Persuasions On-Line examines Pride & Prejudice 2005
A special edition of Persuasions On-Line, the online journal of the Jane Austen Society of North America, looks at P&P05 with a variety of papers on all aspects of the film.
We haven’t had a chance to sit and read the new issue extensively but look forward to perusing all the papers (and invite AustenBlog readers over to the Molland’s forum to discuss it). We did quickly skim Barbara K. Seeber’s paper on various cinematic treatments of Mr. Bennet and were struck by this selection:
The 2005 adaptation’s focus on family over romance is made explicit in “A Bennet Family Portrait,” included in the DVD Bonus Features. The featurette opens: “Lizzy and Darcy are two of literature’s most loved romantic characters, yet the foundation for Austen’s fantasy is based on reality. . . . The Bennet Family is at the heart of Pride and Prejudice, and it’s the real, everyday concerns of eighteenth-century family life that give the story such timeless and universal appeal.” As the closing words of the film’s producer, Paul Webster, emphasize, “Yes, it’s a great love story between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy, but underpinning it all is the kind of love that runs this family.” Sounding like a modern-day Edmund Burke, Brenda Blethyn (who plays Mrs. Bennet) comments, “Society as a whole starts with the family. And if the family unit is not treasured and nourished, you know everything is going to go to pot. So, I think we should take a leaf out of their book.” This book surely is the screenplay, not Austen’s novel! Joe Wright acknowledges that there is conflict among the Bennets but naturalizes it as realism and redefines family secrecy (us versus them) as family closeness: “I like the idea that behind closed doors they are a like a real family—they squabble, argue and talk over each other—but then when anyone else comes to the door, you close ranks.” The choice of military metaphor is telling in the context of the rhetoric of the “war on terror”: you are with us or against us. Presented in period costume replete with the “red coat[s]” (29) so admired by Mrs. Bennet, the film offers a “timeless and universal” patriarchal family that fits into current conservative discourses of family and offers a nostalgic image of Western heritage.
The film’s project of presenting an ideal family is extended to Austen’s own. The bonus features included with the DVD attempt to give the film’s portrayal of the Bennets credibility by presenting them as version of Austen’s family. This reading, of course, requires some revision of Austen’s history. The featurette claims that the Bennets are based on Austen’s family: “One of seven siblings herself, Austen builds on her own experiences of family life to give huge depth and color to the relationships within the Bennet family.” It comes as no surprise that Austen’s brother George, excluded from family life due to his physical and mental disabilities, is unmentioned. In the second featurette, entitled “Jane Austen, Ahead of Her Time,” Webster insists that Austen “only wrote of her direct experience,” a view seconded by Wright: “in a Jane Austen novel you never see a scene that she, Jane Austen, wouldn’t have seen.” These comments, interspersed with clips of the Bennet family, further the biographical argument, and echo Henry Austen’s “Biographical Notice”: “Her power of inventing characters seems to have been intuitive, and almost unlimited. She drew from nature” (7). Like the film, the “Biographical Notice,” described by Mary Poovey as one of the “efforts . . . to beatify ‘Aunt Jane’ for Victorian readers” (173), emphasizes family, depicting Austen as living “in the bosom of her own family” (7) and “in the circle of her family and friends” (3). Further, just as the “Biographical Notice” associates Austen’s novels with “entertainment” (3) and “amusement” (4), the featurette foregrounds the novel’s entertainment value at the expense of the other aspects of Austen’s art: “Jane Austen was not writing for any worthy reason. . . . She wanted to entertain people. That’s the whole point about her books. The books aren’t there to make people lead better lives. They are there to give people fulfillment, happiness, and pleasure.” It is telling that the image shown of Austen three times in the featurette is not Cassandra Austen’s watercolour of 1810, but the adaptation by Mr. Andrews of 1869, which enhances the prettiness of the original.
That explains a lot about a recent controversy here at AustenBlog. A lot.
Comments are closed.
I just read Cahterine Stewart-Beer’s paper on style and substance of P&P05. One of her notes comments that Andrew Davies’ adaptation puts an emphasis on the positive side of the masculine story while the newer adaptation focuses the positives of the feminine story. I thought this was an interesting way of looking that the two films especially in how either a masculine or feminine approach then impacts how other textual interpretations manifest themselves.
Tis well worth it. I checked JASNA weekly to see if the essays were up – and printed them as soon as they were. A few weaker papers, but all very enjoyable. Since I love the questions adaptations raise, this issue was an eagerly anticipated treat – and soon, we shall have Emma papers as well! I wish I could attend the conference…
And note on controversy – I’ve occasionally grumbled about the snark here, but I was appalled at the ignorance and malice directed at the reviewers and editrix. You have my support – I thought the reviews balanced nicely, were funny, and informative.
I haven’t yet read the piece on Mr. Bennet, but I will say that I continue to stick up for Moray Watson’s portrayal in P&P80. Most people I come across say he’s too “mean.” But I find that every other adaptation (and I include B&P in this)goes overboard in that they all seem to try to convince us that Mr. Bennet is a benign character. I firmly believe he is not. The more often I read the book, the more I find him to be a bitter man with not very many redeeming qualities. Elizabeth’s thoughts on her family AFTER her seeing Darcy at Pemberley tell us that she finally realizes that, despite his treatment of her, her father is neither a good husband nor a good father.
Um. Maybe I’m being a very slow and dull elf, but I feel I’m missing something. Why does that explain a lot? I’ve gone over the discussions of those two reviews and can’t seem to figure it out.
The participants in the kerfuffle claiming to be shocked and offended that Janeites could be such meanies (because the kind, gracious lady Jane Austen would have considered sarcasm the lowest form of wit, doncha know) pretty much all self-identified as fans of the 2005 adaptation, and not to put too fine a point on it, they did not appear to be well-read in the Austen oeuvre, literary criticism, or biographical works. If their only exposure to Austen biography or anything approaching literary criticism of P&P is the DVD extras described in the paper, which I excerpted above, well, we can pretty much grasp from where they got their notions of kind, gentle, would-never-offend Jane.
Thanks, Mags. That actually does make perfect sense, now that you’ve pointed it out. I feel a bit sheepish in that headsmack, “Oh, right,” sort of way. Thanks for pointing it out, though.
Also, I completely agree with ibmiller. People seemed to be reacting with out actually thinking, nor did they seem to take anything that anyone said outside of, “Oh, I loved your book so much I’l never critisize you” as somthing worth listening to. Anyway, I think you did well by them, even if they didn’t behave especially well themselves.
I wasn’t fishing for compliments or anything, but thanks for the backup! It was an unfortunate situation, but my only regret is trying to be helpful instead of just entertaining myself with snark, as it was clearly a hopeless business.
I just had what Bridget Jones called a “St. Paul on the road to Damascus-type blinding flash” as I read the paper. “So THAT’S where it came from!” Because I couldn’t fathom it otherwise. Even after reading P&P, you can’t read Mr. Collins or Lady Catherine or Lydia Bennet and think Jane is kind and sweet, can you?