Janespotting: Emma (2010 miniseries)

So a few years ago, PBS presented a whole season of Austen adaptations, five of them new ones. (Pride & Prejudice being the lone exception, of course. You don't mess with your audience.) And despite having two relatively new versions of Emma barely more than ten years old, the powers that be (in this case the BBC) decreed it was time for a new one—and why not, if you're going to make it a miniseries?

With almost four hours to tell the story, we're treated to a relatively faithful telling of the story, plus lots of scenes that further develop both major and minor characters. Most important is the opening that contrasts the early childhoods of Emma, Frank Weston, and Jane Fairfax. We see all three lose their mothers, but Emma is kept at home while Frank (now Frank Churchill) and Jane are sent away from loving homes for their own good. This is a very effective contrast, and further scenes of Emma as an older child hearing Miss Bates natter on about Jane, with another nattering 7 years later, make her distaste for Jane a little more understandable.

Another added scene is of a young Emma claiming to see a future match between John Knightley and Isabella—something Mr. Knightley finds ridiculous—but she is proven right at their wedding, also shown. Although this doesn't happen in the book, it gives her self-confidence in matchmaking an added boost, especially after she foresees the wedding of Miss Taylor and Mr. Weston. We might find Emma a bit insufferable by now, but we also get a scene portraying Emma's loneliness after Miss Taylor marries and leaves, making her a bit more sympathetic.

With this leisurely pace, we don't even meet Harriet Smith until over 20 minutes in. We do get to see the discussion between Mr. Knightley and Mrs. Weston over Emma's friendship with Harriet (although not the line about Knightley wanting to see Emma in love with some doubt of return, boo). He seems to agree with her advice not to press Emma about it, but when Emma helps Harriet reject Robert Martin (whom we see apply to Mr. Knightley for advice in an earlier scene), he can't help but start a big argument. At first he seems more frustrated than angry, but the discussion becomes very heated, as only true friends can argue. "Men don't want wives who argue," Knightley tells Emma, adding that "Harriet and Robert are not your dolls" and warning she will regret her meddling. As the first hour ends, we see the argument has made Emma thoughtful.

The second hour begins with the Christmas party at the Westons; the scenes are quite amusing, showing Emma's growing realization that Mr. Elton is making a play for her. As we had seen her before being very giggly with Harriet over the match, we also see her truly upset at Harriet's disappointment. There are also some very amusing moments, for instance when Emma has not received an invitation to the Coles' party and discusses it with Mr. Knightley. They have some very witty exchanges, with Knightley sometimes sarcastic in response to Emma's silliness—but always amused, never nasty.

The rest follows fairly closely to the plot of the book, but that isn't what I like best about this version. The miniseries format gives it a steady pace and depth that allows the film to portray both Emma and Mr. Knightley's growing feelings for each other. At the Coles' party, we see Emma very thoughtful as she considers Mrs. Weston's idea that Mr. Knightley gave Jane Fairfax a piano. When Emma is upset at the upstart Mrs. Elton and complains to Mr. Knightley, we see how he wishes she could get out and experience more of the world. We also see Mr. Knightley's growing jealousy of Frank Churchill—although after he dances with Emma at the ball, he shouldn't need to worry, as the scene wonderfully hints at the pair's growing feelings for each other, as do the scenes of both remembering the dance.

The casting and acting is also uniformly good, with care in all the minor roles. Jane Fairfax is quiet and reserved, as she should be, but we do see occasional hints of more as she reads Frank's letters or gets excited about the ball. We get additional scenes with the Bateses, and Miss Bates is appropriately dignified and flighty. Mr. Elton is suitably obsequious and ingratiating, while Mrs. Elton is infuriatingly interfering. And finally! We have a Harriet that looks the part, a sweet round face framed by lovely blond curls. Although she is obviously inexperienced and inferior in wit to Emma, we can also see her improvement in sense and sophistication over the film, enough that you might actually believe a sensible gentleman could overlook her background or her more polished friend.

Best of all the minor characters is Michael Gambon, better known as Professor Dumbledore in the later Harry Potter films; he is terrific as missish Mr. Woodhouse, obsessing over cake and health risks. In other versions the character can seem somewhat peevish, but Gambon shows his worry as grounded in losing the ones he loves, and we see him genuinely doting upon Emma and his family. To emphasize this, John Knightley's grumpy worrying provides an amusing counter to Mr. Woodhouse's loving concern.

BBC/PBS Masterpiece

Of course, the film really belongs to the two actors who play Emma and Mr. Knightley, Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller. I had never seen Garai in anything before, but I particularly liked her approach to the character. She made Emma able to hold her own with Mr. Knightley without seeming bratty, and really captured the combination of overconfidence and inexperience that makes the character. As for Jonny Lee Miller, he is not very tall, or darkly handsome, but I do believe he is my favorite Mr. Knightley. After all, Mr. Knightley is not supposed to be a lofty dreamboat like Mr. Darcy; he's the steady guy who's the treasure that's been under your nose for a long time but you were too stupid to see it. And as Miller plays him, we see his steadiness, his frustration (rather than anger), and his journey as he realizes the friend he has guided for so long means more to him than just a friend. I guess the Emma and Knightley in this version feel more like real, complicated people who evolve, rather than characters who follow a prescribed plot. This is the version that makes me understand why some people might find Emma their favorite Austen novel, so I recommend it if you're a fan.

