Posted in Uncategorized at 8:02 pm by janeaustenfilm
By: Leah
Ok, so here are all my notes from Sense and Sensibility…I’ve tried to organize them a little, but it’s really informal! I’ll post my other notes soon.
Sense and Sensibility (BBC)
I tried to notice the background scenery (ie., nature, paintings, etc.) or lack-there-of. There really wasn’t much to look at. The nature scenes are pumped up a little bit, but not like in the newer SS; there are no panoramic shots, which I think do much to enhance the nostalgia of an Austen film. There is a little chivalry nostalgia, though; I thought Edward was more of a catch than I read him to be.
In Episode 2, Edward walks out of the house and surveys the countryside, which includes a large tree. This is a long shot, but might this be a reference to Queen Elizabeth I ?
I think the directors thought alot about the costuming and hairdress of each character. I like these touches.
Mary-Carolyn and I talked about how this version really enhances the gothic elements to Austen, which are most notable in Northanger Abbey. At the end, Mrs. Radcliffe is even mentioned. I liked this blending of books or ideas, especially because of Marianne’s youthful interest in passionate books.
Ang Lee/Emma Thompson SS
Again, I like the careful details in dress and hairdress. These simple touches add alot to the character, especially in summarizing details that Austen uses paragraphs to describe. As I’ve watched more films, I’m starting to notice how the film makers condense Austen’s epic introductions (like family/plot introductions) into a few minutes of screentime. It’s details like dress and panoramic shots the countryside that help to communicate background information.
I think the panoramic nature shots really enhance the Pastoral in this film. Thompson does seem to be interested in postfeminism; while she explicitly discusses female oppression, she also includes Pastoral shots of Norland, which seems to imply that the early 18th century was a beautiful, romantic time. At least, I think that late 20th century women are drawn to Austen films because they are an escape to a simplier time. I think the scene in which Elinor, while riding with Edward, disusses how women have few options. This is juxtaposed with the beautiful English countryside, and Elinor is riding her own horse. The disparity between what she is saying and what she is doing is an interesting one–while she enjoys nature, she is concious of her oppression. Maybe Thompson means for the scene to speak to the disparity between Elinor’s sensible character and Marianne’s romantic one? This is something that I’d like to talk about in my paper, so if anyone has any ideas about this, let’s talk about it!
Here is the Sense and Sensibility trailer…it includes the scene where Elinor and Edward are riding and talking. It also really emphasizes the Pastoral scenes; because this is the trailer, I assume that the producers knew that included strong natural scenes would draw more movie-goers. Interesting.
=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/npUWqrHvUL4″></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/npUWqrHvUL4″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”350″></embed></object>
I think Margaret’s role is really important to progressing the plot and making Edward more acceptable to viewers. Do you think that the BBC version made a huge mistake in excluding her? I do.
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:28 pm by janeaustenfilm
I tried in vain to find a youtube of Cher’s “Haitian Speech,” but I found the original Clueless trailer, which has most of the speech. The trailer also shows Cher and Dee on the freeway and at the mall; the brief clip thus shows many of the layers talked about in “Clueless in the Neo-Colonial World Order.”
Mary-Carolyn, if you could help me embed this clip, that would be great! Otherwise, just click on the link. I’m not as high-tech (yet!)
Posted in Uncategorized at 5:27 pm by janeaustenfilm
“Mr. Darcy’s Body: Privileging the Female Gaze”
Lisa Hopkins
From Jane Austen in Hollywood
A summary by Mary-Carolyn Clanton
Hopkins begins her essay reflecting on the astounding and lasting success of the 1995 Davies adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, as seen by the prevalent use of the film’s images in related and unrelated articles in the British press over 16 months after its release. She cites the opinion of the film’s star, Colin Firth, that he had never read the novel because he thought it would be “sissy,” as well as the opinion of the film’s producer, Sue Britwistle, who found Firth the perfect embodiment of Austen’s Darcy. For Hopkins, these different views hit on an import idea, that the finished film is unabashed in appealing to women by “fetishizing and framing Darcy and offering him up to the female gaze” (112). She first supports this argument by looking at the film’s opening scene, which shows us first Darcy and Bingly, and then reveals what we have seen is from the perspective of Elizabeth as she watches them. This lets the viewer know that everything they see will focus on the woman’s perspective; that the woman’s views and ideas will be privileged. Hopkins also addresses that while the language focuses on what women look like, the “camerawork picks out…primarily how men are seen” (113).
