"Getting" Jane Austen

Am I the only person who thinks that Jane Austen's works are meant to be funny? In fact, I find them hilarious on many occasions. Yes, they contain a good helping of romance, and often center around some couple getting together. However, I would argue that if her work were assigned to a modern movie genre, they would be more romantic comedies than dramas. I thus find myself frustrated that many cinematic versions of Austen's books are all drama and, all too often, melodrama. In an effort to create angst they seem to have lost much of what I find delightful about her work. I know a lengthy book nearly always must necessarily be condensed into a movie of manageable length. But I don't think that this must result in a total loss of Austen's clever mockery of society and its typical characters. Many of her delightfully comedic figures become flat, boring and often annoying in an effort to emphasize and increase the melodrama. Two egregious examples come to mind.

First, Hollywood's most recent interpretation of Pride and Prejudice. Now, I'll admit that I haven't watched this movie in quite a while (after one showing, my husband refuses and often mocks), but I have some lasting impressions that speak to its tone. First, I remember seeing previews for the movie. When the preview ended I said, "well I don't know what version of Pride and Prejudice they read, but that doesn't look anything like the story I know." And, while the movie was enjoyable enough as a period drama/romance, it was missing so many of the things I love about Pride and Prejudice. The director deliberately tried to make Mrs. Bennett less of a ridiculous character. Why? She's supposed to be funny and over the top! She is a caricature of everything that is ridiculous in mothers who desperately want their children to get married. Donald Sutherland, while a fine actor, just doesn't capture Mr. Bennett's amused indifference for me. I did enjoy the scenery, the costumes and Rosemunde Pike as Jane (has anyone else noticed that Jane Austen's works quite often include a virtuous and beautiful side character named Jane?), but it couldn't make up for the artistic liberties that I think were untrue to the original.

I know many Brits and so-called purists were upset by the added scene at the end of the movie with Mr. and Mrs. Darcy kissing at Pemberly. That was fine with me. Perhaps I hardly noticed it following so closely on the heels of the early morning half-attired stroll across the misty moors in which Elizabeth and Darcy seem to "know" that the other wants to meet them there and declare undying love. What? That's certainly not in the book. Nor is it anything like the book. Nor is it anything like Jane Austen. "You have possessed me body and soul"?! Don't get me started. Was it really so ineffective for Darcy and Elizabeth to finally find a chance to be alone without sacrificing sleep, societal norms or their much-guarded pride by simply going on a walk where their companions slowly drop off into other pursuits? Austen's version is, at least, more true to real life. Things happen at the most unpredictable times and places (you're just as likely to be unexpectedly proposed to on a normal day in your friend's front room as a pillared stone monument in the pouring rain). And it's still delightful and romantic without being over the top.

The second adulteration of Austen came in a recent interpretation of Persuasion, which was produced for Masterpiece Theatre. I watched it the other night and found myself shocked and dismayed. The climax of Persuasion is perhaps the best. But this movie changed it completely. Anne's all-important speech on the constancy of woman's affection was heavily edited and moved to the middle of the film. It's not so important that she says it as that Wentworth hears her saying it. In this version, he was busy flirting with Louisa Musgrove when the crucial lines were delivered. How, then, could Wentworth be prompted to write of his undying love which he could not openly express to Anne even though she was in the same room? Well, he wasn't. Instead Anne literally runs all over Bath for about ten minutes and happens to collect a much-edited (again) note that he has left her. I don't believe she would be in the sort of shape required for this little marathon, nor would propriety allow for it, nor was it necessary. Then Wentworth buys her father's estate? Except that a major plot point tells us the estate is entailed to Mr. Eliot. Entailment is a testator's way of keeping control over the property's ownership after death for the sole purpose of preventing such a sale. Perhaps this is legal nitpicking, but I don't think Austen would have made such an error.

The movie was, of course, short enough that some of the book had to be sacrificed. But the added scenes and several lengthy scenes of Anne crying or dashing about her house in a fret could easily have allowed for more time spent on Austen's actual work. So many wonderful characters were essentially nonexistent. I felt the Crofts were important in their blissful display of what Anne could have had if she had only accepted Wentworth. Their marriage is not even discussed. Further, Anne's family is a shadow of the pompous caricatures Austen wrote. Then there's Mary (I think Austen must have known someone named Mary who she didn't like), who is hilarious in her hypochondria. Except in this interpretation, where we want to strangle her for a level of annoyance surpassed only by the likes of Jar Jar Binks.

This is all to say nothing of the movie's morphing Anne into a melancholy waif who weeps at everything and seems unable to cope with anything simply because Wentworth is not hers. She was not, in retrospect, happy about her decision, but it didn't cripple her. A great deal of the book's appeal is that we only know what Anne is thinking. This builds suspense marvelously, as we wonder whether she is actually going to get Wentworth or not. The movie, however, chose to tell us what he's thinking, greatly decreasing the wonder that is part of real-life romance as well as Austen's work. Most unbelievably, the movie spoils Anne's discovery that Louisa is to marry Benwick by having Capt. Harville tell Wentworth before the Crofts break it to Anne. What a great moment, in which the audience doesn't get to share Anne's euphoric shock! The movie does have beautiful scenery, a beautiful hero and beautiful music, but it completely misses Austen's wit, destroys the artful pacing of her plot, and robs the audience of its sumptuous climax.

Lest you wonder, there are many cinematic interpretations of Jane Austen's books that I do enjoy. Several versions of Pride and Prejudice come to mind. But, without modernization or taking six hours to tell the tale faithfully with exactness, Austen can still be channeled appropriately. For example, the Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility is of manageable length and is positively delightful (even if Elinor is not 35 in the book). And contains only ONE line straight from the book. Characters are left out, scenes are omitted and rearranged, but the movie still reasonably recreates the romance and humour of the book. The version of Emma with Gwenyth Paltrow is also delightfully funny.

Now I don't find anything wrong with drama and romance. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books, and I really do enjoy a little tragic, epic romance every now and then. I just think the Bronte sisters fit the bill better than Jane Austen. And I don't believe my brother and husband enjoy Pride and Prejudice for dramatic proposals in the rain, scenes of misty mores and lines like "you have bewitched me body and soul." So the makers of Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion should perhaps try their hand at Jane Eyre or Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South instead. And I'll keep laughing every time I read Jane Austen and finding her just as witty as she is romantic.