If the old saying was 'Those who cannot do, Teach' the new saying should be 'Those who cannot do, adapt' Andrew Davies after his success in adapting Pride and Prejudice (1995) for the BBC became the go to man for adapting Jane Austen and other historical novels, has been criticised for unnecessary, anachronistic and sexualised content into some other adaptations that has irked Austen purists, but nothing could compare to an Andrew Davies let loose on an unfinished (in fact, hardly started) novel. Not only has this suffered from the anachronisms and sexualisation that plagued some other adaptations, it also suffered from being derivative, in some cases not even bothering to hide its attempt to reproduce the dynamic between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet but unfortunately with characters lacking the character and wit of the originals and romantic leads lacking the charisma and chemistry of Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.
The anachronistic dialogue was cringeworthy, I am all for simplifying and reducing some of the more flowery prose that passed for regular conversations in 18th/19thc. novels, but this was not just simplified, it was fairly modern, with idioms taken right out of modern day and first names used in an inappropriate way between people hardly acquainted. Did Emma ever call Mr. Knightly anything other than Mr. Knightly? A man she had known since childhood? NO! And yet, this production had people using first names after a very short acquaintance even between the sexes.
I consider myself a lover of bawdy comedies, restoration plays and 'Carry on' level comedy, I am by no means a prude, sex is a part of life and sexual attraction vital when it comes to romance but the blatant sexualisation of the relationship between Sir Edward Denham and Miss Clara Brereton seemed like a slap in the face of Jane Austen's legacy. It wasn't necessary. She wouldn't have done that, this was not Austen, it was pure Davies.
I can see clearly that ITV are looking for another historical soap opera to replace Downton but THIS horror of a production is an abuse of Jane Austen and her writing, taking female characters with integrity and making them subject to modern middle aged male mindsets with offensive female stereotypes and blatant copies of earlier characters such as:
'Rich mean old lady. 'Rebellious stupid teen who away for true love and instantly gets in trouble and needs to be saved.' 'Angel put upon ever supportive wife with no personality' 'Innocent but spirited ingenue saved from rape by romantic lead' And let us not forget 'Miss No really means yes, so please, don't take no for an answer Denham' (Because this is exactly the type of messaging we want post 'Me too')
There are other problems related to this production unrelated to the appalling script, namely the production design, for example, who decided to have Charlotte Heywoods rats nest hair loose in every scene except the balls? Is she a child or a prostitute? No. She isn't, yet a respectable ADULT daughter of a Gentleman farmer should NEVER be seen like she was, the scene where she goes to give her condolences to Young Stringer made me want to claw my own eyeballs out, her hair looked unkempt and ridiculous in that bonnet. And no, I have no time for the old 'We wanted to show she was an unsophisticated country girl' BS. Almost ALL Jane Austen heroines are from the country. Women in the country knew how to do her hair and someone would have fixed that quick sharp. The idea that all those women let her walk around like that was unthinkable. She looked STUPID. Not innocent, not country-like, but moronic, as if there was something wrong with her. And the idea that she could possibly run off to walk around London at night, a girl who had never been to London. What? And of course, saved from rape plot device with perfect timing. Honestly, this was a gross neglect of duty by the Parkers and would have ruined a girl. I have to believe that Andrew Davies actually KNOWS this already and just didn't care because it suited the story and of course his attempt to make Theo James's 'I am supposed to be angry but look constipated instead' Sidney Parker, more heroic. And let us not forget Miss Lambe who was actually kidnapped and alone with a man who meant to steal her money and force her into marriage (but NOT rape her in the meanwhile to ACTUALLY force the marriage by causing her ruination? How noble of the kidnapper).
That love story was so weak and unrealistic and in fact the most realistic of this terrible production was the fact that Sidney Parker would have never married such a girl as Charlotte Heywood an obviously simple minded rebellious girl of low character who can't even do her hair.
I consider myself an historical film/TV buff who loves a bit of fluff and romance but I felt that this made my blood pressure rise and I was only hate watching it to justify this review because I do not believe in reviewing productions if you haven't bothered to watch it or pay attention.
