anghraine: david rintoul as darcy in the 1980 p&p in a red coat (darcy (1980))
My best friend and I had an interesting, fairly wide-ranging conversation about the distinctions between adaptation, retellings, fanfiction, other forms of directly intertextual storytelling (à la Wide Sargasso Sea, Lavinia etc), covers (as in music), heavily illustrated editions of texts, collage, sampling, novelizations, ekphrasis generally, translation, and inspiration.

The distinctions here are mainly ones that he makes and I do not. For me, all of these things are on a spectrum or scatterplot of something like intertextuality. As I was saying on Tumblr the other day (re: fanfiction), I don’t actually think that most of these kinds of terminology reflect coherently defined art forms at all. They reflect norms, values, and conventions shaped by laws and corporations and other economic/cultural concerns, not any consistent system of understanding intertextuality more broadly.

This is a frequent point of disagreement between him and me, because he prefers to refine terms like these into … philosophical coherence, I guess? So he’ll say, well, I think of the term as more specifically meaning X, not Y, and that lets us examine the different approaches that X and Y take in a more systematic, artistically formal way. (As in the linked post, this is formal in the sense of form not as in propriety.)

And I’m like … it does, yes, but I don’t think that kind of re-definition corresponds to the meanings of those terms in actual usage. Narrowing the definitions imposes a coherence and logic to these distinctions that I don’t think actually exists. It’s more like a grab bag of imprecise, overlapping categories defined by values and customs and legal practice than anything they’re doing artistically.

Him: inconsistent laws and customs are kind of arbitrary and uninteresting in terms of theorizing categories of art, though.

Me: not to me, but anyway, I think the way we theorize art is very profoundly shaped by modern customs and laws to a degree we often can't even see, and words are defined by usage, not philosophical convenience.

(Yeah, we’re super fun at parties. But seriously, this is how we’ve talked since high school.)

Regardless, his theory is that adaptation is actually a narrower category of intertextual art than in casual (or academic) usage. His view is that an adaptation is an attempt to represent the actual source; there may be new material added, and some of the original material may be removed, but there is an effort to preserve not just character outlines or plot structure or elements of setting, but considerable amounts of the original source, usually in a different medium than the original. A re-telling, on the other hand, is a work that re-casts the source material into new language and sometimes generic (as in genre) form.

This is all according to him, not me. I think all storytelling of this kind = re-telling and that there is no hard line separating these approaches, just gradations of variance.

Read more... )
anghraine: darcy and elizabeth after the second proposal in the 1979 p&p (darcy and elizabeth [proposal])
An anon said:

One of my biggest issues with 1995 P&P is that both Darcy and Elizabeth look too old. David Rintoul's Darcy was definitely too robotic for my tastes but I definitely got "young and fashionable" vibes from him.

I replied:

It’s not one of my biggest, in that there are a lot of other things that bother me more, but it does bug me, can’t lie. Just about everyone seems 5-10 years older than they should.

It definitely contrasts with the 2005 and 1980, where IIRC the ages are kind of all over the place, so some are spot-on or nearly so, and others are wayyyy off. If I recall correctly, the 1995 is more consistent but also almost always ‘off’ in that 5-10 year range.

I know this seems trivial to some people, but I think the ages do matter to their backgrounds and developments and general characterizations. Not just the young ones, either—Mrs Bennet would be barely middle-aged and Mrs Gardiner is almost certainly in her 30s. That affects the impression they give (to the audience and to the other characters) and their own experiences and personalities and dynamics with other people.

And I do think that Garvie and Knightley come across as early 20-somethings where other Elizabeths have a certain … hm, air of maturity about them that doesn’t fully work for me. Meanwhile, Darcy is literally introduced as a “young man,” is still in his 20s, and (like Elizabeth) has a character arc that rests on brand! new! experiences! And I think that the adaptations generally are—not interested in getting that across with him. But the 1995 is especially uninterested in that aspect IMO, so generally speaking, I’m with you there.

