Jane Austen In The Movies

Having seen ITV's take on 'Persuasion' just now - and always assuming that the world must be cramped full of Jane Austen afficionados :) - I thought that'd make a nice topic for a new thread.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

How do they compare to the books?

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

Have you got 'secret pearls' to recommend your fellow fans?




dear mods - I did a search, I really did, and I couldn't believe that no one's created a similar thread like this. Alas, I couldn't find one, but please just close this if I was mistaken

I don't have any secret pearls, but I find it revealing that the best Emma adaptation I've seen is not the Paltrow one or the Beckinsale BBC one, but Clueless--that's right, Clueless. I've yet to see a quality version of Mansfield Park--the BBC version was poorly acted (and it had Harold Pinter in it--or, so, I thought,--so that was a surprise) and the production values were pathetic. The late '90s version with Embeth Davidtz and Frances O'Connor was well-acted and had some money behind it, but they basically dropped the character of Fanny Price and replaced her with a combination of Elizabeth Bennet and Jane Austen herself--and everything went awry from there.

While neither the BBC Pride & Prejudice nor the more recent adaptation is even 75% accurate, I think both are quality efforts, but the BBC production from '95 (the mini-series) is much closer to the book, although the '05 production felt like an adaptation of First Impressions, the rough draft of Pride and Prejudice (the emotion was more obvious and the language was a little rougher and earthier, as was the entire environment). I like the Ciaran Hinds Persuasion, I suppose.

However, the most important advice I can give to my fellow Austen fans is to avoid the Garson-Olivier production (the Oscar-winning one:argh::argh::argh:) at ALL COSTS. If you do not, you will spend the better part of two hours grinding your teeth, grumbling, and eventually cussing at the television screen. The costumes are a joke--the acting is ATROCIOUS, and the American play claiming to be an adaptation of Austen's novel (the play that was the source material for the film's screenplay) is SO mind-numbingly wretched, it completely defies description. Let me go through the ending just as an example.

In the last 10 minutes of the film, Lady Catherine threatens to cut off Darcy's fortune if he marries Elizabeth as a test of the girl's affection, and then approves of the girl, enjoying her spirit and forthright statements--it's a toss-up which is worse, Catherine's approval of Elizabeth or Mr. Darcy's decision to convey a Jamaican estate on Mr. Wickham to save his future sister-in-law's reputation. It gets so bad, that you find yourself ticking off lines the playwright cobbled together vs. lines stolen directly from the book. It's a mark of how truly terrible Olivier was that he managed to mangle even the lines lifeted directly from Austen's pages.:sigh:

Thank you for the Olivier tip, jordmundt! I had actually contemplated buying it on dvd, because I thought I couldn't go much wrong with it - you just saved me a small fortune ;)

I also agree about Clueless, I think it is fresh and keeps the 'spirit' of the book. I must say though that the Paltrow version is my unrivalled number one on the list 'movies I watch four times a year plus whenever I feel bad'. When reading the book, I had a certain idea about Emma, how she'd be witty and saucy, and in such high spirits that she occasionally crosses the line, and for me, Gwyneth Paltrow did a marvellous job conveying exactly that. I also liked the cast and the 'chemistry' between them, not only Paltrow and Northam, but in general. Sophie Thompson and her film mother for example - priceless.

An absolute no-go however was the version with Kate Beckinsale. I can't put the finger on the weakest link. Is she so bad an actress? Did the director have such a weird idea about the book? Did the scriptwriter actually read the novel, or simply make up his own mind after watching another adaptation (now I'm joking, but I thought the character sketch was WAY beyond line)?

Emma - in my opinion - is supposed to be bit too clever for her own good. She is spoilt and high-handed, but also very well-meaning and conscientuous. A flawed, yet very likeable character. Beckinsale makes her sulky, *****y, arrogant beyond sympathy, a character one could scarcely care less about.

There are older versions than those three, but I must confess I haven't seen any - after buying the Beckinsale adaptation, I was a bit scared to spend so much money and be once more bitterly disappointed. Has any of you seen them?

I just got through re-reading Persuasion and is one of my favorite Austen novels. From what I remember, the movie version I saw was fairly accurate. And I would have to agree in saying that the BBC mini series of Pride and Prejudice was more closely adapted than the movie with Keira Knightly. I felt pretty darn jipped with the latter's lack of Jane/Bingley plotline. And if you are into Bollywood, Bride and Prejudice is not accurate at all (though it isn't really meant to be, think Clueless). But it is very amusing if you can sit through it.

Jordmundt6...I totally agree about the Garson/Olivier picture! I saw it and was like...should this even be called "Pride and Prejudice"?!!? And Olivier could have made a perfect Darcy!

I was so wary to ever watch any movie version of Pride and Prejudice because it is my favorite book...period. But I was pleasantly surprised by the A&E version. Of course it is a film adaptation so it isn't perfect but it is pretty close. Plus Colin Firth + Mr. Darcy = :love:!

I also love the Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman (also must add a :love: here for Alan!) It was heartbreaking in all the right spots.

Mansfield Park was not too bad...definitely worth watching and keeps with the darker tones of the book. But I do admit that I have not seen any other version!

I think those are the only ones that I really like. I can watch every other one but I just sit and nitpick!

Lelabelle--You only think Olivier could have made a perfect Darcy because of the way he looked then and the way he spoke--sadly, his elocution and looks always outpaced his acting--his only passable performance in over five decades of film that I've ever seen was as the father in the 1980 remake of the Jazz Singer. Sadly, he poured manure on all sorts of classics--his Hamlet is lauded but horrific. His Heathcliffe in Wuthering Heights is unspeakably awful (I couldn't even watch the entire film and I made it through P&P so that should give you an idea of how bad THAT was). He did the same thing to Lear--I've never seen him as Macbeth, but I'm sure it exists someplace. He always looked the part, it's just that he could never act the part. Which Mansfield Park are you talking about? The '80s BBC one? Has to be--it had the plot and characters pretty much by the numbers, but the performances were weak and it was shot poorly--so that it looked like an exceptionally cheap production, even if it wasn't meant to be one.

About Sense & Sensibility--I love that film too and Rickman's performance is perfect. I always have to remind myself that Elinor is just as prone to let her imagination run away with her and misread facts as Marianne is, Thompson plays her with such unshakeable common sense and resolve.

Fleur--I'm glad I saved you from wasting money on the Olivier/Garson film on DVD. By the by, did you know that Garson won Best Actress and her acceptance speech was over two hours long--seeing Elizabeth guide and comfort her younger sister Jane (yeah, that's right, younger sister--UNBELIEVABLE:grumble:) just made me ill. Jane was played by a young Maureen O'Hara.

About Emma--I don't know. I do think that she is kind and she is conscientious, but she was raised to have a sort of beneficent arrogance that often did more harm than good, and Mr. Knightley was there as a friend to check, correct, and applaud her, as she gradually improved herself. Some of the self-centeredness in Beckinsale's portrayal is actually there in the book, and Frank Churchill as portrayed by Ewan McGregor was a bit self-involved and silly. Much as we may not like the direction or the performances, it sort of feels like that was Austen's perception of how the outside world would view her favorite heroine (someone no one but herself would much like, she thought as she was writing the story). Beckinsale leaves much to be desired, but she does have some talent and is likeable onscreen (particularly in Serendipity).

By the by everyone, I just found out some interesting news. Apparently, BBC and A&E are trying to catch lightning in a bottle again. Andrew Davies--the screenwriter responsible for the 1995 Pride & Prejudice we all love so much has written a script for Sense & Sensibility and the mini-series is due out sometime this year (2007). I hope that turns out to be the excellent news we would all wish it to be.

I think I have seen most of the popular Austen adaptations from the 90s on. I can't really remember right now, it's late.

Of them all, I have to admit, the 1995 P&P holds a special place in my heart. It was the first one I saw. I saw it before I started reading the books and it started me on an Austen kick. The newer version wasn't as dedicated to the book, but I really liked the look of the film so it's hard to hate it.

Also, if you haven't seen this years ITV adaptations this year you wouldn't miss anything to skip the Mansfield Park adaptation. Though admittedly I haven't seen a Mansfield Park adaptation I like. Maybe Fanny Price is too boring for film. Persuasion I quite liked and Andrew Davies actually wrote the screenplay for the ITV Northanger Abbey. I liked it in a guilty pleasure sort of way; it's a bit silly and unbelievable.

If you live in the US, PBS was supposed to be showing the ITV adaptations this year for their Austen Season. They have postponed showing them to January 2008 so that they can show the new Sense and Sensibility as well. I'm excited about Davies writing the new version, but I so love Rickman as Colonel Brandon.

And if you are into Bollywood, Bride and Prejudice is not accurate at all (though it isn't really meant to be, think Clueless). But it is very amusing if you can sit through it.
It can't be longer than the mini series ;)


Also, if you haven't seen this years ITV adaptations this year you wouldn't miss anything to skip the Mansfield Park adaptation.
I started watching that one, but I must admit I soon quitted. The casting of Billie Piper - nothing fitted my mental image of Fanny. Too lively, too coarse, too head-strong in a way. Fanny in the book is timid, and though fierce in her principles, obliging.


Maybe Fanny Price is too boring for film.I'm afraid that might just be it. I really, really disliked that book, I only read it to the end because it's Jane Austen. Fanny as a heroine is interesting from a theoretical point of view, but at least for me, it doesn't work. The character's journey - well, she's a good person with good principles right from the start, and one could say the 'journey' is how she is not corrupted by the slack principles that rule Mansfield Park, but that doesn't work because she's never truly accepted there in the first place, nobody tries to draw her in. Set aside that she is good, I didn't like her, at some points I even despised her for that holier than thou attitude, and how her relationship to Mary Crawford is carried out. I find Fanny to be insincere to a degree that was unpardonable.

The '99 version with Frances O'Connor did make some major changes, but I found all of them quite benefitting, because it corrected the flaws of the book. O'Connor made Fanny a sympathetic character that I feel and cross fingers for. Johnny Lee Miller, admittedly, was a blatant miscast. But I found Harold Pinter absolutely marvellous, and Sheila Gish was one grandios Mrs Norris. Embeth Davidtz made Mary charming, alluring, ambiguous just like I had perceived her in the book. I'd give it a 7.5 or 8 out of ten, possibly.


did you know that Garson won Best Actress and her acceptance speech was over two hours long :rotfl: No, I did NOT know that, but I wish there was a 'best-of' on youtube!


By the by everyone, I just found out some interesting news. Apparently, BBC and A&E are trying to catch lightning in a bottle again. Andrew Davies--the screenwriter responsible for the 1995 Pride & Prejudice we all love so much has written a script for Sense & Sensibility and the mini-series is due out sometime this year (2007). I hope that turns out to be the excellent news we would all wish it to be.
Excellent! Do you know more? Director? Cast? Is the station trust-worthy?

Apparently crashingstar knows more than me--I just checked IMDB. They do have a full cast, but I didn't recognize anyone. The director is John Alexander, but that means absolutely nothing to me. I'd expect not to really recognize anyone since P&P was the big splash for Ehle and Firth.

Fleur--let me step in here--I can't agree about the major changes to the '99 Mansfield Park since they basically drained away Fanny Price and replaced her with a mixture of the best of other Austen heroines, and Austen herself (down to the accepted proposal and the change of heart), even having Fanny write some of Austen's early short stories and tell them to her sister. I don't think Fanny is too boring for film. I believe that the '80s mini-series would actually have been quite watchable if the production value had been up and if anyone besides Mrs. Bertram had given a passable performance.

Also note--in Austen's day, her most popular book was MP. Tastes have changed, but I think a faithful rendition with good acting would be enjoyable.

If they can find a way to do a handful of quality, memorable mini-series of Bleak House over the years, someone should be able to do one quality mini-series of Mansfield Park.

About Bride & Prejudice--as you're obviously aware, B&P seems much longer than the mini-series because it gave the original script such a radical and bad facelift. However, it doesn't compare to the torture of the multi-Oscar-winning P&P from the early '40s with Garson and Olivier.

I don't think anyone bothered to save the radio broadcast of those Oscars--perhaps there's filmreel somewhere, but this was in the time before television, so I don't know how you could convert it into YouTube format, even if you could dig up footage--yes, I know this is sarcastic, but you started me thinking about this, so I'm trying to answer. Wow, what a headache.

Back to MP--the ITV adaptation? Is that the Pinter production from the early '80s? I thought that was a BBC production!:huh:

Back to MP--the ITV adaptation? Is that the Pinter production from the early '80s? I thought that was a BBC production!:huh:
Nope, it's from 2007. I didn't even KNOW there was another version with Pinter in it (I thought we were talking about the '99 one).

erm.., now I'm confused. I just looked it up on imdb, but Pinter isn't listed in the mini series - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085052/fullcredits#cast


I fully agree with you in so far that Fanny isn't recognisable in the version from '99. I guess that's what I liked about that one ;)


speaking of mini series *beaming* I had no whatsoever difficulties sitting through P&P. God, I love it. I bore it on the meanest video taped one until getting the dvd, and even after the tenth time, it's still every bit as enjoyable for me than it was the first time around.

