I saw a hilarious skit once full of grousing and commiseration between the only 3 or 4 actors in all of the UK who were never in any Harry Potter film...
I think what you said about Emma Thompson obviously knowing and loving Jane Austen is so true in how she approached Sense & Sensibility. I also like Love & Friendship for that reason, it was such a fresh take on Lady Susan. The ABOMINATION that was the Netflix Persuasion is summed up in that line from Captain Wentworth that went something like: "You've never had a problem speaking your mind." Which is the opposite of Anne Elliot. They destroyed her character. There was so much potential there, especially with the Fleabaggish asides. But it was thus polluted!
@@emiadachi8511 I like your title! The Mary character was FANTASTIC, and the cinematography was beautifully "sweeping." Henry Golding was so good it had me rooting for Anne to marry her cousin. So, it had its moments . . . but, ugh. That octopus story? What the WHAT?! 🙂
That a book written 211 years ago is still not only popular but relevant today is a tribute to a truly amazing writer. Who is currently writing the classics of the future? Who has this caliber of writing?
For me, it’s less about book accuracy and more about the creators of the show loving, or at least respecting, the original books. If we take the three seasons of Bridgerton as examples: Season one was pretty accurate, just with some added subplots. Season two was less accurate, but it still felt like they cared about the original story and characters. Season three was also inaccurate, but it was inaccurate in ways that made it feel like they were loosing interest in the source material
I think Emma Thompson really tapped in to the Jane Austen "energy." Have you read her diaries and original screenplay? Highly recommend the book. Reading the screenplay is still really wonderful!
I LOVE Sense & Sensibility (the movie), and I only love it more the older I get. As a a kid, I found it kind of boring, but every time I've re-watched over the years its like theres more layers and the emotions hit harder. Emma Thompson gave us a real gift with that performance and her efforts with the screenplay
I read S&S after I gave up on P&P in chapter 2 or 3. I loved it all the way through. Of course, by then I’d read all of Georgette Heyer, so I had a firm & accurate sense of Regency England. This, and being a Christian & the daughter of a minister, probably made it even easier: already prejudiced towards Edward. Something like 30 years later, I saw Emma’s film, loved it, & thought it a very, very good adaptation. Obviously, I’d forgotten a lot of the detail & just remembered the spirit of the book. (And I fell truly, madly, deeply in love with Colonel Brandon, to the point where I KNEW Snape MUST be a good guy.)
Brilliant video! I heartily agree with your assessment of the 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, but for me it was Alan Rickman’s portrayal of Colonel Brandon that stole the show. Ugh, I am still sad about Mr. Rickman’s death.
“You would have to hire a string quartet every time you wanted to listen to music in your room” Ma’am, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard on booktube. Thank you
I appreciate when a really good adaptation can include hidden gifts especially for us book nerds (without losing the non-reading viewers). The 2009 BBC adaptation of ‘Emma’ added something I had never thought about: that Emma’s father kept her with him after his wife died; unlike both Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill, who were farmed out to relatives as children. This added not only an extra reason for Jane & Frank to be attracted to each other, but it also gave a depth to Emma’s devotion to her sometimes-trying father. Now that was a screenwriter who knew and loved the work! One more example I’ve thought a lot about: Greta Gerwig's 2019 adaptation of ‘Little Women’ brought in elements that Alcott herself had wanted but couldn't have in her own day. Thank you for this great video!
I enjoyed this feature of the 2009 Emma (actually, 2009 is my favourite Emma, with the possible exception of Clueless), but for me it was 'this is something new and different the film added that I really liked' rather than 'this gave me an insight into the book I had previously missed'.
3:27 I have always adored this little moment from the 2005 P&P. Keira Knightley does so much with her face in just a couple of seconds. Idk, it just works for me.
I know that both famous adaptations of P&P have taken their liberties with the book: 1995 has added the infamous wet shirt scene, 2005 (among a number of other things) added the almost kiss in the rain and the half-dressed love confession in the field. I personally like the one, but not the other. The shirt scene adds something that is very much fitting the situation that Austen describes. Darcy loses his tight grip on his composure on seeing Elizabeth in a very vulnerable position himself. His awkwardness is endearing, even while Lizzy herself is deeply embarrassed. His dishevelled state levels the playing field between them. 2005 (mis)interprets the failed engagement scene to add some drama and sexual tension. Lizzy is extremely angry, has a headache and wants to tear Darcy limb from limb. Apparently that translates into her wanting to smooch him really, really badly. And the ending…. Meh. I just can’t with the triple love confession. I know the walk in book and 1995 is less exciting, but I love the restraint of Colin Firth grinding out that his feelings and wishes remain unchanged. It understands the essence of a humbled Darcy in a way that 2005 doesn’t. In general I feel Austen is often misunderstood as a pure romance writer, when she was very heavy on the satire and comedy elements. I love about the recent Emma adaptation that it leaned so heavily into those aspects (though I believe too much of the Frank-Jane plot ended up on the cutting room floor, leaving it a little disjointed). My point is - I’m totally fine with changes as long as the essence of story and characters are preserved. Which is why I have no desire to watch the new “Persuasion”.
2005 version’s ending humbles Darcy by having him walk all the way to Elizabeth, something he knows she loves to do and that was looked down upon by Caroline. He is most disheveled in the ending because then they are finally on even, open ground, represented by the field. Even the stuttering on “love” is humbling and a great contrast to the rehearsed and prideful confession given in the rain scene. Also in the rain scene, I don’t see Elizabeth wanting to kiss him “really badly”, but when she asked Darcy to dance when they first met it’s an indication that despite teasing his miserable look she was attracted to him even then, as Elizabeth is not the type to initiate something she does not desire, nor accept an offer she doesn’t desire. This is highlighted when she instantly refuses Mr Collin’s’ proposal but immediately accepts Darcy’s dance invitation at Netherfield Ball. She unconsciously likes him the whole time but has decided she doesn’t, listening to her head over her heart, which is what Darcy is also guilty of. “You chose to tell me you like me against your will.” She also likes him against her will. In that scene I see her head and heart visibly at war and she is confused by the feelings she’s been suppressing, suddenly stirred up by Darcy’s confession. It’s only after she reads his letter and gains insight into his head that she realizes her own head was wrong, she can accept the truth about them both and reconcile with her heart. Only after then can she admit to herself that she finds him attractive, and is also humbled upon doing so. It’s more poignant in the film since she confesses he is handsome in the company of others, whom which she previously gave the impression of feeling the opposite, and inside Pemberley, which is the physical parallel of being inside Darcy’s head.
Many reviewers refer to movies based on Austen novels as "RomComs." That shows a complete misunderstanding of her novels or a very bad film interpretation.
And therein lies the point of the video. You're using personal biases to taint your view of what is and isn't a "good" adaption. I'm a huge fan of the book, and imo I see the two things as totally opposite. I find the tv adaptions scene a little too hammy, while I find the movies scene you mention totally relatable and iin line with the pacing and themes. I think the movie does exactly what you claim, which is really highlight the wit and satire in Austen's writing. The movie is cutting, sharp and has so many laugh out loud moments that for me lends itself more to it's source material than the TV show, that was so desperate to be 'accurate' to source material that it loses it's way for me. I don't think either is the 'better' adpation, and I think it's wholly unfair to say one misinterprets and fails at the task of representation when it boils down to personal preference.
@ for some reason I got the reply notification, but I agree with you. The series’ wet shirt scene feels like unearned fan service, while even the film’s scene of Darcy repeatedly standing and sitting while Elizabeth leaves and reenters the room crying with her family’s letter is just hilarious, while simultaneously showing his gentlemanly behaviour. It’s ironic how the film itself is misinterpreted
my personal favourite pride and prejudice adaptation i've seen is "pride and prejudice (sort of)" - which is going back on tour next year! There's only 5 actresses playing all the various roles so they frame it as the servants of the bennets getting together to gossip about the family and all the drama with the bingleys and darcy, and play-acting out the story among themselves for entertainment which is why so many of the actors are double or tripling up on roles. also there's inexplicably 80s and 90s karaoke songs getting pulled out for pivotal scenes. it's incredibly inaccurate, utterly delightful and also very very queer
9:38 Jhumpa Lahiri talked about how during the adaptation of ‘The Namesake’, she had a ‘grandmotherly’ relationship with what was going on because she wasn’t directly involved and Mira Nair gave it her own vision.
I had never heard of “The Scarlet Pimpernel” until I saw the 1982 television adaptation with Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour, and Ian McKellan. I loved it so much I immediately bought the book…and then was filled with wonder that screenwriter William Bast could see such potential for gold in such a muddy pile of garbage as that novel. That’s a gift.
I loved the cold open and also, wow what a topic! I love discourse around it. P.S. Dakota Johnson has iPhone face, Keira Knightley had RUclips thumbnail face 😂
What I love about Austen is that she creates such a wonderful universe in her books, that film and TV makers can then do a lot with her stories. For many years now, this is why I've maintained that Emma is a richer work than many give it credit for. There is so much in the text to draw from each adaption has been able to do something slightly different with it. As a girly who is really into comparative literature, I'm INTO it.