(I also agree that Rintoul is too far on the robotic end, but does come across as fashionable! It’s an interesting choice, because at first, Darcy seems to simultaneously resent ‘the world’ [i.e. the fashionable world] while also being judgy about people not being part of it. He’s not a fop by any means, but he is part of a certain world, and the ways in which he doesn’t fit aren’t visible, sometimes even to him.)
anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (Default)
I’ve been thinking back on the Fandom Experience, and was remembering the opposite of the vanity searching—some of the odder experiences of being told things directly:
  • I got a comment on a fic asking if leaving it unfinished made me feel desired.
  • I got a comment on a different fic telling me that they knew I wasn’t writing for the ’95 mini-series and that I dislike it, but that they always pictured my Darcy as Colin Firth anyway. Darcy is a) blue-eyed and b) a woman in that fic.
  • I got anonymous hate because I headcanon Luke Skywalker as asexual.
  • A troll apologized for missing my birthday.
  • A random person informed me that my fic was Wrong and Darcy’s mother wouldn’t be Lady Anne but Mrs Darcy, and his uncle should be Lord Matlock. [ETA 3/13/2024: Lady Anne being called "Mrs Darcy" and her brother being "Lord Matlock" are both from the ’95 mini-series and not in the novel; the first seems to be a mistake and the last an invention.]
  • Someone on AO3 told me that my fic was great, and also, it was shitty of me not to respond to comments.
  • Someone told me they had been sent by an anonymous group of haters who wanted me to tag my Silmarillion posts so they didn’t have to see them. (I already was tagging them.)
  • Someone told me that calling The Horse and His Boy racist made me the racist one, actually.
None of these were the end of the world, and my general experience of fandom has been mainly positive, but sometimes it is … really strange.
anghraine: a painting of a man c. 1800 with a book and a pen; the words love, pride, and delicacy in the upper corner (darcy (love)
An anon said (in response to this post):

A thing that annoys me too about that P&P is that, well, in that scene, he’s right. She *has* been willfully misunderstanding him, basing her opinion of him around “mean gossip” and accounts of biased people. But people kind of act like Darcy is the only one who has to change his behavior in P&P and it’s :/

I replied:

Hmm. At that point, I don’t think her judgment is skewed by other people so much as by her own pride; the scene happens before she meets Wickham, say. But she’s still hearing and perceiving everything Darcy does through a heavy filter, and while he doesn’t fully understand it, I agree that he is fundamentally right in that moment.

That is, I think that Elizabeth tends to class people into types that she can make generalizations about, usually in the service of her self-assurance, rather than accounting for the individual qualities that she would have been perfectly capable of perceiving if not for, well, willfully misunderstanding people. It is her core flaw, and I agree that it’s often overlooked in the uneven treatment of their characters.

And yeah, I think changing Darcy’s delivery from a smiling rebuttal to angry UST obscures that. It’s easy to see him as just being an asshole and frustrated by the interchange, rather than genuinely and intelligently interested in a philosophical discussion of human and individual nature.

(As a side note, that debate was a particularly major point of dispute at the time. Many of the topics he brings up are tied to major contemporary debates that he seems to be trying to draw her into.)

anghraine: a picture of a wooden chair with a regal white rod propped on the seat (stewards)
It’s occurred to me that two of my least favorite scenes in two very different adaptations are … basically the same.

(Predictably, ranting negativity re: Jackson’s LOTR and Davies’s P&P under the cut)

Read more... )
anghraine: david rintoul as darcy in the 1980 p&p in a red coat (darcy (1980))
pansexualandscared said:

i adore p&p 1995 to no end but I will admit, saying that the only correct choice for an adaptation is the one most similar to the book is stupid and your annoyance is so valid

I replied:

Hmm, I think it’s fair to compare something that, say, calls itself ‘Pride and Prejudice’ to P&P itself—I made a post a little while back about this, but my opinion is that if people don’t want their adaptation compared to the original, they should just file off the serial numbers and be done with it. At the same time, I don’t think it’s right or fair to judge adaptations solely on fidelity, which a lot of people do. It’s important to look at them with double vision IMO: as adaptation, and as film/TV/whatever. 

Thaaaat said, I don’t think the 1995 is the closest to the book in a lot of the ways that matter most to me, esp w/ Darcy. For instance, the 1995 substantially rearranges Darcy’s letter (probably my favorite passage in the book) and completely deletes the critical ending of ‘God bless you.’ The 1980′s rendition of it is, while not as good in terms of television, much closer to the letter in the book.

anghraine: a painting of a man from the 1790s sitting on a rock; he wears a black coat, a white waistcoat and cravat, and tan breeches (darcy (seriziat))
An anon asked:

Piggybacking off the Harker discussion, which Darcy actor best matches the standards of handsomeness of the time?

I replied:

It’s hard to say, tbh—they all seem really ‘off’ to me.

Tagged: #i'd like to have a more helpful answer but...
anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (Default)
An anon (presumably this one) said:

Also, I think Harker is pretty, not plain, but it's weird when fans bring up the "Portrait of Mrs Q" and claim that it looks just like her. Apart from the woman's coloring and (sort of) her hairstyle, there's not much resemblance, and I haven't seen any evidence that the producers of P&P 1995 cast Harker because they thought she resembled this portrait. In any case, Firth looks very little like the fashion plates and fashionable portraits of the day, but this is rarely mentioned.