The new version with Keira Knightley is unarguably not nearly as 'faithful' to the novel, but I loved it nonetheless. Some changes, I found even profitable for a modern audience - there were amazingly many youngsters in the audience, and judging their discussions in the foyer afterwards, they hadn't come for Knightley's star appeal. The relationship between the sisters for example is certainly not how it would have looked like in the early 19th century. But the way it was presented made you feel the bonds among them. How shall I explain - while reading the book, I always made that mental transition thinking, okay, that was then and it would translate so and so into our time... The Knightley version stripped away these mental transitions.

I also liked how Mrs Bennet was painted. Still silly and prone to nervous fits, she felt much more like a real human being, whose got valid reasons for acting the way she does, namely the concerns for the wellfare of her family.

And even though I absolutely adore Jane in the book, you can't help but think that this sort of saintly person must be an extinct race. In the new version, she's not quite as good-willed, and all the more believable (at least for the modern audience, as said before).

Did you watch the 1980 mini series?

The 1980, P&P--no, I didn't know it existed. As for Mansfield Park--I've seen two versions, the '99 version which I find unpardonable because it takes Elizabeth Bennet and crams her into a story that's not her own, and a 1980s BBC series that Pinter starred in as Mr. Bertram and, I think, directed and produced. It's probably as faithful to the novel as Davies P&P is, but the acting is atrocious, the sound is bad, the camera angles are bad.

I think Fanny Price is probably the least sympathetic of Austen's heroines (aside from the heroine of Northanger Abbey), but that's because Fanny is such a conventional novel heroine for the early 19th century. I think she can be portrayed sympathetically and with a quiet and quietly building strength that can win fans, but it's a very tough job--at least as tough as Elizabeth Bennet and almost as tough as Emma. I live in the hope that there will be a good, faithful version that I can enjoy--but it sounds like I have a long wait.

About the new version--I'm a Knightley fanatic, and I think her portrayal that was more straightforward and less artful brought out Elizabeth's youth. As I said before, it felt like they were working from a copy of First Impressions, Austen's early version of Pride & Prejudice that had to be toned down considerably for publication.

I think the new Jane is less saintly than the one in the book and the one in the '95 mini-series because she has less screentime. Oh, and I don't think Rosamund Pike would be physically capable of being that good-natured onscreen.

Um, y'know--There are universal truths in productions of Pride & Prejudice, just as there are universal truths in productions of Shakespeare. For some reason, no matter how bad the production of P&P is, Mr. Collins is nearly spot-on (even in the Olivier one, although I think that's probably because almost every syllable that he uttered was lifted straight off of a page in the book). In the same way, most versions of Mrs. Bennet are accurate. She's supposed to be ridiculous and silly--her concerns are well-founded and she tries to remedy the situation by her own lights, but she's so silly that she can't be taken seriously. Enough of both sides was preserved for the 2005 production that I was satisfied, although I thought the '95 production was better at showing why she was marginalized. The '95 and '05 productions of Pride & Prejudice were also remarkably fortunate in their casting of Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Barbara Leigh Hunt was excellent opposite Ehle, and probably the only woman alive who could feasibly outdo her was Dame Judi Dench--which is why casting her in the '05 production was a coup. She didn't disappoint either.

I think I'm fine with all kinds of artistic license, as long as the end product is enjoyable. Elizabeth Austen-Bennet as heroine of Mansfield Park didn't bother me therefore, but I can see why many fans disliked the interpretation.

I'm still clueless about the MP miniseries we were talking about. Was it actually called Mansfield Park? Was the Pinter you're referring to the same like in the '99 version? The Nobel Price laureate? Because imdb doesn't list him, and the other way round the only MP entry on HIS list the one from '99. Of course, imdb isn't infallible (and it's hard for me to accept that :sigh: ).

Now I'm compelled to make a confession - I didn't read First Impressions. You got me really curious, jordmundt! All the more since I really, really enjoyed the 'new' P&P. I must say when I first heard that there was going to be a new adaptation, I thought, 'poor, deluded guys... they can only mess up after the mini series... hasn't anyone bothered to tell them that they're heading for certain failure and the audience will hate it regardless what they do...?' Because the mini series - in my opinion and everyone's whom I talked to about it - was such a mile stone. Ehle's performance was IT, and I'm ashamed to admit that I had strongest doubts that Knightley could pull it off. But she did; I was gratified that she didn't even try to imitate Ehle in any way, but I had thought that was due to a completely fresh approach on part of the director. Not knowing First Impressions, I had no idea he might be sticking to this.


I think Fanny Price is probably the least sympathetic of Austen's heroines with you there :lol: Reading MP, I was rather shocked to be honest. This book lacked (almost) everything I love Jane Austen for, with Fanny marking the main problem. You call it 'conventional' and probably that's just it. I used to call it 'boring, unnerving, uptight, priggishly moral' though. I've yet to see an actress capable of making such a character shine.

least sympathetic of Austen's heroines (aside from the heroine of Northanger Abbey) ah, I beg to differ. Catherine Morland is lightyears away from an Elizabeth Bennet, or any other great Austen heroine in that instance. But I always comprehended the entire book satirically, and that includes Catherine's character. I had no complaints with her.

I think the new Jane is less saintly than the one in the book and the one in the '95 mini-series because she has less screentime. Oh, and I don't think Rosamund Pike would be physically capable of being that good-natured onscreen. What you say about screentime is probably the answer. I didn't doubt Pike's capability though. Like with Knightley, I was most apprehensive about her. The only other film I had seen with her was 'Die Another Day', and I was very biased against her. All the more I was pleased in the end, and I found the onscreen chemistry between her and her supposed sister Lizzie particularly fetching.


For some reason, no matter how bad the production of P&P is, Mr. Collins is nearly spot-onagreed. But don't you think this might, among other reasons like the actors' talent, this might be due to the fact that the readers'/audience's expectations aren't nearly as unrealistic as they are concerning Elizabeth/Jane/Darcy. To draw an HP comparison - it's so much easier to satisfy most fans when you're playing Cedric, or Rita Skeeter, than when you have to meet the expectations connected with Hermione or Dumbledore? No matter how good you are and how many people love your performance, there'll be a good number of people hating what you did.



I could never quite make up my mind about Ang Lee's S&S. I like it. Alan Rickman has replaced my mental image of Colonel Brandon that I had before. Kate Winslett was just genius. I very much liked Gemma Jones' performance. The cinematography left nothing to desire. The music - wonderful. But that's as far as my satisfaction goes. Don't get me wrong, I like Emma Thompson, and her acting was superior to 90% of the stuff one normally gets to see. Still, I found her to be a miscast. That was all the more visible in combination to the worst miscasting of the entire movie, namely Hugh Grant. Who on earth thought it'd be a good idea to have him for Edward's part?! And interacting with Thompson's Elinor?! They were as well matched as some of the couples one sometimes gets to see in school performances, when they simply couldn't find anyone else willing to do it.
Again, as said before, I'm not one to quarrel much about a certain artistic license, or the fact that an actor gives a certain character a different spin than in the original novel. But Emma Thompson simply wasn't Elinor Dashwood, it doesn't work like it ought to. She remains a bit wooden, and not because her character is so much more reserved than her sister, but because Thompson herself tries to press herself into a form that doesn't fit her, and when she is 'herself', it goes awry with the rest of the film and her own acting in it.

Looks like I unintentionally misled you Fleur. I haven't read First Impressions either. I don't know that a copy of it even exists. It was the first draft of P&P that was sent round to family and friends and the publishers before she scaled it back to make it less incendiary. I know about that version because of the college courses I took on Austen. I'm sure bits and pieces of it are still around and the rougher, more visceral quality to all the characters put me in mind of it. Whether the director was shooting for that, I don't know, but it's probably a safe bet.

I had the same preconceptions about Pike that you did since I wasn't particularly impressed with her in "Die Another Day." I was pleased with the result.

I think our difference of opinion about Catherine Morland is a matter of personal taste (yes, Northanger is meant to be satirical, but there are limits). I think it actually reflects that I'm willing to cut Fanny more slack than you are, which is why I see the gap between Ms. Price and Ms. Morland as a small one, and not a chasm.

Your observation about Mr. Collins is partly correct, but only partly. His is a surely a supporting role, but he has to be a convincing snob, fool, and twit and without him to lampoon, Darcy and Bingley's excellent natures are less apparent. It takes real talent to believably reach for that extreme--just as it takes real talent to play Mercutio in Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet without taking it off the rails. And yet, I've seen 7 or 8 productions of Romeo & Juliet and the Mercutios while all different, were all deliciously demented and entertaining, and I held them to a high standard. That role seems to bring out the best in actors. The same seems to be true of Mr. Collins. I've seen--four productions of Pride & Prejudice (I think) and each Collins was distinct while simultaneously displaying an interesting array of traits. Each was delectably inept, foolish, self-absorbed, and obsequious. Also, believe me, I wasn't feeling at all charitable toward any actors when I watched the Olivier P&P.

Oh, have you heard about the new feature coming out this year--Becoming Jane? It has Anne Hathaway cast as Jane Austen, and James McAvoy cast as the man to whom she was engaged for a day. Now, I'm a Hathaway fan, so I have confidence in her range. However, the idea that Austen took a series of conversation she had with her with her own beloved, and spruced them up to make them more readable, and then copied them into all of her major works is...galling, to say the least. It's rather like the idea behind "Shakespeare In Love" except that was less harmful because it was pure fantasy. This film doesn't style itself a strict docudrama, but it wants to be taken seriously for its message and its portrayal of Austen's life--just as Miss Potter wished to be taken seriously while deviating from a strict docudrama format. I can practically see two of my old professors having screaming fits at the idea that Austen's fiction came into being exactly that way--it's almost like a capitulation to the superficial reading that Walter Scott (a man of dreadfully inflated reputation) gave Pride & Prejudice when it was first published.

ETA--As for the version of Mansfield Park I'm describing--it's the 1983 mini-series, and you're right, Pinter isn't in it. I had mistakenly laid at his feet the wooden performance of someone named Bernard Hepton.

what a relief regarding First Impressions :lol: I actually checked amazon and couldn't find it, thinking 'Illiterate *******' - sorry, amazon, looks like I accused you falsely :blush:

more relief about MP mini-series. Speaking of Pinter though - how did you like his take on Sir Thomas in the '99 version?

You are very right; Mr Collins brings out the best in an actor (even though I have only two versions to compare).


I did see a poster advertising 'Becoming Jane'. I'm glad you put me on my guard, because I didn't hear anything else apart from the fact that the film will come this year, and I was actually looking forward to it. I believed it'd be a serious biography :(


Talking about Northanger Abbey; I'm going to watch the ITV version this weekend. I never saw any adaption of this book, so I'm a bit excited, and it's a fifty-fifty chance. The ITV Mansfield Park was VERY unsatisfying; the ITV Persuasion on the other hand was nice. No match on the Ciaran Hinds one, but fair enough.

I wonder, is there some kind of adaption of Lady Susan?

I have seen the recent Pride and Predjudice film and I had not read the book before i watched the film I thought it was alright until i read the book. They seemed to have cut down a lot of the major scenes Rosings Park and Hunsford Parsonage. I know they have to to make the a reasonable length but i think these were quite important scenes and i would have been happy to sit through more of the film if these had been included.

If you're interested in an adaption including pretty much all major scenes from the book, try the BBC mini series from the nineties :)

You beat me to the punch, Fleur--I was about to suggest the same thing.

About Lady Susan--I really don't know. I sort of doubt it, because, as I recall, that story is unfinished--and from what I read--this is truly the most unliikable main character Austen ever created--you could have a delicious villainness, I suppose--along the lines of a young Anne Bancroft, but I don't really hold out much hope.

I've never seen any ITV productions--they sound promising (some of them). Just how bad WAS MP in that version.

About Becoming Jane--again, I'm a fanatical Hathaway supporter so, I'm biased. It has the potential to be a nice movie and it apparently WANTS to be taken seriously as a biopic, but the plagiarizing and clipping of personal conversations which was cute in Shakespeare In Love because we all knew it was a fantasy, isn't so cute or fun or smart in a "serious" biopic. Considering you liked the '99 MP, you might really like Becoming Jane. I thought Pinter's Sir Thomas was serviceable, but considerably darker than the text drew him--but this was "a movie with a message" more than an adaptation--so, it was a good job, for what they asked him to do.

Yes, I did like MP 99 - but the artistic license that I find enjoyable in an adaption is very different from what I want to see in a biography! :huh:

Just how bad WAS MP in that version.
As for the ITV MP version and how bad it was - I couldn't quite say, I stopped watching after twenty minutes because I didn't like it. Although, for the sake of the thread, the discussion and for informing my fellow Austen fans, I'll go back watching it. And perhaps it turns out better than it begins?

