It's a shame I've missed most of the discussion. I've loved the book since studying it for A-Level, and the Jennifer Ehle adaptation is perfect.
That adaptation is one of the reasons I'm an LOTR purist.
Pride and Prejudice: Adaptations of Austen
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
It would still be great to hear your take on the book/movie, Aravar!
As you've seen, we didn't go very far with the movie discussion. (I've still not finished the BBC series.
I love it, but I just can't make myself sit in front of the TV for long enough. I'm trying to get my friend to watch it with me, then I'd not be tempted to visit messageboards/do the ironing/fall asleep in the middle of watching. 
)
I'd especially like to know why the BBC version of P&P made you a LOTR-purist!?
Alatar -
Um, that means, YES, PLEASE!
As you've seen, we didn't go very far with the movie discussion. (I've still not finished the BBC series.
I love it, but I just can't make myself sit in front of the TV for long enough. I'm trying to get my friend to watch it with me, then I'd not be tempted to visit messageboards/do the ironing/fall asleep in the middle of watching. )I'd especially like to know why the BBC version of P&P made you a LOTR-purist!?
Alatar -
Um, that means, YES, PLEASE!
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
I don't really know what to add about the book itself, just to say I'm in the fans of Mr Bennet camp. the 'What do we live but to make sport for our neighbours...' line seems to me to be a reasonable outlook on life. Since reading the books I've wished I was Darcy, feared I was Collins, and suspected I'm like Mr Bennet.
vison has covered many of the aspects about entails, but I think I should stress that one of the problems with them is that the owner of the estate onyl enjoyed the profits from it, raising capital was another matter: this is why there is talk of the Bennets trying to economise out of income. Entails were only abolished in 1996.
I think it is important also to remember some of the social aspects which are slightly lost on a modern reader, but which Austen's contemporaries would have known. someone posted a social scale with Titled landowners as 1, major untitled landowners at 2, the new rich as 3, and the minor gentry at 4. I think that the Bennets are really just on the border between 2 and 4. IIRC there is a reference to Mr Bennet's income as being £1000 a year, which puts them on the lowest rung of 2. Hence Elizabeth's 'He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter.'
The Bingleys are clearly in 3. That is what is so ironic about their conduct: especially towards Sir William Lucas who has the same background, although less money. I suspect that they may be connected with Darcy not through school but through commerce. Darcy owns a large chunk of Derbyshire and that county has coal mines. There is the strange reference to Newcastle as being Wickham's destination: I wonder if that is the Bingley connection: "Coals to Newcastle" is an English idiom referring to the industry up there. My speculation is that Bingley's family have made their money in industry there.
Its always diffcult to make comparisons of income. The main inflation index records a sixty fold increase from the early ninteenth century, but thos figures appear too low. A recent Naval hisotry has used its basis of comparison of the income of a Captain RN, which at the time of the Napoleonic wars was about £360 p.a. Its now about £60,000. This means that Mr Bennet's income would be about £180,000 ($320,000), Mr Bingley's £900,000 ($1.6m) and Mr Darcy's £1.8 million ($3.2m)
The BBC adaptation is so well done. They chose the locations carefully and the houses especially fit the relative social scale (Lyme Park, whic was used for the exterior of Pemberley isn't far from me, it's a bit weird visiting it) All the costumes and so on are well done, al;though I'm not sure about the blue facings on the militia uniforms. In the regulars blue facings were reserved for Royal regiments, such as the Guards there were various colours such as geen, tan and yellow for other regiments.
I personally like the empire line dresses.
The acting is well done throughout with the exception of Alison Steadman. She is a great actress but her performance is too over the top. She is too much of a screeching caricature. I cant' see what Mr Bennet would have found attractive in her at all. Brenda Blethyn is a lot better in the new one, I think.
And of course, there's Jennifer Ehle.
Truehobbit, it's not so much that the P&P one made me a purist, but it is one of the main reasons I support the purist position. There are a number of adaptations of books I like which are faithful: this, the BBC LOTR, the seventies Musketeer films to name a few.
One of the things that I think they have in common is that any changes or additions are to bring the story to life in the particular medium, or to clarify something obscure. In the 1995 P&P we have various scenes to show the attraction between Lizzie and Darcy, the swimming gives a reason for Darcy to dash off and I think that the wedding scene using the Prayer Book rubric nicely comments on some of the overall themes of the story.
My frustration with PJ and co is that they deliberately chose not to do this, but to tell their own story. The added scenes are there to do that. Sometimes adaptations can work like this. Andrew Davies also adapted Moll Flanders soon after P&P. It's a book I dislike, and I think from the adaptation that Andrew Davies dislkes it too: the adaptation loosely follows the narrative but turns it into a bawdy romp which seems to be the reverse of the novel's intention. It was OK but definitely not the book (I'm not surprised, having seen his Moll Flanders, to hear that he's now adapting Fanny Hill).
Another adaptation which failed for me was the 90s Gullivers Travels with Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen: high production values, generally well acted, but entirely missing the point. Maybe I should start a more general thread on adaptation.
vison has covered many of the aspects about entails, but I think I should stress that one of the problems with them is that the owner of the estate onyl enjoyed the profits from it, raising capital was another matter: this is why there is talk of the Bennets trying to economise out of income. Entails were only abolished in 1996.
