Comments | decarnin: Not Jane Austen

decarnin

Not Jane Austen

Jan 31, 2008 14:45

Just have to say a word about the repugnant "adaptations" of Jane Austen being promulgated on PBS lately. I hope to ghod no one sees them and thinks they have anything to do with the books Jane Austen actually *wrote*. They are so appalling that I have difficulty even understanding why they were made at all. If you aren't going to USE the story ( Read more... )

jane austen

Comments 6

carenejeans January 31 2008, 22:56:10 UTC

Now, don't hold back -- tell us what you *really* think!

I haven't watched any of the "six pack"; I was warned away from them by posts like yours, heh.

decarnin February 1 2008, 00:01:45 UTC

The problem is, there's really nothing else on on Sunday nights, so the temptation is to give in and watch them. The P&P and Emma ones are older versions that as I recall were watchable, if not spectacular, so you might want to check those two out. It's these new ones that suck major least favorite animal's body part. Although come to think of it, I wonder if they will shorten the old ones, or what... they might have been made in two or more parts, I can't remember. But anyway.

isagel January 31 2008, 23:18:57 UTC

Jane Austen remains to me one of the least filmable authors who ever wrote. The brilliance of narrative style that is uniquely hers just doesn't translate to the screen, and without it the stories seem so flat. Which is, I guess, why they feel the need to touch them up with, God help us, all that running. Seriously, the thing with Anne Elliot, that was the longest, most pointless running sequence ever. I was amazed and mystified, and also bored.

decarnin January 31 2008, 23:56:55 UTC

Yup, true about the brilliance. But I am so glad to see your reaction, because a quick Google showed a lot of people tolerating, or even LIKING, these misbegotten versions, and not even seeming to notice there was any difference in plot or personalities being introduced. Gad. I probably should have watched the Northanger Abbey as some claim that was better done than the others, but... that wouldn't be saying much.

Evidently the "biopic" one is still to come. Yish.

reading vs watching anonymous February 21 2008, 20:12:14 UTC

The reason Jane Austen has lasted so long is her style and wit, and I'm sorry, but long languid meaningful glances and lovely costumes on film are not what she was about. The humor and twists and turns and delightful insights are lost and after that, what's the point? Dickens can be boiled down, but not Austen.
I will not go into why women think she's funny and men don't get it, I just won't.

Terry

Re: reading vs watching decarnin February 22 2008, 23:00:41 UTC

The Pride and Prejudice one at least has been using the actual dialog to some extent, though doing some very stupid additions and leaving out some stuff quite unaccountably. For example, when Elizabeth arrives with her aunt and uncle to view Pemberley, instead of just having Darcy appear around a corner of the building unexpectedly as he does in the book, they do this whole big thing of cutting back and forth to him setting out, riding his horse, getting OFF his horse, taking off some of his clothes, and going for a SWIM when he gets there! Yeesh! What a waste of screen time! And also a waste of a very good effect, the surprise for the viewer as well as for Elizabeth. I was afraid they were going to end up coming upon him IN the water, but they resisted that. The acting is extremely mediocre and of course, the directing, but at least this one is in three 90+-minute sections, so it's not so rushed. Still: not my Austen.