Andrew Davies raises the Editrix's blood pressure yet again
Dorothy: pass out the sporks and have the Tullamore Dew ready to hand. Andrew Davies talks NA 2007 in the Telegraph, and we have developed a throbbing pain directly above our left eye.
He believes the Austen novel, written in 1798, gives him “the opportunity for a little bit of discreet nudity”. He has Catherine unclothed in a bath scene in which one of her admirers “happens to catch a glimpse of her naked, tipping a bucket of water over herself after a hard ride” – and there is, naturally, “a stirring of the loins”.
Oh, we’ll just bet.
Davies said that while Pride and Prejudice, because of its dense plotting, was “quite a fiendish bit of compression”, Northanger Abbey was “very straightforward”.
Depends on your definition of “straightforward,” one supposes.
He also admits to “taking the liberty” of imagining one scene. This is when Catherine’s rather false friend, Isabella, goes off with Capt Frederick Tilney, who is a bit of a rogue with beautiful young women and a serial seducer. In the book Austen does not spell out what happened to them.
Davies said: “I was quite sure that the captain would regard her as a silly girl that he knew for certain he could get into bed.” So he wrote in a seduction scene.
What, is he kidding? Isabella Thorpe give it up to anyone without her marriage lines? She’s much too cunning for that. In fact, we would think that might be why Freddy got bored with her.
He said that adapting Northanger Abbey and Tipping the Velvet were quite similar in that it could be done in the way the book was laid out.
COULD be, yes. (she said sardonically)
With Austen, he said, there was often a “very discreet back story” that she invented to comply with the conventions of her time. “It contains quite a number of seductions. Not exactly rape, but a certain number of abductions of under-age girls with a hint at all kinds of rude things. She never actually writes the scenes. You just sort of hear about them.”
Sir, with all due respect: what the hell are you talking about?
For the five thousandth time–please pay attention! NORTHANGER ABBEY IS A PARODY OF GOTHIC MELODRAMA. A PARODY!
No one was abducted, no one was seduced. There were little faux abductions (such as John Thorpe whisking Catherine away from her date with Henry Tilney and then the General whisking her away to the Abbey under Thorpe’s nose) but we take pains to point out that Catherine went WILLINGLY on these occasions. They are little in-jokes meant as a wink at books such as Ann Radcliffe’s that employ such devices. There is a rich mine of comedy in the book that Mr. Davies seems bent on ignoring in quest of titillation, and while we are no prude by a long shot, we think that he should be ashamed of himself for that if nothing else.
Thanks to ever-Alert Janeites HeatherL, KelleyB, and SylviaM for sending the link.
Comments are closed.
Wow– how can the man who wrote the screenplay for P&P2 be this backword with another screenplay based on a JA novel? Is it honestly that hard to get Northanger Abbey right? Are we really the only ones that realize that NA is a comedy? A parody? I personally think it is the funniest of all JA’s novels. It has it’s drama and romance, sure, but deep down it’s a lighthearted comedy with two very lovely characters at the center, sweet Cathrine Morland and (sigh) Da Man. It seems to me that Henry Tilney would be the most fun to see brought to the screen if someone could just adapt his character properly. I should love to see him on screen even more than I enjoy Mr. Darcy. I sincerely hope that this doesn’t turn out to be another catastrophe like MP2 was. Now there is an example of “creative license” going a bit too far!
Jessica: I don’t think it will be a disaster of MP2 proportions, but I do suspect that it will not be as good as it could be, which is a shame in itself.
All I can say is that I love Andrew Davies’ work and I totally trust him when it comes to adapting NA.
Really, it just seems that he loves a little controversy in the press, and that’s why he says these things, that’s all. Remember him saying that P&P is all about ‘sex and money’? And look how wonderful that adaptation turned out! His adaptations are always very good and I’m sure this one will be great as well. 
I agree with Franka, Andrew Davies seems to know how to get people talking about his work. The best way to do that is to send out red herrings to the press. I dont believe for one second that the creater of P&P2 would do this to Jane Austen, its just too much. I doubt a production company would let him. ~R
All right, sickness over breakfast. I was looking forward to seeing this, having liked the casting.