I think it is important also to remember some of the social aspects which are slightly lost on a modern reader, but which Austen's contemporaries would have known. someone posted a social scale with Titled landowners as 1, major untitled landowners at 2, the new rich as 3, and the minor gentry at 4. I think that the Bennets are really just on the border between 2 and 4. IIRC there is a reference to Mr Bennet's income as being £1000 a year, which puts them on the lowest rung of 2. Hence Elizabeth's 'He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter.'
The Bingleys are clearly in 3. That is what is so ironic about their conduct: especially towards Sir William Lucas who has the same background, although less money. I suspect that they may be connected with Darcy not through school but through commerce. Darcy owns a large chunk of Derbyshire and that county has coal mines. There is the strange reference to Newcastle as being Wickham's destination: I wonder if that is the Bingley connection: "Coals to Newcastle" is an English idiom referring to the industry up there. My speculation is that Bingley's family have made their money in industry there.
Its always diffcult to make comparisons of income. The main inflation index records a sixty fold increase from the early ninteenth century, but thos figures appear too low. A recent Naval hisotry has used its basis of comparison of the income of a Captain RN, which at the time of the Napoleonic wars was about £360 p.a. Its now about £60,000. This means that Mr Bennet's income would be about £180,000 ($320,000), Mr Bingley's £900,000 ($1.6m) and Mr Darcy's £1.8 million ($3.2m)
The BBC adaptation is so well done. They chose the locations carefully and the houses especially fit the relative social scale (Lyme Park, whic was used for the exterior of Pemberley isn't far from me, it's a bit weird visiting it) All the costumes and so on are well done, al;though I'm not sure about the blue facings on the militia uniforms. In the regulars blue facings were reserved for Royal regiments, such as the Guards there were various colours such as geen, tan and yellow for other regiments.
I personally like the empire line dresses.
The acting is well done throughout with the exception of Alison Steadman. She is a great actress but her performance is too over the top. She is too much of a screeching caricature. I cant' see what Mr Bennet would have found attractive in her at all. Brenda Blethyn is a lot better in the new one, I think.
And of course, there's Jennifer Ehle.
Truehobbit, it's not so much that the P&P one made me a purist, but it is one of the main reasons I support the purist position. There are a number of adaptations of books I like which are faithful: this, the BBC LOTR, the seventies Musketeer films to name a few.
One of the things that I think they have in common is that any changes or additions are to bring the story to life in the particular medium, or to clarify something obscure. In the 1995 P&P we have various scenes to show the attraction between Lizzie and Darcy, the swimming gives a reason for Darcy to dash off and I think that the wedding scene using the Prayer Book rubric nicely comments on some of the overall themes of the story.
My frustration with PJ and co is that they deliberately chose not to do this, but to tell their own story. The added scenes are there to do that. Sometimes adaptations can work like this. Andrew Davies also adapted Moll Flanders soon after P&P. It's a book I dislike, and I think from the adaptation that Andrew Davies dislkes it too: the adaptation loosely follows the narrative but turns it into a bawdy romp which seems to be the reverse of the novel's intention. It was OK but definitely not the book (I'm not surprised, having seen his Moll Flanders, to hear that he's now adapting Fanny Hill).
Another adaptation which failed for me was the 90s Gullivers Travels with Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen: high production values, generally well acted, but entirely missing the point. Maybe I should start a more general thread on adaptation.
Last edited by Aravar on Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Interesting, Aravar!
I'd sort of randomly assigned $100 (modern) = 1 pound (Austen), but from what you say, $320 would be a better equivalent. This makes a bit more sense: Wickham marries Lydia on the inducement of about $32,000 a year, which would be enough of an addition to his pay that they could live decently in lodgings—though not enough to allow for his gambling and her extravagance.
Realizing that before her marriage, Lydia's pocket money and expenses "had been very little within that sum" is rather startling!
I'm actually watching the Keira movie on the treadmill this week.
I'd sort of randomly assigned $100 (modern) = 1 pound (Austen), but from what you say, $320 would be a better equivalent. This makes a bit more sense: Wickham marries Lydia on the inducement of about $32,000 a year, which would be enough of an addition to his pay that they could live decently in lodgings—though not enough to allow for his gambling and her extravagance.
Realizing that before her marriage, Lydia's pocket money and expenses "had been very little within that sum" is rather startling!
I'm actually watching the Keira movie on the treadmill this week.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46575
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I've seen the Keira version, so I might pop in with some insights from the perspective of someone who has not read the book.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
If no-one objects I'll start on the Keira Knightley version.
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT
The difficulty that this version has of course compared to the BBC version is simply that of time. It does feel like a series of vignettes from the book, and is rather rushed. Because of this I think that important characters, especially Wickham are rather underdeveloped.
The filmakers have chosen to set the book at a slightly earlier date, than the BBC. THe BBC version is clearly set towards the endo of the Napoleonic Wars from the Army uniforms. This accords with the date of P&P's publication. The new version appears to be set around the turn of the nineteenth century.
