in the film), directed by photographer and music video director Autumn de Wilde, gets the balance just right. (To date, the only film I truly think gets Austen’s tone right is Whit Stillman’s 2016 Love & Friendship, but because it’s based on an unpublished and unfinished Austen novel, it comes up less frequently in conversation.) There’s something sharper and more clear-eyed than simply ruffles and carriages in Austen, something most adaptations flatten out in favor of the romance and a few arch jokes. Vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark But take Austen’s satire out of Austen, and you’re left with swoony, frothy romances in Regency dresses. What made her so masterful was her rare ability to combine that satire with authentic romance and unforgettable heroines, who have real and complex desires of their own. Austen’s novels, to one degree or another, acerbically skewer the self-important landed gentry of her time and, to a lesser extent, the people who aspire to be in their company. They’re all comedies, of course - Austen practically invented the romantic comedy - but few of them lean into the wicked satire that drips from nearly every page. This lifelong Austen reader has found herself flummoxed by the tone of most Austen adaptations. Darcy, emerging from a lake in a wet shirt in the 1995 BBC miniseries adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.) (After all, the most iconic moment in the entire Austen cinematic universe remains Colin Firth, as Mr. One’s mileage may vary based on preference and taste, as well as more, shall we say, earthy factors. Readers of Jane Austen are a feisty, fearsome bunch, with fiercely held opinions over which (if any) of the cinematic adaptations of her novels are good.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |