Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

PERSUASIONS ON-LINE

V.27, NO.2 (Summer


2007)
Jane Austen and Mud: Pride &
Prejudice (2005), British Realism,
and the Heritage Film
CAROL M. DOLE
Carol M. Dole (email:
cdole@ursinus.edu) is Professor of
English at Ursinus College, where
she also teaches film studies. Her
work on Austen adaptations includes
an essay in Jane Austen in
Hollywood (ed. Troost and
Greenfield) on the treatment of
class.

Mud? Such a subject is barely mentioned in Jane Austens novels, with rare exceptions
such as Elizabeth Bennets walk in dirty weather to visit her ailing sister at Netherfield. But mud,
sweat and tears are currently everywhere in popular culture, whether in reality shows or in films on
even the most traditionally decorous of subjects. Stephen Frearss 2006 film The Queen, for
instance, spends more time with the monarch of England slogging through a stream to examine the
undercarriage of her stalled Landrover than with her posing for a royal portrait. Its little wonder,
then, that the 2005 Pride & Prejudice, as directed by Joe Wright, offers viewers such an
overwhelming profusion of mud, pigs, and chickens that many Janeites have cried foul.
Like films in general, adaptations of Jane Austens novels respond to both trends in popular
culture and industry practices of the time of production. The 1940 Pride and Prejudice, for
example, made within the Hollywood studio system, follows the then-prevailing practice of teaming
classic novels with studio stars and of privileging entertainment value over fidelity to the source text.
Studio-era filmmakers felt free not only to add scenes, such as a rollicking carriage race at the
beginning, but also to eschew decorum in pursuit of a broad comedy consistent with the eras
popular screwball comedies (Parrill 49). Such comedies highlighted the physical in a way quite
divergent from Austens propriety: we see Kitty stumbling drunk and a flustered Mrs. Bennet
insisting Lydia must wipe the perspiration off her face.
Given the tendency in popular culture and in film since the 1960s to be ever more frank
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

1/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

about dirtwhether the term is applied to bodily functions, shameful secrets, or material that
arouses disgustone might expect the Jane Austen adaptations that have proliferated since 1995 to
be filled with references to many unsavory details of Regency life that Austen herself omitted or only
glanced at. And, in some films, such has been the case. Writer Andrew Davies began the 1996
televised version of Emma with a scene of a theft from a chicken coop, and showed the
Woodhouse carriage passing squalid cottages. As directed by Diarmuid Lawrence, this Emma also
demonstrated that servants actually labored for a living rather than hovering decoratively in the
background. Roger Michells Persuasion (1995) took this attention to the working class even
further by providing close-ups of dissatisfied-looking servants. Moreover, Persuasion distressed
more than one reviewer by its presentation of an unappealing Anne Elliot, a pockmarked Captain
Wentworth, a greasy necked Benwick, and a slovenly looking Lady Russell (Allen 15). Even more
gritty was Patricia Rozemas postcolonial reinterpretation of Mansfield Park (1999), which featured
fairly explicit sexuality, suggestions of homoeroticism and incest, and, most strikingly, appalling
images of abuse of slaves.
During the same years, however, other Austen adaptations took a markedly more decorous
approach. The 1995 BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice made the demands of the body
palpable with its famous wet T-shirt Darcy, but did so discreetly. Colin Firth became a sex
symbol on the basis of his Darcys longing glances and simmering sexual frustrations that were
dramatically translated into overheated fencing matches and his fully clothed dive into a pond
evidently, the periods equivalent of the cold shower. The bigger-budget films of Sense and
Sensibility (1995) and an Emma starring Gwyneth Paltrow (1996), with their glamorized stars and
impressive landscapes, portrayed a far more attractive version of Austens England than did
Persuasion or the Lawrence/Davies Emma. These later films fit neatly into the category of
heritage cinema.
What are heritage films? This critical term describes a cycle of English costume dramas of
the 1980s and 1990s (by English I mean not just films made in Englandindeed most films today
have international financing and often castsbut those depicting Englishness). Although like most
genre definitions this one is subject to debate,1 Andrew Higson explains some of its elements this
way:
These are films set in the past, telling stories of the manners and proprieties, but also
the often transgressive romantic entanglements of the upper- and upper-middle-class
English, in carefully detailed and visually splendid period reconstructions. The
luxurious country-house settings, the picturesque rolling green landscapes of
southern England, the pleasures of period costume, and the canonical literary
reference points are among the more frequently noted attractions of such films. (1)
Films often categorized in the heritage genre include Chariots of Fire (1981), Heat and Dust
(1982), The Remains of the Day (1993), and almost every adaptation since 1980 of a novel by
E.M. Forster (many from Merchant-Ivory) or by Henry James, as well as other Merchant-Ivory
productions.
At first glance, Pride & Prejudice (2005), an adaptation that features as many farm animals
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