The locations are different. For Pemberley, Chatsworth itself is used, which is I think too grand (although, bizarrely I saw a complaint on the IMDB messageboards that it wasn't grand enough) and the same is probably true of using Burghley House for Rosings.
I think that the house used for Longbourn is highly appropriate and also in fact grander than the Longbourn of the BBC. It has come in for criticism in some corners for making the Bennets look like peasants. I don't think it does. It gives the impression of Mr Bennet as an eccentric country squire who lives, pretty much, as he pleases. That seems to accord with the picture in the book.
I think the acting and characterisation is better in some places than the BBC and worse in others. Rosamund Pike clearly fits the English Rose picture of Jane, and I suspect that Keira looks a lot more like Austen's Elizabeth (whose figure is 'light and pleasing') then the lovely Jennifer. I think Kiera's performance is fine and slightly 'younger' than Jennifer Ehle's.
Mr Bingley is dreadful. He is portrayed as 'Tim nice but dim' Why Darcy would even bother with him seems to me inexplicable. Perhaps more time would have made a better character, much as the difference in Celborn in the FOTR editions.
Miss Bingley is surprising. I must confess that I think Kelly Reilly is gorgeous, so it may colour my perception. The character as played is more sympathetic. I get the impression that when she talks about the achievements necessary to be considered accomplished she actually has them, and that she is a woman who is frustrated perhaps that she's got all the talent and her thick brother's got all the cash.
One of the problems of this adapatation for me is the question of why, if Darcy is seeking an intelligent, stimulating, beautiful woman he hasn't snapped up Miss Bingley. Perhaps she's too fast for the shy puppy portrayed in this film.
That's another problem. Darcy in this production is simply shy. He mouths the snobberies of the book but I never really get the impression that he really means them, unlike Colin Firth.
I'll add more later.
EDIT to add
I think Brenda Blethyn is better than Alison Steadman. Its true that as Truehobbit posts below that she is more vulgar. But that reflects her background: she is the daughter of a local businessman rather than one of the gentry. She is a more sympathetic character, although I think that her relationship with Mr Bennet is a bit too close in the film.
I like what Donald Sutherland was doing with the character - the eccentric squire - but I thought that he mumbled too much. It was a bit too understated. I wonder whether he was having trouble with the accent? I don't remember him doing an English one in any other film.
Mr Collins, was for me even better than David Bamber. He was simply dull rather than unctuous. He also had something more sympathetic about him because he seemed to genuinely want to do the right thing.
I also preferred Judy Dench. Her performance was more commanding than in the BBC production. Here the arrogance is simply from being used to get her own way, she cannot believe that someone would thwart her. This contrasts with the BBC one which seems more to be based on insecurity: the need for a court of sycophants, such as Mr Collins, who will hang on her every word. I haven't entirely made up my mind as to which is more accurate.
Mr Wickham and some of the other minor characters are unfortunately reduced to little more than cyphers. That is of course due to time, and it would be interesting to see what could have been done with that cast and a five hour series.
However there does seem to me to ba a major change. The theme is no longer really 'Pride and Prejudice' Neither Darcy nor Lizzie seem to be prejudiced against one another. Darcy isn't proud, just painfully shy, and there is little suggestion that Lizzie acts out of wounded pride either. Instead the villain seems to be a stifling social structure. That seems to me to be partly reflected by the portrayal of Miss Bingley that I mentioned earlier, but above all in the first proposal.
That scene changes everything. In th book and BBC Lizzie is genuinely angry and bears ill will towards Darcy. That is then changed by subsequent events. In this film it is clear that they already love each other, the argument is more of a lover's tiff which could clearly and simply have been resolved by Darcy taking Lizzie in his arms and kissing her: this doesn't happen because it's not 'done' and Darcy is too shy anyway. It is the social niceties which thwart true love. This is wholly at odds, in my view, with Jane Austen's general approval both of those structures and a rational affection.
All in all it's enjoyable, but it isn't Austen.
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT
The difficulty that this version has of course compared to the BBC version is simply that of time. It does feel like a series of vignettes from the book, and is rather rushed. Because of this I think that important characters, especially Wickham are rather underdeveloped.
The filmakers have chosen to set the book at a slightly earlier date, than the BBC. THe BBC version is clearly set towards the endo of the Napoleonic Wars from the Army uniforms. This accords with the date of P&P's publication. The new version appears to be set around the turn of the nineteenth century.
The locations are different. For Pemberley, Chatsworth itself is used, which is I think too grand (although, bizarrely I saw a complaint on the IMDB messageboards that it wasn't grand enough) and the same is probably true of using Burghley House for Rosings.
I think that the house used for Longbourn is highly appropriate and also in fact grander than the Longbourn of the BBC. It has come in for criticism in some corners for making the Bennets look like peasants. I don't think it does. It gives the impression of Mr Bennet as an eccentric country squire who lives, pretty much, as he pleases. That seems to accord with the picture in the book.
I think the acting and characterisation is better in some places than the BBC and worse in others. Rosamund Pike clearly fits the English Rose picture of Jane, and I suspect that Keira looks a lot more like Austen's Elizabeth (whose figure is 'light and pleasing') then the lovely Jennifer. I think Kiera's performance is fine and slightly 'younger' than Jennifer Ehle's.