Lady Susan - yes, I did think that it could make a nice film, with a good actress. I read it a couple of years ago, and either it was an editioned version cutting sketches etc together, or Austen did finish it after all. I enjoyed it; the problem with that book is more of a stylistic one. It's an epistolary novel (for those who haven't read it), which doesn't work out in itself in nine out of ten cases. But Lady Susan herself is a very enjoyable villainess in my opinion.
Sorry, I don't know any of the 'young Anne Bancroft's' work. I had someone like Nicole Kidman in mind, someone capable of pulling off careless egotism with a charming, and nonetheless calculating attitude... You know what I mean. And a film version would automatically cure the weakness of the book, too.

Sorry, I was making a veiled Mrs. Robinson reference--y'know, "The Graduate?":sigh: Epistlary novels CAN be well-adapted, or so I've heard. I'm not sure how much faith to put in the medium of film to "cure weaknesses" in an Austen work, given that the track record of adaptations of her books that DIDN'T have glaring weaknesses is rather spotty.

I'm not sure how much faith to put in the medium of film to "cure weaknesses" in an Austen work, given that the track record of adaptations of her books that DIDN'T have glaring weaknesses is rather spotty.

:lol: The weakness was really the letter form, it didn't flow, and in several cases, the conveying of information was just awkward. A movie wouldn't suffer from that problem. Heck, if JA hadn't died so early, and perhaps revised Lady Susan, it could have been a hell of an amusing book. Just throw out the letters and write it similarly like Emma - which sticked mainly to Emma's own perspective, but did have scenes without her, and an ironically underminded omniscient narrator. The plot of LS would be perfect for this.

I am new to reading Jane Austen--surprising and a bit embarrassing, given that my BA is in English. My daughter recommended the Keira Knightly (2005) version of Pride and Prejudice and I have been all over town trying to buy a copy with no luck. We'll head to Blockbuster and the public library to borrow a copy so I can at least see it as soon as I finish the book.

This thread has been very helpful in guiding me to the various film versions of Austen's books. I generally try to read a book first before I watch the movie version. I'm not sure why I do this as I'm inevitably disappointed, but there you go.

However, I did see Gwynneth Paltrow's Emma a while ago and enjoyed it. Emma is next on my list to read (if I can get to it before July 21, of course, I'll be occupied for a few days after that.) What is the learned opinion on that film version of Emma? True to the book or not?

This thread has been very helpful in guiding me to the various film versions of Austen's books. Glad when we can be of help :)


I generally try to read a book first before I watch the movie version. I'm not sure why I do this as I'm inevitably disappointed, but there you go. I well-off in that respect; I usually don't have very high expectations, and I'm easily made happy too :lol: But sometimes one comes across the movie first (I saw Clueless before reading my first Austen, which was incidentally Emma. While reading it, I thought, hey, the plot is a bit familiar - and what a COINCIDENCE, this man is called Elton, too! :err:)


However, I did see Gwynneth Paltrow's Emma a while ago and enjoyed it. Emma is next on my list to read (if I can get to it before July 21, of course, I'll be occupied for a few days after that.) What is the learned opinion on that film version of Emma? True to the book or not?
Fairly truthful (even though you might have seen jordmundt's and my different taking on the subject ;) ). I mean, the book isn't GoF lenghtwise, but still very long, so cuts had to be made. They were made, sensibly (in my opinion) and without distorting the plot and idea as such. In any case, it's the best adaption of Emma that I know (and can imagine, I love the movie)

Thanks, Fleur. I value your opinion.

MaWeasley--It's nice to know that we can actually provide constructive and useful information on this board.

Fleur--I don't despise, or even dislike the Paltrow Emma, but I do have a problem with some of the director's choices--making Emma truly peerless in intent, beauty, and heart while giving her flawed, but correctible understanding and self-awareness doesn't exactly equate to the book. This is rather similar to an owl discussion we once had about the portrayal of Mr. Knightley and Mr. Darcy on film. Paltrow's Emma has just about all possible flaws and rough edges smoothed out and improved for the film while remaining true to the basic plotline.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

Pride & Prejudice (both the A&E and the 2005 versions)
Sense & Sensability
Mansfield Park
Persuasion
Emma

How do they compare to the books?
Well youcaught me. I haven't read any of them. I started S&S but honestly, I just couldn't get thru it.

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

So far I've only seen 2 of the P&P. I have another one on my DVR from the 30s. Although I think my favorite one will always be the one with Coliin Firth. I wouldn't know the reason, I just think that movie was well done.

Have you got 'secret pearls' to recommend your fellow fans?

I think everyone should read/see "Mainsfield Park". I enjoyed it.

Fleur--I don't despise, or even dislike the Paltrow Emma, but I do have a problem with some of the director's choices--making Emma truly peerless in intent, let us clarify what we mean. Emma's 'intent' at the beginning of the books - and the film - is to marry off Mr Elton. Then she meets Harriet and thinks she was the ideal bride for him.
Another one of her loudly-voiced intents is 'never to marry' - again, both in the book and in the film. Her intents change in the course of the book - but you really got to point it to out to me in how far the movie deviating from the novel

beauty,c'mon - Polly Walker (Jane) is pretty much up there next to Gwyneth Paltrow (personally, I even prefer her beauty, I'm not so much into blondes)

and heart Emma in the novel does have a good heart, don't you agree? She's rather immature, but good at heart all the way.


while giving her flawed, but correctible understanding again - you got to give me your interpretation of her character in the novel, because that is EXACTLY my mental image of Emma. Flawed, but not incorrectible. Classical coming-of-age story, in my eyes.


and self-awareness doesn't exactly equate to the book.
please, explicate :tu:


This is rather similar to an owl discussion we once had about the portrayal of Mr. Knightley and Mr. Darcy on film. Right! I remember :lol: That is indeed very similar - I remember how I was just mystified how anyone could seriously choose Mr Darcy over Mr Knightley!!!


Paltrow's Emma has just about all possible flaws and rough edges smoothed out and improved for the film while remaining true to the basic plotline. Yes, partly I agree. They do smooth out a couple of things, but it's still infintely superior to the Beckinsale version, at least as far I am concerned (though I must say that I did enjoy their taking on Emma self-delusion with all the little dream sequences, which were not in the novel like this, but worked excellent to picture what's going on in Emma's head.)

Okay, let me give this a whirl.

Emma in the bookis is pretty, intelligent, well-intentioned, and a loyal friend. Amen, well done. However, in spite of Mr. Knightley's tutilege, she's been raised to have unswerving confidence in her own judgment, her own opinion of people, and her social position. Her principal responsibility is in caring for her amusing hypochondriac of a father.

The other thing is, while pretty, Emma is not, herself, a stunning beauty. From her own appraisal (which, I admit, is, at times, quite flawed) we learn that there are two women of her acquaintance who have greater physical beauty (Harriet Smith--yeah, THAT Harriet Smith) and Jane Fairfax. Harriet isn't a threat because she's below Emma in class, so Emma has the opportunity to improve Harriet's situation through her friendship. Jane Faifax is a threat because she's not only prettier, she's a social equal and rival (or close). She has improved her situation through her own industry and talents and she has many, more and more finely honed than Emma herself, possesses. Ms. Fairfax also has--how shall I best term this--rather a Jane Bennet temperment, which is why she ranks so highly in Mr. Knightley's estimation. I confess, I find Ms. Paltrow (what's her husband's name, again) quite fetching--and while I don't prefer blondes over brunettes, necessarily....I certainly don't have an aversion to them. I also must confess that Polly Walker made little impression on me in the role of Jane Fairfax.

Emma's situation leads her to have a considerable amount of pride, and a rather imperious manner if she isn't careful. This is almost entirely muted in Paltrow's performance, though the positive qualities are present. However, they are more than present, they are accentuated. One of the parts of her life that is mentioned in passing in the books get serious emphasis in the film--visiting the poor. In the film Emma brings the poor food and supplies, giving of her time, knowledge, and considerable pracitcal talents, pretty much selflessly. We see a comparison/contrast between Emma and Harriet. Emma is brisk but caring--Harriet is a human blooper reel. Harriet in the books is dim and impressionable, but I don't remember her being accused of being a klutz. The other thing that bugs me about the Paltrow film is the depiction of Harriet's eventual husband. He's a yeoman with considerable land who is quite well off, and, from all we can gather, articulate with a pen, if not in person (though we seldom hear him speak, so that's left to interpretation).

Anyway, he's a good man and an intelligent one, and Mr. Knightley thinks quite a lot of him. Admittedly, he's not a gentleman, but he's comfortably situated. Unfortuantely, the film shows some overeager man-child who can't string two sentences together and all but trips over his own farm implements in awkward, cute, stupid affection. This is the picture that Emma has of him, but this is mostly, if not all class bias. If that were really the case, she might be admired for trying to broaden Harriet's horizons, but it manifestly isn't so.:sigh:

I understand your qualms about the Beckinsale portrayal, but it looks like we agree that the dream sequences were a strong point (at least for illustrating what's going on in Emma's head).

Paltrow does capture the spirit of the role because Emma does have a good heart and she learns a lot about herself through her mistakes, but her Emma seems a trifle too perfect at the outset, for accuracy (as I tried to demonstrate, I hope I succeeded).

I hope that I've explained my position in a satisfactory manner.

I hope that I've explained my position in a satisfactory manner. Yes, you have! Thanks! I had misunderstood you before, because I agree almost completely with your understanding of her character. It's rather that I make a different judgement on it, with all the usual 'they had to simplify for the sake of making a two-hours movie' and all the other points I usually type in the 'talk about the HP movie' threads. I reckon I make many allowances that other fans are more critical about.

(The only book where I'm incapable for ANY allowance is The Name of the Rose - I hated that movie, and I'm still screaming vociferously for the arguing monks, the theological debate, Alinardus of Grottaferrata... In short, everything that got nothing to do in a movie. You think it's coincidence that this was THE BOOK that got me hooked into serious reading when I was eleven, much like many fans here got hooked by HP in a similar age...?)

I'm more lenient with other books. And Paltrow's Emma ;) You are right, of course, I could never, never argue the point. The characters are all much flatter, but off the cuff I'd say that this is always like this when novels are turned into two-hour films. Austen's Mr Knightley is more harsh, more patronizing than Northam's thoroughly adorable take. You are also right about Harriet - even though I didn't see Colette's Harriet as a klutz before, but I guess one can see it like this. I regarded her clumsy performance during the charity scene to be the result of genuine diffidence - she wouldn't be so awkward if she wasn't put in such constant awe of great, incomparable Miss Woodhouse.

As for Emma's appearance - first of all, I don't 'resent' blondes either, and Gwyneth Paltrow is one of the most beautiful women on screen in my opinion (and by the way, my mental image of Narcissa, but that just as a side note :) ). But really, in terms of physical beauty Polly Walker could really stand up to her (in my eyes, anyway). When you cast a gorgeous girl like GP, you got to make the Jane absolutely beautiful, too, and they did. In the books however, a point is made about Emma being not vain *rushes off to fetch her copy and search for the quote* ahh, there it is (I'm so proud to have found the quote in like two minutes)
'I have not a fault to find with her person,' [Mr Knightley] replied. 'I think her all you describe. I love to look at her; and I will add this praise, that I do not think her personally vain. Considering how very handsome she is, she appears to be little occupied with it; her vanity lies another way.

Emma's vanity - in my opinion - is indeed rooted in a certain intellectual superiority. Not in general, she's no genius, but in her little circle of friends, Mr Knightley is the only one fit to hold a candle to her. To quote Mr Knightley, her only critic, once more -
Emma is spoiled by being the cleverest of her family. At ten years old, she had the misfortune of being able to answer questions which puzzled her sister at seventeen. She was always quick and assured...

Yes, Jane Fairfax is the more accomplished woman. Emma doesn't make much of her talents, and why should she? She's always the best as it is - we learn that Miss Fairfax doesn't visit her aunt and grandmother too often to make Emma feel her inferiority too much. That's also the reason for her jealousy and ill will towards Jane - this one makes her feel what she could be if she put some effort and consistency in it. It's no envy for Jane being the prettier.

Another thing I do suspect underneath Emma's reserve towards Jane is an early shadow of her later relationship to Mr Knightley. She wants to be first with him, long before realising that she could be in love with him. You know that kind of behaviour from students rivalling about their teachers' attention, there's nothing 'sexual' in it, but the desire to be appreciated and acknowledged before anyone else. So, Mr Knightley keeps on praising Jane because he thinks Emma should take an example in her and elaborate her natural talents. Emma only hears "she's better than you, and I might like her more". I think that's what makes her really bristling. The movie mirrors this very nicely in a short line - "Miss Woodhouse, can we persuade you to play the piano?" (Emma indicates disinterest) "Or perhaps Ms Fairfax would -" CUT to Emma playing the piano.