2/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

as it does china teacups, appears to align more nearly with Mansfield Park and Persuasion than
with unabashed heritage productions like Sense and Sensibility and the Emma built around
Hollywood star Gwyneth Paltrow. The 2005 feature film extends the concentration on sexuality of
the 1995 miniseries and additionally embraces the realities of an agricultural economy and of an era
that lacked, for instance, hairdryers. I will argue, however, that Pride & Prejudice is a hybrid that
embraces both an irreverent realism to which younger audiences are accustomed (and which reflects
the directors realist aesthetic) and the classic heritage films reverence for country houses, attractive
landscapes, and authentic period detail. The films title, which features an ampersand rather than
Austens and, says it all: Pride & Prejudice is somewhere between an adaptation for Janeites and
a teen reworking such as Baz Luhrmanns postmodern 1996 rendition of Shakespeares tale of starcrossed lovers, which signaled its bolder adaptation strategies through its title: Romeo + Juliet.
Even though some critics believe the heritage cycle proper ended in the mid-nineties,
nonetheless the prevalence of heritage films among film adaptations of classic English literature over
the last quarter century has generated some unwritten expectations that each such film must answer if
it is to avoid the excoriation that many viewers heaped on Patricia Rozemas Mansfield Park
(1999). So any costume drama based on Pride and Prejudice (as opposed to looser adaptations
like the Mormon update of 2003 or the Bollywood Bride & Prejudice) must conform to some
heritage-driven expectations if it is to generate an audience that includes the art-house filmgoers that
act as a core audience for costume dramas. Filmmakers are well aware of the conventions that have
evolved for such historical films and often honor them even if they find them constraining.
Literary costume dramas are most financially successful, however, when they are able to
cross over to a wider (younger, more mainstream) audience as did, for instance, Sense and
Sensibility, The English Patient (1996), and Shakespeare in Love (1998). 2 Claire Monk points
out that the marketing, promotion and indeed textual strategies of recent [late nineties] British
period filmsdiscernible even in the relatively conservative Howards End or Sense and Sensibility
and more emphatically in Elizabeth or The Wings of the Dove (1998) . . . have worked hard
. . . to project the films as not heritage films (Debate 193). Like these films, the 2005 Pride &
Prejudice was clearly produced and marketed to have crossover appealeven at the risk of losing
some of the traditional heritage audience. The films advertising campaign referenced the popular
Bridget Joness Diary (from the producers of . . .) before it referenced Jane Austen, and
featured slogans such as Sometimes the last person on earth you want to be with is the one person
you cant be without. The previous theatrical period film of Austens most popular novel, some
sixty-five years earlier, had starred Greer Garson and a fortyish Laurence Olivier as Elizabeth and
Darcy. The 2005 filmmakers, by casting age-appropriate actors (Keira Knightley at twenty was the
same age as the books Elizabeth) and stressing the central love story, might hope to expand beyond
the art-house core to a wider and younger audience. That the central actors were either relatively
unknown, or in the case of Keira Knightley associated with action-oriented roles in Bend It Like
Beckham (2002) and Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) rather than with literary adaptations, helped
avoid the effect of foregrounding the films artifice that Claire Monk identifies as a result of the
earlier heritage practice of casting the same actors across several films (Critics 119). In short,
they avoided the Helena Bonham-Carter effect.
The attempt to reach a wider and more youthful audience was no doubt one reason for
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