I don't think this is an unpopular opinion at all! It is very different in tone, so I can understand that if someone read and loved the book first they might be disappointed (I saw the film first so I had no expectations) but the film had a special sort of magic and joy that the book lacked. Because it wasn't trying for it - there was a totally different objective! But since William Goldman wrote the book AND the screenplay it was obviously his intention to make this change.
I don't remember being this happy for my youtube algorithm in ages! What a lovely channel! You are so good at delivering your opinions and setting the topics to discuss or think about. ❤
Wow, I'm usually all for accuracy, I didn't think I would end up agreeing with you so much! You're totally right that every adaptation speaks to the time in which it's produced, in the same way that every generation gets to restage the Shakespeare plays that are most relevant to the moment. But "you have bewitched me" will always pull me out of the moment in that film because it's so wrong, and hear, hear re "alone in my room." Hilarious fact-checking failure.
After your magnificent video essay on the topic, I cannot add anything valuable, so the only thing left for me is to say thank you and kudos! 🙌 I love how you insert irony so the video doesn't turn out like a dry academic paper, but, on the other hand, it is clearly well thought out and researched ❤ Greetings from Chile!!
I enjoy good storytelling based on chemistry between the actors, good dialogue writing, and beautiful cinematography. If that’s not there, it’s going to be bad whether it’s true to the book or not.
@@bluevol1976 I feel this way about Misery. The book goes so in depth to the mind of Paul, which we don't get in the movie. Annie is also far more unhinged and gruesome in the book. Nevertheless, the movie is so well done that I don't mind that much of the content had to be missed. I'm not usually into anything too anxiety provoking, but I enjoyed it so much.
Interview With The Vampire (2022) is a great example of this. There are lots of changes but they add even more layers to the story making it relevant and somehow it’s still accurate in terms of the spirit of the book.
I think you just changed my life. That is such an interesting approach that I had never thought of. I don't think I will ever get angry again when I see a not so accurate adaptation
Thoughts on North & South? I love the miniseries when I first saw it, and it made me read the book. Definitely love the book more now, but I can't say that the adaptation is bad in any way. It just doesn't have the same room and possibilities as the novel, but it did a decent job.
I watched the 2005 version before even knowing what the book was. But even after reading the book, I was happy they kept the important plot/emotional beats that were in the book. That’s what I care about the most in adaptations. I don’t need a word for word adaptation, but the spirit of it has ti be there. If the important characterizations, plot points, and emotional/romantic development from the book is there, I am happy. I become a book purist is when they don’t even try to use one ounce of the book. If they just want the premise, but is not trying to be a book adaptation, fine. But if they are using a few scenes from the book and are acting like a book adaptation, use the book. It is right there.
The 2005 P&P is one of the most perfect book-to-screen adaptations ever, and is frankly underrated because of nostalgia for the 90s version. It played loose with accuracy in exchange for a coherent, modern, visually stunning film. It is as interested in the medium of film and what it can accomplish as it is with the source material. Truly unmatched.
I'm reading Sense and Sensibility currently, for the first time, after having seen the '95 film dozens of times since its release. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the book/film for this one. I love Austen, but am finding this particular book to be quite a slog at times, while others of Austen I've read have moved at a much more enjoyable pace. This one feels like Austen, in making up for the inaccessibility of Marianne, has written excruciatingly in depth internal monologues for Elinor which I'm sorry to report, has my eyes glossing over as I try to take them in. I'm still enjoying the book, more for comparing how different it is in so many ways (so many more characters) from the incredible film from decades ago. I recently watched the Hallmark Sense and Sensibility from earlier this year, and found it actually followed more closely the novel (at least from what I've read so far, I'm only halfway through the novel) than the '95 film, even for it's much shorter run time (and don't mistake me, it's not good per se, but it was also not terrible....though ymmv). I will have to look up the 2008 miniseries and give that a try, when I'm done with the book!
I loved this video! I agree with everything you said about Sense and Sensibility, except for one thing. Much as I love the film, if I had to choose between never seeing it again, or never reading the book again, I would keep the book. (On the other hand, I would not be fussed if I couldn't read The Princess Bride again, but I'd be devastated if I could never re-watch the film.) If you are interested, earlier this year I gave a presentation about how the Darcys of different adaptations are influenced by the period in which the adaptations were made. The presentation was recorded and is on RUclips at ruclips.net/video/xqhWjCDyqiE/видео.htmlsi=VTXB4ddGitS9gO0g (the first 17 seconds is a generic title slide, but after that the visuals get more interesting).
As a long time P&P fan, I'm so tired of the snobbery against the 2005 film. It seems so many p&p fans are DESPERATE for everyone to know the book and tv show were sooooooooooo much better, and actually the movie didn't even do xyz right. You literally can't click on any reaction or review of the 2005 movie without a slew of people going "YOU SHOULD WATCH THE BBC SHOW IT'S SOOOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER AND MORE ACCURATE" For me, each medium has it's own merits and yes, the TV show can be more accurate and show more intricate iinteractions and not skip whatever scene you love, but that's because it gets to be 6 hours long. But it has it's downfalls too (such a lower budget making some scenes seem very limited aka the balls), and the fact it's 6 hrs long lol. I think for the fact the movie only had 2hrs, it did an amazing job of not only staying faithful, but managing to make the world feel truly alive AND very slightly modernise parts to appeal more to a modern and younger audience (I think the era change was a smart one too tbh). Put it this way, if I'm trying to share something I love with my friends, it's far easier for us to all sit around, enjoy and laugh over a 2 hr movie, than it is to expect them to read the book, or try and get them in one place for 6hrs straight. I think every medium and every adaption has it's place, but constantly trying to scoff and say the movie isn't even accurate is just like. Whatever man.
There are some great adaptations of some of my favourite Stephen King books, like "The Green Mile" and "Shawshank Redemption". But I have never seen an adaptation of "Pet Sematary" that is entirely successful.
Thank you so much for your beautifully nuanced thoughts about book adaptations. I'm quite a book nerd myself and tend to rant about subjective "bad adaptations". I'm an absolute fan of the 1995 P&P-mini series. But - had it not been for the 2005 movie, I might have never discovered Jane Austen. I'm German and Jane Austen is just not such a well known author here. All through childhood, youth and all my time at school there was never any contact with her novels. But when I watched the P&P movie with Keira Knightly I immediately fell in love. There are some aspects of that movie that I don't like any more like depicting her rather as the daughter of a farmer than as a young lady of the landed gentry. But otherwise the movie "spoke to me". The music, the scenery, the cast and the chemistry of the characters, the pacing. It was a movie made for me as a then Austen ignorant to get me hooked.
I love Jane Austen, I wrote my thesis about the picture of society in P&P and Emma but I actually think that both 1995 adaptations: Sense and Sensibility and BBC's P&P are better than the novels. Every mention of P&P makes me smile and every mention of S&S makes my eyes wet a little, it's a masterpiece. Also, you are so right about Pratchett. I hope there will be no more attempts at adapting the Discworld.
Classic examples for me are The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit--the first being an incredibly successful adaptation to visual storytelling and a modern audience, the latter completely disrespecting the original in every way.
I quite enjoyed the Netflix Persuasion. It felt like it was written by someone who loves the characters (especially Mary) but gave themselves permission to have fun with them … like a choose your own adventure version of Austen. Appreciate that I’m in the minority with this view. Also had so much fun reading Rivals after watching the series 😂 Despite what these outlier opinions might indicate, I absolutely loved this video! Can nerd out about adaptation theory for days.
I love Emma Thompson's S&S, it's the best. Lot's of stuff I had never thought about before here, like your point about adaptations not being for book people. Films also are increasingly keeping an eye on the international market too, so if you can make something that appeals to Asia that is worth more to a studio than good reviews.
Adaptations, yes! I'm on this journey that began during the 'demic to watch as many iterations of Jane Eyre as possible. I've lost count of how many I've seen, but its fascinating how different the Mr Rochesters are. From suave to dour to outright ab*sive. Broad, slender, brunette, auburn. From "Eh, I can see it" to "Girl, RUN". I don't think I've ever seen as many interpretations of the same character that are so different and its hilarious. If you don't mind the storyline of Jane Eyre and ever have a lot of time to kill, I recommend👍
@impposter560 yeah, it's really interesting how adaptions of Jane Eyre have changed over time to make Rochester a bit more palatable. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's smart not to alienate the audience with the more unlikable parts of him that are present in the books.
@@voulafisentzidis8830 So interesting the variety of opinions we get! The Ruth Wilson one is my favorite (though I think with time I've understood better why other people may not like it all that much), with the Zelah Clarke (also known as the Timothy Dalton one) version close behind. The version I truly cannot stand is the Samantha Morton/Ciaran Hinds one; watching that one actually turned me off the story as a whole for many years. The Ruth Wilson one brought me back to it. I still haven't watched them all, but I did catch the 1973 one with Sorcha Cusack last year, and I liked that one quite a bit, too.
