Lost in Austen – What's the Verdict?
September 3, 2008
Gentle Readers in the UK, the rest of the Janeite world is depending on you. Give us your impressions on the first episode of Lost in Austen (which has episodes! Four of them! Three more than MP, NA, and Persuasion had! Yes, still beating that dead horse, thanks.) Feel free to liveblog if you like (post comments while the show is airing).
Leave a Comment
Comments are closed.
I have to confess that I enjoyed the first episode. The characters of P&P are not quite the same as in the classic BBC version, or the book itself (i.e. the sisters are not really much developed (?yet) – it’s difficult to ‘know’ what they are like unless you are familiar with the story). Mrs Bennett does not suffer from ‘nerves’ in quite the same way as expected, but seems much more in control. Mr Bennett is played beautifully.
I have laughed out loud a few times.
Obviously, we have to suspend our knowledge of the book and various film versions. The conversations beetween the characters are not as they appear in the book, but as they may have been in the different circumstances of a stranger appearing in their midst.
Mr Darcy is aloof but not (yet) particularly striking. Mr Bingley seems a little too ‘brainless’ for my taste. It is difficult to imagine how the two men could be friends as they are depicted in this film version.
There are several novel and quite amusing parts in the film. Like when Miss Price wants to brush her teeth and is confronted with twigs and chalk.
Obviously, there are also a lot of logical inconsistencies in this film, but as a bit of light entertainment this could be fun to watch. But do not watch it with the aim in mind to see another version of P&P. P&P it is definitely not. But it’s good enough to look forward to part 2.
And of course… if it brings a new generation of young readers to Jane Austen then that is an aim in itself.
Greetings from England
Erika
I loved Mr. Bennet and missed Elizabeth a lot through. I thought some of it was very funny but I felt slightly uncomfortable in parts as well but I will most defiantly be watching next weeks as well. It was a fun and light hearted evening : )
I thoroughly enjoyed this first episode, too!
Amanda is a likable and spunky modern character, and seeing her reaction to meeting these characters that she (and we!) know so well is interesting. Are they just as she imagined, or will they surprise her? A little of both, so far….
But how are our favourite characters portrayed, I hear you ask?
Mr Bingley is naive and likeable. (So far in tune with how I read him.) Mr Bennet is a darling and kind of adopts Amanda as his surrogate Lizzie while she is gone. (Mr B is my favourite father figure in literature.) Jane is sweet and so pretty. Lydia looks as old as Jane, and not at all the youngest sister. Kitty and Mary both look younger, and Mary is so plain. (Just how I have read all of them.) Mrs Bennet is – well – quite different than I would expect. Alex Kingston is young, but would have been old enough to have all these daughters in that period. She cries and wails, but shows a backbone of steel when protecting her daughters from this interloper. It gives me a greater understanding of her motivation for her awful behaviour.
So far, like with ‘Life on Mars’, I’m just going with the flow. It’s not great literature, but it’s lots of fun, and will hopefully take us to lots of new and unexpected places with these characters we know and love so well.
By the way, I’ve not given away any of the plot here, I’ve just described how the characters came across to me. If you want to find out more, or see for yourself, get a hold of a copy as soon as you can. ITV usually release DVDs as soon as they’ve finished broadcasting the show in the UK.
Oh! I never mentioned Mr Darcy (oops!)
Well…. I agree with Erika… He’s aloof.
And tall – much taller than Amanda.
I’ll have to let you know what I think of him as the series progresses. (Again – much like how we ‘discover’ Darcy’s good qualities through how Lizzie’s opinion of him changes through P&P – I like!)
(I happen to know that there is a Colin Firth-esque ‘wet shirt’ moment later on in the series. I can’t wait…. To see Amanda’s reaction of course!)
I did kind of enjoy the first episode, and will probably watch the next. I think a love for Jane Austen and, of course, Pride & Prejudice, comes through very nicely. In that sense, there’s nothing cynical about it.
However, to me, ITV has never had the production values of the BBC, in anything, and especially not period dramas (which, essentially, this is). The BBC’s iconic 1995 production of Pride & Prejudice and Dicken’s Bleak House (2005) were beautifully shot and those periods authentically recreated in a way that ITV has never quite managed.
One of the things that griped with me, I have to say, was the hair pieces. The actresses playing the Bennett sisters looked as though their hair had been styled and gelled and moused to within an inch of their lives and in a very 21st century way, despite the up-dos. I don’t think that’s what the filmmakers were aiming for.
But my biggest bone of contention was with the display of youthfulness on screen. Alex Kingston I thought was good, if a little too in control as Mrs Bennett, although that was perhaps her interpretation of the character as an actor and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but she’s only 45, and looks even younger. This is a role she should be playing 10 years or more from now. And Darcy was far too boyish for my liking. (I would like to add here that I’m 24 and can’t be accused of hankering after a lost youth masked with envy in my more decrepid state!)
There’s a general lack of depth to the portrayal of the characters, but then maybe that was inevitable. Jemima Rooper gives a really good performance, and the storyline is fine, because you know you have to suspend disbelief and it’s entertaining and the word that springs to mind is comforting.
What it did leave me with was a hankering for Austen and if that was its intention, or if that happened just because, and better yet, if the same applies to other viewers, then that’s only a good thing.
Joanne
Like the others have said before me, you must watch it with an open mind. It’s not going to be our beloved Austen writing the script (which leaves me thinking, “Uh… really? Did she really just do that?”) and the direction is not what it would have been had I directed this, but I didn’t, so i’m just going to have to make do.
Lydia is the tallest of the sisters, not youngest looking at all. Mrs. Bennett is also quite young and a bit tense. There’s one bit that had me gripping my chair handles when Miss. Price gets a good scolding. I just didn’t see her as such a disciplinarian.
Bingley and Darcy, I agree, do not seem like they could be friends. Each of them seem not quite right, but hopefully they’ll grow into their characters soon.
I liked the reactions from Amanda Price such as checking cell phone reception and brushing teeth, etc. Those are realistic elements that add a bit of charm and humour.
I miss Lizzy, too. How is she getting along in the future? Do we get to see any of that?
Will I be watching the rest of them? You betcha. Every single one. And i’ll be having viewing parties with large bowls of popcorn and friends on sofas.
I’ve seen the first episode (parts 1,2 and 3 on Youtube) and like what I’ve seen so far! Given what’s been said about ITV vs. BBC, I’m pleasantly surprised by the tone of the film although I think Amanda hasn’t got into trouble yet! I enjoyed how Amanda shows her devotion to the novel and what it represents to her as well as her delight in meeting the characters and realizing where and when she’s been placed. When Mr. Bennett explains that he’s met Bingley and not yet told his wife, Amanda exclaims,”We really are right at the beginning, aren’t we?!”
I am partial to Hugh Bonneville (and would probably listen to him recite from a phonebook) so I enjoy seeing him portray Mr.Bennett and remark to Amanda, “So Lizzy’s gone to Hammersmith to see you but you have come to Longbourne to see her. You’ll forgive me for observing that the arrangement seems to have a flaw.”
I can’t help but think of what it would be like to be transported to the Regency era so I’m enjoying doing so vicariously.
Looking forward to getting Lost again next week!
Charleybrown,
Do you mind posting the link for where you found all 3 parts for Lost in Austen on youtube?
Great performances all round. I’ve never ever thought of Mrs Bennet like that, but Alex Kingston was totally convincing. Mr Bennet was adorable, and Hugh Bonneville was on top form. I loved Kitty and Mary. It will be interesting to see how Mr Darcy develops- he obviously smoulders well. I liked Jane very much – one of my favourite Janes (so far). Quibbles – Gemma Arterton was okay, but no Jennifer Ehle (but then better than Keira K!). Amanda is sweet and funny, but why didn’t she let the girls put hot irons in her hair? Some gems of dialogue, but I wish they didn’t keep calling the dance in the Assembly Rooms a ball! It wasn’t a ball!!
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWpUDi92dMM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Z8WrOgoM8
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK_lQD8bkc8
Just found out myself that it’s on YouTube, and will watch it straight away! I’m very surprised by all the positive reviews I read everywhere.