If I could give this no points at all I would. If this stupid production ever came back for a second series/season I would lose ALL faith in British television which is falling ever quicker into the mire of appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' by simplifying historical adaptations in the hope of appealing to the Big Brother/Towie crowds.
Thanks for ruining Austen for us Andrew Davies. Please, someone stop.
Americans beware, save yourselves, don't bother watching this.
The anachronistic dialogue was cringeworthy, I am all for simplifying and reducing some of the more flowery prose that passed for regular conversations in 18th/19thc. novels, but this was not just simplified, it was fairly modern, with idioms taken right out of modern day and first names used in an inappropriate way between people hardly acquainted. Did Emma ever call Mr. Knightly anything other than Mr. Knightly? A man she had known since childhood? NO! And yet, this production had people using first names after a very short acquaintance even between the sexes.
I consider myself a lover of bawdy comedies, restoration plays and 'Carry on' level comedy, I am by no means a prude, sex is a part of life and sexual attraction vital when it comes to romance but the blatant sexualisation of the relationship between Sir Edward Denham and Miss Clara Brereton seemed like a slap in the face of Jane Austen's legacy. It wasn't necessary. She wouldn't have done that, this was not Austen, it was pure Davies.
I can see clearly that ITV are looking for another historical soap opera to replace Downton but THIS horror of a production is an abuse of Jane Austen and her writing, taking female characters with integrity and making them subject to modern middle aged male mindsets with offensive female stereotypes and blatant copies of earlier characters such as:
'Rich mean old lady. 'Rebellious stupid teen who away for true love and instantly gets in trouble and needs to be saved.' 'Angel put upon ever supportive wife with no personality' 'Innocent but spirited ingenue saved from rape by romantic lead' And let us not forget 'Miss No really means yes, so please, don't take no for an answer Denham' (Because this is exactly the type of messaging we want post 'Me too')
There are other problems related to this production unrelated to the appalling script, namely the production design, for example, who decided to have Charlotte Heywoods rats nest hair loose in every scene except the balls? Is she a child or a prostitute? No. She isn't, yet a respectable ADULT daughter of a Gentleman farmer should NEVER be seen like she was, the scene where she goes to give her condolences to Young Stringer made me want to claw my own eyeballs out, her hair looked unkempt and ridiculous in that bonnet. And no, I have no time for the old 'We wanted to show she was an unsophisticated country girl' BS. Almost ALL Jane Austen heroines are from the country. Women in the country knew how to do her hair and someone would have fixed that quick sharp. The idea that all those women let her walk around like that was unthinkable. She looked STUPID. Not innocent, not country-like, but moronic, as if there was something wrong with her. And the idea that she could possibly run off to walk around London at night, a girl who had never been to London. What? And of course, saved from rape plot device with perfect timing. Honestly, this was a gross neglect of duty by the Parkers and would have ruined a girl. I have to believe that Andrew Davies actually KNOWS this already and just didn't care because it suited the story and of course his attempt to make Theo James's 'I am supposed to be angry but look constipated instead' Sidney Parker, more heroic. And let us not forget Miss Lambe who was actually kidnapped and alone with a man who meant to steal her money and force her into marriage (but NOT rape her in the meanwhile to ACTUALLY force the marriage by causing her ruination? How noble of the kidnapper).
That love story was so weak and unrealistic and in fact the most realistic of this terrible production was the fact that Sidney Parker would have never married such a girl as Charlotte Heywood an obviously simple minded rebellious girl of low character who can't even do her hair.
I consider myself an historical film/TV buff who loves a bit of fluff and romance but I felt that this made my blood pressure rise and I was only hate watching it to justify this review because I do not believe in reviewing productions if you haven't bothered to watch it or pay attention.
If I could give this no points at all I would. If this stupid production ever came back for a second series/season I would lose ALL faith in British television which is falling ever quicker into the mire of appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' by simplifying historical adaptations in the hope of appealing to the Big Brother/Towie crowds.
Thanks for ruining Austen for us Andrew Davies. Please, someone stop.
Americans beware, save yourselves, don't bother watching this.