Tag: Romance

I could probably continue on an entire extra year reviewing various adaptations and interpretations of Jane Austen’s works. There are plays, spin-off books, modern adaptations, the list goes on and on. Every year it seems there is a new version coming out in some form or another and this last year was no exception. Not only did we get a new feature film of “Emma” but the BBC also released an 8-part mini series of Austen’s unfinished work “Sanditon.” So I wanted to briefly touch on my thoughts of both those and to add in one other adaptation that has been a favorite of mine for quite a while, “Death Comes to Pemberley,” both the book and the 3-part mini series.

Mini Series: “Death Comes to Pemberley”

I’ve read the book this was based on as well (same title and written by P.D. James), but I wanted to focus on the mini series adaptation here as, ultimately, I enjoyed it the most of the two. The book was a solid “Pride and Prejudice” sequel; frankly, it’s probably the best, and only, sequel I’d recommend to people. So the fact that I liked the mini series more is in no way a ding against the book itself. I only read it the one time, so I also wouldn’t bet against my not remembering it well enough to give it the credit it deserves. But on to the mini series itself!

As I mentioned above, this story is a sequel to “Pride and Prejudice.” It takes place mostly at Pemberley and occurs 5 or so years after the book (Darcy and Elizabeth have a 4-ish son, so I’m just guessing, if they mentioned it in the movie/book, I don’t remember). The story is a murder mystery at its heart, revolving around Wickham (who else!) who has been accused of killing his dear friend Denny while in Pemberley woods. The show is a three part mini series that slowly follows Elizabeth and Darcy as they try to put together the clues as to what really happened and whether or not Wickham is innocent or guilty. Along the way, we meet a cast a familiar faces and are given extra information about their histories that wasn’t provided in the original story. We also meet a few new characters, but it’s mostly a returning cast, though the focus is more on characters who played only small roles in the original book, like Georgiana and Colonel Fitzwilliam.

This mini series succeeds at both of its main goals: It is a worthy (and believable!) sequel to a beloved story that ended in such a way that a sequel would typically feel completely unnecessary; and it holds up as a compelling murder mystery in its own right. Had this story been almost exactly the same but with original characters, it would likely be almost just as good (though more fleshing out for characters would obviously be necessary since you couldn’t count on general familiarity and previous knowledge). That is a truly extraordinary feat.

Obviously, much of this comes down to James’ heavy lifting with her book. But I’d wager that of all of the Jane Austen adaptations, “Pride and Prejudice” is the only one with a film/mini series that is almost as beloved and the book itself. Just like James’ had an uphill battle in writing a sequel to the book, this mini series was attempting to re-cast and continue the stories of characters whom many thought couldn’t be improved upon from Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle’s version. Both Matthew Rhys and Anna Maxwell Martin perfectly balance carrying forward characters who have already been seen on screen several times while keeping them familiar as well as bringing their own twists and mannerisms.

I really liked the mystery itself, too. There are plenty of red herrings and possible scenarios that can lead viewers down false trails. Even better, every aspect reveals new layers to Pemberley, its family, and the people that have lived on the estate for generations. I particularly liked the exploration of Darcy and Georgiana’s feelings towards stewardship and Pemberley. It’s an interesting topic, especially when contrasted with Elizabeth’s experience of life, that while they generally see eye to eye on many things, this is simply something that she can’t really understand. This feeling of responsibility to a place, its people, and one’s own history.

I also really liked the brief moments that showed us some of the challenges that Elizabeth faced (faces) as the new lady of Pemberley. It’s obvious that she’s not the lady of the house that anyone would have expected and with that would come its own set of trials. We also get a look into the insecurities and doubts that both Darcy and Elizabeth still struggle with. Yes, the ending of “Pride and Prejudice” was happily ever after, but marriage has its own set of challenges and one’s personal demons don’t simply disappear when one’s true love shows up.

The only ding I have against this adaptation is its depiction of Colonel Fitzwilliam (again, this was following the book’s lead so it’s not unique to the mini series itself). Personally, I really like what they do with the character here. So my quibble is more about continuality and what feels like a pretty thorough character re-write from what we’re given in the original novel. True, the novel really doesn’t show us much, but we have Darcy’s own esteem for the Colonel and his dual role in bringing up Georgiana to speak to his general good character. But unless you’re a die-hard Fitzwilliam fan, the changes shouldn’t be that distracting.

I really enjoy this mini series, and it’s my regular rotation of Jane Austen re-watches. Like I said, it’s the only worthy sequel to “Pride and Prejudice” I’ve come across, and it also checks all the boxes as a good historical mystery, another favorite of mine. If you haven’t read the book or watched this adaptation, I definitely recommend it for all Jane Austen fans!

I could probably continue on an entire extra year reviewing various adaptations and interpretations of Jane Austen’s works. There are plays, spin-off books, modern adaptations, the list goes on and on. Every year it seems there is a new version coming out in some form or another and this last year was no exception. Not only did we get a new feature film of “Emma” but the BBC also released an 8-part mini series of Austen’s unfinished work “Sanditon.” So I wanted to briefly touch on my thoughts of both those and to add in one other adaptation that has been a favorite of mine for quite a while, “Death Comes to Pemberley,” both the book and the 3-part mini series.

Mini-Series: “Sanditon”

I promise I’ll leave a positive review for one of these “extra” Jane Austen reviews that I’m doing in January. Alas, like “Emma” [2020], this is not one of them. Unlike “Emma,” however, I am more in-line with the general reception of this mini series. All and all, I think most Jane Austen fans were supremely disappointed by it, not least because of how it ends. Let’s dive into my complaints, shall we?

(NOTE: There will be spoilers in this review.)

The whole thing starts from a false premise: that there’s even a story here to adapt. Austen had only written eleven chapters of this story before her death. For reference, Emma has fifty-five chapters, so by comparison, eleven chapters is only scratching the surface of whatever story Austen had in mind. All we really get from these opening chapters is the introduction of our heroine, Charlotte, her relocation to an up-and-coming beach town called “Sanditon,” and the arrival of a potential love interest in the form of the fashionable Sidney Parker. Story-wise, it’s not much. There are the typical cast of side characters as well, but not much as far as clues to Austen’s overarching plot or themes. In most ways, she’s just finished setting the scene and not much else. It was always going to be a fool’s errand to try to expand that out into a mini series and to call it a “Jane Austen adaptation” is really pushing the limits of that term.

Perhaps in the right hands a compelling story could have been made. But sadly, this mini series ain’t that. It falls into too many traps that many modern adaptations risk and, at its heart, seems to miss the overall tone and heart that makes up all Jane Austen stories. To most fans’ chagrin, the story succumbs to the inane need of modern series to be “gritty” and “push the limits.” There are overtly sexual scenes in the very first episode (some of them even bizarrely going a very “Game of Thrones” route, none the less…). And many, if not most, of the characters introduced are supremely unlikable. For some reason, it seems that many directors and screenwriters often confuse writing a character with layers and depth with just writing supreme jerks, and we see plenty examples of it here. The romantic interest is immediately an a-hole to Charlotte, and not in the endearing, prideful “Darcy-esque” way that is the only acceptable form of this behavior in an Austen story.

Gone is the joy. Gone is the wit. And, worst of all, gone is the happy ending. It seems as if the director intentionally ended the series this way in a fit of over-confidence that the series would be picked up for a second season. Indeed, this is the only acceptable reason for ending an Austen story this way. There are plenty of historical fiction stories to be told where the happy, romantic conclusion is not a given. But those are not the stories that Austen wrote. She even said it herself, “let other pens dwell on guilt and misery.”

Every Austen fan who went into this series happily hoping to get one last shot at a new Austen story would have had this one, simple expectation: that the hero and heroine would end up together and happy at the end. Whatever happened from the start to the finish was open for exploration and interpretation. But this ending was a must. Instead, the series not only denies our hero and heroine this happiness, but it essentially resets the story by sending Charlotte back home where her future is once again limited and likely dull. I’ll be blunt: this ending is inexcusable for a Jane Austen adaption and, apart from any other stumbling blocks (of which there were many) would be enough to write this entire thing off on its own.

Unlike “Emma,” which I think I disliked for fairly subjective reasons but is sure to please many fans, this mini series really has nothing to recommend it, as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps for general historical fiction fans it would be an ok watch. But any fan of Jane Austen should simply steer clear, as “Jane Austen” this is not.

