Is it me? Yeah, probably...
Nov. 19th, 2005 10:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wordinistaIs it wrong that I'm not the least bit excited about the new P&P movie? I mean, not even a little. I can't even pretend to get excited over it. I just can't. I've seen the trailers, and my reaction has been a consistent "Meh." I'm not trying to be a snob about it, and it looked "meh" even before I found out they cut out nearly the entire Wickham subplot, which... *shakes head* The Wickham subplot is... I don't see how you could read the book and say, "Yeah, that guy? Has to go."
Frankly I don't see how you could cut P&P down to two hours and expect to remain true to the source material. And I know there are a bunch of people who liked the movie, and that's great for them, but I think different people look for and expect different things when they watch a film adaptation of a novel. It's not like P&P is some crazy-long novel that you absolutely have to snip.
There was some Austen wank on fandom_wank recently, and so much of it just made me roll my eyes. There was a small collective of people who thought the New Darcy was superior to Colin Firth's Darcy, and it almost sounded like they liked McFayden's Darcy just because Firth's Darcy is so well-loved. You know -- the idea that it's somehow more genuine if you prefer the unpopular to the popular? I could be wrong, but that's how it seems. And a lot of the reviews have said consistently that Knightley outshines McFayden (which, really, from the trailers? Seems very hard not to do.), and... I don't know, I just don't feel motivated to go. I actually talked George out of going to go see it, telling him I'd much rather he hole up with me for the BBC P&P. If I'm going to expose him to P&P for the first time, it's not going to be with a snipped version. (It's worth noting that his first exposure to Othello was the movie O, and the very next day I was on the phone with the Folger Shakespeare Theatre, ordering two tickets for their production of Othello. I think I was probably still even foaming at the mouth...)
There is, of course, the argument that the film-makers cut out all the "pointless shit" in P&P -- yes,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
somnambulicious, that comment STILL makes me roll my eyes -- but I don't understand how you can look at a novel that has so many different adaptations and modernizations and simply decide that a certain subplot is "pointless."
There was also the argument that a film is better when it doesn't remain true to the novel. Yes, really. And, do you know, I thought long and hard about which film-adaptations are successful versus the unsuccessful ones, and... I couldn't think of a successful film-adaptation that was successful because it deviated wildly from the novel. The deviations in the LOTR movies are, from what I can tell, pretty small, and there you're also dealing with huge, intricately plotted novels. (The LOTR books are a completely different animal from P&P, besides.) The Harry Potter books do deviate, and I think PoA's missing backstory is unfortunate, but I also think the film-makers view the HP book adaptations as "children's" movies (I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm just saying that I think they view them this way), and so they will keep an eye to time constraints. Personally I think it's a mistake to do this, but what do I know?
And, anyway, P&P? Not remotely marketed as a kids' book. The core P&P audience won't mind if a movie runs over two hours, really. Part of the Austenwank had to do with the Jane Austen Society (I think?) going to see the movie and bitching wildly about the historical inaccuracies, among other things. I wonder why the Austen Society members didn't look at the running time and think to themselves, "Wow, this isn't going to stick very closely to the novel; we should keep our expectations low." They should've known better.
I have my own bitchings about any perceived "historical inaccuracies." The argument, as I understand it, is that because Jane Austen's first draft of P&P, then called First Impressions was finished in 1797. It was then offered to Cadell for publication, but was rejected. I do not know how many drafts the story went through before it was eventually published in 1813 by Egerton, but after sixteen years, I think it's safe to say that it went through A LOT of revisions.
Here's a brief chronology (from the Oxford World Classics edition of P&P):
1775: (16 Dec.) Jane Austen born at Steventon in Hants, seventh child of the Revd. George Austen (1731-1805) and Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827)
1784/5: J.A. and sister leave the Abbey School, Reading
1795: Elinor and Marianne written. Lady Susan written (B.C. Southam's dating)
1796: (Oct.) First Impressions begun (finished Aug. 1797)
1797: (Nov.) Sense and Sensibility begun. First Impressions unsuccessfully offered to Cadell
1797/8: Northanger Abbey (Susan) written. Sold to Crosby & Co. in 1803
1801: Austens settle in Bath
[...]
1811: Mansfield Park begun (Feb.). Sense and Sensibility published (Nov.)