Hopkins begins a more in-depth analysis of the film by looking at it in two distinct parts, the first ending just after Mr. Darcy’s first proposal (the DVD and video versions are conveniently separated in this way as well). Hopkins points out that in the first half of the adaptation, “Darcy is presented carefully and consistently in two specific ways: either in profile by a fireplace or looking out of a window” (113). This suggests that Darcy has not yet “looked fully either at what lies within him or at the women who sits in front of him” (114). We see instances of this in Darcy’s first scene at the Merryton assembly, where he is always seen in profile, most notably when he is being discussed. The same emphasis is seen again at Lucas Lodge. When we finally see Darcy head-on, after the discussion on accomplishments at Netherfield, he is gazing at Elizabeth; while Elizabeth has become “the object of his gaze, he himself is clearly offered as the object of ours” (114). This is especially emphasized in Davies’ added bath scene, from which point onwards “Darcy looking at Elizabeth becomes a recurrent and compelling image, used both to provide a crucial insight into his character and to build up a powerful erotic charge, of which he is clearly the center” (114).
Part Two opens, Hopkins notices, with a scene that focuses on Darcy’s response to the rejected proposal, and from there moves to a discussion of the changes Davies made in his screenplay, which she observes concern Darcy’s character and make his feelings, emotions and motivations more clear. She then discusses the prime example of this – the scene where Darcy writes Elizabeth a letter. Hopkins observes two primary themes: heat and sex. These themes are in direct counterpoint to the accompanying scene where Darcy bursts in on Wickham and a young girl where Darcy is buttoned-up. While writing the letter, on the other hand, Darcy become quite heated and thus, is an object of sexual attraction himself. This makes the viewer scrutinize Darcy a bit more when he says he couldn’t find any sign of attachment in Jane. In fact, “the whole question of sexual attraction and female desire is thus sharply highlighted” (116). Hopkins continues her discussion of Darcy noting that the film places much more emphasis on who Darcy is, rather than what he has; but, even as interest in his property and monetary wealth is “muted, interest in Darcy himself is vigorously sustained” (118). She also compares Davies’ treatment of Darcy towards the end of the film with the novel. While Darcy completely drops out of the novel from the end of Elizabeth’s time at Pemberly to his return to visit her in Longburn, in the film we see him in several scenes, such as Lydia’s wedding, keeping him a constant and important character. She notices upon Darcy’s return to Longburn he reverts to his first-half habit of always being in profile, which she attributes to Davies’ desire to create a sense of suspense. That idea is supported in viewing the proposal scene, which also “teasingly keep[s] back full resolution for as long as possible” (119). Hopkins concludes saying the addition of Darcy and his gaze signify his need, and “it is that need we most want to believe” (120).
On another note, it has occurred to me we didn’t discuses Bridget Jones’ Diary in our last meeting! We simply can’t pass over this fabulous interpretation/re-envisioning of an Austen novel. Besides, there are some uber-fabulous things going on in this film (Colin Firth, who plays Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, which is based on a novel, playing Mark Darcy in a film also based on a novel that was based on a film). So, I’ve decided that since I love the film anyway, I’ll watch it over break. Yay! I also requested on ILL Books, Bras and Bridget Jones: Reading Adaptations of Pride and Prejudice by Olivia Murphy. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Posted in Uncategorized at 4:25 pm by janeaustenfilm
In the essay on Mansfield Park in her book, Jane Austen and Film, Sue Parrill discusses both the BBC (1983) and Patricia Rozema’s (1999) adaptations in context with Austen’s 1814 novel. Parrill basically describes and compares both adaptations with what Austen would or would not have wanted; additionally, Parrill outlines what other critics, such as Claudia Johnson, have written about both adaptations.
