I see your point, and many others have made it on these boards; the Sir Thomas in the book was not accused of being a rapist or a cruel slaveowner. However, may I just suggest to you that anyone who owned slaves in the Carribean at this time must have been complicit in the kind of behaviors that you find so repellent? To me, the fact that you take offense with this depiction of a slaveowner suggests that you do not think that, on the whole, slaveowners were all that bad.
Rape, torture, beating, and general mistreatment were all a normal and (shudder) accepted part of that society. Just because Austen does not mention it in the novel doesn't mean we are meant to suppose that Sir Thomas is some kind of ideal man, a "good master" or some nonsense. Please. To assume that the default slave owner was kind and sympathetic is, frankly, naive. Perhaps Jane Austen was not aware of the conditions in Carribean sugar plantations, but we are today, and I refuse to be offended by the fact that the writer/director has added this layer of complexity to our modern understanding of the story.
While I am sure that not all slave drivers treated their slaves in this manner, you cannot deny that many, many slave women were raped. Many, many slaves were beaten. And the entirety of "polite" society just turned their backs on it. Sir Thomas's son's depictions of lurid, nightmarish drawings from Antigua reflected his own dark nature, but undoubtedy reflected the realities of life that he had witnessed. Their inclusion in the film actually made me sypathize with the wastrel son. One could see how he resented and judged his father. I found it very interesting to conceive of him as an artistic type who was deeply affected by what he saw in Antigua. He does nothing to change it, but in the end it is his horror over what he has seen, combined with Fanny's more stern and morally upright judgment, that influences the father to change his business (to something also dependent on slave labor, but I digress...)
What I love about this adaptation is that the filmmaker resists depicting Sir Thomas as a complete monster. He appears to be conflicted, seemingly mortified when Fanny realizes what he has done. And even though we judge him for his deeds, he is still the moral center of the family. He maintains an upright and virtuous code within his own household, despairing at the decadence of both his wayward son and daughter while recognizing Fanny's own superior character. He is both noble and deeply, deeply flawed. I like the ambiguity; it led me to a deeper reflection on the hypocrisies surrounding the slave-owning class.
Perhaps we are to think that Sir Thomas's own conflicted nature leads him to be unduly harsh and repressive to his own family...yet somehow, his moral faults lead to a decay in his household, which leads to his son's depressive behavior and his daughter's desperate and brazen willingness to escape. It's like some kind of darkness or rot that imbues the entire family. (The director has said as much in her commentary, so I'm not saying anything new here...just find it a very interesting theme to bring out).
Even Austen's novel contained foreboding hints that Sir Thomas was a somewhat dark and oppressive man, but she too depicted him as moderate and somewhat judicious in regards to Fanny. In this way, then, I honestly think the script was loyal to Austen's novel...maybe reading very, very deeply between the lines, but I think the book supports it. It's certain that abolition was a huge political issue of her day, and even if Austen was not writing directly about it, it must have been in the back of her mind as well as that of her readers.
I also think this film was scrupulously honest and brave in depicting the brutal reality of slavery. This is one of the most subversive of Austen's novels, and so it is seems to support this kind of modern critique fairly well. Perhaps it is "revisionist" to some, but to me it is just an honest look at the realities of life in Austen's day. Of course the filmmaker is inserting words into Fanny's mouth - elements of Jane Austen's own life, as well as a modern social critique that we would only hope Austen might sympathize with - but to me, it works in the context of this particular adaptation.
Sorry to ramble on for such a time. This is one of the most interesting adaptations of a novel I have ever seen.
reply
share
ohayayay
15 years ago
Also, just wanted to note something - on one of the drawings, Thom Jr. had labeled the scene of a slave woman being raped "the neighbors," suggesting that this was a scene he witnessed at a neighboring plantation.
Thus, perhaps we were meant to think that the only sin directly committed by sir Thomas was the affair with his mulatto slave, and the beatings and the rapes were peripheral to his estate, or just grim realities of society in generl. This sounds like I'm apologizing for him, but I'm actually trying to account for the fact that Fanny and even Thom seem to reconcile with the father's behavior by the end of the movie. I mean, how could Fanny look him in the eye and imagine that he had done all these things with his own hand? He was associated and complicit in all of them, so perhaps its a moot point, but it seems significant that one especially horrific drawing was labeled "the neighbors," as if to suggest that all the worst things happened on another estate.
While I do think that the affair with his slave was rape (as his social inferior, she was considered his property and likely had no choice in the matter) it may not have been considered quite as barbaric as the obviously violent rapings and beatings depicted in the other drawings. I'm not saying it wasn't vile and repulsive, but the picture book seems to make a distinction between the scenes showing "neighbors" violently assaulting and beating slaves, versus the one scene of the father standing over the slave woman in a clearly intimate situation.
I don't know...what do others think? Are we supposed to gather that Fanny just tried to forget all about it, having no other choice, or that she was able to forgive him because of that one speech he made at his son's death bed?
reply
share
unionjgirl
15 years ago
"I see your point, and many others have made it on these boards; the Sir Thomas in the book was not accused of being a rapist or a cruel slaveowner. However, may I just suggest to you that anyone who owned slaves in the Carribean at this time must have been complicit in the kind of behaviors that you find so repellent? To me, the fact that you take offense with this depiction of a slaveowner suggests that you do not think that, on the whole, slaveowners were all that bad."
I don't think that's what people are saying. My problem is that the way the slavery issue was dealt with changed Austen's characters, which the movie seemed to have no problem doing in other areas as well. It makes Tom (the younger) seem troubled by demons of conscience, when in reality (figuratively speaking), he was just a spoiled brat who only changed his habits when his brush with death made him more serious and mindful of his own mortality.
"Perhaps we are to think that Sir Thomas's own conflicted nature leads him to be unduly harsh and repressive to his own family...yet somehow, his moral faults lead to a decay in his household, which leads to his son's depressive behavior and his daughter's desperate and brazen willingness to escape."
I think this reading seriously boils down Austen's point to something so simple it makes the characters less interesting. The children are all brats because Sir Thomas owns slaves? I don't think that was Austen's goal. I think, along with slavery, there was a anti-colonialism note she was striking, but also that the faults of the characters are more than the result of one very dark aspect of their lives, and even that involvement in the slave trade could be the result and symptom of those faults.
Austen was making some references to the slave trade in the novel, using the name Mansfield and having one conversation where Fanny attempts to converse with Sir Thomas on the slave trade. And there is a constant use of the language of tyranny when it comes to Sir Thomas and Fanny's father. But the movie used Austen's work cheaply. I don't think they were being "scrupulously honest and brave", I think they were exploiting a dramatic element they felt would shock the audience.
It is a subversive novel, but it is also subtle, something the movie definitely is not. It took Fanny from a quiet but observant woman to a mini-Austen, spouting quotes from different works, and different characters from the novel. They tried to make this novel a more 'interesting' period piece for a mainstream audience, and lost a great deal of the delicacy of the original.
reply
share