jane austen

Jane Austen stamp illustrations by Angela Barrett

Posted by hil

JAstamps

I don’t venture into the world of Jane Austen commentary very much anymore, but did notice some talk about the new Jane Austen stamps released in the UK recently. You can read about them more extensively at Austenprose, where there are also larger versions of each individual one. They were illustrated by Angela Barrett.

Stamps are interesting in the way that they are designed to carry a lot of meaning, but are ephemeral and largely unlooked at in everyday use; and now mostly unused except for collectors. They tend to rely on cultural understandings, large national ones – here pride in JA as an English author – and also more smaller cultural pools – here what is at the heart of what the novels are about, drawing on people knowing the novels well enough to understand what the illustrator is referring to. It’s a lot for an artist to convey in one tiny square of paper!

I was surprised to see them described by a few people as awful. I rather like the sketchy softness alongside quite decorative details. I find myself coming back to look at them and thinking about how Barrett did them and what she picked out as the symbolic moment for each novel – not what I would choose necessarily, but I like her choices. A lot of thought went into them.

One thing that intrigues me is just how much meaning is implied in what initially – and this is perhaps what people were disliking – seem like pretty bland choices of scene and delivery. The Pride and Prejudice illustration seems bland and static but then we know what a revelation his smile was to Elizabeth and how it is a critical moment in her dawning sense of how wrong she has been about him; and the dominance/submissiveness in the picture seems part of her realisation. (Funny, in the light of one friend jokingly terming it  the ‘JA blow job stamp’). The Mansfield Park drawing is quiet and still too, but you can see the warmth and light of family on the other side of the door (both attractive and terrifying), and see all Fanny’s tension in the way she is holding herself and clenching her fists. And again with Emma all the action is in her inward contemplation and shame. We know why and what’s going on in all these moments, without it being spelt out more. This seems rather like the novels themselves, apparently small time in context and lacking in action, but rich with internal observations, understandings and things not said.

I hadn’t heard of Angela Barrett before but the illustrations I saw on searching are wonderful. Here is another I liked of a doll/puppet maker at work:

angela_barrett

Pemberley is 10 years old

Posted by hil

I decided to put up my old anniversary graphics in my Pemberley Image Gallery, to mark the decade since Amy started the Jane Austen site, Pemberley on 22 July, 1996. I put up some others while I was there, so its a sizeable gallery now. I also put in some keepsake graphics which haven’t been public before. Thanks for everything, Amy.

Snort! : nonsense regarding The Pig

Posted by hil

The moniker for the new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is likely to be ‘the Kiera Knightley version’, but I am going to campaign for ‘the one with the pig’ until someone does a Wishbone-type adaptation with Babe animatronic technology (starring the pig) or puppet pigs (move over Miss Piggy, I don’t want a Muppet version!). I’m amused by the fuss the pig is causing – ‘It shouldn’t be in the house’ – ‘How many times must I explain it’s not in the house’ – ‘It’s too rural and makes the Bennets seem too poor’ – because I suspect the distaste probably stems more from the implication intended by juxtaposing the stud pig with Mrs Bennet gloatingly sending Jane over to Bingley at Netherfield:

iW: Then you have this pig walk by and he has enormous balls.

JW: That’s not something we thought of before we saw the pig. Then when we met the pig, we were incredibly impressed by him. I’m rather interested in the fact that a family like the Bennets would only own female pigs. They’d hire the male pig to come in and, as they call it, cover the sows, at a fee. I kind of liked the parallels between human and animal procreation.

— Joe Wright, Director

This rather puts new life into a rather jaundiced cartoon I did a few years ago:

Snort!

The only other Austen cartoon I made was this one of Charlotte shrewdly eyeing off Mr Collins:

All your base

Of course you could add cartoon bubbles to the pictures in the Jane Austen Colouring Book.

Pride & Prejudice 3 (2005) Review: The flat-chested adaptation

Posted by hil

I saw P&P3 last night. It was released the day before (after a few advance screenings last weekend), but at the 9.30pm Friday show there were not many more than a scattering of people in the theatre. I was surprised at that.

Talk about feeling the history when I went to see this. As the first scene rolls, it’s dawn and the birds are just starting to sing. My first thought was, ‘I wonder if Martti Alatalo (Birdcalls in P&P2 pdf) is watching this and whether he will rate it as ‘a movie without obvious bird flaws’?’. LOL.