Janespotting: Emma (1996 TV film)

Not long after the feature film version of Emma came out in 1996, this BBC adaptation appeared on American television. Although it was written by Andrew Davies, the same screenwriter who penned the previous year's Pride and Prejudice miniseries, this version was only two hours long. Nonetheless, the film opens with a scene that isn't in the book but is crucial to the conclusion: someone robbing a hen house and stealing chickens.

We are then very quickly taken through Emma and Harriet's interactions with Mr. Elton—we get no "courtship" puzzle to encourage them—and after just 20 minutes we are at the start of the Weston party, where Emma finally realizes that Elton has been courting her, not Harriet. Despite skimming over a lot of the Elton story, the film does take time to show Mrs. Weston and Mr. Knightley discussing Emma's relationship with Harriet (he thinks it is a bad idea), and throw in the line from the book that Mr. Knightley should like to see Emma "in love, and in some doubt of a return." I don't know why more adaptations don't use this line—probably because it suggests that Mr. Knightley is not thinking of Emma as a match for himself at this point— but I like it because it's nice ironic foreshadowing.

In any case, we swiftly get Emma's soon-broken vow to stop matchmaking, our first visits from Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill, the introduction of Mrs. Elton, and the events on Box Hill. The strawberry party is left out entirely (or else mashed together with Box Hill so thoroughly I didn't recognize it), which is no great loss, as the two events are rather similar. We do get a scene of Jane Fairfax weeping in a field, cluing us in to the revelation to come. However, in this version we don't see Emma really encourage Harriet in her new infatuation, which Emma thinks is for Frank Churchill but is really for Mr. Knightley, no comment that "raising your thoughts to him is a mark of good taste." This may seem like a minor quibble, but without it, Emma's discovery that she and Harriet love the same man loses a bit of effectiveness.

All is resolved happily, of course, and we get an added coda not in the book: a harvest dinner in which Emma gives an invitation to Robert Martin and sisters and gets to dance again with Mr. Knightley. The final scene is of more chicken raiding—so crucial to getting Mr. Woodhouse to agree to the marriage, as my college professor stressed when we read the book. I won't quibble with these additions, as they help illustrate the change in Emma's character while bringing the story full circle.

So the plot condensation had some pluses and minuses. What about the casting and acting? As Emma, Kate Beckinsale—the lone brunette to play the role—conveys a real sense of youth and inexperience, and is very good at conveying Emma's interior confusion and doubt when things don't turn out the way she expects. She's probably the most likeable Emma on film, although that may not be truest to the character.

Mark Strong is brooding and attractive, but his Mr. Knightley is very angry in arguing with Emma, almost uncomfortably so. He seems better suited to Mr. Darcy than Mr. Knightley, whom Austen describes as having "a cheerful manner, which always did him good." Raymond Coulthard's Frank Churchill has much the look of Ewan McGregor's, with charm and amiability but a little less smarm (and much better hair). The jewel here is Olivia Williams as Jane Fairfax, who is very good at showing subtle hints of her fondness for Frank Churchill. The screenplay also wisely includes her comment comparing the "governess trade" to the slave trade, giving her more wit than most adaptations, which make Jane as insipid as Emma thinks she is.

The one real drawback, again, is the miscasting of Harriet. Again, I remind you of Austen's description of the  "very pretty" Harriet: "She was short, plump, and fair, with a fine bloom, blue eyes, light hair, regular features, and a look of great sweetness." While Samantha Morton is a very good actress with two Oscar nominations to her credit, and as such gives Harriet the right temperament, her face is thin and sharp-featured, foxy rather than plump. Compared to Kate Beckinsale's radiantly elegant Emma, Harriet looks plain, again making it hard for me to believe that men would overlook her dubious background, or that Emma might believe she is a serious competitor for Knightley's attention.

So all in all, I think I prefer the other 1996 adaptation to this one, which doesn't have quite the wit and easiness of the Gwyneth Paltrow version. It's definitely worth a viewing, though, especially for comparison purposes. If you're at all interested in the mechanics of story, it's always a fun exercise to see what someone thinks are the essential elements when they create their adaptation.

Janespotting: Emma (1972 miniseries)

As one of Austen's most popular novels, Emma has been adapted for film and television multiple times, including twice in 1996 alone. I doubt I'll be able to view all of these adaptations, considering the earliest was in 1948, but I'm going to do my best. I'm particularly wanting to get the 1960 BBC miniseries with David McCallum, currently playing "Ducky" on NCIS, as Frank Churchill, but since I can't find it on DVD/tape anywhere, I'm starting with a later BBC version.

The 1972 BBC miniseries of Emma—amazingly, available at my library—is six 42-minute episodes. At nearly 4½ hours, that's long enough to be extremely faithful ... or extremely boring. You never know what to expect with some of these older adaptations, which can be overly formal, strangely decorated, or otherwise not suitable for modern tastes. This one was a pleasant surprise. The sets and costumes were appropriate, the direction was paced well and didn't call attention to itself, and the acting was, for the most part, restrained.

I did have some quibbles with the acting/casting choices, however. While the actress playing the title role was the right age for the part, she played Emma with a certain smugness I found off-putting. Her verbal sparring matches with Mr. Knightley were playful, but there was an unpleasant edge to them, like Emma cared more about winning the argument than listening to her friend. 

There were also some particularly weird changes concerning Jane Fairfax. First, on the occasion in the book that Emma and Harriet visit Miss Bates and end up hearing a letter from Jane Fairfax, instead she actually is in residence. Instead of the Dixons being the daughter and son-in-law of the Campbells, the family who took Jane in, they are a couple Jane meets on holiday who have offered her a position as governess. And when Miss Bates reveals that the Dixons have made such an offer, Jane Fairfax becomes upset that Miss Bates has revealed anything—to the point where she objects furiously, something out of character for someone who is supposed to be so reserved.

Why vary from the story, if not for time considerations? After watching for a while, it seemed as if the writer wanted the viewers to understand what was going on before Emma does. So we see Jane Fairfax clearly upset and hiding something, where in the book it's unclear why she is waiting to get a governess position. We get a new scene showing Harriet the day after the dance with Mr. Knightley, swooning over the chance to go to Donwell; in the book we are surprised along with Emma to learn that Harriet considers this dance a big service, not Frank Churchill saving her from gypsies.

Strangest of all, the writer removed both Mr. Elton and Jane Fairfax from the outing on Box Hill. Presumably getting rid of Elton was to emphasize that Mrs. Elton was taking liberties with leadership of Mr. Knightley's party, but that was already shown in the strawberry picking party. But by removing Jane as a witness to Frank and Emma's flirtation, there's no reason for her to suddenly accept a governess position and reject Emma's advances of friendship. After making Jane's discomfort so obvious before, that seems a strange choice.

Lastly, the ending had the characters seeming oddly direct for circumspect Austen characters. Emma never directly apologized to Miss Bates for insulting her in the book, but that awkward scene is in the film. In the book Mr. Wodehouse never says no to Emma's match with Mr. Knightley, although "he tried earnestly to dissuade her from it," but in the film he forbids it, briefly, before the report of hen thieves changes his mind.

While overall this was a fairly faithful adaptation of the novel, the changes they did make seemed to underestimate the viewers' intelligence, and also undermine Emma's character. When you read the book, Emma seems charming in her conviction, and we are just as surprised as she is when her matchmaking comes back to haunt her. In the film version, Emma seems a little snotty, even more so as we see how wrong she is while she continues in her mistakes. So while this was a very watchable version of Emma, it wasn't entirely satisfactory. Next time we'll see what differences condensing the story into a feature-length film can make.

Janespotting: Mansfield Park (2007 TV film)

So after a dull, overly faithful miniseries and a wild, horribly adapted feature film, how would PBS's recent "Masterpiece" adaptation of Mansfield Park perform? I was intrigued when I saw that it featured Billie Piper as Fanny Price, and not necessarily in a good way: I first knew of her as a manufactured teenybopper singer who was popular while we were living in London from 1998-2002; later, however, she did a great job as Companion Rose Tyler in the new Doctor Who's early seasons, although since the character had a broad working-class London accent I wondered how well she would portray a lady of the early 19th century. I also wondered how the film would condense the novel into a mere 90 minutes.

Turns out, pretty well. The film got straight to the point, having Fanny narrate the story of how she arrived at Mansfield Park (and fell in love with Edmund) during the first 2 minutes of opening credits. By 6 minutes in we were introduced to the Crawfords, and by 15 minutes in we were in the midst of the play. The first half hour wasn't even over and Maria was married and sent away on her honeymoon with Julia. While this might seem overly speedy, the first half hour hits all the essential points: Fanny is underappreciated, Edmund is her friend, Maria is a flirt, the Crawfords are intriguing, the play is naughty. (And this version, unlike the miniseries at 3½ times the length, took a few seconds to explain exactly why.)

As a reward for this rushed setup, we get a half hour devoted to Henry Crawford's pursuit of Fanny (including a picnic in place of the ball), and her steadfast refusals. In a major change from the original novel, this film doesn't send Fanny back to her family in Portsmouth; instead, she is left alone at Mansfield while the Bertrams and Mrs. Norris visit a distant relative. I've read some reviewers cavil about this change, claiming that it doesn't give Fanny a chance to consider how her refusal of Crawford may consign her to a life of relative poverty. But I think that's a minor quibble; the whole point of Fanny's character is not that she is swayed by financial concerns—the trip to Portsmouth doesn't change her mind, after all—but that she has come to consider Mansfield Park her home and its inhabitants her real family. Absenting everyone from the Park serves that purpose just as well, and it saves the time (and expense) of introducing a new setting and characters.

So if we have half an hour for the initial setup and half an hour for Crawford's pursuit, what's in the last half hour? As it turns out, a really nice romantic payoff. Tom is returned home in dire straits, the rest of the family becomes appreciative of Fanny, Mary Crawford makes a crass remark about Edmund inheriting, Maria runs away with Henry, and then we get 15 wonderfully romantic minutes of Edmund realizing he is in love with Fanny and finally declaring himself. Edmund, being a bit more shy than the average Austen hero, needs a little nudge to assist him; in this case it is supplied by Lady Bertram, who encourages them to spend a little time alone together, walking the Park grounds. (Jemma Redgrave—yes, one of those Redgraves, Colin's daughter—presents Lady Bertram as somewhat on the ball, a welcome change from the usual ditzy portrayals.) Words of love are exchanged, a wedding ensues; finally, a filmmaker who takes advantage of Austen's reticence to give us something that approaches a classic Austenish romantic denouement.

That's not to say there weren't some flaws; it did skim a lot of the events in the novel (no trip to Sotherton, no trip to Portsmouth) and gave short shrift to Mrs. Norris, one of Austen's nastiest villains. Fanny Price was styled like a country girl, with her hair loose, which wouldn't have been proper for the time period even if she was a poor relation. However, the cast was uniformly excellent: Blake Ritson (later to play Mr. Elton in the 2009 Emma) made an appropriately reticent Edmund; Michelle Ryan (star of the brief Bionic Woman remake) is the first Maria I've seen who really looked as well as acted the part of a sexy flirt; and Hailey Atwell is the best Mary Crawford I've seen yet, at first charming and flirtatious with just a hint of unsavory character, later gradually revealed. And Billie Piper? Although she may be a little too beautiful to play Fanny Price, even with the country styling making her more unfashionable than her cousins, she hit the right notes of steadfastness and shyness, and successfully allowed us to see Fanny's inner turmoil. All in all, although purists might quibble, I found this a good film adaptation that got to the heart of the story despite its shorter length. I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a decent historical romance.

Janespotting: Northanger Abbey, 2007 tv-film

After the psychedelic experience that was the 1987 adaptation of Northanger Abbey, I had high hopes for the 2007 version, especially when I saw it was written by Andrew Davies, the same person who penned the essential 1995 Pride & Prejudice (as well as the 1996 Kate Beckinsale Emma and the recent miniseries of Sense & Sensibility, as well as the sublime Bridget Jones's Diary). As this 2007 tv-film is only the second adaptation of NA, it didn't have a very high bar to clear to be the best ever, and I'm pleased to report it vaulted over that standard with no trouble at all.

My main problem with the previous version was in the tone—it was less a satire of the Gothic novel than a tribute to it—so I was extremely pleased when this version of NA began with Austen's own words in voiceover: "No one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy would have supposed her born to be an heroine." The film follows the plot very closely, and although it condenses a bit, we get the same progression as the book: an early acquaintance with Henry Tilney that happens almost by chance at the Pump Room; the growing friendship with Isabella and the growing interference of her brother; the friendship with Eleanor Tilney and the invitation to Northanger Abbey. This version brings in Gothic elements in ways that are clearly satirical: the characters read from the books, or talk about them, and occasionally we get an imagined scene that is exaggerated. It all remains true to the essential heart of the novel: Catherine is a true innocent, uncognizant of the real plots and intrigues that swirl around her even as she imagines Gothic ones that nearly cost her her chance at happiness.

Although the script is a big reason for the faithfulness of this version, much credit must be given to the casting and acting. Felicity Jones is perfect as Catherine; with her big eyes showing every emotion that crosses her face, she is innocent, open, and appealing. JJ Feild strikes the right note as Henry Tilney: playful, intrigued by Catherine's purity of spirit, and serious when he must go against his father's wishes. Just as good is recent Golden Globe-nominee Carey Mulligan as Isabella Thorpe, for she makes her a complex character who is sweet and sympathetic when Catherine first meets her, and only gradually reveals her flaws. The rest of the cast, as well as the costumes and settings, bring the rest of the novel to life just as you might envision it.

Altogether, this is a superb example of how an adaptation should be done, and this would be a great introduction to Northanger Abbey (or Austen) if you don't have time to read the book.

Janespotting: Northanger Abbey, 1987 TV-film

There haven't been many film adaptations for Northanger Abbey—the fewest of any of Austen's novels—probably owing to its relative lack of popularity as well as the difficulty of translating all the literary references to film. I felt fortunate that my library had the first such adaptation, a 90-minute BBC/A&E production broadcast in 1987. I approached it with a mixture of hope and trepidation. After all, less than a decade later a BBC/A&E collaboration would give us the sublime Pride & Prejudice mini-series. Still, 1987 might be a little early to expect an upgrade from the bland quality of some early productions. After having viewed this version of NA, however, I can safely say it wasn't bland. Instead, I think the writer and director might have erred a little too much in the other direction, for there were times I thought I might have enjoyed the film better if I had been on hallucinogens.

I understand that there is a challenge in conveying Catherine's interest in Gothic literature, one that is most easily met by showing scenes from these novels. In this adaptation these scenes are shown as Catherine's fantasies (starring Catherine and other characters), but often they bleed into scenes that are supposed to be taking place in the "real" world. For instance, there is one scene that in the novel takes place in Bath's Pump Room, but in the film is set in the Grand Bath. Men and women are in special swimming costumes (gowns for the ladies), still wear their elaborate hats, and have little plates worn around their necks that float in the water and hold edible treats. Evidently this co-ed bathing was a custom at the time (but without the hats), although as portrayed in the film it looks like something out of Fellini. A similarly bizarre scene occurs during Catherine's visit to the Abbey, when a visit from the General's friend the Marchioness (an invented character who looks ridiculously like a harlequin) leads to a fantasy involving the Marchioness's young African servant leading Catherine outdoors, where she is rescued by Henry on a horse. Extremely weird.

