I Am Jack's Molested Adaptation.
Feb. 8th, 2004 02:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annuinUgh, the horror...
I caught a chunk of the 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier on channel 13. What a crappy adaptation, adding things that aren't there (like setting Mary and Kitty up with potential fiancés at the end), and not even having proper animosity between Darcy and Elizabeth... they were smiling and swapping what seemed like injokes the whole time they're supposed to be kind of testy towards each other.
I almost want to go rewatch the entire '95 miniseries all over again to try and forget that I ever watched that 1940s thing.
I caught a chunk of the 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier on channel 13. What a crappy adaptation, adding things that aren't there (like setting Mary and Kitty up with potential fiancés at the end), and not even having proper animosity between Darcy and Elizabeth... they were smiling and swapping what seemed like injokes the whole time they're supposed to be kind of testy towards each other.
I almost want to go rewatch the entire '95 miniseries all over again to try and forget that I ever watched that 1940s thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 01:04 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-08 07:37 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-08 12:05 pm (UTC)Yes it's funny because it's so utterly camp, but part of me was extremely horrified.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 05:46 am (UTC)Ever noticed there's that specific 1940's accent people have?
They also set the film more like 1830's for some reason instead of 1810's
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 10:07 am (UTC)Also didn't help that Greer Garson was 35 or 36 at the time she was playing a 21 year old ;) and she looks quite a bit older than Jane, who's supposed to be the elder sister.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 10:53 am (UTC)Gigot sleeves, leg-o-mutton sleeves are 1890 and they look like big queue tips head on one’s shoulders.
But yea that’s 1830’s… not my favorite 19th century era. It goes 1810-20 those empire waisted nighgownish looking dresses with the bonnets, 1830’s stupid poofy sleeves and fattening necklines, 1840’s civil war bell dresses, etc…etc…
I don’t know why they chose to do it 1830’s… The Jane Austen stories need to be set against the political backdrop of the Napoleonic wars (even though the wars are never mentioned, it’s the environment of the wars that makes society in England the way it was at that time)… If the stories took place at a different time the social issues would have been slightly different.
Yes and Darcy and Elisabeth seemed almost coy and flirty throughout the film, as opposed to the novel where Darcy comes off as a complete ass and Elisabeth hates his guts… well until she sees his estate and later find out he’s not such a bad guy, he just has shit for manners.
I had a literature professor that felt that Elisabeth’s whole coming around to Darcy is more a giving into greed then any real affection towards his character. But then again he also felt that Emma and what’s-his-face was a pedophilic relationship…
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 11:40 am (UTC)I had a literature professor that felt that Elisabeth’s whole coming around to Darcy is more a giving into greed then any real affection towards his character. But then again he also felt that Emma and what’s-his-face was a pedophilic relationship…
Well, at least in the BBC miniseries they managed to convey quite well that Lizzie doesn't much care for him, and that he comes off as exceedingly brusque initially. Plus I thought they did a good job of documenting the slow turnaround both of them have, with the little battles of wits during the dances and the other social occasions they're at (like when Jane's ill and at Bingley's house).
Plus she never struck me as someone who was just going to marry some jerk for money. Most of what both of them have to overcome is their own objections, prejudices and yes, pride, rather than just those in the other. Both jump to conclusions early on and just hold a grudge for a long while, based a lot on misinformation and hurt feelings etc.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 12:12 pm (UTC)Although I can see some of his points regarding Emma… most of his theories regarding Austen consisted of a strong independent female character who’s eventually broken down or gives in to social conditioning.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-12 12:06 pm (UTC)Been a while since I read Emma. On the other hand, from what I gather it wasn't really that unusual for women from 15-16 onwardsto be married to men who are at least a decade or two their senior.
As for the female characters who are broken down or who give in to social conditioning, I have to disagree. Having read Sense & Sensibility, Pride & Prejudice and Emma, not one of the female protagonists professes to never want to marry. In the case of Elizabeth she just won't marry a silly man she can't respect or care for. I don't see how her marrying Darcy ends up being 'giving into societal pressure', seeing as she initially refuses him point blank when she believes him to be a jerk, though later does have a change of heart about his character (views of his Pemberley estate notwithstanding).
I don't feel she ever had her character broken down in order to marry well... even earlier on she mentions to Jane that if she doesn't marry she'll be governess to Jane's 10 kids, not indicative of a woman who'll marry any old guy who comes along. Nor did I really get that feeling from either Emma or Eleanor.
Plus look at the lives of those women who did choose not to marry. Often you were looking at a life of fairly abject poverty if it weren't for your posessing a fortune in your own right, or male siblings/relatives who would help set you up. In that instance I can't really blame many women for settling for a less than perfect marriage. I wonder if your teacher had ever really considered that, or just decided to use a 20th/21st century feminist view on a 18th/19th century world, which makes for a rather askew picture.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 06:50 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-08 12:10 pm (UTC)Some do it really well, the BBC is usually very good at being extremely faithful to the source material, and so I trust them.
In the case of movies, some are hit, some are miss, and some are okay or just mediocre. Spider-Man, the X-Men movies, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter work well for me, Queen of the Damned was a horrific stinker, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was fairly dull though it meant well. Etc.
It helps when the people who are adapting the source material love the material in question. Like Peter Jackson, who's done so much to be faithful to the piece, and whose love for it really shines through.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 05:48 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 10:55 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 11:44 am (UTC)I missed the beginning of the first series, and haven't really gotten into it since, which is a shame as I would have liked to see it.
That redhaired guy's a real prick. And yes, I know he's supposed to be. I've also seen girls online fawning over him, and he's just so not appealing :P
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 12:07 pm (UTC)Although in this next series, that takes place in the 20’s… it’s a bit strange, he’s still a complete ass, but he has this loving bond with his daughter that seems to almost make him sympathetic.
There’s allot of deep character work and portrayal that I like. The acting and production values are wonderful as well… which is usually the case with BBC period stuff.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-09 02:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-09 03:31 pm (UTC)