Lost in Austen News Roundup: The Regency Stinks Edition
No news yet about ratings, or at least it hasn’t arrived at AustenBlog World Headquarters. If anyone else sees anything, feel free to link it.
Tanya Gold at the Guardian thinks we Janeites are all much too frivolous in our enjoyment of Jane Austen.
But this is all lost in Lost in Austen. When TV eats and regurgitates Austen it comes up with a dating theme park. All it can see is Colin Firth’s arse (Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, 1995). Or Ciaran Hinds’ legs (Captain Wentworth in Persuasion, also 1995). Or Peter Firth’s hair (Mr Tilney in Northanger Abbey, 1986). Tilney rides up to his poor, palpitating bride-to-be Catherine Morland on a white horse – why does it always have to be white? – and says, “Do not be afraid, I will not overwhelm you with too much grief or with too much passion but since you left us the white rose bush has died of grief.” This really freaks me out. Because I don’t want the white rose bush to die of grief and I don’t want to watch a man swimming in a pond. I want a job, sexual equality and equal pay.
She really needs to just go watch Tess of the d’Urbervilles and get over it. Jane Austen movies SHOULD be fun. Her books are fun. She wrote them that way. You want history, read a history book; we wouldn’t want those poor writers of history to be working for nothing, now, would we? (And for the record, we collapse in helpless giggles when the white rose bush dies of grief, imagining what The Real Henry Tilney would have to say about it.)
The Bucks Free Press has mixed feelings about Lost in Austen.
With Austen books regularly adapted into TV or film, there are slim pickings for new projects, so this sort of post-modern spin, which turns the whole story upside down, makes sense.
But you wonder what could be coming up next. ‘Damned in Dickens’, perhaps, where the layabout 21st century videogame addict tumbles back in time to a Victorian era workhouse to see what hard graft is really like. Or ‘The Full Bronte’ where modern-day Yorkshire steel-working strippers wander into some bad 18th century weather looking tortured, haunted and angry.
And then…loosen their cravats! The Victorian Full Monty! Okay, maybe not. (Well, it worked for John Thornton.)
Rachel Cook indulges in a good cleansing righteous rant at the New Statesman.
While I don’t entirely despise how this “drama” assumes that all women like Pride and Prejudice, what I do seriously take objection to is the idea that the things we love about it are: “The love story . . . the manners . . . the courtesy.” Right. So let’s forget the flawless writing, the genius plotting and the savage wit, shall we? And let’s not read any other novels either, be they by Jane Austen or anyone else. Far too difficult, that. No, let’s just read Pride and Prejudice over and over again until – to paraphrase Amanda Price, the 21st-century heroine of this icky dross – it becomes “part of who we are and what we want”.
Sing it, sisterfriend! While we are finding LiA mildly amusing, it really could have been a lot better, and most of the “humor” is on the lame side. Real Jane Austen is soooo much better.
Comments are closed.
I could sign with both hands below the quote from Rachel Cook.
The ratings – I found them earlier and posted at my blog: http://austenette.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/lost-in-austen-lost-again/
Here’s the relevant part:
“TV chef Ainsley Harriott’s trawl through his family history helped BBC1’s Who Do You Think You Are? beat ITV1’s drama Lost in Austen again.
The genealogy show pulled in 6.4 million viewers and a 29% share in the 9pm hour, while the second instalment of Lost in Austen attracted 3.1 million and 14% in the same slot.
Last week, Who Do You Think You Are? drew 6.2 million viewers and a 27% share, with the first part of Lost in Austen gaining 3.8 million and 17%.”
Let’s not forget that the number of viewers was 4.2 million for the first 15 minutes of the first episode.
I haven’t come across the Bucks Free Press before (not a resident of that county!), but the review in full is rather more positive than the above filleted bit suggests:
“I have to admit, Lost in Austen wouldn’t generally be my first choice for a Wednesday night in front of the box. But the sad reality is, sometimes someone else gets hold of the TV remote control, and there’s nothing you can do but sit and watch. This isn’t my first exposure to the world of the Jane Austen TV adaptations, however, what with my other half being a hardened fan of her books. But ITV’s show had a Life on Mars-style difference – one likely to wind up the purists…
Lost in Austen was actually the polar opposite of Life on Mars – the two shows might as well be snarling, time travelling arch enemies. Whereas one is romance, good manners, and gentle culture clash humour (albeit with an edgier modern twist), the other is all boozing, swearing, violence and withering Gene Hunt insults. But despite the lack of police brutality and Ford Cortina car chases, Lost in Austen wasn’t without charm.
It took an early stumble, though, with a branded clothing gag lifted straight from Back to The Future. As Marty McFly’s Calvin Klein logo’d undies were once mistaken for nametagged pants, Amanda was first assumed to be called Miss Spencer, on account of the major high street store where she buys her underwear. But from then on, there was a steady stream of neatly observed gags, as Amanda knowingly commented on the unfolding story. Of course, she wondered if she was going bonkers at the same time, in between trying to get her mobile phone to work and using chalk and twigs to brush her teeth. Just as well she bothered though, because this fun but flimsy confection of a comedy drama was liable to rot her teeth otherwise. With Austen books regularly adapted into TV or film, there are slim pickings for new projects, so this sort of post-modern spin, which turns the whole story upside down, makes sense.”
So, on balance, tending towards the favourable (I knew I recognosed the ‘Miss Spencer’ joke but couldn’t remember where from!).
The broadsheets have been very favourable to this silly but very fun show (I’m an insatiable newspaper reader – bags and bags of grey matter recycled each week!). Nanc Banks Smith, the Grande Dame, the Lady Catherine of tv criticism in the UK, wrote the following in The Guardian yesterday:
“Lost in Austen (ITV1) continues, fruity and frothy like a jam omelette. This is the fantasy of a very modern girl, Amanda, lost in Pride and Prejudice. Her salary, £27,000 a year, caused some flutters, kicking Mr Darcy’s pittance into touch. Mr Collins arrived, looking disturbingly like Disraeli, and Amanda noticed: “He squeezes himself through his trouser pocket. And Then He Sniffs His Fingers!”… Horrifyingly, in spite or because of Amanda’s meddling, Mr Collins married Jane last night. Amazingly good for ITV. Surely some mistake here?”
And that last sentence seems telling. Here in England the third channel has been having a difficult time, and there’s been a loss of confidence in its programming. Ratings have been tumbling, and new things aren’t sticking. I don’t understand why this isn’t shown on a Sunday night (when most costume dramas play) and it’s up against one of the most popular shows in the UK, the celebrity genealogy programme ‘Who Do You Think You Are’, which the country seems to be in thrall to. But the press acknowledge that this is one of the sparkiest new shows for a long time. I’ll try to dig out some more reviews!
I’ve not watched any LIA, but I have to say I like the ‘Slacker enters Dickens’ World’ idea – except that the Slacker would likely have no clue where he was. I don’t think Slackers read Dickens.
The Full Bronte… oh, how I want to see that.
Me too!!!! I’ll even pay to watch that one…..