Parrill begins her essay quoting Austen’s feelings on Mansfield Park and discussing the continuing unpopularity of the book. Parrill writes that “Austen was confident that it would be well received and unhappy when it was not. One of the problems with the novel for the modern reader is its protagonist” (Parrill 80). Because of Fanny’s subdued and submissive attitude and behavior, modern readers have difficulty identifying with her when she is treated badly by her parents, Aunt, and Uncle. Furthermore, Parrill asserts that film directors and screen writers have a hard time adapting Fanny in order to be true to Austen because Fanny “is said to be physically unattractive and weak…she is essentially passive” (Parrill 80). How does a film maker make a movie which is both entertaining to modern audiences, and true to how Austen envisioned Fanny Price?
Both directors who have adapted Mansfield Park–Ken Taylor and Patricia Rozema–have been called wrong by critics, including Parrill. Parrill writes that Sylvestra Le Touzel, who plays Fanny in the 1983 BBC version, hampered the success of Taylor’s film because she is too plain. Parrill writes that “Television and film are visual media. The choice of Sylvestra Le Touzel for the role of Fanny was fatal to the success of this adaptation” (Parrill 84). However, because Austen’s Fanny is so plain and unattractive, it seems that Le Touzel would be a natural choice.
In his adaptation, Taylor was concious of Austen’s choices and stayed close to the novel. Indeed, as Parrill writes, “Ken Taylor followed the story-line of the novel closely. For many Janeites, this faithfulness to the novel makes up for other deficiencies” (Parrill 85). Indeed, many “Janeites” were appalled and disgusted with Rozema’s adaptation, which modernized and “reinterpreted” (Parrill 85) Austen’s novel. Rozema chose to downplay Fanny’s modest personality, instead purporting her to be a young Jane Austen. Additionally, Rozema concentrated on political and cultural themes. Parrill writes that “in this reinterpretation she has been much influenced by recent critics, such as Claudia Johnson, who have emphasized the importance in the novel of the issues of slavery and the oppression of women, particularly as they relate to the character of Sir Thomas Bertram and his treatment of Fanny Price” (Parrill 85). Even while keeping with modern interpretations, such as those of Johnson, “Janeites” were outraged with nineteenth-century political implications that Austen may or may not have been concerned with.
Furthermore, viewers–Austen lovers or otherwise–were surprised at the implication of lesbianism during certain scenes in Rozema’s version. Parrill writes that “reviewers were agog over what they interpreted as lesbian overtones in the Miramax film, particularly in the scene in which Mary rehearses her lines with Fanny” (Parrill 94). In coming to Fanny’s bedroom to rehearse lines from a taboo play, it seems that Mary is seeking Fanny out sexually. Parrill continues that Rozema’s camera strategies in forces the lesbian overtones to the reader. Parrill writes that the “camera circles Mary and Fanny as Mary stands close to Fanny and puts her hands around Fanny’s waist. Using one of her favorite camera techniques, Rozema enables the viewer to look beyond the girls in the foreground to Edmund, who is watching them” (Parrill 94). Because Edmund is sexually or romantically linked to both Fanny and Mary, the scene suggests a certain shared sexuality, lesbian or otherwise.
Parrill continues in her essay to discuss how the two adaptations differed, emphasizing Rozema’s ability to make the story-line more alluring to the modern-day viewer. As discussed, Fanny Price is portrayed as a young, budding writer Jane Austen in Rozema’s film; this helps the viewer identify with Fanny. Fanny in the 1999 version even reads stories to her sister Susan which are in fact some of Austen’s Love and Freindship (Parrill 87). In general, viewers can identify with Fanny and understand Mansfield Park in the 1999 version because of conflicts–both of the late 20th and early 19th century–that Rozema imbues into the film. Besides lesbianism and slavery, Rozema discusses incest and substance abuse in her film (Parrill 102).
