7/16/00 Dave Payton [HITZ53@aol.com] - Fanny's Imperfections

Dear Bruce, Cheryl, Linda,

Bruce: I agree with John's post of 7/13. You have made me wonder about the sincerity of your statements. To wit: "I admit to calling it 'lust' to tease you guys." Speaking for myself, I don't take to teasing well unless your name is Crystal and you're wearing a G-string. To quote an old saw, "Say what you mean and mean what you say." It makes life easier for everyone. Otherwise you get the reputation as a s**t-stirrer.

As far as your preferring thoroughbreds to Grey Percherons, I again quote Schopenauer: "Tastes differ." But keep in mind, my lad, that when it comes to breaking the land to make a life, thoroughbreds are a poor second to a draught horse. Also remember that it was the Percherons, Clydesdales and Belgians that supported the knights that fought in the Crusades (something for which I refuse to apologize) and that pulled the beer wagons ("Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin).

For a man who makes his living from the sweat of his brow there is nothing more beautiful than the muscularity of a Grey Percheron, Belgian or Clydesdale.

From the Meister: But - but - how do
you know what Bruce is not wearing?

Linda: See the above two paragraphs.

Cheryl: You may not think it important that Fanny is a Christian heroine, but you cannot deny that Jane Austen was infused with a particularly Christian ethos and morality. Like it or not, Our Dear Jane's worldview was a Christian one. Consider the fact that both her father and one brother were Anglican priests. If she were a Paresee or Moslem the stories would have been completely different. As a matter of fact, though I am reluctant to resort to the argument of authority, several eggheads who contend that ODJ is a particularly Christian writer, and they are not parishioners of the local Calvary Chapel, but respected academics in secular institutions. Whether you like it or not is not the point. The point is, is it true?

You preference for the Gwynth Paltrow and Alicia Silverstone Emma means that you don't like Emma. Silverstone plays Emma Woodhouse as a dimwit. Paltrow plays her as a fashionplate. ODJ, in the first paragraph, indeed, in the first sentence, states that Emma Woodhouse is clever. Emma is a humorous story of transformation. Again I appeal to authority. John Gardner in The Art of Fiction:

"In the same way, fiction provides, at its best, trustworthy but inexpressible models. We ingest metaphors of good, wordlessly learning to behave more like Levin than like Anna (in Anna Karenina), more like the transformed Emma (in Jane Austen's novel) than like the Emma we first meet in the book. This subtle, for the most part wordless knowledge is the "truth" great fiction seeks out."

If you don't like the novel Emma, that's your business. But don't compare the novel to the two travesties you cite. It really is an insult to ODJ.

7/17/00 Julie Grassi [banya@bigpond.com] - Attire and the warmblood

Dear Sir,

If Bruce is actually wearing a g-string, then I, for one, do not wish to know about it!

I agree with Dave about the heavy horses, whose lineage is far longer than that of the thoroughbred, and whose nobility is, in my view, the greater.

And what of the warmblood - the thoroughbred X heavy performance horse, that gives us (hopefully) the best of both breeds?

Perhaps Fanny was a warmblood?
Julie

7/17/00 Linda - Draught animals

Dear Dave,

Thank you for mentioning the Percherons, Clydesdales and Belgians.  Those had not come to my mind in reference to "draught animals".  What I did remember was my Granddaddy's "old gray mare" who pulled the plow in his cotton patch.

Now I feel better.  Be happy - go have a beer!
Linda

7/18/00 Bruce Teasing, etc.

Dear Dave,

Perhaps because of your charitable Christian perspective, Dave, you don’t understand "teasing".  My dictionary defines it as "to goad or annoy in sport." The fact that I say Fanny "lusts" after her cousin in part to annoy the Fanny fans doesn’t mean it isn’t true. As George Bernard Shaw (for example) often pointed out, love and lust are close relatives.  Romantic love, perhaps, is lust sprinkled with the stardust of delusion and dream.

I also wonder which one of us is obsessed with "lust", since you’re the one who invariably associates the word "teasing" with strippers.

Nobody wants you to apologize for the crusades, Dave, since, despite your archaic attitudes and definitions, we assume that you were not responsible.

Finally, "liking" a novel and "liking" the leading characters are two different things.  I’m sure Cheryl can like the novel Emma, and still dislike the leading character, just as I like the novel Mansfield Park, but wouldn’t want to spend any more time than necessary with Fanny or Edmund.  The reader must find the lead characters interesting in order to like the novel, but need not "like" them.

