This adaptation on the whole.

And why does Davies always have to insert a sexual element. Sure Isabella was mercenary, I rather doubt she would go as far as having sex to get engaged.

Summeriris, this was a problem for me, as well. I want to watch this again (as well as the 1987 version) before commenting too much, but, having recently finished a re-read of the novel, I was struck - again! - by Andrew Davies perverse prurience. You were right some months back, when, referent to a different Austen adaptation of his, you noted that he did much better with Sue Birtwislte producing - and I would speculate, directors who knew how to mitigate and minimize Davies' obsession with introducing illicit sex, or at least, suggestions in that direction, beyond Austen's intentions. Which is stupid of him, as Austen did NOT flinch from introducing the subject herself - when she felt it necessary for her story.

In this adaptation, when Captain Frederick Tilney speaks to Henry of the mess drinking to Miss Thorpe for a fortnight, there is no mistaking his meaning and intent.

But, in the novel, it is Henry who says to Catherine that "The mess-room will drink Isabella Thorpe for a fortnight, and she will laugh with your brother over poor Tilney's passion for a month."

Changing the speaker and truncating the line as Davies does utterly rewrites the meaning, as it cannot be reasonably imagined that Jane Austen intended us to think that this "nice," precise, proper clergyman, Henry Tilney, would speak to a very innocent young girl of his brother's lascivious intent with regard to her particular friend.

In addition, while John Thorpe is a thorough lout, he is also an impulsive hothead - can we believe he would regard his sister's despoiling (of course, in Bath, this could not have remained secret long - and must materially lessen John's own prospects for an advantageous marriage) without an ensuing challenge by him to Captain Tilney?

Apparently, Davies becomes so inflamed with his own sexualized imagination as to reduce him to narrative myopia.


Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I like the look of this one very much, and like the two leads in their roles. But the more of Austen's era I read about and see, the less I like the way Davies turns everything "sexy". I think this version, more than anything else he's done, has been ruined a bit by "sexing it up".

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I liked some of it a lot, actually, and some of it not at all. JJ Feild was a delightful Henry Tilney, if perhaps a bit over-elfin. And I enjoyed Felicity Jones' Catherine a great deal, I would like to see more of this actress' work.

But Jones is, for me, a bit too much of a stand-out. She seems very special, and one of the things I did like about the relatively lackluster 1987 version was how very well it presented Catherine (nicely played by Katharine Schlesinger, IMO) as a very sweet, but rather ordinary girl. This Catherine does not come across as at all ordinary, to me - her looks as well as her delivery speak character, distinction. Or at least, more than I think of Miss Moreland as possessing.

I also found Liam Cunningham (an excellent actor) too obviously ill-natured; he raises our antennae from the character's introduction. And there are points at which his attentions to Miss Moreland see almost salacious (thanks, Mr. Davies). You've noted the General turning Catherine out in the middle of the night - as bad as he is, the novel doesn't propose that.

I though Robert Hardy in the 1987 worked it better; he seems so gracious, yet there is something "off," that one cannot at first put one's finger on - which is Catherine's reaction when she dines with the family - her friends are subdued, uncommunicative, in their father's presence, yet he is making himself so (surface) agreeable to her that she is puzzled by the atmosphere. The 1987, IMO, got that right, and the 2007 did not.

BOTH versions fail in fidelity in their succumbing to making Northanger so much Catherine's vision of an Abbey - Austen very explicitly crushed that. And both over-indulge in the orgasmic raptures of Catherine's fantasies. Taking up, frankly, far too much of the short running time each film has, and jettisoning or giving very short shrift to other aspects. As you say, I'd have preferred more of Catherine's reality and less of her fantasies.

I loved the Moreland family - good in the 1987, excellent in the 2007. And Sylvestra Le Touzel beat out even the great Googie Withers as Mrs. Allen. I really must see her "Mansfield Park."

The Thorpes are all good in both versions.

I've expounded on my dim view of the sexing-up Davies does; the alterations required to torture that aspect into a rather straightforward narrative are beyond unfortunate. I'm willing to handwave a young lady in her bath, but a young lady in a purported suitor's bed is something entirely different, and, to me, utterly unpalatable as an adapter's invention. Isabella is not that stupid, I don't believe, and the consequences would have been dreadful for her entire family. Possibly also for Captain Tilney, as John Thorpe would almost certainly have flung down a gauntlet at his sister's defloration, and might have got lucky in a duel.

Neither film is without flaw, both make errors, often the same ones. One has to wonder. The novel is not Austen's best, and perhaps her least profound, but still, as source material, I'd think it deserved some respect. I think there's a teensy bit more respect in the 1987, but it doesn't hang together well (I like Peter Firth's Henry Tilney, though, as well as others I've mentioned). The 2007 is a more coherent piece of work, but not terribly satisfying.

Edited because I found I'd spelled "introduction" as "introfuction." Davies' influence.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply share

add reply

formatting help