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.
Posted in Uncategorized at 5:39 pm by janeaustenfilm
Mary-Carolyn here, with some general thoughts on Bridget Jones’ Diary. First, I have a sneaking suspicion that “Uncle” Geoffrey is meant to be Mr. Collins; though, and this is largely because I can’t figure out who Jude, Shaz and Tom are, I don’t think every character has an Austen double, which is alright by me. Updating the story can get a little hairy with the addition of things like the Internet and an increasing emphasis on sex and drinking (Lizzy wouldn’t have been able to take a mini-break!), but I think Fielding does some pretty interesting and clever things. Bridget’s on-screen and voice over comments really give a sense of Austen’s sarcastic narrator, though its not as if Bridget needed much help. I think, because Daniel and Bridget’s relationship started over the Internet, it can be seen in the film as an “unacceptable” social channel. I don’t think the film’s position is that the Internet shouldn’t be used for communication, but perhaps it’s not the best way to find a boyfriend or future spouse. This reading is confirmed by Bridget’s mom who meets Julian in a similar technological medium, television. And it’s definitely not acceptable to meet your husband through the home shopping network! Bridget’s parents provide a great example of the pitfalls of an unequal marriage, and these are seen much more explicitly here than in any of the other P&P adaptations. I found Bridget’s “panty dilemma” quite funny, and in a strange way, very reminisant of Jane’s dilemma if she ought to show more affection than she felt for Bingley and thus secure his affections. A great Pride and Prejudice touch is the name of Bridget’s publishing company – Pemberly Press. When Bridget and Daniel go out to dinner, Daniel does the same thing with his eyes Wickhan did when he lied about his past; neither character looks their companion straight in the eyes. Another scene with Daniel, where the two discuss commitment, shows this movie, like Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and its other adaptations, the focus is not on what you have, but on what you are and what you are capable of (for example, are you capable of committing to one person?).
I’ll close my thoughts with a great quote from Helen Fielding on the similarities between the plot of her novel and Austen’s novel: ”I thought I would simply steal it. I thought she wouldn’t mind because she’s dead.” This comment was preceded by quite a lot of compliments to Austen’s writing and style, as well as her continuing relevance to our society. Fielding has really done an excellent job creating a novel and screen play that both reflect Austen and interact with her in a new and fresh way, causing viewers to rethink Austen’s themes, and her continuing relevance.
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:37 am by janeaustenfilm
Mary-Carolyn’s thoughts on Pride and Prejudice, the 1995 version. My mom and I have been watching big chunks of the film at nights, and it’s been enjoyable watching it with her, except when she makes comments like “How did Mr. Darcy get out of his engagement to Ann DeBourg?” Anyway, here are some of the things I noticed; most of these things are from the first part of the movie, where my mom wasn’t asking me so many questions.
The film opens with sewing, embroidery and dresses, emphasizing that this is a women’s movie. The first scene with Lizzie and Jane isn’t from the book, but it sets up their temperaments and well as their strong relationships to each other. I noticed Lydia’s height dominance over Kitty in several scenes, but particularly in the scene where they first discuss Mr. Bingley’s arrival, Kitty is sitting down and Lydia is standing, emphasizing Lydia’s greater importance. Mary has a lot of great reactions to Mr. Collins. First, when he arrives, she’s preening herself and patting her hair. In any scene with Collins, Mary is usually “hovering” behind him. Later, when he asks Lizzy to dance, Mary looks like she thinks he will ask her, and is disappointed when he turns to Lizzy. Upon Mr. Collins’ arrival, Lizzy is seated next to him at dinner, and is singled out by her father when the conversation turns to a discussion of Mr. Collins’ home, foreshadowing, or at least setting up, Mr. Collins’ hope that Lizzy will marry him. In the same scene, Lizzy’s laughter and her father and Mr. Collins’ discussion of compliments shows her personality and her relationship with her father, and to an extent, sets up Mr. Bennet’s parenting style as one that doesn’t impose restraints on his daughters. That the girls are quite free to do as they please is emphasized throughout the film by frequently placing the girls out of doors. When Lizzy and Wickham talk about how he was poorly used by Mr. Darcy, Wickham always seems to be looking sideways, up or down, or past Lizzy’s shoulder rather than looking directly at her. But the two are sitting diagonally, so it’s hard to tell where in Wickham’s line of sight Lizzy would be. Also in this scene, Wickham introduces the topic unprompted, like in the novel, but I don’ think that is the case in the 2005 film (correct me if I’m wrong, I can’t seem to remember). In any case, the 2005 version certainly diminishes Wickham’s “crimes.’ When Lydia approaches the two at the close of this conversation, Wickham says he hasn’t had a dance in three months. I wonder if this is an attempt to justify his behavior as he doesn’t have the “proper social channels” to find a suitable wife. In various scenes in the film, Lizzy and Jane both wear cross necklaces (like Fanny Price), but none of the other girls do. This is a way, other than framing their more forward in the scene, to set them apart from their sisters. At the Netherfield Ball, Darcy is framed between Lizzy and Jane as they discuss his relationship with Wickham. There’s also some nice phallic imagery when Lydia runs around with Denny’s sword, and I’d be willing to bet there’s some more in the film, especially centered on Lydia. Mrs. Bennet’s insistence on Lizzy staying to hear Mr. Collins emphasizes her controlling, manipulating nature. Interestingly, we see similar characteristics in Lizzy’s scheming to get Jane to London. Mrs. Bennet’s obvious awe of Lady Catherine sets up what the book says is the reason for her improved kindness to Mr. Darcy – her sheer awe of him. I also really like the choice of casting for Lady Catherine. While I love Dame Judy Dench in the 2005 version, I think she’s a bit too intimidating for Lady Catherine as Mr. Collins actually has a reason to be frightened of her and always eager to please her. His reverence of her ought to be funny, and it is portraying Lady Catherine as a small, thin, slightly sickly looking woman that makes the amazing amount of control she has the fear she inspires funny. I also noticed that a fade is used to move from Darcy at the Netherfield Ball to an overview of the ball, and then pans over to Lizzy and Charlotte discussing Darcy. Other than the times the fade is used at the end of a segment, this is one of the very few times a fade is used, and I can’t figure out why it is used. Any thoughts?
