In her article \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Books, Bras and Bridget Jones: Reading Adaptations of Pride and Prejudice,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Olivia Murphy examines the different adaptations of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Pride and Prejudice<\/I>, particularly focusing on the 1995 BBC adaptation which \u00e2\u20ac\u0153brought new readers to Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s best-known novel, readers who, for the most part, read outside of any academic context\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (21). For Murphy, the 1995 BBC production \u00e2\u20ac\u0153operates as a ficto-critical interpretation of the primary text, dramatizing the choices mad in every reading even while offering itself as a faithful re-presentation of the 1813 novel. Throughout the article, Murphy pays special attention to the readings and cultural perception of the mini-series, which she believes \u00e2\u20ac\u0153must influence readers and reading of Pride and Prejudice<\/I> for years to come\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (23). Murphy looks at some of the immediate \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Austen-mania\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that surrounded the film upon its release, such as the Berlie bra company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s claim they provided the bras for Jennifer Ehle. But, in Murphy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s eyes, this heightened sense of sexuality in the mini-series \u00e2\u20ac\u0153successfully contradicted the popular image of Austen as a prudish spinster, reasserting Pride and Prejudice<\/I>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s erotic content above all else\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6[and] the manner in which that eroticism was communicated carries important implications for our understanding of the adaptation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s reading of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s text and for its won internal ethical orientation\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (24). <\/p>\n
Murphy address the director and screenwriter\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision to move many of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s scenes from public spaces to the privacy of the bedroom, which allowed the actors to be depicted dressing and undressing. Shifting setting to allow actors to appear undressed appears in many adaptations in which Andrew Davies served as screenwriter and serves \u00e2\u20ac\u0153as a way of hinting at sex where it does not feature in the original novel or cannot be portrayed due to censorship classifications. It also works to make characters more appealing to the audience: see without any protective layer of outdoor clothing, they seem vulnerable, more accessible to us\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (25). But Murphy notes this sets up a double standard in which women are objectified and men are empowered. When Elizabeth and Jane appear dressing or undressed, they are discussing their need to marry well, emphasizing their poverty; the mirrors that inevitably surround them in these scenes reinforce the idea that their looks will secure them a man. On the other than, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Darcy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s semi-nakedness, occurring in the context of panoramic shots of his enormous house as his horse is led away by another of his servants, only serves to exaggerate his virtues,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d not to mention his power (25). <\/p>\n
Murphy also refers to the depiction of Darcy throughout the second-half of the film; the novel does not refer to Darcy from the time he leaves Elizabeth until Lydia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s return to Longbourn. For Murphy, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153these extra scenes place the viewer at the apex of the adaptation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s hierarchy of knowledge. As they are able to see the actions of both Darcy and Elizabeth, viewers have an understanding of events and character that exceeds that of any reader of the novel. These changes render Elizabeth less knowledgeable than the viewer about events in the adaptation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s plot that concern her, thereby lessening her intelligence to that of the viewer\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (27). <\/p>\n
Like many Austen scholars, Murphy examines the film\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s interpretation of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s narrating voice, which she believes is impossible to recreate in the film as the many possible interpretations of nearly each sentence would make the film impossible and unpleasant to follow. Murphy believes \u00e2\u20ac\u0153it is this very legibility that makes the film pleasurable to watch\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (29). Murphy thinks Bridget Jones\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Diary<\/I> suggests \u00e2\u20ac\u0153that viewers of the BBC Pride and Prejudice<\/I> attempt to reclaim the ironic possibilities of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s original by analyzing their own reactions of the film\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (30). These themes are lived out in Bridget\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s life as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153not only her response\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6but her emotional incorporation of its romantic themes \u00e2\u20ac\u201c is tested by her responses to \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcreal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 life\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (30). In fact, Murphy observes that, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153for the most part Bridget successfully and self-critically maintains a tension between the pleasurable fantasies of faux<\/I> Austenian romance and the somewhat harsher realities of modern existence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (31). Yet Murphy also believes these themes and sense of irony is lost in the film adaptation in which Bridget \u00e2\u20ac\u0153becomes\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6a target of buffoonery, the accident-prone butt of mainly slapstick comedy that renders her a far stupider, more credulous creature, with whom audiences can no longer comfortably identify, but only laugh at\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (31). Murphy believes this comes from a diminishing or complete elision of the political themes and undertones of the novel, and applies this same idea to the BBC mini-series. Murphy concludes her article saying the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153too light and bright and sparkling tone of the novel diverts attention from its real political tendencies, just as the beautiful costumes, sets, actors and music of the adaptation divert our attention from\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6its troubling lack of politically conscious meaning\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (35). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In her article \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Books, Bras and Bridget Jones: Reading Adaptations of Pride and Prejudice,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Olivia Murphy examines the different adaptations of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Pride and Prejudice, particularly focusing on the 1995 BBC adaptation which \u00e2\u20ac\u0153brought new readers to Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s best-known novel, readers who, for the most part, read outside of any academic context\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (21). For Murphy, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33","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\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}