Austen and TV Adaptations
Jan. 28th, 2008 11:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annundrielAs much as I'm enjoying the Complete Jane Austen that they've been showing on PBS, the three that have aired so far have all left me a little dissatisfied. I enjoy them and like them because they're Austen and I don't think there will ever come a time when I don't find enjoyment in her work, but I always feel like there's something missing. After last night's Mansfield Park, I think I figured out what it is.
Watching Mansfield Park and seeing how they handled the characters and situations, made me wonder what sort of reaction I would have had to it if I'd never read the book or seen any other adaptation. There's a certain lack of depth and explanation. Fanny is meant to have a strong moral center, and yet we're only really told that she does, not shown. She's a bit of a blank slate. Which I think actually both works and doesn't work within the story. On the one hand, she's the protagonist. On the other hand, she's a way in which to get at the other characters. Our entrance into that particular world. But we're never really shown the depth of her convictions and feelings, not really.
I was going to say something about her refusal of Henry Crawford, but I think I'd rather just say that Henry also kind of fell apart for me. We see him as the rogue (rake?) who wants to poke a hole in Fanny's heart (I don't want to say it, but--euphemism?), but he sort of disappears after that. Is he really serious about his marriage proposal? Who knows. I read the bookat least five years ago eight (wow, time flies) years ago and can't remember honestly. But looking at just this adaptation, I don't think you could argue one way or the other.
All I mean to say is that it lacked depth and nuance. What would a non-Austen fan get from this adaptation? Granted, Mansfield Park isn't really the best way to introduce someone to her writing. When I listened to it on tape, I really disliked Fanny and Edmund. When I read it a couple of years later, I loved them both. But that was after seeing another adaptation (which is not precisely faithful to the novel, but a movie I greatly enjoy anyway) and finding different ways to see Fanny. And Edmund. Anyway, it's not the most readily likable of her novels.
But it's not just this particular movie that has left me with some little disappointment. Persuasion and Northanger Abbey left something to be desired as well. Again, it was a lack of depth and nuance. You get the surface story, but I don't feel like you really get the meat of the emotions, the real heart of the characters. Like I said with Fanny, it's slightly more tell than show. I will say, however, that I have less of a complaint regarding that with these two than I did with MP. There were parts in both that were absolutely lovely in my eyes. Mostly with these two I was disappointed that they got to the end of their hour and a half and realized they had to wrap it up and, boom!, five minutes from the end we've got resolution. MP, on the other hand, had a lovely little ending. I particularly enjoyed Edmund's little moment of epiphany.
I don't mean to sound like I haven't been enjoying these, but I know the stories pretty well. I just can't help but wonder what people unfamiliar with them would think.
And how much fun is it to watch them and realize that you've seen the same story a hundred times and, really, Austen did it first? Makes me want to watch Clueless again.
Why can't they make a longer adaptation of something other than Pride & Prejudice?
Over on the Masterpiece website, I can't believe that Mr. Collins is listed as number eight on the list of "Most Popular Austen Men" right after Colonel Brandon. Mr. Collins. Ew.
Watching Mansfield Park and seeing how they handled the characters and situations, made me wonder what sort of reaction I would have had to it if I'd never read the book or seen any other adaptation. There's a certain lack of depth and explanation. Fanny is meant to have a strong moral center, and yet we're only really told that she does, not shown. She's a bit of a blank slate. Which I think actually both works and doesn't work within the story. On the one hand, she's the protagonist. On the other hand, she's a way in which to get at the other characters. Our entrance into that particular world. But we're never really shown the depth of her convictions and feelings, not really.
I was going to say something about her refusal of Henry Crawford, but I think I'd rather just say that Henry also kind of fell apart for me. We see him as the rogue (rake?) who wants to poke a hole in Fanny's heart (I don't want to say it, but--euphemism?), but he sort of disappears after that. Is he really serious about his marriage proposal? Who knows. I read the book
All I mean to say is that it lacked depth and nuance. What would a non-Austen fan get from this adaptation? Granted, Mansfield Park isn't really the best way to introduce someone to her writing. When I listened to it on tape, I really disliked Fanny and Edmund. When I read it a couple of years later, I loved them both. But that was after seeing another adaptation (which is not precisely faithful to the novel, but a movie I greatly enjoy anyway) and finding different ways to see Fanny. And Edmund. Anyway, it's not the most readily likable of her novels.
But it's not just this particular movie that has left me with some little disappointment. Persuasion and Northanger Abbey left something to be desired as well. Again, it was a lack of depth and nuance. You get the surface story, but I don't feel like you really get the meat of the emotions, the real heart of the characters. Like I said with Fanny, it's slightly more tell than show. I will say, however, that I have less of a complaint regarding that with these two than I did with MP. There were parts in both that were absolutely lovely in my eyes. Mostly with these two I was disappointed that they got to the end of their hour and a half and realized they had to wrap it up and, boom!, five minutes from the end we've got resolution. MP, on the other hand, had a lovely little ending. I particularly enjoyed Edmund's little moment of epiphany.
I don't mean to sound like I haven't been enjoying these, but I know the stories pretty well. I just can't help but wonder what people unfamiliar with them would think.
And how much fun is it to watch them and realize that you've seen the same story a hundred times and, really, Austen did it first? Makes me want to watch Clueless again.
Why can't they make a longer adaptation of something other than Pride & Prejudice?
Over on the Masterpiece website, I can't believe that Mr. Collins is listed as number eight on the list of "Most Popular Austen Men" right after Colonel Brandon. Mr. Collins. Ew.
