#opening thoughts

My theoretical bias tends towards New Historicism. I approach Austen with a sort of literary anthropology perspective.  I don’t think we can separate her stories from the era that formed them.  In a certain sense, you cannot attempt to “update” her stories for a contemporary audience because such an action violates the original text.  

I am of the opinion that those who are charged with the great task of writing screenplays for these films should have a great respect for the original text and an understanding of the era.  Any changes that are made must be rooted in the narrative and must make sense. Changes must never be made simply for dramatic effect; they must be necessary or serve as a logical enhancement to the original text.  

Having said all of this, I think Andrew Davies is the King of Austen Screenplays.  He respects the original text and understands it, which serves to guide him in making any additions or changes.  One of the major issues in adapting Austen for the screen is that much of the action in her narratives is not specifically depicted; it is related to the reader, often in the pretext of being related from one character to another. Choosing how to translate information like this onto the screen is a delicate endeavor and I think Andrew is a master at this, as well as a master at adding or rewriting scenes.  Case in point…

To the best of my knowledge, there is exactly one scene in the entire Austen cannon that involves only men. It is in Mansfield Park when Edmund and Sir Thomas are deciding what to do with Fanny after she has rejected Henry Crawford’s proposal.  In his screenplay for the 2007 S&S, Andrew added a scene between Mr.Willoughby and Colonel Brandon in which Brandon questions Willoughby’s intentions towards Marianne.  There is no authoritative older male present in Marianne’s life and I think this addition makes sense within the context of the original text.  

I think that Austen can be successfully translated to the screen without sticking strictly to her original dialogue.  I do not find anything poetic or particularly striking about her prose and it can be extremely irritating structurally, meaning that those paragraph long sentences drive me batty.  She needed a competent editor.  Basically, as long as the language in the screenplay is mostly believable and appropriate for the period, I am satisfied.  

I do not consider her stories to be romances.  To me they are social commentary on matters of economy, marriage as a commodity and means of survival, and the role of interpersonal relationships in the pursuit of a comfortable existence.  For the most part, I consider many of them to be their own genre of Fairy Tale Realism.

I will try to keep the individual posts following a set structure.  I will explain what I think are a few weaknesses and strengths of each version and share what I enjoy about them.  I will try to be mostly rational, but I may descend into some fangirling now and then.  I may briefly comment on superficial aspects, such as costumes, but that will not be the main content of the posts.  I am more interested in focusing on the story and characters themselves.

Please feel free to join in the discussion, send any questions or thoughts!