Parrill discusses Johnson’s explanation of Fanny’s voice-over vignettes at the end of the novel, which allow the viewer into the film. Parrill writes that “the conclusion is vaguely nostalgic and whimsical, as the narrator reiterates that it might have turned out differently, but it didn’t” (105). Rozema’s decision to conclude the film with small vignettes which allow the viewer, along with the narrator and characters, to think what could have been, impacts her “reinterpretation” of Mansfield Park; in other words, the film and story-line can include whatever the viewer chooses. Thus, the viewer has the freedom, just like Rozema did, to make conjectures on Austen’s original story.
Parrill concludes her essay discussing the freedom implication of the DVD cover–a picture of Fanny holding a key to presumably, Mansfield Park. Parrill asserts that freedom–from slave owners, parents, place, and substance–is what Rozema’s film is really about.
I thought Parrill’s essay was very useful in putting both adaptation in context with each other and Austen’s novel. Parrill also briefly summarizes the political and social climate of the early 19th century; in order to make an Austen adaptation in the late 20th century concerning the modern political and social climate in regards to that of the early 19th century, comparisons must be made. I liked Parrill’s commentary on “reinterpreting” Austen in film adaptation. Because I am interested in the idea of reinterpretation of the early 19th century in the late 20th century, particularly in regards to modern audiences and Mansfield Park, I would use this essay for my final paper. Also, I did not watch the DVD commentary on Rozema’s adapation; because Parrill cites this commentary often in her essay, I will definitely go back and take a look at Rozema’s interview.
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:21 am by janeaustenfilm
Mary-Carolyn again, this time with thoughts on the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma and the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.
Emma
One of the things I particularly noticed was this film’s use and placement of fire in many of the scenes. This makes sense from a period standpoint because there wasn’t central heating, but fire is also used as symbolism in film (“they’re on fire for each other). The first time I noticed this was the scene where Emma and Mr. Knightly say they “will be friends and quarrel no more,” where the fire is directly beneath them and they shake hands underneath it. Later, at the Weston’s Emma and Mr. Knightly are again positioned with fire right between them, until Mr. Elton comes and stands between them, blocking the fire, symbolizing the way he will interfere with Emma’s romantic affairs. Later, Emma does the same thing when she blocks the fire at the same moment she tells her of Mr. Elton’s marriage. Framing wise, I noticed Mr. Elton was almost always placed in the middle of the screen, and if he wasn’t, he was quick to move into that position. When Emma visits with Miss. Bates and Jane Fairfax after the Box Hill/Strawberry picking fiasco, the shadows of the window bars create a prison-like pattern over Emma. The article I read on this film criticized its use of the spinning world with images of Hartfield only. Once I managed to figure out what the spinning blue thing really was, I quite liked it. In fact, its one of the few moments where the viewer gets the sense this is a narrow, restricted society. The other happens when Emma, Mrs. Weston and Mr. Knightly are talking. Placed behind Mr. Knightly throughout the scene is a fishbowl with three goldfish in it. If that isn’t a cue to the viewer that the society presented is a narrow, restrictive one, I don’t know what is. Of course, this idea is only reinforced visually a few times, which really doesn’t help the viewer to see Emma is truly confined in her present environment.