I replied:

Yeahhhh, I think that’s a weird argument. I was just looking through my folder of late 18th/early 19th cent portraits, and there’s a pretty wide range of what was considered attractive, but you do get a lot of round faces and delicate bow mouths like Mrs Q. (My kingdom for round-faced Jane tbh.)

And iirc they lightened Harker’s hair to fit the stereotype even more—I think it’s pretty clear that that’s what they were going after, much more than Mrs Q. And you’re right, it somehow doesn’t come up with the insistence that Darcy must look like Colin Firth, historical beauty standards be damned.

It’s just … people are going to love what they love, but there’s a lot of inconsistency in why others are also obligated to love that thing that makes it even more aggravating.

Tagged: #and honestly no slender jane looks like austen imagined her #which they all are so ... nobody wins here

anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (Default)
An anon said:

I actually like P&P 1995, but, these days, there's a part of me that really enjoys seeing well-written takedowns of it, mainly because I can't think of another Austen adaptation that engenders so much uncritical adoration in so many people. I mean, even the OTHER sometimes overpraised 1995 Austen adaptation, the S&S film, frequently gets criticized for some of its casting choices, at least. P&P 1995, on the other hand, is so often defended as perfect in every way.

I replied:

It is! Part of the reason for my ongoing frustration is that it’s seen as so perfect as both TV and as adaptation that there’s no escaping it and its artistic choices are treated as the only valid ones, or not even choices at all, just Austen immaculately translated into cinematic form. Like … I was active in Austen fandom when the 2005 was coming out and already annoyed by the uncritical adoration of the 1995, but there was this incessant wondering why they would even make another adaptation when the 1995 existed in all its perfection. Agh!

So thank you for the validation of my annoyance even though you like it, lol.


anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (Default)
cosmonauthill said:

Seeing your dislike for the 95P&P has me ravenous to know if you tried Sanditon at all, because it was some of the best looking, worst written television I’ve ever had the joy of watching and I need everyone’s opinions on it 😂

I replied:

Haha, I didn’t! What I saw via gifsets etc seemed pretty terrible—I ended up blocking it altogether.

anghraine: david rintoul as darcy in the 1980 p&p in a red coat (darcy (1980))
An anon said:

I know ur not that fond of the 1995 P&P but I wanted to share my favorite scene with you. It’s the scene where Elizabeth is helping turn pages for Georgiana while she plays piano and the scene right after it was the one where Darcy and Elizabeth do the really long eye contact thing but my favorite part is actually the small moment before that where Elizabeth and Georgiana both look at Darcy and he looks up and sees both his favorite people staring at him and just wow it makes me feel so sappy.


I replied:

I’m glad you enjoy it, anon.

-

ETA 3/3/2024: Y'all can probably imagine how "........" I felt about receiving this, but shout-out to [personal profile] tree for saying at the time:

god you’re so nice. and i’m laughing so hard.
anghraine: darcy and elizabeth after the second proposal in the 1979 p&p (darcy and elizabeth [proposal])
[personal profile] elperian asked:

okay, now I have to ask. who is your favorite elizabeth? your favorite jane? your favorite caroline bingley, if you have one? my love for jennifer ehle and anna chancellor bias me incredibly but otherwise I have no strong opinions.

I replied:

Elizabeth: Elizabeth Garvie in the 1980 P&P! <3 <3

Jane: Rosamund Pike in the 2005 P&P

Caroline: hmm, I care a lot less about her, so it’s difficult to say. I like both the 1980 and 2005 versions (not AC’s, sorry). The 1980 is much more simpering, though, so I lean towards the 2005 (with my usual reservations).

ETA: I also really love Laura Osnes in Austen’s Pride as far as I’ve actually heard it, but it feels a bit unfair to include her since I’ve never seen it.
anghraine: a painting of a man c. 1800 with a book and a pen; the words love, pride, and delicacy in the upper corner (darcy (love)
An anon asked:

Which Darcy do you like the most? Colin Firth or Matthew McFadyen?

I replied:

I, uh, bitterly hate Colin Firth’s Darcy, so Matthew Macfadyen wins by default, even though I have a lot of issues with his, too.

