I am not familiar with her life, but is this story at all accurate? If so, I find it interesting that the names of the people in her life mirror her novel's characters. I thought Fanny looks a lot like Kate Winslett. Anyone else? All in all, good story and pace. Good follow-up from last weeks disastrous Mansfield Park, Starring Billie Piper.
shareWell, there's not much about Jane Austen known... The majority of her letters were burned... There's still a ton about family facts, her brother's lives and everything... What she felt emotionally is based a lot on speculation though.
So this film got the facts right, like her brother going bankrupt and all. What went on in her mind would be unknown... if she really was that stressed like in the movie... who knows?
"Well, there's not much about Jane Austen known... The majority of her letters were burned... "
Her sister Cassandra sure was a drag on her, and after life, destroyed what literary historians needed to tell us what she was really like. With big sisters like that, who needs family??
Some of Austen's existing letters have tasteless moments. Here's the most famous example, about a recently-bereaved mother:
"Mrs. Hall, of Sherborne, was brought to bed yesterday of a dead child, some weeks before she expected, owing to a fright. I suppose she happened unawares to look at her husband."
Oh ha ha ha, how too amusing. Now, imagine you're Cassandra and you have a trunk full of indiscreet letters that cast a very bad light on your deceased sister. Do you
i) keep everything safe and let posterity think your sister was a complete cow,
or
ii) decide that what was meant for private eyes should not be seen by a wider audience, and burn the incriminating stuff?
Cassandra had to make a choice between her sister's reputation and the desires of the wider public. I for one don't blame her for choosing to side with her sister.
I think Cassandra was very brave and did the right thing. It would be wonderful to read through them now. I'd almost rather have those than anyone else's correspondence. But it's not my business what the two sisters privately thought of all their acquaintance and at the time, as threeoranges points out, they could have killed her reputation and her work.
In was a similar instinct that made Churchill destroy the millions of intercepted signals at Bletchley Park in 1945. What a goldmine for historians. But how long would the recriminations have gone on if everyone knew everything about everything?
Disastrous Mansfield Park? What, you didn't like the way they rushed through the movie, shoved it into 1 hour 20 minutes, and messed with the plot? Tsk tsk, how blasphemous. jk, it was awful, wasn't it?
share[deleted]
I was surprised about that fact, too. Was it due to her being a female author? I know George Sand and others used male pen names.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
I had thought that also, so I was surprised about the one scene where her books' praises were being sung.
* ...my very own riot...that's just about the nicest thing I ever heard. *
Their being published anonymously didn't mean people weren't capable of figuring out who the author was ("Primary Colors," anyone?)
shareSo, someone like the person who praised her at the palace had read them, even displayed three of them. But the general public had not bought many copies? I wonder if any in the family lived to reap the eventual financial profit from the sale of Jane's books, particularly the mother. Hopefully, at least the niece with the six step-children came into the fortune.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
Although her books where published anonymously, her brother Henry would tell just about everyone he met that his sister wrote them; and so by the time Mansfield Park (her third book) was published, word of who the author was had started to spread. She only received 700 pounds total for her works; and she sold the copyright to Pride and Prejudice outright when she first published it, so her family would have never received any royalties or money from future editions of that novel. Her books were moderately successful during her lifetime, but successful enough that she was buried in Winchester Cathedral, a place usually kept for famous literary figures.
As for the portrait, that was the only known portrait of her for quite a long time. It was done by her sister Cassandra, who was by no means a professional painter--Jane's nieces Fanny and Anna said that the portrait looked nothing like her. Everyone who knew Austen described her as attractive or pretty. Recently, a book of sketches of famous people was found done by James Stanier Clark, the librarian to the Prince Regent. In the book was one now convinced by many historians to be a portrait of Jane Austen: http://www.artworksgallery.co.uk/book.html
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
The information you have about Winchester Cathedral is wrong. She is buried there, but it is Westminster Cathedral (in London) the place where famous literary figures are kept. She only has a plaque in Westminster. She is buried in Winchester Cathedral because she died in that city (Winchester).
shareThank you for the correction, not sure why I had the two confused like that.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
Do not worry, I also confused places, it is Westminster Abbey the place for literary figures and where the Jane Austen plaque is, as it is an Anglican Church. Westminster Cathedral is another building and site of the Catholics.
shareI'm sure she sold the copyright when it was titled First Impressions, which never got published. She then bought back the copyright years later and re-wrote it and called it Pride and Prejudice.