3/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

selecting Joe Wright as director. In his early thirties, Wright had never before made a feature film,
never read Jane Austens novel, never even seen an Austen adaptation made since 1940, and could
declare himself decidedly uninterested in the Jane Austen Franchise (Fetters). Wrights sensibility
is more working class than Oxbridge (Hoggard); is tinged with a lingering frat boy humor (evident in
Mr. Collins pulpit pun on intercourse, a line vehemently disowned by screenwriter Deborah
Moggach [Brosnan]); and is irreverent enough to inspire him to convince Dame Judi Dench to join
the cast by writing her a letter saying, I love it when you play a bitch. Please come and be a bitch
for me (Brevet). Wrights cinematic heroes are not heritage stalwarts Merchant/Ivory or Andrew
Davies, but rather social-realist filmmakers like Alan Clarke (Hoggard), whose bleak films focused
on the working class and contemporary social problems such as heroin addiction. Wright had
tackled historical drama in Charles II: The Power and the Passion, but his 2001 breakthrough had
been a raw TV drama about a boys quest to find his father, in the mould of Clarke or Ken Loach
(Hoggard). His gritty social-realist aesthetic is evident in Wrights statements in his DVD
commentary and several interviews that the period detail he was most disappointed to be unable to
include in Pride & Prejudice had to do with the shortage of toilet facilities at balls and the
preventative use of diuretics.
And realism is all over this film. When Wright read Austens novel after reading the script,
he appreciated its social realism (Fetters). In making the film, he explains,
I wanted to treat it as a piece of British realism rather than going with the picturesque
tradition, which tends to depict an idealized version of English heritage as some kind
of heaven on earth. I wanted to make it real and gritty and be as honest as
possible. (Pride & Prejudice Companion Book)
The films realism is, accordingly, more of the kitchen-sink kind than of the nostalgic recreation of
period details that characterizes the typical heritage film.
Wright came to the heritage genre with skepticism about its characteristic style and motifs, as
this interview comment suggests:
We . . . questioned why it is that in period dramas you always see carriages pull up beside
big houses, youd have the wide shots of the houses and big wide shots of the rooms simply
because youre in a nice location. You wouldnt do that if you were filming in some semidetached house in Bromley. (Foley)
Nonetheless, in Pride & Prejudice the filmmakers ultimately adopted many of the conventions of
the period drama. In spite of Wrights complaints in his DVD commentary about the tedium of
shooting characters getting in and out of carriages, he also recognized that in a period film you feel
like you have to have carriages all the time, and several carriage shots were included in the film.
Wrights statement of his goals in making the filmto concentrate on character and ignore the fact
that it was a period drama, and yet at the same time look at the detail of the period as much as
possible (Foley)reveals in its contradictions the difficulty of balancing the tenets of realism with
the imperatives of the heritage genre.
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

