A lot of people hate the way Alison Steadman played Mrs Bennet in the 1995 P&P because they think she's way too over the top and a caricature but that's exactly the reason why I love her portrayal so much. Mrs Bennet was a caricature in the book so why should she not be like so on the screen
Well said: she is the perfect Mrs. Bennet in my mind. On that note, the older I get, the more respect I have for Mrs. Bennet. She may have been ridiculous, but she hustled for her girls to be culturally secure in society (which, as pointed out here, would have been marriage). The Lydia favoritism aside, she at least understood her place as a mother of five girls was to ensure that they would not have to share the humiliation and complexities that the Dashwood sisters had to upon their father's death. For being so insensible in most other matters, that reality makes her ironically more sensible than her husband for he seemed to have no plan for them and often would retire away from family instead of dealing with them. All of this is captured and executed so perfectly in the 95 adaptation, IMHO. It is for all these reasons I always laugh at the thought that Lizzy is more like her mother than she thinks as her heart first warmed toward Darcy after seeing his beautiful house (and hearing the testimony of his servants)--also something pointed out so well in the 95 version.
Austen's brilliance which a lot of contemporary readers and watchers of adaptations miss is she actually portrays the horror of the misogyny of the Regency period in a subtle way which is quite cleverly subversive.
I couldn't disagree with you more. The misogyny label, like racism, is one of the cheapest and easy to drop on someone. Austen wrote of the HUMAN condition, in all the ways that can be presented....love, hate, violence, greed, envy, cruelty; you get the point. One gender does not have the monopoly on any of these. The Regency period was no worse than any other when discussing male-female relations. Would you say, Justin, that the current "Disney" representation of the male animal, as we see in the new Indiana Jones movie, girl-boss LOTR, or all the knock offs showing women beating up man, is healthy, that it's levelling the field? Sure, one regrets that women, who are obviously so superior to men, are often forced to "settle" for one of these inferior creatures, or do without, but what is the alternative if the species is to continue? Rather than being subversive, I consider JA as someone who turned her sparkling wit and creative mind to the unsolvable riddle that we all struggle with: how ought we to BE. She accurately observed and recorded, sometimes with scorn and irony, but with understanding and compassion, too. She would have (I maintain) no more considered most men to be misogynist than I would consider J.K. Rowling to be a TERF. They (the Austen oeuvre) are novels of love and duplicity, of good manners and poor behavior, of wit, cynicism, and hypocrisy. They ARE the Human Comedy, but whether she thought of Divine inspiration, I truly have no idea. She was the daughter of a clergyman, but why, one wonders, are so many men-of-the-cloth presented as drips or simpletons? Was JA a secret practitioner of misandry or hated the church? Don't be absurd.
If you are looking for horror in the Regency period Austin is hardly the author to delineate the very real inequities at that time in English society. Although Dickens belonged to the next generation, his descriptions of the horrendous conditions which working class lived under would also be accurate of the regency period. To compare the horror of being an unmarried middle class women against working in a mill for 12 -14 hours a day or plying your trade as a prostitute is over egging the situation somewhat.
@@kevinrussell1144Oh the old, you can't call people out for what they are. I think it very much fits the definition of misogyny when the time period was heavily defined by women holding no political power, due to men considering them mentally inferior and their husbands having the same rights over them as they did their children. And J.K Rowling is a TERF, because she is both trans-exclusionary and a radical feminist. What you're describing is being opposed to giving quick and simple labels that define people as having abhorrent beliefs, and one would be inclined to question your reason for thinking this. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks, most people who are against calling racists "racist", misogynists "misogynistic" and xenophobes "xenophobic", do so both because they feel threatened about being called out, and likely don't find themselves in a minority position in day to day life. They can observe terrible behaviour, note it, and then move on with their day without considering anything more than a minor footnote. And I don't think you know what Austen would've thought, so it bears little merit, puppeting her to agree with you.
YES! I am so glad a video exists that breaks down why Austen's novels are not "romance novels"! I've always felt like they are novels about women, and obviously, given the time period, the marriage plot is central to it. I wish the video had addressed the "Love and Friendship" movie (adaptation of Lady Susan), which is, so far, the only film adaptation that leans more on the satire rather than the romance. (Admittedly, the source material does make it hard to celebrate any kind of sentimentality...)