@@impposter560 Tastes differ. When the Ruth Wilson version was televised, she stated in an interview that theirs would be the definitive one. I remember thinking we've already had that with Zelah Clarke and didn't change my mind after seeing hers. What I loved most about the Zelah Clarke version is that it was made by the BBC which used text from the novel whereas Ruth's version modernised the text and some scenes which to me felt inappropriate for the period.
@@voulafisentzidis8830 Agreed that there are some jarringly modern turns of phrase and a couple scenes that are decidedly not period. I think because I had been gone from the book and story for so long before watching it that those moments didn't take me out as much as they could have. Which is interesting because in most cases I definitely notice when something doesn't fit in the period. Just the right timing, I guess.
Great video & examples! I always think of The Princess Bride as a perfect case of the book and film being different but each perfectly suited to its medium, and the author of the book is also the one who wrote the adapted screenplay so he didn’t have to worry about cutting huge swathes of the book that make no sense on screen and adding in different scenes that only work visually and play off the incredible comedic actors working on the film 🥲
I expect filmed adaptations to at least respect the source material. Shondaland has ruined the Bridgerton stories for me, as I only enjoyed the first series. Netflix ruined my favourite Jane Austen novel with its latest release of Persuasion. I won't be relying on Netflix to provide future programmes worthy of investing time in.
Agree wholeheartedly. I read the "Bridgerton'' books when they were first published, over 20 years ago. Looked forward to watching the adaptation. Could not get past the first 1/2 hour. Will defiantly not be watching the new P&P Netflix is working on.
This topic is really important to me as someone who loves film. I usually am more forgiving of adaptational changes because I'm more versed in what makes a good movie than a good book, so it's always a controversial take from me when I like inaccurate adaptations.
My favorite Austin adaptation goeth thusly: Pride & Prejudice (1995) Sense & Sensibility (2008) Northanger Abbey (2007) Emma (2009) Mansfield Park (2007) Persuasion (2007) Most of these were screen written by Andrew Davies and are brilliant and all were made by the BBC. Nobody can convince me that these are not THE BEST ADAPTATIONS EVER🤩
Everything you've said here was sensible and true. I love books, but film is something else. When a story is told well on film, it's always going to attract a larger audience and will have more impact. It's visual, immersive, and social. I get that audio books close the gap (somewhat), but for someone, like me, who is cursed with a one-track mind, they don't usually work. Film works for almost everyone, even the visually impaired. Well done. Addendum: Your riff on SAS about the Emma Thompson version was brilliant. I've read the book twice, and my ranking is about as you'd guess. But that adaptation, although it has a few over-the-top moments, is so stuffed with fine actors and the screenplay is so brilliant, that it IS an absolute delight. Hugh Grant, Emma, AR, Hugh Lawrie, the physician, Harriet...........and I didn't even mention Kate, Greg Wise, or Imogen Stubbs. ALee should have won the Oscar for this one, but I understand he did win with Brokeback? I'd never admit to reading either the book or seeing the movie, but one of the best jokes ever involved the evolving grocery orders of the Brokeback buckaroos as the story develops, shifting from whisky, bacon, and beans to veal medallions, conflict-free arugula, and chutney compote. Who says good jokes are not another valid way to adapt a meaningful story?
I get what you meant.. The problem is many movie writers who wanted to have this (movies/series better than the books) ended up butchered or discarded the story cores.. There are many examples of adaptation that left fandom so dissapointed with how they changed the story or characters
I thought I was in the minority that didn't like the S&S book all that much xD but I'm rereading it now and enjoying it more. As for adaptations for me it depends on a lot of context. If I feel like they are only doing it because of The Brand then it falls short to me (like The Hobbit movies or The Rings of Power) or if I sense they are being smug and thinking they can do better than what the author did like in the Netflix Persuasion but other than that I'm very easy to please (unless it's a book I really love but then I'll admit they can't possibly recreate the exact images in my head). Other good adapations that are not accurate to the books but are still good are the Interview with the vampire series and the North and South miniseries. Although, the down side is that it might make people disappointed if they love the adapation and then the book is not like that.
I like the netflix adaptation of Persuasion a lot more than the 1995 version, even though it had A LOT of problems, but it felt more natural, the actors had better chemistry and weren't too old like Ciarán Hinds was. I also like Rings of Power more than LOTR lol
This is brilliant! If you are looking for awful books that were turned into great movies, the best example is Forrest Gump. The book is terrible. There’s nothing touching about it, and it’s not funny. The movie is a gazillion times better. I agree that Emma Thimpson’s adaptation of Sense and Sensibility was great. The book works better as a comedy than a romance, but the film enhances the romance and tones down the comedy (like in deleting the second Steele sister), and the result is wonderful.
I wish Interview With The Vampire book purists would understand the message of this video, especially in respect to their reaction to changes made in the Interview With The Vampire TV show.
I remember bathing my son (who was around 2) early every Sunday in December so I was ready to watch the BBC adaptation series of Pride and Prejudice back in the early 1990’s. I now own it DVD (even though I no longer have a player) 😂
Tbh i don't care much for the accuracy. If the movie feels right to me, i like it, even if it's totally different than the source material. Trying to be as acurate as possible can sometimes feel forced and unnatural, especially if one doesn't think about what works in books doesn't always translate well into film. Pride and Prejudice for instance is my favorite book of all time, but i never liked the 1995 mini series. Instead i'm absolutely obsessed with the 2005 version because it's exactly what i want in (romance) movies. It feels (in my subjective opinion) like the book, even though it does change quite a bit, but it still works really well.
My favourite cases of the book being more enjoyable and elevating beyond the book is Legally Blonde and The Princess Diaries - the books had some issues and the movies worked to better them. Legally Blonde ends up being an uplifting story for women and also about sisterhood (the book was kinda pick me in basically hating other women) and Princess Diaries has Julie Andrews as a Queen!
I watched Sense and Sensibility 1995 version was because of Hugh Grant. I had a crush on him. I was in my thirties when I started watching movies from Jane Austen novels. I saw three versions of Pride and Prejudice, two versions of Sense and Sensibility, two versions of Mansfield Park and two versions of Emma. I did watch Persuasion, not the 2022 version.
These days, I feel like I can usually tell if I am going to enjoy an adaptation based on the press. In the interviews, do the creators have a love, understanding, and respect for the book they are adapting, or do they at best tolerate it and at worst despise it?
For me, a film that is a major improvement over the original book (by Agatha Christie) is DEATH ON THE NILE from 1978. This movie version omits the subplots that I feel weigh the book down and make it somewhat tedious to read.
I wouldn't say better, but the 1995 P&P series is an absolutely, outstandingly, brilliantly done adaptation that I adore. Equally good in its medium as the book is in its medium. The 1995 S&S, 1995 Persuasion, (95 was an excellent year for Austen adaptations) 1999 Mansfield Park. These are the adaptations that I love (almost) as much as the novels. ETA because autocorrect thinks her name is spelled like the city.
I strongly agree, except for the 1999 Mansfield Park. There were good performances, but the story was sexed and slavery-ed up, and Fanny became the typical beautiful but doesn't know it, spunky book worm heroine. On the other hand, the 1996 Emma with Kate Beckinsale was another excellent mid-nineties adaptation.
@@floraposteschild4184 Emma is my least favorite Austen novel so I've not watched that, or any, adaptation - not because there's anything wrong with it but because Emma just pisses me off and has done since the first time I read the book lo these 45 or so years ago.
@@Blaize24 As Austen herself said, "I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like." Judging from her letters, there's a lot of the author in Emma's character. Anyway, if you ever watch an adaptation, I'd recommend that one. It even made me appreciate Kate Beckinsale's acting, which is saying something.
@@floraposteschild4184 Yeah, I knew she said that but I refuse to believe the woman who gave us all the other amazing women was as emotionally and interpersonally blind as Emma, nor do I believe she was anywhere near as spoiled. That *is* saying something. With that strong of a recommendation perhaps I'll give it a watch.
A few thoughts- Tom Hardy as Heathcliff was perfection even if you hate the book and a bad book that made a great adaptation to check out is Queens Gambit.
I am okay with adaptations altering books apart from two examples Frankenstein (1931) and Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) so I think what matters for me is themes more than plot / character accuracy. Because the two Frankenstein films are almost unrelated to Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein they turn what is a complex social-sci-fi/gothic novel into OTT melodramatic mess with a weird eugenics message to reflect the 1930's, cutting all the complex nuance from Shelley's masterpiece. I think the plot being changed as long as they captures the essence of the original is okay a good example is Tod Browning's (1931) Dracula, it's not really accurate to Stoker's novel, I mean it's not even directly adapted from the novel but instead a 1927 stage adaptation which itself was a rewrite of a 1924 adaptation of Stoker's work but while characters from Stoker's work are left out of the film adaptation and the plot is drastically reduced and changed, it more or less captures the basic essence of the work Dracula purchases house with aid of British solicitor, comes to England's preys on people gets defeated by occult academic (Van Helsing) and his group. The difference are many but the essentials are the same. But Frankenstein has for instance ideas about negelect and whether nature or nurture is more prominent? Does society make you a monster or is it inherent? The Creature is a complex, self-educated being who teaches himself to speak and read, Karloff's monster grunts and roars in the first film and only speaks a handful of lines in Bride Of Frankenstein. and is treated as a monstrosity that needs to be put down. None of the social complexity remains and it's essentially a different story.