I just tried to post the links, but my post got caught in the spam filter…
I loved it! It’s funny and clever. I’m looking forward to the next episode very much.
I really enjoyed it, although before it was aired I did have reservations. One question does anyone know whether the episodes are going to be available to watch online?
I had seen (parts 1,2 and 3) of Episode 1 and now parts 4 and 5 are up as well…
here is the full episode
I don’t have a problem with time-travel stories. (One of my favorite books ever is Jack Finney’s Time and Again about a man who returns to turn-of-the century NYC.) That being said, having watched the first installment of LIA, I have a hard time believing they can sustain the “charm” over 4 episodes, but we’ll see. Granted, it’s cute at times, but it didn’t really grab me (and believe me I am willing to love anything Austen-related if it’s well done.).
I did find Hugh Bonneville to be a very charming Mr. Bennet (even if his name is Claude). Wish they had put him in a real P&P. Alex Kingston and the scriptwriters are making some interesting choices about Mrs. B, though I’m not sure I would agree with all of them.
And thus far, this Mr. Darcy definitely does not “float my boat” either.
Someone said they thought Lydia looked as old as Jane and is the tallest of the sisters. Well, the book does quote Lydia as saying that she is the tallest. That is one thing that other films seem to have ignored.
Ok, this will probably be long…
So I watched it and I didn’t like it and Jane Austen has got nothing to do with it. Actually, I pretended that it had nothing to do with her to begin with and that the names, the place and the family ties were just that a coincidence. I was unbiased and remained unimpressed. Basically, Amanda Price was not at all convincing in her love for Jane Austen and ‘P&P’ and her voice was really getting on my nerves. I did not believe a word she said.
I blame most of my dislike on the lacklustre performance of the actress playing the main character as well as many others. I’m not an expert but I found Jemima’s acting rather poor and her voice unbearable. And what’s with the hair and the clothes, anyway? Could she be dressed any more bizarrely? I wonder if that’s how an average Jane Austen fan is supposed to look according to the creators of this adaptation. Well, I beg to differ. I mean, given that she is a big Austen fan and taking into account nowadays fashion trends that include puffed sleeves, high waist and slippers she could wear something that would be much more telling than her lines that sounded so forced I wanted to die of shame. It all reminded me of a secondary school level performance at best. Not at all professional.
And I know that there should be shown contrast between Amanda and the people in her life who don’t understand Jane Austen, but why go to such extremities when portraying her mother and boyfriend?
And really, can Amanda act any more stupid? I mean after reading ‘P&P’ as many times as she claimed to I would have expect her to be able to use at least some of its vocabulary on occasions. And I do not believe that the Bennet sisters would let her out in public without doing her hair first. I think that the first thing they would do is give her some proper clothes and not wait until someone else saw her dressed up like that. She would not be allowed to come down for breakfast in that…thing. But maybe that’s just my level of obsession talking. Ok, so she wants to be in control of her hair but why would anyone be holding on to such awful hair?
I did like Elizabeth though. A lot, actually. I wish it was her story instead. She is as different from Elizabeth Bennet that I know from the book than anyone can possibly be, but as this entirely new heroine I found her very much likable. Maybe because in contrast with Amanda she was very convincing and possessed the vivacity of spirit that the other lady severely lacked. She was lively and mischievous and pronounced her lines with conviction that made me believe her.
Mr. Bennet (despite being named Claude) was also very much to my liking. Great acting. Great lines. Very convincing.
Mrs. Bennet – overdone. Completely. She used to whine, yes, but to wail? I don’t think so. Just because she always fancied herself ill, doesn’t mean that you have to show it quite so ostentatiously. Really, no need. Though I guess some people assume that unless it is spelled out we won’t get it.
Mr. Bingley – silly fellow, but nice. Twitchy though.
Caroline Bingley looks like she joined Amanda Price in her time-travel and also forgot to change her clothes as well as her manners.
Mr. Darcy – yuck! His voice is awful. And considering that Mr. Darcy was never my favourite Jane Austen male character I still found myself cheated. The ‘real and only one’ could be called Mr. Grumpy, but this one… Can I call him Mr. Vomiticious? He looks like a serial killer to me.
Charlotte Lucas – another (this time) pleasant surprise. The actress looks and sounds familiar, but I can’t place her.
I suppose this adaptation is amusing in a way. But I’m sure I would have liked it much better with another set of actors, apart from Mr. Bennet, Elizabeth and Charlotte.
‘Did you sleep?’ What kind of question is that? You know she did! Why not make it ‘Did you sleep well?’ at least. Did they actually eat chocolate for breakfast? And was the kiss so very necessary?
Sorry, if it doesn’t make much sense…
The movie is intended to be a fun parody but I think that they have overdone it a little, every word, every line, every situation is a parody and there is as much parody in the movie (Episode 1, for the present) as to be found by some audiences a bit boring.
My favorite actor in Alex Kingston. I have never seen such a nice Mrs. Bennet.
Alex Kingston tells about Jane Austen’s life story and her works in a 60 min documentary “There’s Something About Austen” upcoming on ITV3 together with another 60 min documentary “Lost In Austen Behind The Scenes”. Both documentaries are “In Production”, the producer is “Daisybeck Productions”, based in Leeds (UK), but no dates have been fixed yet:
http://www.daisybeck.tv/inprod.shtml
I just noticed that the DVD is available from http://www.play.com from 29 September.
Sounds interesting, Boris, thanks for mentioning it!
I’ve seen Lost In Austen now too, and must say that I am even more surprised by all the positive responses than I was before. I had my doubts about it before I watched it, but am sad to say that I didn’t like it at all. I agree with many things ethernorthbrook has just mentioned. It started off well, when Amanda (who is quite an uninteresting character) is still in the modern world. That bit was funny, and Gemma Arterton made a great Lizzy, I wish we’d seen more of her! But as soon as Amanda entered the world of Pride & Prejudice, it was just silly, annoying, and not funny at all. In fact, I thought it quite humiliating to the novel. The humour in it was too obvious, too much aimed at huge modern audiences. Hugh Bonneville was great as Mr Bennet, but I wish he was playing the part in a real adaptation of P&P.
So, I was very disappointed, but that doesn’t keep me from watching the rest. I sincerely hope it’ll improve.
Locations – very pretty if not in accordance with Austen’s descriptions.
Costumes – fine, although it makes me wonder why Amanda is the only girl showing her boobs. Haven’t the producers seen in other costume dramas how women’s breasts used to be exposed? Amanda should look rather flat-chested in comparison.
Dialogues – mostly horrible; reminded me of a Hollywood ‘B’ comedy rather than a witty story based on Austen. I laughed only once, thanks to Mrs. Bennet.
Amanda – I can’t stand her. Not just her voice or her looks. Her behaviour is awful, and she’s pretty dumb. Why would anyone identify with her?
I won’t rant about all of the actors. I was impartial about many. I liked only Alex Kingston. Yes, her Mrs. Bennet is out of character, but at least she’s interesting. And I do think she should be that young. We’re told that she caught Mr. Bennet thanks to her beauty and youth. She should be in her early 40s.
The weakness of the plot is in Amanda’s little lies. It’s really difficult to like her when she’s that insincere. There’s a certain duality in her portrayal. She pretends the naïve girl who loves the book above all, but acts exactly the opposite. She says that she doesn’t want to disturb the plot, and then throws herself at the men at every occasion. She could have avoided it easily, but of course it’s not the point. The point is to make her the heroine of a romance. I’d rather she said outright that she’s going to see if she can claim Darcy for herself, and then we might observe her progress, than all of the protests that are designed only to buy our sympathy, while her actions will lead to the same place anyway. Why on earth is she going to Netherfield in all the mud, for example? She read the book. She knows Jane will be fine.
Another thing that I find unbelievable is the men’s reaction to Amanda. The producers assumed that her behaviour would be so intriguingly direct that the men would have to fall for her. Well, it’s true that no gentlewoman would behave like that, but it’s not true that Darcy or Bingley wouldn’t know women who did. A woman who’d look them straight in the eyes, speak in a vulgar manner, lack all possible accomplishments, and throw herself at them would be easily found in London’s streets. But one doesn’t fall in love with such a woman, does one?
