MovieChat Forums > Death Comes to Pemberley (2014) Discussion > Anachronisms hurt this production the mo...

Anachronisms hurt this production the most


At first I was most struck by the peculiar decision to cast Anna Maxwell Martin as Lizzie - something which has been discussed enough and which I won't belabor further except to say that I regard AMM as a fine actress (loved her in Bleak House and North & South, just to name a couple) but she seemed to have a bit too much gravitas for Lizzie, married mother or not. Still, I admire AMM's acting so much I was able to set aside the fact that she was a bit too mature - in looks and manner - and just concentrate on enjoying the story. Or so I thought.

Just a few minutes in and I was already squirming. I could even excuse the updated colloquialisms (a writer attempts to imitate the tone of Austen at her peril) but then the excuses stopped. Elizabeth calls Darcy "Darcy." Not just once, not just in referencing him to her sister or parents, which might be excusable, but to his face. Multiple times. And then Georgiana referred to him as Darcy! (She was, in turn, later addressed as Miss Georgiana, when she ought to have been addressed as Miss Darcy, as the only daughter.) In what strange universe is all this appropriate etiquette? Oh, and then there was the time when the vicar called Elizabeth "Elizabeth." Not Mrs. Darcy, not Madam. Elizabeth.

This really drove me crazy. How could writers for a BBC production not take the very basic step of at least having period characters address each other in a period-appropriate way? Makes me wonder if anyone involved had so much as cracked Pride and Prejudice. I confess I haven't read P.D. James' work, but if she slipped up in this department surely that could be remedied for the tv production. Andrew Davies must be seriously rolling his eyes...

reply

Andrew Davies must be seriously rolling his eyes...

Are you kidding me?

reply

Random, come sit by me....please.

reply



Starboarder's post was going so well until then....


Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

reply

Indeed. Thanks sg and kl.

reply

Perhaps the OP meant to say that “even Andrew Davies must be seriously rolling his eyes". After all, the AD production, for all the criticisms that can be made of it, was pretty competent in terms of period language.

reply

That isn't what I was referring to when I said, "Are you kidding me?"

I know that Davies' script stuck very close to Austen's own dialogues, as written. (In fact, there was quite a bit of criticism about that at the time, and continuing through to 2005.)

I find it quite ridiculous that posters on this board suggest the actors or writer of previous P&P projects should either approve or disapprove someone's work on this production.

reply

[deleted]

Andrew Davies must be seriously rolling his eyes...


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Good one!

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

Wow, I had no idea that what I meant as a harmless remark would be received with such ridicule! I feel compelled to defend my statement.

I mentioned Andrew Davies only because I thought his grasp of Austen's dialogue generally very good. P&P '95 does have anachronisms (wet shirt scene being the most obvious) but in terms of the dialogue sounding period-authentic, he did well. Not perfectly, but nine times out of ten his actors sounded convincing. This is of course just my opinion. I have never adapted a 19th century novel for the screen, but if I had – as Andrew Davies has – and my adaptation was wildly popular (due, at least in some part, I think, to his clear efforts to respect Austen's language), I probably would roll my eyes at the remarkable lack of effort in DCtP to respect or preserve this authenticity of language. By no means do I believe that Andrew Davies' approval is needed for every or any subsequent adaptation of Pride and Prejudice or any derivative works. I merely mention him because I personally believe he took the trouble to really understand and replicate the verbal tone of Austen's day. I could as easily have said that I rolled my eyes watching – and moreover, listening – to this production. But that carries little weight as I have no authority in this arena beyond enjoying 19th century literature, while Mr. Davies has made a career of adapting it.

reply

I get what you're saying starboarder, especially after reading your defense. Yet I do have to admit that when I read your post at first I had a similar reaction to most of the other posters. I think most of us on the board would be thinking more along the lines of "Jane Austen would be seriously rolling her eyes" just to give an example. At least, that's my personal opinion.