When I think of accuracy being important, I think more of the heart of the story, the characters, the spirit of the story, and what the book is saying. Not by following word for word or copying whole sections of the book. Like for example, the famous hand flex scene in the 2005 P&P version isn't in the book. But it says a lot about Darcy as a character, with how he acts in social situations as a gentleman and his feelings for Elizabeth as a man. His conflicting romantic feelings, his general awkwardness, and his lack of confidence to express himself clearly to her.
the 2005 P&P has nothing to do with a classical beloved novel. They could make this movie, call it "Lizzie and Fitzwille are hooking up" and spare us all the time and nerves. Then people like you may love it as much as you want to. Using this title and this story was a crime from those lazy greedy bastards´side
@@panchitaobrian1660 You could say that about pretty much every Pride & Prejudice adaptation. I remember several different changes in the 1940 version, the 1995 version, the webseries, etc. They are all going to be different from the book. Film is a different medium from books, things will be changed, especially for a 90-minute run time and modern audience.
Adaptation doesn´t have to be a visual copy of the book. But it must have internal autenticity. The creators of 1995 BBC series made a lot of new dialogs and situations but they all feel like "yes, exactly, that is what Austen would tell us herself! Off the record anyway!":)) Clowns known as creators of 2005 movie took the original text of P&P and made totally clownish, anachronistic, braindead situations and dialogs that had notning to do with Austin´s original. The same can be said about the majority of adaptations, Thompson´s S&S and maybe one-two other films being acceptable attempts to adapt Austin´s novels to tv and cinema.
@ my one example is actually Jane Auel’s series, where her American English is rather monotonous, the Danish translator managed to deliver a much more fluent and diverse language. I now prefer to read Auel’s books in Danish.
@@cb9825 I must say that I´ve read two different translations of P&P in my language and I wasn´t satisfied with any of them. One was closer to original but absolutely heavy and difficult to read, another was light and beautiful and conveyed the Austin´s wibe in the best way but was not precisely exact in all the details and those details are extremely important. Sometimes it is just impossible to make a perfect ranslation, IMHO. For example I´ve never seen an adequate translation of Tolstoy or Pushkin. Dostoevsky, maybe, but he is more primitive (end hence loved by Westerners)
@@cb9825 A lot of heaving bosoms and Miss Fisher is rather obnoxious and a insufferable know it al. Too over the top and it never feels like the 1920ies. The writing felt rather mediocre to me but that is just my opinion :)
Pride and Prejudice was not a film, but a series. Actually, the scene in your thumbnail put me off Austen for years because it was such a stupid cliche. Eventually, I read Persuasion and was amazed that the writer of such a bad scene wrote so well. Then I read Pride and Prejudice and discovered that she never wrote that scene. I like that adaptation now (minus the added scenes of Darcy being wet in every sense) but it deprived me of Austen for far too long.
2005 movie has nothing to do with Austen. They stole the name to make an advertisement to their stupid movie where people in strange costumes behave lika it is 2005 but pretend that it is 1817
Yes, yes, yes, and yes! I agree with you sooooo much! Except: Wuthering Heights deserves the respect that it is written in the most beautiful language. That's it. The rest is just awful. Hated everything about it, all characters, and especially the narrator ;) The thing about Netflix's "Persuasion" is that it is simply a very very bad movie, even if I ignore the fact that it was written by a spiteful person who must have hated and totally not understood the novel. It was lazy storytelling, with the constant breaking of the fourth wall, and having everything explained repeatedly ad nauseam. We, the viewers, are not that dumb. You dont have to explain every look with added words if you have good actors. Give us some credit! I don't need a visual medium if I get TOLD stuff again and again while being stared at. The script was bad, the acting was bad, make-up and costumes were bad, the dialogue was bad, but also, anything that makes a film a coherent masterpiece was simply non-existent. It lacked any and all finesse. It is a "cinematographical" disgrace irrespective of being a bad adaptation of a book.
When it comes to film adaptation being better than the book, I can whole heartedly say that Witches of Eastwick is absolutely superior compared to the novel. I've loved the film for ages, and recently read the book, and it was _bad_. I would advise skipping it and just have fun with the film.
Extremely unpopular opinion, I love all the main Jane Austen movie adaptations way better than any of the respective books they're based on (i.e. p&p or Emma [sense & sensibility being a slight exception]). I've always been a voracious reader, but I find Jane Austen's style either slightly too old or maybe just idiosyncratic to be enjoyable to me on its own merits. Like, if there were no movie or tv show adaptations, I would never have given her a second glance as a reader after trying to read her works once. (Fwiw, I absolutely'*love* Jane Eyre and have reread it umpteen times, so it's not just about the age of the text for me). Idk. I feel the movie and TV show adaptations which are engaged with the text of Jane Austen bring her world to life for me so much more than, er, her own work. But that's just me.
It took me three times to actually finish Pride and Prejudice. However, I love the 1995 version on film. For me, the adaptations work better than the novel.
I agree wholeheartedly, I always dislike when people are so against any changes in adaptation like you can just experience the original so what’s the use of the adaptation of it doesn’t diverse
Maybe it's my cinephile-over-bibliophile heart speaking, but I never once cared to judge a film harshly just because it's "inaccurate" from a book it's based on. A movie is a movie and should function as a movie. Even if its based on a book. I find the discussion over "is it a good or bad adaptation" to be incredibly boring.
"I love you. I Love you. I love you"... "bother book nerds and literally no one else cares" - Really? Anyone familiar with movies recognises this line - and the peals of laughter that followed in when Gene Kelly tried this in "Singin' in the Rain". This was parody level cliché in the 1950s. In the 2000s it should have meant that Joe Wright was never allowed near a camera again. "Railway Station toilet paper"? This was far closer to sand-blaster to your assets....
I've wanted a movie based on "Little Women" that diverts from the book so that Jo and Laurie end up together or at least they don't end up with the Professor and Amy, respectively. Leave it open-ended, at least.
![Do we REALLY need another Pride and Prejudice adaptation? [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R11r_LnmY5c/mqdefault.jpg)
![Do we REALLY need another Pride and Prejudice adaptation? [CC]](/img/tr.png)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact: The UK only has five actors and they’re legally required to be in every film ever.
Hahaha! I think you're right!
This is also my view from across the pond... Xenia, Ohio. USA!
Lmaooo the most believable theory.
I saw a hilarious skit once full of grousing and commiseration between the only 3 or 4 actors in all of the UK who were never in any Harry Potter film...
C'mon. I can name at least 30.
Norway has two. But you can only have one of them in each film.
Interview with the Vampire (TV show) is another great example of how thoughtful changes can enrich a story.
Yes! Absolutely agree
I LOVE that show
I think what you said about Emma Thompson obviously knowing and loving Jane Austen is so true in how she approached Sense & Sensibility. I also like Love & Friendship for that reason, it was such a fresh take on Lady Susan. The ABOMINATION that was the Netflix Persuasion is summed up in that line from Captain Wentworth that went something like: "You've never had a problem speaking your mind." Which is the opposite of Anne Elliot. They destroyed her character. There was so much potential there, especially with the Fleabaggish asides. But it was thus polluted!
I didn't hate everything about the Netflix persuasion, but I feel like I can retitle it as "anne elliot would never" 😂
@@emiadachi8511 I like your title! The Mary character was FANTASTIC, and the cinematography was beautifully "sweeping." Henry Golding was so good it had me rooting for Anne to marry her cousin. So, it had its moments . . . but, ugh. That octopus story? What the WHAT?! 🙂
That a book written 211 years ago is still not only popular but relevant today is a tribute to a truly amazing writer.
Who is currently writing the classics of the future? Who has this caliber of writing?
For me, it’s less about book accuracy and more about the creators of the show loving, or at least respecting, the original books.
If we take the three seasons of Bridgerton as examples: Season one was pretty accurate, just with some added subplots. Season two was less accurate, but it still felt like they cared about the original story and characters. Season three was also inaccurate, but it was inaccurate in ways that made it feel like they were loosing interest in the source material
Wholeheartedly agree about Sense and Sensibility. The book improves for me each time I read it, but the film blew me away from the first watch!
My late-20s daughter both read the book & saw the Emma Thompson film for the first time recently and very much thought the movie was better.
I think Emma Thompson really tapped in to the Jane Austen "energy." Have you read her diaries and original screenplay? Highly recommend the book. Reading the screenplay is still really wonderful!
I LOVE Sense & Sensibility (the movie), and I only love it more the older I get. As a a kid, I found it kind of boring, but every time I've re-watched over the years its like theres more layers and the emotions hit harder. Emma Thompson gave us a real gift with that performance and her efforts with the screenplay
I read S&S after I gave up on P&P in chapter 2 or 3. I loved it all the way through. Of course, by then I’d read all of Georgette Heyer, so I had a firm & accurate sense of Regency England. This, and being a Christian & the daughter of a minister, probably made it even easier: already prejudiced towards Edward.