4/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

The very setting of the film, 1797, indicates this balancing act. Wright found the volatile
1790s to be a more interesting period socially than the Regency period in which Austens novel
was published; moreover, he feared that the Empire fashion of the early years of the nineteenth
century could look quite unflattering (Foley). Yet heritage conventions dictate a scrupulous
authenticity that would not allow for the freedom of the studio era to change costumes at will, as the
makers of the 1940 Pride and Prejudice had in selecting the Victorian-era hoop skirts and big
bonnets that recalled the fashions of the previous years hit Gone With the Wind. Setting Pride &
Prejudice in 1797, the year Austen completed First Impressions, allowed for Wrights preference
but also met the heritage convention of authenticity, a criterion much honored in the films
promotional practices.
The Opening Sequence
A look at Pride & Prejudices opening sequence will demonstrate both the dirty details
characteristic of British realism and the films adherence to heritage conventions.
The opening shot of a green English landscape immediately establishes that we are in the
rural locale of heritage England, not in city or town. But this landscape differs from the manicured
landscapes more typical of the heritage genre: we see the sun rising behind trees bordering a plain
green field, without a stately house in the distance or even a picturesque cluster of sheep.
The typical heritage evocation of the literary and the classic is almost immediately
accomplished through Elizabeths reading of a book curiously yellowed with age. Although she is
reading, an activity usually conducted indoors, she is simultaneously walking outdoors. Julianne
Pidduck has identified the country walk as a recurrent motif of Austen films, a motif that suggests the
possibility of women overcoming the limitations on mobility and aspiration placed on them in
Austens age, limits symbolized by interior spaces (390). The use of the country walk motif in Pride
& Prejudice is consistent with a general tendency in the Austen films, and heritage films in general,
to update gender ideology to appeal to modern audiences. The relocation in Pride & Prejudice of
many scenes from interiors to the countryside both suggests expanded agency for Elizabeth and
provides opportunities for presentation of spectacular landscapes in the heritage manner: Darcy first
proposes to Elizabeth not in the cramped parsonage but under a striking stone temple above a lake.
Such attractive heritage views, however, are not routine for this film. Our first view of the
Bennets house, Longbourn, is not of an imposing front as might be expected in a heritage film, but
from the back, where we quickly see that it is a working farm. Austens novel mentions that Mr.
Bennet operates a farm only in the context of Janes need to ride to Netherfield because the carriage
horses are needed in the fields; neither Austens reader nor the viewer of the average Austen film
ever confronts the mucky reality of farm life. In contrast, this film is full of mud and livestock. In this
opening scene, we see a line of cows filing out in the background as Elizabeth crosses a bridge into
the yard. Poultry scatter about as Elizabeth circles the house. In later scenes, a pig is seen in the
passage, and Darcy awaits his fiance amidst the chickens. Nor is it just the Bennets home that is a
barnyardthough its roaming chickens do help distinguish the Bennets class status from the
Bingleys. The agricultural realities of 1790s England are equally evident in the enclosed yard with
barn and hay where Lizzie twirls barefoot over the mud on a rope swing, and from the pigs and
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

5/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

poultry running about the streets of Meryton or hanging on hooks outside its shops. Indeed this film
uses animals, live or dead, in countless scenes. When Mr. Collins proposes to Lizzie in the dining
room, for instance, a large ham is placed in front of the reluctant bride as a commentary (according
to the director) on marriage as meat market.
The film prominently features workers as well. In this scene alone, we see not just white
sheets on lines, but women servants toiling over the washtub in the yard. A man scatters feed to the
poultry. In other scenes, a maid moves through the house humming, suggesting an interior life. In the
dining scenes at Longbourn, Netherfield, and especially Rosings, servers are everywhere apparent
a distinct contrast to the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma, in which a silver tea set seems to appear on the
lawn without human intervention.
If the livestock, obtrusive servants, and rear view diminish the nostalgia value of Longbourn
as country house from the very first scene, Pride & Prejudice will later deliver the full heritage
treatment of Pemberley as Great House. Higson identifies the heritage film as having a pictorialist
museum aesthetic, providing the ideal showcase for the visual splendour and period richness of the
carefully selected interiors and locations (39). Oftentimes locations are sought out for their
authenticity as well as grandeur, as is the case with this films use of Chatsworthoften claimed as
Austens model for Pemberleyto represent Darcys imposing estate. The film dramatizes
Elizabeths first view of Pemberley as so riveting that she and the Gardiners must freeze to look at it
properly, thus motivating a lingering tableau of the magnificent building framed picturesquely amidst
the trees.
This pictorial presentation of Pemberley contrasts with the opening sequences anti-pictorial
introduction of Longbourn, as first seen from the back and then glimpsed piecemeal. The movement
of the camerawhich arrives at Longbourn along with Elizabeth as she returns from her walk, then
tracks her in a lengthy steadicam shot as she passes through sheets drying on the line, circles the
house, and entersat first reflects Wrights stated intention to adopt Elizabeths subjective view
(DVD commentary). When she pauses on a porch to watch her parents through a window as they
argue, the camera peers through the window too. Intriguingly, this shot reverses one that Pidduck
has identified as characteristic of the mid-1990s Austen films, in which the camera rests
undoubtedly inside with the female protagonist looking out (383). Although Wrights film does
include a shot of a woman looking out a window (as Elizabeth surveys the grounds of Pemberley,
perhaps with the acquisitive gaze that Pidduck assigns to men), it more characteristically portrays the
heroine, and the camera, as looking inward. Elizabeths difficult journey of self-discovery is
rendered visual by her study of herself in the mirror when in need of enlightenment, such as when she
considers Darcys letter. Wrights probing camera, which repeatedly peers (through windows, or
under bedclothes) into interior spaces, registers not a longing for the promises and pleasures of the
external world but rather an investigation into the secret life of women. And Longbourn, with its six
female family members and a sweet-tempered, flower-growing father who displays little of the
sarcasm of Austens Mr. Bennet, is very much a domain of women. A particularly striking glimpse
into this world will come in a later long take, just before Lady Catherines midnight visit, as the
outside camera peers one-by-one into the upstairs windows of Longbourn, discovering Kitty and
Mary in their bedroom, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet moving fondly toward each other in their bed,
Elizabeth and Jane rejoicing over the return of their lovers, and a maid dreaming of her beau as she
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