+-----------------------------
SAY NO TO TROLLS
She did buy it back, but after she revised the manuscript as Pride and Prejudice, she once again sold the copyright outright, and only got 110 pounds total from it. At the time, her brother Henry was not in a position to advise her or bargain with the publishers as he had with previous publications, as his wife was dying. Austen preferred to sell the copyright and get the book published immediately rather than delay it any further with negotations.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
Nope, First Impressions was rejected by publishers (Caddell to be precise) when Jane Austen's father offered for publication in 1797. Both of you are probably confusing it with Susan (which later become Northanger Abbey). That one she sold it to Richard Crosby in 1803, it was not published and 13 years later she bought it back.
shareI read that the reason she was buried in Winchester Cathedral was because she was a resident of The Close and her brother, Reverend Henry Thomas Austen, managed to get her buried in the crypt, not just because of her literary talents. Off the top of my head, I do not know of any more famous literary figures buried in Winchester Cathedral. There are famous figures, yes, but by no means 'amazingly' famous.
What I find bizarre is why her brother Edward changed his surname to Knight. What was wrong with Austen??
Also, Persuasion, Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park weren't BBC productions. They were broadcast on ITV1 which runs commercials throughout their shows during breaks. The BBC only runs trailers for other shows between programmes.
Jane Austen's grave stone in the cathedral makes no mention of her books. There is a small brass plaque on the wall that mentions she was an author which was added in 1872.
The grave stone reads:
In Memory of
JANE AUSTEN,
youngest daughter of the late Revd GEORGE AUSTEN, formerly Rector of Steventon in this County She departed this Life on the 18th of July1817, aged 41, after a long illness supported with the patience and hopes of a Christian.
The benevolence of her heart, the sweetness of her temper, and the extraordinary endowments of her mind obtained the regard of all who knew her and the warmest love of her intimate connections.
Their grief is in proportion to their affection they know their loss to be irreparable, but in their deepest affliction they are consoled by a firm though humble hope that her charity, devotion, faith and purity have rendered her soul acceptable in the sight of her redeemer.
>What I find bizarre is why her brother Edward changed his surname to Knight. What was wrong with Austen??
Edward was adopted by rich relatives and had taken their surname.
It was fairly common back then.
Back to the programme, well it is about time is all I can say and it was worth the wait. I am a bit disheartened that they chose to purpetuate the misconception that JA was a well known authoress in life.
She wasn't.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
They didn't perpetuate this at all. They showed her unable to support her family having published some of the greatest novels ever written and having famous fans like the Prince Regent. Which is perfectly true.
shareBut it showed it as being pretty common knowledge that she was 'The Author' which was not the case when she was alive.
Her name was not put to her books until after her death.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
But her identity as the author of the 4 novels she saw published was a widely known "secret". After the sucess of Pride & Prejudice, Henry, who moved in a little high society circles, had spill the beans on who was the author, she even complained to Frank, another of her brothers who doesn'n appear in this biopic, about it and perhaps you are sensible of how secrets spread once they have been revealed. So yes, her name appear in the books only after she was dead, but by the publication of Mansfield Park, which was the next after P&P, many knew who she was the author as common knowledge, that is why in the opinions she collected on MP and Emma, beside those of family and friends, there are also names of a few fan readers who had written to her in admiration of her work.
shareI hope you can appreciate the difference between something appearing to be an 'open secret' and something appearing totally out there and bold.
It wasn't clear in this programme and it made it look as if she was a famous personality, which wasn't accurate, JA was actually a pretty private person.
Anyway, it was the only fault of the drama, as long as people don't take it as factual it was pretty good.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
I think we differ in our ideas of what vox populi mean and therefore we will have to agree to disagree. IMHO, her authorship was vox populi and that what was portrayed in the film, for you that was not. That is all then.
shareAnd as I said in my first message on this board, I don't expect any film to be accurent, especially regarding such an enigmatic person as Austen. In my opinion, they portrayed her more of a celebrity than she actually was.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!
