Jane Austen discussion

https://tinyurl.com/austenadapt

Values dissonance perhaps?

It is true that the length of chronological time that separates us from Jane Austen and (for example) the amount of time that separates (say) Jane Austen and William Shakespeare is roughly the same (about two hundred years), but in terms of social evolution, intellectual development, morality (and "mores"), education and even religion, our societies (and hence our capacity to understand Jane Austen's works to the extent that a dramatic adaptation of her work rings true) are much more different from Jane Austen's than Jane Austen's was from Shakespeare's -- and that taking into account all that happened between Shakespeare and Austen, like the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution, the 18th Century Enlightenment.

Interesting observation.

Yes, I agree. Similarly, if you look at any period drama set in the 20thC, with automobiles, plumbing and telephones (and railways too of course), it is very, very familiar to us. It seems 'modern' even though it's over a hundred years ago now. (Probably the most glaring difference is we don't have servants any more??) (unless one is pretty well off, and even then you'd have to be stinking rich to employ domestic staff full time and live in!)

Having now read the article, me, I'd vote for the 'straight' adaptation hands down. Yes, let directors 'muck around' if they want, and yes, maybe that does reach new fans, and yes, maybe that does expose aspects of interaction between then and now, but, so long as all those 'variations' do NOT stop the 'straight' adaptations from being done.

As well as, yes, OK, if you must - but instead of? NO NO NO!!!!!

(Of course, what I happen to mean by 'straight' means 'straight for someone of my generation/ethnicity/nationality etc etc etc!)

I, too. prefer a more faithful adaptation. Clueless was fun and West Side Story is beautiful but if that is all anyone sees they will not have truly known Jane Austen or William Shakespeare. With both you need their actual words to really get why they are so important.

I do like to give the creators of adaptations some artistic license. But their creativity should still be in line with the period in which the work is set. I still laugh about the scene in the 2005 Keira Knightley P&P, a movie which I like, where Darcy and Miss Bingley are having breakfast at Netherfield before Elizabeth arrives to check on Jane. Mr. and Mrs. Hurst have been omitted from the entire movie, which I don't like. Miss Bingley is reading a letter at breakfast and comments to Mr. Darcy, "Lady Barthhouse is redecorating her ball room in the French style. A little unpatriotic don't you think?" This line always gets me. Yes, the two countries were at war. But everything French was quite the fashion in Britain and the real Miss Bingley would have known that and attached great importance to it. French was openly spoken at many high society functions in town. The English landed gentry were rabid for French goods of all sorts. Even employing French cooks were a sign of superior taste. There was a black market for French goods because they were so difficult and expensive to buy. So the fact that a noble woman could fit up an entire ball room in the French style (presumably with some authentic pieces) was actually impressive.

Its a line of dialogue that never would have been uttered by the real Miss Bingley. It reminds me of the pig strolling in one of the Bennet's hallways!

I love the modern adaptations that aren't trying too hard to be direct- the ones that actually modernize the story and costumes not just the language. Clueless is fun and came out at the same time as two Emmas so you can't argue that it stopped a more faithful adaptation from being made. I enjoyed Bridget Jones too. Even Modern Persuasion which pays tribute to and borrows from the original but is fully updated is enjoyable for a certain audience.

I actually saw the exhibit Will & Jane at the Folger Shakespeare Library in 2016. It was funny to see the perceptions of Shakespeare in Jane's day and believe it or not, Shakespeare was a "brand" in the same way Jane is now and there was a lot of Shakespeare "kitsch" one could buy in the 1800s! There's just less of it that survives because Jane Austen kitsch is recent and can be purchased online and in bookshops and retail shops.

https://www.folger.edu/exhibitions/wi...

I never saw Bridget Jones but I did read the book and did not care for it. I could not stand Bridget. Sure, a diary is going to show a bit more self absorption than you might express outwardly but, my goodness. Did she ever think of anything but herself? I found her exhausting endlessly obsessing about her weight, smoking, drinking, etc.

In the 2005 KK P&P why put in a non-Austen line at all, let alone one that no one would have said!

(I was thinking it would be wrong to have Miss Bingley breakfast 'alone' with a man, but maybe that was OK if there were footmen around??)

The Bridget Jones film is 'OK' but only once - it gets very tiresome, and so does she, as you say, going on and on about herself etc etc. It never charmed me. And the sequels were pretty dire all round.

I completely agree that a totally modern, updated version of Austen (such as Clueless) can work far, far, far better than imposing modernity on a 'bonnet' version!!

It can work for Shakespeare too, such as 10 things I hate about you, and the preppy football version of Twelfth Night (She's the Man?), which is very funny, and one can enjoy spotting the 'name-checks', such as Cesario's for the restaurant (not sure about Malvolio which I think was the Tarantula?)

Those totally modern ones are an 'homage', whereas the 'modernistic' bonnet versions are a travesty... (Discuss with reference to every adaptation!!!!)

In respect of Shakespeare, special mention must surely go to the Baz Lehrman Ro and Ju, which was absolutely brilliantly updated (with the cowardly exception of L di Cap not killing Paris at the tomb - shame on you for flinching at that).

That version was ideal for introducing schoolchildren to 'boring old Shakesepare', and the opening sequences I can watch over and over again. SO much good stuff, from the news anchorwoman giving the prologue, to 'Captain Prince' using his megaphone in the hovering chopper to shout 'Throw your distempered weapons to the GROUND!!'.

All just brilliant. (But, I can understand if some folk loathed it!)

The cowardly omission of Romeo killing Paris at the tomb makes me suspect that L di C's agent said 'No way my client does something so dastardly in a film!''......????

Yes, homage can be great if done well. 10 things I hate about you is a good example. But please. please, stop ruining JA with pigs in the kitchen. My kids loved the modern P&P blog version. I have not seen it but I would rather see modern in a contemporary time setting than modern in a 19th century time setting where it just does not work. Why not have them use cell phones
and drive motor cars in 1810 so young people "get it"? With convertibles, they might put their bonnets back on.

I enjoyed the Lizzie Bennet Diaries on YouTube only when I started watching Lydia's videos. It added a lot to the story and made me think about my own relationship with my little sister. Reading the social media posts and blog entries was fun too. Emma Approved was good because how Emma treats Harriet as an employee and a friend is FAR less awful than in the book and Harriet is more proactive. I liked the wink winks to LBD too. Then I watched Sandition (Pemberley Digital) which didn't make any sense at all except to explain how Darcy tracked down Wickham.

I couldn't get into From Mansfield With Love. That was boring and didn't make a lot of sense updated to modern times.

Thanks for the Lizzie Bennet Diaries name. I could not remember it. I had not seen it.

I would include the literary variations/expansions/sequels etc as part of 'homage' in general, though quality can be mixed - some work, some don't.

But I think that is different from taking the novels, and then 'updating' them within the time period, as you say. That's where they can become a travesty!

Updating Emma's relationship with Harriet to our own times can be tricky I think because we really don't have that system of intense social patronage and class division that was there in Austen's time.

So having Harriet as an employee sounds possible, that would create the power imbalance that is in the novel, or, perhaps, having Emma the 'cool' one, and Harriet the 'ingenue' one (did they do that in Clueless?), so cool Emma can patronise, and impress, Harriet as 'hick'?!

In those circumstances I would see Jane Fairfax as the beautiful academic one, whom Emma knows she can't compete with in terms of 'cleverness', so has to find some other reason for not befriending her.

To modern audiences, it is Emma's relationship with Harriet that I think is the most troubling.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Updating Emma's relationship with Harriet to our own times can be tricky I think because we really don't have that system of intense social patronage and class division that was there in Austen's t..."

The power imbalance between Emma and Harriet is one thing, Emma's ability to influence Harriet is another, but by far Emma's ability to completely wreck Harriet's life is hard to replicate in another time period. Portionless ladies had one avenue to find respectability and it was through marriage. Mr. Knightley does a very good job when scolding Emma and explaining to her the damage she is doing her friend. By convincing Harriet to decline an honourable offer of marriage (from a man she likes, no less!) while at the same time raising Harriet's expectations in marriage is just a horrible, horrible thing to do to a young lady. Emma is consigning her to a life of spinsterhood and poverty. I don't know of a modern day equivalent.

Actually Emma Approved does a great job updating the Emma/Harriet relationship so it's NOT cringy. It's different but I liked it. Emma owns a lifestyle coaching business, trying to help her friends become upwardly mobile. Emma is clueless about what's best for Harriet romantically but professionally, she pushes Harriet to be her best and I didn't have a problem with that. She teaches Harriet to stand up for herself. She pushes Harriet (view spoiler)[to reject the attention of a geeky IT guy and go for State Senator Elton, who in turn marries the Caroline Bingley character! But in the end, Harriet knows what she wants and pursues the relationship behind Emma's back anyway. (hide spoiler)] It's interactive which helps push the storyline in a direction fans want to see.

