Unpersuaded

[lillibet]

Last night J. and I watched the new PBS adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion. I'm always excited to see a new version of one of my favorite books and this time I was especially looking forward to Rupert Penry-Jones (whom I adore as Adam on Spooks) as Captain Wentworth and Anthony Stewart Head (Giles from Buffy) as Sir Walter Elliot. Even when I

Comments

[labingi]

Thanks for the interesting commentary. I caught just a few minutes of the show, not enough to pick up on these things. But I'll just tack on a couple of rants for fun--I hope you don't mind. First, I'm utterly sick of Jane Austen adaptations. We have, what, 10 Pride and Prejudices? Why don't people adapt books that don't get adapted every day, like The Odd Women or The Good Soldier? Second, I don't see the point in adapting a historical text in a blatantly anachronistic fashion. A few changes are reasonable: changing a really old-fashioned word or cutting out the details of certain 19th century financial contracts. If you get into really old texts--like Homer--you may have to make some major changes to connect with a modern audience at all: ex. most folks won't be deeply moved by the recitation of ancient Greek poetry as dialogue. But if people enjoy Jane Austen, why not give them Jane Austen? Her 19th century attitudes are not really that hard for a Masterpiece-Theatre-ish audience to understand.

[lillibet]

I think it comes back to money. Austen is a proven money-maker with a built-in audience. In this case, I think the whole project is part of their attempt to re-launch Masterpiece Theatre and they wanted something that would reassure their core audience while pulling in new viewers.

As for the blatant anachronisms, I'm right there with you. I love modern adaptations of Austen (well, I loved "Clueless" and the P&P references in "Bridget Jones' Diary" were a hoot, much as I generally hated that otherwise), but if you're going to do a period piece, make it period, dammit!

Without a hat! I'm still aghast over that one.