A girl who reads Austen that often should know how to behave. Of course she’d still make some mistakes, but Amanda behaves as if she never read any Austen’s novel. She knows the storyline, and the best dialogues, but she doesn’t know the background. It seems as if she read a summary for some school test, but not the real book.
Off topic: I agree with Maria’s note on “Time and Again”. A clever and interesting book.
Sandra @3: You’re obviously not me, as I’m in the States and haven’t seen LIA yet. How shall we distinguish between ourselves? Add the initial of our surnames to our screennames? Or be USSandra and UKSandra? Original and Extra Crispy? Not that I’m sure which would be which in the case of the last one; I drop in now and again to catch up on the snark, but am not one of the true regulars.
cheers,
Sandra Also
Much discussion amongst my workmates about who is more dreamy – this Lost in Austen version of Mr Darcy or Mr Bingley. I vote for Mr Bingley.
I rather liked it. I mean, it’s not very Austen-purist of course, but when not taken seriously it was a very fun, enjoyable show, and I’m looking forward to next week.
I had a few criticisms, but I don’t really mind that. Like I said, it’s best not taken seriously!
Good casting, overall… I thought Mr and Mrs Bennet were especially well cast. And Caroline Bingley, too.
Hilarious. Silly, parodic nonsense but, for the most part, nicely acted (especially Hugh Bonneville) and some amusing one-liners (again, especially Hugh Bonneville).
Can’t wait for next week.
Most of my complaints have already been mentioned, so I won’t repeat them. Just a few little things – whyyyy does she not let them do her hair? If she’s so in love with that world, why doesn’t she try to fit in seamlessly, given the chance? I know I would. And as somebody else already mentioned, you’d think she’d have read the book and watched the mini-series often enough to use regency vocabulary, and to know how to curtsy. And – applying sparkly lip gloss before the dance? In front of everyone? What?
But if you don’t take it too seriously it’s fun. I hope we get to see Elizabeth in the modern world, I want to know how she’s doing. So I’ll definitely watch the next episode.
It’s not too bad really. I liked how there are little references to the adaptations all over the place, Longbourn is Groomsbridge Place, Jane looks like Rosamund Pike, Darcy obviously got stolen from the 2005 version, walking on the fields at the dawn, Amanda playing the 1995 theme ect.
Mr and Mrs Bennet are quite nice, but the sisters are a bit bland to my like, including Elizabeth who, in the bathroom scene, just sounds all wrong. Amanda is to my eyes quite honest portrait of a young English working class girl today, initially smart but not necessarily very sophisticated. It’ll be interesting to see where she will go.
Well, yes. It’s fun.
They are not even saying its P&P
That’s the reason why its good fun.
Nothing there is really from the book. It’s Amanda’s adventure.
OK, I’ve just watched the first episode, and found it more engaging than I expected. Someone above said it is ‘quite humiliating to the novel’. But from what I’ve seen so far, this is not about the novel at all – it only provides the framework for this story. It is about a somewhat disenchanted 21st century gal who utterly loves the book, and suddenly finds herself in the middle of the story that was – until then – her ideal.
IMO (so far), this is not a Mary Sue outing. Amanda is not flawless and perfect – in the first episode she seems to be fucking up everything she touches. I also wonder how they are going to carry this through two – or is it three – more episodes and have everything work out satisfactorily, while keeping it interesting at the same time. We shall see.
My main pre-snark was how they could make it ‘believable’ that a 19th century family could accept an unexpected visitor from the 21st. They did manage to get over that with pure chutzpah, I think. Amanda has not actually been set down in that day and age, but a story that takes place in it. Because of this, none of the characters have any more free will or power of observation (and thinking) outside of what the author granted to them in the original. They continue to carry on, and react, as Jane wrote them. This makes it possible to gloss over – so far – a lot of analomies.
I’m very curious how it will go farther.
Okay, I take something back. Mrs Bennet is totally wrong personality-wise. The original is slightly stupid and generally worried about the future, and more than a little insensitive. But she is not malicious or threatening in any way. She would never pull Amanda aside in the dance (which is more like a ball and not a public assembly) and talk to her like she does in the show. But, interestingly, she is, like all the actors, about the age they would have been in the book – younger than we think.
I too have just seen the first episode (thanks for those links). Though it has not turned as dreadful as I had feared, it is not brilliant either. We have to wait to the final episode to pass the final judgement, and eventhough some of us have read all the synopsis, there is the question if they can pull this thing.
Many others have mentioned some of my quibbles. For such a P&P fan as Amanda describes herself she is terribly clueless on have to behave, so once again my theory that she is only an average fan, not a true one. Another one, regarding characterization is that here we seem to have Kitty and Mary closer, and Lydia apart, when for me, Kitty should hang around Lydia entirely, but over all I like these Bennet girls.
I also commend Hugh Bonneville’s characterization of Mr. Bennet. If only we could have seen him in a proper P&P adaptation. Alex Kingston is not bad either, though Mrs. Bennet’s personality has been changed IMHO. I like the girl as Charlotte Lucas too and even Christina Cole as Caroline Bingley was properly disagreeable. No one could ever beat CF as Darcy, but Cowan at least acts like a proud Darcy, which is one of my main complaints against McFadyen who was too bland. Bingley seems likeable. Still, my main problem is Amanda Price, though not a Mary Sue, I still cannot believe her ‘fandom’ nor that she could attract men like Bingley and Darcy; in particular in this episode, I could not get why Bingley was attracted to her, just because she was the odd one?
Well, let’s wait for the next episodes. At YT can be found also a clip with a behind the scenes report, which includes a glimpse to this Darcy wet if any is interested.
I almost forgot, regarding locations. It seems that Bramham Park is indeed used as Netherfield, at least the exteriors. So we got back to the idea that then Harewood House will be Pemberley.
Actually Amanda is trying pretty hard for the story to stick to the book!
@Reeba – I wouldn’t say Amanda really tries for the story to stick to the book. It seems to me that she only says she does. How would you like a character who’d say at Hello: Goody! Now let’s get Darcy the Hunk!?
It’s just a literary device to make us all like her and trust her. But what she does has in fact the opposite effect, and it seems neither necessary nor wise to do it. She says that she doesn’t want Darcy, and then lies about him, provoking him to dance. Couldn’t she have mentioned Lucas? She says that she wants Jane to be with Bingley, and then snogs her man. She sends Jane to Netherfield, and then follows her to show up there all wet and muddy Lizzy style. If she truly didn’t want to be a part of the story she’d avoid throwing herself into the centre of it.
i thought it was fantastic! And whilst its not P$P in some ways it was truer to the book than any adaptation so far! The ages of the characters for starters. Jane is the OLDEST at 19 (Jennifer Ehle was 26!). Mrs B is meant to be early 40s!
And to suggest Mrs Bennet had some steel under the silliness when the future of her daughters livelihood is threathened is pure brilliance. I’ve always read Austen’s implicit criticism of Mr Bennets passivity in the face of the powerlessness of his daughters over their own future, and how Mrs Bennet, however foolishly, is at least trying to see they survive and can live well in the future. That was what so many women had to do – they couldn’t generate their own fortune. So to see Mrs Bennet as more than just a silly pantomime dame is great!
It feels like there are some interesting subtexts about the place of women in 19th Century society compared to Amanda’s freedom today.. (how they are spending their days sewing ‘pew-things’ etc) .wonder if it will develop..
I can understand how it might not appeal to those that are only fans of Austen-lite – the hammy modern day screen adaptations with all the edges taken off – but for those that actually know and love the novel and Austen’s piercing brilliance and wit, this seems a happy companion piece..
I for one enjoyed this episode, though I lay the blame the shoulders of Gemma Aterton and Alex Kingston, and their flawless delivery of non-Austen-yet-still-Austen-esque lines.
However, surely I can’t be the only one who’s wondering what happened to Mr. and Mrs. Hurst?