Pride and Prejudice
First, let me just say I really detest this version. I’ve seen it before and tried to watch it with an open mind, but I just don’t like it. That said, the film does do a few interesting things. We first see Elizabeth walking across a field reading (First Impressions no less!), which implies many things the novel would have said about her: that she is intelligent, she seeks to improve her mind, ect. that would have rather hard to have other characters say about her. Dr. McAllister said this film does a much better job than the 1995 version of showing the family’s poor circumstances giving the girls more of reason to seek rich husbands. This is emphasized particularly in the first dance scene, the chaos of with shoes the country-ness and rusticity of the Merryton families. I also enjoyed the placement of Elizabeth directly opposite her mother and three younger sister on their visit to Netherfield. Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley’s placement between them emphasizes the gulf in their relationship, but also in their understanding of what proper behavior is. I also particularly enjoyed Lady Catherine’s night-time visit, which shows her to be even more imposing and self-centered since she would expect the whole household to wake up to receive her. What I didn’t like about this adaptation where those little “eye-catching” moments Lizzie and Darcy have just about every time they see each other from the moment they meet. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy the idea that even when they first see each other they have this amazing, deep connection and that Elizabeth realizes it. For me, that’s part of the charm of the novel, that Elizabeth doesn’t realize she’s falling in love with Darcy until its already happened. This film makes it seem like she knows from the get-go. I watched a bit one of the special features, “Jane Austen: Ahead of her Time,” and had to turn it off when all I heard from the director and actors was what a fabulous author of love stories she is. And how does that make her ahead of her time? Maybe I should have watched the whole thing and would have heard more about love played into Austen’s novels, but certainty what she focused on were characters, secrets, issues of class, as well the place of marriage in society. However, I did REALLY like on thing this film did, giving Charlotte Lucas more of a voice and character. I adored her speech to Lizzie, not only because it made Charlotte more of the important character she is in the novel, but because it gave a clear context of why Lizzie and Jane also needed to marry. I hear Emma Thompson re-wrote this scene, and if so, bravo Emma; I always knew she was a fabulous adaptor. I wanted to find a clip of this scene on Youtube, but alas, there’s no Charlotte love.
Posted in Uncategorized at 8:18 am by janeaustenfilm
Mary-Carolyn here; I was getting ready to post on the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, and was looking on Youtube for a clip of a particular scene when I stumbled upon this little gem.
Yes, someone actually took Harry Potter and turned it into a Pride and Prejudice trailer. At the moment I have no coherent thoughts on this; I just can’t believe someone would take the time to do this, especially since there are no obvious parallels between the two novels or films. I would, of the top of my head, say there must be parallels between the two “fandoms” but at the moment, none are coming to mind. At any rate, I hope you enjoy this fabulous little clip!
EDIT I just found this one, where someone did the reverse, and made the Harry Potter trailer with scenes from Pride and Prejudice. And actually, it looks there are a fair amount of fan videos that combine the two films. I’d say this warrants a further study. Again, enjoy another bizare clip.
Posted in Uncategorized at 7:05 am by janeaustenfilm
Mary-Carolyn here with a few thoughts on the BBC mini-series Mansfield Park, but alas, there were few things I noticed the article I read hadn’t already pointed out (I suppose that’s what you get for reading a critical article before watching the film). However, I did notice a few interesting things. I was surprised by the use of an unstable camera in the carriage as Fanny comes with Mrs. Norris to Mansfield. I’ve noticed its fairly uncharacteristic of BBC adaptations to do anything but have a still, panning camera; but, I think this choice is wonderful as it gives the viewer the sense early on in the program that Fanny’s life at Mansfield will be anything but stable and encouraging. I also found that the film rather downplayed Julia’s indiscretions, focusing much more on Maria. For example, in following Maria and Julia in a carriage ride where they discuss Mr. Crawford, Maria is placed in much greater darkness than Julia. Likewise, when the family goes to visit Mr. Rushworth’s, Julia has greater difficulty getting through the gate, implying that she has greater difficulty abandoning her duty and morals than Julia. During one scene I wished I had a better knowledge of statues and mythology (and knew how to take screen caps!) as Julia is standing by the fireplace, which is flanked by two stone figures, and stands in the exact shape of the figure she is in front of. While she is in the background, she is in the middle of the screen and in full focus. But I don’t know who the figure is and if it has any bearing on the film’s plot.