1812: (Nov.) Pride and Prejudice sold to Egerton
1813: (Jan.) Pride and Prejudice published. (Nov.) second editions of [Pride and Prejudice] and Sense and Sensibility
And so on.
My own personal theory, given the chronology, is that any first draft of P&P she started was probably heavily influenced by S&S. The two novels have a lot of similarities, and I tend to think she probably tried, the first time, to write one novel encompassing both plots. I have no research to back this up -- I'm merely speculating.
So, the movie is set in the late 18th century instead of the early 19th century, and people are bitching about that. Personally, I think it's a silly thing to complain about, BUT I can't help but think it's similarly silly to think you're being all revolutionary by setting the novel at the time of the first draft. When there are sixteen years separating two drafts of a work, the first version isn't "truer" than the published version. She was, by my count, twenty-one when she started writing P&P, and thirty-seven when it finally got published. Don't even try to tell me that P&P's first draft was better that early in her career.
So. This is why I have no intention of seeing P&P in the theatres. Am I being picky? Possibly. But, at the end of the day, it's two hours of my life and upwards of $35 (when you take into consideration gas for the car and snackies for the patrons) that I'm just not willing to part with if I'm afraid I'll be disappointed.
Thus endeth the rant.
Frankly I don't see how you could cut P&P down to two hours and expect to remain true to the source material. And I know there are a bunch of people who liked the movie, and that's great for them, but I think different people look for and expect different things when they watch a film adaptation of a novel. It's not like P&P is some crazy-long novel that you absolutely have to snip.
There was some Austen wank on fandom_wank recently, and so much of it just made me roll my eyes. There was a small collective of people who thought the New Darcy was superior to Colin Firth's Darcy, and it almost sounded like they liked McFayden's Darcy just because Firth's Darcy is so well-loved. You know -- the idea that it's somehow more genuine if you prefer the unpopular to the popular? I could be wrong, but that's how it seems. And a lot of the reviews have said consistently that Knightley outshines McFayden (which, really, from the trailers? Seems very hard not to do.), and... I don't know, I just don't feel motivated to go. I actually talked George out of going to go see it, telling him I'd much rather he hole up with me for the BBC P&P. If I'm going to expose him to P&P for the first time, it's not going to be with a snipped version. (It's worth noting that his first exposure to Othello was the movie O, and the very next day I was on the phone with the Folger Shakespeare Theatre, ordering two tickets for their production of Othello. I think I was probably still even foaming at the mouth...)
There is, of course, the argument that the film-makers cut out all the "pointless shit" in P&P -- yes,
somnambulicious, that comment STILL makes me roll my eyes -- but I don't understand how you can look at a novel that has so many different adaptations and modernizations and simply decide that a certain subplot is "pointless."There was also the argument that a film is better when it doesn't remain true to the novel. Yes, really. And, do you know, I thought long and hard about which film-adaptations are successful versus the unsuccessful ones, and... I couldn't think of a successful film-adaptation that was successful because it deviated wildly from the novel. The deviations in the LOTR movies are, from what I can tell, pretty small, and there you're also dealing with huge, intricately plotted novels. (The LOTR books are a completely different animal from P&P, besides.) The Harry Potter books do deviate, and I think PoA's missing backstory is unfortunate, but I also think the film-makers view the HP book adaptations as "children's" movies (I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm just saying that I think they view them this way), and so they will keep an eye to time constraints. Personally I think it's a mistake to do this, but what do I know?
And, anyway, P&P? Not remotely marketed as a kids' book. The core P&P audience won't mind if a movie runs over two hours, really. Part of the Austenwank had to do with the Jane Austen Society (I think?) going to see the movie and bitching wildly about the historical inaccuracies, among other things. I wonder why the Austen Society members didn't look at the running time and think to themselves, "Wow, this isn't going to stick very closely to the novel; we should keep our expectations low." They should've known better.
I have my own bitchings about any perceived "historical inaccuracies." The argument, as I understand it, is that because Jane Austen's first draft of P&P, then called First Impressions was finished in 1797. It was then offered to Cadell for publication, but was rejected. I do not know how many drafts the story went through before it was eventually published in 1813 by Egerton, but after sixteen years, I think it's safe to say that it went through A LOT of revisions.