Okay, have seen it now, and am quite relieved! It’s not nearly as Mary Crawfordish as I feared it would be (that is, vulgar and common). A few things that I’d heard about the first draft of the script thankfully did not make it into the final production. The pubic topiary alone survived.
(Unless they sneak them in another episode…hmm.) That said, I liked it but didn’t love it. It’s not quite smart and clever enough for me to love it; it’s too conventional. If they had gotten, say, Jasper Fforde to write it, it might have been something brilliant.
LOVE Hugh Bonneville and really, really wish we could have seen him in a very intelligent conventional adaptation of P&P. He would have been completely wasted in P&P2005, of course. However, Claud’s not enjoying his insane family nearly as much as he should be. I also really like Jemima Rooper a lot–she’s a very appealing actress and does a great job with what she is given. She’s having a lot of fun, and it shows, and we have fun with her.
Since they keep pushing the Life on Mars comparisons, it was on my mind as I watched. For those who are unfamiliar with the series, a police detective from today gets hit by a car and knocked unconscious and wakes up as a police detective in 1973. The whole series hinges on that one big question, which is repeated in the opening credits of each episode: is he mad, is he in a coma and dreaming it all, or has he really traveled back in time?
If we apply that question to Lost in Austen (without the coma part), we have: is Amanda mad or has she really jumped into P&P? It appears that Amanda Sue (yes, she is a Sue, though a very appealing one, so it doesn’t detract too much from the story so far) is barking, because Earth logic in general does not apply in this story, and we all know that’s not the Austen way. My disbelief would NOT be completely suspended and kept banging on my skull and asking all sorts of impertinent questions, such as:
* How did Lizzy know “Miss Spencer’s” underthings were underthings? Unless she thought she had stumbled into a brothel? Nice girls did not wear such items in Jane Austen’s time. Come to think of it, they didn’t call them “underthings,” either.
* “Fleshly envelope?” Fleshly envelope???? As if Elizabeth Bennet would ever use such a phrase with a straight face.
* Mr. Bennet called on Mr. Bingley before noon? Tsk tsk tsk tsk. No wonder Mr. Darcy was severe on country manners.
* Chocolate candy? Which hadn’t yet been invented? Sandwiches, however, most certainly had been (and are served in MP and Emma, a quick six-novel search informed me–my junior high research skills, let me show you them), so why had Mary never heard of them? For the benefit of future art directors of Georgian/Regency-set pieces: when folks of this period consumed chocolate at breakfast, it was a beverage (you probably would call it hot cocoa in the UK; we call it hot chocolate on this side of the pond). The process for hardening chocolate for candy wasn’t invented until the mid-19th century. They were not eating candy bars for breakfast for Ferrars’ sake. Seriously, was Jane nibbling on a Hershey Bar? Clearly the product of a deranged mind.
* Bingley’s never seen boobies before? In the Georgian/Regency period? Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
* Why were they putting on bonnets when they left the ball? Seriously, who did the period research for this thing? Sack him or her immediately!
* She keeps reading P&P over and over? Just P&P? Never branches out into, say, Emma? Or Georgette Heyer? Smutty fanfic? Nothing else? Is this the product of an extremely incurious mind, or just bad stereotyping of the typical Austen fan? And for someone who reads the book all the time, her fictional constructs bear a serious resemblance to the two most recent period film adaptations of the book, don’t they? Yep, my money’s on bad stereotyping.
* Mrs. Bennet is clearly a fictional construct based upon the patient in the next padded cell over at Pemberley Home for the Literarily Insane. The poor woman is teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and the ground’s giving away beneath her feet. I still love Alex Kingston but wish she had taken it down a notch or two.
And I suspect Miss Lucas’ Suedar is pinging as loud as my own.
(YOU GO, CHARLOTTE. ROCK ON, MY SISTER. It’s not for nothing Elizabeth Bennet befriended you.)
Yes, I’ll watch another episode, and suspend my disbelief, lock in the closet and see if it shuts up for an hour. I’m not holding my breath, though. And really, if I never saw the rest of it I wouldn’t really care.
P.S. Why does Darcy look like he just ate a bug?
Mags wrote: The whole series hinges on that one big question, which is repeated in the opening credits of each episode: is he mad, is he in a coma and dreaming it all, or has he really traveled back in time?
My money is on ‘she got drunk and fell asleep while reading the book’.
Why does Darcy look like he just ate a bug?
Because according to Elliot Cowan it’s how Austen portrayed Darcy and we all have it wrong.
Another thing: I was pretty sure that the British could purchase what we would recognize as a toothbrush by that time period, so I did a bit of quick Googling.
ethelnorthbrook, I agree completely with you! Every single word!
“Lost in Austen” could have been something very entertainig, if done in a more accurately way!!!
Maybe this is only the first episode and it will improve on the next ones! I hope so.
Loredana
@ swelka, who says:
And whilst its not P$P in some ways it was truer to the book than any adaptation so far! The ages of the characters for starters. Jane is the OLDEST at 19 (Jennifer Ehle was 26!). Mrs B is meant to be early 40s!
Yes, Mrs. Bennet is meant to be in her forties and we have not be arguing against that, on the contrary, we are applauding LiA choice in that aspect. But I think you should read the book again, Jane is 23 at some point in the book. And Lizzy is 20. I would not deny that JE was older than the book says, the P&P2 cast as a whole did keep a proportional age between young and old characters. LiA is doing that also, but P&P3 which proclaimed itself as that they were using a cast according to the ages stated in the book had too much older mature characters.
I can understand how it might not appeal to those that are only fans of Austen-lite – the hammy modern day screen adaptations with all the edges taken off – but for those that actually know and love the novel and Austen’s piercing brilliance and wit, this seems a happy companion piece.
I again disagree. I think it would appeal more to the lite ones, though a few hard-core might like it in the end. Notice how those who know both book and period have noticed the inconsistencies of this programm.
@ Jemima (comment 25): Much discussion amongst my workmates about who is more dreamy – this Lost in Austen version of Mr Darcy or Mr Bingley. I vote for Mr Bingley.
Definitely Bingley!
I’m surprised this is as popular as it seems to be.
The premise is very different from anything JA related we’ve seen before and I think with the right treatment it could have been a lot better than it was. Just because they were messing about with one of my favorite books didn’t automatically mean I was going to hate it on principle.
I enjoyed the period locations and I had no major issues with the Bennets. I agree that Alex Kingston is the right physical age to play Mrs B, although she is one of those fortunate individuals who looks younger than her years, which meant her fresh face appeared a bit odd at times. With all the will in the world, her face is not that of an early 19th century woman who has had five children. (or possibly more)
I loved Tom Mison playing Mr. Bingley. He had just that touch of ‘lost puppy’ look that I associate with Bingley. (Yes, I preferred him to Darcy too!) Jane and Lydia were okay, Mary and Kitty were better, Mr. Bennet was a star. (but, then again, I’ve yet to meet a Mr. Bennet I don’t like) I have no strong opinion on Caroline Bingley, although I can’t work out why they left out the Hursts. (unless they were trying to save money)
Darcy was okay, but not great. I don’t know what it was about him – perhaps the wig? I’ve never seen Elliot Cowan in anything else, although he seemed a pleasant enough chap when talking in interviews. I’ll wait to see how he loosens up as the program progresses. (btw, did you see the interview where Elliot Cowan says he believes that, in the book, Darcy fell in love with Elizabeth at the Meryton Assembly?)
My biggest issues with LIA comes down to Amanda. Most of them (clothes, hair, lack of basic manners and total ignorance of Regency society) have been mentioned before, so I won’t labour the point, but I just didn’t like the character, who seemed very Lydia like. (could she, perhaps, be persuaded to elope with Wickham and leave Darcy alone?)
There also seemed to be a couple of gratuitous things thrown in for shock value alone, like the comment about the landing strip and the snog with Bingley. I mean, where did that come from? And why?? If it had come in the midst of a passionate declaration, or if she’d been saying how lonely she was … if they’d just given me some justification for that kiss, perhaps it wouldn’t have irritated me so much. One minute she was worrying about getting Jane and Bingley together, he walks onto the terrace and BAM! No wonder he’s throwing himself at her. She’s acting more like a courtesan than a well bred young lady. I’m not surprised Mrs B wants her out.
