Austen Again
Sep. 6th, 2005 09:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poliphiloAnother film version of Pride and Prejudice?
Actually there haven't been that many. If you set aside the adaptions that translate Austen's themes to other cultures- Clueless, Bride and Prejudice- the last full-blown big screen version (correct me if I'm wrong) was the 1940 production with Larry Olivier and Greer Garson (and a script- how very weird- by Aldous Huxley.)
Of course we're still in thrall to the BBC film with Colin Firth all dripping wet- but that was made for television.
And it's already ten years old.
No, it's all the other Austen novels that have been filmed for the big screen recently. Producers have been tip-toeing round P & P. It's the big one, it's the Eiger, it's the one you'll never be forgiven for getting wrong.
I like the idea of Sutherland and Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennett, but do Knightley and Macfadyen have what it takes to be the Elizabeth and Darcy of their generation? Well, we'll see.
It's odd how much we love Austen. She's one of those very rare authors who have never gone out of favour- either critical or popular- and her reputation has never stood higher than it does now.
And yet her society could hardly be more different from our own. It's as strange and fanatastical- in it's own buttoned-up way- as Middle Earth. But actually that answers the implied question. One reason we enjoy her is that she lets us escape into Another World.
But that's not it. No. The chief reason we return to her, generation after generation, is that she writes such great love stories. Pride and Prejudice is Romeo and Juliet- only for adults. Most love stories are quest stories. The loved object- male or female- is a grail, an all but unattainable object of desire. But Austen gives us both sides of the story- not one grail seeker, but two grail seekers groping towards each another though the mephitic glooms and smokes of the Wasteland. In most love stories one lover is analysed to death and the other is a dummy, but Elizabeth and Darcy are equally real.
Austen is our greatest psychologist of love.
Actually there haven't been that many. If you set aside the adaptions that translate Austen's themes to other cultures- Clueless, Bride and Prejudice- the last full-blown big screen version (correct me if I'm wrong) was the 1940 production with Larry Olivier and Greer Garson (and a script- how very weird- by Aldous Huxley.)
Of course we're still in thrall to the BBC film with Colin Firth all dripping wet- but that was made for television.
And it's already ten years old.
No, it's all the other Austen novels that have been filmed for the big screen recently. Producers have been tip-toeing round P & P. It's the big one, it's the Eiger, it's the one you'll never be forgiven for getting wrong.
I like the idea of Sutherland and Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennett, but do Knightley and Macfadyen have what it takes to be the Elizabeth and Darcy of their generation? Well, we'll see.
It's odd how much we love Austen. She's one of those very rare authors who have never gone out of favour- either critical or popular- and her reputation has never stood higher than it does now.
And yet her society could hardly be more different from our own. It's as strange and fanatastical- in it's own buttoned-up way- as Middle Earth. But actually that answers the implied question. One reason we enjoy her is that she lets us escape into Another World.
But that's not it. No. The chief reason we return to her, generation after generation, is that she writes such great love stories. Pride and Prejudice is Romeo and Juliet- only for adults. Most love stories are quest stories. The loved object- male or female- is a grail, an all but unattainable object of desire. But Austen gives us both sides of the story- not one grail seeker, but two grail seekers groping towards each another though the mephitic glooms and smokes of the Wasteland. In most love stories one lover is analysed to death and the other is a dummy, but Elizabeth and Darcy are equally real.
Austen is our greatest psychologist of love.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-06 04:37 am (UTC)Straight Regency era tellings of P&P have been done a few times, the 1940's version being the last movie length that I know of, though I think there may have been one in the 60's (?).
P&P is endearing because the main characters are complicated without being boring and interesting while being realistic. It's finely balanced and it invites the reader without insulting them. It's a different world, which can be off-putting (many JA fans I've talked with have said they disliked her when they read her works as teens, because they thought it was just about getting married) or it can be an adventure to a foreign setting, the past.
As for the present adaptation, I'm a little worried about the drama they'll doubtlessly introduce and the pairing they'll have to do to fit it into a two-hour frame... but I'm looking forward to it and it should be fun.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-06 05:44 am (UTC)There have been several TV versions of P & P. The BBC seems to come up with a new one every decade (though I reckon they'll have a hard job improving on the '90s version.)
I disliked Austen as a teen. I thought she was cruel (to characters like Lady Catherine and Mr Collins.) These days I relish the delicate savagery of her caricatures.
I read an interview with Donald Sutherland. He said he had doubts about the project but was finally sold on it when he learned that he and the girls would be getting together to workshop a "family laugh". It sounds like it will a thoughtful production.