The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Aug. 1, 2000
To All,
"Books for summer reading" is best defined as those books which, when taken to the beach, can be read in stages, between the ogling of semi-naked citizens of your preference. (If you're ogling the pets of your fellow citizens, your ogling license is hereby revoked.) So here is Cheryl's perfect summer reading list.
I hope that qualifies under the Meister's request to lighten things up a bit.
Dear Folks,
I purposely did not mention the names of cast members in my posting on the filmed version of Mansfield Park because I wanted to associate only one name with that mischief. However, I do have some thoughts on the cast that I would like to explore with you. I will do that in the context of describing the way I think the film might have been saved.
The film is a joint effort of Miramax with BBC. The cast members are very beautiful and very talented, but two of the women were miscast.
The first thing that should have been done would have been for someone in authority to have bought out the contract of Patricia Rozema - as soon as they saw what she was doing - and then to have brought in someone who liked the classics. I mean they should have dumped the nihilist and brought in someone who admired and respected Jane Austen. That sounds expensive, but I suspect that action would have saved a great deal of money in the long run. They could have retained the same cast, but switched roles around a bit. Rozema gave the role of Fanny Price to Frances O'Connor and that was a big mistake; Ms. O'Connor is not right for the role, neither physically nor in manner. This actress was recently cast as Madame Bovary and she was perfect for that role, she is voluptuous and sexy. In Mansfield Park, Ms. O'Connor would have made an ideal Maria Bertram - remember, I am talking about the meaty role of the Maria Bertram envisioned by Jane Austen, not that stripped-down version of Rozema's. Ironically, there was a cast member who would have made an absolutely perfect Fanny Price; that would be Justine Waddel who, instead, was cast as Julia Bertram. This was a monumental error, which is on a par with, say, someone casting Jennifer Ehle as Mrs. Hurst rather than as Elizabeth Bennet.
Let me conclude with some trivia. Jonny Lee Miller plays Edmund Bertram in Rozema's fiasco, but he also played the role of Charles Price (the much younger brother) in the 1983 version of Mansfield Park, that version that Dave likes so well. You probably remember Susannah Harker who played Jane Bennet to Ehle's Elizabeth, but did you know that her mother also played Jane Bennet in an earlier filmed version of Pride and Prejudice? Check me on this, I believe that Rozema used one actress to play both Lady Bertram and Mrs. Price - it that right? Well, at least that means that Rozema actually read the novel.
Dear Ashton,
In your casting fantasy you've skipped over the perfect Fanny Price, and incidentally the very best actor -- male or female -- currently working in the UK. That would be Emily Watson. Admittedly she's too old for the part, but Julia Sawahla "played" young rather than looked young in P&P. Ms. Watson has a fine comedic sense which she displayed in the underrated Metroland last year. Remember, Fanny isn't supposed to be beautiful, just "pretty enough." No director in the world can make me believe anyone could ever have found Frances O'Connor anything but stunning.
This is the first thing I've ever seen Jonny Lee Miller in, so I've given him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he played Edmund as written. It is mysterious enough in the book why Mary Crawford would ever be attracted to him, in the film, it's a miracle from on high that anyone would give him a second look, particularly with someone as vibrant and smart as Rozema's Fanny Price around.
Which brings me to one of those observations which may get me in
trouble. One thing Patricia Rozema did give us a hint of is how, in the
hands of a better writer and director, something worthwhile might have been made
out of how Mary Crawford charms Edmund's sisters almost as much as she does
him. And the vice versa for Henry, particularly with regard to
Edmund. (I can't help but wonder if part of Fanny's dislike of Henry stems
from jealousy of his intimacy with Edmund.) I'm not saying JA wrote a
novel full of homosexual subtext, anymore than she wrote a coded novel about
slavery. But I've no doubt that Jane Austen saw as many of the innocent
same-sex "crushes" in her day as we see now. And that if well-done on
screen, it could be used to fill out some of those holes in the plot, such
as why Edmund doesn't see Henry for the cad he is, or why Fanny and Julia don't
reveal all they know about Henry. And if very, very well-done, a great
deal of innocent fun could be had from poor, clueless Edmund spinning his
wheels under the double-whammy of the Crawfords' sex appeal.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Honest to Zeus, Cheryl, I sometimes think you have inhaled too many of those aromatic, vegetable decay-products from your gardens. Do you grow a lot of catnip at your place?
Here is Jane Austen's description of the Bertram sisters' reaction to Mary Crawford.
"... Miss Crawford's beauty did her no disservice with the Miss Bertrams. They were too handsome themselves to dislike any woman for being so too, and were almost as much charmed as their brothers, with her lively dark eye, clear complexion, and general prettiness. Had she been tall, full formed, and fair, it might have been more of a trial; but as it was, there could be no comparison, and she was allowably a sweet pretty girl, while they were the finest young women in the country."
Now, how do you read into that the idea that the Miss Bertrams wanted to gnaw on Mary Crawford? Also, I can find a number of passages that indicate Edmund's disapprobation of Henry Crawford, but I can't find a single one to indicate that he wanted to bat his eyes at him. Where do you get these ideas?
Well, at least you are honest. And it is friendly of you to share your fantasies with us. I suppose that my fantasies are no less startling, but we will never know because I will never put them into writing. And no one else will confess in this way either - well - no one except Bruce - oh sure, Bruce - I mean Bruce published his fantasies too. But, no normal person would do that - unless, of course, she had got hold of a really bad carrot or something.
Dear Ashton,
... you didn't diss Emily Watson.
Do you really think millions of pre-teen girls want to have sex with the Spice Girls or Brittany Spears? Or that every 10 year old boy in the country fantasizes about losing his virginity to Hulk Hogan or the Rock? When I said innocent crushes, I MEANT innocent crushes. Get your mind out of the gutter.
Nonetheless, the Bertram sisters remain...
"... almost as charmed as their
brothers, with her lively dark eye, clear complexion, and general
prettiness."
That seems pretty explicit to me. But we're probably
unable to speak the same language on this because women, unlike men, can admire
charm and physical beauty in members of their own sex without suspicion. I
can't remember the last time I saw or heard the phrase "man's man" used without
irony. Pity. And I'm not guy-bashing, I'm culture bashing.
Still, my basic premise is that a slightly skewed look at the sexual dynamics
occurring at Mansfield Park could be amusing (and even illuminating) on film,
and I stick to that one hundred percent. Even worse, I think that if
Patricia Rozema had made THAT film instead, I might have enjoyed
it.
Cheryl
P.S. No bad carrots, certainly, but I left a large portion of my wits (among other things) in a huckleberry patch after being charged by a stupid cow and calf. One more experience like that and I'll turn into one of those anti-grazing rights nuts!
Reference: Cheryl 7/28/00
Dear Cheryl,
I must compliment you on your Persuasion posting. It is beautiful and insightful. Comparing the two evenings is very interesting. Your remarks about both evenings are right on the mark. However, I have a problem figuring out the antecedent of "that" in your question "The question is, what effect was JA striving for in that scene?" To which scene are you referring? My first reaction was that you had answered your own question in either case.
Then on second thought, the two scenes involve different sets of people and situations which call for different actions or "feelings".
Keep up the good work. Well done!
Dear Linda,
Thank you. Your comments are praise indeed in light of the insights you've posted.
I believe that in the scene at the card party, Jane Austen completes the journey Anne Elliot makes from the private and completely controlled internal world of her own making to the real world full of uncontrolled feelings, both emotional and physical. Anne begins to feel more completely almost as soon as she travels the three miles to Mary's house, but knowing that her time there is limited, she works hard to keep those emotions bottled up. The shock of seeing Wentworth again tears through Anne's layers of protection, beginning with Anne's internal world where it is important that she "...try to be feeling less." But within minutes of their meeting her shell of physical detachment is in tatters as well for Anne finds that eight years has bestowed upon Wentworth "...more glowing, manly, open a look, in no respect lessening his personal advantages."
The journey to the card party in Bath has begun and along the way Anne will travel to Lyme to recover her sense of self-worth in the respect and friendship of the Harvilles and Captain Benwick, then on to Bath where she finds herself pursued by a man whose initial attraction was purely physical.
Eventually Anne comes full circle back to the man whose heart she "... almost
broke ... eight years and a half ago." I truly believe that Jane Austen's
choice of words to describe Anne's feelings at the card party
deliberately stresses the connection and confusion between Anne's physical and
emotional response to Wentworth's renewed declarations. It isn't
deliberately "sexy" in the sense of attempting to titillate, or depict
titillation, yet I believe it is sexual, in the sense that those particular
words that I highlighted would very naturally occur to Anne in her present state
of mind, and would just as naturally would convey a two-fold meaning. A choice
of words for which Anne has no reason ... and yet every reason ... to
blush.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Goodness! Your posting is absolutely brilliant!
We must get that into the "Passionate Persuasion Passages"-page and include a quote of the 2 paragraphs from the novel beginning with, "At last Anne was home again, ...." and ending with "...and always the knowledge of his being there!"
I don't know how I missed that, but I'm glad I did, because your remarks are
exquisite! Meister, would you do whatever it takes to get permission to
include Cheryl's posting? I don't have her email address at hand, it's
late, and I am exhausted from unpacking, hanging curtains, cleaning, etc. - or I
would look up her address on an old posting, or something. If you desire,
just post this message or let me know her address or twist her arm or
whatever!
Regards,
Linda
From the Meister: We don' need no stinkin' permission! Will do. Umm, please don't ever tempt me to twist one of Cheryl's body parts!
Dear Linda,
Whew! Well thank you. It took a bit of courage to bring myself to send
that off to the Meister. Way too self-revealing, if you know what I mean.
(Not to mention the strong possibility of being met with snorts of derision, but
I'm used to that!) I admit I rather like the idea of comparing
Anne's physical travels with her emotional journey. Meister, what do you
think??
Cheryl
From the Meister: I am very, very impressed with what the two of you have done. You both have been dead right on. I had thought that I would be the one that would do a good job on these Passionate Passages, but I have decided that the best thing for me to do is to butt out. Does either of you realize how subversive of the mainstream your work has become? I only wish that Heather and Julie would contribute even more than they have; I suspect that Julie may find the project un-Australian.
I have a book titled: Pride and Prejudice, a sentimental
comedy dramatized by Helen Jerome from the novel of Jane Austen. Copyright
1935 First Edition - This book is signed by Helen Jerome and also signed by
almost all the cast members listed on "The Characters" page next to each name on
the list. I am trying to find out the approximate value of this book--can anyone
please help me? Please email me at
cynric1@aol.com
Thank you.
Dear Meister,
This might be a good time to make it clear that, unlike many of the other Jane Austen adaptations out there, this one was not a "labor of love" production. Miramax decided to "do" Mansfield Park and cast about for a director. Rozema was tapped, probably with good intentions, however, one could hardly think of a person less apt to like and/or understand Fanny (or Jane Austen for that matter) than a self-proclaimed radical lesbian/feminist.
It would be interesting to get an objective review of the film, and I've been trying to catch one of our customers after return, but no luck so far. (It's not a big renter, so my opportunities are limited.)
You bring up so many points, that I think I'll only try to hit a few --
Of all the disservices to the character of Sir Thomas, his apparent sexual obsession with Fanny when he returns from Antigua is the worst. Bruce is right that Sir Thomas isn't the most sympathetic character in Mansfield Park, but making him a pervert is totally beyond the pale.
I think there may have been a second reason for getting rid of William Price. He is so manly that the film's version of Mary Crawford would have been doing the dirty thing with him in a heart beat. (I'm sure in the novel Mary sighed a couple of sighs over the idea.) Many of the scenes suggest Embeth Davidtz' Mary Crawford was written as the film's sexual predator, rather than Henry. This suggests that some of the outlandish rumours we were hearing about the film last spring may have actually been true. And would go a long way to explain the film's incoherence.
I believe Mary Crawford was intended all along to be the true heroine of the film. It's no coincidence that, as the only independent (unmarried with money of her own) woman in the film, she's also the only happy one. All the other females are naturally victims of the oppressive patriarchal society and just as naturally miserable. Certainly that awful scene in the drawing room could be intepreted by some as sympathetic to Mary who is only trying to do the modern practical thing (Bruce has been eloquent on this subject.)
The slavery issue is just out and out puzzling. Why would Rozema, a
Canadian, make a film destined for the international crowd that contains the
issue of slavery, which these days seems to push buttons only in the US?
If she wanted to include such a thing, why not something more international such
as the treatment of indigenous peoples by European conquerers? A strong
guess would be that Miramax' parent company is US owned and in the US race
sells. Or maybe it was simply a misguided attempt to connect Fanny's
journey to and from Mansfield Park that go tout of hand? I don't suppose
Patricia Rozema will be brave enough to field questions from Janeites
about such things any time soon.
Cheryl
Dear Meister,
I read your post on Rozema's Mansfield Park, and saw the link to the "anonymous" review at Amazon. I was intrigued, so I clicked on it. Surprise! It was my review. I am very flattered that you liked it. It is far more coherent than the review I wrote for IMDb (under the name Julie-30) which I wrote within days of seeing this abomination. I guess time mellowed me. (not!)
Dear Julie P.,
I am very happy to meet you. I hope you will take the time to join our discussions. I have now edited in a full credit for your review.
Rozema's film is making a big splash on the web which is to be expected for a film with such a beautiful and talented cast, and expert cinematography. Still, some of us don't mind shouting in the wind.
Dear Meister, et. al.,
To paraphrase Jane Austen’s comment about children, all reasonable people presumably agree that males should be bashed. In fact, so evident is this truth to the really Great Men that many of the Saints flagellated themselves, afraid, perhaps, that nobody else would do it.
Rozema is a male-basher, but hardly, in MP, more of one than Austen herself. If Sir Thomas is portrayed harshly in the film, well, I’ve argued that he is portrayed harshly in the novel, as well. True, William, perhaps the only attractive male character in the novel is eliminated. But, after all, he’s a minor character. If all of the marriages in the novel are portrayed as unhappy, well, Mrs. Norris, Mrs. Rushworth, and Mrs. Price are not thrilled with their married lives in the novel, either.
No doubt, MP is not a great movie, or even a very good one. You are right about the scene where Mary confronts the whole family with her greedy hopes of Tom’s demise. That was ridiculous, and nothing could prepare us for seeing worldly Mary make such a fool of herself. Indeed, Rozema seems not so much a male basher as a person basher. Fanny is the only attractive character in the film (although Ed might be a little more attractive than he is in the novel). If Rozema is a sexist, who approves of women over men, where are her paragons of feminine virtue? I don’t see ‘em.
Jane Austen has the light, satirical touch that makes us enjoy and even like the objects of her ridicule. Who can fail to love the courtly Mr. Woodhouse? Who can dislike Lady Bertram, who would have looked in at the play, had she been a little more at leisure?
Many of the film adaptations have had trouble with these characters. Indeed, one reason the Pride and Prejudice adaptations are popular is that the comic characters are less finely drawn, and can be played as creatures of almost slapstick farce. If Rozema seems heavy handed, she butchers her characters with equal opportunity. Lady Bertram, Mrs. Price and Maria are butchered no less than Sir Thomas.
Dear Voices,
My computer is reconnected as of last night. While the babies are still sleeping I "caught up" on the board postings. (That's why I said "Lord have mercy!" in the subject line!)
I laughed and cried! I was amused! Y'all were busy. It will be a while before I get to post again to the passages, since I am not quite unpacked and settled.
I would say "I missed you guys" but I didn't have a minute to think about anything but packing and unpacking. NOW, I can say I missed you guys and I do love you all.
BTW, I tried the surprise link for August and it did not work.
Best
regards,
Linda
From the Meister: Yes, there does seem to be a
problem
- thank you. It works some times but not others, I will
continue
to work the problem.
Dear Meister,
A terrible confession: I've never read Madame Bovary and have no desire to do so. In fact, I read very, very little "serious" fiction of any kind. I read fiction for the same reason I watch George of The Jungle or Ruthless People -- to relax. I get enough horrifying reality in the newspaper every day, I don't need to seek it out in my entertainment.
Yes, I do consider a protagonist different from an heroine. I call Fanny the "heroine" because JA obviously meant for her to get the man of her dreams. I would call Anna K a heroine as well, though a tragic one.
It's true, Jane Austen wrote for her own amusement, but the only reason you and I ever got to see the end result is because a publisher believed (as well as JA) that there was some money to be made out of it. And there still is. I admit I didn't make this distinction clear in my previous (and totally incoherent) post. A student once asked Flannery O'Connor why she wrote. Flannery replied (in essence) "Because I'm good at it." Which naturally shocked the hell out of the student. Yet O'Connor certainly was one of those writers who believed that the duty of fiction was moral and specifically Christian morality.
Actually, I called Fanny the ancestor of such women. But first of all, let's not forget that Fanny refused Crawford for completely selfish reasons not because she felt it would be immoral or otherwise wrong. I agree that it was a perfectly good reason, but let's not pretend that her action wasn't intended to benefit herself and herself alone. Fanny is a person who expects others to make her decisions for her ... what should I read? What should I wear? Should I accept this gift? What should I do today? Fanny wants to be controlled and despite the fact that the consequence of giving up control is often unpleasant -- such as being treated as a virtual servant to one's aunt or one's husband -- it is infinitely safer and easier that taking responsibility for one's own fate. Fanny is a prototype of the "professional victim."
I'm sorry, it must be the heat here, but I don't understand your final
question ... could you elaborate a little?
Cheryl
P.S. to Julie Yes, I do judge Fanny harshly for an 18 year old, but attempts to make a saint out of her just bring out the worst in me.
Dear Cheryl,
I have read Madame Bovary and I would never call that lady a heroine, quite the contrary. Fanny Price is definitely a heroine and I love her and admire her - uh, I mean the mind that created her. It is not always easy to decide - "heroine" or "protagonist"? - You put your finger on one interesting case, Anna K, there I vote for "protagonist". An even more interesting example is Tolstoy's Natasha (War and Peace); she is so sweet, but she fell into that terrible, senseless betrayal of Andre. Still, I go with "heroine" in that case. Thomas Hardy's women are also interesting problems. Tess becomes a convicted murderess, but she is, in fact, the purist and sweetest of heroines. Classifying the main female characters in Far From the Madding Crowd and Return of the Native could start a lot of controversy here, so let us do it. I go with "heroine" and "protagonist" respectively.
Dear Cheryl,
I believe that your comments regarding John Gardner were not to be taken at face value. If you had not intended them to be a slam you would have been content to identify him as the author of Grendel without the rather snide remarks about his death. I did not excuse his drinking and driving, but I don't expect a perfect world. Smart people do stupid things.
As far as your last question is concerned: I've yet to see it, I doubt it and I really don't care.
Links