Vandals! Vandals!

1/ There was a time when you could trust the BBC to deliver high-quality, excellent adaptations of classic novels, such as Anna Karenina (1977), Pride and Prejudice (1995), Persuasion (1995), etc. Or at least serious, if not entirely successful, like War and Peace (1972, let down by Natasha) or Mansfield Park (1983). Lately I have been watching Jane Eyre (1983), Bleak House (1985), and David Copperfield (1999), and they are wonderful! Not only do these adaptations demonstrate respect for the text and understanding of the source material, but they also have perfect casting: the entire casts of the three series are fantastic; I especially love Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke as Mr Rochester and Jane Eyre, Diana Rigg as Lady Dedlock and Peter Vaughan as Tulkinghorn (so sinister), Maggie Smith as Betsey Trotwood, Bob Hoskins as Mr Micawber, and Nicholas Lyndhurst as Uriah Heep (what a creep!)…

Now, what does the BBC give us? The Other Bennet Sister, a series based on a spin-off (well, fanfic) of Pride and Prejudice which distorts Jane Austen’s characters beyond recognition, portrays the conceited Mary Bennet as autistic and bullied, and apparently depicts her as a governess (Mr Darcy’s sister-in-law!). Even if we ignore Austen altogether and pretend it’s another universe, the series is painfully unfunny and the characters are one-dimensional.

But no, that’s not all. After the success of The Other Bennet Sister—a show so popular that there’s going to be a Christmas Special (I guess people are easy to please)—the BBC has announced another series called The Other Elliot Sister. 

“Elizabeth Elliot is an intriguing figure at the edges of Persuasion - someone we know just enough about to wonder what might be going on beneath the surface... We’re delighted to be returning to the world of Jane Austen with the BBC and BritBox, and to bring another overlooked character to the centre of her own story.” 

Why? Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Elliot is vain and selfish and shallow. This is as silly as retelling Emma from the point of view of Mrs Elton, or Sense and Sensibility from the perspective of Fanny Dashwood. And who knows how stupid it’s all going to be, as BritBox announced Austen Untold, “a new anthology franchise, in partnership with Bad Wolf, dedicated to series adaptations of Jane Austen stories told through the perspectives of overlooked and underexplored characters…” 

Horrid!

2/ This year, there are three Jane Austen things on the screen. I’ve talked about The Other Bennet Sister. I’ve talked about Sense and Sensibility. Upcoming is the new Pride and Prejudice adaptation by Netflix. 

There is much to say about the trailer. Why do Elizabeth and Jane hang out on the roof? Why do they get an actress of substantial size to play the “slight and delicate” Kitty? Why do they have such a young Wickham, even younger than the actress playing Lydia? But above all, you know the series is going to miss the mark as Dolly Alderton gave the opening line “It is a truth universally acknowledged…”—one of the most iconic opening lines in literature—to Mrs Bennet. 

My fears were confirmed when the Vanity Fair quoted screenwriter Dolly Alderton as saying “Mrs Bennet’s kind of the hero of the whole fucking thing. I really felt I’d like justice for Mrs Bennet.” 

One debate that keeps popping up on that hellsite still known as Twitter is about Mr Bennet vs Mrs Bennet. Many people are firmly on the side of Mr Bennet and some are adamantly on the other side and I don’t see why. It’s quite clear that Austen sees them both as terrible parents: Mr Bennet neglects his children and hides behind his books and witticisms whereas Mrs Bennet, as she lacks sense, tries to force Elizabeth into marriage with the foolish Mr Collins, compromises Lydia’s future, and almost ruins the chances of both Jane and Elizabeth. 

The screenwriter of the new series even said “I think a lot of people think it is an antagonistic marriage. But for me, they felt like a very recognizable British couple who are extremely comfortable with each other and deeply fond of each other. And how that deep familiarity is expressed is with relentless mockery, its own expression of love.”

How could anyone read Pride and Prejudice and have such a thought? We can assume that Mr Bennet married Mrs Bennet for her looks and some time later realised he got a loud, stupid, embarrassing wife. We can assume that he made some effort with the two eldest daughters then just washed his hands off them and hid himself in the library. We can see, after the passion has faded, it’s a loveless marriage because they are incompatible. That’s why Mr Bennet, after Mr Darcy’s proposal, says to Elizabeth: 

“But let me advise you to think better of it. I know your disposition, Lizzy. I know that you could be neither happy nor respectable, unless you truly esteemed your husband, unless you looked up to him as a superior. Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage. You could scarcely escape discredit and misery. My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life. You know not what you are about.” (ch.59) 

Is it not obvious now that the new series is going to be a travesty? 

3/ Why do filmmakers not adapt something else instead of doing Jane Austen and Charles Dickens a million times?, you ask. I’m sorry to say Netflix are going to release a series based on The Age of Innocence and they’re ruining that too. 

From the first, the stills look dreadfully anachronistic: The Age of Innocence is set in 1870s and we’ve got an Ellen Olenska with fillers (or to use a popular phrase: an iPhone face) and a Newland Archer with gym muscles (Ben Radcliffe). Do they treat it as a joke? There’s also no age gap between Ellen and May Welland (Kristine Froseth, who’s actually older). 

Newland Archer in a tank top.

But no, it will be even worse. Let’s hear Vanity Fair: 

“Unlike the novel, Frost’s version also has nudity and graphic content: masturbation, voyeurism, a narratively important threesome. It’s not your grandmother’s Edith Wharton. But Frost would argue it’s very true to the spirit of its author.” 

A sexed-up Age of Innocence simply can’t be “true to the spirit of its author.” 

Emma Frost, the screenwriter, also said “I think when you stay just with the male point of view, May becomes the antagonist, and Ellen becomes the thing to be won or saved or rescued. And that wasn’t something I wanted to do. I wanted to have these two women really existing as flesh-and-blood women who we can care about.” 

She thinks Edith Wharton didn’t know what she was doing. She thinks Edith Wharton didn’t give us “flesh-and-blood women we can care about.” 

Does it not irritate you that these philistines cash in on the reputation and popularity of a classic work of art but sneer at it and at people who love it?

Vandals!