I’m looking forward to seeing Mr. Collins in the next episode. I read somewhere that Guy Henry thinks Mr. Collins is one of the “great creeps of literature”.
I don’t think noticing (and self-congratulating on noticing!) minor inconsistencies such as the appearance of chocolate at a breakfast scene, and judging the entire project on such inconsistencies remotely indicative of being a hardcore Austen fan – pedantry was not a particular feature of hers…
Perhaps more Colllins-esque…
The fact is, the spirit and wit and affection of the programme, and the way it’s light, easily enjoyable plot belies richer, narratively layered subtexts is surely Austenian – wearing it’s intelligence lightly, but clearly playing with ideas about escapism, fantasy and the way ‘popular’ classics become subverted by their popularity.
And its nothing to do with Life On Mars for God sake! that’s such an easy take for lazy television reviewers. The point of this isn’t the time travel -its that she’s escaped into a novel! And not just any novel! One that has become simplified in the popular imagination into an easy warm escape from modern mores, as opposed to the clever, piercing witty satire it is. Yes LIA seems to want to have its cake and eat it, but not in a cynical way – it’s just that, as Jane AUsten clearly knew, too much ‘real life’ can actually be rather dull!
>as Jane AUsten clearly knew, too much ‘real life’ can actually be rather dull!
Really? where? When? How?
@44 swelka
And its nothing to do with Life On Mars for God sake!
PS: In spite of its silliness I’ve enjoyed the first part but, really – It has nothing to do with Jane Austen or P&P either except the common names of the characters.
I agree with you. There were multiple layers to Lost In Austen which went far beyond this simplistic Austen-meets-Life-On-Mars analogy being touted in so many media reviews. What amused me most were the constant parodic echoes of past Pride & Prejudice adaptations, ranging from similar musical scoring to numerous visual cues and Amanda’s hilarious Colin Firth one-liner. I really loved the irreverence of this; it was tongue-in-cheek, joyfully subverting the high-faluting stuffiness of much of the heritage drama genre we are often subjected to. I wouldn’t presume for one single nano-second to second-guess what Jane Austen would have thought of it all. But you never know, she might have taken it for the fun-filled romp it is obviously meant to be.
Just to clarify – my post was in response to @44swelka!!
It should be pointed out that “swelka” and “Gallivant” have the same net provider, though not the same IP number. They also have in common their insistence on the “layers” of this extremely lightweight narrative and their failure to recognize “humor” (which is abundant in Jane Austen novels, FYI). Just a coincidence, I’m sure!
And my notice of inconsistencies, incorrect facts, and giant gaping Ferrarsing plotholes, by the bye, was most Austenian. Read her letters to her niece about “writing what you know.” She was extremely strict on that item; indeed, Northanger Abbey addresses that among other things in relation to the fiction of her day. And she did it in a lighthearted and, yes, humorous way! See how that works?
And trust me, I know–Lost in Austen has NOTHING to do with Life on Mars, and is really not fit to compare to it. Once again, I was engaging in humor by reacting to the articles about the show (I have to read them all to run this blog, for my sins), nearly every one of which brought up Life on Mars.
So tired of explaining jokes for the dull elves. Why don’t you go read Hardy or something.
Look, I found bits like the P&P ringtone cute, but I would hardly put it in the “parodic echoes” category! At best, LIA is entertaining fluff–nothing wrong with that, but certainly not meriting all this “subtext” analysis and I think, not worth getting into a huff over either way.
It was kind of fun, but I don’t really care if I see the next installment or not. And I definitely would not, if I had to pay to watch it….
Actually Mags’ explantion of Life on Mars was helpful to me. I’ve never seen it and the explanation gave me some hope that all those jarring details like the chocolate might make sense.
Anyway, I am so happy to have the opportunity to see it, thank you Franka and Camille for the links! It was better than I expected, but I also found Amanda’s gratuitous modern behavior tiring after awhile. Why did she kiss Bingley? I liked the scene with the cell phone though, I think I might do the same in that situation.
I like the Bennets and am looking forward to seeing the other characters. Perhaps a showdown between Lady Catherine and Mrs. B.? Darcy not only looks like he swallowed a bug, but is wearing a very tight girdle to boot.
The Life on Mars comparison came from the producers. They officially sell it as such an idea, and that’s why it’s mentioned in every review. If the series has nothing to do with Life on Mars it’s only the producers’ failure, just as it has nothing to do with Jane Austen.
Mags – I’m nothing to do with Swelka, and I really don’t get why you have attacked my post, when I haven’t tried in any shape or form to offend you or any other posters here. I was merely agreeing with Swelka that there was more to Lost In Austen than the ‘lazy television reviewers’ (media reviews) have perceived.
I was not attacking yourself or any other posters who disliked Lost In Austen. I do believe there are intertextual ‘layers’ at play in Lost In Austen, and I’m puzzled why my recognising that should be a problem. It is a common descriptor used in academic criticism, which is my field.
I specialise in text-to-screen adaptation, and frankly I found Lost In Austen a refreshing breath of air, compared to some of the cloyingly faithful works I am often subjected to (not necessarily Austen BTW). I also consider Lost In Austen to be vastly superior to the truly dire Austen adaptations ITV aired in 2007 (I posted here on the subject, and also on my blog, which was cited here too).
I’m not suggesting for one minute that Lost In Austen is a great work of art. It’s frothy, mindless escapism. But like I said, I particularly loved its parodying of the adaptation genre, and the consequent intertextual layering this afforded.
As for any comparison with Life On Mars? The first series of Life On Mars was superb TV. The BBC at its finest. To my mind, in terms of ‘quality’, there is no comparison here with Lost In Austen which is clearly an inferior product in every department. The second series of Life On Mars, however, got too bogged down in the mechanics of Sam’s time-travel, and in my opinion was less effective. I strongly suspect Lost In Austen might not even bother to ‘explain’ how an inter-time/reality-travelling portal happens to be in Amanda Price’s bathroom, and it will be interesting to see if the over-arching premise of the series withstands this information gap, or collapses under its own (admittedly ‘light’) weight as the episodes progress further.
Apologies for the knee-jerk reaction. There’s been a certain whiff of astroturf to some of the comments we’ve received about this film, so please forgive my paranoia.
I didn’t dislike it, actually, and in fact liked it more than I expected to. But I’m frustrated because it could have been really brilliant, which is pretty much how I feel about the latest round of regular adaptations. And I let the Snark Monster off its leash a little bit above there because that’s what I do.
I decided to do it in comments rather than a dedicated post because I can see a lot of people are enjoying it, so why harsh their buzz? such comments have less weight as one among many than as a dedicated top of the page post.
Also I think a faithful adaptation need not be cloying, and an adaptation made unfaithful on principle, to avoid the tag of “cloying faithfulness,” often fails, because it misses the central point. I actually don’t consider Lost in Austen an adaptation at all; it is its own thing. But that doesn’t excuse the need to be faithful in historical details and really to the novel itself. Failure to do so, in my eyes, means “it’s all in her head” and then that leads on to the references back to the BBC miniseries and the most recent film–and yes, I certainly noticed them, but didn’t consider them brilliant in any way. There is a view that all Janeites are just obsessed with wet shirts, but I think that is more of a construction of the media than the truth, and it becomes tiresome. For me, seeing what you consider parodic reflections of former adaptations just makes me roll my eyes and think, there they go again. I think those of us who are really involved in the Austen fandom are going to have a different viewpoint than those who take a wider look at the genre. And to me, from the first episode, it looks like we’re being parodied by someone who doesn’t really understand what they’re parodying. The Jane Austen Book Club film, which has a similar theme of retreating from modern life into Jane Austen’s novels, was more successful, I think, in that respect because Robin Swicord IS a Janeite and knows how we think.
Wait a sec… So this movie takes place in the heroine’s conception of this fictional world… and the people are eating chocolate bars for breakfast… so it’s showing the heroine’s own misconceptions of the text? Now, that’s got possibilities.