Movie: “Persuasion”

Release Year: 2007

Actors: Anne Elliot – Sally Hawkins

Captain Wentworth – Rupert Penry-Jones

Mr. Elliot – Tobias Menzies

Comparison – “Indulge your imagination in every possible flight.”

I really like this adaptation of “Persuasion.” I think it captures the overall tone of the book really well, and introduces a useful trick of the having Anne journal throughout the story to get at the deeper, emotional points of her story. Really, the book is all about the emotional arcs for both of our main characters. The actual events taking place around them are almost secondary. So between having the inner monologue from Anne showing her feelings throughout and the inclusion of more scenes of Wentworth on his own, we get a much better progression of this aspect of the story.

I also think the casting was much, much better here than in the 1995 version. Other than perhaps Mrs. Croft who I preferred in the older movie (though I have no problems with the Mrs. Croft here either), I liked every secondary actor they used here better than the ones from that movie. I think I also like the Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones better, too, but I didn’t have a problem with the other actors there either. I particularly think they improved on the casting for Sir Walter and Elizabeth (they do away with the silly emotional outbursts that the other movie did), the two Musgrove sisters (Louisa seems more lively and a better fit for the character described in the book), and Captain Benwick. The Benwick we see here is all the emo-esque, dour young man that we’d expect. While it’s a fairly significant change to the story, I thought it also worked well having Anne and Benwick have the conversation about men, women, and loving longest. It fit in really well with their general conversation about morose poetry.

Heroines – “I hate to hear you talk about all women as if they were fine ladies instead of rational creatures.”

I really like Sally Hawkins’ version of Anne in this adaptation. Unlike the 1995 version, this Anne is clearly a do-er from the very beginning and comes across as less withdrawn overall. She’s first introduced as busy at work taking stock of the house and preparing it to be let. While her father and sister laze around, Anne is the one actually getting things done. This idea is quickly reinforced with the way this movie tackles the injury to Mary’s son. Anne quickly jumps in and diagnoses the problem, a disjointed collar bone, and then just as quickly fixes it. I’m not sure how realistic this is, really, but I think it serves a good purpose of distinguishing Anne’s character as someone who puts others before herself, is very humble, etc. (all the things that would lead her to turn Wentworth away originally), but is also ready and able to jump in when she sees a need. This then neatly sets up her later actions during Louisa’s fall.

I also like what she does with the journaling/breaking of the third wall with the camera. It’s kind of a tough thing to sell, having to look directly at the camera to express deeper emotions. It’s all well and good to pull a Jim from “The Office” and roll your eyes at the camera all the time for humorous effect. Hawkins has to express heartbreak and all of its stages while staring directly at a camera. Seems really challenging, but I think she does a good job. It really helps tell Anne’s story. As so much of it is internal and deeply personal, it’s a hard thing to convey in a movie. I don’t think the 1995 version quite managed it. But this method works well, though I think in a lesser actress’s hands it could also have gone very badly.

Heroes – “What are men to rocks and mountains?”

I also like Rupert Penry-Jones as Captain Wentworth. He doesn’t quite have the same grizzled look of a Navy sea captain that Ciaran Hinds brought to the role, but I think he also fits better to the immediate, natural charm that Wentworth was described as having. It’s easy to see why everyone around him would be immediately taken in by him. He also does a good job of balancing the humor and good manners that would attract the Musgrove girls while also giving brief glimpses into the lingering anger and hurt feelings that still bubble just below the surface whenever he’s around Anne. It’s played in just the right way that the viewer feels like only they and Anne would really catch the double-meaning behind some of his looks and words.

I also really like how this movie devotes a good amount of time to showing us scenes between Captain Wentworth and Captain Harville that give us even more insight into Wentworth’s mindset. We see the moment he realizes he may have trapped himself into an engagement with Louisa and all the horror that comes with it. And we also get a great scene later between these two when he goes on about his awakening to his true feelings about Anne. I think this was a big improvement on the way the 1995 version handled Wentworth’s story. There, his change of heart kind of seemed to come out of nowhere. Here we get to see the progression and get to use a lot more of the romantic statements and sentiments that Wentworth expresses in the book (there most of it comes out in the final few chapters after the two have reconciled, but I think it works better in a movie the way they do it here).