Actually Emma Approved does a great job updating the Emma/Harriet relationship so it's NOT cringy. It's different but I liked it. Emma owns a lifestyle coaching business, trying to help her friends become upwardly mobile. Emma is clueless about what's best for Harriet romantically but professionally, she pushes Harriet to be her best and I didn't have a problem with that. She teaches Harriet to stand up for herself. She pushes Harriet (view spoiler)[to reject the attention of a geeky IT guy and go for State Senator Elton, who in turn marries the Caroline Bingley character! But in the end, Harriet knows what she wants and pursues the relationship behind Emma's back anyway. (hide spoiler)] It's interactive which helps push the storyline in a direction fans want to see.

QNPoohBear wrote: "Actually Emma Approved does a great job updating the Emma/Harriet relationship so it's NOT cringy. It's different but I liked it. Emma owns a lifestyle coaching business, trying to help her friends..."

I looked into Emma Approved and it seems like Emma is a funny character (at least to me) instead of annoying.

I do agree that the Emma/Harriet relationship in the book is very strange but I'm glad someone made it not cringy. And I found Emma felt like she was the boss of Harriet even though their is no need for that.

It sounds like it might be even better than the book! Thank you!

Maybe one way to update the damage Emma does to Harriet is by changing it from 'marrying' to 'career'?? Maybe Harriet wants, say, to do something like being a nursery teacher (warm and nurturing, but low status and low paid), (the Robert Martin option!) and Emma is shocked and tells her to go for a high-status, high-paid career job (the Mr Elton option), which Harriet then does not get (pipped to the post by dreadful Augusta!!), and then can't get the 'ideal' nursery teacher job again, until, fortuitously, the person who did get the nursery teacher job drops out, and Harriet can bag it after all.

On the other hand, it could just be the marriage business, in the sense of Harriet wanting to marry the 'sweet local guy' but Emma saying she'd be 'wasted' on him.

I can't believe I didn't bring this up before:

Audrey Rouget : By Tolstoy, "War and Peace" and by Jane Austen, "Persuasion" and "Mansfield Park".
Tom Townsend : "Mansfield Park"? You've got to be kidding.
Audrey Rouget : No.
Tom Townsend : But it's a notoriously bad book. Even Lionel Trilling, one of her greatest admirers, thought that.
Audrey Rouget : Well, if Lionel Trilling thought that, he's an idiot.
Tom Townsend : The whole story revolves around, what the immorality of a group of young people putting on a play.
Audrey Rouget : In the context of the novel it makes perfect sense.
Tom Townsend : But the context of the novel, and nearly everything Jane Austen wrote is near ridiculous from today's perspective.
Audrey Rouget : Has it ever occurred to you that today, looked at from Jane Austen's perspective would look even worse?

https://youtu.be/j8IQ4ZGZsbg

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Maybe one way to update the damage Emma does to Harriet is by changing it from 'marrying' to 'career'?? Maybe Harriet wants, say, to do something like being a nursery teacher (warm and nurturing, b..."

While in college, my daughter worked in the university day care as her work/study job. There is a lot more involved than babysitting. The lead teacher is a professional who has studied child development, psychology, nutrition, etc. Now, I expect you meant Harriet as more of a teacher's aide rather than someone who has studied early childhood education.

Perhaps, but I think the most important qualification for a nursery teacher is a warm and affectionate, indeed, playful disposition.

It helps and is certainly important. No one wants daycare providers to be cruel to their children. But there is a lot more needed to be successful. You need to roll with the punches, deal with the unexpected, handle parents. You have to be able to deal with a lot of ick factor situations and be organized. You have to be willing to pitch in and be willing to do what needs doing. It is all well and good to have the kiddos think you are nice, but you also have to get things done. Sure, some things can be ignored. You can scrap the lesson about fill in the blank at times and do something else instead. But you cannot be the fun dad who just plays with the kids and lets them eat cookies for breakfast and leaves all the clean up and discipline to Mom. You have to be willing to do your assigned unpleasant or unglamorous tasks. You cannot leave one worker to feed two babies their bottles while rocking a third craddle with your feet while Harriet Smith complains about how icky the diaper is or merely plays witha cute and agreeable child nearby. (Yes, my daughter has been the bottle feeding, baby rocker of this scenario. She is now an English teacher.)
Your point stands about an occupation, though. It might be a good way to make a modern version.

In Emma Approved, Harriet is Emma's assistant or receptionist person. In Kamila Knows Best the relationship doesn't translate in the same way. Marisol, the Harriet character, has a small dog training business and Kamila works with Marisol on applying for grants for finding to expand. Kamila also decides to meddle in Marisol's personal life so it's the same but different.