Something like 30 years later, I saw Emma’s film, loved it, & thought it a very, very good adaptation. Obviously, I’d forgotten a lot of the detail & just remembered the spirit of the book. (And I fell truly, madly, deeply in love with Colonel Brandon, to the point where I KNEW Snape MUST be a good guy.)
Brilliant video! I heartily agree with your assessment of the 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, but for me it was Alan Rickman’s portrayal of Colonel Brandon that stole the show. Ugh, I am still sad about Mr. Rickman’s death.
“You would have to hire a string quartet every time you wanted to listen to music in your room”
Ma’am, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard on booktube. Thank you
I appreciate when a really good adaptation can include hidden gifts especially for us book nerds (without losing the non-reading viewers).
The 2009 BBC adaptation of ‘Emma’ added something I had never thought about: that Emma’s father kept her with him after his wife died; unlike both Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill, who were farmed out to relatives as children. This added not only an extra reason for Jane & Frank to be attracted to each other, but it also gave a depth to Emma’s devotion to her sometimes-trying father. Now that was a screenwriter who knew and loved the work!
One more example I’ve thought a lot about: Greta Gerwig's 2019 adaptation of ‘Little Women’ brought in elements that Alcott herself had wanted but couldn't have in her own day.
Thank you for this great video!
Wow, I never realised that until now. Thanks 😊
I enjoyed this feature of the 2009 Emma (actually, 2009 is my favourite Emma, with the possible exception of Clueless), but for me it was 'this is something new and different the film added that I really liked' rather than 'this gave me an insight into the book I had previously missed'.
Yes and the little moment where Emma tells her father she and her sister have always felt lucky that he didn’t send them away is so moving
3:27 I have always adored this little moment from the 2005 P&P. Keira Knightley does so much with her face in just a couple of seconds. Idk, it just works for me.
It's, by a wide margin, the best film translation of that scene.
And l love Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennett.
I know that both famous adaptations of P&P have taken their liberties with the book: 1995 has added the infamous wet shirt scene, 2005 (among a number of other things) added the almost kiss in the rain and the half-dressed love confession in the field. I personally like the one, but not the other. The shirt scene adds something that is very much fitting the situation that Austen describes. Darcy loses his tight grip on his composure on seeing Elizabeth in a very vulnerable position himself. His awkwardness is endearing, even while Lizzy herself is deeply embarrassed. His dishevelled state levels the playing field between them.
2005 (mis)interprets the failed engagement scene to add some drama and sexual tension. Lizzy is extremely angry, has a headache and wants to tear Darcy limb from limb. Apparently that translates into her wanting to smooch him really, really badly.
And the ending…. Meh. I just can’t with the triple love confession. I know the walk in book and 1995 is less exciting, but I love the restraint of Colin Firth grinding out that his feelings and wishes remain unchanged. It understands the essence of a humbled Darcy in a way that 2005 doesn’t.
In general I feel Austen is often misunderstood as a pure romance writer, when she was very heavy on the satire and comedy elements. I love about the recent Emma adaptation that it leaned so heavily into those aspects (though I believe too much of the Frank-Jane plot ended up on the cutting room floor, leaving it a little disjointed).
My point is - I’m totally fine with changes as long as the essence of story and characters are preserved. Which is why I have no desire to watch the new “Persuasion”.
Yeah, I love how the shirt scene shows so much of Darcy's character with such a simple act. The sexy Colin Firth in a wet shirt is a bonus.
2005 version’s ending humbles Darcy by having him walk all the way to Elizabeth, something he knows she loves to do and that was looked down upon by Caroline. He is most disheveled in the ending because then they are finally on even, open ground, represented by the field. Even the stuttering on “love” is humbling and a great contrast to the rehearsed and prideful confession given in the rain scene.
Also in the rain scene, I don’t see Elizabeth wanting to kiss him “really badly”, but when she asked Darcy to dance when they first met it’s an indication that despite teasing his miserable look she was attracted to him even then, as Elizabeth is not the type to initiate something she does not desire, nor accept an offer she doesn’t desire. This is highlighted when she instantly refuses Mr Collin’s’ proposal but immediately accepts Darcy’s dance invitation at Netherfield Ball. She unconsciously likes him the whole time but has decided she doesn’t, listening to her head over her heart, which is what Darcy is also guilty of. “You chose to tell me you like me against your will.” She also likes him against her will. In that scene I see her head and heart visibly at war and she is confused by the feelings she’s been suppressing, suddenly stirred up by Darcy’s confession.
It’s only after she reads his letter and gains insight into his head that she realizes her own head was wrong, she can accept the truth about them both and reconcile with her heart. Only after then can she admit to herself that she finds him attractive, and is also humbled upon doing so. It’s more poignant in the film since she confesses he is handsome in the company of others, whom which she previously gave the impression of feeling the opposite, and inside Pemberley, which is the physical parallel of being inside Darcy’s head.
Many reviewers refer to movies based on Austen novels as "RomComs." That shows a complete misunderstanding of her novels or a very bad film interpretation.
And therein lies the point of the video. You're using personal biases to taint your view of what is and isn't a "good" adaption. I'm a huge fan of the book, and imo I see the two things as totally opposite. I find the tv adaptions scene a little too hammy, while I find the movies scene you mention totally relatable and iin line with the pacing and themes.
I think the movie does exactly what you claim, which is really highlight the wit and satire in Austen's writing. The movie is cutting, sharp and has so many laugh out loud moments that for me lends itself more to it's source material than the TV show, that was so desperate to be 'accurate' to source material that it loses it's way for me.
I don't think either is the 'better' adpation, and I think it's wholly unfair to say one misinterprets and fails at the task of representation when it boils down to personal preference.
@ for some reason I got the reply notification, but I agree with you. The series’ wet shirt scene feels like unearned fan service, while even the film’s scene of Darcy repeatedly standing and sitting while Elizabeth leaves and reenters the room crying with her family’s letter is just hilarious, while simultaneously showing his gentlemanly behaviour. It’s ironic how the film itself is misinterpreted
If I want accuracy, thats what the book is for. The purpose of the movie is to see what the director and others involved got from the material.
my personal favourite pride and prejudice adaptation i've seen is "pride and prejudice (sort of)" - which is going back on tour next year! There's only 5 actresses playing all the various roles so they frame it as the servants of the bennets getting together to gossip about the family and all the drama with the bingleys and darcy, and play-acting out the story among themselves for entertainment which is why so many of the actors are double or tripling up on roles. also there's inexplicably 80s and 90s karaoke songs getting pulled out for pivotal scenes. it's incredibly inaccurate, utterly delightful and also very very queer
this sounds so fun
9:38 Jhumpa Lahiri talked about how during the adaptation of ‘The Namesake’, she had a ‘grandmotherly’ relationship with what was going on because she wasn’t directly involved and Mira Nair gave it her own vision.
I had never heard of “The Scarlet Pimpernel” until I saw the 1982 television adaptation with Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour, and Ian McKellan. I loved it so much I immediately bought the book…and then was filled with wonder that screenwriter William Bast could see such potential for gold in such a muddy pile of garbage as that novel. That’s a gift.
I loved the cold open and also, wow what a topic! I love discourse around it.
P.S. Dakota Johnson has iPhone face, Keira Knightley had RUclips thumbnail face 😂
What I love about Austen is that she creates such a wonderful universe in her books, that film and TV makers can then do a lot with her stories. For many years now, this is why I've maintained that Emma is a richer work than many give it credit for. There is so much in the text to draw from each adaption has been able to do something slightly different with it. As a girly who is really into comparative literature, I'm INTO it.
Unpopular opinion. Princess Bride the movie is vastly superior to the novel.
I don't think this is an unpopular opinion at all! It is very different in tone, so I can understand that if someone read and loved the book first they might be disappointed (I saw the film first so I had no expectations) but the film had a special sort of magic and joy that the book lacked. Because it wasn't trying for it - there was a totally different objective! But since William Goldman wrote the book AND the screenplay it was obviously his intention to make this change.
@@harrietjordan6378it must have been cool to have that opportunity to make changes following the release of the novel. It's such a brilliant movie.
I am in several fandoms that I would love to sit down and force to watch this video, Clockwork Orange--style.
I don't remember being this happy for my youtube algorithm in ages! What a lovely channel! You are so good at delivering your opinions and setting the topics to discuss or think about. ❤
Wow, I'm usually all for accuracy, I didn't think I would end up agreeing with you so much! You're totally right that every adaptation speaks to the time in which it's produced, in the same way that every generation gets to restage the Shakespeare plays that are most relevant to the moment. But "you have bewitched me" will always pull me out of the moment in that film because it's so wrong, and hear, hear re "alone in my room." Hilarious fact-checking failure.
After your magnificent video essay on the topic, I cannot add anything valuable, so the only thing left for me is to say thank you and kudos! 🙌 I love how you insert irony so the video doesn't turn out like a dry academic paper, but, on the other hand, it is clearly well thought out and researched ❤ Greetings from Chile!!