I've spent a lot of time this summer reading Jane Austen and watching various adaptations, but I also just saw the movie [I]Becoming Jane[I] with Anne Hathaway in the title role. I was wondering if anyone else had seen it and what their reactions might be.

As a movie, I thought it was interesting--lushly shot, with beautiful scenery and lots of familiar faces (Julie Walters, Maggie Smith.) It was kind of fun to try to pick out lines and characters that showed up in the books. I've only read three of Austen's six books, so I'm sure I missed some. Pride and Prejudice must be her most famous work, because there were tons of references to it. The story was essentially a love story between Jane Austen and Tom LeFroy and as a fictional story using historical people, it was satisfying.

I couldn't help wondering, even as I was enjoying myself, how people who really know Austen might react to this film. I'm guessing they'll be furious at the liberties taken with the truth. And even I, who don't know that much about the period or Austen's life story, found a few of the story points to be kind of jarring. Tom (and Jane's brother Henry) were pretty slimy characters, fighting and wenching and in general pretty Mr Wickham-ish. I also thought Tom was awfully familiar and cheeky with Jane, giving her a copy of Tom Jones and offering to give her some "experience" so she could write about it. I think of Jane Austen's humor as way more subtle and ironic than this rather broad interpretation. And they were always grabbing each other for dramatic kisses, something I doubt Jane Austen ran around doing.

Please, if someone has seen this film, please share your impressions.

ah, I haven't seen that one yet. A British friend of mine has though, and hated it, so I'm rather apprehensive (because I trust my friend's judgement quite a lot).

I read a biography of JA once, but it's pretty long ago, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be an expert on her life, or character :no:


(just as a matter of interest, MaWeasley - which three books did you read?)

Just two things from the movies -

1, The mud - the rain - the sense that they were real people living real lives - in the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice - I'm sure Jane Austen would have approved wholeheartedly.

2. Snape (sorry! Alan Rickman) standing outside the door when Marianne is ill, (in Sense and Sensibility) saying "What can I do?"

Pure Austen - she would have loved it.

I'm pretty sure you know more than I do, Fleur, as you've read her actual biography and I've only read her Wikipedia entry!:lol:

I've read Pride and Prejudice and seen the 2005 Keira Knightley film and the Jennifer Erhle/Colin Firth mini-series, Emma (saw the G. Paltrow version on film) and my current favorite, Sense and Sensibility. I just recently got the Emma Thompson version of S & S and to be very honest, I like the movie even more than the book. I though Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet were just amazing.

When I went to college 30 years ago, Jane Austen was not enjoying the popularity she is today, at least not here in the US (or maybe I was just oblivious.) I wish the "books in film" courses I took then had been about these books and movies. (We studied several DH Lawrence books and movies.)

I think I am going to tackle Persuasion next. It depends on what is available at my local library.

Just two things from the movies -

1, The mud - the rain - the sense that they were real people living real lives - in the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice - I'm sure Jane Austen would have approved wholeheartedly.


I remember that from that film--remember when Mr Bennet is walking the pig basically into the house? That always makes me laugh.

And Sense and Sensibility featured an awful lot of horse manure. I listened to the director's comments and Ang Lee was pretty adamant about including it. Once he mentioned that, I noticed horse droppings in every scene with a carriage.

Becoming Jane was pretty earthy,too. I don't remember how much rain there was, but dirt and mud featured prominently.

Just two things from the movies -

1, The mud - the rain - the sense that they were real people living real lives - in the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice - I'm sure Jane Austen would have approved wholeheartedly. Yes, that's what I think, too. S&S has got a lot of rain, too, but it's the picturesque, serve-the-story sort of rain, not the real, messy one ;)

2. Snape (sorry! Alan Rickman) standing outside the door when Marianne is ill, (in Sense and Sensibility) saying "What can I do?"
Pure Austen - she would have loved it.

And so do I! See me put my hand to my temple and swoon :love:


I'm pretty sure you know more than I do, Fleur, as you've read her actual biography and I've only read her Wikipedia entry!:lol: But that's a good start, and I bet you remember more of it than I do :D

I like the movie even more than the book. I though Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet were just amazing. The movie is so beautifully shot, it's breathtaking. I absolutely agree about Winslet's performance, she was marvellous, but I still have my issues about Thompson's. She and Hugh Grant... just not my idea of Elinor and Edward, I think :no:

Otherwise though, the movie and its cast are among the best productions I've seen in that department

I think I am going to tackle Persuasion next. It depends on what is available at my local library.
Oh yes, I dare say you are going to like it VERY much. It's battling hard to be my personal number one (it doesn't conquer Emma, I reckon, because that one was my first one - first love, you'll never forget it :lol: ). I challenge Jordmundt ;) and claim it's the most mature work (and it should be, it's her last). And the movie with Ciaran Hings and the lovely actress whose name just now slips me is an excellent adaption, too :tu:

Persuasion is my favourite book, but I can't quite put my finger on why. But no TV adaptations have done it justice so far IMO. She is such a strong character, so deserving of the title 'heroine' and I'd love to be someone casting a full-blown movie -- actors? thoughts?

Oh Ginger1, wait until I read it! I can't help you cast it, I don't even know who the characters are! And I hate to miss the fun.

Fleur du Mal, I've read your comments on Hugh Grant in Sense and Sensibility above and I know you thought he was miscast. I can't put my finger on exactly what bothered me a bit about his performance--I thought he played it a bit too much like a doofus. Doofus may not be a word that anyone but me understands. He was just a bit too goofy for me, but not enough to interfere with my enjoyment of the movie. He didn't have that big a part--or rather he didn't have all that much camera time.

And Emma Thompson was too old to play Marianne (just like Alan Rickman is too old to play Snape), especially opposite Hugh Grant who seems immature, but somehow I could overlook that after the first few minutes. What other problems did you have with her performance?

And Emma Thompson was too old to play Marianne (just like Alan Rickman is too old to play Snape), especially opposite Hugh Grant who seems immature, but somehow I could overlook that after the first few minutes. What other problems did you have with her performance?

About the age problem - strictly seen, Kate is too old as well, she certainly doesn't pass as seventeen. I think that's not such a problem, and the same would be true for Emma IF she wasn't cast next to Hugh Grant.

My problem with Emma's performance in itself was rather that occasionally, she doesn't 'submit' to the role. Like - I watch her, and I literally see Emma Thompson, not Elinor, like a pear trying to squeeze itself into an apple-form. Now that's a very weird illustration, but I have difficulties to express it any better.

Kate Winslet was 19 when she made the film and I think Emma Thompson was 29. Hugh Grant was 28. So they are technically all too old for their parts. Now that I think about it, the woman who played Kate and Emma's mother (sorry if she's a famous British actress) should have been in her late thirties and I thought she looked about my age--the other side of 50.

People in Jane Austen's time assumed adult roles way earlier than we do now (Heck, I still don't feel quite grown-up in certain situations.) I can't imagine my 20 year old daughter hostessing a dinner party, let alone fielding an unwanted marriage proposal. Austen characters are doing more adult things, so my mental picture of them is older and I'm therefore not bothered by older actors portraying them.

I think I might get what you're saying about Emma Thompson "submitting" to the role. There are some actors who always seem to be "acting" to me. Nicolas Cage is like that to me; no matter who he plays he seems to be Nicolas Cage reciting lines. But I haven't seen Emma Thompson enough to have that feeling about her. I'll just have to watch the movie again to see if I can pick up on it.

In that scene in the end of S & S when Edward is proposing and Elinor is finally showing all her pent-up emotion, she really had me convinced. I was crying right along with her.

I appreciate others' perspectives on these things. Thanks for sharing.

Not to be the little Miss KnowItAll, but Emma was born in 1959 and S&S was made in 1995, making her 36 ;)

But really, I absolutely agree with you about the characters being 'older' than they would be nowadays. Gosh, Colonel Brandon is supposed to be 36, while lovely Alan was already pushing 50 then. IF they had cast an actor in his thirties for the part, the difference in age between Brandon and Marianne wouldn't have been half as striking as it's supposed to be.

Fleur, of course you're right. I know I'm terrible at Math, so I usually double check everything. Since I've already revealed my age, I'll plead a senior moment.How'd she get the part? My goodness, does that mean Hugh Grant was 35? He really doesn't have any gravitas, does he?

And Alan Rickman can successfully play any age from 30 on, in fact I've never seen him play a 60 year old and wonder if he could pull that off!::lol: I don't even think he seems 60 in interviews. But I did think he delivered a few lines with that tight jawed Snape voice in S & S and I did find it a little distracting.

Thanks again; I promise to use my calculator from now on.

Oo, nice thread!! :love:

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?
Pride and Prejudice--1940's, 1980, and 1995 versions
Sense and Sensibility
Persuasion
Emma

How do they compare to the books? I'm a dork and I actually did a report in college on 3 versions of P&P :lol: It was an open comparison report...it was fun to research!
I liked Sense and Sensibility, but it's definitely not my favorite--I think all the recognizable characters distract me. Colonel Brandon in my head and Alan Rickman on screen just don't mesh well, I dunno...
Emma--I really liked it overall. I can understand some of the criticisms put forward, but I loved it.
Persuasion--I think I've only seen it once so I can't remember exactly what I felt about it.

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons? I love the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version of P&P. I've actually been a wimp and not seen the new version, because I'm afraid that I'll hate it. I've heard mixed reviews about it... The 1940's version is rubbish, mixes several books together, makes little sense, but they had different purposes back then I suppose. The 1980's version is pretty bad as well.

Northanger Abbey is probably my favorite Austen book aside from P&P, but I've never seen an adaption of it. Are there any and are they any good?

I love Jane Austen-- I've read all her books and seen many of the movie adaptations. Unlike many avid fans, I preferred the 2005 version of P&P to the BBC version. I was pleasantly surprised that so many of the characters looked and acted as they did in my imagination- something that doesn't usually happen with books that are made into movies.

I also really enjoyed "Becoming Jane." While it certainly romanticized her life and took great liberties with the facts, I thought Anne Hathaway was very good as Jane (and Tom LeFroy wasn't exactly hard to look at...). The ending was realistic- a bit sad, but ultimately satisfying. The purists might think it an abomination, but I highly recommend it.

Go ahead and see the Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice--take a chance. You may not like it, but then again you might.

Obviously, they take out many scenes and characters and rewrite others. The Colin Firth version is much more faithful to the book--but then they had 6 hours! I like both versions. Which one I watch depends on how much time I have to spend in front of the tv.

But there are a couple of things I like better in the 2005 version. First, no offense to the actress who played Jane in the miniseries, but I thought she was quite unattractive. The whole theme of her being such a beauty kind of fell short for me. Charlotte Lucas was much prettier, in my opinion, and that didn't seem right.

Speaking of Charlotte Lucas, she was given a speech (written by Emma Thompson) where she explains to Lizzy why she chose to marry Mr Collins. I think it really laid it out for the audience, especially those who hadn't read the book, but I thought it didn't ring true. It lacked the subtlety and irony that is so good in Austen.

They also showed the relationship of Mr and Mrs Bennett as being a bit more affectionate in 2005 than the mini-series. There's a level of contempt of Mrs by Mr in the mini-series (and if I am being honest in the book as well) that disturbs me. I thought they showed how very necessary it would be for a mother of five daughters and no fortune to obsess about marrying off those daughters. She was a little more sympathetic and not quite so tiresome and silly.

Kitty and Lydia did an awful lot of high pitched squealing, however, and that was annoying. In both versions, but 2005 might have been worse.

I though Keira Knightley was beautiful; she has a very interesting smile and a lovely voice. I really liked both her and Matthew MacFayden as Darcy.

Is Bingley always played as kind of a goof-ball? Both versions I saw took this approach, where I read him as just a good-natured and genial man.

Thanks for joining in.

I also really enjoyed "Becoming Jane." While it certainly romanticized her life and took great liberties with the facts, I thought Anne Hathaway was very good as Jane (and Tom LeFroy wasn't exactly hard to look at...). The ending was realistic- a bit sad, but ultimately satisfying. The purists might think it an abomination, but I highly recommend it. Oh I forgot to mention 'Becoming Jane'. I saw it on an airplane about a month ago, and I really enjoyed it! I knew very little about her life so any liberties taken were lost on me, however, I thought it was very well done. Romanticized certainly! but I thought Anne did a great job, and I completely agree about Mr. LeFroy :D

But there are a couple of things I like better in the 2005 version. First, no offense to the actress who played Jane in the miniseries, but I thought she was quite unattractive. The whole theme of her being such a beauty kind of fell short for me. Charlotte Lucas was much prettier, in my opinion, and that didn't seem right. Agreed that Jennifer Ehls is no great beauty, but that always made me like it a bit more. It seemed more realistic to me not to have "movie-star" gorgeous stars, but I see your point.