The strangeness wasn't helped any by several design elements, in particular the music, hair, and costumes. The latter involved lots of bright colors, tons of ribbons, huge feathers, and a style that was entirely too baroque for the era. The hair was very '80s, with lots of feathers and curls (even, God help us, on blond Henry Tilney). And the music ... completely bizarre and out of character. I get that they were trying to enhance the Gothic mood, but when you hear electric guitar and keyboard during landscape scenes, or a saxophone during a romantic scene, or Gregorian chants during the bathing scenes, it just takes you entirely out of the Austen mood.

I think that was my main problem with this adaptation: it doesn't have the Austen mood. I'm not sure they understood that Austen's NA is a satire of Gothic novels, not a tribute to them. This version too often tried to re-create the Gothic atmosphere—even to the point of exaggerating both James Thorpe's and General Tilney's characters so that they seem genuinely threatening—but the whole point of NA is that Catherine is seeking the Gothic in a place where it doesn't exist. And the one scene in the novel that most closely resembles the Gothic—when John Thorpe"kidnaps" Catherine for a coach ride when she has promised the Tilneys a walk—is for some reason omitted in favor of her first ride, when all he does is go a little too fast.

Still, I don't want to leave the impression this adaptation wasn't any fun at all. The performances were pretty good, especially Peter Firth (no relation to P&P's Colin Firth) as Henry Tilney. Some scenes were spot on (despite the music), especially the one where Catherine finally gets her countryside walk with the Tilneys, and I liked how they fleshed out the final romantic declaration that Austen is frequently too modest to detail. There were many good uses of dialogue directly from the book, and even one phrase that I believe is original but sounded so like Austen I had to look it up to see. As the film opens, and Catherine's brother calls her away from her book, she tells him, "literature and solitude are as necessary to a young woman's development as sunshine is to ripe fruit." Now that is a sentiment I can fully agree with.

More science, please.

Something rare happened the other night: Boy and I looked at our TIVO list, saw the second part of a miniseries, and looked at each other and said, "delete this, right?" It's a rare thing, because I almost always will stick with a story to find out the ending, even if it's poorly written/acted/filmed. Sometimes it's even fun to watch something trashy, in that so-bad-it's-good way. Boy and I call these kinds of programs "Cheesy goodness," and apply that label most often to disaster movies.

Ah, disaster movies. We can't get enough of them. My excuse is that I'm a child of the '70s, and grew up in a time when disaster movies were enjoying unprecedented popularity. The Towering Inferno? Loved it. The Poseidon Adventure? Ate it up. Earthquake with Sensurround*? I still remember feeling the seats in the old Michigan Theater shake. Boy, of course, is a boy. When he was little, he was fascinated by disasters; destruction was even better than construction. We watched a lot of Discovery Channel; if there was a volcano/tornado/hurricane/earthquake/meteor strike, he was fascinated. There was a renaissance of sorts of the disaster movie in the late '90s, so we watched them all: Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano, Dante's Peak ... so cheesy, but such fun to watch all the destruction!

Television networks believe that summer is the best time to dump their cheesy disaster flicks, which often look like an episode of the Love Boat, with all the network's various series stars showing up to take parts. In 2004 NBC aired 10.5, about a super-duper killer earthquake, and followed that up two years later with a sequel, 10.5: Apocalypse. We wallowed in the cheesy goodness. It was stupid and totally predictable, but that was part of the fun.

So we were excited this summer when not one but two (because of course no television network comes up with anything original, or if they do they soon kill it) miniseries were scheduled to air about big space objects hitting the earth. The first one aired on ABC; called Impact, it featured a celestial object striking the moon, sending big chunks our way. It got a little out there when it turned out the object that hit the moon was a brown dwarf that made our gravity go crazy, but overall it was just as advertised: cheesy goodness. I'm willing to suspend disbelief quite a long way as long as I get lots of destruction, with scientists predictably saving the day.

Our first sign that NBC's earth-meets-space-object miniseries, Meteor, might not be up to even our low standards came in the very first shot: a large, rocky object sailing through the darkness of space, trailing gas and making whooshing noises. "Hey," Boy said, "that's dumb. There's no air to carry sound in space!" I snorted and kept watching the first pieces of meteor hit in California overnight. Things went boom! Yay! I kept watching, between increasingly ridiculous predicaments facing a various characters—a couple of which had nothing to do with the meteor—as over the next ten hours of story as all the meteor pieces kept hitting in the same town in California.

Okay, I'm willing to suspend disbelief to a certain point, but you're telling me the scriptwriters couldn't be bothered to incorporate what Copernicus discovered in the 16th century, that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its axis? (Thus meaning that any meteor fragments would be land at different points the earth, "traveling" like the sunrise.) By the time the ingenue scientist had survived running out of gas, having her mentor splatted by a van, encountering thugs who had taken over a police station and tried to rape her, and being imprisoned by border patrol, only to have the car taking her and her vital data to safety be struck by a meteor-ignited gas hauler, I'd had enough. If there isn't any science in your science fiction**/disaster flick, if you're going to treat me like I'm really that stupid, I can't be bothered.

Good thing Wipeout is on tonight; Boy and I will watch something mindless that doesn't insult us.

*Sensurround, aka souped-up subwoofers, was pioneered in Earthquake, actually winning the film an Oscar for best sound.
**Don't get me started on the atrocity that is Total Recall. I could rant for days on the errors in that film.

Not my job....

As I was driving down Ford Road today, I was contemplating the usual Road Kill Rodeo: raccoons (they must be the stupidest of animals, they're the most frequent victims), deer, squirrels, possum, etc etc etc. I was also contemplating the bright, new, yellow stripes and rumble strips recently placed down the middle of the road.

I also contemplated how at least three or four of those unfortunate animals now had double yellow stripes painted down the middle of their remains. The road workers couldn't be bothered to nudge the little corpses out of the way before applying paint to the road. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt; perhaps the painting is automated and they can't see the carcasses to move them. If that's the case, shouldn't someone invent a cowcatcher-type device to reduce interference? Otherwise, some time in the near future there will be little animal corpse-sized gaps in the yellow lines, and that can't be good.

Still, on a hot and humid day like today I am very glad that road-kill picker-upper is not my job. If your curious what that job is like, and you've never seen the awesome show that is Dirty Jobs on Discovery, take a look at the first half of this video, and be glad no one has yet perfected Smell-o-Vision:

Janespotting: Sense and Sensibility (2008 miniseries)

When PBS announced that they would be airing a new version of Sense and Sensibility as part of their Jane Austen season, I was very curious to see how it would turn out. (Actually, my first thought was, "Why bother?," but I suppressed that in favor of curiosity.) I was particularly interested when I discovered that this version was scripted by Andrew Davies, who also penned the 1995 miniseries of Pride and Prejudice. Give him three hours, I thought, and surely we'd end up with something much more interesting than the 1981 series.

It was certainly more modern; this version opens with the seduction of Colonel Brandon's ward Eliza, tastefully (and briefly) shot by firelight, before moving on to the Dashwoods at the deathbed of their husband/father. Then we are allowed to linger over Edward's visit to Norland, getting a complete picture of his growing relationship with Elinor, including her puzzlement over his reluctance to speak his feelings. The remainder of the series is fairly faithful to the book, including two scenes that were omitted from the 1995 film: Edward's strained visit to Barton Cottage, and Willoughby's attempt to ask forgiveness during Marianne's illness. The latter scene is a bit changed from the novel, with Marianne overhearing Willoughby's confession. It's not the only little addition; besides a few extra scenes between Elinor and Edward and Elinor and Marianne—very nice for developing character—we also get a full rendering of the duel between Brandon and Willoughby that is only briefly mentioned in the novel. Finally, we get many more scenes between Brandon and Marianne near the conclusion, so that we can truly believe her when she says she is marrying him out of love and not just gratitude.

The production values are vastly superior to the older miniseries; best of all is the use of the Devonshire countryside, including the wild, rocky coast. The cast is full of British vets, including Oscar-nominated Janet McTeer (Tumbleweeds, 1999) as Mrs. Dashwood, and they all perform very well. Hattie Morahan conveys Elinor's hidden emotions through a mere widening of eyes, and Charity Wakefield makes for a pretty and passionate Marianne who comes to realize she needs wisdom. David Morrissey is a strong and silent Brandon (who wins in a duel, taking care of that vile puppy—rowr!) and Dan Stevens is an amiable Edward. Strangely, he looks very similar to Hugh Grant's Edward from the 1995 film, which was a little distracting:

Still, overall I thoroughly enjoyed this version, which brought the novel to life—and perhaps a made it a little more lively than the original. I'm not sure I like it as much as the 1995 film, but I'll have to explore that when I'm done reviewing all the other S&S adaptations out there. Definitely, though, if you like the novel and haven't seen this version, you'll want to seek it out.

Janespotting: Sense and Sensibility (1981 BBC series)

This is the earliest adaptation of Austen's Sense and Sensibility that I could get my hands on.* It was produced by the BBC as a 7-part series in 1981, with each part lasting around half an hour. Of course, I didn't think it would measure up to my gold standard, the 1995 film, but I hoped that with 174 minutes to devote to the story, it would at least be a faithful and detailed rendition.

It took me a while to get into this version; it was taped, not filmed, and the sound quality/mixing was just dreadful—dialogue swallowed and lots of empty, silent spaces where people were just moving around. That was the style back then, and after a while I got accustomed to it. I also got used to the blandness of the scenery and costumes. Sure, Regency England isn't supposed to be particularly colorful, but in S&S Marianne is always enjoying the beauty of the outdoors, and we didn't get to see much besides sunlit grass and trees, maybe a nice walking path. Pretty, but all very similar in look.

I'd like to say that the actors made up for the blandness of the visuals and sound, but alas! It was all very mannered and stage-y. (I wasn't familiar with any of the five romantic leads; looking them up on IMDb, I saw one appeared on an episode of the new Dr. Who, and another on a couple episodes of Babylon 5; other than that, their credits were all British TV—no future stars like P&P's Colin Firth among the cast.) I don't know if it was the actors' or director's choice to remove all hints of wit from Edward and Elinor, or make Marianne seem flighty instead of passionate, but in any case, it sucked a little more life out of the story.

As far as using the luxury of time to be faithful to the novel? Well, I was disappointed there, too. They completely cut out the character of the third Dashwood sister, Margaret, who sets up some of the story by accidentally revealing the initial of Elinor's favorite to Mrs. Jennings and Sir John Middleton, who then tease her mercilessly. This provides some amusement at their indelicacy, but also tension after Elinor discovers Edward is engaged to another. I don't know why they removed the character—they didn't want to deal with a child actor, perhaps—but as a result it sucked just a little more wit and drama out of an already bland production.

I don't mean to say that watching this version was unbearable. It was pleasant enough, and it was interesting seeing some of the scenes that didn't make the feature film, such as Willoughby's confession while Marianne is sick. Still, this version is bland and has little of the sparkle and wit that I think distinguishes Austen's work. I'd rather spend the time and re-watch the 1995 version (twice). Here's hoping that the recent BBC adaptation is more worthwhile.

*There's also a 1971 BBC adaptation, but it's not available in the U.S. I'm very curious, since the actress who plays Elinor is Joanna David, who played Mrs. Gardiner in the 1995 P&P miniseries and is also the mother of the actress who played Georgiana. But I knew I wouldn't be able to access every single adaptation, so my curiosity will have to go unsatisfied.

Janespotting: Lost in Austen

I had heard inklings about this 2008 British TV miniseries—someone commented about it on an earlier Janespotting post, and I recently read that director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) is producing a film version of it—so I thought I would keep on the lookout for it. The premise sounded fairly intriguing: a modern Austen fan somehow exchanges places with Elizabeth Bennet, right at the beginning of Pride and Prejudice. When I saw a marathon was airing on Ovation TV, I set the DVR and thought I'd watch the four hours over the next week or so.

Whoops. I started watching the first hour on a Sunday night, and got completely sucked in. The main character, Amanda Price, finds herself in the Bennett household and attempts to make the events of the book happen, even though Elizabeth is not there. Because of her modern dress and knack for saying or doing the wrong thing, everything gets messed up. By the end of the first episode, Bingley is infatuated with Amanda, not Jane; Jane ends up married to Mr. Collins; and Charlotte Lucas has left for Africa to become a missionary.

Well, I had to watch the second episode right away, and thought about starting the third, but decided I should get to bed before 11. I went to sleep wondering what would happen, and woke up thinking maybe I'd just watch a little bit. I managed to hold off—I had an assignment due that day—and watched just a little bit at lunch. I finished my assignment and was sucked back to the TV. I devoured episode three and had to leave episode four behind to go help teach TKD class, but all the while I was wondering how in the world they would resolve Amanda's dilemma: would she fix the storyline of the novel—messed up even more in episodes 2 & 3—or would she find a way to stay with Darcy? I wasn't sure which ending I wanted to see, but I was ultimately pleased with it once I got back home and forced the boys to let me finish watching. The DVD goes on sale in a week and I'll be snatching up my own copy.

Give credit to writer Guy Andrews, a longtime British TV screenwriter who will also be writing the film version: it's a wonderful concept, one that I'm sure many readers have imagined. What if I could live in the world of P&P? I bet I could be just like Elizabeth, and have Darcy fall in love with me. This series explores this idea to the hilt, complete with all sorts of anachronistic amusements; yet there are several poignant moments as well. The series somehow re-creates and reimagines Austen's world and characters (many have backstories to discover), at the same time it explores our fascination with it. While there were a few logical holes (for someone who gets thrown out of polite society so often, Amanda keeps getting invited back), I thought it was clever and funny and tender and just plain hard to stop watching; I loved it and I'm sure it will be in regular rotation with my favorite Austen-based DVDs in the future.

If you want a peek, take a look at the trailer here; be prepared, you may want to freeze it around the 1:20 mark, to enjoy the full "wet Darcy" effect.

The Word Nerd Wonders: Is rebranding like an STD?

Last week was long and stressful, so I spent much of yesterday doing odds and ends, surfing the internet and cleaning up more of my office.* I was browsing through some agent blogs when I came across this on the Swivet: cable's "Sci Fi Channel" is changing their name. To Syfy.

According to the network's president, they didn't want their name to imply that they limit themselves to just one genre. The new name, which is pronounced the same as "Sci Fi," is "a broader, more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand." (To hell with the cyborg audience!) "It gives us a unique word and it gives us the opportunities to imbue it with the values and the perception that we want it to have," he said.

Well, you do your best to imbue it, Mr. Network Chief, but the switch is going communicate certain values and perceptions. First, that you think television viewers are scared by a name that contains abbreviations for Science—oh no! I might have to think!—and Fiction—that's like literature! save me! (On the other hand, that might explain their increasing reliance on pro wrestling and paranormal "reality" shows in their programming, while Battlestar Galactica, one of the best and deepest shows on TV, is coming to an end.) Second, that "Sci Fi" has too much of a niche audience to be successful. I particularly enjoyed this quote from a former Sci Fi executive:

“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.

Mr. Brooks said that when people who say they don’t like science fiction enjoy a film like “Star Wars,” they don’t think it’s science fiction; they think it’s a good movie.

