9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Sept. 1, 2001
9-11
To those in New York City, Washington and hopefully no other places, my
prayers are with the family, friends, and loved ones of those caught in the
buildings. I am still trying to contact my dearest friend in New Jersey
hoping that her family was not in the City today. It is a tragedy for us
all.
Linda
Dear Ashton,
Thank you for that beautiful prayer from Our Lady. My friends in
NJ are all well. This has been one horrible 24 hours!
Linda
"Thanks to America, and only thanks to America, the world has enjoyed these past decades an age of hitherto unimagined freedom and opportunity. Those who would deflect it from its path must not, and surely will not, succeed."
Dear Ash,
We all, of course have our faults, and I must confess to have found one in Dear Jane. Naturally, I am referring to her unfortunate sympathy for Mary, Queen of Scots. For whom, let's be honest, an entire romantic legend has been created based solely on her two most famous murder plots -- the successful assasination of her second husband Lord Darnley, and the unsuccessful plot again Elizabeth I, which finally drove the long suffering Queen to the unthinkable: execution of a fellow anointed monarch.
Jane's sympathy for Mary's grandson Charles I is somewhat more excusable for though Charles was certainly a wretched politician and a poor excuse for a king, he was apparently a good man. Pious, faithful to his wife, and a good father. He might have made an excellent clergyman or Oxford don. It's a damning thought, but he may even have been the best of his line, not withstanding the popularity of his son the "Merry Monarch" (whose great talent seemed to have been an ability to lie to the House of Commons while retaining the love of the people.)
The only conclusion I can draw is that Jane Austen consciously decided on a
romantic "fling" and indulged herself for once by seeing people not how they
really were, but how she wished them to be.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
When you wrote, "We all, of course, have our faults, ..." you unintentionally included me, you know!
Jane Austen's defense of Mary took place in her Juvenilia and may not mean what you suggest. I once tried to ennoble her defense of the French/Scottish queen by pointing to the terrible anti-Catholic riots in London of 1780. I suggested that our Lady was taking a stand against a common religious intolerance of her time. My wife completely deflated me when she said, "Oh phooie, she was just pulling her dad's leg. The Juvenilia was only intended for the family you know!" smart ass!
The support for Charles I was congenital: The Austen family was decidedly Tory. They were all Church of England clergy (and, therefore, Royal appointees), and the Parliamentary opponents of Charles I were primarily dissenters.
It has been suggested that the Austen family roots lie in Scotland ("Austyn"?). If true, then there may have been a natural inclination for the Stuarts - even Mary and Charles.
But, of course, you are right - Jane Austen was hopelessly romantic.
Dear Ash,
I see you have been busy. Glad you (and we) are on "board"! Oh,
dear, I need some more R & R!
Linda
Yes! - I mean, "no - not literally." I want to call your attention to a film titled Jane Austen in Manhattan, because I think you might enjoy it. It was shown in theaters in 1980. Nowadays, it sometimes plays on the Independent Film Channel.
Ann Baxter is a co-star in what must have been one of her last films. Sean Young appears in a supporting role in what may have been her first film. Sean was lookin' good but not as gorgeous as she would appear two years later in Blade Runner.
The time is set in the early nineteen-seventies, a few years after the manuscript of an amateur play, Sir Charles Grandison, had been attributed to Jane Austen by scholars. (Previously, it had been attributed to one of her nieces.) The film opens as the manuscript goes on auction and is sold for $50,000. The plot develops as a contest between two producers who wanted to actually produce the play on Broadway - well, "off-Broadway." The winner was to get funding from a foundation and the right to produce the new owner's play. The competitors are an older woman (Baxter) and a younger man who had once been her protege and lover.
The competition is interesting because each tried to sabotage the other. Also, you are reminded of the "Guru" era of popular culture; that time, a few decades ago, when bands of young people blindly followed charismatic leaders. Anyway, the woman envisioned the play as an opera, while the man designed the production in the style of the theatre-of-the-absurd - you know, like in Waiting for Godot. Eventually, the woman won the competition and that is how the film ends - that is the current notion of correctness.
That seemed right to me - at first; but then, I realized that it was the man who had it correct all along - exactly correct. I mean the man better understood the context for the play and, therefore, comes closer to Jane Austen's intent. I say that because the play was only intended as a little something Jane Austen and the other young family members would perform to amuse the family. It is quite clear that our Lady intended the effort as a parody of Samuel Richardson's The History of Sir Charles Grandison. Do you agree that the man's concept was right on? Maybe, you have to see the film.
At one point, an actor in the man's version complained that his screwball producer wanted him to play the role of a clergyman as a ten-year old boy. Well, when you consider how Jane Austen intended to use this play - may actually have used this play, then the male voice had that correct too! I mean it very well might have been that a ten-year old Austen nephew was to play that part.
I have been worried sick since my first posting because I mentioned Blade Runner and it occurred to me that you may not know which were the best science-fiction films of all time. So, here is the only list you should ever have to consult.
My apologies to Stanley Kubrick, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Steven Spielberg, Emmanuelle Arsan, and the producers of Lexx and Dr Who; nice goin' folks! but no cigar.
The worst? Well, certainly Zardoz or Branagh's Frankenstein deserve consideration - it is particularly difficult to choose against Branagh; on the other hand, the clear loser is Patricia Rozema's Mansfield Park.
Dear Ash,
My friend viewed that movie while she taped it for me, but I have not received it yet. She was not impressed, but I am anxious to see it.
I have seen several of the science-fiction films, but not Blade Runner. My favorite is Forbidden Planet and I hate Planet of the Apes - too depressing! I taped Branagh's Frankenstein last night, and now you say it is not good. The only reason I wanted to see it was because you liked the book. I was hoping it was better done than the earlier black and white movies which are usually so far fetched. I didn't like Branagh in The Gingerbread Man either and he even spoke a convincing "southern" accent in it!
I will let you know how I like Frankenstein.
Linda
Dear Linda,
Your friend's reaction to Jane Austen in Manhattan is not unreasonable; but, I bet yours will be different. I say that because I now realize that you have to be a bit of an insider to fully appreciate the film. I mean you must have some knowledge of Jane Austen's family and the importance of Richardson's Grandison in that home in order to fully appreciate what the film is about. Also, one must have some rudimentary familiarity with the plot of Grandison itself to understand what is happening in the film. The film makers do absolutely nothing to educate the audience on these matters. Anyway, you are going to like it - that is a promise.
Don't get me started on Branagh or his ex-wife (Emma Thompson of Sense and Sensibility infamy.) I think that Branagh was having an affair with the female lead in Frankenstein and that may be one of the reasons he so badly distorted the importance of that character. As for the rest of the revisionist script, we can only blame Branagh's understanding. You are correct in saying that I very much liked Mary Shelley's novel; and, if this site were devoted to Shelley rather than to Jane Austen, then Branagh, and not Rozema, would be my favorite target.
I had a deep-seated prejudice against Ang Lee for the longest time. I hated his direction of Thompson's Sense and Sensibility almost as much as I hated the script. I was determined not to watch his Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but I did and was completely won over. That film is beautiful, my prejudice is extinguished. Here is the point. Mary Shelley's monster was superhuman, both intellectually and physically. Not seas, nor mountains, nor polar ice could stop him and he moved over them with agility and speed. It was this fantastic mobility, combined with his superior intellect that makes the novel so frightening. Guess what? The movement of the characters in Ang Lee's Tiger/Dragon film reminded me of that monster. I mean, I hope that someone has the good sense to make a filmed version of Frankenstein with Ang Lee. To make things perfect, they must hire Andrew Davies (P&P-95) to write the script.
It feels great to talk to you again.
... congratulations on the updates. Great work. However, I must take issue with your Best Science Fiction Films list. Alien?? Are we talking about the "Jaws" clone set in outer space, or perhaps you've discovered a previously unknown film? No doubt a young Sigourney Weaver in skimpy costume makes all the difference in the quality of the movie if you're a guy. (I've been told I dislike the film so much because it's really about rape, but I'm convinced it's just that I don't like horror movies and really don't like bloody horror movies.)
THE TRUE LIST (In the order they occurred to me)
Honorable mentions to: Blade Runner for best looking modern SF movie, Ed Wood and Doctor Strangelove for SF movies that weren't really SF. Young Frankenstein and Galaxy Quest for funniest SF movies, and to Angry Red Planet and Mission to Mars for Two Worst Mars Movies Made Decades Apart. All Time Worst Science Fiction Movie (drum roll) Buckaroo Banzai Adventures In The Forbidden Zone though Soylent Green runs a close second. Unfortunately, I never got to see Hitchhiker's Guide, though I have the original radio series on vinyl. The only things I remember about Branagh's Frankenstein was my motion sickness due to the camera work and my husband's complaint that there wasn't nearly enough blood in the heart-ripping scene. ("Thanks for sharing dear.")
I'm currently in the middle of David Nokes Jane Austen: A Life and
will send off a review when I'm done. All I will say right now is that the
book should have been subtitled, "I really wanted to write a biography of her
cousin Eliza Hancock/Hastings/de Feuillide/Austen but couldn't find a
publisher."
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Whoa! I just realized how much I missed you. Great posting.
I like your list, except I recommend that you check your computer for a virus or something. Or, maybe there is an intermittent short or something in your modem. I say that because The Rocketeer came through at this end; surely, that was not sent from yours.
I think you a little too hard on Soylent Green
My favorite part of your posting was the reminder of Sigourney Weaver's skimpy costume. I guess you are referring to those final scenes in Alien when she stripped down for the return voyage (only to discover she had a stowaway.) I confess, I fell in love. Actually, her costume in Galaxy Quest was even better. My wife had to explain to me that it was only a joke.
Oh! and speaking of Vigée le Brun, what do you think of her work? I confess, I fell in love. My wife tells me that "Vigée" should be pronounced like the last syllables of negligée.
I didn't connect, at first, with your comment about Alien being about rape. Then it dawned on me that that was indeed the case. Whoever said that to you deserves a gold star. Now you have made me appreciate the film even more even though that was not your intent. The thing I noticed - and liked - was the blue-collar atmosphere aboard ship. Of course, that is exactly the way things will be, and the first time I ever observed such a thing in a film. At age sixteen, I joined the union for Hod Carriers and Common Laborers, and worked as a laborer the last two summers in high school and the first in college. I liked those guys - a lot - but the work there brought new motivation for my college studies - trust me. Anyway, those memories came back while watching the film. I liked those guys portrayed in the film as well.
I look forward to your treatment of Nokes's biography, be as complete as you wish. Eliza de Feuillide, eh? I fell in love with her too, you know - why should I be any different than Jane Austen's brothers.
What's wrong with Rocketeer? I enjoy it particularly for the way it "looks" and "sounds" like a 1940 movie ... at least to me. Howard Hughes, G men in cheap suits, popcorn eating gangsters, Timothy Dalton smarming merrily as a pseudo Errol Flynn. And a great version of "Begin the Beguine" which is probably my all time favorite 20th century song.
However, you can substitute The Last Starfighter or Gattaca as it was a toss-up between those. Roy pointed out a correction to my "worst SF film" the prize obviously goes to that horror of horrors, David Lynch's Dune. You think Rozema's Mansfield Park was a travesty. HAH!! I don't think it was cancer that got Frank Herbert, it was shame. Obviously, the experience of paying full price to see it in the theatre was too painful and I surpressed the memory.)
Galaxy Quest is particularly funny in my house as I've attended two World Science Fiction Conventions (Anaheim & Melbourne) and two San Diego ComicCons (more for Roy.) The set up of the aliens you can't tell from Convention geeks is too, too perfect. Did you catch Sigorney's "Alien" reference? "Ducts, why does it always have to be ducts?"
You may regret giving me carte blanche on David Nokes' book. I've got
an awful lot to say about it already, and I'm barely half way through.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Roy makes a good point. I seem to remember that that the Science Fiction Channel recently produced a version of Dune that was not so bad. Is that right?
Explain this to me. Some movie mogul notices that something or other is popular, decides to produce it with an expensive technology and talented cast, hires some nerdnick to write a totally revisionist version, and then is surprised when the public notices that it is not right and pans it. I don't blame Rozema for her version of Mansfield Park, she is just some sexist, nihilist idiot but she never pretended anything else. I blame the Miramax geniuses. How do those people get those great jobs?
Dear Cheryl and Ash,
Ash: - I am so glad you like CTHD - especially since Ang Lee redeemed himself in your eyes! And it's nice talking to you again, too!
And, yes, I do wonder myself at those Miramax geniuses!
Cheryl: - Ash said, "I just realized how much I missed you." - that goes double for me!
I got all goose bumpy to see that you had Forbidden Planet on your list. However, I am not a natural born SF fan, but learned to tolerate some of them because, with only one TV, the entire family had to watch the same thing. I cultivated a taste for those that contained some plausibility.
I saw The Rocketeer many years ago and remember liking it, but that is about all I remember.
Now for Frankenstein - I really goofed up. I was doing O.K. until he started to make an incision on the head when I remembered your comment - something about not enough blood - so I momentarily set aside my plate of watermelon (weak stomach, you see). After that, tragedy struck - twenty five minutes before the end, the movie stopped! When I taped it I had set the timer for 2 hours instead of 2 1/2 hours. Frankenstein was just trying to revive his wife when the tape stopped. I just checked with my library and placed a "hold" on a copy - Yea! - so within a few days I will know how it turned out.
It would probably do no good to read the book (it is online) since the movies usually deviate from the books. I thought the movie was not all that bad, but then I have not read the book. That is probably where the rub is.
I was also busy this summer adding to my bookshelves. Using the Meister’s biography list I found Jane Austen by Elizabeth Jenkins, Park Honan, Claire Tomalin, and Brian Wilks [a lovely coffee table picture book]. Also, Jane Austen, A Family Record by William Austen-Leigh, Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh, revised & edited by Deirdre Le Faye. The icing on the cake was Jane Austen’s Little Instruction Book which contains a collection from all the novels of those little phrases that please the Ladies! The really pretty part is that I got them dirt cheap from used book stores on the Internet, but they hardly appear to be "used". Hmm, I did not get David Nokes’ book, and after what you have said I probably won’t, but I will withhold judgment until the Meister speaks since it does not appear on his list. And now after taking another look at his list, I see that I have only made a dent in it.
Geez, I missed you guys and all the 'conversations'!
Linda
Dear Ashton and Linda,
Ashton: I think your wife may be right, and that you should also remember that Mary QoS wasn't too Catholic to choose a protestant for her third husband. No doubt Jane enjoyed baiting her father over politics as much as daughters do today.
I did enjoy the Vigée le Brun. I need to know something about the subject to find much interest in portraits though. Speaking of portraits, I rather wonder at Cassandra Austen's painting of JA -- the one where Jane is sitting faced away from the viewer, overlooking a valley. I was completely surprised at the talent Cassandra shows in this painting as the more famous portrait of Jane is just awful. Of course many deep psychological theories have been bandied about to explain the mystery of why Jane's face is hidden, but could it be simply that Cassandra had no talent for drawing faces?
I remain surprised at the popularity of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Not because it isn't a good film, but because it's not exactly what I would call "accessible." Though I think a lot of credit for its success goes to the chemistry between Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh. I hope this will revive her career here in the west as she was great in The Last Emperor. I would call CT,HD live action Anime. Of course a lot of anime is violent, misogynistic porn, but occasionally you come across something good.
Linda; I'm glad you like Forbidden Planet. It's supposed to have been inspired by The Tempest. The problem these days is that so few science fiction movies are actually science fiction rather than horror or action. That's one of the reasons Gattaca makes the list ... one of the few truly science fiction movies in the last 20 years. (However, if you find Planet of The Apes depressing, be sure to steer clear of Brazil or just about anything else directed by Terry Gilliam barring The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.)
Sorry to ruin your watermelon. We saw Frankenstein while Roy was doing a surgery rotation memorable for some particularly bad motor vehicle accidents. Yuck.
And I can't resist:
Dear Cheryl and Ash,
Now I know how the film Frankenstein ended. It was okay, but nothing to write home about. I do remember the ending from Wishbone now as being similar. I was 2 hours into the film before I started wondering where Robert DiNero was - when it hit me! Totally unrecognizable!
If, as you say Ash, they missed the part of super intelligence and physical ability of the 'creature', then they really messed it up. Now I will have to read the book.
There is a headline on this morning's news about a remake of Forbidden Planet - now let's see how they mess that up. And they even mentioned, as you did, Cheryl, that it is loosely based on The Tempest.
This weekend I have two more movies to watch - while at the library, I scanned the other titles and came home with A Streetcar Named Desire and Anne of the Thousand Days. I don't know where I will find the time to read! Which reminds me, I picked up the book on Malthus, but the interruptions kept me from concentrating. Even though the Librarian thought it appeared to be dull, I found it very interesting. More on that later.
And Cheryl, how is the puppy? It probably is not a puppy any
more. And does the darling have a name? If you said, I have
forgotten. I really should remember "all those things"! [Why is it
that when I remember such phrases, the voice I hear in my head is in that
character's voice? Have we been invaded? It is not to be borne!
"They're coming to take me away, ha, ha!"]
Linda
Links