Yes, Kate (A bit of a Rant)
Posted by Mark on December 04, 1997 at 10:21:51:
In response to P&P0 and P&P2, written by Kate on December 04, 1997 at 08:50:20
] ] ] Seriously though, I have always looked upon the adaptations as just another carefully considered opinion. (P&P0 doesn't count!)
] ] May I ask *why* P&P0 doesn't count? I know it's very much shortened, but I really enjoyed it, and never think of Lady Catherine de Bourgh without hearing it as Collins said it in that movie.
] I think by COUNTING, Mark means that it is a serious attempt to interpret the novel to modern audiences. By changing the period, the plot and the characters so much as it did, I think he's trying to say that it is not such a serious attempt.
Precisely correct, Kate. Thank-you. They sliced, diced, and hashed P&P to make a two-hour movie. With so many changes, how can you tell what is interpretation, and what is Hollywood trash?
For example, in P&P2 the screenwriter, Andrew Davies, has Elizabeth say the line, "I am determined that only the deepest of love will ever induce me into Matrimony". That is not in the book anywhere, but we are having a lively discussion on these pages as to whether or not Elizabeth would ever say that. That is interpretation. It shows Mr. Davies' ideas on the character of Elizabeth. I am a purist, but I am a purist for the ideas of the novel, not necessarily for the written word, per se. So I don't mind when Mr. Davies', or any other screenwriter takes liberties with a novel as long as it is true to the book.
There is no way that anybody can argue with a straight face that P&P0 is true to the book. Mr. Collins is a librarian, and Lady Catherine is plotting with Darcy to win Elizabeth's affections?!? Come on, already.
That is what I meant by P&P0 not counting as a serious interpretation of the Novel. It's fun, yes, but it is not P&P.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.