Oh, on a fun note, I found out that the woman who plays Miss. Bingley, Anna Chancellor, is eight times the niece of Jane Austen; she is the direct descendant of Austen’s eldest brother Edward. She has another relative called Fanny Rice (haha!).
Posted in Uncategorized at 7:09 am by janeaustenfilm
“Filming Romance: Persuasion”
Tara Ghoshal Wallace
From Jane Austen on Screen
A Summary by Mary-Carolyn
The last of [Austen’s] novels is especially tough to handle because it deals with a romance that ends before the story begins and has it resumption just before the story ends. This is novelistic, not film, material. Nick Dear’s screenplay understands the dilemma but can’t solve it” –Stanley Kauffmann
In her article, Wallace looks at the strategies a filmmaker uses to “transpose Austen’s narrative about two romances (one between hero and heroine, the other between nation and navy) on to the screen; and what kind of audience is implied by the choices made by the filmmaker” (127). She begins her discussion looking at Austen’s narrative voice, saying how difficult it is to translate it onto the screen, as it is not straightforwardly omniscient. Wallace looks specifically at Roger Michell’s adaptation of Persuasion when she looks at the way these narrative subtleties are translated to film in the form of “more easily decoded visual cues” (128). Michell has received criticism on “dumbing down” Austen’s subtleties, but Wallace claims “it is not to the discredit of the either the film or the medium itself that its depictions of issues like class relations are more easily decoded and discerned than they are in Austen’s text” (129). In fact, Wallace points out that, while Michell has interpreted Austen’s text, the view must still interpret and read the film. In fact, she claims the film is, in its own way, complex, citing several instances of “visual intertextuality [which]…deepen its depiction of class and family relations” (129). One such is example are the different modes of transportation Anne and her father and oldest sister use. Sir. Walter and Elizabeth employ a carriage, while Anne is conveyed in a farm-cart. Another example is the use of food: what people eat and how the eat it delineate their character and social status.
Wallace moves on to an examination of the character of Anne, and the way actress Amanda Root portrays her. One of the difficulties Wallace sees in adapting Persuasion is of depicting Anne’s inner turmoil, which “much be represented through the bodies of the actors, through facial expression and physical gestures” (130). What Michell has done, Wallace says, is show this by taking away Anne’s control of her body. Rather than having her react when she is alone, Michell shows Anne running across the room when she learns of Wentworth’s return. However, she appreciates Michell’s choices in showing the viewer Anne’s gentle swoon and need to support herself with a chair on her first encounter with Wentworth. But Wallace still thinks Michell and Root fail in their interpretation of Anne, as nowhere in the film is there any evidence of “Anne beginning ‘to reason with herself and try to be feelingless’” (131). She also criticizes the depiction of Elizabeth as someone who only bullies and belittles Anne. Yet Wallace defends Michell and Dear, saying what they may be trying to highlight here is Anne’s lack of a supportive group of women. Wallace points out “Anne is silenced, over and over, by the selfishness of her sisters and the dominant ego of Lady Russell” (134). Wallace goes so far to posit that the film might depict a “trap and an escape” in which Anne finds freedom from the constraints placed on her by the society of her father and sisters “not only be finding personal romance, but by joining his world of ‘that profession which is, if possible, more distinguished in its domestic virtues than in its national importance’” (135).
Wallace then examines the role of the navy in Michell’s adaptation of Persuasion. She praises Michell’s choice to have the film open and close with images of boats, emphasizing the “centrality of the Royal Navy” (136). She also points to the sailor’s tendency to always wear their uniforms, referring especially to the scene in Lyme where Harville and Benwick both change into their uniform before walking along the beach, in effect claiming “a public identity conferred by that uniform” (137). But, she criticizes this adaptation for deglamorizing the soldiers to a much larger degree than Austen does, showing more than a gentle rift between the friends Austen shows. She thinks particularly of the Uppercross party’s first visit to the Harville’s, which dissolves into hilarity for no apparent reason. Wallace says, “it is as if, confronted with the poverty of a retired naval officer, aware of the differences in status and wealth, the country gentry can respond only with nervous hilarity” (138). Wallace then points to the film’s opening which both units and points out the disparities between the country gentry and the naval officers. The film opens with a montage, alternating between images of naval laborers and country laborers and images of Admiral Croft and Sir Walter. The first message this montage sends is that “labor is labor…the underclass, whether on board ship or on estate, are overworked, possibly mistreated, and probably discontented” (139). The other, Admiral Croft’s declaration that they are going home and Sir Walter’s comment he will not have a naval officer in his home, highlights “the irony…[of] national ingratitude” (139). Despite the shortcomings of Michell’s Persuasion, Wallace concludes her article saying “it achieve both a gratifying degree of fidelity and its very own authenticity as text” (141).
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.