There’s also a really small moment where Captain Wentworth first introduces Anne to Captain Harville as “Miss Elliot.” Harville than clarifies, “Anne Elliot?” making it pretty clear that Wentworth has talked to Harville about her in the past. It’s these small things that I think really bolster this version.

Villains – “I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal.” 

While I think that Tobias Menzies does a good job as Mr. Elliot, he’s definitely one of those actors who is type cast into villain roles. Anyone familiar with the actor can pretty easily guess that whenever he shows up, he’s not going to be a great guy. He does have good chemistry with Sally Hawkins, however, and plays up the charm of this character very well. I think there’s also something particularly unctuous about his version of the character that makes the reveal of his motives very understandable. Unlike the 1995 version, this movie sticks with the idea that he’s only really in it for the title. It’s a harder sell to modern audiences, but I think Menzies’ version of the character sells this idea pretty well. It’s easy enough to believe that he’d be all in on getting his hands on a title like this.

Romance – “A lady’s imagination is very rapid: it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony in a moment.”

I also like the romance in this movie. It feels like we get a lot more of it, being more privy to Anne’s inner thoughts and seeing/hearing more from Wentworth. It’s also interesting that this movie chose to include the scene with Wentworth asking Anne about whether she and Mr. Elliot will want the Crofts to move out when they become married. It’s a scene that wasn’t in the book but was added in the 1995 movie. I think it works even better here, since Anne at least as the presence of mine to more clearly refute these rumors about her and Mr. Elliot.

Unfortunately, this then leads into one of the more ridiculous sequences in the movie where Anne runs around Bath trying to chase down Captain Wentworth. It’s a bit much. She starts out running, gets caught up by Mrs. Smith who shares the truth about Mr. Elliot. Then she runs some more. And some more. Then she gets the letter from Captain Wentworth delivered by Captain Harville. Then she reads it and, you guessed, it runs some more. I think the point is to illustrate how determined she has become in the years since she was persuaded to give him up, but it becomes a bit over the top. It isn’t then helped by the ridiculous kissing scene where it takes like 30 seconds for the two to actually get there. It’s pretty awkward, really, and I’m not sure why they went this route.

It’s definitely a change from the book and probably not that believable (who really thinks that Sir Walter would sell his home to a Navy captain?), but I do like the last scene where Wentworth surprises Anne with the purchase of her home. Throughout the movie, we’ve seen that Anne values her family’s home much more than the rest of them do, so it’s a nice little button on this aspect of the story to have the happy couple settle there in the end.

Comedy – “For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”

Sir Walter is both funny and horrible in this version. I think the actor pretty perfectly captured the casual snobbery of the character, and his delivery on some of the classic lines (like the shrubberies being approachable) is great. And then to later see him and Elizabeth tripping all over themselves to be introduced to the Dalyrimples. Good stuff.

I also really liked Mary in this version. She’s sniveling and silly which just offsets her moments of extreme pride all the better. I particularly like the scene towards the end where she arrives in Bath and declares it to be her last hope. And then, with a burst of pure energy and healthy, jumps in to say hello to her father and invite herself to a dinner party. She also is very easy to dislike, especially in the scene where she’s essentially whining her way into Anne’s role as nursemaid to Louisa, yet again claiming that it is all due to “her condition.”

Fun facts – “Life seems but a quick succession of busy nothings.”

Tobias Menzies and Joseph Mawle (Captain Harville) appeared on “Game of Thrones.” I obviously recognized Menzies (yet again playing an unlikable character in that show), but I didn’t recognize Mawle as Benjen Stark.

Anne’s costuming is deliberately left simple in Bath to reflect the fact that she dislike the city and does not actively join into society or embrace the culture there.

Best Movie Gif/Meme: “I dearly love a laugh.”

I like the little moments like this that highlight the ongoing tension between the two throughout throughout the movie.

This rounds out my official year of reviewing Jane Austen books/adaptations. I’m planning one bonus post in two weeks, however, to cover a few other adaptations that didn’t make the list for full reviews.