Gee, thanks for the stereotypes! I love sci fi, and yet I'm female, socially functional, and don't live in a basement. (Okay, I admit I'm a nerd, and maybe even a geek, but still....) And about that second statement ... let's just consider the top 10 all-time US box office films: Titanic; The Dark Knight; Star Wars; Shrek 2; ET; Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace; Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest; Spider-Man: Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith; and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Of those top 10 films, only one (Titanic) does not have any sci fi, fantasy, or comic book elements. It doesn't seem to me like general audiences are afraid of sci fi. Maybe he hit it on the head with the "good movie" requirement, though. When most of your original programming consists of gems like Mansquito, you probably do need a good rebranding.

Whatever. But I think a worse, second problem awaits your new name. You obviously didn't consider the dictionary when you picked your creative spelling. If you look at the nine columns in Webster's of words that start with the letters "sy-," you'll notice all but a couple obscure ones** are pronounced with a short i. Sycamore. Syllable. Sympathy. Syncopate. Synonym. System. And my favorite (because I'm a science nerd), syzygy.***

So, Mr. Television Honcho, what is going to happen when all those new viewers you want to attract see your new name? They're going to think it sounds like "siffy." Will they think of the one word that begins with s-i-f, sift? No, my bet is they're going to think of the one word that begins with s-y-f-sound. That's right. Your shiny new network name is going to make people think of syphilis.

Well, they do say that p0rn does well during an economic downturn. Good luck with your new shows, like Battlestar Erotica, Stargate-S&M1, and co-ed p0rn wrestling. But I won't be coming out of my basement to watch.

*I mean to finish today or tomorrow, really I do.
**these include sycee, an ancient Chinese coin; sycosis, a crusty inflammation of hair follicles (ew!); and syenite, an igneous rock mainly made of feldspar.
***syzygy: the nearly straight-line configuration of three celestial bodies in a gravitational system, like our sun, moon, and the Earth during an eclipse.

Janespotting: Oh, Mr. Darcy! (P&P 1995 miniseries)

That's right, ladies, it's time to fetch your fainting couches: I'm writing about the 1995 BBC/A&E miniseries of Pride and Prejudice, starring Jennifer Ehle and (sigh!) Colin Firth. This is the version that is almost universally beloved, and for good reason. At five hours, it has the time to be completely faithful to the novel. All the characters we love are there, fully developed, and in some cases we see a little more that is in the novel.* Luckily, the writing is faithful to Austen's wit, too, and the pacing is so good that it is really difficult to stop watching once you start. Looking at where they placed the breaks for the miniseries, originally broadcast in six parts, provides a great lesson on pacing and cliffhangers:

1: Lizzy and Jane leave Netherfield; Mr. Bingley could be in love with Jane
2: Lizzy refuses the proposal of Mr. Collins, upsetting her mother
3: Lizzy refuses Mr. Darcy—she didn't even know he was in love with her!
4: Lizzy leaves Pemberley after seeing Darcy again—could he still love her?
5: Lydia's scandal is resolved, but Lizzy worries that Mr. Darcy might still think ill of her
6: Happily married, Lizzy and Mr. Darcy kiss (swoon!)

Of course, we wouldn't be sucked into the story so completely if we didn't fall in love with the characters. Brilliant perfomances abound; even the minor characters have been cast with care. Jennifer Ehle is a charming, witty Lizzy; even when she isn't speaking, her eyes sparkle. (Since Darcy's first admission to finding her interesting is in contemplating her "fine eyes," this is more important than it sounds.)

The performance that makes this the definitive Pride and Prejudice, however, is that of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. It is Darcy's character, after all, who makes the greatest journey: from arrogant indifference to thwarted lover to earnest friend. Firth makes this change evident; what is more remarkable is that he does it without very much dialogue. He doesn't say much, instead managing show Darcy's subtle changes through a pointed look, a slight smile, a raised eyebrow. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Colin Firth is totally dreamy, tall, dark, and handsome.** For many people, Firth is irrevocably connected with the character—just ask Helen Fielding, whose Bridget Jones's Diary, loosely based on Pride and Prejudice, made him the focus of Bridget's obsession. (This connection hasn't hurt his career, as he's gone on to appear and star in many big films, including The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Mamma Mia, and, most ironically, as Mark Darcy in the aforementioned Bridget Jones's Diary.)

For anyone who loves Austen, period drama, romance, or just plain good storytelling, you could do worse than sit down with a bottle of wine, a box of chocolates, and the DVD of this miniseries of Pride and Prejudice.

*You'll notice that while purists complain about other versions that leave out characters or subplots or change the details of the setting a little bit, you never hear someone say, "Mr. Darcy never would have dived into a lake and appeared in a wet shirt—they should have left that bit out."
**See above regarding the bathing and fencing scenes.

My secret boyfriend...

Hey, ladies, you know we all have one. You know, that special man that we see every day (or week, or year), up on the movie or television screen. That one guy that is just so perfect that even your husband wouldn't mind if you ran away with him. (Okay, the husband might mind because who would make dinner and change the cat box if you ran away, but he's a practical guy, so he doesn't worry about the miniscule chance you will ever meet your secret boyfriend, let alone get close enough to run away with him. Men are no fun—except my secret boyfriend, he would understand.) Oh, if only he could meet me, my secret boyfriend would tell me I am perfect just the way I am and give me my own luxury home filled with kittens and a maid to clean all the litter boxes.

And how do I know a certain someone is my secret boyfriend? Well, not only is he cute, he's intelligent and funny. And sometimes, it's like he's actually reading my mind:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Autoerotic Explanation

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video