It’s an enjoyable movie, but I’m quite critical of it.

Amy used to call Jane Austen The SquirmMeister, and my main feeling about this P&P is that it has all but taken out that essential JA squirm factor. It lacks the nuances that make the comedy, irony and tension that we love. There are examples, but there are not nearly enough ofthem. It seems to be another move away from humour and satire towards small-r romance, rather than accommodating both.

Part of the trouble is that time is so short. There is so much story to get through, that there is not enough time to develop the highs and lows and build tension in between. In that sense the movie is itself, ironically, rather like those quickly developed but shallower relationships that Austen pitches as an antithesis to the deep successful ones: the Charlotte/Collins match (or, more kindly, the Jane/Bingley match) as opposed to the Lizzy/Darcy one.

The Wickham plot is relegated to a minor sideline, so there is no real depth to that whole side of the ‘first impressions’ theme. Charlotte’s plight is well expressed, but her cunning is absent, and her tragedy is not even hinted at. She is quite gleeful at having her own house. It’s interesting to see Collins played in a completely different way, and it works on one level, but he is pathetic rather than funny most of the time. Likewise Lady Catherine is severe, Mrs Bennet is kinder and less stupid, and Caroline Bingley is snide, without much irony, fun or squirming being drawn from their characters.

I was surprised to find Mr. Bennet an exception. In fact, I think Donald Sutherland’s portrayal was the highlight of the film for me. He is not given as much wit and cynicism as he should have, which is a pity, but there are some delightful moments of dry humour and shared twinkles and understandings between him and Lizzy. He was played with great depth, and I loved his growly gravelly affection.

One major problem for me was that I didn’t feel I was given any reasons why Jane or Lizzy especially liked and wanted Bingley and Darcy, apart from gratitude on Lizzy’s part (I know gratitude is a major turning point in the book too, but it needs to be more than gratitude, doesn’t it?). Bingley did have tolerable teeth, but he blithered and had a completely distracting crest of red hair (a la Kyle Sanderland). Darcy looks mopey rather than haughty much of the time, though he becomes a bit more convincing and attractive towards the end of the movie. The conversations we see between Lizzy and Darcy are at times more true to the book than P&P2. For example during the dance at the Netherfield Ball, its Lizzy who is flustered and provokes Darcy, whereas in P&P2 it’s portrayed as a more equal sparring battle and stand-off. At other times its not so – the first proposal turns into a flaming row. I think the film asks me to just accept that these couples fall in love because its inexplicable why certain people fall in love, rather than showing me why they like each other so much or find each other attractive. Davies was impeccible in sharing the attraction with the audience, and pacing the dramatic tension. This one falls somewhat flat in comparison on both scores.

KK’s Lizzy is good, though I found her frequent and instant giggle-with-nose-wrinkled annoying. Jane is wonderful. I liked the girls being so young, but didn’t like the Gardiners and others being so old. Liked the rural setting and all the animals. Didn’t find it Bronte-ish. Thought the scene where Lizzy and Darcy talk outside at Pemberley was well done. Thought the scene previous to that, her peeping in on Georgiana and Darcy was wrong, and the one before, with the white sculptures, was over-the-top and a silly.

Disliked Lady Catherine arriving at night and all the others listening at the door. Disliked where Lizzy gets Jane’s letter and tells Darcy about Lydia’s fall in the Gardiner’s presence – the tension was completely thrown away, and we don’t really feel what tremendous loss she feels at that point. Ditto when Darcy returns to Netherfield and Lizzy doesn’t know how he feels. Thought the second proposal was schmaltz visually. Georgiana was young, which I liked, but not nearly demure enough. Wickham looked good, but for what use when his whole subplot was nixed? The music in the first scene fades into Mary playing the piano, which was a bit odd. And at the first assembly ball its just a group playing, but an orchestral recording.

There are few full bosoms. I’m sorry to disappoint, but like the movie, there it is.

Update:

I’ve decided its more Hardy (a la the movie ‘Far from the Madding Crowd’) than Bronte. The director sites it as an influence.

The US gets a ‘kissy-face ending’.

Most enteraining reviews:
Laura Carroll at The Valve: Pirates of Pemberlay (via Loobylu)
Anthony Lane at the New Yorker