I enjoy good storytelling based on chemistry between the actors, good dialogue writing, and beautiful cinematography. If that’s not there, it’s going to be bad whether it’s true to the book or not.
@@bluevol1976 I feel this way about Misery. The book goes so in depth to the mind of Paul, which we don't get in the movie. Annie is also far more unhinged and gruesome in the book. Nevertheless, the movie is so well done that I don't mind that much of the content had to be missed. I'm not usually into anything too anxiety provoking, but I enjoyed it so much.
Interview With The Vampire (2022) is a great example of this. There are lots of changes but they add even more layers to the story making it relevant and somehow it’s still accurate in terms of the spirit of the book.
See this is so true. An adaptation needs to be seen in a different light than the book.
Also I’m so glad I’m not the only hater of Wuthering Heights.
I think you just changed my life. That is such an interesting approach that I had never thought of. I don't think I will ever get angry again when I see a not so accurate adaptation
Thoughts on North & South? I love the miniseries when I first saw it, and it made me read the book. Definitely love the book more now, but I can't say that the adaptation is bad in any way. It just doesn't have the same room and possibilities as the novel, but it did a decent job.
@Lothiril I haven't watched it in years, but my God, it is good.
@@Lothiril I loved North and South despite it being different from the novel as the script respects the source material.
I watched the 2005 version before even knowing what the book was.
But even after reading the book, I was happy they kept the important plot/emotional beats that were in the book. That’s what I care about the most in adaptations. I don’t need a word for word adaptation, but the spirit of it has ti be there. If the important characterizations, plot points, and emotional/romantic development from the book is there, I am happy.
I become a book purist is when they don’t even try to use one ounce of the book. If they just want the premise, but is not trying to be a book adaptation, fine. But if they are using a few scenes from the book and are acting like a book adaptation, use the book. It is right there.
The 2005 P&P is one of the most perfect book-to-screen adaptations ever, and is frankly underrated because of nostalgia for the 90s version. It played loose with accuracy in exchange for a coherent, modern, visually stunning film. It is as interested in the medium of film and what it can accomplish as it is with the source material. Truly unmatched.
I'm reading Sense and Sensibility currently, for the first time, after having seen the '95 film dozens of times since its release. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the book/film for this one. I love Austen, but am finding this particular book to be quite a slog at times, while others of Austen I've read have moved at a much more enjoyable pace. This one feels like Austen, in making up for the inaccessibility of Marianne, has written excruciatingly in depth internal monologues for Elinor which I'm sorry to report, has my eyes glossing over as I try to take them in. I'm still enjoying the book, more for comparing how different it is in so many ways (so many more characters) from the incredible film from decades ago. I recently watched the Hallmark Sense and Sensibility from earlier this year, and found it actually followed more closely the novel (at least from what I've read so far, I'm only halfway through the novel) than the '95 film, even for it's much shorter run time (and don't mistake me, it's not good per se, but it was also not terrible....though ymmv). I will have to look up the 2008 miniseries and give that a try, when I'm done with the book!
I loved this video! I agree with everything you said about Sense and Sensibility, except for one thing. Much as I love the film, if I had to choose between never seeing it again, or never reading the book again, I would keep the book. (On the other hand, I would not be fussed if I couldn't read The Princess Bride again, but I'd be devastated if I could never re-watch the film.)
If you are interested, earlier this year I gave a presentation about how the Darcys of different adaptations are influenced by the period in which the adaptations were made. The presentation was recorded and is on RUclips at ruclips.net/video/xqhWjCDyqiE/видео.htmlsi=VTXB4ddGitS9gO0g (the first 17 seconds is a generic title slide, but after that the visuals get more interesting).
As a long time P&P fan, I'm so tired of the snobbery against the 2005 film. It seems so many p&p fans are DESPERATE for everyone to know the book and tv show were sooooooooooo much better, and actually the movie didn't even do xyz right. You literally can't click on any reaction or review of the 2005 movie without a slew of people going "YOU SHOULD WATCH THE BBC SHOW IT'S SOOOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER AND MORE ACCURATE"
For me, each medium has it's own merits and yes, the TV show can be more accurate and show more intricate iinteractions and not skip whatever scene you love, but that's because it gets to be 6 hours long. But it has it's downfalls too (such a lower budget making some scenes seem very limited aka the balls), and the fact it's 6 hrs long lol. I think for the fact the movie only had 2hrs, it did an amazing job of not only staying faithful, but managing to make the world feel truly alive AND very slightly modernise parts to appeal more to a modern and younger audience (I think the era change was a smart one too tbh).
Put it this way, if I'm trying to share something I love with my friends, it's far easier for us to all sit around, enjoy and laugh over a 2 hr movie, than it is to expect them to read the book, or try and get them in one place for 6hrs straight.
I think every medium and every adaption has it's place, but constantly trying to scoff and say the movie isn't even accurate is just like. Whatever man.
I've never watched any Austen adaptations and I think this might've pushed me to try some out!
There are some great adaptations of some of my favourite Stephen King books, like "The Green Mile" and "Shawshank Redemption". But I have never seen an adaptation of "Pet Sematary" that is entirely successful.
Thank you so much for your beautifully nuanced thoughts about book adaptations. I'm quite a book nerd myself and tend to rant about subjective "bad adaptations". I'm an absolute fan of the 1995 P&P-mini series. But - had it not been for the 2005 movie, I might have never discovered Jane Austen. I'm German and Jane Austen is just not such a well known author here. All through childhood, youth and all my time at school there was never any contact with her novels. But when I watched the P&P movie with Keira Knightly I immediately fell in love. There are some aspects of that movie that I don't like any more like depicting her rather as the daughter of a farmer than as a young lady of the landed gentry. But otherwise the movie "spoke to me". The music, the scenery, the cast and the chemistry of the characters, the pacing. It was a movie made for me as a then Austen ignorant to get me hooked.
I love Jane Austen, I wrote my thesis about the picture of society in P&P and Emma but I actually think that both 1995 adaptations: Sense and Sensibility and BBC's P&P are better than the novels. Every mention of P&P makes me smile and every mention of S&S makes my eyes wet a little, it's a masterpiece.
Also, you are so right about Pratchett. I hope there will be no more attempts at adapting the Discworld.
Classic examples for me are The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit--the first being an incredibly successful adaptation to visual storytelling and a modern audience, the latter completely disrespecting the original in every way.
I quite enjoyed the Netflix Persuasion. It felt like it was written by someone who loves the characters (especially Mary) but gave themselves permission to have fun with them … like a choose your own adventure version of Austen. Appreciate that I’m in the minority with this view. Also had so much fun reading Rivals after watching the series 😂 Despite what these outlier opinions might indicate, I absolutely loved this video! Can nerd out about adaptation theory for days.
I love Emma Thompson's S&S, it's the best. Lot's of stuff I had never thought about before here, like your point about adaptations not being for book people. Films also are increasingly keeping an eye on the international market too, so if you can make something that appeals to Asia that is worth more to a studio than good reviews.
Adaptations, yes! I'm on this journey that began during the 'demic to watch as many iterations of Jane Eyre as possible. I've lost count of how many I've seen, but its fascinating how different the Mr Rochesters are. From suave to dour to outright ab*sive. Broad, slender, brunette, auburn. From "Eh, I can see it" to "Girl, RUN". I don't think I've ever seen as many interpretations of the same character that are so different and its hilarious. If you don't mind the storyline of Jane Eyre and ever have a lot of time to kill, I recommend👍
@impposter560 yeah, it's really interesting how adaptions of Jane Eyre have changed over time to make Rochester a bit more palatable. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's smart not to alienate the audience with the more unlikable parts of him that are present in the books.
@@LittleMissLion in my view, the best version is the BBC's tv series of Jane Eyre starring Timothy Dalton.
The worst, is the Ruth Wilson version.
@@voulafisentzidis8830 So interesting the variety of opinions we get! The Ruth Wilson one is my favorite (though I think with time I've understood better why other people may not like it all that much), with the Zelah Clarke (also known as the Timothy Dalton one) version close behind. The version I truly cannot stand is the Samantha Morton/Ciaran Hinds one; watching that one actually turned me off the story as a whole for many years. The Ruth Wilson one brought me back to it. I still haven't watched them all, but I did catch the 1973 one with Sorcha Cusack last year, and I liked that one quite a bit, too.
@@impposter560 Tastes differ.
When the Ruth Wilson version was televised, she stated in an interview that theirs would be the definitive one. I remember thinking we've already had that with Zelah Clarke and didn't change my mind after seeing hers.
What I loved most about the Zelah Clarke version is that it was made by the BBC which used text from the novel whereas Ruth's version modernised the text and some scenes which to me felt inappropriate for the period.
@@voulafisentzidis8830 Agreed that there are some jarringly modern turns of phrase and a couple scenes that are decidedly not period. I think because I had been gone from the book and story for so long before watching it that those moments didn't take me out as much as they could have. Which is interesting because in most cases I definitely notice when something doesn't fit in the period. Just the right timing, I guess.