They also showed the relationship of Mr and Mrs Bennett as being a bit more affectionate in 2005 than the mini-series. There's a level of contempt of Mrs by Mr in the mini-series (and if I am being honest in the book as well) that disturbs me. I thought they showed how very necessary it would be for a mother of five daughters and no fortune to obsess about marrying off those daughters. She was a little more sympathetic and not quite so tiresome and silly. hmm...I've always liked the way Mr. Bennett was played in the 1995 version, it underscores the reasons why Elizabeth is so determined to marry for love. And her realization of her parents faults (both mother and father). Though I suppose it would be interesting to see a less shrewish Mrs. Bennett (I usually fast-forward her scenes :p)

Is Bingley always played as kind of a goof-ball? Both versions I saw took this approach, where I read him as just a good-natured and genial man. True, Bingley often gets the "side-kick" rendering. He's kinda like Ron for me, I want more from him but he always falls a bit flat.

And Alan Rickman can successfully play any age from 30 on, in fact I've never seen him play a 60 year old and wonder if he could pull that off!::lol: I don't even think he seems 60 in interviews. But I did think he delivered a few lines with that tight jawed Snape voice in S & S and I did find it a little distracting. Alan Rickman has this hypnotising effect on me, he could read out the telephone book and it'd still send shivers down my spine, so I'm really not the one for an unbiased critique here ;)

Thanks again; I promise to use my calculator from now on.
Not at all! :lol: I had to check imdb for it, mainly because I meant to make a joke that Jemma Jones (Mrs Dashwood) was probably only five years older than her supposed film daughter, finding out that she's seventeen years older than Emma, which is, especially for that time then, a reasonable age gap between mother and daughter.


I though Keira Knightley was beautiful; she has a very interesting smile and a lovely voice. I really liked both her and Matthew MacFayden as Darcy.
Keira was a very pleasant surprise for me. The last movie I had seen her in then had been that terrible King Arthur rubbish, and thinking her to become Lizzie - I can't tell you how resentful I was before seeing the film. But I thought she did a really good job, not trying to emulate Jennifer Ehle, but giving the role a touch of her own. Very, very good, especially seeing her age, and that the chief of her acting experience hasn't been exactly Shakespearean training.

Is Bingley always played as kind of a goof-ball? Both versions I saw took this approach, where I read him as just a good-natured and genial man.

I read him like you do, MaW. Not at all goofy, but pleasant-mannered and kind. I think for the movie adaptions, they have to take him down a notch though, so he doesn't look too good next to the lead of Mr Darcy. In the book, with all the character development on hundreds of pages, that's okay, but in a movie where you can't look 'into the heads' of the characters, Mr Bingley would be too good. A certain amount of goofyness is needed, too, to make it easier to explain to a modern audience how his sister and Darcy manipulate him into leaving Jane behind.


Agreed that Jennifer Ehls is no great beauty, but that always made me like it a bit more. It seemed more realistic to me not to have "movie-star" gorgeous stars, but I see your point.
Uhm... Jennifer Ehle plays Lizzie, not Jane.

I think they tried to cast an actress for the part with the 'classical beauty' that was wanted in that time. If I look at old portraits, I often find myself thinking, 'well, she's not that pretty, is she?' But they simply had a different ideal then, and I think Susannah Harker is perfect for that.
The major point about Jane, however, isn't her beauty but her unimaginable kindness, and that's a point that SH nails to a tee. She brings across that absolute goodness and willingness to think nothingbut the best of everyone.

Have just finished watching the 1996 BBC version again, can't be beaten. IMO

Uhm... Jennifer Ehle plays Lizzie, not Jane. oops, misread Ma Weasley's quote. I've always thought the actress who played Jane was very pretty actually. She looks very much like the lovely old paintings of English socialites to me at least. It was always Lizzie that stood out to me as much less pretty, so the 'I'd as soon call her mother a wit' line was fitting :lol: ah well. I still think them not being movie-starish makes it more believable all around.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

The 1995 BBC series of Pride and Prejudice, Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow and the 1995 Sense and Sensibility. Bridget Jones does kind of count, too, doesn't it? :lol:

How do they compare to the books?

Most adaptations will never be as good as the book and this goes for the above mentioned as well. I adore Colin Firth as Mr Darcy though and I think that all the films are very good in their own way.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

Persuasion (1995), Pride and Prejudice the 1995 series, P & P the movie. Emma (1996) with Gwyneth Paltrow, Emma (1996) with Kate Beckinsale. Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. Mansfield Park with Frances O'connor. Northanger Abbey (ITV 2007) and Persuasion (ITV 2007)

How do they compare to the books?

They were quite alright, they can never completely capture the book, which is a good thing in my view.

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

I like the series better with Pride and Prejudice, how could one not!

With Emma I preferred the TV version with Kate Beckinsale. The actors did a great job but had the misfortune that Gwyneth P played Emma in the same year and thus got snowed under. There is a lot more emotion in the TV version and a British lead actress.

With Persuasion I like the version with Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds the best. I thought that the ITV version lacked emotion.

Have you got 'secret pearls' to recommend your fellow fans

The TV version of Emma I mentioned before, just compare it to the other one and you know what I mean.

I am looking forward to the new Sense and Sensibility adaption that should be coming out this year. It's done by the Andrew Davies and the BBC, so it looks promising.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

The 1995 BBC series of Pride and Prejudice, Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow and the 1995 Sense and Sensibility. Bridget Jones does kind of count, too, doesn't it? :lol:

Of course it does! Just like Clueless! :D

I just love to watch "Emma" with Gweneth Paltrow, it's an excellent adaptation! I pop it in when I need some Jane Austen and am sick of "Pride and Prejudice".

I agree with everyone about Mr. Bingley being portrayed as goofy. I didn't like that at all, because he seems like an unworthy match that way, you know? Very sidekick, and in the movie with Keira it looks like he's not the rich guy, it's Darcy. In the first entrance at the party, Darcy is taller than Bingley and his sister, standing in the middle...I do like the movie, though. Keira does the best job here out of every movie she's been in.

I live in america, so no BBC for me. I want to get it, though, nearly everything they've done that I've seen is absolutely fantastic!

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

Sense and sensibility, Sense and sensibility (BBC series), Pride and Prejudice (BBC series), Pride and Prejudice (the movie), Emma (the movie), Clueless and Bridget Jones..:lol:

How do they compare to the books?

I liked them a lot, although they don't capture the whole book. The BBC series are closer to the books than the movies though, for obvious reasons (screen time)

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

Oh, I would definitely go for the BBC series, especially of Pride and Prejudice. And who could resist Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy?? :love:

With Sense and sensibility I liked the movie better, Alan Rickman was superb as Colonel Brandon!

Ok, folks, I need some help. I have a birthday and an anniversary coming up and I need help deciding what I should add to my Jane Austen DVD collection. I have Emma Thompson's S & S, Paltrow's Emma and both the Colin Firth and Keira Knightley P & P. I love each of them for various reasons.

What should I ask for next? Any suggestions? (Has to be readily available in the US or husband and kids will say they couldn't find it.)

TIA

Personally, I'd suggest you to ask for Persuasion (Amanda Root, Ciaran Hings version). And even though I'm not sure, I believe it should be available in the US, since amazon will get you pretty much everything :)

Of course it does! Just like Clueless! :D

I love that film! :D Paul Rudd was quite good in it and I could tolerate Alicia Silverstone.

The Garson-Olivier production of Pride and Prejudice is good for a giggle but I agree, watch more than about ten minutes of it and you'll want to throw the television out the window.

The BBC adaptations are usually good in my view, Colin Firth's/Jennifer Ehle's version is of course the best p&p, I do like the Ciaran Hinds persuasion also but I'm partial to the UTV version that was aired this year. IN fact for the most part I was very impressed with the UTV adaptations. I loved their NorthAnger Abbey ~ which suprised me greatly. It captured the gothic satire perfectly.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

Um..let me see.. Sense &Sensibilities, Pride and Prejudice(The movie and the mini-series)Clueless, Bridget Jones Diary.Wow, that's not a lot isn't it?:whistle:

How do they compare to the books?[

The books are definitely longer. I apologize to any Jane Austen purists out there, but I've read the books before watching both the adaptations, but I prefer the adaptations instead. It just made the story 'clearer' because to me, maybe the language is archaic so it is quite difficult for me to comprehend. Or maybe because I'm more of a visual person.Of course, with Hugh Laurie,Colin Firth and Alan Rickman's in the adaptations, it made things a lot more easier.:lol:


If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

Hmm. I love the P&P mini-series, maybe because they have more time to develop the characters, but the 2005 version with Keira Knightley is surprisingly enjoyable. Which goes to show Jane Austen is a great writer no matter how matter how much I groan when I read the books(But that's just me)

Thanks for the suggestion Fleur du mal; I think I'll go with Persuasion. I am reading it right now.

I have to agree with Luminous_Moon that some of the books are easier to read if you have some investment in the characters. And for some of us, that comes from seeing an adaptation on film first.

I never even considered reading Jane Austen until I happened upon the Paltrow version of Emma on TV late one sleepless night . Now I'm hooked.

For the sake of comparing, I watched both Emma versions yesterday/today (all right, I confess - I was indulging myself :blush: )

The script of the Beckinsale version does have some very charming moments, head-first the dream sequences. Samantha Morton and Olivia Iforgotthesurname (the one playing Jane Fairfax) are excellent, Jane is even better than in the Paltrow version. I do have my old complaints though, I hate Beckinsale's performance, and this time, I also noticed that the Jane/Frank plotline was a bit too obvious. I like that in the book, as well as the Paltrow version, the moments are all there, but only notable after knowing about the outcome. I would say that even a completely ignorant viewer who paid proper attention in cinema would have found Jane and Frank out in the Beckinsale version, at the first time.


oh, and MaWeasley - I'm happy that you like Persuasion! :)

And for some of us, that comes from seeing an adaptation on film first.

Yes, for me that experience refers to Sense and Sensibilities. I remember eagerly wanting to buy the book after I watched it..exactly the way POA did to me with HP.

And I agree with legally_blonde about the comment about Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon.I was so impressed with his performance that it prompted me to buy the book. And that was before I realized he acted as Prof.Snape.

I love Jane Austen and I've seen pretty much all of the TV and movie adaptations that are available. I know there are some older TV ones that are unfortunately not available that I haven't seen. But I've seen the series from the '80s and the 1940 Pride and Prejudice.

Hmm, it's hard to find a good adaptation that is true to the book while being entertaining. A lot of the '80s ones were true, I suppose- but also really boring. BBC didn't pay the kind of care back then that they do now with their miniseries and stuff.

Persuasion- I think my favorite of all the Austen adaptations, is the 1995 one. I didn't really care for the ITV adaptation last year. Or any of the ITV adaptations last year.

Pride and Prejudice- I love the 2005 movie. It was a bit more romantic than the book and the family was made more loving but it's one of my all-time favorite movies. I also like the 1995 version but some of the casting really gets on my nerves. So many of them overracted- Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, Lydia- and it was really annoying. I think the 1980 version is decent (the only one of the Austen '80s versions that I like) and had some better casting than the 1995 version- such as Elizabeth, Mrs. Bennet, and Mr. Wickham. I even like the 1940 version even though it's not like the book at all, it's still funny and I actually like Greer Garson as Elizabeth. It's too bad that she was way too old for the role because I think she could have been great if she'd been the right age.

Sense and Sensibility- The new miniseries hasn't come out yet so I can't comment on that. I do like the 1995 version a lot, but it was changed A LOT from the book. I don't know why people complain about changes to 2005 P&P but not this. I guess maybe because people aren't as familiar with this book so they think the movie is actually closer to it? So many of the actors were way too old for their roles, especially Emma Thompson (though I love her). Colonel Brandon was played as way more sexy and attractive by Alan Rickman, than he was in the book- where he was a nice guy, but pretty boring. Oh well, still a fun adaptation.

Mansfield Park- This one just cannot win. A lot of people hate this book so they feel the need to change it. The '80s version was snooze-worthy and the actress playing Fanny was horrible. The Rozema version was not like the book at all, but it was sort of entertaining. The ITV one... WHY Billie Piper? I could not get past her bleach blonde hair and still black eyebrows. Why couldn't they lighten her eyebrows? And those teeth... Eh, this one wasn't too horrible but it really wasn't great. I was disappointed because I thought it could have been so much better. I felt the same way with the ITV Persuasion too.

Emma- I like elements of both the Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Beckinsale versions. They're both pretty good. I think I like the Gwyneth one slightly more on the whole though, because Mr. Knightley was nicer. In the Beckinsale version he was a little too angry, I think.

Northanger Abbey- The 1987 version was an absolute tragedy! Why did they try to make it as a gothic novel, which is the very thing the book was making fun of? Henry Tilney was stupid here and Catherine's actress was horrible. The ITV one from earlier this year was a lot better, but way too sexed-up. Andrew Davies just cannot resist sexing up everything, unfortunately. Still, the actor playing Henry was really cute.

Colonel Brandon was played as way more sexy and attractive by Alan Rickman, than he was in the book- where he was a nice guy, but pretty boring. Oh well, still a fun adaptation.