I'm honestly not sold on this idea that Austen's novels are not part of the Romance genre (as many of the commentors here seem very eager to say). I think it might have to do with the incredibly restrictive definition of what people (including the RWA) consider romance. I don't know. It just feels like the moment any book that could be considered as a Romance get critical acclaim, there is this rush to find all the different ways it can be classified as something (anything) else. I think P&P can easily be called a romance book with commentary on marriage. I don't think it is one or the other. Romance can have depth to it. Its sole (or even main) function does not need to be the love story. I think this is an incredibly limiting view of romance as a genre. It's also what happens when any romance with depth gets immediately shunted off to another genre once it is deemed "good enough." People seem incredibly eager to make sure that others know that the thing they like "is not romance!"...as if being a romance story is a horrible thing. But I guess it's easy to see it that way when all the great romantic stories are forcibly reshelved as literature, or drama, or comedy, or sci-fi, or fantasy, or horror, or ect ect ect.... in order to keep romance as those simple books about love. Don't get me wrong, I do think adaptors of her work make a huge mistake leaving out a lot of the broader commentary. Restricting it to just the love story is doing everyone a disservice. But the playing down of the romance by the wider community is a disservice as well.
I'd argue P&P is one of her *least* romantic novels, unless we're talking about Jane and Mr Bingley. Lizzie has no romantic interest in Mr Darcy through most of the novel, and doesn't even spend that much time focused on him.
No, you don't get it -- It's not about romances allowing for more than romantic plot points, I agree that a romance novel can have depth. It's the romances are, for lack of a better word, sentimental -- they believe in the idea of love in a way that Austen doesn't, not really. That's what Roisin's conclusion draws a distinction between -- Austen is giving you a happy story, but the overall attitude to love is more that it's to be "smirk[ed] at" than romanticised.
I feel like I'm the only person, sometimes, who feels that the 2005 Pride and Prejudice (ignoring its beauty) did not understand the characters or novel. Darcy wasn't shy and stuttering. He was pretentious and prideful and by marrying Lizzy he is humbling himself, not rising to some confidence.
You're definitely not the only one. The director fundamentally misunderstands the Bennet family, making them out to be the poor family whose daughter lived the Cinderella dream of rags to riches. They're not poor, they're just GOING TO BE poor once Mr Bennet dies because of the entail. While Mr Bennet lives, they're actually living in relative affluence, just not the obscene wealth of the Darcys or Bingleys. Yet the 2005 team set the Bennets in what would be a cottage-like "estate" with pigs running around wildly and the daughters dressed in clothes too cheap or ill-fashioned to be worn by a reasonably wealthy gentry family while at the same time insisting that "we are perfectly capable of keeping a cook" and having the mother and daughters lazing around the drawing room when visitors come to call. The cognitive dissonance is very grating to a book reader tbh. Removing this just removes the whole dynamic of the family, making Mrs Bennet's attitude more fortune hunting and Mr Bennet less negligent father who failed to safeguard his daughters' futures. And the way Elizabeth just snatches her uncle's letter out of her father's hand! My god I nearly wanted to reach through the screen to slap Lizzy (not Keira though, she's just the actress doing as she's directed to lol).
It reminds me why I hate when people make fun of books by summing up the plot in one sentence. That is not the book at all. It also reminds me how some people treat Tolkien. Yes, you can read it as a simple adventure story about magic rings, elves and wizards. But the reality is just so much richer.
I highly recommend Dr Octavia Cox's RUclips channel. She delves into JA's work and it's been tremendously helpful to me to understand more of the subversive topics, such as class. I love that in P+P JA writes Wickham almost as a classic gothic villain but through using her dialogue she makes him more layered and fully rounded character than an overblown simple baddie.
The issue with some of the adaptations nowadays is they fall into the trap of going after the High Definition cinematic shots and props rather than maintaining the author's intentions with regards to the subtleties of the characters and plot. To me, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice goes for the cinematic aesthetic (and I found it enjoyable for that) however the 1995 BBC one was much more true to the book and Austen. Both serve to entertain in different ways, I suppose. The problem I have with stuff now being made in 2020s is they are trying to break fourth walls or make the plot or characters unrecognisable. Shows like Brigerton the other hand are new stories, so they are original and being made in liaison with the actual author. They can make new points, entertain in new ways etc and it works. Changing Austen's Anne Elliot for example, does not work, because the character is established as shy, not Fleabaglike.
Enjoyed this and agree entirely! I think it really shows when the adaptations have to go so off-piste to create dramatic romantic moments. Most of the characters get engaged while on a walk, or like you say the actual proposal is off-stage.