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:58 pm by janeaustenfilm
In her essay, “Clueless in the Neo-Colonial World Order,” Gayle Wald argues that Amy Heckerling’s 1995 film analyzes how national citizenship is defined in relation to third and first worlds.Wald writes that Clueless “situates the subjectivity of its protagonist at the intersection of competing narratives of gender itself; for while it represents Cher as a ‘First World’ girl who deploys her cluelessness in order to ‘innocently’ access power, it also suggests that such cluelessness stands in the way of her ‘successful’ gendering according to the demands of the marriage plot” (Wald 219).Furthermore, Wald argues that Cher’s gender identity is based on consumership, a First World characteristic which uses the poverty of the Third World as its other.Thus, Cher’s character is based on a neo-colonial world order which justifies consumership–while simultaneously shunning it–as something intrinsic to the female gender and American identity.
Wald writes that Clueless explores “the role of cinematic representation in the construction of national and cultural citizenship, as well as…the gender, race and class dimensions of the national narratives produced by a contemporary Hollywood film…addressed to an audience of adolescent and pre-adolescent US girls” (Wald 218).To support her claims, Wald analyzes Cher’s ‘Haiti’ speech, which takes place early in the film, as an example of how Cher is constructed as an All-American First World girl through hospitality and consumership. Cher’s speech is juxtaposed with the American national anthem in background which marks her character as a good, innocent All-American girl.Wald argues that this makes Cher appealing to both adolescent girls and their parents; Cher is a devoted, obedient teenager who is both stylish and attractive to the opposite sex.Wald writes that “the speech not only serves to establish how gender is produced in and through ideologies of nationhood and national identity, but how narratives of national identity may be framed within the context of (or even serve as the rationale for) ideologies of domestic female virtue” (222).
While Cher is presented as a model daughter in her Haiti speech, she is also established as clueless.Thus, Heckerling imbues Emma Woodhouse’s loveable characteristics into
Cher. While audiences of teenagers, parents and critics alike love Cher, they are wary of her denseness, but view it as a slight character flaw rather than immoral.Additionally, Heckerling constructs Cher’s identity by using third world citizens, such as Haitians and the maid, Lucy, as an other.Indeed, Wald writes that “her’s performance of domestic virtue is inextricable from her role as a consumer of domestic labour, and from her obliviousness to the discrepancy between her parable and the problems that Haitians and Haitian immigrants actually face.As viewers might be led to surmise…the only way that ‘real’ immigrants attended her father’s fiftieth birthday party were as labourers in the kitchen” (223).
Audiences believe that because Cher is so innocent and All-American, she would include anyone if she only realized that her behaviors were exclusive.Wald writes thatCher’s speech works to
“ingratiate Cher to the viewing audience, pairing her cluelessness about US-Haitian relations with the audience’s affection for her as a liberal advocate of the sort of democratic values associated with national symbols such as the Statue of Liberty; it legitimates gendered domestic virtue as both a principle of international diplomacy and the means by which she can win the approval of her father and then later Josh; and it establishes altruism (gift-giving) and communitarianism as the logical paradigms of First World-Third World relations, and by analogy of the gendered relations with the ‘domestic’ (that is, the national/public and home/private) spheres” (223).
Heckerling appropriates Emma’s good-natured cluelessness to the social systems around her and fits them into a commentary on American social systems, both inside and outside the
First World.By fitting Cher’s feminine gendering into a romantic plot, Heckerling comments on the demands of First World femininity; however, Heckerling simultaneously asserts that consumership for the sake of the Third World, or the other, is good by using Josh as a reward for a clued-in
Cher.
Wald also briefly discusses Cher’s Jewishness in relation to the All-American (WASP) girl and the All-American self-made man.Wald writes that “Heckerling’s translation of Emma into a Jewish-American ‘princess’ complements the film’s re-visioning of national identity in terms of specifically ‘American’ narratives of the upward economic mobility of immigrants” (226).While
Cher’s gender and national identity is constructed in the relation to the Third World, her character is still historically apart of a minority, which makes an even more explicit All-American statement.