The poor man cannot help it. He could be playing a brick wall, and we'd find it sexy :lol:

Has anyone heard about The Jane Austen Book Club ? From imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0866437/):

"Six Californians start a club to discuss the works of Jane Austen, only to find their relationships -- both old and new -- begin to resemble 21st century versions of her novels. "

Could be interesting. Plus, there's a lot of good talent in it.

I read the first ten pages of that book, and found it the worst **** I've been reading in ages. Terrible, ghastly, incredibly bad style. I'm lacking the adequate adjectives here. Of course, the publishing house aimed at someone like me exactly, a fool who'll buy just anything with the name Jane Austen on it. Twenty bucks (yes, I bought the hardcover *facepalm*) that I could just as well have flushed down the toilet. Actually, that could have been more entertaining.

:lol: Maybe it won't be that good.

I didn't know it was based on a book, though. I guess it's pretty difficult to write a good book with "Jane Austen" in the title, because one can't help but be constantly reminded of her brilliance. (And from the sounds of it, that's the worst thing that could happen for whoever the author is! :p)

I don't know if anyone mentioned it (because I'm too lazy to read this whole thread :p ), but Greer Garson did not win an Academy Award for Pride & Prejudice as was indicated earlier in this thread. She won her 1942 Oscar for the movie Mrs. Miniver (http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1189819418192), which also won Best Picture. It is true however that she made the longest acceptance speech in the history of the Academy. And is the reason they now have a time limit. :lol:


I've only ever read Pride & Prejudice, and the best adaptation I've ever seen of it was the 1995 A&E version. ;)

Jane Austen is on my list of authors to read, and Pride and Prejudice 2005 was my first film I've seen by her - but not having been familiar with Keira Knightly or Matthew MacFayden - I absolutely loved the movie!. I would marry this Mr Darcy anyday.

:lol: Maybe it won't be that good.

I didn't know it was based on a book, though. I guess it's pretty difficult to write a good book with "Jane Austen" in the title, because one can't help but be constantly reminded of her brilliance. (And from the sounds of it, that's the worst thing that could happen for whoever the author is! :p)

I'm sorry, I got carried away in my rant (I was reminded of the twenty bucks :no:). Actually, the movie could be all right, I really couldn't say, because like I said, I stopped after ten pages. The movie doesn't have the bad writing style after all.

I haven't read the Jane Austen Book Club, but it is on my list to read this year. (I am planning to take it out of the library, so if I end up sharing your reaction, Fleur, at least I won't be out 20 hard earned dollars.) Karen Joy Fowler, the author, did the introduction in my copy of The Complete Novels of Jane Austen (2006 edition) and I thought she had some decent insight and humor. In fact, it was that introduction that caused me to put the Jane Austen Book Club on my "to be read" list. She is obviously a true fan, however limited or lacking her own literary efforts might be.

I think Anne Hathaway *she is playing her right?* Will do justice and a good job. Sorry if this isn't what the thread is talking about, for some reason it wasn't loading the first page and would only load on something if I clicked on something else.

I think Anne Hathaway *she is playing her right?* Will do justice and a good job. Sorry if this isn't what the thread is talking about, for some reason it wasn't loading the first page and would only load on something if I clicked on something else.

Don't worry :lol: This is the comprehensive Jane-Austen-And-Whatever-Written-By-Her-Or-Connected-To-Her-And-Appears-On-Screen-Thread ;) Feel free to talk about Bridget Jones, too, (since it's based on Pride and Prejudice) etc, and if you like about the books as well, we don't seem to have another thread covering that topic

Who would've known that venturing into the unknown areas of CoS would be a rewarding enterprise? :lol:

I love Jane Austen even though I've only read Pride and Prejudice and Emma. I think she was a literary and philosophical genuis, the kind you don't find very often in Europe, in my opinion, and an author with a very distinct hand, her own, non-mimetic style, as Virginia Woolf described her in A Room of One's Own. Not to mention that she created the perfect man! :love: Anyway, to the questions:

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?

The BBC Pride and Prejudice miniseries, the 2004 Pride and Prejudice adaptation, an American Pride and Prejudice adaptation from the 50s or 60s (which was horrible), Sense and Sensibility from 1996 and the Hallmark adaptation of Emma. I started watching the Gwyneth Paltrow one, but found it so awful, that I didn't finish it.

How do they compare to the books?

I loved both Pride and Prejudice adaptations, although they were very different, and both were different from how I imagines things. But they did help me see the book from different angles and generally enriched my understanding of it. Btw I totally adore that book.

As for Emma, I saw the film first and then read the book, so I can't really say, I liked the TV adaptation generally.

I haven't read Sense and Sensibility, liked the film very much, especially Alaln Rickman in it, but thought Marianne was rather silly compared to other Austen heroines, and I didn't like how Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson worked as a couple, maybe I wasn't properly prepared beforehand.

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

I can't really say about the BBC series and the film with Keira Knightly. They were both very good in their own way, and presented the story and characters very differently, but both were integral and wholesome, and very well done. I love them both.



The poor man cannot help it. He could be playing a brick wall, and we'd find it sexy

:rotfl: But true!...

and I didn't like how Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson worked as a couple, maybe I wasn't properly prepared beforehand.


The casting was odd indeed. Both were too old for their parts, which would have been not such a big deal, if Hugh Grant didn't appear roughly ten years younger than her. Don't think I'm conservative, for all I care, a woman can find herself a partner thirty years younger - but it doesn't fit to Eleanor and Edward.

Hugh Grant - with another partner - could have made a decent Edward - he's got the impish attitude and all. Emma Thompson could have been a perfect Eleanor, too - with another partner - because she can do the rational, yet repressed thing so well. Only together they do not work out at all. :lol:


Incidental trivia here - Emma Thompson's partner in real life these days is the actor who plays Willoughby, Marianne's suitor.

I think part of the reason that they cast older versions of Elinor and Edward is that they were skittish about how an audience with modern conceptions of family and marriage would react to someone in her early twenties being classed as a "spinster"--just a thought.

Fleur--about the real-life pairing. I was aware that Emma had an affair with him during and after filming and I think I heard about that contributing to her divorce from Brannagh. Are they still together (Emma and Wiloughby-guy)?:huh: It's been over a dozen years--that's a long time for a relationship in the film star fishbowl.

Can we please leave the private lives of the actors out of the thread? Thank you.

Which Jane Austen adaptions have you seen?


Pride and Prejudice - BBC 1980, BBC 1995, 2005 film
Sense and Sensibility - Ang Lee's film version, 1996
Persuasion - BBC, 1005
Persuasion - ITV, 2007
Emma - film version 1996
Mansfield Park - ITV, 2007
Northanger Abbey - ITV, 2007

Oh, and Clueless! You can't forget Clueless. I love it, and think it's a really witty, hilarious updating of Emma. Alicia Silverstone's finest hour! ;)

How do they compare to the books?

Out of the above, four adaptations are outstanding, IMO. They are as follows:

- The BBC Pride and Prejudice of 1995, starring Jennifer Ehle as Lizzy and Colin Firth as Darcy. Firth is unbelievably :drool:. Ehle is a delight. One of the most sublime things the BBC has ever done, I never get tired of it. Just incredibly feel-good.
- Ang Lee's beautiful and intelligent film version of Sense and Sensibility, starring Emma Thompson as Elinor, Kate Winslet as Marianne, Alan Rickman (drool) as Colonel Brandon. The cast is excellent. I particularly love Winslet's Marianne. The scene in which she upbraids poor Elinor for not having a heart, and Elinor then explodes, is deeply moving, as is the scene when Elinor realises that Edward really does love her. Rickman, of course, is :drool:
- The BBC Persuasion of 1995 is in many ways one of the most faithful adaptations and utterly, utterly winsome. Amanda Root is a wonderful Anne. A must-see. Note to HP fans: Fiona Shaw, who plays Petunia Dursley, plays Mrs Croft. A very different woman from Petunia: warm-hearted, intelligent and generous!
- I also really liked ITV'S Persuasion, broadcast earlier this year. Slightly less faithful in the details, perhaps, but faithful in spirit. A superb cast, and really romantic!

Slight, but good
- Northanger Abbey, ITV, 2007. Perky and delightful, with a rather wicked sense of humour, like the original novel.

So-so:
- 1996 Emma. Gwyneth Paltrow makes Emma even more annoying than she is in the book. One thing makes this film worth it, and that's Jeremy Northam's Mr Knightley. The whole thing is too sugary-sweet: a chocolate-box version of England.
- Mansfield Park, ITV, 2007, with Billie Piper as Fanny. Piper is miscast, and the whole thing is bland. I can't stand the book either.
- Pride and Prejudice, 2005, with Keira Knightley and Matthew McFadden. Mr McFadden is :love: but the rest of the film is a meh adaptation, really, because they try to turn P&P into a sort of Wuthering Heights thing, and it doesn't really work. I'm not Keira's biggest fan but she's tolerable as Lizzy. No match for Jennifer Ehle though, who is really my definitive Lizzy.

If you've seen several adaptions of the same book - which one did you prefer? And for what reasons?

- I like the 1995 and 2007 adaptations of Persuasion equally. :)
- Out of the P&P versions, the BBC miniseries wins hands down over Miss Knightley. The BBC version sparkles with wit and elegance, and is gorgeously romantic, full of humour and warmth. The verbal sparring and chemistry between Ehle's Lizzy and Firth's Darcy is absolutely delicious.

N.B. The BBC also made an adaptation of P&P back in 1980, which is well worth seeing if you have the chance. It must be on DVD by now. Most things are. :lol:

P.S. I saw a trailer on BBC1 yesterday for a new version of Sense and Sensibility. Hmmmmm. We'll see how that goes.

Whoo-hoo! We've found ourselves an expert! Way to go, Pearl!

I whole-heartedly agree about Clueless. An underestimated little precious, IMO

Whoo-hoo! We've found ourselves an expert! Way to go, Pearl!

Heh. :) Well, I'm not an obsessive Janeite or anything but I do like her books and I appreciate faithful adaptations of them! :) Jane Austen novels make great drama, of course, because of the romance and the comedy and because Austen was such a wonderful observer of the dynamics between men and women, especially in a society that confined women so much.

I whole-heartedly agree about Clueless. An underestimated little precious, IMO

Isn't it? :) It's a little gem! I fell about laughing the first time I saw it, and actually Silverstone's ditzy Californian Valley girl is a lot nicer than Austen's snobbish Emma.

I watched Sense and Sensibility again the other day. I love that film so much. Even Hugh Grant's Edward was sort of bearable this time round (what Thompson's Elinor sees in him totally escapes me, but she is wonderful).

The trailer for the new Sense and Sensibility which is coming soon to BBC1 ... well, it bugged me. This is Jane Austen, guys, not Dangerous Liaisons!!

But trailers can be misleading, and I should remember that usually the BBC get it so, so right. Their more recent adaptations of Bleak House (2005) and Jane Eyre (2006) were absolutely marvellous. :love: I shall miss Cranford, too, on Sunday nights ...

All the same ... Ang Lee's film version of S&S simply can't be bettered, IMO. (Even with Hugh Grant.)

Note to HP fans: As well as Alan Rickman (marry me, Colonel Brandon!), the film also features Imelda Staunton (who played Umbridge) as the over-talkative wife of Hugh Laurie. And Gemma Jones (Madam Pomfrey) plays Mrs Dashwood, Elinor and Marianne's mama - great performance from Gemma. Oh, and Robert Hardy (Cornelius Fudge) plays the genial Sir John Middleton.

I think we should stress Hugh's performance as Mr Palmer. Not that he's around that much, but neither is he in the book - and Hugh's performance is freaking hilarious. But within all the unnerved snark, he manages to include Mr Palmer's caring side as well. I was seriously impressed how he manages to convey so much in so little time. You see him, and you kinda grasp Mr Palmer's entire life.

And the scene with the baby is simply priceless, I think. Mrs Palmer gushing how well he handles their child, and him holding the kid like it was a cobra that had just wallowed in a puddle of dung, and Alan looking over with that expression of 'Uh-ho...?!' :rotfl:

I absolutely adore S&S. I watch it a lot. I have only two problems with Hugh Grant's Edward. He never moves his arms or shoulders. Is his coat too tight? Is he afraid of cutting his chin on his collar? It really takes away from the character. Then when he proposes to Eleanor (great Emma Thompson moment), there's something wrong with either the lighting or his make-up, because his face washes out leaving his eyes and mouth sticking out, sort of like a clown face. So, it's not Hugh Grant himself I have a problem with, it's his costume and make-up. I have no problem with the chemistry between Grant and Emma and they make Edward and Eleanor believable as a couple.

As for P&P, nothing will top Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. I've seen the earlier American version, and that was okay for me, until I saw the BBC version. That's another one I watch frequently.

I've also seen Gwyneth Paltrow in Emma. Seemed a little like Austen-lite to me. Jeremy Northam saved the day, but it's not one I'll watch again. I'm reading my way through JA's complete collection, and I haven't gotten to Emma, yet. I'm just finishing up P&P, but I'm falling behind with the Christmas season.

