the U.K. If you want to see the full-length version…find the DVD. This will be true of all the adaptations. For more information, check out this post on AustenBlog. Skim the post’s comments for additional details from people who attended a pre-screening and were able to ask Rebecca Eaton, PBS’s executive producer for the series, several questions. Since PBS is not showing the complete shows…shouldn’t this be called the "INcomplete Jane Austen?" Just a thought.
Here are some additional links for more information:
- Series website.
- PDF of Complete schedule.
- 28-page Teacher’s Guide. (I haven’t read this yet, but it looks like it might be good. One of these days I’ll get myself the Jane Austen action figure they show.)
As I posted several months ago, starting on January 13th, PBS will be showing an adaptation of all six Jane Austen novels and at least one finalized documentary/life in review type thingy.
This should be exciting news, but I just can’t get interested. Let’s look at what PBS will be airing:
- Three new ITV productions:
- Mansfield Park
- Northanger Abbey
- Persuasion
- One new BBC production:
- Sense and Sensibility
- Repeats of earlier adaptations:
- Pride and Prejudice (1995)
- Emma (TV 1995/6)
The new ITV adaptations have already aired in the U.K. and did not receive great reviews. TV and print critiques gave mixed reviews, but most fan reviews were negative. A lot of this had to do with poor quality, such as filming all of Mansfield Park at one location, poor scripts, and incorrect behaviors and costumes for the time. From what I read, Mansfield Park was the weakest adaptation and Persuasion was the most enjoyed (and apparently the one in which the money was put in). So, can’t say I’m thrilled to see any of these, but I’ll watch and evaluate for myself.
The new BBC production of S&S just started airing in the U.K. as a three-parter. (That doesn’t mean it will have three parts when shown in the U.S.; PBS likes to use creative editing.) This screenplay (and ITV’s Northanger Abbey) were written by Andrew Davies, who wrote the 1995 P&P. Davies has stated several times that Austen needs sexing up and action’ing up. So, S&S starts with a sex scene…although I understand it is not graphic. Gee, a sex scene in Jane Austen…does that sound right to you? (And it all started with a wet shirt for Colin Firth in P&P and Davies has unwound since then. Not to be left out, Northanger Abbey has a bathtub scene.) Yes, the book does tell us that there was an affair, but Austen never doesn’t include it in the book. Again, I haven’t seen this, and initial fan reaction is mixed, and I’ll watch, but I’m keeping my expectations tightly in check.
PBS is also going to air Emma and P&P for the first time (both originally aired in the U.S. on A&E) . Since A&E has released multiple editions of the P&P for sale, I wonder how many people haven’t already seen this. I more strongly wonder if they’ll run this very popular adaptation during a pledge drive. (LOL!) I reviewed the Emma here (PBS is showing the Beckinsale version, not Paltrow).
Since I can’t get my interested fluffed, I only have two links to share for more information. PBS has information here and for fan reviews and analysis of print reviews, check out the last few months/days on AustenBlog.
Let us know what you think if you watch the productions!
Today in the Chicago Tribune one of their columnist wrote about reading his first e-book on his Blackberry. If I remember correctly the columnist, Steve Johnson, covers television and the Internet, so I think we’re safe to call him a techie. And what did this techie choose as his first e-book? A recent bestseller, such as "The DaVinci Code" or a Grisham novel? Something TV focused such as a re-printing of Minow’s "The Vast Wasteland." He could have chosen something related to current affairs…is there a presidential candidate that isn’t hawking a book too? Nope, to easy.
Instead, he chose a classic as his first e-book. He chose the classic — Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. He writes about discovering the joy of e-books and the joy of Austen (he doesn’t say if this is the first Austen he’s read). In fact he writes: "I liked it all so much, I’ve moved on to Austen’s
"Persuasion" and am, frankly, halfway annoyed at having to take time
away from that to write this. What comeuppance will the vain
spendthrift Sir Walter receive, and will his deserving daughter Anne
find satisfaction?" I so agree that work can seriously get in the way of good reading!
I’ve tried a few e-books on my old Palm device and enjoyed it for the most part, but got tired of the constant page turning, i.e., clicking a button. (That might be a reflection more of the Palm and the reader I was using than e-books in general.) Now that Apple has agreed to let other vendors develop applications for the iPhone and iPod touch, I’m hoping there will be some excellent e-readers for these devices. Scrolling through the pages would be an improvement. The idea of taking notes or highlighting favorite passages, as discussed by Johnson, is also appealing. Not that I’ll ever give up my beloved paper-filled books, but anything that will create more reading opportunities and doesn’t have to be dusted is welcome.
You can read all of Johnson’s column here. And since he probably didn’t write his column as late at night as I’m writing this blog (and for numerous other reasons)…trust me, it’s a better read than this.
Saturday, when I was screen testing at the Apple store, I discovered a Jane Austen reader…they’re everywhere…just as they should be. 😉
There I was, popping DVDs into the laptops at the Apple store, when Saleswoman Terri came over. "Oh, you brought your own DVDs. Women shoppers always come prepared!"
When I popped Pride and Prejudice (2005) in the MacBook Pro, Terri said, "I’ve seen that movie. It wasn’t as good as the book." Excellent perception there! She’d also seen the the 1940 version of the movie, but felt it also wasn’t as good as the book…again, no argument there. Terri hadn’t seen the 1995 mini-series, but I encouraged her to do so.
Hopefully Terri will be there when I go back to purchase my new laptop…definitely want to give the sale to an Austen-lover.
Now if only my graphic skills were as good as Austen’s writings skills the image above might be more enjoyable. 😉
JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) has put together a website with information, links, articles, etc. about Jane Austen films. That includes film adaptations of Austen’s books and "films that contain homages or references," but also films about Austen. I’ve only spent a few minutes there so far, but plan to spend more. I hope you’ll check it out at this link.
Hat tip: AustenBlog.
PBS has announced they are delaying their Jane Austen "festival" till January of 2008 so they can show adaptations of all Austen’s major works. They’ll be showing the following TV movies and mini-series:
- TV movies from ITV in the U.K. (all dated 2007):
- Persuasion
- Mansfield Park
- Northanger Park*
- Sense and Sensibility*: a BBC/WGBH (Boston’s PBS station) production currently in development
- Pride and Prejudice*: the BBC/WGBH mini-series from 1995
- Emma*: the Granada (a regional ITV)/A&E TV movie from 1996
They will also show a BBC/WGBH production call Miss Austen Regrets.
I’d be more excited about this if the reviews of the Persuasion, Mansfield Park, and Northanger Park were even half decent, but it seems the British audiences were mostly unimpressed with these new adaptations. And since we’ve already seen the Pride and Prejudice and Emma, that leaves Sense and Sensibility and Miss Austen Regrets as hopefuls. And since PBS loves to cut and edit all the British shows they air…we probably won’t even see the complete shows.
It is interesting that PBS is showing two shows originally produced by rival A&E. Of course, that was back in the days when A&E stood for Arts & Entertainment, not Abysmal & Engageless.
There’s an article here with additional information.
* These productions are all written by Andrew Davies. Let’s hope S&S is good like P&P, not mediocre like Emma or awful (as I’ve heard) as NP.
Clearly, an important question!
Missyisms 