Jane Austen movies!
Feb. 1st, 2008 05:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
newmoonstarStill no sewing accomplished yet, unfortunatley. Several necessary household appliances chose to break down in the past few days, so things have been a little chaotic the past week or two, to say the least. But at least I had the comfort of new Jane Austen adaptations on Masterpice Theatre. And Northanger Abbey did not disappoint me.
I always said NA would make an awesome movie, because it's themes are still so current. I think every teenager can relate to Catherine. Who hasn't had to deal with peer pressure from that clique of nasty kids who are always messing with you and getting you into trouble and trying to pry you away from the nice ones who are your real friends? Not to mention being so into novels that you think modern life is dull by comparison. That probably describes every girl who worshipped Jane Austen as a teenager. I really liked the way the movie brought out the gossipy-teenage side of it all, with Catherine and Isabella whispering to eachother about what Lord Byron was up to, and what naughty things went on in the latest trashy novel. That's what I always loved about the book, how it shows that the teenage experience of first loves and friends and pop-culture is a universal one that hasn't changed over the years, and so does this film. And it's so nice to have a Jane Austen film that actually shows that neither she nor her times were all prim and proper; the Regency was before Victorian prudery came into vogue, and there's a lot less difference between then and now than people think. Going to the assembly rooms in Bath was no different from going clubbing today, and Bath itself was kind of like the early 19th century English version of Las Vegas. What happens in Bath, stays in Bath, baby! But aside from all that, I thought it was a nice adaptation all round. Catherine Morland was just right, young and a bit unworldly, but not overly naive and not stupid. And JJ Field was an awesome Henry Tilney. Henry Tilney always seemed to me like the only Austen hero who would be any fun, and JJ Field definitely captured that to perfection. For having a relativley short running time, too, the whole thing was nicely paced, and never felt rushed through, like Persuasion did. I'm very happy with it, all told. I wish, however, I could say the same about Mansfield Park.
Unfortunately, Mansfield Park was no where near as good. And I feel it was a real missed opportunity too, since there was such a good cast; Billie Piper especially is so likeable, which I think is so important for Fanny, who is usually the kind of character who comes off as so perfect and good that you can't stand her. But none of the characters came off as anything at all because the script was all over the map. It really felt like an amateur screenwriter's first rough draft. No subplots that were started were followed through on, major chunks of the story were left out, none of the characters were clearly defined. Obviously the work of someone who didn't know what they were aiming for this adaptation to be. Though I feel that it being so short didn't help either. If I recall, MP was one of the longest of Austen's novels, and trying to cram it all into an hour and a half is just stupid. Even a really good writer would be hard pressed to make a deep and involving adaptation in that time, let alone one who couldn't figure out what they wanted. But since Jane Austen is sometimes considered 'chick lit' (what a disgusting phrase!) by the idiots of the world, I suppose they feel that each of her novels doesn't require even two hours of it's own. Next time they do new adaptations it'll probably be "The Complete Jane Austen! All six novels in 30 seconds! Re-enacted by bunnies!" (But I shouldn't even put the idea out there!)
But anyway, back to Mansfield Park. It wasn't actually bad in any way, it was pleasant and innocuous, and I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid it. It's just that Jane Austen is one of the greats, and when you've got such rich source material, you'd better make something awesome out of it, or why bother? You don't get Pavoratti to sing at your wedding, and then request "Muskrat Love", you know?
I always said NA would make an awesome movie, because it's themes are still so current. I think every teenager can relate to Catherine. Who hasn't had to deal with peer pressure from that clique of nasty kids who are always messing with you and getting you into trouble and trying to pry you away from the nice ones who are your real friends? Not to mention being so into novels that you think modern life is dull by comparison. That probably describes every girl who worshipped Jane Austen as a teenager. I really liked the way the movie brought out the gossipy-teenage side of it all, with Catherine and Isabella whispering to eachother about what Lord Byron was up to, and what naughty things went on in the latest trashy novel. That's what I always loved about the book, how it shows that the teenage experience of first loves and friends and pop-culture is a universal one that hasn't changed over the years, and so does this film. And it's so nice to have a Jane Austen film that actually shows that neither she nor her times were all prim and proper; the Regency was before Victorian prudery came into vogue, and there's a lot less difference between then and now than people think. Going to the assembly rooms in Bath was no different from going clubbing today, and Bath itself was kind of like the early 19th century English version of Las Vegas. What happens in Bath, stays in Bath, baby! But aside from all that, I thought it was a nice adaptation all round. Catherine Morland was just right, young and a bit unworldly, but not overly naive and not stupid. And JJ Field was an awesome Henry Tilney. Henry Tilney always seemed to me like the only Austen hero who would be any fun, and JJ Field definitely captured that to perfection. For having a relativley short running time, too, the whole thing was nicely paced, and never felt rushed through, like Persuasion did. I'm very happy with it, all told. I wish, however, I could say the same about Mansfield Park.
Unfortunately, Mansfield Park was no where near as good. And I feel it was a real missed opportunity too, since there was such a good cast; Billie Piper especially is so likeable, which I think is so important for Fanny, who is usually the kind of character who comes off as so perfect and good that you can't stand her. But none of the characters came off as anything at all because the script was all over the map. It really felt like an amateur screenwriter's first rough draft. No subplots that were started were followed through on, major chunks of the story were left out, none of the characters were clearly defined. Obviously the work of someone who didn't know what they were aiming for this adaptation to be. Though I feel that it being so short didn't help either. If I recall, MP was one of the longest of Austen's novels, and trying to cram it all into an hour and a half is just stupid. Even a really good writer would be hard pressed to make a deep and involving adaptation in that time, let alone one who couldn't figure out what they wanted. But since Jane Austen is sometimes considered 'chick lit' (what a disgusting phrase!) by the idiots of the world, I suppose they feel that each of her novels doesn't require even two hours of it's own. Next time they do new adaptations it'll probably be "The Complete Jane Austen! All six novels in 30 seconds! Re-enacted by bunnies!" (But I shouldn't even put the idea out there!)
But anyway, back to Mansfield Park. It wasn't actually bad in any way, it was pleasant and innocuous, and I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid it. It's just that Jane Austen is one of the greats, and when you've got such rich source material, you'd better make something awesome out of it, or why bother? You don't get Pavoratti to sing at your wedding, and then request "Muskrat Love", you know?