P.S.: Just checked IMDB for the new S&S. It's a mini-series, so they will be able to include more of the book. They'll also be able to develop characters and relationships better. I also see there are characters that didn't appear in the 1995 version, such as both of the Steele sisters and Mrs. Ferrars. Mrs. Ferrars is played by Jean Marsh, the power behind Upstairs, Downstairs. I have high hopes for this one, but since it's on BBC1, I'll have to wait for either the DVD or for it to be broadcast on BBCA.

No matter how good this version is, I'll never desert the Emma Thompson version.

Pearl--a well-reasoned and thorough explanation of your opinion to be sure. Where our experiences intersect, I mostly agree with you. However, I feel I must mount a partial defense of the 2005 P&P adaptation (yes, I'm a Keira Knightley fan, but I greatly prefer the quality of the 1995 BBC production, so this isn't a fan rant--at least, I don't think it is). Here goes. While some of the beauty and battle of wits and wills in Pride & Prejudice is lost in the earthier recent adaptation--it isn't as much of a detraction as it might have been because the youth and emotion (particularly of the women is more accented). It almost felt like an adaptation of First Impressions (Austen's initial draft of the novel that she revised extensively to make it less incendiary and revolutionary--basically, she toned it down to make certain it got printed). Because of that, I'm inclined to cut the 2005 P&P more slack than, say, the 1999 version of Mansfield Park which was deliberately manipulated to make a point of about the pervasiveness of slavery and female servitude. By the by, while I understand some of your criticism of the 2005 P&P, I think your comparison to Wuthering Heights is flawed. Then again, I never understood the reputation that has followed that novel since its publication. I find Catherine and Heathcliff's bond to be destructive and selfish in the extreme...almost parasistic. To me, that's pretty much the opposite of romantic, and certainly not worthy of praise or grief.

While some of the beauty and battle of wits and wills in Pride & Prejudice is lost in the earthier recent adaptation--it isn't as much of a detraction as it might have been because the youth and emotion (particularly of the women is more accented).

A friend of mine would agree with you: she felt that Jennifer Ehle was too mature to play Lizzy, whereas Keira Knightley was virtually the same age as the character.

I much prefer Jennifer's interpretation of Lizzy though.

It almost felt like an adaptation of First Impressions (Austen's initial draft of the novel that she revised extensively to make it less incendiary and revolutionary--basically, she toned it down to make certain it got printed).

That's an interesting point. :)

By the by, while I understand some of your criticism of the 2005 P&P, I think your comparison to Wuthering Heights is flawed.

Well, maybe WH was not the right comparison to make: perhaps Jane Eyre would be a better example, because I like both Lizzy/Darcy and Jane/Rochester, and I don't like Cathy/Heathcliff! What I meant was, the 2005 movie tried to treat P&P as if it had been written by one of the Brontë sisters. ;)

Then again, I never understood the reputation that has followed that novel since its publication.

It's a work of genius, that's why. A difficult, strange, troubling novel, which smashes many literary conventions to a million smithereens. That is the nature of its genius, IMO. It's passionate, weird and compelling: Emily Brontë's masterpiece.

I find Catherine and Heathcliff's bond to be destructive and selfish in the extreme...almost parasistic. To me, that's pretty much the opposite of romantic, and certainly not worthy of praise or grief.

I am not sure that Emily Brontë intends us to like or admire her two protagonists. I agree with you that Cathy and Heathcliff are deeply dislikable people and their all-consuming passion is selfish and destructive: they both deserve each other! But Emily Brontë created something extraordinary in that novel ... we recognise the power of obsession and where it can lead. After all, who is the most memorable character in Rowling's wizarding saga? - Severus Snape, loneliest double agent of all time, with his doomed, hopeless love for Lily. (Although I regard him as a better man than Heathcliff.)

Back to P&P ... I very much enjoyed the performances of Anna Chancellor and Kelly Reilly, who played Caroline Bingley respectively, Anna in the 1995 miniseries and Kelly in the 2005 film. ;)

The part of Miss Bingley is a great gift for an actress, I think. The role in itself is interesting; she is malicious, false and manipulative, meeting a superior opponent in Lizzy, leading her to lose her poise... And while the actress can display her talent, the part isn't as 'burdened' with expectations as the protagonists are. EVERYONE got a very strong idea in their head how Lizzy is, or Mr Darcy, or Jane, or even Lydia. With Miss Bingley you've got a chance to make a mark of your own, without offending 90% of the audience because you don't match their mental image.

Pearl--I prefer Ehle's performance as well, because I enjoy the artistry and the relationships as portrayed in the '95 mini-series, I just have respect and a fond place in my heart for the '05 production.

I never looked at Caroline Bingley that way--but it is interesting that the role is freeing in that respect. The thing that's strangest about it is that her malice and her crushed hopes are both well-presented, and glossed over in every production I've seen. It could be that the challenge of a role like that brings out the best in the actresses who choose to take it on, I'm not sure.

About Wuthering Heights--while I didn't love the book, I do respect it as a piece of art and authorship. What I said was that I'm befuddled by the reputation it's gotten, that the bond between Catherine and Heathcliff has somehow become an example of true love thwarted by time, circumstance, and malice. In fact, screenwriters and authors since WH's publication have used the descriptive Heathcliff to describe someone impossibly or unbelievably chivalrous. I have no idea how that got started since it bears no resemblance to the actual text of the novel at all. Any thoughts? Instead of a tale about the destructive nature of obsession, it has morphed into some sort of ideal of true love--like Romeo and Juliet for a new generation (an iconic play that inspires or can inspire the same debate about true love vs. destructive obsession; interestingly, however, I land on the opposite side with R&J that I do with WH).

In fact, screenwriters and authors since WH's publication have used the descriptive Heathcliff to describe someone impossibly or unbelievably chivalrous. I have no idea how that got started since it bears no resemblance to the actual text of the novel at all. Any thoughts?

Off the cuff, I would make a guess and say that there might have been a hallmark theatre production, or even early film perhaps, that adapted the original plot and turned it into something the audience at the time adored and found incredibly romantic, and that label then got stuck to the material in general?

How many people did actually read Bram Stoker's Dracula? And how many more - at least in my generation - saw Francis Ford Coppola's adaption from '92, and now think there had been a great, tragic love story between the count and Mina/Elizabeta (who doesn't even exist in the novel!)? In the novel, there's a sinister erotic connection that has more to do with coercion than love. And still, I often heard it said that this adaption was the most faithful so far - even though it twisted the protagonists' motivation and invented an additional character.

How many people did actually read Bram Stoker's Dracula? And how many more - at least in my generation - saw Francis Ford Coppola's adaption from '92, and now think there had been a great, tragic love story between the count and Mina/Elizabeta (who doesn't even exist in the novel!)? In the novel, there's a sinister erotic connection that has more to do with coercion than love. And still, I often heard it said that this adaption was the most faithful so far - even though it twisted the protagonists' motivation and invented an additional character.

I think it has also to do with the fact that evil changes. A one-dimensional evil character like Dracula in Bram Stoker bores me to death. Now, Coppola's adaptation brought a twist to the story. Dracula was still evil but he had a motive.

Back to Austen *cough*, I did not think that Knightley was a credible Lizzy. In my opinion, she is an actress who should stop playing historical roles. Apparently, it is en vogue to have a modern woman in a costume drama but I'm not fond of this trend. Knightley annoyed me in PotC because she is a 21st century woman in a pirate film. Her Lizzy did not work for me for the same reason. She cannot transform into a woman of a different era. Ehle, on the other hand, looked the part. I could forget that it was a film and she became Lizzy for me.

I did not think that Knightley was a credible Lizzy. In my opinion, she is an actress who should stop playing historical roles. Apparently, it is en vogue to have a modern woman in a costume drama but I'm not fond of this trend. Knightley annoyed me in PotC because she is a 21st century woman in a pirate film. Her Lizzy did not work for me for the same reason. She cannot transform into a woman of a different era.

When I first watched PotC 1, I had no idea who Knightly was, I had never seen her before. I thought her performance was very good, and I had no problems with the historical believability. Perhaps her off screen appearances and such can exercise some influence on the perspective from which we assess her film performances.

Ehle, on the other hand, looked the part. I could forget that it was a film and she became Lizzy for me.

The Lizzy I had in my head when I read the book for the first time has nothing to do with either Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightly. But I like both their performances - they have different interpretations of Lizzy and that's great, in my opinion, because I don't think adaptations serve for representational purposes only; I like to see different cinematic interpretations.

Fleur--Oh yeah!I*smacks forehead*:rolleyes: Remember we once discussed the abominable P&P production with Olivier (Mr. Darcy), Greer Garson (Elizabeth), and Maureen O'Hara as Elizabeth's younger sister, Jane?!:argh::argh::argh: Well, there was an even worse production of WH with Olivier as Heathcliff. It was so awful that I couldn't even finish it. That could be the one dominating the popular impression of Wuthering Heights. Olivier has so MUCH to answer for!:grumble::grumble::grumble:

Well, there was an even worse production of WH with Olivier as Heathcliff. It was so awful that I couldn't even finish it. That could be the one dominating the popular impression of Wuthering Heights. Olivier has so MUCH to answer for!:grumble::grumble::grumble:
He was much too "clean" for that role. Perhaps we should start a Wuthering Heights thread?

Perhaps you are right about Olivier being too "clean" for the Heathcliff role--but his general acting is so bad, that I ignored that (slightly) finer point. Perhaps Wuthering Heights can sustain its own thread, but I'm not sure. Sorry for the temporary distraction.

So, patrons who have seen the ITV productions--which are the best (worth seeing and/or owning)? Did Andrew Davies (the director of the '95 P&P) captain any other Austen adaptations?

So, patrons who have seen the ITV productions--which are the best (worth seeing and/or owning)? Did Andrew Davies (the director of the '95 P&P) captain any other Austen adaptations?

ITV Productions 2007:

Mansfield Park
OK. Not brilliant. Billie Piper is far too pretty to play Fanny, and personally I found the story bland. Not a must-see, IMO.

Northanger Abbey
Andrew Davies wrote the screenplay. :) This is a lot of fun, and quite cheeky and even a bit risque. :p But then the novel is cheeky too! Felicity Jones is adorably wide-eyed as Catherine Morland.


Persuasion
I really liked this. :tu: As good as the BBC 1995 Persuasion, which I love. Sally Hawkins is wonderful as Anne, and there is genuine chemistry between her and an extremely dishy Captain Wentworth (Rupert Penry-James). :drool: Alice Krige is very good as Lady Russell. And the Lyme Regis scenes are wonderfully shot.

Well, I really enjoyed the new BBC adaptation of Sense and Sensibility tonight -- the first of three episodes. :)

Just as good as the Ang Lee film! Although I will always luuuurve Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon, the guy playing Brandon in this new production is excellent and very obviously smitten with Marianne. And the guy playing Edward Ferrers is so much better than Hugh Grant! - he's absolutely gorgeous too.

Lovely casting all round. :)

Oh, and the guy who plays Arthur Weasley is Sir John Middleton. :D

:)

Well, I really enjoyed the new BBC adaptation of Sense and Sensibility tonight -- the first of three episodes. :)

Just as good as the Ang Lee film! Although I will always luuuurve Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon, the guy playing Brandon in this new production is excellent and very obviously smitten with Marianne. And the guy playing Edward Ferrers is so much better than Hugh Grant! - he's absolutely gorgeous too.

Lovely casting all round. :)

Oh, and the guy who plays Arthur Weasley is Sir John Middleton. :D

:)
I had the feeling it would be good, just from the IMDB listing. Now I just have to be patient until BBC notices us over the pond who love, love, love their classical mini-series. Preferably a DVD, but I'll settle for a showing on BBCA for now.

Mark Williams plays Arthur Weasley and I can just picture him as Sir John.

Ahhh, Pearl, who can ever replace the irreplaceable Mr. Rickman :drool:

Mark Williams plays Arthur Weasley and I can just picture him as Sir John.

Yep, it's excellent casting. :tu:

Hattie Morahan, who plays Elinor, is perfect: more quiet and reserved than Marianne, with a keen intelligence and a quiet presence and dignity of her own. She's attractive too, but it's a muted attractiveness beside Marianne's more flamboyant curls and outgoing nature.

Charity Wakefield does a good job as Marianne, but I still prefer Kate Winslet in the role (one of my favourite performances of Winslet's).

Emma Thompson was really too old to play Elinor, although I do like her performance very much. :)

I love Janet McTeer as their mum. I loved Gemma Jones in the film too.