She would have had to have been somewhat known, wouldn't she? Especially since the Prince Regent at the time was a fan of her work? I do know she was coerced into dedicating a book to him, you'd think she'd be somewhat famous if he was asking her to do that.
share[deleted]
I was wondering about the character of Brook Bridges. Since they mention Lefroy, he is not a stand-in for that (real-life) suitor. Is he just meant to be a generic stand-in for her other early suitors before or after she rejects Harris Bigg (another historical figure)? Hugh Bonneville does his usual excellent work, but the character seems primarily to serve as exposition.
shareHe was her brother's brother in law. His real name was Brook-Edward Bridges and he appears mentioned in her letters several times, but always as Edward. Perhaps the scripwriter named him Brook instead of Edward to avoid confusion with her own brother, Edward Austen Knight, who also appears in the film and was Fanny's father.
PS - I forgot to mention, he is not a composite of other suitors, he is believed to have proposed to her and rejected, one of her letters referring to an offer from him that she could not accept, and that is the basis to believe that he proposed to her.
Thanks for the info. I thought there had been a real life character in Austen's life named 'Edward Bridgers' that makes an appearance in 'Becoming Jane.'
I was wondering about Brook Bridges relation to that character, but the first half hour or so of 'Miss Austen Regrets' was pretty confusing to me (although I thought I was fairly conversant with the basic facts of Austen's life). For example, I thought in real life that Bridges/Bridgers was a lawyer and not a vicar as represented here (I know Lefroy was also a barrister and/or solicitor). Also, at one point when Brook and Jane are speaking near the end that they would have been poor if they had married. Obviously 'poor' is relative, but Bridges' character did not appear to be poor.
I cannot remember any character in Becoming Jane with a similar name, but I have seen that movie only once. There we really had a composite in Mr. Wisley, totally fictional. But Lefroy and John Warren (whose character is most maligned IMHO in that movie) were real.
I must confess I have not seen Miss Austen Regrets (I am dying to do so, and unfortunately as far as I know it has not been upload somewhere in the net :() but I have read JA's letters and some biographies so I can identify who is who with the cast list and the synopsis provided both by BBC and PBS. I can tell you, Brook-Edward Bridges was a clergyman, to MAR had it right, I would need to consult if any of the Austen biographies tell how much his living was worth.
As to the matter that you find the movie confusing, according to some of my sources, apparently PBS cut it as well, just like they have done it with the new adaptations. It cannot be conffirmed what and how much has been cut until it is broadcasted in UK (BBC would broadcast it in its entirety, without cuts) or the DVD is released (March in UK and April in US); but that could be one of the reasons why you might have found it confusing. But I also suspect that some intermediate knowledge of Austen's life and of her letters is required to understand and follow more clearly the script.
I don't think MAR was cut for the USA/PBS. The original is listed at 90 minutes for both USA and UK on IMDB. PBS, to my knowledge, rarely if ever cuts anything. Recently, because of several incidents in the USA, some PBS stations bleep out profanity and/or blur/pixelate nude scenes; but WNET, the flagship PBS station in New York City almost never does this.
shareThe three new versions of Jane Austen's novels that just aired had roughly 10 minutes cut from each; that was due to time constraints, and not any questionable material. PBS actually frequently edits their movies for time constraints--if you notice on Masterpiece Theater, they have an introduction that lasts a few minutes, the films generally end about 10-15 minutes before the end of the hour, and then there's often a postlude (or 10 minutes of advertising); and all of that means cutting into the actual run time of the film to accommodate all that other stuff. Over on another board, a viewer wrote to PBS protesting the cuts made in Northanger Abbey (the cuts made for Northanger Abbey's airing were not put back in on the DVD like they were for Persuasion), and this was part of PBS's response to her:
Our programs are routinely edited to fit our PBS time slot, which is different from the UK’s. Depending on whether our UK partner is producing for a commercial broadcaster or the BBC (i.e., commercial breaks vs. no commercial breaks), the episodes may vary from between 3-5 minutes to 10 or more. In the case of Persuasion, Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park, approximately ten minutes were deleted in each.
