{"id":23,"date":"2007-03-11T19:35:21","date_gmt":"2007-03-12T02:35:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/2007\/03\/11\/filming-tourism-portraying-pemberley\/"},"modified":"2007-03-11T19:35:21","modified_gmt":"2007-03-12T02:35:21","slug":"filming-tourism-portraying-pemberley","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/2007\/03\/11\/filming-tourism-portraying-pemberley\/","title":{"rendered":"“Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Troost, Linda. “Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley.” Eighteenth-Century Fiction<\/em>. 18, no. 4 (Summer 2006). pp. 477-498.<\/p>\n

(by: Leah)<\/p>\n

In her article, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Linda Troost analyzes the Pemberley visits in the 1979, 1995, and 2005 adaptations of Pride and Prejudice<\/em>. <\/span>Troost argues that each of these versions \u00e2\u20ac\u0153treat the pivotal moment differently\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (477). <\/span>Because Elizabeth Bennett\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 integrity. <\/span>In her article, Troost \u00e2\u20ac\u0153examines 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s understanding of him\/herself and others, as well as the readers\/viewer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s relationship with the past\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (477).<\/p>\n

Troost discusses how tourism and the ways in which people approach touring has changed since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (478). <\/span>Troost writes that while modern tourists are interested in sites such as country houses for history and connecting with the past, while Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s contemporaries \u00e2\u20ac\u0153had a tenuous connection to the past. <\/span>Country-house tourism focused largely on pragmatic concerns of the current day: economics and power, not history\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (478). <\/span>Today, tourists desire to connect with history and their past, and thus take interest in historic sites and houses. <\/span>Troost argues that in Pride and Prejudice<\/em>, Elizabeth takes an interest in the past and British heritage simply because she is attracted to nature through the sublime (478). <\/span>Troost writes that<\/p>\n

<\/span>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153All three versions of Pride and Prejudice<\/em> reveal heritage values, but the <\/span> relationship each implies about our connection to the past has altered in the years <\/span> between them, a change reflected in actual heritage tourism, not just filmic <\/span> representations of it. <\/span>Elizabeth views Pemberley from her social position, and the <\/span>property represents the present, and eventually her future as its mistress. <\/span>We too <\/span>view Pemberly from a specific social perspective, but we can find a way to take <\/span> possession of it, and, eventually, our past. <\/span>Our changing cultural positions, <\/span>however, require various modes of taking possession as each successive <\/span>adaptation of Pride and Prejudice <\/em>demonstrates\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (478).<\/p>\n

Thus, the way in which Pemberley is filmed and portrayed on-screen must keep up with contemporary tourism interests. <\/span>How Pemberley, and subsequently, Elizabeth and Darcy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s changes of heart are portrayed is necessary for the viewer to place themselves within the Pride and Prejudice <\/em>narrative. Troost writes that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153tourism in Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s day differed from tourism today, and directors have to decide whether to replicate a historic or a modern experience\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (480).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Troost discusses the history of tourism in detail, as well as the history of large properties such as Pemberely. <\/span>Troost asserts that for Austen, tourism would have been indicative of a privileged class; indeed, it is Elizabeth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s aunt and uncle who can afford to take her with them on their tour. <\/span>The directors of each adaptation chose to portray the Gardiner\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s wealth in different ways. <\/span>Troost writes that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the 1979 and 1995 versions show Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s beautiful and expensive carriage\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6rolling through a lush landscape. <\/span>The 2005 film, however, in keeping with its agenda for greater social realism, make the travel experience more democratic and familiar\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (480). <\/span>Troost also discusses the adaptations\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 treatment of Pemberely\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s formal gardens in contrast to Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s; she writes that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153only the 1979 adaptation shows Pemberly\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s formal gardens\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (480) while Austen discusses them at length. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Differing from a modern tourist experience, tourists could be turned away or allowed inside the country house at the housekeeper\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discretion. <\/span>Today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tourist experience allows for a democratic one, much like of that emphasized in the 2005 version. <\/span>Likewise, the interests of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tourists once inside a house drastically differ from those of today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tourists (483). <\/span>Thus, directors face a significant dilemma in allowing the viewer to take possession of the film; all three adaptations approach the matter differently. <\/span>While the 1979 version focuses on the modern tourists\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 interest in the past, the 1995 version takes an explicitly romantic approach, as Elizabeth is interested in nature. Troost writes that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Elizabeth looks not at the rooms but at the views from the rooms. <\/span>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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s character than his possessions\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (490). <\/span>Contrastingly, the 2005 version focuses on Elizabeth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s self-analyzing process, and her awareness of her prejudice against Darcy (493). <\/span>Troost writes that<\/p>\n

<\/span>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153the Pemberley visit is important, not because it brings Elizabeth and the viewers <\/span><\/span> <\/span>deeper knowledge of Darcy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s character, but rather because it brings Elizabeth a <\/span> greater self-awareness. <\/span>The natural landscape\u00e2\u20ac\u201dAusten\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s metaphor for Darcy\u00e2\u20ac\u201dis <\/span>minimized, and even the interiors receive little attention. <\/span>Instead, director Wright <\/span>foregrounds Pemberley\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s collection of artwork. <\/span>Like a Regency tourist, <\/span>Elizabeth focuses on art in the house tour, but this art does not signify power or <\/span>taste: it is an index of her growing sexual awareness\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (493).<\/p>\n

While focusing on different touristic interests and subsequently, different themes, all three adaptations which Troost discusses use Elizabeth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tour of Pembereley to communicate to the viewer the true characters of both Elizabeth and Darcy. <\/span><\/p>\n

I have summarized Troost\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s article quite a bit; however, the basic concepts which she asserts are discussed her. <\/span>I picked Troost\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s article (which is not on our preliminary list) because of my interest in how the country-side is filmed in relation to viewer attention. <\/span>I think this article is very interesting and original; I would definitely use this for my paper if need be. <\/span><\/p>\n

**I had some format issues, I apologize!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Troost, Linda. “Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley.” Eighteenth-Century Fiction. 18, no. 4 (Summer 2006). pp. 477-498. (by: Leah) In her article, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Filming Tourism, Portraying Pemberley,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Linda Troost analyzes the Pemberley visits in the 1979, 1995, and 2005 adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. Troost argues that each of these versions \u00e2\u20ac\u0153treat the pivotal moment differently\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (477). Because […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}