This is such a good point! I've always found it odd that the romantic resolution is summarized and so anticlimactic. A really strong proof of the novels leaning away from romance.
I'm always disappointed that no adaptations of Persuasion spend any time with Mrs. Smith. Her revelations about Mr. Elliot at the end of the novel had me absolutely glued to the page when I first read it. And they never show or explain that Anne and Captain Wentworth help to better her situation after they get married. I get having to cut things for time, but it always makes me sad that Anne's friendship with Mrs. Smith is treated as such an afterthought when it becomes so important in the novel.
Only portrayals I truly enjoy (not going to mention the more eclectic adaptations like Bride and Prejudice as it’s really its own category) are the 1994 Pride and Prejudice Miniseries, Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility, and Persuasion with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. Paltrow’s Emma wasn’t awful - I just dislike Emma overall.
Great video and so true. Perhaps the adaptations miss out on the details so the true fans/readers can be the only ones noticing it. Also, I'd love to see a video on the older generation, like Catherine de Bourgh compared to Mrs Bennett.
Same. Whether some feel like the 2005 P and P held true to certain aesthetics and emotions than my beloved 1994 mini-series, I absolutely loathed that they took the delightful wit out of the characters and their interactions and replaced it with petulance and sulking. 2020 Emma got 10 minutes of my attention before I shut it off.
My brain killed Persuasion for me with this thought on behalf of Anne: "wow, it has been 9 years and you are still angry.... guess I lucked out...imagine being married to someone who can hold a grudge that long"
You’re so right. It drives me crazy that the adaptations always miss her satire. When Joe Wright said Pride and Prejudice was all about love, I spat my soup across the room.
You don’t think it’s worth talking about the BBC Sense and Sensibility adapted by Andrew Davies? I love the Emma Thompson one, but the one with Dan Stevens is good.
My problem with the Emma Thompson version was Emma Thompson playing Elinor. Her ego got in the way of casting. She is a monumental talent, but too old to play Elinor.
Great commentary! I'm reading all of Austen's books soon after having watched almost all the film adaptations, so it'll be interesting to see the differences.
I don’t know much about this stuff but this is very interesting. II really wasn’t familiar with what society was like back then. What details do we miss because we don’t know a pun or practice of the era?
As in without reference to the books? I suppose because on this channel I talk about books and because talking about them as adaptations is more interesting to me
@@RoisinsReading No, not without referencing the books, rather comparing particular adaptations to the books. How would you rate them as adaptations as well as how would you rate them as movies/ shows - they are not the same.
I have to agree with another commentator that it would be easier to concentrate on what you are saying if you relaxed and slowed down a bit. You have interesting things to say, but it is more convincing to present your ideas in a calm and rational manner.
The irony of this comment is that it almost sounds straight out of an Austin novel 😂 . I despise backhanded compliments & I actually love her pace because it pleases my ADHD brain. To each their own I suppose.
I talked about the American ending of Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice because it was only released to American audiences, the ending released worldwide was different. There was no Mrs Darcy scene in the worldwide release.
@@RoisinsReading Thank you again, I see now, you meant the Hollywood feature film (2005 P&P) ending was edited differently (& released on a different date) in the US version versus the UK version, but it is nice to know about how editing differs in this case. NOTE: not sure what Canada’s version was: it’s on the American continent, but is a part of the UK…oops correction noted: the commonwealth.
I mean the film was produced by French and British film companies so I'm not sure it's fair to call it the Hollywood film at all. Also Canada is part of the commonwealth but not the UK, its an independent country, but I dont know which ending they got
@@RoisinsReading oops, the (French/British/US) studio that made it, is a subsidiary of Universal, one of the big 3 Hollywood film developers/distributors over the last century. So…yeah, but It’s not a Big budget Hollywood film, bc there weren’t lots of cgi/special effects. I think. LOL
The ending ofJoe Wrights P&P is simply exquisite and manna for the true romantics for whom such a lived scene is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Furthermore for deeply vulnerable sensitive and open people this “grand gesture” is as sincere as one’s love for a tiny precious kitten or puppy. Not that people are those things but that tenderness can be invoked for a child in its innocent start into the world as Mr and Mrs Darcy innocently and tenderly embark on theirs. So debarf your mind. Others are quite content to watch two tender lovers.
2:29 Thank you for including the single greatest line in any Austen adaptation!