While we obviously have no control over the amount of time we are given by PBS to air particular films, know that when faced with the need to edit, we take it very seriously and with great care. Almost always, it is the UK producers who determine which scenes should be trimmed from the U.S. broadcast. Our goal is to deliver to you the film that is closest to the original intent of the producers.
IMDb isn't an authoritative source for anything. Perhaps you didn't realize that content for each entry in the database is submitted by IMDb users? In most cases, updated information comes from press releases and media coverage (interviews, magazine or newspapers stories, etc.). And wqe all know how the media has a tendency to get things wrong.
There's no way to confirm for certain the running length in the UK of Miss Austen Regrets until it airs.
As for PBS rarely making cuts, that's absolutely untrue. PBS has been airing cut episodes of Masterpiece and Mystery for YEARS. Viewers who videotaped different programs and watched them over and over again, and eventually upgraded to the DVDs, found that the dvds contained 10-20 minutes that were omitted from the broadcasts on PBS.
Random and Birdtamer:
All good points. Still, I don't think 5-10 minutes would have redeemed the questions I had with MAR (or the others to one or another degree).
However, I will say that, having lived in the UK for several years and having watched the BBC, they didn't run shows wall to wall. There were often short breaks between them (promos for upcoming shows, etc.). Thus, something like 'Top Gear' is listed as 60 minutes, but isn't absolutely 60 minutes long. That's not to say that such shows aren't cut for US consumption on BBC America. They are, as 15 minutes or more have to be taken out.
In the case of PBS, the intros and 'bumpers' at the end typically amount to what I remember on the BBC. And in the case of MAR and the other Austen specials, they actually seemed to start a minute or two early and run into the following slot by a minute or two as well, making up some of that time.
PS. While the content on IMDB is user-provided, I think that most of the 'technical' info is usually spot on (run-times for various version, aspect ratios, etc.). These facts are not subjective and are easily found and verifiable, making them typically fairly reliable.
This is what Tomalin's bio has on Edward Bridges:
There may just possibly have been a proposal in 1805 from the Revd. Edward Bridges, a brother of Edward Austen's wife Elizabeth, and a few years younger than Jane, whom she had known since the mid-1790s. She at any rate mentioned his particular attentiveness to her, mostly in ordering toasted cheese for her supper at Goodnestone one evening, it must be said. Three years later, in 1808, she recalled (to Cassandra) an "invitation" from him which she had been unable to accept. It is clear from the letters that she liked him, and he got on well with her brothers, but he held no romantic interest for her. If there was a proposal, no one in either family was informed and there were no regrets. She sent warm congratulations when he became engaged to someone else, and pitied him when his bride turned out to be a hypochondriac (from the notes to chapter 17, p. 312).
To her own surprise, [Jane] was happier with Edward's in-laws than with him and his wife. Her niece Anna believed that the in-laws, too, were overawed by Jane: 'A little learning went a long way with the Goodnestone Bridgeses of that day, and much must have gone a long way too far', she wrote.Jane herself was pleasantly surprised by the warmth of greeting she received from the eldest of the daughters, Fanny Cage, when she arrived in Kent in 1796, and honoured at being asked to lead the dance with their brother Edward at an impromptu ball held at his mother's house. As the years went by, she became genuinely fond of his three younger sisters, especially Harriot. Meanwhile, her friendship with Edward Bridges grew into a mutual regard, though when he seemed about to propose marriage to her in 1805 she discouraged him. His mother, Dowager Lady Bridges, had always been hospitable; Jane liked her, and could not have brought herself to repay her kindness by encouraging her son to make so unequal a marriage. Everybody would have thought that she had 'drawn him in' (to use Lady Catherine de Bourgh's vulgar phrase), and that she was marrying him purely for security and consequence (p. 170) [citation on p. 256 for this information gives the source as R. Austen-Leigh, Austen Papers, p. 291].share
As for the names in her novels mirroring her life, I think you'll find just about everyone in England in the early 1800s had relatives named Jane, Fanny, Henry, Edward, etc. Her own family was ripe with Cassandras, but she never used it. Too close and specific, probably.
shareShe did use the name Cassandra in one of her juvenilia, the one called The Beautiful Cassandra.
share