Video review of Lost in Austen
September 1, 2008
Serena Davies from the Telegraph does a video review of Lost in Austen, and…is not impressed. “It’s time TV dramatists let this particular author’s work alone.” Hear hear! The review also contains a short clip from the film.
Leave a Comment
Comments are closed.
I really, really don’t know what to expect from this one. I read about it on the itv website and then saw the trailer a couple of nights ago. Very odd.
As far as I can tell so far, it’s really shite but really fun – the writers are quite rambunctiously imaginative, which means that it’s kind of crass but delicious – there are references to one’s ‘landing strip’ (the 20thC one) and to otter hunting. That’s all you really need to know…
It’s great fun but you really shouldn’t take it seriously. It’s cheerful froth and should be watched as such. At least, that was my impression after the first episode but watching Part 2 I realised that whether deliberately or not, this odd drama was showing the disturbing side of the Regency Marriage market.
In the book and in previous dramatisations, Mr Collins comes across as a buffoon. In Lost in Austen he is much more sinister; not just a social climber and bore, but a sexual predator. I was horrified at Jane’s cringing resignation when she was driven away with her ghastly husband and I realised that this is what it was like in real life for many women at the time. Sold off to save the family name/finances, etc.
I also found myself much more caught up in Mrs Bennet’s side of the story. Too often dismissed as a silly bimbo, here she is desperate to make sure her daughters succeed in the only way open to them. Hugh Bonneville (sigh!) is marvellous as Mr Bennet and as he watched Jane leaving home his face showed all the anguish and guilt that he ought to feel, having made no provision for his family.
Underneath the froth there’s something very interesting going on in this interesting and enjoyable experiment.
Now see, this is where I have to say again, it’s obviously all going on in Amanda’s head, because that is imposing 21st century mores onto a different society. At the JASNA AGM in 2000, Ruth Perry gave an excellent talk called “Sleeping With Mr. Collins.” It’s published in Persuasions No. 22 but not available online unfortunately. She talked about how modern audiences are a little grossed out at the idea of Elizabeth marrying Mr. Collins and we feel sorry for Charlotte Lucas because eww, he’s gross and she has to HAVE SEX with him! But she said that people in that time didn’t think that way, and the reason Elizabeth cannot accept Mr. Collins’ proposal (and is astonished that Charlotte finds it possible) is not that he is icky but because she does not respect him. Not that women didn’t enjoy sex in marriage, but those who made marriages of convenience didn’t consider it a big deal that they had to have sex with these guys as part of it. So I think to worry about “selling off” women into marriage in P&P is anachronistic. See the post about Mr. Bennet a bit above here to get my views on Mr. and Mrs. Bennet’s opinions of marriage.
You’re probably right, but what interested me is that I’ve loved P&P for decades but never really caught on to this particular vein of 18/19th C thinking. Last night’s episode spelled it out graphically and I was shocked.
And whether one respected the man provided in an arranged marriage is one thing, having to put up with someone like Guy Henry’s brilliantly disgusting Collins is another! I write Victorian crime and I do understand about not imposing 21st century standards but you can know something logically and intellectually but it doesn’t stop you heaving at the thought, even if you have to keep quiet about it.