It was your Instagram stories that reminded me of it!
A lot of people hate the way Alison Steadman played Mrs Bennet in the 1995 P&P because they think she's way too over the top and a caricature but that's exactly the reason why I love her portrayal so much. Mrs Bennet was a caricature in the book so why should she not be like so on the screen
Well said: she is the perfect Mrs. Bennet in my mind. On that note, the older I get, the more respect I have for Mrs. Bennet. She may have been ridiculous, but she hustled for her girls to be culturally secure in society (which, as pointed out here, would have been marriage). The Lydia favoritism aside, she at least understood her place as a mother of five girls was to ensure that they would not have to share the humiliation and complexities that the Dashwood sisters had to upon their father's death. For being so insensible in most other matters, that reality makes her ironically more sensible than her husband for he seemed to have no plan for them and often would retire away from family instead of dealing with them.
All of this is captured and executed so perfectly in the 95 adaptation, IMHO. It is for all these reasons I always laugh at the thought that Lizzy is more like her mother than she thinks as her heart first warmed toward Darcy after seeing his beautiful house (and hearing the testimony of his servants)--also something pointed out so well in the 95 version.
Alison Steadman played it perfectly. ❤
@@sailor_gaia Hustled with little to no support from her husband on top of that. Mr Bennet doesn't get called out often enough.
I cannot agree with you more!!! Austen isn't about romance, her satire is the reason why she is remembered today.
Although I enjoy the romance too, the satire is what I love
Jane Austen s strong point, perhaps
genius, is to combine both together.
Her irony
Austen's brilliance which a lot of contemporary readers and watchers of adaptations miss is she actually portrays the horror of the misogyny of the Regency period in a subtle way which is quite cleverly subversive.
I couldn't disagree with you more. The misogyny label, like racism, is one of the cheapest and easy to drop on someone. Austen wrote of the HUMAN condition, in all the ways that can be presented....love, hate, violence, greed, envy, cruelty; you get the point. One gender does not have the monopoly on any of these.
The Regency period was no worse than any other when discussing male-female relations.
Would you say, Justin, that the current "Disney" representation of the male animal, as we see in the new Indiana Jones movie, girl-boss LOTR, or all the knock offs showing women beating up man, is healthy, that it's levelling the field?
Sure, one regrets that women, who are obviously so superior to men, are often forced to "settle" for one of these inferior creatures, or do without, but what is the alternative if the species is to continue?
Rather than being subversive, I consider JA as someone who turned her sparkling wit and creative mind to the unsolvable riddle that we all struggle with: how ought we to BE. She accurately observed and recorded, sometimes with scorn and irony, but with understanding and compassion, too. She would have (I maintain) no more considered most men to be misogynist than I would consider J.K. Rowling to be a TERF.
They (the Austen oeuvre) are novels of love and duplicity, of good manners and poor behavior, of wit, cynicism, and hypocrisy. They ARE the Human Comedy, but whether she thought of Divine inspiration, I truly have no idea. She was the daughter of a clergyman, but why, one wonders, are so many men-of-the-cloth presented as drips or simpletons? Was JA a secret practitioner of misandry or hated the church?
Don't be absurd.
If you are looking for horror in the Regency period Austin is hardly the author to delineate the very real inequities at that time in English society. Although Dickens belonged to the next generation, his descriptions of the horrendous conditions which working class lived under would also be accurate of the regency period. To compare the horror of being an unmarried middle class women against working in a mill for 12 -14 hours a day or plying your trade as a prostitute is over egging the situation somewhat.
@@kevinrussell1144Oh the old, you can't call people out for what they are.
I think it very much fits the definition of misogyny when the time period was heavily defined by women holding no political power, due to men considering them mentally inferior and their husbands having the same rights over them as they did their children.
And J.K Rowling is a TERF, because she is both trans-exclusionary and a radical feminist.
What you're describing is being opposed to giving quick and simple labels that define people as having abhorrent beliefs, and one would be inclined to question your reason for thinking this. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks, most people who are against calling racists "racist", misogynists "misogynistic" and xenophobes "xenophobic", do so both because they feel threatened about being called out, and likely don't find themselves in a minority position in day to day life. They can observe terrible behaviour, note it, and then move on with their day without considering anything more than a minor footnote.
And I don't think you know what Austen would've thought, so it bears little merit, puppeting her to agree with you.