Great video & examples! I always think of The Princess Bride as a perfect case of the book and film being different but each perfectly suited to its medium, and the author of the book is also the one who wrote the adapted screenplay so he didn’t have to worry about cutting huge swathes of the book that make no sense on screen and adding in different scenes that only work visually and play off the incredible comedic actors working on the film 🥲
I expect filmed adaptations to at least respect the source material.
Shondaland has ruined the Bridgerton stories for me, as I only enjoyed the first series.
Netflix ruined my favourite Jane Austen novel with its latest release of Persuasion.
I won't be relying on Netflix to provide future programmes worthy of investing time in.
I loathe the bridgerton books but i like the show (except season 1) lmao
@19Rena96 to each his or her own.
Agree wholeheartedly. I read the "Bridgerton'' books when they were first published, over 20 years ago. Looked forward to watching the adaptation. Could not get past the first 1/2 hour. Will defiantly not be watching the new P&P Netflix is working on.
This topic is really important to me as someone who loves film. I usually am more forgiving of adaptational changes because I'm more versed in what makes a good movie than a good book, so it's always a controversial take from me when I like inaccurate adaptations.
My favorite Austin adaptation goeth thusly:
Pride & Prejudice (1995)
Sense & Sensibility (2008)
Northanger Abbey (2007)
Emma (2009)
Mansfield Park (2007)
Persuasion (2007)
Most of these were screen written by Andrew Davies and are brilliant and all were made by the BBC. Nobody can convince me that these are not THE BEST ADAPTATIONS EVER🤩
We need to somehow save that man’s creativity somehow. Futurama his head or something
@@sheleavitt06 I'm not fussed on Andrew Davies's versions as he titivates the stories to appeal to younger audiences.
Everything you've said here was sensible and true. I love books, but film is something else. When a story is told well on film, it's always going to attract a larger audience and will have more impact. It's visual, immersive, and social. I get that audio books close the gap (somewhat), but for someone, like me, who is cursed with a one-track mind, they don't usually work.
Film works for almost everyone, even the visually impaired.
Well done.
Addendum: Your riff on SAS about the Emma Thompson version was brilliant. I've read the book twice, and my ranking is about as you'd guess. But that adaptation, although it has a few over-the-top moments, is so stuffed with fine actors and the screenplay is so brilliant, that it IS an absolute delight. Hugh Grant, Emma, AR, Hugh Lawrie, the physician, Harriet...........and I didn't even mention Kate, Greg Wise, or Imogen Stubbs. ALee should have won the Oscar for this one, but I understand he did win with Brokeback? I'd never admit to reading either the book or seeing the movie, but one of the best jokes ever involved the evolving grocery orders of the Brokeback buckaroos as the story develops, shifting from whisky, bacon, and beans to veal medallions, conflict-free arugula, and chutney compote. Who says good jokes are not another valid way to adapt a meaningful story?
I get what you meant.. The problem is many movie writers who wanted to have this (movies/series better than the books) ended up butchered or discarded the story cores.. There are many examples of adaptation that left fandom so dissapointed with how they changed the story or characters
I thought I was in the minority that didn't like the S&S book all that much xD but I'm rereading it now and enjoying it more. As for adaptations for me it depends on a lot of context. If I feel like they are only doing it because of The Brand then it falls short to me (like The Hobbit movies or The Rings of Power) or if I sense they are being smug and thinking they can do better than what the author did like in the Netflix Persuasion but other than that I'm very easy to please (unless it's a book I really love but then I'll admit they can't possibly recreate the exact images in my head). Other good adapations that are not accurate to the books but are still good are the Interview with the vampire series and the North and South miniseries. Although, the down side is that it might make people disappointed if they love the adapation and then the book is not like that.
I like the netflix adaptation of Persuasion a lot more than the 1995 version, even though it had A LOT of problems, but it felt more natural, the actors had better chemistry and weren't too old like Ciarán Hinds was.
I also like Rings of Power more than LOTR lol
Pleaseee do the video about sense and sensibility❤❤❤
So excellent! Thank you Claudia!
This is brilliant! If you are looking for awful books that were turned into great movies, the best example is Forrest Gump. The book is terrible. There’s nothing touching about it, and it’s not funny. The movie is a gazillion times better. I agree that Emma Thimpson’s adaptation of Sense and Sensibility was great. The book works better as a comedy than a romance, but the film enhances the romance and tones down the comedy (like in deleting the second Steele sister), and the result is wonderful.
I wish Interview With The Vampire book purists would understand the message of this video, especially in respect to their reaction to changes made in the Interview With The Vampire TV show.
For myself, staying true to the tone and keeping the characters in character is most important.
I remember bathing my son (who was around 2) early every Sunday in December so I was ready to watch the BBC adaptation series of Pride and Prejudice back in the early 1990’s.
I now own it DVD (even though I no longer have a player) 😂
Tbh i don't care much for the accuracy.
If the movie feels right to me, i like it, even if it's totally different than the source material.
Trying to be as acurate as possible can sometimes feel forced and unnatural, especially if one doesn't think about what works in books doesn't always translate well into film.
Pride and Prejudice for instance is my favorite book of all time, but i never liked the 1995 mini series. Instead i'm absolutely obsessed with the 2005 version because it's exactly what i want in (romance) movies. It feels (in my subjective opinion) like the book, even though it does change quite a bit, but it still works really well.
My favourite cases of the book being more enjoyable and elevating beyond the book is Legally Blonde and The Princess Diaries - the books had some issues and the movies worked to better them. Legally Blonde ends up being an uplifting story for women and also about sisterhood (the book was kinda pick me in basically hating other women) and Princess Diaries has Julie Andrews as a Queen!
I watched Sense and Sensibility 1995 version was because of Hugh Grant. I had a crush on him. I was in my thirties when I started watching movies from Jane Austen novels. I saw three versions of Pride and Prejudice, two versions of Sense and Sensibility, two versions of Mansfield Park and two versions of Emma. I did watch Persuasion, not the 2022 version.
Persuasion is my absolute favorite Jane Austin book, but I’ve yet to see a movie adaptation of it that I like.
Not P&P related but do you know where one can find the full adaptation of the 1973 adaptation of Jane Eyre?
These days, I feel like I can usually tell if I am going to enjoy an adaptation based on the press. In the interviews, do the creators have a love, understanding, and respect for the book they are adapting, or do they at best tolerate it and at worst despise it?
For me, a film that is a major improvement over the original book (by Agatha Christie) is DEATH ON THE NILE from 1978. This movie version omits the subplots that I feel weigh the book down and make it somewhat tedious to read.
Thank you for reminding me why I haven't watched (much less paid for) Netflix in years.
I wouldn't say better, but the 1995 P&P series is an absolutely, outstandingly, brilliantly done adaptation that I adore. Equally good in its medium as the book is in its medium. The 1995 S&S, 1995 Persuasion, (95 was an excellent year for Austen adaptations) 1999 Mansfield Park. These are the adaptations that I love (almost) as much as the novels.
ETA because autocorrect thinks her name is spelled like the city.
I strongly agree, except for the 1999 Mansfield Park. There were good performances, but the story was sexed and slavery-ed up, and Fanny became the typical beautiful but doesn't know it, spunky book worm heroine.
On the other hand, the 1996 Emma with Kate Beckinsale was another excellent mid-nineties adaptation.
@@floraposteschild4184 Emma is my least favorite Austen novel so I've not watched that, or any, adaptation - not because there's anything wrong with it but because Emma just pisses me off and has done since the first time I read the book lo these 45 or so years ago.
ETA I see what you're saying about Mansfield Park, but it's beautifully acted and to me the intent of the novel is there.
@@Blaize24 As Austen herself said, "I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like." Judging from her letters, there's a lot of the author in Emma's character.
Anyway, if you ever watch an adaptation, I'd recommend that one. It even made me appreciate Kate Beckinsale's acting, which is saying something.
@@floraposteschild4184 Yeah, I knew she said that but I refuse to believe the woman who gave us all the other amazing women was as emotionally and interpersonally blind as Emma, nor do I believe she was anywhere near as spoiled.
That *is* saying something. With that strong of a recommendation perhaps I'll give it a watch.
The movies/miniseries sometimes helps people to want to read the books too. I think they should have Jane Austen to narrate her stories on film.
A few thoughts- Tom Hardy as Heathcliff was perfection even if you hate the book and a bad book that made a great adaptation to check out is Queens Gambit.
I am okay with adaptations altering books apart from two examples Frankenstein (1931) and Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) so I think what matters for me is themes more than plot / character accuracy. Because the two Frankenstein films are almost unrelated to Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein they turn what is a complex social-sci-fi/gothic novel into OTT melodramatic mess with a weird eugenics message to reflect the 1930's, cutting all the complex nuance from Shelley's masterpiece.