I was a little disappointed with the guy playing Willoughby, only because he's not as handsome as Greg Wise was in the film ... but he DOES convey Willoughby's charm. :) Which I suppose is what counts. :)

More info here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/senseandsensibility/

Ahhh, Pearl, who can ever replace the irreplaceable Mr. Rickman :drool:

Heh. No-one, of course. :cool: :drool: :love:

I think PBS actually has the rights to slot these adaptations in the U.S. this spring--there's supposed to be a series that they're calling "The Complete Austen" starting in a month or so. Thanks for the info, Pearl Took.

jordmundt, your post on another thread - you know which one I mean when you read this ;) - made me think we could discuss Henry Crawford. In the book, in the movie, and how these two 'clash' in the representation of the Crawford siblings.

I should say one thing first - I like the Crawfords quite a lot. Especially Mary - to me, she is the better heroine of Mansfield Park, in both movie and book. But then, I don't like Fanny at all in the book, and despite the drastic changes in the adaption that made her more sympathetic, even in the film she lost out to Mary. However - Henry is an even more interesting case to discuss, because he is supposedly the villain. A man who seduces young, innocent or witless women and leaves them to their fate then. And while Jane Austen does an admirable piece of work to paint him (it's actually the only bit I truly enjoyed about that book. Henry is an ambiguous character whose charms are as tangible as his ruthlessness), the movie truly struggles in that point, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps it's to do with Alessandro Nivola. I've got a soft spot for him ever since seeing him in Face/Off. He's handsome, he's charming, he's got the air of a boy in the body of a grown-up (I'm sorry, I can't put that much better, I hope you see what I mean). Maybe he's just too sweet to play that part. But the script doesn't make it any better.

Because the 'improved Fanny' isn't the harmless little thing she is in the novel, and it's too understandable how this woman affects Henry and makes him fall truly in love, and really wanting to change his ways for her sake. And that's the crux - after falling for a woman like Fanny, and understanding something about her and her moral horizon - I find his fallback absolutely unbelievable, like a kind of plot device. In the book, it works much better, because Fanny isn't more than an exotic trophy for him - the young naive that's hard to get, and he hasn't got the patience to truly go for it. In the movie, you see him a transformed man after succumbing to her very real charms (which make Edmund seem even greater a fool for missing on them for so long) - and then, he's back at starting point, and I was 'what?!'

I'd be curious to hear how other readers/watchers of the movie perceived the character and his arc. Did Henry work for you in either medium?

I think Austen is butchered a bit in some movies - Clueless, Jane Austen Book Club, Bridget Jones, but i'm still a fan of those movies in their own right... i guess they're just inspired by her themes/plots & aren't really concerned with accurately re-telling her stories... I didn't mind becoming Jane... thought they could have used someone a bit plainer than Anne Hathaway though haha & shown more of Jane as a little girl, woul dhave been good to have a bit of an insight into her upbringing... love BBC P&P of course, & the Keira Knightley was great too; like Emma with Kate Beckinsale...
i think Emma Thompson's Sense & Sensibility takes the cake though... brilliant

Um, I'm not sure if it's OK here, but has anyone watched Bride and Prejudice? No, it is no typo, it's a Bollywood (I think) film inspired by the Austen novel we all love. I loved it so much when I first watched it!

BRIDE AND PREJUDICE!!!!!! I love that one! It is my second favorite Jane Austen modern adaptation (second only to Clueless, but you can't really beat that one :) ) My only complaint is that Mr. Darcy is a little ummm... ackward. But the Lizzy character is soooo good and so is Mr. Coli. I love him, he is exactly the way a modren Collins should be :)

Bride and Prejudice is a gloriously enjoyable Bollywood hoot. :tu: I love it. :D :)

I've always loved Clueless. :)

The 2008 Sense and Sensibility is not, on reflection, as good as Ang Lee's masterly film. Much as I usually like David Morrisey (he was great in the Doctor Who Christmas special this year) he is not a patch on Alan Rickman's Colonel Brandon, oh no. But Hattie Morahan is a great Elinor. :)

I still prefer Kate Winslet's Marianne, though, and always will.

And Rickman's Brandon ... :drool:

I enjoy the Ang Lee version of Sense and Sensibility very much I´ve seen it several times, and I agree on Alan Rickman being a great Brandon it´s cute to see how he fell in love with Mariane.
I saw the Becoming Jane movie with Anne Hathaway and James Mcavoy has anyone seen this, did you like it?

I enjoy the Ang Lee version of Sense and Sensibility very much I´ve seen it several times, and I agree on Alan Rickman being a great Brandon it´s cute to see how he fell in love with Mariane.

One of my favourite films. :) I never tire of it. And Alan is :love: and Kate is wonderful as Marianne.

I saw the Becoming Jane movie with Anne Hathaway and James Mcavoy has anyone seen this, did you like it?

I thought it was OK. :shrug: It was on the same level as the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, really (which I'm not a fan of).

Anne Hathaway is an actress I like, and she does a very decent English accent :) but she was far too pretty as Jane, and the dialogue was way too modern. :shrug: There were some things I liked, like Maggie Smith as the crabby aunt, clearly the inspiration for Lady Catherine de Bourgh :lol: and I liked how Jane got some of her inspiration for her stories ... I also liked the final scene, which was touching. Anna Maxwell Martin (where is she these days????) was well cast as Cassandra.

And I would watch the lovely James in almost anything. :drool: :D

I have all of Jane's Austen's novels. I have not read all of them yet, but I'm getting there.
My favorite is Sense and Sensibility. I don't think Marianne is silly...I think she just might seem that way to some people because she is so emotional and naive. But that's why I liked her- she threw herself into love and even though her heart was broken, she comes out of it having learned something and gets an even better guy in the end.
I read Pride and Prejudice first, only because it was for school and the teacher wouldn't let me read Sense and Sensibility instead. I liked it.
Emma is good as is Mansfield Park, which I have not finished yet.

As far as the films:
The Jane Austen Book Club is good...not great but enjoyable.
I do not know too much about the life of Jane Austen, so some of it may be fictionalized. However, I liked Becoming Jane. I thought Anne Hathaway was a good choice to play Jane Austen.
I have also seen the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice...it's good. Unfortunately I have never seen the BBC version to compare them...
I love the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility. I bet that was obvious considering it's my favorite book. I know some of you commented that Emma Thompson looked too old to play Elinor...at first I thought so too. But now, having seen her peformance, I cannot think of someone else I would have chosen instead. I am probably biased considering she is one of my favorite actresses, but I love Kate Winslet's interpretation of Marianne. I never realized the actor who played Fudge from HP was Sir John Middleton...how funny. Alan Rickman does a great job as well as Colonel Brandon.

I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before, but here goes:

I love almost all Austen-inspired movies. They might have their flaws and all that, but the very fact that its an opportunity to see more of Austen is so amazing :D

The Jane Austen Book Club- I love this film! Hugh Dancy was amazing and I love how they interwove the story of the books with the characters. Plus, I loved them discussing the books and it was fun catching the inside references to Austen books/characters.

Pride and Prejudice (2005)- Love it!! :love: I love the 1995 BBC version too, but this one is great as well. Macfadyen is fantastic, the music is brilliant and the cinematography gorgeous. Most of the cast give in brilliant performances.

Becoming Jane- I liked it but not as much as I thought I would. James McAvoy is reason enough for me to watch the film again though :eyebrows:

Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is a beautiful film. The cast was just so perfect( despite the fact that they were clearly much older than the characters they played) Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet and Alan Rickman were all great. The most memorable scene in the film has to be Rickman reading to Winslet. Wow! :love:

Bride and Prejudice- This is the only Austen-inspired movie that I actually dislike. I know the film works so well for many people, but for me it doesn't. Aishwarya Rai wasn't at all like I'd imagine a Lizzie Bennet inspired character to be and Martin Henderson is definitely my least favourite Darcy.

Pride and Prejudice (1995)- It's worth all the hype :) And that is saying something. But it wasn't Colin Firth but Jennifer Ehle who I thought gave a brilliant performance :tu:

Northanger Abbey- This is such a fun film, much like the book :D Felicity Jones is a very believable Catherine Morland while J.J.Feild is an awesome Tilney :eyebrows:

And if Lost in Austen can be added here too, I have to say I absolutely adore it. It's such a fun, hilarious take on P&P and our obsession with it. It has its mistakes and errors but I love just what a lot of fun it is :D Plus, Elliot Cowan :drool:

I have read a couple of Austen's novels in the past and seen a couple of the movies, but this year I am reading them all and plan to watch all of the movies. :)

I really enjoyed The Jane Austen Book Club and look forward to watching it again (and reading the book) once I've finished all of Austen's books.

I loved the Sense and Sensibilty movie with Winslet, Thompson, and Rickman. There were aspects of this movie that I prefered to the book, like being able to see more of Edward and what makes him appealing, instead of just being told by Austen that he is admirable. And I totally agree with you, Lily, about Rickman reading. :drool:

I also loved the most recent Pride and Prejudice. I thought all of the characters were very well portrayed. I have the BBC version here from Netflix just waiting to be watched . . . hope I can get to that soon.

Has anyone seen any of the versions of Mansfield Park? Would you recommend one over the other?

Mansfield Park is not one of her better ones.

I would personally read Emma next, the film is Ok too. I like the relationships Emma has with all the people in her society and the fact that she has to look into her own character and decide who she wants to be.

Sorry if this has been discussed, I don't have time at the moment to read through 6 pages.

Anyway, my friends and I had a Jane Austen night a week or two ago and we noticed one er...heavyset girl dancing each dance. We were kind of amused once we noticed it in a couple movies and it sorta became this game of who could spot the girl, and we noticed that it seems to be in every Jane Austen movie. During every dance scene, there is one heavyset girl dancing.

So we were kind of wondering if she's (and i say 'she' but it's not the same woman in each movie) just some random extra who happens to be heavyset, or if she is in each movie for a reason, as a shout-out or something. (the reason we wonder is because she seems to be the only heavyset woman in the movies, even among the extras, and she's only ever there during dancing scenes)

I only noticed the fat lady (I can use that term because I am fat and that is what I call myself) in one adaptation, which at the moment I can't recall. I figured they needed extras who could actually do Regency dances and that this woman probably belonged to some kind of group that was asked to perform. If I recall correctly, she was a good dancer. If Regency dancing was her hobby, she probably even had her own costume.

Of course, people come in all sizes and shapes and did during the Regency, too, so perhaps the casting director was trying to reflect this, but I doubt it.

I'm new to this thread, so I may as well cover the basics.

I've read four of Austen's novels: (in order of preference) Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice/Persuasion. She's such an amazing writer, and I absolutely love her sense of humour.

In terms of films, I love seeing her work adapted on the screen, but I must admit, I prefer the ones set in the times they were written - it loses a lot of the social commentary when the stories are set in the modern day, because a lot of the issues aren't relevant any more (e.g. the importance of marriage, baronetcy, prudishness, gender discrimination). I've seen:

Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility - one of my favourite films ever, such a wonderful adaptation! It's a shame Emma Thompson hasn't dabbled much further in screenwriting.

Pride and Prejudice (2005) - also one of my favourite films ever, I prefer it to S&S. Joe Wright makes such beautiful films, and for most of it my jaw was on the ground. The music, the costumes, the subtleties of the characters, the visuals, the scenery, everything was fantastic! I particularly love Rosamund Pike's portrayal of Jane, and the scene when Mr Bingley finally asks her to marry him. It's so perfect. :love:

BBC's Pride and Prejudice (1995) - brilliant mini-series! Episodes 3 and 4 are my favourite.

ITV's Persuasion with Sally Hawkins - quite good, but didn't hit the same notes as the novel. Not a huge fan, but I'd watch it again.

BBC's Persuasion (1995) - ergh, I far prefer the ITV one. This was lackluster, boring and way too obvious/over the top with regards to certain characters.

Clueless - I abhor this movie with a passion.

Bride and Prejudice - good, I'd watch it again, but I prefer other versions of the novel.

Becoming Jane - I really enjoyed this one! Much better than other author biopics that came out at a similar time (Miss Potter et al)

And it sounds like I should get my hands on The Jane Austen Book Club. :lol:

And it sounds like I should get my hands on The Jane Austen Book Club. :lol:
It's most certainly worth a watch! :agree:

I've heard great things about BBC's Miss Austen Regrets (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1076240/). I shall watch it sometime this week and hope I enjoy it as much as most other people seem to have!

If Bridget Jones' Diary counts for being an Austen-inspired adaptation, then that's one of my favourites as well! :D

If Bridget Jones' Diary counts for being an Austen-inspired adaptation, then that's one of my favourites as well! :D
:wow: Wow, I didn't realise all the similarities between it and Pride and Prejudice until I looked it up just now.

:wow: Wow, I didn't realise all the similarities between it and Pride and Prejudice until I looked it up just now.
:lol: The reason they had Firth as Mark Darcy was to play on the Austen connection.

It's the best Austen-inspired contemporary book in my opinion :) Fielding is hilarious and the movie is great!

Also..I just remembered I watched the latest version of Emma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_(2009_TV_serial)) starring Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller. It isn't my favourite Austen film, but Garai plays Emma very convincingly :tu: And the costumes and cinematography are wonderful!