FWIW, I have no objection to CF’s acting in itself, just the writing/direction choices. It’s kind of epitomized for me in the “and yours is wilfully to misunderstand them” scene, where the dialogue is all but identical to Austen’s, but the dynamic at play is quite different. CF!Darcy snaps the line out, giving the moment a sort of sexy mutual antagonism, where Austen’s Darcy gives a smiling riposte—it’s good-humoured banter to him rather than seriously adversarial, by contrast to Elizabeth’s understanding of the conversation as quite adversarial, showcasing their mutual misunderstandings.

I feel like that sort of (sometimes) similar dialogue/very different dynamic is pervasive throughout Davies et al’s take on Darcy (and others, but esp Darcy bc of the compulsion to transform him into a brooding, sexualized love interest). It’s not necessarily more wrong than the way the 2005 softens Darcy up and romanticizes him (though still in a fairly humourless way), but it personally bugs me a lot more.

(This, of course, is all setting apart how the Darcys work if you consider the adaptations as independent works in their own right, in which case both are quite well-done. But as adapted versions of Austen’s character, this is what I think.)

tag )

anghraine: elizabeth bennet from "austen's pride," singing her half of "the portrait song" (elizabeth (the portrait song))
An anon said:

Your mention of how P&P adaptations tend to lean toward making Elizabeth an introvert makes me curious. What do you think of the various adaptations' portrayals of Elizabeth? I remember you've said your favorite is Elizabeth Garvie in the 1980 BBC version, but what are your opinions on Jennifer Ehle, Kiera Knightley, Greer Garson and others? And what do you think tends to be most "off" about screen portrayals of Elizabeth compared to Austen's version?

I replied:

Hmm. At this point, it’s been a pretty long while since I watched any of them (thanks, grad school), but my overall impressions:

Read more... )

lol

Jun. 7th, 2020 09:09 am
anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (Default)
Pettiness about P&P adaptations

Read more... )
anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (anakin [grievances])
While most of my bottomless annoyance at Andrew Davies is directed at his P&P, let's not forget his NA, which has a really excellent cast (Felicity Jones in particular is perfect as Catherine IMO) AND which overlays Catherine's preoccupations with female novelists with the male fantasies in Matthew Lewis's The Monk.

In NA-the-book, Austen only references The Monk once, as John Thorpe's preferred reading material in his denunciation of Frances Burney. It's an alarm bell ringing over his head (it's hard to summarize The Monk but it involves incest and rape among many other things). Austen loved Burney! She specifically mentions Burney in her defense of the novel in this same book! Like, who thinks "hmm, let's use this quasi-pornographic male text held up as superior by a self-absorbed asshole as a significant component of the film"? I think there's plenty of evidence in his P&P that Davies's priorities are skewed towards amplifying conventional masculinity, but it goes to a whole new level in NA.

And yes, approach to the source text is not the sole metric by which an adaptation should be judged, but I think that the ways adaptations engage with their sources (what they change/don't change/mix up) are suggestive about their aims and priorities as well as influential in popularizing conceptions about the source text. The aims and priorities of Davies's take on NA are just ... what the fuck.
anghraine: watercolour of jane austen; text: intj (jane austen (was an intj))
Sanditon looks like a trash fire, which I should have expected, but … /sigh. If any of Austen's work did not need Andrew Davies-isms, it's Sanditon.

(In the interests of full disclosure: I hate the '95 P&P and bitterly resent the waste of perfect casting in NA.)
anghraine: darcy and elizabeth after the second proposal in the 1979 p&p (darcy and elizabeth [proposal])
Another anon asked (almost immediately afterwards):

(Different anon here) but what are your thoughts on the 1940 P&P? (I def remember your hatred for the 1995 and might or might not have sourced you on that when people hate on the 2005)

Read more... )
anghraine: david rintoul as darcy in the 1980 p&p in a red coat (darcy (1980))
An anon asked:

What are your thoughts on Pride and Prejudice (1995 miniseries)?

I said:

Oh, anon.

It’s pretty good TV, occasionally interesting in its takes on Austen, and I bitterly hate it. My #pride and prejudice 1995 tag (eta: p&p2 tag here) is dedicated almost entirely to hating it, for variously major and petty reasons.

My main ‘and THIS IS WHY’ posts are here and here, however. They’re older posts, but I haven’t budged since then.

(My main pet peeves are converting Darcy’s smiles to brooding or snappish UST, especially in the argument at Netherfield; the general broodification of Darcy; the wet shirt scene; the painfully influential I-will-only-marry-for-love scene; Wickham flirting with 11-year-old Georgiana; leaving out ‘God bless you’; …actually I’ll stop there.)

Profile

anghraine: vader extending his lightsaber; text: and now for the airing of grievances! (Default)
Anghraine

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 08:08 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios