The more catchy titles continually appear, the harder it becomes! How many of such thinly conceived tomes littering display tables and lauded by "reviewers" have you latched onto, only to discard them barely halfway through. . . ? It's like those movies you want to walk out on, but easier to do.
And so this winter I chose (or should say choze) a rereading of the novels of Jane Austen, starting with a favorite, Emma. As I delved once more into this scrumptious satire of manners and motives, after initially wrangling with early 19th c. spelling and syntax my resolve suddenly strengthened; I had caught sight of the first disappointing episodes of PBS' "Sanditon," Austen's unfinished work, and it was so soothing to be able to return to the source and ignore this misbegotten production. Somewhat idiotically written as a story now completed for a mass TV audience, the "finished" narrative has little relevance to Austen. Instead, it's become a kind of twenty-first century, lackluster soap with a few retro, lamely progressive and totally anachronistic nods, all done up in lots of period costumes.
So sad! Even PBS has gone the way of quick fixes and cultural photo ops; but though a bunch of these inane episodes still are waiting in the wings to be mind-numbingly aired, it was comforting to know that Austen's actual work and wit endures in the written word.
Here's but one gem from the novel I'm reading, the excerpt relating to an upcoming entertainment- a ball; Mr. Knightly, a character normally gracious and obliging, just does not like to dance, as he explains to Emma, and finds his enjoyment elsewhere. His words also can stand as a metaphor for participating in the predictable screen "dance" of a crappy, uninspiring, made-for-"prime" TV/streaming industry that can screw up even Austen.
"Very well. If the Westons think it worth while to be at all this trouble for a few hours of noisy entertainment, I have nothing to say against it, but that they shall not choose pleasures for me.- Oh! yes, I must be there." could not refuse; and I will keep as much awake as I can; but I would rather be home, looking over William Larkin's week's account; much rather, I confess.- Pleasure in seeing dancing! -not I, indeed- I never look at it- I do not know who does..- Fine dancing, I believe, like virtue, must be its own reward. Those who are standing by are usually thinking of something very different."
- Mr. Knightly in "Emma"
And like Knightly, even if you are present at the ongoing screen ball, you can chuze not to "dance," not participate in something you view as badly conceived, nor stand on the sidelines either, watching with interest a watered down art form or clapping to a faux, really badly writ, pseudo 19th century representation- (even if you are bored on a Sunday night and have come to the ball looking for a fix). And Net-Fix-Land is not Shakespeare, or Austen, and often not much of anything.
Okay, I'm through with this rant for now on classic lit misappropriation as a means of upping TV ratings. Next time, something fun.
Indeed some screen adaptions are sorely inferior, but recently I enjoyed the film Little Women as wellas the TV mini-series Howard's End.
ReplyDeleteThe latter was especially satisfying as in anticipation I had reread the EM Forster book.
But then learning that a new Broadway production called The Inheritance was also based on Howard's End, I eagerly got tix.
I'm not sorry that I saw it, but twas based VERY LOOSELY on Howard's End!
Did you see any of these? If so, what think you?
I think a lot of readers and lovers of the arts would agree with you. Endless spinoffs of original works (first a novel, then a film and finally a play) really speak to entertainments based on easy money schemes for mass audiences seeking quick fixes, and done through the exploitation of title recognition (a little learning is a dangerous thing?); originality is on the wane, commercial "art" and artistic sound bites rule.
ReplyDelete"Little Women" held my attention too given its length, was lavish and splashy, but did it really invoke the spirit of Alcott's work? The actors seemed to be chewing the scenery, maybe to compensate tor a weak script, so pleasing as it was to watch, for this literary curmudgeon it too was loosely based and did not capture the period of the essence of the classic, or the period. Perhaps these mediums are entities unto themselves and need to act that way, but that would entail more thinking, more originality. . . .
FROM DIANE-
ReplyDeleteYour rant is right. It seems the writers of these “pseudo-19th century” productions rely on fabulous costumes, British accents, beautiful young people and grand estate settings to carry stories often only loosely based on novels. Sadly, it works.
Diane Knorr