Mr Bingley is dreadful. He is portrayed as 'Tim nice but dim' Why Darcy would even bother with him seems to me inexplicable. Perhaps more time would have made a better character, much as the difference in Celborn in the FOTR editions.
Miss Bingley is surprising. I must confess that I think Kelly Reilly is gorgeous, so it may colour my perception. The character as played is more sympathetic. I get the impression that when she talks about the achievements necessary to be considered accomplished she actually has them, and that she is a woman who is frustrated perhaps that she's got all the talent and her thick brother's got all the cash.
One of the problems of this adapatation for me is the question of why, if Darcy is seeking an intelligent, stimulating, beautiful woman he hasn't snapped up Miss Bingley. Perhaps she's too fast for the shy puppy portrayed in this film.
That's another problem. Darcy in this production is simply shy. He mouths the snobberies of the book but I never really get the impression that he really means them, unlike Colin Firth.
I'll add more later.
EDIT to add
I think Brenda Blethyn is better than Alison Steadman. Its true that as Truehobbit posts below that she is more vulgar. But that reflects her background: she is the daughter of a local businessman rather than one of the gentry. She is a more sympathetic character, although I think that her relationship with Mr Bennet is a bit too close in the film.
I like what Donald Sutherland was doing with the character - the eccentric squire - but I thought that he mumbled too much. It was a bit too understated. I wonder whether he was having trouble with the accent? I don't remember him doing an English one in any other film.
Mr Collins, was for me even better than David Bamber. He was simply dull rather than unctuous. He also had something more sympathetic about him because he seemed to genuinely want to do the right thing.
I also preferred Judy Dench. Her performance was more commanding than in the BBC production. Here the arrogance is simply from being used to get her own way, she cannot believe that someone would thwart her. This contrasts with the BBC one which seems more to be based on insecurity: the need for a court of sycophants, such as Mr Collins, who will hang on her every word. I haven't entirely made up my mind as to which is more accurate.
Mr Wickham and some of the other minor characters are unfortunately reduced to little more than cyphers. That is of course due to time, and it would be interesting to see what could have been done with that cast and a five hour series.
However there does seem to me to ba a major change. The theme is no longer really 'Pride and Prejudice' Neither Darcy nor Lizzie seem to be prejudiced against one another. Darcy isn't proud, just painfully shy, and there is little suggestion that Lizzie acts out of wounded pride either. Instead the villain seems to be a stifling social structure. That seems to me to be partly reflected by the portrayal of Miss Bingley that I mentioned earlier, but above all in the first proposal.
That scene changes everything. In th book and BBC Lizzie is genuinely angry and bears ill will towards Darcy. That is then changed by subsequent events. In this film it is clear that they already love each other, the argument is more of a lover's tiff which could clearly and simply have been resolved by Darcy taking Lizzie in his arms and kissing her: this doesn't happen because it's not 'done' and Darcy is too shy anyway. It is the social niceties which thwart true love. This is wholly at odds, in my view, with Jane Austen's general approval both of those structures and a rational affection.
All in all it's enjoyable, but it isn't Austen.
Last edited by Aravar on Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Aravar, thanks for the interesting post, and the further explanation about your purism. (Edit: I'm referring to the one yesterday - we cross-posted )
Guys...! 
J/k, but it seems to be a guy thing, doesn't it?
Which is also interesting in light of what we said that Austen never depicted men among other men, because she didn't know what they did and said - in spite of that, she seems to have caught something typical about men here.
If the sums are correct, that would mean that upkeeping a genteel lifestyle was a lot more expensive in those days than it is now, as I think that even six people could live very comfortably on 180,000 pounds today. I suppose that as all goods of daily life were so much more troublesome to produce than today, they were also a lot more expensive - I mean, it's clear they were more expensive, but it's hard to think how much more. And of course a number of staff had to be paid, too.
I watched a bit more of the BBC movie yesterday.
I loved what they made of Colonel Fitzwilliam! In the book there's just the slightest hint of him and Lizzie making a possible couple, and I remember one of our virgin readers saying that for a moment they thought of the possibility, but then discarded it.
The movie made Fitzwilliam quite attractive and obviously interested in Lizzie.
I was a bit irritated by the costume and hairdo of Lady Catherine deBourgh - can anyone comment on it? I was wondering if it was maybe meant to be late 18th century, something from the 1790s, but I thought she looked as if she was from the late 1910s, early 20s.
And I'm afraid I still find Darcy - cuddly though Colin Firth is - too dishevelled looking for my taste.
Cerin, IIRC, also commented on her screeching.
I think women occasionally have shrill voices, and on the whole, what I love about this version is that hardly any characters are drawn like caricatures, in contrast to the new movie, but are quite real people, the kind you meet IRL, too.
I love Brenda Blethyn, and she's her usual genius self in the movie - but her Mrs Bennet, IIRC, is more vulgar than the BBC one. Steadman's Mrs Bennet might be shrill, but she does appear like a woman with genteel upbringing, IMO.
I want to see the locations of both of the movies IRL! There are such awesome shots in them both!
Where is Lyme Park, then? (I have no idea whereabout in England you live, isn't that odd?)