I think the plot being changed as long as they captures the essence of the original is okay a good example is Tod Browning's (1931) Dracula, it's not really accurate to Stoker's novel, I mean it's not even directly adapted from the novel but instead a 1927 stage adaptation which itself was a rewrite of a 1924 adaptation of Stoker's work but while characters from Stoker's work are left out of the film adaptation and the plot is drastically reduced and changed, it more or less captures the basic essence of the work Dracula purchases house with aid of British solicitor, comes to England's preys on people gets defeated by occult academic (Van Helsing) and his group. The difference are many but the essentials are the same.
But Frankenstein has for instance ideas about negelect and whether nature or nurture is more prominent? Does society make you a monster or is it inherent? The Creature is a complex, self-educated being who teaches himself to speak and read, Karloff's monster grunts and roars in the first film and only speaks a handful of lines in Bride Of Frankenstein. and is treated as a monstrosity that needs to be put down. None of the social complexity remains and it's essentially a different story.
I'm sitting here with my two copies of pride and prejudice 😂 and would love to buy more.😂😂
When I think of accuracy being important, I think more of the heart of the story, the characters, the spirit of the story, and what the book is saying. Not by following word for word or copying whole sections of the book. Like for example, the famous hand flex scene in the 2005 P&P version isn't in the book. But it says a lot about Darcy as a character, with how he acts in social situations as a gentleman and his feelings for Elizabeth as a man. His conflicting romantic feelings, his general awkwardness, and his lack of confidence to express himself clearly to her.
the 2005 P&P has nothing to do with a classical beloved novel. They could make this movie, call it "Lizzie and Fitzwille are hooking up" and spare us all the time and nerves. Then people like you may love it as much as you want to. Using this title and this story was a crime from those lazy greedy bastards´side
@@panchitaobrian1660 You could say that about pretty much every Pride & Prejudice adaptation. I remember several different changes in the 1940 version, the 1995 version, the webseries, etc. They are all going to be different from the book. Film is a different medium from books, things will be changed, especially for a 90-minute run time and modern audience.
smart and fun video!
the audacity of an actor to play Anne Elliot without actually reading the book. Left me so flummuxed.
Adaptation doesn´t have to be a visual copy of the book. But it must have internal autenticity. The creators of 1995 BBC series made a lot of new dialogs and situations but they all feel like "yes, exactly, that is what Austen would tell us herself! Off the record anyway!":))
Clowns known as creators of 2005 movie took the original text of P&P and made totally clownish, anachronistic, braindead situations and dialogs that had notning to do with Austin´s original. The same can be said about the majority of adaptations, Thompson´s S&S and maybe one-two other films being acceptable attempts to adapt Austin´s novels to tv and cinema.
sometimes book dialogue just sounds silly in visual media and forced (cough P&P 1995 mini series cough)
@@19Rena96 perhaps it sounds awkward to you because you don't have a great understanding or appreciation of the time period?
@@capo3645 that´s for sure
And sometimes the translation is better than the original!
Can you give some examples? I imagine a translation that is better than the original would be a somewhat different book.
@ my one example is actually Jane Auel’s series, where her American English is rather monotonous, the Danish translator managed to deliver a much more fluent and diverse language. I now prefer to read Auel’s books in Danish.
@@TorchwoodPandP it has nothing to do with Austen though?
@@cb9825 I must say that I´ve read two different translations of P&P in my language and I wasn´t satisfied with any of them. One was closer to original but absolutely heavy and difficult to read, another was light and beautiful and conveyed the Austin´s wibe in the best way but was not precisely exact in all the details and those details are extremely important. Sometimes it is just impossible to make a perfect ranslation, IMHO.
For example I´ve never seen an adequate translation of Tolstoy or Pushkin. Dostoevsky, maybe, but he is more primitive (end hence loved by Westerners)
@ No. Some of the translations of Jane Austen’s books into my language make the books nearly unreadable. Unfortunately.
Another really bad written book series: The Miss Fisher Mysteries - made into one of the best tv series :)
There were books?!😂 never heard of them, probably because they were not that good
@@cb9825 A lot of heaving bosoms and Miss Fisher is rather obnoxious and a insufferable know it al. Too over the top and it never feels like the 1920ies. The writing felt rather mediocre to me but that is just my opinion :)
That flaw in Persuasion 2022 is hilarious
I think The Bridges of Madison County is vastly superior as film than novel.
I totally appreciate everything Emma Tompson brought into the adaptation, but MY heart belongs to Alan Rickman ❤ and, amazingly, also Hugh Grant 😂
The Netflix Persuasion really traumatized us lol
Pride and Prejudice was not a film, but a series.
Actually, the scene in your thumbnail put me off Austen for years because it was such a stupid cliche.
Eventually, I read Persuasion and was amazed that the writer of such a bad scene wrote so well. Then I read Pride and Prejudice and discovered that she never wrote that scene.
I like that adaptation now (minus the added scenes of Darcy being wet in every sense) but it deprived me of Austen for far too long.
2005 movie has nothing to do with Austen. They stole the name to make an advertisement to their stupid movie where people in strange costumes behave lika it is 2005 but pretend that it is 1817
Sense and Sensibility is very good to listen to on an audiobook.
I have just finished listening to a version here on RUclips.
Absolutely! I could not get through the physical copy. As much as I love austen and I love sense and sensibility.
I actually read The Princess Bride well before the movie came out, and i actually prefer the movie!
Yes, yes, yes, and yes! I agree with you sooooo much! Except: Wuthering Heights deserves the respect that it is written in the most beautiful language. That's it. The rest is just awful. Hated everything about it, all characters, and especially the narrator ;)
The thing about Netflix's "Persuasion" is that it is simply a very very bad movie, even if I ignore the fact that it was written by a spiteful person who must have hated and totally not understood the novel. It was lazy storytelling, with the constant breaking of the fourth wall, and having everything explained repeatedly ad nauseam. We, the viewers, are not that dumb. You dont have to explain every look with added words if you have good actors. Give us some credit! I don't need a visual medium if I get TOLD stuff again and again while being stared at. The script was bad, the acting was bad, make-up and costumes were bad, the dialogue was bad, but also, anything that makes a film a coherent masterpiece was simply non-existent. It lacked any and all finesse. It is a "cinematographical" disgrace irrespective of being a bad adaptation of a book.
I think I was the only one not outraged by the Netflix Persuasion ❤
probably. What are you doing here, you obviously cannot read, do not love books, do not know history and do not understand literature
When it comes to film adaptation being better than the book, I can whole heartedly say that Witches of Eastwick is absolutely superior compared to the novel. I've loved the film for ages, and recently read the book, and it was _bad_. I would advise skipping it and just have fun with the film.
Extremely unpopular opinion, I love all the main Jane Austen movie adaptations way better than any of the respective books they're based on (i.e. p&p or Emma [sense & sensibility being a slight exception]). I've always been a voracious reader, but I find Jane Austen's style either slightly too old or maybe just idiosyncratic to be enjoyable to me on its own merits. Like, if there were no movie or tv show adaptations, I would never have given her a second glance as a reader after trying to read her works once. (Fwiw, I absolutely'*love* Jane Eyre and have reread it umpteen times, so it's not just about the age of the text for me). Idk. I feel the movie and TV show adaptations which are engaged with the text of Jane Austen bring her world to life for me so much more than, er, her own work. But that's just me.
It took me three times to actually finish Pride and Prejudice. However, I love the 1995 version on film.
For me, the adaptations work better than the novel.
@@parkerbrown-nesbit1747 you just cannot read, that´s all
not everybody is smart and loves to read. It´s not a problem, really.
@@panchitaobrian1660 English major. Twice. (undergraduate AND graduate degrees in English).
I agree wholeheartedly, I always dislike when people are so against any changes in adaptation like you can just experience the original so what’s the use of the adaptation of it doesn’t diverse
I have never been that bothered with lack of accuracy in adaptions, i also I view adaptions as being set in a parallell universe from the books.
Maybe it's my cinephile-over-bibliophile heart speaking, but I never once cared to judge a film harshly just because it's "inaccurate" from a book it's based on. A movie is a movie and should function as a movie. Even if its based on a book.
I find the discussion over "is it a good or bad adaptation" to be incredibly boring.
"I love you. I Love you. I love you"... "bother book nerds and literally no one else cares" - Really?
Anyone familiar with movies recognises this line - and the peals of laughter that followed in when Gene Kelly tried this in "Singin' in the Rain". This was parody level cliché in the 1950s. In the 2000s it should have meant that Joe Wright was never allowed near a camera again.
"Railway Station toilet paper"? This was far closer to sand-blaster to your assets....
I've wanted a movie based on "Little Women" that diverts from the book so that Jo and Laurie end up together or at least they don't end up with the Professor and Amy, respectively. Leave it open-ended, at least.
IMO Elizabeth decides to marry Darcy so she can be mistress of Pemberly. She is willing to put up with him.
read the book ffs
Just thinking.... but wouldn’t it be kinda contradictory for a youtube audience to grouse about the inferiority of a visual medium?
I don’t think anyone’s problem is ever the visual aspect, but the storytelling differences between adaptations and books
@@Anna-B Good point.
One of my favorite lines in Pride and Prejudice is a 2005 movie addition. "What excellent boiled potatoes." 😂