Hmmm, and “parodic echoes of past Pride & Prejudice adaptations”. If anybody looked at my mental conception of a book, they’d find it overlaid with movie pictures, which is why I’m careful what movies I watch (and why it took me YEARS to appreciate the ’95 P&P, and why I just about cover my eyes during That Awful Scene, because it’s against the laws of God and man.)
Soooo – making fun of Jane Austen is one thing, but making fun of her fans (including me) is another. There are vast quantities of internet fanfic to be atoned for, and sometimes the innocent must suffer along with the guilty.
This doesn’t mean I’ll watch the thing. Not until I overcome my horror of fanfic, and of Amanda’s unfortunate hairstyle, anyway.
I so enjoyed Mags’s list that I came with a few things on my own:
* How did Lizzy read the Marks&Spencer label with the light off?
* Why Mrs. Bennet calls Darcy ‘Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy’? Is his father still alive?
* Why Amanda isn’t worried that she’s going to lose her job?
* Why she doesn’t ask Mr. Bennet to lever the door to her bathroom?
* Why on earth Lizzy locked Amanda in the Regency world? Couldn’t she tour the future with Amanda staying at her own apartment?
* Since when Bingley is so ill-mannered that he insists on a dance even after the lady had refused?
* Did I hear Mr. Bennet and Bingley shout? The former at his home, the latter during the assembly.
* Why Darcy said that he can’t dance? Doesn’t he always speak the truth?
* Since when the Netherfield party is not attending the Sunday service? And what were they doing in Hertfordshire anyway?
* How often does Amanda wash her hair that she doesn’t have to pin it up? One wouldn’t be so eager to show it off on the 3rd day, would one?
* Since when Bingley is falling for the exotic and not the classic type of beauty? Can’t he see that Jane is far more beautiful?
* If Amanda slept in Lizzy’s bed then where was Jane? Didn’t the girls share the room?
* Since Amanda is to be a modern Lizzy why she’s so un-Lizzy-like? One would imagine a modern Lizzy to be well educated, cultured, and enthusiastic about her professional career. Or she’s rather a kind of Bridget Jones, but unaware of her shortcomings?
I’m sure I’d catch more if I rewatched it, but I can’t make myself. I can’t be picky about Mrs. Bennet’s portrayal, because I’m afraid that in comparison to what they’re going to do to Bingley or Darcy it’s really nothing. I just wish it was as enjoyable.
I retain my right to laugh at the show though. If they can deride my favourite book, surely I’m justified.
@ Valerie: Wait a sec… So this movie takes place in the heroine’s conception of this fictional world… and the people are eating chocolate bars for breakfast… so it’s showing the heroine’s own misconceptions of the text? Now, that’s got possibilities.
I think it’s possible, but if so it’s very murky. How many viewers would know that the things are incorrect? A quick search through reviews tells me that beyond 1%. Then it may be ITV’s misconception after all. Unless they’re going to show in the last episode what and why was wrong. However, as for now, it seems to be just a melodrama with a crass heroine in the middle.
Otherwise, yes, it seems like either poking fun at Austen’s fans, or just cashing in on their concept of ‘all Austen lovers are wet shirt lovers’. They think that every woman dreams of jumping to the novel and romanticizing Darcy, which I find offensive personally, but then, judging from reviews on various blogs, many people proved them right.
I think this film is using their idea of why women like Austen, to escape into an idealized romantic world, as a springboard. Then, when Amanda does enter that world, it is supposed to be amusing as everything goes wrong and is different than she thought.
I am guessing that the next episodes will show Amanda somehow straightening out the men in P&P, and Elizabeth straightening out Amanda’s boyfriend. When she returns home, Amanda will then appreciate her unromantic boyfriend after her eye opening experience in P&P. There is no place like home. Anyway, that is just my guess. It is too bad that the good parts of this film are not expanded on. But I am enjoying making fun of the not so good parts.
Wow. Um, aren’t they supposed to be speaking Georgian English, not Jacobin or Elizabethan? “Wherefore”? This feels like the writer just picked up a thesaurus and substituted “old-timey” words. Poor Jane Bennet – I feel for her, falling in love with a dolt and then having him stolen away by…um…a Lydia-wanna-be? And Hugh Bonneville is great, but then, he was great in Mansfield Park, too, and that didn’t save it either. Though he and Mrs. Bennet (who I am sure never calls him “Claude”) seem like awfully young parents – so much so, that I don’t understand why they’re all so afraid of Collins, after the aging (if spry) Benjamin Whitrow and the ancient Donald Sutherland. And speaking of Collins – at least they finally made him tall (like the 1980 film). And what’s with the getting drunk in recent Austenesque films? Doesn’t Amanda know that you can’t answer Nature’s Call at a Ball, in one’s Ball Gown? And Darcy was “spectacularly unfriendly,” when he went out on a limb and saved her in an obvious lie? And it pains me to agree with Mrs. Bennet, but everything she complains about is completely accurate. And I think her speech applies to the film as well.
If you’re going to film fanfiction, why not at least do good stuff? I’ve read Darcy/Kitty and Lizzy/Bingley that was better written than this dreck. Seriously, I think Jane and Darcy in this version are better suited to each other.
Well, it seems as if everything has already been said. Nevertheless allow me to add my humble and probably very unlearned opinion as a male gazer.
To be honest I was actually quite prepared to like it, especially after all the usual snarking one tends to expect from this place. My typical knee-jerk reaction always drifts into the opposite direction.
All joking aside, I found the premise great: just the type of girl ‘I’ would like to meet in real life and they make a series about her. Delighted to make your acquaintance, Miss Price.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly where the problem lies, the main character. Of course, we’re dealing with stereotyping and fantasy here and whatnot. But to me she just didn’t seem believable. I don’t quite know how to explain it. Her entire appearance, the way she dresses, speaks don’t really “float my boat”, to be honest. And that hairstyle… goodness gracious!
Forgive me, if I come across too Caroline Bingleyish, here. But while my personal preferences are not the point, my personal stereotypes are. And I think the way they set up the character just doesn’t fit in with the person they’re trying to make me believe I’m watching.
However, since we’re dealing with fantasy (and that is exactly what this is, of course) I found myself trying to suspend disbelief. There are moments I liked. When her mother tried to convince her to marry her boyfriend and she replied “I have my standards”, for the fraction of a nanosecond I was willing to say: would you marry me, pretty please! And before everyone starts to throw rocks at me, may I remind you (again) that we’re dealing with fantasy here. Thank you, very kind.
Yes, and then she drifts into her dream, at least that’s what I suppose it’ll finally turn out to be, and everything goes tits up, to put it mildly. Of course things are going to go wrong. After all, that’s exactly what should make the story interesting. But please, PLEASE where are your bloody standards, now, Amanda!? From one extreme, that of a badly stereotyped Austen-obsessed girl, she goes into what seems to be the complete opposite. Allow me to quote the author of this blog, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! A plague on both your scriptwriters, ITV! [I doubt they have more than two anyway, if at all.]
All in all I did like the Bennets. Yes, Hugh Bonneville was great in my opinion. Although after having recently seen him in the BBC’s Daniel Deronda to suddenly accept him in the role of Mr. Bennet almost felt like some guy in a ridiculous black armour suddenly telling you “Luke, I am your father!” I think Jane was absolutely lovely. In the few glimpses I had of her she seemed to have just that sweet angelic ‘something’ I’ve become accustomed to associate with Jane. *starts to drift away dreamily until his head hits the door frame* Ouch, that hurt. Why are you looking at me like that, Mrs Bennet? And what are doing with that knife?
It’ll be interesting to see how it develops. But by Jove, this could’ve been so much better!
I was wondering where this series might ‘go’ in terms of narrative direction.