I thought Newcastle would just be pretty much out of the world for Austen's society, and not a nice part of the country in general. So, quite a punishment for the Wickhams.
I must admit I liked Fanny Hill - but it's difficult to imagine it being made a serious literature movie.
I agree about the Gulliver's Travel's version, though - pretty to look at, but just showing the events, not the point - if that's possible at all these days.
And I think a thread about adaptations would be a good idea!
(Edit: I'm referring to the one yesterday - we cross-posted )I don't really know what to add about the book itself, just to say I'm in the fans of Mr Bennet camp.
Guys...!
J/k, but it seems to be a guy thing, doesn't it? Which is also interesting in light of what we said that Austen never depicted men among other men, because she didn't know what they did and said - in spite of that, she seems to have caught something typical about men here.
It seems to me a sad, desperate outlook of someone trapped in a social context they don't like but have no way to get out of.the 'What do we live but to make sport for our neighbours...' line seems to me to be a reasonable outlook on life.
Can it be assumed, then, that the pay a Captain in the early 19th received was proportionally the same as what he receives today?A recent Naval hisotry has used its basis of comparison of the income of a Captain RN, which at the time of the Napoleonic wars was about £360 p.a. Its now about £60,000. This means that Mr Bennet's income would be about £180,000 ($320,000), Mr Bingley's £900,000 ($1.6m) and Mr Darcy's £1.8 million ($3.2m)
If the sums are correct, that would mean that upkeeping a genteel lifestyle was a lot more expensive in those days than it is now, as I think that even six people could live very comfortably on 180,000 pounds today. I suppose that as all goods of daily life were so much more troublesome to produce than today, they were also a lot more expensive - I mean, it's clear they were more expensive, but it's hard to think how much more. And of course a number of staff had to be paid, too.
I watched a bit more of the BBC movie yesterday.
I loved what they made of Colonel Fitzwilliam! In the book there's just the slightest hint of him and Lizzie making a possible couple, and I remember one of our virgin readers saying that for a moment they thought of the possibility, but then discarded it.
The movie made Fitzwilliam quite attractive and obviously interested in Lizzie.
I was a bit irritated by the costume and hairdo of Lady Catherine deBourgh - can anyone comment on it? I was wondering if it was maybe meant to be late 18th century, something from the 1790s, but I thought she looked as if she was from the late 1910s, early 20s.
And I'm afraid I still find Darcy - cuddly though Colin Firth is - too dishevelled looking for my taste.
Strange, I was just going to comment that I thought she was quite believable!The acting is well done throughout with the exception of Alison Steadman. She is a great actress but her performance is too over the top. She is too much of a screeching caricature. I cant' see what Mr Bennet would have found attractive in her at all. Brenda Blethyn is a lot better in the new one, I think
Cerin, IIRC, also commented on her screeching.
I think women occasionally have shrill voices, and on the whole, what I love about this version is that hardly any characters are drawn like caricatures, in contrast to the new movie, but are quite real people, the kind you meet IRL, too.
I love Brenda Blethyn, and she's her usual genius self in the movie - but her Mrs Bennet, IIRC, is more vulgar than the BBC one. Steadman's Mrs Bennet might be shrill, but she does appear like a woman with genteel upbringing, IMO.
*sigh*They chose the locations carefully and the houses especially fit the relative social scale (Lyme Park, whic was used for the exterior of Pemberley isn't far from me, it's a bit weird visiting it)
I want to see the locations of both of the movies IRL! There are such awesome shots in them both!
Where is Lyme Park, then? (I have no idea whereabout in England you live, isn't that odd?)
Not a bad thought!There is the strange reference to Newcastle as being Wickham's destination:
I thought Newcastle would just be pretty much out of the world for Austen's society, and not a nice part of the country in general. So, quite a punishment for the Wickhams.
Hmmh, while Moll Flanders doesn't exactly come across as a bawdy romp to me, I do think it might have been meant to be one. It's always seemed to me that her reformation is merely an excuse for her to tell her story. You know: I was so horrible - let me tell you all about it in detail...just as a cautionary tale, of course!Andrew Davies also adapted Moll Flanders soon after P&P. It's a book I dislike, and I think from the adaptation that Andrew Davies dislkes it too: the adaptation loosely follows the narrative but turns it into a bawdy romp which seems to be the reverse of the novel's intention. It was OK but definitely not the book (I'm not surprised, having seen his Moll Flanders, to hear that he's now adapting Fanny Hill).
I must admit I liked Fanny Hill
- but it's difficult to imagine it being made a serious literature movie.I agree about the Gulliver's Travel's version, though - pretty to look at, but just showing the events, not the point - if that's possible at all these days.
And I think a thread about adaptations would be a good idea!
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
I'll add to my post above about the Keira movie.
On Mr Benner's outlook perhaps I'm just a sad desperate person who wishes he was trapped in the 18thCentury (with an estate, of course.)
It can't be assumed that the income has stayed the same. NAM Rodger, whose book it's in, calls it an heroic assumption. I think its based partly on the fact that it's a book about the Navy and also because the social position of a Captain RN hasn't changed much over the centuries.