Read my reviews at my blog- http://marspeach.wordpress.com

reply

For all the accuracy of his period dialogue, Davies had a poor grasp of the balance of wit and integrity that see-saws between Darcy and Elizabeth since he kept sacrificing the most important scenes (the climax of the two first evenings at Netherfield and the second proposal) to show us Darcy in the bath, Darcy in the lake, Darcy at the fencing club, Darcy in the coach on his way to London to rescue the Bennetts (further wrecking the denouement after sealing Lizziie and Darcy's feelings with 'the look' at a dinner party which isn't in the book), Darcy at Lydia's wedding, Darcy at the Gardiners etc etc.

His attempts at Austenian irony (’I could live my whole life in Derbyshire') fell flatter than a steam-rollered pie-crust. His S&S was also flat and colourless apart from the aura of quality surrounding Hattie Morahan.

He adapts Austen as if she were Dickens or Trollope. I don't think he gets her. By the time he got to Northanger Abbey, it was the heroine in the bath. Anna Maxwell Martin does get Elizabeth. Like Greer Garson, she may not look exactly right but in the brief scenes before the crisis struck, she had exactly the right cushioning ironical detachment from everyday affairs, coupled to the genuinely profound attachment to her husband and child that one might expect in Elizabeth. Didn't get much of either in Davies' P&P.

reply

I agree with that. Also (and this may be controversial, so can I just say clearly that I am second to no-one in my revulsion for people who crave or have inappropriate relationships with children)but there were two jarring notes re Wikham's suggested liking for very young girls. One was a significant look at Lydia when Lizzie remembers all her conversations with him after getting Darcy's letter. The other is a heavily laden with disgust "she (Georgiana) was then but 15 years old". Entirely wrong to suggest that Wickham was some kind of paedophile. This is very much a case of "that was then and this is now". Mrs Bennett would have gladly married any of her daughters at 15 or 16 to anyone who'd asked, and Austen herself makes it clear that Mrs B had been on the lookout for suitable husbands since Jane had turned 15. Modern values anachronistically pasted on.

reply

Forgive me, but I really think you're the only one anachronistically pasting on modern values; you're reading something into the production that just isn't there.

There was no implication in the production, any more than in the book, that Wickham had any interest in Georgiana herself, sexually or in any other way; it was spelt out in clear that his motivations were (a) money and (b) revenge. The line about her being only 15 was there, just as in the book, to underline that Georgiana ws so young and inexperienced she couldn't possibly have been expected to have sussed him out, and should therefore not be considered as in any way 'tainted' (as DCtP put it) by agreeing to the elopement.

And I can't identify any 'significant look at Lydia' during the letter episode; she only appears bouncing around in a dance with one of the Meryton officers. And not only does the production make clear that 16 is in Regency terms a wholly marriageable age, just as the book does (remember Mrs Bennet's reminiscence that when Jane was 15 a young man was so smitten with her that everyone expected him to propose?); it goes further that Austen ever could in stressing that Lydia is physically mature and fairly bursting with libido, and indeed added a line to make clear, which Austen couldn't possibly have done, that she enjoys sex with Wickham enormously.

No, the 1995 version only suggests, like the book, that Wickham has a liking for anyone vulnerable to exploitation by him. Honestly.

reply

There is a significant look exchanged between Lydia and Wickham in one of the flashbacks as Lizzie reads the letter. At least there is on my DVD.

reply

alfa, I'm doing this from memory but if I recall correctly, that particular scene is showed twice. Once as it's actually unfolding, and once later on after the elopepment when Lizzy is replaying events in her mind. Again....if I recall correctly...that "significant look" is in Lizzy's imagination -- not in the original scene.

reply

You're right, klorentz.

"That look" between Wickham and Lydia is a rather exaggerated and surreal memory in Lizzy's mind while she's reading the letter from Jane at Lambton. (P&P95 uses the same device of distorted recall when Lizzy reads Darcy's letter earlier.)



Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

reply

Yep, but it seems to be missing from syntinen's version as it's definitely there,

reply

Bravo. Well put!