7/18/00 Cheryl Jane Austen's Christianity

Dear Dave,

Yes, Jane Austen was a Christian, a Christian novelist, and her characters were Christians; the Christian morality runs through her novels. I have never said otherwise, but perhaps the Meister could just put that sentence in letters of fire at the beginning of all my posts (particularly about MP) because it seems as if I have to restate it every few months.

I am actually disagreeing with Bruce, whose posts tend to blame all Fanny's faults on her failings as a Christian.  I think Bruce has a good point, so far as he goes...I have stated here before that I think Fanny and Mary C. are two sides of the same coin, and that JA didn't intend for us to unquestioningly admire either one.  However, Fanny certainly appears to be a bit of a hypochondriac (somatic) and she is a  manipulator, but this is not a result of her (or JA's) failure as a Christian.

You need to watch Clueless again.  Silverstone's Emma is not a dimwit, although the character is closer to Catherine Morland at times.  "Cher" is vain and selfish, but she's also kind and warm hearted when she thinks to be.  She's impulsive and quick to judge, not always making the right decision or seeing people as they really are, rather than as how she thinks they should be.  And she always thinks she knows what's best for everyone.  If that's not an accurate portrayal of Emma Woodhouse, then what is?  Amy Heckerling's script shows true knowledge and affection for Jane Austen and her characters serve the spirit of the novels far better than some other adaptations.

As for Paltrow's Emma -- I don't think her characterization is as good, but it serves the film well, though I don't consider the film to be a "good" adaptation of the novel.  In fact, it's most successful when it completely leaves the novel:  the diary entries toward the end are hilarious and quite in keeping with Emma's character.  By the way, if you're a member of the Julie Brigade and think that all films of JA are an insult, you should say so at once.
Cheryl

7/18/00 Julie Grassi [banya@bigpond.com] - Yeeee ... Haaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!  The charge of the Julie Brigade!!!!!!!

Dear - Oh, bugger, it:  Dear anybody!

Though I'm not willing to take responsibility for all the foolish things I may have said in the morning (I agree with Mr Bingley entirely on that one), let me say that I don't, in truth, regard film adaptations as an insult, as much as an irrelevance.  Loving the author's works as I do, I enjoy discussing those works:  the problem for me is that, where a film version is concerned, I can discuss with the author of the film, or not at all.  For instance:  I can and will discuss Cheryl's view with Cheryl, or Bruce's view with Bruce, or bloody Mahatma Ghandi's view with Ghandi, for that matter - but where the use in discussing Cheryl's view with Ghandi, or Bruce's view with Gunga Din?  There can be no primary interaction - incidentally, while typing this, it is finally dawning on me that I am not a Film Person (such a tragedy, too, for the wife of one who owns a video store!).

But, if I must ...

I thought that Clueless was the cleverest and the most perceptive adaptation of any Jane Austen novel that I have (reluctantly) seen.  Now, before all of you who have Accents hurl yourselves at the keyboard, please bear in mind the fact that, for me, the culture portrayed in Clueless is as remote as that portrayed in Emma (more so, probably).  The thing is that, for me, that film managed to re-create the spirit of Emma, the novel, and Emma, the person: the much-loved, privileged, well-meaning and VERY young member of the elite of this planet.  Clueless has the spirit and energy of a Jane Austen novel, to a degree that mannered costume dramas have not.  Period pieces tend to strangle themselves in their own petticoat-strings, I feel.

Now to poor Miss Price:  God forbid that I should have been judged as harshly, at the age of eighteen.

I shall now remount my (warmblood) charger, and gallop off, to continue, no doubt, the Charge of the Light Brigade.

But first...

Jane Austen's Christianity, I feel, is notable for its tolerance and humanity. It wouldn't do us any harm, either.
Julie

7/19/00 Cheryl - Clueless and Mansfield Park the video

Dear Julie,

Brava!! You said exactly what I feel about Clueless.  I think the difference between that film and the rest of the Jane Austen adaptations is that the writer/director just wanted to make her audience laugh  not teach them a lesson about oppressed women or slavery, or anything else.  And that, above all things, is in the spirit of our lady.

I have just watched Mansfield Park again on video, and I must say I was awfully kind to it in my previous review.  It is absolutely as terrible a JA adaptation as one can imagine, though we still have "Northanger Abbey" to suffer through later this year or next.  I will say one thing for it though,  Embeth Davidtz (sp?) is perfect…no make that PERFECT as Mary Crawford. She can't quite carry off that ridiculous scene where Edmund's visit to her (after Maria and Crawford have run off) is transported to the drawing room of Mansfield Park with all the family present, but no one could.   I even enjoyed the scene where she undresses Fanny at the Parsonage...can't you just imagine Miss Crawford striving so hard to make Fanny uncomfortable in hopes that she'll be shocked into saying something imprudent (honest)? You'd think it would have occurred to Patricia Rozema that the actress who steals every scene is also the actress playing the only character left intact from the novel.   And you'd think that Miramax would realize that talent isn't much good without craft and maturity.  Or maybe they did, but not until after viewing the finished product.
Cheryl

7/19/00 Ashton - Clueless at Mansfield Park

Dear Julie and Cheryl,

You both say some insightful things about Clueless, although I ultimately part company. Incidentally, Hollis was the first to take your position at this board, and that was about two years ago.

I am in full accord with Cheryl's comments about the mal-adaptation of Mansfield Park. I am siting on my long review of that travesty, but it may be weeks before I set it before you. It is a real hatchet job - even I can recognize that and I am usually the last to know. I will sit on it and tweak it until it might be acceptable to at least some segment of civilized society. Rozema's claim that she is concerned about slavery is a lot of bull bleep. Her target is the alpha male of Mansfield Park, and her real goal, all along, is to show, eventually, that sketch of Sir Thomas forcing a slave into a position of oral sex. Rozema is a sexist pig.

Davidtz is superb, but so are all the rest of those young people. Rozema completely gutted the role of Julia and then hired one of the best young film actresses in the world to play Julia's part. This is the greatest waste of talent since Jennifer Ehle contracted to play the wife of Oscar Wilde.

You probably noticed that Mary Crawford not only delivers her conversation with Edmund to the entire family, Rozema also crams Mary's letter to Fanny into that same speech. I guess Ms. Rozema spent so much time on her male bashing that she had to stuff everything else into a few scenes. There is one unintentionally funny aspect to all this. Rozema makes Sir Thomas and Mr Price sleazy with their inappropriate touchings of Fanny; however, she is quoted as saying that she personally enjoyed making those scenes where Mary Crawford groped Fanny Price.

Actually, we can look forward to the new filmed version of Northanger Abbey with high expectations, because the screenwriter is the same man who did the Jennifer Ehle version of Pride and Prejudice and the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma.

7/15/00 Cheryl - Obligations???

Dear Voices,

This is somewhat, although not totally off our usual subject.  Last year, when Ms. Rozema's Mansfield Park was released, we had some discussions about what obligation a filmmaker has to her source material.  This year we're in the midst of an acrimonious debate about the film The Patriot which has British knickers twisted into knots, and American historians hiding their heads in shame.  The newspaper article about this also said that Brits were upset because Saving Private Ryan ignored British action at Normandy.  (I think they're practicing a double standard there ... how many British films about Dunkirk give us the history of the Lend/Lease Act?)

I admit that I have no desire to see The Patriot after the reviews I've read.  I think my husband would like to see it, but probably won't because he knows too much history and doesn't want to sit in a movie theatre being pissed off for two hours.

My question is "How much obligation does the historical writer or filmmaker have to the absolute truth of history?"  This shades into our discussions of Jane Austen ... just look at the reams of electrons dedicated to whether or not Wentworth would have kissed Anne Eliot on the street.

G.M. Fraser says " ... the novelist ... can state simply that Sir Francis Drake rolled in and bowed to the queen ... . The film-maker has to create it entire, from the coat-of-arms above the throne to the last diamond in the Queen's ruff ... " (The Hollywood History of The World) My take is that in the last few years the physical re-creations -- costumes, architecture, and such -- have improved immensely while the social -- attention to word usage, manners and mannerisms -- is ignored at best, or, at worst, sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.  (See my comments about the film U571.)  Any comments?
Cheryl

7/15/00 John - Dunkirk and lend-lease

Dear Good Soul,

At Dunkirk, there was no Lend-lease. At the Normandy entertainments, there were no Americans at Juno and Sword Beaches but there were many Brits, including Scots, Irish, English, Welsh, and Canadians.

The Brits have good reason to be angry about SPR and Patriot. If you were to show me proof that the producers of Patriot were neo-Nazis, I could not feign astonishment. What they have done is disgusting.

7/15/00 The Meister - Let us stop this right here

Dear Folks,

I am going to say a few things, allow a single response and that will be it, no other submissions on this subject will be posted at this web site. And besides, Cheryl raises some larger issues that are relevant here and are deserving of our attention.

We Americans believe that British loyalists committed atrocities in the southern regions and that certain officers in the British armies, of the highest rank, repeatedly committed war crimes. Namely, we believe that of Lord Tarleton who commanded Cornwallis's mounted infantry. He shot wounded Americans and he shot any American trying to surrender. The distortion in the film, The Patriot, is that he is also shown guilty of atrocities against civilians. As far as we know, the British military was not guilty of atrocities; in fact, it is the accounts of British soldiers that best document the atrocities committed by their loyalists. The soldiers themselves were appalled by what they would find. Also, Tarleton did not die in America as shown in the film. (Had he been captured, he certainly would have been executed and with justice.) However, he made it back to England where he was honored and where he now lies buried. The great and simple truth, depicted in the film, is that most southern colonists were indifferent to the war and wished to stay uninvolved - that is the reason the British landed in Charleston in the first place. The British committed the same error there that we would repeat in Vietnam; they alienated the people with the war crimes and atrocities. Tarleton created far more Patriots than Washington ever could have done.

The other distortion in the film is the scene where an American army meets Cornwallis's full force in the open field and defeats it through trickery. (It was nearly thirty years and another war before the American army achieved such a victory at New Orleans (1814).) The British army was the best in the world, and any American commander who even contemplated such an action would have been relieved of command. The great American strategy was to preserve their army and merely remain in the field until English public opinion swayed English policy.

However, there is some truth in even those scenes. While avoiding the main body, Americans did destroy both of Corwallis's wings. Cornwallis was moving northward to catch and destroy our Continental Army regulars. For some unfathomable reason, the commander of his left wing sent a message to American frontier villages that if they participated, the British Army would burn them out. The proclamation was his own death warrant. The men of those villages were roused and organized in a way impossible otherwise and they moved against him. They caught him on ground he thought favorable where, in fact, because it was heavily wooded, it was ideally suited for Indian fighting. As important was the fact that Americans were carrying rifles, which had three times the range of the British muskets. It was a turkey shoot, and this small British force was annihilated; its commander was killed.

But that was nothing more than a morale booster for the Americans. The crucial victory came at Cowpens, in the Carolinas. There, Tarleton was tricked in exactly the way shown in the film. He thought he was facing a militia that had broken and run; he sounded the fox horn; his mounted infantry gave pursuit in order to commit murder; but, instead, ran into concealed Continental regulars. Nearly the entire British force was annihilated in fifteen minutes. In that short period of time, the map of the world was changed forever. The number of men lost was not the important thing - the number was rather small. But, in those days, the loss of cavalry meant that Cornwallis had lost his reconnaissance and intelligence corps, his rapid communication ability, and his capability for rapid deployment. He was, all of a sudden, in deep, deep do-do. He knew that now he was the hunted - his supply lines indefensible. He tried to retreat; he went to the Yorktown coast of Virginia in an attempt to be evacuated by the British navy. But, there, he was trapped by a combined American/French army and forced to surrender his regimental standards to the Americans. That was the last fight - the English populace had enough - the stakes were now too high. Welcome to world, USA.

We also believe that most of the drama and sacrifice occurred at a single beach at Normandy, and that was Omaha. Who can look at the casualty figures and think otherwise? A significant minority of Americans also think that it was not our fight to begin with. Nearly all of us believe that the sacrifice was made there by one of the three greatest generations of Americans who have ever lived, and we honor and admire them - we love them. Perhaps the greatest generation of all fought in the Revolution.

OK, so here are the rules. I will not post another submission from an American on this subject. However, Cheryl and I have said some things that may require a response; so, I will post one and only one reply from each member of the Commonwealth. (Even there, I will edit away any part of a submission that might open up some new area of unease.) And then that's it - the subject is interesting but let us all take it somewhere else.

7/16/00 Julie Grassi [banya@bigpond.com] - What subject?

Dear Sir,

'What you ask is no sacrifice on my side, and Mr Darcy had much better finish his letter.'

I'm sure there are many excellent historical and/or political websites about the place, but I come to this one to discuss Jane Austen (sans film adaptations)!
Julie

7/18/00 Cheryl Explanation

Dear John,

You're absolutely right, the Lend/Lease Act didn't happen for another ten months, I gladly retract that statement.

This doesn't address my basic question which is whether or not a movie maker has an obligation to depict history with perfect accuracy.  If a film isn't billed as a recreation of actual events, the answer must be no.  If the film is true to the spirit of the time and people then it has done its duty to history.  This is different from a film like Gettysburg which was intended as an accurate portrayal of the battle(s).  In such a movie, it's not enough to have Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain there ... he has to be there at the end of the line, turning the tide of battle and arguably saving the Union.

Though there are exceptions, even to this rule.  The 1936 Charge of The Light Brigade mixes two completely unrelated events into one of the greatest films of all time.  The massacre at Cawnpore has nothing to do with why the six hundred rode into the guns...but it made great cinema.
Cheryl

From the Meister: More to the point you asked
if filmmakers, like Patricia Rozema, have such
an obligation. The answer is yes and that woman
belongs in the court at Nuremberg.

7/14/00 The Meister - Touch them all! - Ashton hits three consecutive pitches into the seats!

Dear Folks,

Here are my own answers to the questions.

The softball - Darcy doesn't want to compromise Elizabeth. If Elizabeth ever consents to marry him, he wants it to be for love of him and not because of a sense of obligation. He is too proud a man for anything else. Compare this with Crawford's behavior in Mansfield Park, who uses his assistance to William Price to bring the greatest possible pressure on Fanny. The beautiful part of this is that Jane Austen tells us, in her super-subtle way, that Darcy has already made up his mind to propose to Elizabeth again; only, this time, he is bent on taking care of all details beforehand, including a highly measured approach.

In that light, let me remind you that Darcy visits Elizabeth alone in his last meeting with her in the Inn at Lambton. You might say that this was necessary because Elizabeth could not have been as forthcoming with him in company; true enough, but a measure of my respect of Jane Austen is that I believe she always tried to serve two or three purposes with most passages. The question we can ask is, "why does Darcy not bring Georgianna and Bingley with him?" It is clear that both parties would have been pleased to join the visit, and Darcy could expect that both would have been warmly received. No, our Lady allows us to wonder about Darcy's intent. Also, think about this - imagine Darcy thinking about the meeting afterwards; would he not have asked himself why Elizabeth had been so forthcoming? I mean that, technically, Darcy was a relative stranger. How that Jane Austen could write!

High and inside - Julie's response here is good and perfectly correct, and entirely adequate if this were a real-life event. However, I believe our friend's reply is not a complete explanation because this is a product of Jane Austen's imagination. We are not talking about a random event here; this event was created for some purpose. I mean that there is no good reason that Darcy should go to the Gardiners the day before Mr. Bennet left. It is not necessary to the plot, we hardly notice that it happened, and we can forget it after we have read it. This means to me that Jane Austen had something in mind. I believe that "something" to be the line where Darcy chose not to deal with Mr. Bennet, and that cannot have been a desire to explain to her contemporaries a point of manners that they all understood as well as our Lady. I also believe that the passage is intended to reinforce an understanding of Darcy's desire not to compromise Elizabeth - not to obligate her parents in such a way that they might place pressure on the daughter to accept Darcy.

The split finger - The modern world divides - me on one side and the rest on the other. I don't like Mr Bennet; I don't like him and I never did. The rest think he is delightful. If I were a baseball pitcher and Bennet the batter, I would throw a bean ball. Ray has always defended him here and I hope our friend will find the time to defend Mr. Bennet against what I am about to say. Mr. Bennet cannot bear that Elizabeth might actually believe her husband to be the "the finest man [she] ever knew". If he shows up at Pemberley when least expected, he might be able to catch the husband in a bad moment or the couple in an awkward situation.

7/15/00 Bruce - To Linda

Dear Linda et al,

Jane Austen was a genius at characterization. I’m not sure I’d say the same for Meyers or Briggs. I don’t think there are "perfect INFP personality types", and I doubt Austen thought so, either.

The characterization of Fanny which Henry Crawford "was happy to tell her" is obviously not meant to be accurate.  Henry would have told any young woman he was romancing whatever he believed she wanted to hear.  Of course Henry was smart enough and perceptive enough to know that those compliments containing a grain of truth are most appreciated, and the passage, I believe, is meant to show Henry’s perceptive and talented flattery, not Fanny’s character.

Like Henry, I recognize that those forms of teasing (as well as those forms of flattery) in which there is truth are the most effective.

7/17/00 Linda - Flattery

Dear Bruce,

You said, "Jane Austen was a genius at characterization."  I absolutely agree!

As to the flattery you mention, I cannot detect anything to lead me to a similar conclusion - in fact, quite the opposite.  I now quote the two paragraphs following Henry's speech to Mary:

"I could so wholly and absolutely confide in her," said he  "and that is what I want."

Well might his sister, believing as she really did that his opinion of Fanny Price was scarcely beyond her merits, rejoice in her prospects.

It seems that Mary was of the same opinion as Henry.  Which leads me to ask, "Were they both trying to flatter Fanny and while not even in her presence?"
Linda