I really liked this article for Wald’s comments on All-Americanism and identity construction; I would definitely use it for my paper.However, I think that it was a little confusing in certain areas.Wald writes a couple pages on how she will set up her argument, and what her essay will cover, and then spends a couple pages actually supporting her ideas. This was both redundant and confusing. Also, I think a basic definition of neo-colonial at the start of the essay would have helped instead of paragraphs devoted to how both critics and teenage girls loved Clueless.
Posted in Uncategorized at 5:54 pm by janeaustenfilm
I found this article very interesting, but, from what little I’ve seen of the BBC Mansfield Park, I think she trumps up a lot of what’s there. I don’t think the film could possibly live up to the expectations this article raised. Also, for an article that claims to discuss the different ways and style of adaptation the two films use, Fergus examines only one version. Also, her definitions of purist and neo-purist play little direct part in the article. However, Fergus raises an interesting idea when she speculates that another Mansfield Park adaptation would best be presented as a modernized version, especially after reading somewhat mixed reviews of the idea and success of updating an Austen novel in a manner similar to that used in Clueless.
Fergus briefly discusses the way Rozema handles voice, but her focus is clearly on the Giles adaptation. For Fergus, the 1999 Mansfield Park is a “postmodern pastiche…[employing] the postmodern view of adaptation as intervention” (70). Surprisingly, Fergus has no objections to Rozema’s decision to allow Fanny to directly address the camera; in fact, he finds it similar to Austen’s use of narrators. He does, however, criticize the film for its Gothic elements, particularly in the portrayal of Sir Thomas Bertram, as well as the stronger character the film gives Fanny. As a result, a central part of the story, Edmund and Fanny’s relationship is weakened since Fanny hardly needs anyone to shape and teach her.
In contrast to Rozema’s version, Fergus believes the 1983 mini-series uses a voice much more in keeping with Austen’s, and establishes it primarily through six different narrative and visual tools. The first is that the film finds “a visual equivalent for significant words or phrases” (73). This is seen particularly in the way the film makes clear the characterization of Lady Bertram as “captivating” in the novel’s opening lines. Lady Bertram takes a prominent position in the film’s opening, and is portrayed as “both beautiful and static” (73) as the camera zooms in on her as she lounges on her sofa. While Mansfield Park at times seems to revolve around Lady Bertram, her words and opinions are given no real regard. Rather, her “sofa visually represents not simply her inertia but her lack of agency”(74-75).
Next, Fergus cites Giles’s ability to “properly” assign the novel’s narration to other characters. She particularly notices a scene in which Lady Bertram tells Fanny what is considered an acceptable match, Henry Crawford, as apposed to rather poor and degrading match made by Lady Bertram’s sister, Mrs. Price.
Fergus also observes the effective use of voice over in the BBC version. As the film opens, the picture show to the viewer of Fanny as she journeys alone and afraid is in stark contrast to Mrs. Norris’s voice-over as she praises “her own generosity and her management of Fanny’s destiny” (76). Fanny’s letters to William are also delivered in voice-overs, allowing Fanny to have a voice of her own. These two uses often place the film’s visual and oral elements in ironic juxtaposition. The ambiguity of the film’s closing line and image, however, is even more iron. Here, Fanny states her “happiness” at her marriage to Edmund and how they will be under the care and guidance of Mansfield Park, yet the viewer knows the patronage of the Bertram’s has not given successful marriages to their own children. This statement is made more ironic by the image that accompanies it: “Fanny carrying her own pug to a bench outdoors, then sitting with pug at her feed and Edmund by her side” (77).
Fourthly, Fergus discusses Austen’s use of “character narrative” in her novels, a technique where the narrator’s speech dissolves into first person, making it much easier for an adaptor to assign to a speaker.