6/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

goes humming about her work.


This female world is evident too in Longbourns cluttered interior, first seen in the opening
sequence. As Lizzie circles the house, the restless camera anticipates her entrance, enters a side
door, and sets off alone on its journey into the heart of the house, moving through a series of
windows and passageways that block much of the audiences view. Suddenly divorced from
character point-of-view, the camera now seems to take on the function of anthropologist. In a
heritage film, Higson explains, the gaze is organized around props and settingsthe look of the
observer at the tableau imageas much as it is around character point of view (39). Wright
maintains this visual fascination with props and settings, as well as the preference for deep focus
shots that Higson identifies as typical of the heritage genre (38), but turns it to his purpose by
transforming props and setting into unprepossessing realism rather than nostalgic spectacle. The
camera looks at things, but it looks at different things than might be expected in a heritage film. It
does not linger over the Bennets finer furniture or pictures, but rather over the mess, the scattered
bonnets and dropped sewing that signal a house full of women at their ease. When the camera
discovers the women who inhabit the house, they are also marginally unkempt, with limp hair and a
tendency to put their feet on the furniture. Only after the busy interior and workplaces of the house
have been examined in unglamorized detail, redirecting our emotions away from nostalgia, do we get
the standard frontal shot of a prosperous English home amidst the greenbut a home from which
the giggling voices of girls echo out through a window.
Later, the film continues to emphasize mess. The same dining table is seen in a later
breakfast scene without table cloth, surrounded by hung-over Bennets recovering from the
Netherfield ball; the board full of dirty dishes, not a picturesque landscape or even a fine painting,
forms the backdrop for Mr.Collinss proposal to Elizabeth. Elizabeths hair is periodically askew.
Girls are seen with their hair wrapped in rag curlers, and the entire Bennet family appears in
nightclothes for Lady Catherines strangely timed midnight visit. Mrs. Bennet is not only tipsy at the
Netherfield ball, but has habits of casualness that extend to stocking feet and balancing a plate on her
stomach. Throughout the film, the mundane and even sordid details of life are almost everywhere
evidentsave, of course, at Pemberley, the ultimate heritage landscape and nostalgic icon of old
England.
There is nothing sordid, however, about the treatment of the films love story. One of Pride
& Prejudices most erotic scenes takes place at Pemberley, but in that most heritage locale, it
borrows its technique from an earlier heritage film, Passage to India (1984). In David Leans
adaptation of the E. M. Forster novel, Adela Questeds silent visit to a temple full of erotic statues is
used to reveal her sexual awakening in India. According to Wrights DVD commentary, the
sculpture gallery scene at Pemberley was unplanned, and he makes no reference to Passage to
India as he does to Shekhar Kapurs Elizabeth (1998), which inspired the extreme high-angle shot
of Lizzies entrance into Pemberley across a black and white tile floor. Nonetheless, Lizzies
lingering fingers stroking the white marble of Pemberleys statues before she discovers the sculpture
of Darcy convey a very similar erotic charge to Adelas encounter with the temple statues, and her
cream-colored costume provides a visual parallel between the human woman and the white marble
nudes that surround her.
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