I hope Franka and Robyn are right… Is this the same kind of “nudity” as the unnecessary but non-offensive Darcy-in-the-bath scene? The same kind of non-existent sequences of “seduction” as Wickham and Lydia?
OY vey!
I hope that bath scene gets cut as well as the “seduction scene”. Watching NA should be a pleasant experience for us as well as children. Children don’t need to see this stuff and some of us adults don’t particularly want to either.
Let’s have faith. Andrew Davies was going to have Darcy jump in the pond with nothing on. That got cut. Andrew Davies was going to end E3 with Emma and Knightly in bed together. That got cut also.
Pardon me. It’s Knighley! I suppose I could have just said Mr.E.!
I withhold my judgement until I’ve seen it.
Regardless of it being appropriate for NA or not, I really do not think that a seduction scene (how explicite can it be?)or a glimpse of a *gasp* nude female body would do harm to children.
Actually, it’s Knightley. *Wicked laugh*
I had … no idea, Sylvia. That’s pitiful. I don’t really care to research it (shudder goes here), but how do you know that?
(The above is in regards to Sylvia M’s “Andrew Davies was going to have Darcy jump in the pond with nothing on. That got cut. Andrew Davies was going to end E3 with Emma and Knightly in bed together. That got cut also.”
)
In the script I read (which, as I’ve said many times, could have been changed and probably was somewhat–and differs from the description in the article, by the bye), the seduction scene is not explicit at all, and the bathing scenes are no big deal. However, they are not in the book, and many other scenes of more importance and enjoyment that ARE in the book were cut for these unnecessary and silly side-trips.
I’m all about the STORY.
Quite frankly, I think the Editrix has (purposedly?) sort of misread what Davies said. Straightforward, yes. Meaning that the storyline in the book is just that, with none of the comlexity of, say, P&P. Just a nice little parodic story and by no means Austen’s best or most interesting work – sorry ladies
Let’s see the finished product first and throw stones then.
Is Mr Davies having fun? Does he want to laugh at about the matter? :S He seem to write risky scenes (no idea about that one in E3 and even I am reading now the book about the making of it) but he writes, in my opinion, good scripts: P&P2 is a great series and E3 is fun and beautiful for me.
I remember I read that he always want to have fun with the Janeites (by example: Mr Knightley falls in love with Emma, because he was in love with her mother)…and I do not know what to say. At least, the script is not so ‘mad’ as ‘Becoming Jane’, is it?
About other scripts, is new S&S going to have a Davies’ script? Does anyone know anything about ‘Miss Austen regrets’ by BBC?
Carmen: Yes, Davies wrote the new S&S–and I’m looking forward to it! (Because I haven’t heard anything bad about it other than his usual blathering nonsense in the press.)
Lisa: NA might not be the best Austen novel, but it deserves to have a good film made of it as much as any of the others. Why is “better than NA1″ or “not as bad as BECOMING JANE” good enough? Why can’t we demand THE BEST? Doesn’t Jane deserve the best?
Looking forward VERY much to the new Persuasion–as much as I love and adore P2 and always will.
My anticipation might prove to be misplaced, and my apprehension about the new NA might be as well, but my opinion is somewhat educated, not blind faith based on one pretty good miniseries and one middling TV adaptation. (Yes, I would say E3 was middling. Kind of wish we were getting something better in that department, but I’ll always have CLUELESS!)
Maybe like some others Davies too thought that NA is not among JA’s good novels.
I must say NA *is* more difficult to catch than others. I always thought P&P was very straightforward.
I would have preferred someone who considers NA as a very good book, and on par with the others, to be given the task of writing the script of one of JA’s funniest books.
P&P2 had 5+ hours to fool around in lakes and bathtubs (and don’t forget it is his favourite of JA books).