Prior to watching, I had always assumed that we would get to see BOTH women in their new, respective worlds, but the more I think about it, I reckon that’s unlikely, chiefly because a large proportion of the viewing public won’t have a knowledge or affinity with Elizabeth Bennet. They won’t have the back-knowledge to find a Regency woman living out of context, in 21st century London, sufficiently amusing or intriguing. And as an audience invariably needs a main character to identify with, I am increasingly convinced that we will be sticking with Amanda in P&P fantasy-land, pretty much to the end. I suspect we’ll see her return to her own day, and perhaps see the ‘effects’ of Elizabeth Bennet’s sojourn in 21st century Hammersmith, but little else.
With that in mind, I think we can expect Amanda to become the ‘new’ Elizabeth, i.e: Darcy has to fall in love with HER, in keeping with the fan fiction logic at play here.
What bothered me most was that this version of Elizabeth is either a cruel and capricious bitch or simply insane. The advance publicity claimed she and Amanda agreed to change places. “Agreed” would require some prior discussion and common consent. From thie first episode it appeared that Elizabeth tricked Amanda into going into her world – for no rational motive that I could see, as it would appear to be perfectly possible for Elizabeth to get into the 21st Century without anyone going to Longbourn in her stead, and if she wished to explore more widely it would have made far more sense for her to have someone to advise her on a place of which she knows only that if you pull a cord a light goes on. At first I thought the magic door had shut of its own accord, but when it emerged that Elizabeth had already told her father she would be gone several weeks and is pushing letters backing this up under the door it seemed plain she had waited until Amanda was inside then shut it on her. (Personally, if a doorway opened in my bathroom and a character from fiction came out I would not stir a step towards the other side unless the fictional character went first, and before I followed I would fetch some heavy object and wedge the door open with it). This was a very cruel thing to do (as pointed up by several shots at different times of Amanda beating at the door and pleading with Elizabeth to return) and totally out of character for the Elizabeth we know.
I like the concept raised by several posters that this is Amanda’s version of P&P reality. Though that does not explain why she, who allegedly does little else with her leisure hours but read the book, did not notice significant differences unconnected with her presence and Elizabeth’s absence – for example, Bingley only saw Mr Bennet when he returned his call, not his wife or any of his daughters, and I do not see why the presence of a guest in the house would alter that.
I rather like Darcy. He’s stiff and snooty, and cares about his friend Bingley. If he looks as thought he’s eaten a bug, well, at the Meryton Assembley, Darcy does indeed behave as if he smelled something bad – so having eaten a bug might be another way of putting it. I look forward to seeing how his character develops.
I do however find Amanda Price a poor substitute for Lizzy. I don’t know why everyone doesn’t find her conduct revolting. Lydia would appear to be Maria von Trapp by comparison.
@ Kathleen G: Whether Elizabeth’s behaviour is completely out of character is probably not the point. I think her actions are just a sloppy excuse to transport Amanda into her P&P fantasy land, as Gallivant put it, and nothing more. They’ll probably pull a Bobby Ewing in the end.
But for the time being I’ve decided to throw logic out of the window.
That being said, I had hoped myself to see how Elizabeth would fare in our time, at least a little bit. If done right (unfortunately a very big ‘if’) there IS some potential there, too. But that’s probably not what we’re going to see. It would also contradict my dream theory. But hey, what do I know? Maybe we’ll see Lizzy return in Doc Martens with a Mohawk and new set of piercings… This version’s Mrs Bennet’s reaction to that could be interesting to watch.
Re: Darcy and the bug: wouldn’t it have been hilarious if this chick had jumped into P&P, was all jazzed to meet Darcy (because he’s DARCY! and she’s obsessed with P&P!) and then was rejected by this guy she was so excited to meet–because he’s kind of a jerk for the first half of the book? That’s what I mean about her being a Mary Sue. He really shouldn’t fall in love with her, for a million reasons, at least not right away.
Amanda is certainly annoying and one-dimensional, but I think Jemima Rooper improves things as she is appealing and quite good in the role. It might have been worse in less skilled hands.
About the question whether we’re going to see more of Lizzy in modern-day London: I have seen pictures of this series which showed Mr Darcy (!) in a modern-day world. Not sure if this is just a fantasy of Amanda’s, or if she’s really taking him home.
The biggest drawback IMO is Amanda.
She’s repulsive. What with her landing strips, and drunkenness, and kissing Bingley without provocation (I can accept her needing to smoke a cigarette, that’s all).
Is this their idea of a modern girl?
, which might explain all.
As Mags has also mentioned, she seems to be limited to P&P, so she is perhaps not really a Janeite
Just read your post Mags.
Agree! Jemima Rooper is doing her best for Amanda, but only the script can save Amanda, which I hope it does in the future.
“I have seen pictures of this series which showed Mr Darcy (!) in a modern-day world. Not sure if this is just a fantasy of Amanda’s, or if she’s really taking him home.”
If that is true, then she won’t take him home but she’s probably going to meet someone (surprise, surprise) who looks just like Darcy, when she’s “back” in her own world after having caused havoc in her fantasyland.
Oh dear.
Apologies for replying to my own post.
Reflecting again about what Franka said:
“I have seen pictures of this series which showed Mr Darcy (!) in a modern-day world. Not sure if this is just a fantasy of Amanda’s, or if she’s really taking him home.”
This could probably be the trick to resolve the whole mess that Amanda is causing. Since Lizzy is not present at Netherfield Ball etc. etc. She obviously can’t fall in love with Darcy. Nevertheless, she might meet his ‘equivalent’ in Amanda’s world where she falls in love with him, as a substitute for the time she isn’t spending at Netherfield or Pemberley.
It actually get’s worse by the minute. *lol*
As I see, some commenters are eager to make predictions about what will happen in the following episodes. They can check up their predictions by reading the episodes synopses in “Lost in Austen Press Pack 1″, which can be downloaded (MS Word document, the link was already published on this site) on the ITV Press Centre Website:
http://www.itv.com/PressCentre/Presspacks/LostInAusten/default.html
Here is a quote from episode 4:
“…. Amanda then sees Darcy walking the streets of modern day Hammersmith – he followed her through the door to find her. He declares his love for her a second time, but Amanda decides she has to take him with her to meet Elizabeth. She’s so fearful that they will fall in love, but what right does she have to obstruct them?
Elizabeth has acclimatized to the modern world very well. She’s found a job as a nanny, is now macrobiotic and obsessed with the internet. When she is introduced to Darcy she shows him all the websites she has found on Pride and Prejudice. But when a fight breaks out between Michael and Darcy, Amanda resolves that she’s got to get Elizabeth and Darcy back through the door to the Austen world, so that normal life can resume.
Once through the door, Darcy disregards the events in modern day London as a dream. For the first time in the story Darcy and Elizabeth are in the right place at the right time. Amanda continues to encourage Elizabeth to talk to Darcy – it’s her duty. But do his feelings for Amanda remain the same? And will he call off his engagement to Caroline Bingley? ….”
In other words: Lizzy could be among us right here, right now!
All right, would the real Lizzy please stand up.
I’m glad Gemma Atherton seems to have done a decent job, because I am really looking forward to the Tess Of The D’Urbervilles adaptation, and from what I’ve read and seen, Atherton seems to make a convincing Tess.
Please no spoilers!! I predict that Amanda will have to leave Pride and Prejudice at the end, WIzard of Oz style, and will end up with the no-hoper boyfriend, who will hopefully have shaped up. But I predict the door will be open (pun intended!) to a sequel!
If what Boris has posted is the finale, then yes, a sequel looks highly likely. (Unless the ratings dip further).
I agree that the characters are awful. The producers keep saying that Amanda is a modern version of Lizzy, but she’s not. She behaves exactly in a way a modern Lydia would, and her intelligence is on a similar level. She’s just a Mary Sue whom ITV thought we’d identify with, which more or less shows what ITV thinks about Austen fans.
Then they ruined Lizzy’s character in order to have her make stupid things that would justify Amanda’s taking Lizzy’s place. Can anyone tell me why on earth Amanda doesn’t ask Mr. Bennet to make a hole in that door?
Then of course they also ruin Darcy, whom I always respected for having the good sense and taste not to fall for a girl like Amanda. He’s not Edmund Bertram who lusts after a pretty face, and not Edward Ferrars who gets trapped by a little liar. Darcy never fell in love prior to meeting Lizzy, and when he did, he knew that she was every bit worthy of his affection. I’m having problems with accepting his falling for Amanda, because it makes him sink in my estimation.