7/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

If it participates in the decorous eroticism of the heritage film in this scene, Pride &
Prejudice also adopts the tropes of romance from both the historical and the teen genres. Wrights
commentary cites the influence of John Hughes and Grease in the assembly ball sequence, for
instance; he designed the bleacher-like seating so as to suggest a dance in the gym. Together with
the kinetic camerawork, the fast pacing, and the youthful actors, such an approach increased the
films potential appeal to a youth audience. At the same time, the film also used the iconography of
the (literary) historical romance, to the point that some reviewers charged that Jane Austen has
been Brontfied (Lane). In Pride & Prejudice Darcy proposes under a stone temple in driving
rain; during her excursion to the Peaks Elizabeth is photographed silent upon a peak, her dress and
tresses stirring in the wind so as to drop the hint that Mr. Darcy is . . . a britches-busting Heathcliff
in the making (Lane); and Elizabeth and Darcys first encounter after Lady Catherines visit begins
with a lengthy take of Darcy in a long cloak striding out of the mists of dawn toward the camera to
tell Elizabeth, You have bewitched me body and soul. Although Wrights realist sensibilities seem
to have recoiled from such scenes, which he describes as a bit over the top and a bit over-romantic
and a bit slushy (DVD commentary), the films marketers saw them as audience bait: in preference
to a heritage tableau of Pemberley or a more realist image of Elizabeth amidst the chickens, the
DVD cover features Darcy emerging romantically from the mist behind a close-up of Elizabeth, and
the menu screen depicts a wind-blown Elizabeth gazing out over an enormous Romantic landscape.
An uncertainty about whether to err on the side of teen romance or heritage tastefulness is
evident in the films much-discussed ending. British viewers, assumed to prefer the tasteful restraint
of the heritage film, were left to end with Mr. Bennet calling for more suitors. American viewers
were given an additional scene, an uncomfortable combination of physicality (Elizabeths stroking of
Darcys bare calf), dramatic landscape (the torchlit grounds of Pemberley), and youthful chatter
sealed with a profusion of kisses.
Such indecisive endings may come to vex more period adaptations in the future as the
heritage film becomes ever more of a hybrid, the direction several critics have identified. Pamela
Church Gibson, seeing a fissuring and fracturing in the monolith of heritage (116), remarks on the
addition of pastiche to the heritage film in the late nineties. Higson, while maintaining that the heritage
film has retained its fundamental generic traits, finds it to have been modernized beginning in the
late nineties, with Elizabeth, Shakespeare in Love, and other heritage films being tailored
increasingly for a wider, more youthful audience (143); he concedes the view of other critics that
heritage has shifted somewhat away from reverential authenticity and towards irreverence and
playfulness (260). Drawing on Monks observation that heritage films can be regarded as varieties
of the womans film, Antje Ascheid, citing such films as The Governess (1998), Mansfield Park
(1998), Kate and Leopold (2001), and Possession (2002), argues for the recent melding of
heritage film and contemporary chick flicks into the sub-genre womans heritage film, which
simultaneously accommodate[s] feminist critique and romantic abandon. Monk herself insisted
from the first on the essentially hybrid nature of heritage film texts, hybrid both in their mixture of
conservatism and progressiveness and in their generic features, which Monk has found so elastic
that she resists calling heritage a genre at all (Critics 122).
Wrights Pride & Prejudice, in its mixture of the generic traits and attitudes of eighties
heritage cinema, British realism, and teen romance, is compelling evidence that the heritage film has
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