While it's true that a family can live on £180,000 comfortably it must be remembered that its not just a case of being comfortable. If one uses a multiplier of 60 given by inflation it is simply too low (although that is partly because of tax. To get an after tax income of £60,000 one needs to have an income of nearly £100,000). Even £180,000 as an income wouldn't buy the Bennet's lifestyle in terms of the house. I was watching a property development programme last night and it was a lovely period house which when restored was sold for £765,000. The house wasn't quite as grand as the Longbourn in the BBC series.
I live in Manchester. Lyme Park is in Cheshire, just outside Stockport. While not in Derbyshire it is within spitting distance of the border. Chatsworth is in Derbyshire. I think it is only really rivalled by Castle Howard (which I've never visited) and Blenheim Palace for grandeur.
On Mr Benner's outlook perhaps I'm just a sad desperate person who wishes he was trapped in the 18thCentury (with an estate, of course.)
It can't be assumed that the income has stayed the same. NAM Rodger, whose book it's in, calls it an heroic assumption. I think its based partly on the fact that it's a book about the Navy and also because the social position of a Captain RN hasn't changed much over the centuries.
While it's true that a family can live on £180,000 comfortably it must be remembered that its not just a case of being comfortable. If one uses a multiplier of 60 given by inflation it is simply too low (although that is partly because of tax. To get an after tax income of £60,000 one needs to have an income of nearly £100,000). Even £180,000 as an income wouldn't buy the Bennet's lifestyle in terms of the house. I was watching a property development programme last night and it was a lovely period house which when restored was sold for £765,000. The house wasn't quite as grand as the Longbourn in the BBC series.
I live in Manchester. Lyme Park is in Cheshire, just outside Stockport. While not in Derbyshire it is within spitting distance of the border. Chatsworth is in Derbyshire. I think it is only really rivalled by Castle Howard (which I've never visited) and Blenheim Palace for grandeur.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
On Mr Benner's outlook perhaps I'm just a sad desperate person who wishes he was trapped in the 18thCentury (with an estate, of course.)
Can't say I'd object much to being a leisured lady myself - and I'd love to visit the 18th century for a couple of weeks - but for any longer stay I'd prefer to bring my modern day sanitary equipment and dress-code!
Been watching a bit more of the BBC version and I'm now satisfied as to the hairdo of Lady Catherine - at first it looked as if her hair was neck-length and undulated all round her head, but now it was visible that this was only on the sides, at the back of her head she did wear it up in a bun, as is proper.
So, scratch my request on comments above. I loved the proposal scene! Lizzie's emotions became more visible than in the book but were completely plausible and faithful to the book, I thought. And the way it came completely out of the blue was just great! The little room was just bursting with tension!
The scene where Lizzie is picked up by her sisters on the way home...oooh, boy, how incredibly annoying those girls are - very well done!
Ah, thanks!I live in Manchester. Lyme Park is in Cheshire, just outside Stockport. While not in Derbyshire it is within spitting distance of the border. Chatsworth is in Derbyshire. I think it is only really rivalled by Castle Howard (which I've never visited) and Blenheim Palace for grandeur.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with most big houses to recognise them on sight in the movies. I've been to Blenheim (which could have used some paint, at least when I was there), but I do agree that some of the locations were bigger than necessary rather than too small, IMO.
I also thought that the size of Longbourn in the new movie was fine (I remember a description of the place where the heroine's family lived in some other Austen novel where she stressed it was rather small) - I just thought the state of disrepair it was in was a bit of a disgrace and therefore a bit unlikely.
ROFL on someone thinking the Pemberly in the new movie was small - but I think in the new world people may have different ideas of space.
Can't help thinking of those old Hollywood movies, where you had palace staircases that could have housed a whole real life palace.I hope to reply more closely to your excellent observations on the characters and the acting when I've watched the new movie again - I've seen it twice at the cinema, but that's a while ago. I have the DVD, I just want to finish the BBC version first.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46575
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Aravar, I really enjoyed your observations about the Keira film, particularly about how it doesn't really reflect Austen's intentions. I don't really have anything to add, but I thought it would be rude not to acknowledge how much I appreciated your post(s).
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
More viewing of the BBC series.
*sigh* Such romantic scenes between Lizzie and Darcy. The look at the visit in Pemberly, after Miss Bingley had started on Wickham.
And how painful when you could see Lizzie felt as if her company was undesirable because of his reaction to the news of the elopement. There was no need to explain that later on - twice! It was wonderfully evident then and there.
The swim was quite unnecessary, though, as was the whole of the scenes where we see Wickham and Lydia in London. And why did they show Darcy looking for him, ruining the surprise? (Don't quite remember how the new film handled that, but I think it was better.)
And some more puzzlement for me in the music:
When Mrs Hurst takes over from Mary, she plunges into Rondo alla Turca, as if that was the proof of mastership - it's really not such a hard piece, though it sounds great.
Later on, Lizzie plays the first movement of the same Sonata.
That's a lot of Mozart the ladies perform, IMO.
Now, I know that Mozart's reputation and hence probably also popularity rocketed after his death. But polite society still, I thought, was more into up-to-date music. I find it surprising that ladies would play music by someone who'd been dead for ten years at the time.