YES! I am so glad a video exists that breaks down why Austen's novels are not "romance novels"! I've always felt like they are novels about women, and obviously, given the time period, the marriage plot is central to it. I wish the video had addressed the "Love and Friendship" movie (adaptation of Lady Susan), which is, so far, the only film adaptation that leans more on the satire rather than the romance. (Admittedly, the source material does make it hard to celebrate any kind of sentimentality...)
I haven't seen that film! Will have to check it out
I'm honestly not sold on this idea that Austen's novels are not part of the Romance genre (as many of the commentors here seem very eager to say). I think it might have to do with the incredibly restrictive definition of what people (including the RWA) consider romance. I don't know. It just feels like the moment any book that could be considered as a Romance get critical acclaim, there is this rush to find all the different ways it can be classified as something (anything) else. I think P&P can easily be called a romance book with commentary on marriage. I don't think it is one or the other. Romance can have depth to it. Its sole (or even main) function does not need to be the love story. I think this is an incredibly limiting view of romance as a genre. It's also what happens when any romance with depth gets immediately shunted off to another genre once it is deemed "good enough." People seem incredibly eager to make sure that others know that the thing they like "is not romance!"...as if being a romance story is a horrible thing. But I guess it's easy to see it that way when all the great romantic stories are forcibly reshelved as literature, or drama, or comedy, or sci-fi, or fantasy, or horror, or ect ect ect.... in order to keep romance as those simple books about love.
Don't get me wrong, I do think adaptors of her work make a huge mistake leaving out a lot of the broader commentary. Restricting it to just the love story is doing everyone a disservice. But the playing down of the romance by the wider community is a disservice as well.
I'd argue P&P is one of her *least* romantic novels, unless we're talking about Jane and Mr Bingley. Lizzie has no romantic interest in Mr Darcy through most of the novel, and doesn't even spend that much time focused on him.
No, you don't get it -- It's not about romances allowing for more than romantic plot points, I agree that a romance novel can have depth. It's the romances are, for lack of a better word, sentimental -- they believe in the idea of love in a way that Austen doesn't, not really. That's what Roisin's conclusion draws a distinction between -- Austen is giving you a happy story, but the overall attitude to love is more that it's to be "smirk[ed] at" than romanticised.
I feel like I'm the only person, sometimes, who feels that the 2005 Pride and Prejudice (ignoring its beauty) did not understand the characters or novel. Darcy wasn't shy and stuttering. He was pretentious and prideful and by marrying Lizzy he is humbling himself, not rising to some confidence.
It was shitastic.
You're definitely not the only one. The director fundamentally misunderstands the Bennet family, making them out to be the poor family whose daughter lived the Cinderella dream of rags to riches. They're not poor, they're just GOING TO BE poor once Mr Bennet dies because of the entail. While Mr Bennet lives, they're actually living in relative affluence, just not the obscene wealth of the Darcys or Bingleys. Yet the 2005 team set the Bennets in what would be a cottage-like "estate" with pigs running around wildly and the daughters dressed in clothes too cheap or ill-fashioned to be worn by a reasonably wealthy gentry family while at the same time insisting that "we are perfectly capable of keeping a cook" and having the mother and daughters lazing around the drawing room when visitors come to call. The cognitive dissonance is very grating to a book reader tbh. Removing this just removes the whole dynamic of the family, making Mrs Bennet's attitude more fortune hunting and Mr Bennet less negligent father who failed to safeguard his daughters' futures. And the way Elizabeth just snatches her uncle's letter out of her father's hand! My god I nearly wanted to reach through the screen to slap Lizzy (not Keira though, she's just the actress doing as she's directed to lol).
THANK YOU! I hate it when people claim Jane Austen is "romance", and only that. No, the romance is just a vehicle for so much more.
It reminds me why I hate when people make fun of books by summing up the plot in one sentence. That is not the book at all. It also reminds me how some people treat Tolkien. Yes, you can read it as a simple adventure story about magic rings, elves and wizards. But the reality is just so much richer.
I highly recommend Dr Octavia Cox's RUclips channel. She delves into JA's work and it's been tremendously helpful to me to understand more of the subversive topics, such as class. I love that in P+P JA writes Wickham almost as a classic gothic villain but through using her dialogue she makes him more layered and fully rounded character than an overblown simple baddie.
I was thinking about this too 😄 But also Ellie Dashwood. I love her channel as much as I do Dr Octavia Cox
The issue with some of the adaptations nowadays is they fall into the trap of going after the High Definition cinematic shots and props rather than maintaining the author's intentions with regards to the subtleties of the characters and plot.