Next, Fergus looks at the way Giles’s mini-series visually expresses the narrator’s irony. Fergus looks in depth at Mansfield’s impromptu dance, which “emphasize[s] murky sexuality and people’s selfish blindness to what is before them” (81). This is particularly evident in the interactions between Tom and Mrs. Norris. Tom, who criticizes Mrs. Norris for asking him to play cards whine he cannot refuse, does the same thing when he asks Fanny if she wants to dance while he begins to read the paper, leaving her no choice but to refuse. Throughout the dance, “Mrs. Norris views the visible sexuality…in terms of marriages, Tom, in terms of folly and illicit amours. The comedy in the sequence arises largely from their mutual blindness” (82). Here, Fergus states her claim that the BBC mini-series is “neo-purist,” using “visual equivalents for significant words, phrases, and themes in the novels” (84).
Finally, Fergus reveals the sixth essential element in a successful adaptation and translation of Austen’s narrative voice – voice effects, or the proper casting of characters. Fergus believes Giles’s casting is “nearly perfect,” and defends the actors in their character and stylistic choices (84). Fergus concludes by making it clear that she believes Rozema’s version has been reduced to a romance between Edmund and Fanny, while Giles’s adaptation includes romance but focuses overall on character. She closes with an interesting idea, that the best approach to another Mansfield Park adaptation would be to modernize the characters and plot similarly to Amy Heckerling’s Clueless.
Jan Fergus’s article “Two Mansfield Parks: purist and postmodern” looks at two film adaptations of the novel Mansfield Park: Patricia Rozema’s version, released in 1999, and the 1983 BBC mini-series, directed by David Giles. While Rozema’s version was widely accepted by audiences and critics alike, Giles’s version was never shown in the United States, and even in Brittan, its reception was poor. Despite this, Fergus believes the BBC mini-series presents the most successful adaptation in dealing with “the central problem of filming Austen: the problem of finding an equivalent for the narrative voice” (70).
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:42 am by janeaustenfilm
In his article “Emma, Cher, and the Maze of Unknowing,” David Kelly sets out to examine why Austen’s novel was not formally listed among the source material for Amy Heckerling’s film. This sets up the way Kelly looks at the film itself,“ an ironic play between two opposing principles: on one hand, an awareness of and attribution of authority, and on the other hand an ignorance of and indifference to it” (3). In other words, it explores the difference between who’s clued in and who’s clueless. Kelly first looks at Cher’s interaction with her wardrobe. Do the clothes shape her, or does she shape the clothes? Kelly concludes that “they are stripped of that original meaning while being invested with a new sense, invented by Cher, which establishes and projects for her a public persona of glamour and individuality” (4). This theme is seen, not only in Cher and Dionne’s names, but in Murray’s language, and they are all something that functions in their current lives. However, Cher “understands the world only as something she fashions…as its egoistic center, she doesn’t realize how small this world is, but we do as we watch her attempts at fashioning a world in which she is totally clued in, colliding with another world in which she hasn’t got a clue” (6).
Kelly then looks at comic moments in the film that require the view to have an external cultural knowledge. Here, Kelly posits a theory that the “film’s silence on its debt to Austen…by not signaling that it is a contemporary adaptation of Emma, [it] requires us as readers to make the imaginative connection” (7). In this way, Kelly interprets the film as a satire, noting the wit Heckerling displays throughout the film, particularly when she adds Cher’s own voice to the film, allowing her to fashion herself. That Cher is given her own voice while Emma is not, signifies to Kelly that Emma must be “taken in hand,” (12) something Cher will never allow to happen to her. For Kelly, “the text can function satirically only by virtue of us bringing to moral and cultural frames of reference which Cher not only does not share but in face in personally and socially incapable of conceiving” (9). Kelly also examines “clue” as a thread, one that “ought to bring other cultural understandings to bear in the reading of this narrative” (9), such as Theseus’s thread he unwound and followed back out the labyrinth. This moves Kelly to a discussion of metaphorical labyrinths in Clueless, most notable Cher’s “maze of personal relationships” (9), seen particularly in her interactions with Christian. Another labyrinth, the Los Angeles freeway, plays both a role as both a metaphorical and tangible maze. These labyrinths single to Cher “the narrowness of the world in which she can operate effectively, the narrowness of that social space in which she in clued in” (11).