Comments on: ArtSunday: “improving” Jane Austen

By: Scholars and Rogues » ArtSunday: Tess of the boomervilles

Scholars and Rogues » ArtSunday: Tess of the boomervilles — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:16:48 +0000

[...] The production is first rate. The actors, young and earnest as they are, seem to have a clear grasp of the key issues of the novel, quaint as they may seem to sophisticated Post-Sexual Revolution viewers. I can recommend it without reservation, something I couldn’t do for last year’s Complete Jane Austen. [...]

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:47:20 +0000

“Adaptation” has always been a dangerous word, implying flaws with the the original (or, as Jim suggests, “corporate directive”).

Thanks, Jim.

By: Mags

Mags — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:29:41 +0000

Well, you can’t blame the BBC for ITV’s sins. But I agree that it was odd to use Andrew Davies as a selling point for the series when it was on PBS. I’m not a big Davies fan, though I enjoy his P&P and some of his other non-Austen adaptations. I was very unhappy with the new NA adaptation. All the humor of the actual novel was removed and what replaced it was inferior. Also, the BBC offered Davies 4 hours for the new S&S and he said three would be better. I felt one of the weaknesses of the new production was that it felt rushed in places, that he was attempting to shoehorn in what was missing from the superior 1995 film but not with any care.

I don’t consider “Janeite” to be a pejorative term. I’m not a scholar by any stretch, just a very well-read fan.

By: Euphrosyne

Euphrosyne — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:46:16 +0000

Never having used the term, I hadn’t realized “Jane-ite” was pejorative; is it associated with the Regency romance set? If so, I can understand the negative connotation – but let’s not be too hasty to divide serious students and thoughtful fans of literature and theater into “enlightened academicians” and “those other silly people.” Some of the grossest offenses against Shakespeare and Austen I’ve ever been unfortunate enough to encounter have sprung from the febrile minds of sleep-deprived grad students and desperate seekers after tenure… but you’re a better man than I am, Gunga Jim. The Paltrow Emma gives me hairballs. I’d be interested in your take on the 1972 BBC version.

The truth is, although I’m a fan, my own beloved Jane is not Ms. Austen at all – it’s Jane Eyre. And you do NOT want to get me started on film adaptations of my personal holy text.

By: Jim Booth

Jim Booth — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:43:10 +0000

Mags: Thanks for the clarification of the screenplay work on the new series. BBC’s use of Davies to cover the execrable work of Simon Burke and Maggie Wadey. I knew that ITV did the new adaptations on the cheap and that their limited length (about 85 minutes) was a problem probably even Davies couldn’t have overcome. But the Regency Romance treatment by Burke and Wadey is inexcusable from anyone – even ITV. I will edit the post to assign blame where it is due. BTW, from the insight of these comments, you’re no Jane-ite as we in academia have known them…. Or, if you are, it is as though the clouds have parted and we’re all living in a brave new world that has such Jane-ites in it.

Brian – Give Austen a chance. You might be surprised. BTW, I almost cited the McKellan Richard III as one of my examples of tampering with the Bard….

Euphrosyne: I wrote my thesis on Austen, so I take these adaptations very seriously. Persuasion with Amanda Root is a wonder. And P&P and BBC’s Emma are all they should be. I even can tolerate the Paltrow Emma because its good humor is so evident.
But doing Austen on the cheap is a slap in the face of viewers from all backgrounds.

Sam: Amen and Amen.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:50:35 +0000

Not having ever read any Austin (and having no interest in doing so), I can’t speak for whether her works “need” improving or not. However, as someone who enjoys his Shakespeare, I have to say that I have seen at least one great updating of a Shakespeare play: the 1995 movie of Richard III, with Ian McKellen. Watching Richard as a fascist in a Nazi-like England was frighteningly well done, and I enjoyed that movie of the play far more than I have ever enjoyed the actual play performed.

By: Euphrosyne

Euphrosyne — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:07:43 +0000

Aha! That makes so much more sense! It was hard to believe how drastically different in concept and execution those productions were. And I so agree with you about the 1995 Persuasion… although I deny categorically that Ciaran Hinds in tight, tight breeches is a factor in my love for the film. Ahem.

By: Mags

Mags — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:02:22 +0000

Hi there! With respect, would like to point out that Andrew Davies did not write the screenplays for the latest adaptations of Persuasion and Mansfield Park. They were written by Simon Burke and Maggie Wadey, respectively. Davies wrote the new NA and S&S as well as the previously released P&P and Emma. The PBS press release was really unclear and a lot of people were confused about it. Also, NA, MP, and Persuasion were actually made (badly and cheaply) by ITV. S&S and Miss Austen Regrets were made by the BBC.

Incidentally, I call myself a Janeite, and I can certainly discuss (and enjoy) Jane Austen’s work on several levels and have been published on the subject. I was disappointed with the Jane Austen Season. I would say S&S and Miss Austen Regrets were the best of the bunch, though not approaching the great mid-1990s adaptations (Persuasion from 1995 is my favorite JA adaptation of all time). Ultimately I prefer the books anyway.

By: Euphrosyne

Euphrosyne — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:18:09 +0000

You nailed it, Jim, and I’ve seen just about every adaptation of Austen available in any format. I have a feeling Andrew Davies may have let the (well-deserved) success of P&P go to his head a bit… and the execs at the BBC gave their profitable wunderkind far too much leeway, with unfortunate results. I’d add something pithy, but you’ve made every point I might bring up and more.

Hey, this may well become the definitive critique of Andrew Davies’ Austen series – and we were there! Bravo.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:45:18 +0000

As you know, I’ve never had a lot of time for people who fuck with the greats. I’ve seen Shakespeare reset a number of times, for instance, and not once to any productive effect.

Great talents recognize great talent and as such seem to instinctively understand that greatness doesn’t need fixing, adjusting, updating, etc. The only people who do what you describe here are lesser lights who have no other hope, ever, of being mentioned in the same breath with those they’re bastardizing.