To me, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice goes for the cinematic aesthetic (and I found it enjoyable for that) however the 1995 BBC one was much more true to the book and Austen. Both serve to entertain in different ways, I suppose. The problem I have with stuff now being made in 2020s is they are trying to break fourth walls or make the plot or characters unrecognisable.
Shows like Brigerton the other hand are new stories, so they are original and being made in liaison with the actual author. They can make new points, entertain in new ways etc and it works. Changing Austen's Anne Elliot for example, does not work, because the character is established as shy, not Fleabaglike.
You can never convince me than Pride and Prejudice (1995) is not the best miniseries of all time.
Agreed.
Enjoyed this and agree entirely! I think it really shows when the adaptations have to go so off-piste to create dramatic romantic moments. Most of the characters get engaged while on a walk, or like you say the actual proposal is off-stage.
Thank you so much! Yes they often have to up the romance on screen!
This is such a good point! I've always found it odd that the romantic resolution is summarized and so anticlimactic. A really strong proof of the novels leaning away from romance.
I'm always disappointed that no adaptations of Persuasion spend any time with Mrs. Smith. Her revelations about Mr. Elliot at the end of the novel had me absolutely glued to the page when I first read it. And they never show or explain that Anne and Captain Wentworth help to better her situation after they get married. I get having to cut things for time, but it always makes me sad that Anne's friendship with Mrs. Smith is treated as such an afterthought when it becomes so important in the novel.
I agree. I love the Amanda Root version, but if you haven’t read the novel closely, it doesn’t stand on its own.
Only portrayals I truly enjoy (not going to mention the more eclectic adaptations like Bride and Prejudice as it’s really its own category) are the 1994 Pride and Prejudice Miniseries, Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility, and Persuasion with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. Paltrow’s Emma wasn’t awful - I just dislike Emma overall.
ok, I usually wait until the 3rd or 4th video to decide if I want to describe, but this is my 2nd of your videos and 2 minutes in, I hit subscribe!
Excellent discussion of an interesting subject...more on these adaptations, please.
You explained many of the reasons why I like Jane Austen so much. Thank you for the video 💕
Great video and so true. Perhaps the adaptations miss out on the details so the true fans/readers can be the only ones noticing it. Also, I'd love to see a video on the older generation, like Catherine de Bourgh compared to Mrs Bennett.
Thank you for the video suggestion!
Def would love this too. Completely missed the parallel.
Love this video!😄💗
I personally despise the 2005 pride & prejudice & want to forget 2020 Emma.
Thank you!
Yes!!!! I've seen them both once. Never again.
Yes!!!! I've seen them both once. Never again.
I agree completely!
Same. Whether some feel like the 2005 P and P held true to certain aesthetics and emotions than my beloved 1994 mini-series, I absolutely loathed that they took the delightful wit out of the characters and their interactions and replaced it with petulance and sulking. 2020 Emma got 10 minutes of my attention before I shut it off.
The only one of Austen's novels that seems romantic to me is Persuasion. I do also find Jane Fairfax to be a romantic heroine.
The Persuasion movie with Ciaran Hinds is my favorite Austen adaptation.
I agree. Most of the heroines have other things on their minds than their love interests.
My brain killed Persuasion for me with this thought on behalf of Anne: "wow, it has been 9 years and you are still angry.... guess I lucked out...imagine being married to someone who can hold a grudge that long"
You’re so right. It drives me crazy that the adaptations always miss her satire. When Joe Wright said Pride and Prejudice was all about love, I spat my soup across the room.
You don’t think it’s worth talking about the BBC Sense and Sensibility adapted by Andrew Davies? I love the Emma Thompson one, but the one with Dan Stevens is good.
2008's BBC Sense and Sensibility was very good!
Yes! Why everyone hate it? I don’t get it
Yes! It's my favourite adaptation of that book!
Yep rewatch it constantly.
Nobody does the scene where Eleanor is begging Marianne not to die like the divine Emma Thompson.
My problem with the Emma Thompson version was Emma Thompson playing Elinor. Her ego got in the way of casting. She is a monumental talent, but too old to play Elinor.
Great commentary! I'm reading all of Austen's books soon after having watched almost all the film adaptations, so it'll be interesting to see the differences.
Thank you!
Excellent. I agree, the adaptations miss the point and true humor of Austen.