Most surprising of all: when Lizzie sings, it's Mozart again, and an aria from The Marriage of Figaro. Maybe I'm making the age more Victorian than it was, but I would have thought that a highly inappropriate song to sing for an elegant lady (being one of the most erotic ones of the opera).
Although the text was English - so maybe the original was transformed into a more acceptable song, the original idea lost - does anyone know the piece as an English song? (Aravar? )
After the visit, Darcy goes back into the room and in his mind he hears the music again - and so do we - "Donne vedete, s'io l'ho nel cor!" - indeed! ("Ye women, see if I have it [love] in my heart") - You have indeed, my dear!
*sigh* Such romantic scenes between Lizzie and Darcy. The look at the visit in Pemberly, after Miss Bingley had started on Wickham.
And how painful when you could see Lizzie felt as if her company was undesirable because of his reaction to the news of the elopement. There was no need to explain that later on - twice! It was wonderfully evident then and there.
The swim was quite unnecessary, though, as was the whole of the scenes where we see Wickham and Lydia in London. And why did they show Darcy looking for him, ruining the surprise? (Don't quite remember how the new film handled that, but I think it was better.)
And some more puzzlement for me in the music:
When Mrs Hurst takes over from Mary, she plunges into Rondo alla Turca, as if that was the proof of mastership - it's really not such a hard piece, though it sounds great.
Later on, Lizzie plays the first movement of the same Sonata.
That's a lot of Mozart the ladies perform, IMO.
Now, I know that Mozart's reputation and hence probably also popularity rocketed after his death. But polite society still, I thought, was more into up-to-date music. I find it surprising that ladies would play music by someone who'd been dead for ten years at the time.
Most surprising of all: when Lizzie sings, it's Mozart again, and an aria from The Marriage of Figaro. Maybe I'm making the age more Victorian than it was, but I would have thought that a highly inappropriate song to sing for an elegant lady (being one of the most erotic ones of the opera).
Although the text was English - so maybe the original was transformed into a more acceptable song, the original idea lost - does anyone know the piece as an English song? (Aravar?
)After the visit, Darcy goes back into the room and in his mind he hears the music again - and so do we - "Donne vedete, s'io l'ho nel cor!" - indeed! ("Ye women, see if I have it [love] in my heart") - You have indeed, my dear!
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Thank you, Voronwë.
Truehobbit, googling I found that this is the full text that Jennifer Ehle sings
You who have tasted love's mystic spell
What is this sorrow naught can dispel? (repeat 2x)
Fair dame or maiden, none else may know
My heart o'erladen, why is this so?
What is this yearning, these trembling fears
Rapturous burning, melting in tears?
While thus I languish, wild beats my heart,
Yet from my anguish I would not part,
I seek a treasure Fate still denies,
Naught else will pleasure,
Naught else I prize...I'm ever sighing,
I know not why, near unto dying, when none are by,
My heart is riven night, morn and eve,
But ah 'tis heaven, thus, thus to grieve!
You who have tasted love's mystic spell
What is this sorrow naught can dispel? (repeat 2x)
I haven't been able to find the source of this version I've heard a differtn English version sung by Charlotte Church:
Tell me what love is, what can it be
What is this yearning burning me?
Can I survive it, will I endure?
This is my sickness, is there a cure?
First his obsession seizing my brain,
Starting in passion, ending in pain.
I start to shiver, then I'm on fire,
Then I'm aquiver with seething desire.
Who knows the secret, who holds the key?
I long for something - what can it be?
My brain is reeling, I wonder why;
And then the feeling I'm going to die.
By day it haunts me, haunts me by night.
This tender torment, tinged with delight!
Tell me what love is, what can it be?
What is this yearning, burning in me?
What is this yearning, burning in me?
What is this yearning, burning in me?
I can't say that any of the versions is well known. The P&P version is perhaps less racy than the other.
Truehobbit, googling I found that this is the full text that Jennifer Ehle sings
You who have tasted love's mystic spell
What is this sorrow naught can dispel? (repeat 2x)
Fair dame or maiden, none else may know
My heart o'erladen, why is this so?
What is this yearning, these trembling fears
Rapturous burning, melting in tears?
While thus I languish, wild beats my heart,
Yet from my anguish I would not part,
I seek a treasure Fate still denies,
Naught else will pleasure,
Naught else I prize...I'm ever sighing,
I know not why, near unto dying, when none are by,
My heart is riven night, morn and eve,
But ah 'tis heaven, thus, thus to grieve!
You who have tasted love's mystic spell
What is this sorrow naught can dispel? (repeat 2x)
I haven't been able to find the source of this version I've heard a differtn English version sung by Charlotte Church:
Tell me what love is, what can it be
What is this yearning burning me?
Can I survive it, will I endure?
This is my sickness, is there a cure?
First his obsession seizing my brain,
Starting in passion, ending in pain.
I start to shiver, then I'm on fire,
Then I'm aquiver with seething desire.
Who knows the secret, who holds the key?
I long for something - what can it be?
My brain is reeling, I wonder why;
And then the feeling I'm going to die.
By day it haunts me, haunts me by night.
This tender torment, tinged with delight!
Tell me what love is, what can it be?
What is this yearning, burning in me?
What is this yearning, burning in me?
What is this yearning, burning in me?
