03.11.07
“Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley”
Troost, Linda. “Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley.” Eighteenth-Century Fiction. 18, no. 4 (Summer 2006). pp. 477-498.
(by: Leah)
In her article, “Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley,” Linda Troost analyzes the Pemberley visits in the 1979, 1995, and 2005 adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. Troost argues that each of these versions “treat the pivotal moment differently” (477). Because Elizabeth Bennett’s visit to Pemberley is meant to help her change her prejudices against Darcy and vice versa, how this scene is portrayed is vital to the films’ integrity. In her article, Troost “examines the Pemberley sequence in these three adaptations as well as in the novel to see how the touristic moment can be used to reveal a character’s understanding of him/herself and others, as well as the readers/viewer’s relationship with the past” (477).
Troost discusses how tourism and the ways in which people approach touring has changed since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (478). Troost writes that while modern tourists are interested in sites such as country houses for history and connecting with the past, while Austen’s contemporaries “had a tenuous connection to the past. Country-house tourism focused largely on pragmatic concerns of the current day: economics and power, not history” (478). Today, tourists desire to connect with history and their past, and thus take interest in historic sites and houses. Troost argues that in Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth takes an interest in the past and British heritage simply because she is attracted to nature through the sublime (478). Troost writes that
“All three versions of Pride and Prejudice reveal heritage values, but the relationship each implies about our connection to the past has altered in the years between them, a change reflected in actual heritage tourism, not just filmic representations of it. Elizabeth views Pemberley from her social position, and the property represents the present, and eventually her future as its mistress. We too view Pemberly from a specific social perspective, but we can find a way to take possession of it, and, eventually, our past. Our changing cultural positions, however, require various modes of taking possession as each successive adaptation of Pride and Prejudice demonstrates” (478).
Thus, the way in which Pemberley is filmed and portrayed on-screen must keep up with contemporary tourism interests. How Pemberley, and subsequently, Elizabeth and Darcy’s changes of heart are portrayed is necessary for the viewer to place themselves within the Pride and Prejudice narrative. Troost writes that “tourism in Austen’s day differed from tourism today, and directors have to decide whether to replicate a historic or a modern experience” (480).
Troost discusses the history of tourism in detail, as well as the history of large properties such as Pemberely. Troost asserts that for Austen, tourism would have been indicative of a privileged class; indeed, it is Elizabeth’s aunt and uncle who can afford to take her with them on their tour. The directors of each adaptation chose to portray the Gardiner’s wealth in different ways. Troost writes that “the 1979 and 1995 versions show Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner’s beautiful and expensive carriage…rolling through a lush landscape. The 2005 film, however, in keeping with its agenda for greater social realism, make the travel experience more democratic and familiar” (480). Troost also discusses the adaptations’ treatment of Pemberely’s formal gardens in contrast to Austen’s; she writes that “only the 1979 adaptation shows Pemberly’s formal gardens” (480) while Austen discusses them at length.
Differing from a modern tourist experience, tourists could be turned away or allowed inside the country house at the housekeeper’s discretion. Today’s tourist experience allows for a democratic one, much like of that emphasized in the 2005 version. Likewise, the interests of Austen’s tourists once inside a house drastically differ from those of today’s tourists (483). Thus, directors face a significant dilemma in allowing the viewer to take possession of the film; all three adaptations approach the matter differently. While the 1979 version focuses on the modern tourists’ interest in the past, the 1995 version takes an explicitly romantic approach, as Elizabeth is interested in nature. Troost writes that “Elizabeth looks not at the rooms but at the views from the rooms. Austen gives a clearer description of the grounds around Pemberley than she does its interior, suggesting that the landscape is more significant marker of Darcy’s character than his possessions” (490). Contrastingly, the 2005 version focuses on Elizabeth’s self-analyzing process, and her awareness of her prejudice against Darcy (493). Troost writes that
“the Pemberley visit is important, not because it brings Elizabeth and the viewers deeper knowledge of Darcy’s character, but rather because it brings Elizabeth a greater self-awareness. The natural landscape—Austen’s metaphor for Darcy—is minimized, and even the interiors receive little attention. Instead, director Wright foregrounds Pemberley’s collection of artwork. Like a Regency tourist, Elizabeth focuses on art in the house tour, but this art does not signify power or taste: it is an index of her growing sexual awareness” (493).
While focusing on different touristic interests and subsequently, different themes, all three adaptations which Troost discusses use Elizabeth’s tour of Pembereley to communicate to the viewer the true characters of both Elizabeth and Darcy.
I have summarized Troost’s article quite a bit; however, the basic concepts which she asserts are discussed her. I picked Troost’s article (which is not on our preliminary list) because of my interest in how the country-side is filmed in relation to viewer attention. I think this article is very interesting and original; I would definitely use this for my paper if need be.
**I had some format issues, I apologize!