Keira Knightley is NOT Lizzie Bennett.
I don’t know much about this stuff but this is very interesting. II really wasn’t familiar with what society was like back then. What details do we miss because we don’t know a pun or practice of the era?
Ellie Dashwood has much background material about the era on her channel.
love your essays!
Thank you!
What's wrong with the BBC mini series adaption of Sense and Sensibility? I thought it was well worth talking about!
Do you mean the 1981 series? I thought that very good, too.
I've never heard your name but I LOVE IT!
I could listen to this subject all day. If you wanna just dissect every smidgen of satire in the Austen novels, no objection here. I'm all in.
I loved it, thanks for the video 👏👏👏
I suggest re reading Jane Austen's novels which reveal more more at each re-reading rather than re-watching simplified, often romanticised adaptations
You have opened my eyes. Thank you.
Brilliant! Thank you for sharing!
A different perspective, good on yer
Fantastic video, spot on, you go girl
Thank you
I have enjoyed listening to your comments.
Are we not going to talk about 11:13? Because I was listening and making breakfast and nearly dropped my dish in laughter.
I drew the line, when you burped
I thought it was a pretty funny example of the type of comedy of manners she was speaking on.
Love your video essays!
Thank you!
Exactly! I couldn't agree more
Thank you!
why dont you do a video about the adaptations only?
As in without reference to the books? I suppose because on this channel I talk about books and because talking about them as adaptations is more interesting to me
@@RoisinsReading No, not without referencing the books, rather comparing particular adaptations to the books. How would you rate them as adaptations as well as how would you rate them as movies/ shows - they are not the same.
Everyone seems to think Pride and Prejudice is a romance. How odd.
Excellent vídeo.
Thank you
Marianne really gets on my wick.
I love that expression
Good video I enjoyed it
I'm glad
**spits facts**
*BURPS*
**continues to spit facts**
Huh, I never knew Austen wrote Great Expectations
Great Expectations is Charles Dickens. I think she’s comparing the two writers.
I enjoy the 2005 p&p but I HAVE to turn it off before the end, I love romance but that was sooooo cheesy and bad 😂
Yes it leans a bit to hard into the sappy for my taste
I guess I’m cheesy. I love it.
oop a dissenter of 2005 P&P
That burp was glorious, I applaud you
I have to agree with another commentator that it would be easier to concentrate on what you are saying if you relaxed and slowed down a bit. You have interesting things to say, but it is more convincing to present your ideas in a calm and rational manner.
The irony of this comment is that it almost sounds straight out of an Austin novel 😂 . I despise backhanded compliments & I actually love her pace because it pleases my ADHD brain.
To each their own I suppose.
seriously. To sit and read from the script...))
Several times you refer to “American version” of films. Please don’t. Instead use the specific term, “Hollywood version”. Thank you.
I talked about the American ending of Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice because it was only released to American audiences, the ending released worldwide was different. There was no Mrs Darcy scene in the worldwide release.
@@RoisinsReading Thank you again, I see now, you meant the Hollywood feature film (2005 P&P) ending was edited differently (& released on a different date) in the US version versus the UK version, but it is nice to know about how editing differs in this case. NOTE: not sure what Canada’s version was: it’s on the American continent, but is a part of the UK…oops correction noted: the commonwealth.
I mean the film was produced by French and British film companies so I'm not sure it's fair to call it the Hollywood film at all. Also Canada is part of the commonwealth but not the UK, its an independent country, but I dont know which ending they got
@@RoisinsReading oops, the (French/British/US) studio that made it, is a subsidiary of Universal, one of the big 3 Hollywood film developers/distributors over the last century. So…yeah, but It’s not a Big budget Hollywood film, bc there weren’t lots of cgi/special effects. I think. LOL
Ugh. Men are insufferable.
NO. What has anything to do with the world faces - l'm American I have rights I want lots of kids
Way too much gesturing. A few hand and arm movements are good, but too many distract from what you are saying.
The ending ofJoe Wrights P&P is simply exquisite and manna for the true romantics for whom such a lived scene is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Furthermore for deeply vulnerable sensitive and open people this “grand gesture” is as sincere as one’s love for a tiny precious kitten or puppy. Not that people are those things but that tenderness can be invoked for a child in its innocent start into the world as Mr and Mrs Darcy innocently and tenderly embark on theirs. So debarf your mind. Others are quite content to watch two tender lovers.