In less than two hours the building up of Catherine’s character will involve this scene. Obviously the hero won’t barge into her bathroom, so she must be dreaming or fantasizing. So Catherine will be shown to be dreaming of *such things* rather than indulging in the luxury of ‘frightened imaginations’ – to heighten the ***parody*** which as Mags has mentioned – is what it is all about.
No, I don’t trust Davies at all!! He changed E3 to such a great extent. And I expect the same with NA.
I liked E3 and I can’t think of anything in it that’s a whole lot different then the book. I know Emma has those dreams, but how else are you supposed to put someone’s imagination and thoughts on screen?
Honestly all these articles about Andrew Davies “enhancing” JA with sex scenes is really getting on my nerves! Wasn’t there something like this said about S&S3 script? He seems to have such a big head, thinks he knows Jane indeed! Well I’d like to give him a piece of my mind and I hope he’d have a good appetite for it! *steam comes out of ears*
On the other hand, NA is being adapted so what can I say? It’s such a hard job disliking Davies for his liberties and loving the fact that NA is coming to the screen after all this time!
Oh, Sylvia M, I wouldn’t even want to get started, because its a long long story, but since you asked I’ll give a couple of badly done script writing examples.
1. We are left thinking that Frank Churchill hasn’t changed, with the dialogue *What an impudent dog I am,”. In the book he says “…I was.”
2. What was that all about with Emma answering FC (the same scene as in #1) as though she was jealous or fed up or what. In the book she is supposed to be reacting ‘kindly’ to him.
Poor Emma and FC get a negative treatment throughout, because Davies doesn’t like these characters nor the book. (I read this in an interview somewhere).
I have heaps of other such examples, which are a whole lot different from the book.
So if he thinks NA is not much of a book …I just wonder.
Mags, yes, I think NA does deserve the best adaptation. The book I care least is MP and the latest adaptation just blew my head of; I had a bit of the same problem with the latest P&P too. I don’t care what they add (as long as it fits the story – like the wet shirt
), but ignoring what is essential in the story maddens me. The latest P&P has that problem with the Wickham storyline, and even the last Persuasion with the whole Mr.Elliot/Mrs.Clay thing. But it is the old problem back again: everyone has a solid picture of how the books “looks” like, and how it feels like, and everybody else’s vision is always off. I personally don’t find NA particularly sexy, but obviously someone else will see it differently.
Although I think it is despicable to plant sensational issues to get people talking about a project, I have to agree with the ladies who propose that Mr. Davies is blowing hot air to get press. (Take a deep breath Mags, and we’ll all cross our fingers.)
I have admired his work in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, unless his spoutings begin to resemble reality. He did a lovely job with Dr. Zhivago as well.
My opinion on E3: solid. Could have been better. Could have been a LOT worse. Should have been longer. Kate Beckinsale was a delightful Emma.
Ugh, I could wring this guy’s neck! Probably it will not be as bad as he’s saying, but WHY?! We really don’t need any “sexing up”– your ratings will be as good as ever, Mr. Davies. We love it how it is, so leave it like that.
I’ve enjoy alot of Andrew Davies work and remain a confessed fan of P&P2. Yet after pondering this article, where AD admits Catherine is seen in the bath by an admirer- I’m still hunting for that scene in the book
I’m not going into denial of a real possibility the NA2 script is vulgar.
I can understand people desperately wanting NA2, after waiting so long. And this Henry and Catherine are cute, and ‘discreet nudity’ means it can’t be as horrid as MP2 ? :-/ Yet why the need for the nuddy scenes in the first place ? They will rob NA2 of it’s unique charecter. Unlike AD, I’ve never seen NA as inferior- but as JA’s funniest and most overlooked novel.
Will AD make use of ‘the Defence of the Novel’, Woodston or the Viscount ?
Now, for me such ideas from NA would enhance an NA2– rather than AD’s steamy stuff.
On the notion AD is blowing hot air for publicity, that has me pondering– why must AD resort to poor taste tactics ? I agree, he’ll get ratings anyway. NA deserves the Best Adaptation possible- A sadistic irony we don’t get the real Bath ??
I expected much better of Mr Davies. :-S