I can't say that any of the versions is well known. The P&P version is perhaps less racy than the other.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Thanks, Aravar! So that means it's sung as an English folk-song or popular song, even if it's not well known?
Fascinating!
Both versions are not too far from the original, but it's an opera aria, and for a girl in a guy's role, too.
I would expect a lady to sing things like "Drink to me only with thine eyes" or things like that.
Fascinating!
Both versions are not too far from the original, but it's an opera aria, and for a girl in a guy's role, too.
I would expect a lady to sing things like "Drink to me only with thine eyes" or things like that.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Well, I just watched the new movie.
It's just like PJ's LOTR: rather loosely based on a pretty popular and well-loved novel.
I can't even list everything I hated about this movie, since there was so much.
A couple of things: Chatsworth? Blenheim? For the luvva pete. Mr. Darcy and his connections were wealthy, yes. But ducal palaces? Guys, those houses were ducal palaces in those days, too. Mr. Darcy, with his 10,000 pounds a year, could just about afford the saddle soap in those stables. (Marborough's income would have been 100,000 pounds per annum in the early 19th century, if not much more.)
Longbourne? I just don't get it. Guyz, nowhere in the book does it say Lizzie's father was a farmer: that was a farmhouse and not a gentleman's home. Mr. Bennett would NOT have driven a boar through his house. That there might have been a farm attached to the Longbourne estate is certainly possible, although not necessary. There would have been no dung heaps next to Mrs. Bennett's cook's kitchen!!!
There were so many things that cheesed me off that it's probably better if I mention the few I thought were OK. Lady Catherine was well done, but anything Judy Dench does is good. (Still, the scene between her and Lizzy? She shows up after they've all gone to bed for the night? And what was with the comment, "You have a small garden"? Jeez. THAT was supposed to be the lead-in to her asking Elizabeth to take a turn in the garden with her. Other than that, she did that bit very well and was one of the few scenes in the movie that caught the spirit of the book.) By and large the costumes were OK, although Lizzy would not have been out without a hat. She would no more have gone out without a hat than I would now without my shirt. Jeez.
The people who made this movie took most of the incidents and most of the characters from one of the greatest novels ever written, strung them together in more or less the same order and missed almost the entire point.
I think the various actors could have risen to the task of actually making a movie of P & P, but they were certainly not asked to do it in this piece of . . . of . . . film. Donald Sutherland should be drawn and quartered. What on earth was he thinking? Gaaccckkk...
Unfortunately, so much was left out that those unfamiliar with the story would have been left guessing about what was going on. It doesn't matter anyway.
Well, I could go on and on, but I suppose it's best I don't.
Edited to add: truehobbit: This was not the Victorian era. This was a much more frank era, and Lizzy would not have been a simpering Victorian maiden, the decorum expected in Austen's time was different from the later era, required more for "manners'" sake than purity.
Not that they weren't expected to be pure!
Very complicated.
It's just like PJ's LOTR: rather loosely based on a pretty popular and well-loved novel.
I can't even list everything I hated about this movie, since there was so much.
A couple of things: Chatsworth? Blenheim? For the luvva pete. Mr. Darcy and his connections were wealthy, yes. But ducal palaces? Guys, those houses were ducal palaces in those days, too. Mr. Darcy, with his 10,000 pounds a year, could just about afford the saddle soap in those stables. (Marborough's income would have been 100,000 pounds per annum in the early 19th century, if not much more.)
Longbourne? I just don't get it. Guyz, nowhere in the book does it say Lizzie's father was a farmer: that was a farmhouse and not a gentleman's home. Mr. Bennett would NOT have driven a boar through his house. That there might have been a farm attached to the Longbourne estate is certainly possible, although not necessary. There would have been no dung heaps next to Mrs. Bennett's cook's kitchen!!!
There were so many things that cheesed me off that it's probably better if I mention the few I thought were OK. Lady Catherine was well done, but anything Judy Dench does is good. (Still, the scene between her and Lizzy? She shows up after they've all gone to bed for the night? And what was with the comment, "You have a small garden"? Jeez. THAT was supposed to be the lead-in to her asking Elizabeth to take a turn in the garden with her. Other than that, she did that bit very well and was one of the few scenes in the movie that caught the spirit of the book.) By and large the costumes were OK, although Lizzy would not have been out without a hat. She would no more have gone out without a hat than I would now without my shirt. Jeez.
The people who made this movie took most of the incidents and most of the characters from one of the greatest novels ever written, strung them together in more or less the same order and missed almost the entire point.
I think the various actors could have risen to the task of actually making a movie of P & P, but they were certainly not asked to do it in this piece of . . . of . . . film. Donald Sutherland should be drawn and quartered. What on earth was he thinking? Gaaccckkk...
Unfortunately, so much was left out that those unfamiliar with the story would have been left guessing about what was going on. It doesn't matter anyway.
Well, I could go on and on, but I suppose it's best I don't.
Edited to add: truehobbit: This was not the Victorian era. This was a much more frank era, and Lizzy would not have been a simpering Victorian maiden, the decorum expected in Austen's time was different from the later era, required more for "manners'" sake than purity.
Not that they weren't expected to be pure!
Very complicated.
Dig deeper.