Amanda can learn Regency etiquette, but she’ll always remain a girl who snogs strangers on binge drinking, and overall fits with her burping boyfriend very well.
I think that the only reason why they don’t show us more of Lizzy is to make us forget about her till the very end. They want us to cheer Amanda in her Darcy quest. But as many viewers noticed Lizzy’s side would be much more interesting.
BTW I don’t like the actress who plays Amanda. Perhaps that’s because I haven’t seen her in anything else, but I cringe every time I see her or hear her voice.
@ Gallivant – I read the synopses, and it doesn’t seem it’s the finale. Rather they didn’t tell us the ending, and summarised only half of the last episode instead.
Does anyone else get the impression that Amanda’s feeling a bit superior in her Regency world? I can’t exactly point out an example. It might be her body language, her expression – and then her hair add to the general irritation.
@sylwia
>She behaves exactly in a way a modern Lydia would,
I agree completely.
@ Sylwia: The producers keep saying that Amanda is a modern version of Lizzy, but she’s not. She behaves exactly in a way a modern Lydia would, and her intelligence is on a similar level.
I wholeheartedly agree! What bugs me most is Amanda’s inconsistent behaviour. She behaves in total opposition to how she introduces herself in the initial voice-over. Just one example: are we really supposed to believe that this ‘romantic’ girl (“I escape always to my favorite book”) would flash her youknowwhat just because she believes to be in some kind of reality-tv show and she’s trying to get a reaction? It’s simply ridiculous.
I hope someone publishes the ratings for the coming episodes. I’m really curious about that.
Yippee!! I got to watch it on You Tube and, while I can’t say it is great, I can say it’s great fun. Sure, I’d change some things (Was part of that scene with Lydia really necessary?) but it’s a fun idea. Vulgarity simply isn’t necessary.
I guess my feeling is that productions of Jane Austen-based and -related materials don’t have to be perfect. Perhaps some are just experiments, which is what LIA appears to be.
I think that the production seems a little unpolished, with the bangs, the outfit she wears when she enters the Bennet world, some of the choices of dialogue and circumstance. But, still, fun to watch.
Watching on YT is like reading a wonderful book under the covers with a flashlight as a child when your parents have told you to go to sleep. Unfortunately, ITV only lets you watch the behind-the-scenes extras on their site if you are in the UK. Pretty bad for marketing, I think.
Now, I look forward to reading more of the comments. Just wish I knew when the next episode airs.
Just realized there’s another Jemima, so I’ve added a name.
Jemima @ 81, I agree. I’ve been watching Lost in Austen on Youtube, and while I’ve been enjoying it, I think that the vulgarity was completely unnnecessary. Jane would not approve. . . then again, it’s extremely doubtful that Jane would have approved of this series at all.
But from what I’ve seen so far, I think that for what it is, L in A has been quite well done. The dialogue has been – I won’t say sensitively handled – but there hasn’t been anything that jarred too much throwing the whole thing into dischord. The casting has been quite good – but the guy who plays Darcy doesn’t quite get it. . . *mutters* they should’ve cast Richard Armitage as Mr Darcy *stops muttering*. . .
@ Jemima: Unfortunately, ITV only lets you watch the behind-the-scenes extras on their site if you are in the UK.
You can find ITV’s behind-the-scenes segment on YT:
I just rewatched the first episode. If you think of it as a spoof or a simple piece of fan fiction it’s tolerable. I mean, it could’ve been worse. At least they didn’t choose to go down the Slash-route. Andrew Davies would’ve had a field day with that, I’m sure.
PS @ editorial staff: I hope it’s ok to post a YT link. Otherwise accept my apologies and feel free to edit/delete asap. Thanks
PS @ editorial staff: I hope it’s ok to post a YT link.
I think it’s safe to say that horse has left the barn. LOL.
Thank you Hunsford Parson for the link! It’s such fun to watch these YT videos when one wouldn’t ordinarily get the chance.
Another Editrix @83 – It also occurred to me that Amanda talks a lot about how she love the genteel nature of the Regency period. This seems at odds with her behavior – one who loves gentility and refinement would not say or do such things in or out of the Bennet world or her own!
I must say I would have placed Amanda in a long flowy dress for the occasion of her passing through the door into the Bennet world. This way she could have had something that could be likened to Regency dress enough that a viewer would be able to somewhat accept the relative calmness with which the Bennets receive her outfit. I know this way she’s not as much an anachronism, but it could have eased the believability of the characters’ reactions.
One thing about this production that makes it fun to watch is that it can really be picked apart!
But that language and behavior really was a problem in the program….
But that language and behavior really was a problem in the program….
Well, the good thing is, it makes it easy to root for Mrs Bennet. That scene at the Meryton assembly in which she gives Amanda her nice little ‘advise’ was quite an interesting twist. I’d love to see Mrs Bennet exert her ‘mortal kombat’ powers on that little minx.
Humble apologies.
Forgot to enter my handle in the post above.
I find myself being very preoccupied with Lost in Austen and am waiting impatiently for tonight’s episode! In the last week it has inspired me to reread the novel itself, and I have to admit to dipping into the BBC version on DVD. It interests me how the new show ‘comments’ on both of these. Is it supposed to be the ‘real’ book, do you think? Or is it all unfolding in Amanda’s imagination? I don’t suppose it matters, I’m just interested. And why was Lizzie putting on her bonnet as the door closed? Why is she so keen to leave? i hope all will be revealed!
Re Amanda, I for one think it’s not inconsistent for a young woman who sometimes reads Jane Austen for comfort to drink and smoke. Are all Jane Austen fans prim maidens without modern vices? Don’t we have to live in the real world? I interpreted her kissing Bingley to be something of a cry for help, not a consciously ‘slutty’ thing. Didn’t she just need a shoulder to cry on? The ‘landing strip’ is somewhat harder to justify, but I suppose she really was feeling out of her depth and I guess was supposed to be in shock. It made me laugh (sorry!) but I agree it felt contrived for comic effect.
What will they do with Mr Collins? Why does Amanda ‘assault’ him? Intrigued!
>In the last week it has inspired me to reread the novel itself, and I have to admit to dipping into the BBC version on DVD.
Was there a BBC version of it?
There have been 6 BBC versions!!
Re inconsistency of Amanda’s character:
“I love the manners, the language and the courtesy. It’s become part of who I am and what I want.” Amanda’s own words during the conversation with her mother.
As for booze & cigarettes, while it puts me off personally, it doesn’t have to be the case with other JA fans, of course. To each his own, I suppose. But at least they shouldn’t try to sell me the character as someone who she clearly isn’t. That’s my main beef with Amanda.
Why does Amanda ‘assault’ him? Intrigued!
After what we’ve seen and debated about the series, it is probably safe to assume Mr. Collins ‘made his move’ at Netherfield Ball after overhearing a conversation between Bingley and Darcy discussing ‘what a free spirit and breath of fresh air that young Miss Price is.’
I think it’s a bit of harmless fun to be honest, I’ve suspended all knowledge of Austen and decided to go with the flow. As of yet, I’ve not been let down.
I’m finding it a bit of a laugh, and I think if anyone of us were in her position, we might of reacted the same to save our lovely story.
Although, I probably wouldn’t have kissed Bingley.
I would love to have a go at a good old Caroline put down, as Miss Price put it ‘I never saw the point in her character’.
I love it. Hilarious. I enjoyed the first 2 episodes… I was not happy since… am in the US… I cannot finish watching the episodes since itv took them off you-tube.com. But I already pre-ordered the DVD from Amazon.com, I cannot wait for it to come. 9 days!!
I feel like Amanda, like some other blast into the past heroines, that I’ve read about such as in the novel, “Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict,” Which I believe this show is definetly inspired by. She makes too many mistakes… I keep thinking , oh how funny they must think she is just incredibly uncooth. Also the Mrs Bennet was an entirely different personna. I was a bit dispointed by that.