Here's a brief chronology (from the Oxford World Classics edition of P&P):
1775: (16 Dec.) Jane Austen born at Steventon in Hants, seventh child of the Revd. George Austen (1731-1805) and Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827)
1784/5: J.A. and sister leave the Abbey School, Reading
1795: Elinor and Marianne written. Lady Susan written (B.C. Southam's dating)
1796: (Oct.) First Impressions begun (finished Aug. 1797)
1797: (Nov.) Sense and Sensibility begun. First Impressions unsuccessfully offered to Cadell
1797/8: Northanger Abbey (Susan) written. Sold to Crosby & Co. in 1803
1801: Austens settle in Bath
[...]
1811: Mansfield Park begun (Feb.). Sense and Sensibility published (Nov.)
1812: (Nov.) Pride and Prejudice sold to Egerton
1813: (Jan.) Pride and Prejudice published. (Nov.) second editions of [Pride and Prejudice] and Sense and Sensibility
And so on.
My own personal theory, given the chronology, is that any first draft of P&P she started was probably heavily influenced by S&S. The two novels have a lot of similarities, and I tend to think she probably tried, the first time, to write one novel encompassing both plots. I have no research to back this up -- I'm merely speculating.
So, the movie is set in the late 18th century instead of the early 19th century, and people are bitching about that. Personally, I think it's a silly thing to complain about, BUT I can't help but think it's similarly silly to think you're being all revolutionary by setting the novel at the time of the first draft. When there are sixteen years separating two drafts of a work, the first version isn't "truer" than the published version. She was, by my count, twenty-one when she started writing P&P, and thirty-seven when it finally got published. Don't even try to tell me that P&P's first draft was better that early in her career.
So. This is why I have no intention of seeing P&P in the theatres. Am I being picky? Possibly. But, at the end of the day, it's two hours of my life and upwards of $35 (when you take into consideration gas for the car and snackies for the patrons) that I'm just not willing to part with if I'm afraid I'll be disappointed.
Thus endeth the rant.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 04:47 pm (UTC)Whether I'll like it or not, that's another story.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:17 pm (UTC)I just... I can't get excited, and it's kind of depressing, I think?
As for HP, I started out with the movies and then thought, "Damn, I need to read these things." And now that I've read the books, I can see where the movies are lacking. I think I'm able to separate those better, though. Something like P&P I just want to be a faithful adaptation. I don't know.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing what you think of it when you do see it. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:08 pm (UTC)I have the Making of P&P (BBC) book, and I remember reading that the makers had the same problems of deciding when their version should take place for the reasons you explained. Seeing the timeline you put up makes it all the more clear.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:24 pm (UTC)*trailer plays*
"--Huh? Okay, that's... all right, then."
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 08:44 pm (UTC)...But you know all this.
As to the Potter adaptations, streamlining just becomes necessary in the cases of Goblet and Order. They're too fucking long to make a feature-length film. They'll be able to put more into Half-blood, if they choose.
Pointless shit. Honestly.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 06:03 am (UTC)My knee jerk reaction was... well, you can imagine what my knee-jerk reaction was. And god help me, if any student had ever said said such a thing in class? I would've assigned an essay so fast it would've made their heads spin.
But them I'm a bitch like that.Pointless shit. Yes.
And I would've loved to see more about Padfoot, Moony,
Wormtailand Prongs in the film, but there you have it.no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 11:22 pm (UTC)However, this is the first I've heard of the Wickham "subplot" being omitted. I don't really see how that's possible. Wickham's involvement isn't that of an incidental character functioning within a subplot. You can't even being to separate Wickham from the larger Lizzie-Darcy relationship. He's crucial to both her growing prejudice against Darcy and to her eventual change of heart and acceptance of him. I hate to have to reduce Wickham to a mere plot device, but without him, what exactly is supposed to be the catalyst? Sadly, I'm now curious, so I want to see it even more, even though I think I'll be disappointed.
Anyway, I do see what you're saying. I just react differently, but I do understand.^_^
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 06:08 am (UTC)I know that some people want to see it and want to see how it'll be different. I just... I can't get excited about it. I am curious to see how other people liked it, but I'll wait to see it. You'll have to post about it after you've seen it. :D