What the Manolo Is…
Manolo says, it is Tuesday, time to see what the Manolo is…
The Manolo has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to make the fully satisfying cinematic adaptation of the Jane Austen novel. Indeed, only the person who had never read the novel Persuasion could be content with the latest filmic version, staring the Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones.
Yes, there were portions of the production that were amusing, but the final fifteen minutes, which showed the Anne Elliot racing about Bath like the Sarah-Connor-style action heroine, were especially absurd. Likewise, the Manolo was annoyed by the frustratingly slow kiss which sealed the relationship between Anne and Captain Wentworth.
This is not how people in love behave, not even those who are fearfully constrained by the formal customs of their age. The Manolo calls these sort of cinematic scenarios “phoney-baloney movie love,” because they are more about the filmmakers wrongheaded notions of how lovers should behave, and are not drawn from life.
Perhaps the problem for the Manolo is that the works of Jane Austen live fully in his mind in ways that cannot be improved upon by the movie adaptation. And while there have been valiant attempts at translation to the screen, ultimately, they have all fallen short.
My dear Manolo, you are absolutely right about that awful adaptation of “Persuasion.” They completely destroyed the elegant, graceful, quietly sad Anne Elliot from the novel and turned her into an awkward, desperate mess. Did you notice how Anne was always dressed much worse than everyone else, including her sisters, in every scene? Bah!
Have you seen the Ciaran Hinds/Amanda Root adaptation from the mid-90s? It is vastly superior. Still not as satisfying as the novel, but a lovely movie in its own right.
Has the Manolo ever seen a film based on a book that was ultimately as satisfying as the book? I have not–even The Princess Bride (as a film) fell ever so slightly short of the novel. (I never did understand Fezzik’s comment about fighting gangs for local charities until I read the book). LoTR was a brilliant adaptation, but had some very odd alterations. And those are the only two film adaptations I’ve ever seen that even came close to being “as good as the book.”
Manolo! trying to reach you with a scoop about Natalie Portman’s Te Casan collection
shoot me an email : )
” Pride and Prejudice” 1996, with Collin Firth, came as close to a very good reprsentation of the novel but that was because the took the time to tell the story and flesh out the charactes.
The latest “”Persuasion” was simply horrible. I thought the final scene tried to illustrate Anne’s vigorous desire by having her running from one place to another, in hot pursuit of Wentworth.
As an Austen purist, I was disappointed. This was not quite the way to illustrate Anne’s agency in removing the obstacles and misunderstandings, which had created the alienation between them. It actually achieved the very opposite effect, reducing her to the more conventional breathless, hysterical female fearful that she might miss the boat, again.
The whole point of love in an Austen’s novel is that through its process of self-recognition and maturation, it becomes a solid imperative. A stable reliable force that cannot be dislodged or reversed.
In his letter, Wentworth writes: “… You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight years and a half ago. Dare not say that man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you…. ”
Can anybody doubt that at this point there is no more uncertainty? This kind of love could no longer be subject to shifts of fortune, coincidence or lack of social opportunity.
I completely with your opinion about this most recent adaptation of “Persuasion”. The mid-1990s adaptation with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root is much better.
When watching the newest Austen adaptations, I have learned to content myself with little moments where the filmmaker (oftentimes apparently accidentally) gets things right.
I would have enjoyed the 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice much more if the screenwriter hadn’t botched Elizabeth’s reaction to Darcy’s letter. He showed her angry, instead of “absolutely ashamed of herself.” That mistake robbed Elizabeth’s character of a vital moment of self-awareness.
But hey, Colin Firth is still a smoking hawt Mr. Darcy.
In the novel, Elisabeth is angry, when she read the lettter for the first time. It’s upon re-reading it that she begins to feel ashamed of herself.
“His belief of her sister’s insensibility, she instantly resolved to be false, and his account of the real, the worst objections to the match, made her too angry to have any wish of doing him justice. He expressed no regret for what he had done which satisfied her; his style was not penitent, but haughty. It was all pride and insolence.
But when this subject was succeeded by his account of Mr. Wickham …her feelings were yet more acutely painful and more difficult of definition. Astonishment, apprehension, and even horror, oppressed her. She wished to discredit it entirely, repeatedly exclaiming, “This must be false! This cannot be! This must be the grossest falsehood!” –”
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ppv2n36.html
“
Right, but Davies (the screenwriter) only showed us Angry!Elizabeth. Later on he had her discussing the letter with Jane saying, “‘Til then I never knew myself,” or something like that, which didn’t make a lot of sense when I we were previously shown was her defensive anger.
the only movie that’s ever been better than the book was “the world according to garp”. and maybe “the french lieutenant’s woman”.
other than those examples, dear manolo, you are exactly right.
The latest Persuasion is awful, but I love the one with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. It is one of my favorite movies. Have you seen that version, Manolo?
Totally second on the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice and the Hinds/Roots-Persuasion!
BTW, talking about awful Jane Austen adaptations: how very very awful was Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly!!! That movie was pure torment! and that unsufferable final scene when they meet each other in the morning mist… AYYYY!!! and that even more unsufferable very final scene in the American version, which thank the cutters the audience was spared in Europe, where Elizabeth and Darcy talk about what names they might call each other… AYYYY and AYYYY again!