8/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

not diedas Higson momentarily considered after the box-office failure of both The Golden Bowl
and The House of Mirth in 2000 (144)but rather been transformed into a more flexible genre.
The critical and financial success of Pride & Prejudice has only made it more likely that future
adaptations of Austen will feature, if not necessarily mud, then at least youthful and market-tested
performers (most immediately, Anne Hathaway as Austen herself in Becoming Jane) and youthoriented filmmaking techniques balanced with the visual pleasures of the heritage film.
NOTES
1. The political stance of the heritage film has been a subject of particular dispute. Many of the
original critics of the heritage genre, including Higson, saw heritage film as connected to a
conservative, nostalgic reimagining of England in the Thatcher era. Writing slightly later, critics such
as Claire Monk have argued that heritage films can be read as progressive as easily as they can as
conservative, and that often the films visual elements are in tension with their narratives.
2. Critics explain that, for British films, crossover success depends on success in the U.S. market.
Higson, for example, sees heritage films as always poised to achieve such crossover in being driven
by both the commercialism and the market imperative of the mainstream studio film and the cultural
imperative and artistic values of the specialized film and in being positioned to play both the arthouse circuit and the multiplex circuit (91).
WORKS CITED
Allen, Brooke. Jane Austen for the Nineties. The New Criterion Sept. 1995: 15-22.
Ascheid, Antje. Safe Rebellions: Romantic Emancipation in the Womans Heritage Film.
Scope: An Online Journal of Film Studies 4 (Feb. 2006). 30 Apr. 2007
http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/article.php?issue=4&all=true.
Brevet, Brad. An Interview with Joe Wright: Pride & Prejudice. 21 Oct. 2005. 12 Feb. 2007
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/features/2005/joewright/index.php.
Brosnan, Edel. From Hampstead to Hollywood. Interview with Deborah Moggach. 28 Feb.
2007 http://www.writersguild.org.uk/public/008_Featurearticl/023_DeborahMoggac.html.
Fetters, Sara Michelle. Its Austen All Over Again. Interview with Joe Wright. 12 Feb. 2007
http://www.moviefreak.com/features/inteviews/joewright.htm.
Foley, Jack. Pride and PrejudiceJoe Wright Interview. 12 Feb. 2007
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/film/pride_prejudice_wright.html.
Gibson, Pamela Church. Fewer Weddings and More Funerals: Changes in the Heritage Film.
British Cinema of the 90s. Ed. Robert Murphy. London: BFI, 2000. 115-24.
Higson, Andrew. English Heritage, English Cinema: Costume Drama Since 1980. New York:
Oxford UP, 2003.
Hoggard, Liz. Meet the Puppet Master. The Guardian 11 Sept. 2005. 30 Apr. 2007
http://film.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,5282613-101730,00.html
Lane, Anthony. The Current Cinema: Parent Traps. The New Yorker 14 Nov. 2005. 30 Apr.
2007 http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051114crci_cinema.
Langton, Simon, dir. Pride and Prejudice. Writ. Andrew Davies. Perf. Jennifer Ehle and Colin
Firth. BBC/A&E, 1995.
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

9/10

16/4/2015

Carol M. Dole

Leonard, Robert Z., dir. Pride and Prejudice. Writ. Aldous Huxley and Jane Murfin. Perf. Greer
Garson and Laurence Olivier. MGM, 1940.
Monk, Claire. The British Heritage Film and Its Critics. Critical Survey 7.2 (1995): 116-24.
_____. The British Heritage-film Debate Revisited. British Historical Cinema: The History,
Heritage and Costume Film. Ed. Claire Monk and Amy Sargeant. New York:
Routledge, 2002. 176-98.
Parrill, Sue. Jane Austen on Film and Television: A Critical Study of the Adaptations.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2002.
Pidduck, Julianne. Of Windows and Country Walks: Frames of Space and Movement in 1990s
Austen Adaptations. Screen 39 (1998): 381-400.
Pride & Prejudice Companion Book. Online version. 2005. 30 Apr. 2007
www.workingtitlefilms.com/media/prideBooklet/index.htm.
Wright, Joe, dir. Pride & Prejudice. DVD. Focus Features, 2005.

Back to Persuasions On-Line Table of Contents


Return to Home Page

http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no2/dole.htm

10/10

Вам также может понравиться