while your analysis of costume, character and set design is thoughtfully done, one is not giving austen enough credit in chiefly limiting the critique to these criteria. what is remarkable about her writing is the language, her storytelling ability and her unique perspective on society through time. these ideas are partially reflected in the manner of dress, and color choices - but the actual thematic point can be represented in a number of ways. tight-fitting low-cut dresses imply the suppressed sexuality and suffocating role of women at Austen's time, but they aren't the only way to get at her point. the fact that she was writing in the regency period is not the real reason her work stands near Shakespeare's in stature. Pride & Prejudice still stands as perhaps the greatest feminist novel ever written because it revealed something of human character that was previously largely ignored.

the essay criticizes 2005's film version for everything but the father, when Mr. Bennett is perhaps the most misrepresented character. too many interpretations of P&P want to paint the father as a sympathetic loving man, but this misses the subtext of Austen's dialectic between Mr and Mrs. Bennett. It is only Mrs. Bennett who constantly worries and works for the future of her daughters. Mr. Bennett ignores the fact that his daughters have little chance of escaping their station in life, or of gaining any freedom without getting married. so while Mrs. Bennett may seem overly eager to impress others with her daughters, she is in fact doing all she can to secure their safety. Mr. Bennett is a man who is blind to the future and the fact that his estate is in fact going to Mr. Collins, not to any of his five daughters or his wife. Yes he creates a fruitful introduction for his elder daughters in the very beginning of the novel, but he consistently mocks and ridicules his wife and his other three daughters. he even speaks to his low opinion of their intelligence.

Mr. Bennett represents what is most crucially wrong in society, men who are in a position to change things, who have knowledge of the need for this change, but do nothing. This type of sophisticated understanding of social structure is what makes her story timeless (apart from the romantic element).

you concluded, "Any true movie-going female with an ounce of estrogen recognizes that some of the greatest romantic tales of all time are the Jane Austen." the number of stereotypes in this sentence alone is astounding. to assume first that estrogen has anything to do with the appreciation of Jane Austen, to imply her stories are less appealing to men, then to limit her novels to mere romance are all enormously opposed to the spirit of Austen and of the feminism she helped define. Austen's books are not feminist books though, they are not women's literature, they are simply literature for everyone, everywhere. emma is great but so is clueless, precisely because it hones in on the larger themes of the novel. at the same time bride & prejudice, starring aishwariya rai, is horrible not because it transposes the setting but because the power of the story is lost on the way. a great film interpretation catches all the thematic veins of Austen's work, regardless of whether or not the costumes are historically accurate.

Wow!

I think we can sometimes over-think the meanings of things. As a research historian and a writer of history, I feel it is important not to take a historical figure and their life/words out of historical context. In that way I do not even think we can begin to put a modern feminist spin on any of Austen's work. I don't think that is why she was writing. I think she was observing the world around her. Because people do not change, and because she was such an acute observer of human character her work is timeless. It will be as important several hundred years from now as it is today. BUT, if we do not take pains to present her work in historical context, we will be doing a disservice to Austen and to her future readers. By infringing on her storyline with modern interpretations that have absolutely nothing to do with historical context is almost abusive in my way of thinking.

Pride and Prejudice is not a feminist tome. While it is entirely possible Austen was familiar with the writings of Mary Wollenscroft, given the fact that Austen was raised by very conventional parents in a typical home, I doubt she would have been caught dead with anything by the scandalous Wollenscroft, who flaunted every aspect of polite society of her age. To read it a an early expression of feminism takes Austen completely out of historical context.

I am a fan of the Regency period. I am an obnoxious pain when it comes to any period drama, play or opera. Friends and family become extremely annoyed because I want things as historically accurate as possible. Yes, Austen is timeless, which I mention. I don't remember if it was in Part I or Part II - but she lived during the Regency period. Her work should be represented that way unless it is approached the same way as was Clueless or Bride and Prejudice.

As for the 2004 film, Pride and Prejudice, I have no sympathy, consideration, or tolerance for it. Because it completely destroyed the spirit of the Regency period, I consider it, as I said, an abomination. It is simply the worst film I have ever seen, including having had the misfortune to sit through Howard the Duck!

Thanks for the great article! I'm glad I caught this, as I've been trying to put together an Austin DVD/VHS collection & was unaware of the Mansfield Park/Northanger Abbey pieces.

I do agree w/you in your assessments of the various other movies. Interestingly, both Emma & Persuasion are by the same [female] director; it's interesting to see her progression & (IMO) improvement.

Having not seen Mans. Park yet, I can however say that the sequences where Fanny returns home is pretty bleak - maybe not as bad as, say, Dickens would read, but it was pretty bad, & if you remember, distressed her considerably to find them so very vulgar, common, and unnecessarily dirty when discipline & effort would have done wonders for both surroundings & the family themselves. In other words, they were surrendering to lower-class squalor without protest.