But, there is hope! Does the Manolo also enjoy watching good adaptations of Anne Bronte’s novels? The two part mini-series adaptation of The Mistress of Wildfell Hall, starring Tara Fitzgerald and yummie Rupert Graves, is really enjoyable.
A word of warning – don’t even go near that adaptation of Mansfield Park with Billie Piper in it. Utter drivel! A crime against Austen! The Northanger Abbey with JJ Fields and Felicity Jones was not bad though.
For Mansfield Park you’d be better off with the 1999 version with Hannah Taylor-Gordon. Far superior!
“..Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly!!! That movie was pure torment! and that unsufferable final scene when they meet each other in the morning mist… AYYYY!!!”
Yes. I was wondering where whoever wrote the script for that movie got the gall to imagine they could improve Jane Austen. It was a Harlequin romance, such juvenile fantasies the movie contained. With all due respect to Harlequin.
Mansfield Park 1999 was an ideological bowdlerisation of the novel. Fanny Price, as a spirited and sexy heroine? When Jane Austen had to force us to like her? I don’t think so.
I’m with you all on the BBC P&P (didn’t like that they only showed Lizzie’s angry reaction to the letter either, though ). And sssmokin’ Darcy indeed. The Wet Shirt Scene gets better everytime you watch it.
I rather liked Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility, too…
But speaking in general, I have to agree with the Manolo. The movies almost never touch me half as much as the books did. Hell, even the much-praised Cyrano starring Depardieu fell short for me.
BBC Colin Firth Darcy… mmmmmmm…. (and thankfully, I own the DVDs, so can watch whenever I want.)
Keira Knightly never closed her mouth ONCE in P&P the movie. It was awful. I swear, the girl must get all her protein from the flies that venture in now and then. (I didn’t even consider that movie to be Austen.)
You are completely and utterly right about this version of Persuasion. My daughter and I do watch highlights occasionally in order to admire the most tasty Rupert Penry-Jones, but make silly noises during the horrible fish-faced tediously slow kiss.
Emma with Gwynneth Paltrow is my vote for worst Austen adaptation. Shudder.
What a literate crowd of shoe lovers! That 1999 Mansfield Park — ick. But the BBC “Pride and Prejudice” made me read Austen for the first time.
The 2005 “Pride and Prejudice” had one thing going for it: Tony Richardson as Mr. Bennett. He stole the movie. Keira Knightley was her usual wooden self, and there was zero chemistry between her and whatever affectless metrosexual they’d picked to play Mr. Darcy. What a contrast to Colin Firth, a real man–mmmm!
Stupidest scene in the 2005 “P&P”: Keira wandering among the naked statues in Mr. Darcy’s mansion. Ya think there was supposed to be some symbolism there?
The 1999 Mansfield Park was better than the 1983 one, where Fanny seemed completely baffled and terrified any time someone talked to her (also: much more attractive cast, just sayin’).
As for movie adaptations in general, the ones where the movie compares best to the book are ones where the book wasn’t very good to begin with. I only read a few pages of PS I Love You because it was awful, but I liked the movie.
Also, can someone tell me what is up with all the handsome Mr. Rochesters and pretty Jane Eyres? The point: yr missing it.
BBC P&P…i love to screech “Mr. Bingley” with vocal italics just to be annoying. The 1979(?) Brideshead Revisited was awesome too. Haven’t read it, but have no fear to, because the TV production stands on its own merits. Dear Manolo, please check this out too someday, methinks you’d like.
Mr. Bennet in the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice was Donald Sutherland, not Tony Richardson, if I’m not mistaken….
Lazy me!
Cone is right, and I stand corrected; it was Donald Sutherland (just did what I should have done in the first place and checked out the movie on IMD). At any rate, he was fabulous, although the movie itself wasn’t.
The mid ’90s “Persuasion” was pretty darn good at capturing the perils of restraint, the second chance almost missed due to good breeding and propriety and fear of social humiliation.
Loved the six-hour BBC Pride and Prejudice. So many smoldering glances from Mr. Colin Firth.
Hands down the best screen version of Austen is “Clueless” with Alicia Silverstone as Emma (or as she’s called in the movie, Cher).
Arhh, I hated Clueless. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not being snobbish here, I am a huge fan of everything teen and romance, but this one… I think it may be because I don’t find Alicia neither pretty or cute, and it seems to be one of the major reasons for people to love this movie.
I am the lone dissenter here and will say I really liked the 2005 version of P&P. Of course, the BBC version was much better, but i did not like the girl they chose to play Elizabeth. I thought she was too smiley and soft, whereas Elizabeth was a bit more snarky and witty, without the laughter – I suppose I think Elizabeth was more serious. I thought Keira played her well.
Emma with Gweneth Paltrow…oh dear god.
I watched Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility yet again last night, and I still think it’s a perfect adaptation. Kate Winselt plays Marianne to a tee and Emma Thompson as Eleanor, well, I don’t even think of a different person playing her anymore.
La Reveuse: I’ll consider you a comrade forever! One of my pet peeves is that Keira Knightley acts with her mouth! I found her so annoying in “Pride & Prejudice” that I was on the look-out when I finally saw “Love, Actually” a few months ago. More acting with the mouth!