Except that I do like S&S08 better than you do.

And also except the fact that Davies' adaptation of Trollope's The Way We Live Now is possibly the worst thing he ever did. It was horrendous.

Here's my review from here at IMDb:

The book The Way We Live Now is arguably Trollope's masterpiece. The book is a brilliant story of white-collar corruption that Davies turns into a recitation of Sir Felix Carbury's sexual conquests. Trollope's Sir Felix is worse than a cad; he is a scoundrel. But Davies glosses over the terrible things he does to his mother, to his sister and to the other women around him and makes him appear to be nothing more than a misunderstood young man. The end of the book is not ambiguous, but the end of the series is.

One other thing I hated, and this most likely has nothing to do with Andrew Davies. Miranda Otto was awful as Mrs. Hurtle. I cannot imagine anyone believing she is an American.

What a waste of time. I want those hours of my life back.


I got more in-depth over at Amazon. But the opinion was still the same -- God-awful adaptation of a brilliant book.

If Davies ever gets his filthy paws on the Pallisers, that would be an absolute travesty.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

I read your review of The Way We live Now and it made me curious enough to get hold of it. Once again, whilst Davies got the unscrupulous insanity of the Victorian entrepreneur, he didn't understand the active malice in Sir Felix. Just left it out. And I hated to see Shirley Henderson wasting her time. So I didn!t finish it.

I've watched DCtP through twice now, though. An unreconstructed romantic, me.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Actually not so: anachronism can correctly be used to mean anything that is out of its appropriate time, in either way. A prochronism is just one category of anachronism; the opposite error is a parachronism.

reply

[deleted]

Strictly speaking, the Greek prefix ana- can also mean “up,” “against,” “back,” “again", "anew".

And its meaning is more or less irrelevant anyway, I'm afraid. Words mean what they are used to mean, and if they are used to mean something that their strict etymological origin doesn't support, that's just too bad. Anachronism has meant "the erroneous reference of an event, circumstance, or custom to a wrong date" (the OED's definition) for more than three and a half centuries. You might as well insist that anti-Semite means 'someone who hates all Semitic peoples' and intoxicated means 'poisoned'. Sure, that's what they ought to mean, based on their etymology; but we all know that they don't.

reply

[deleted]

Not, however, as silly as saying that a word 'does not mean' what people have been using it to mean for centuries.

reply

Strewth.

I think we all understood what the OP was trying to say even if her word choice was, according to your strict understanding, inaccurate.

If you are going to draw attention to someone's misuse of the English language, there are far more glaring examples on these forums. Far more! Look at those rather than bringing your (no other word for it, I'm afraid) pedantry to this thread.



Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

reply

But we both like to watch syntinen at work. . .

I think what hurt this production most was the disorientation it caused its target audience. I added an unintentionally realistic pig noise to the soundtrack in the cinema when the pig walked through the house in P&P05. There were other noises. If only they'd modelled the mise en scene a bit closer to P&P95 the result might have been less criticism and a bit more enjoyment.

And I so wanted Caroline to turn up and start becoming sniffy again after she'd taken the trouble and "paid off every arrear of civility to Elizabeth".

reply

I think you're right, alfa.

As much as we may object, P&P95 is the definitive version as far as the BBC viewing demographic is concerned. People wanted to see Jennifer Ehle six years on.

And don't start talking about the pigs.... (Just kidding, Julie and klorentz. )




Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

reply

Please NOT the pig!!!

reply

No that pig again!

reply

P&P95? Problem is, that was almost 20 years ago, so Ms. Ehle would have been far too old for the part of "Elizabeth..six years later"

reply

I do realize that. I wasn't speaking literally - rather that viewers were probably expecting a reconstruction of P&P95, but six years on.



Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

reply

Then the viewers need to do the math too. Maybe I'm lucky, I haven't seen any version so I can accept this one a little more easily.

reply

It is not incorrect for Elizabeth to call her husband Darcy, especially in a moment of anger. It is not something she would do out in society, of course, but; it is not anachronistic in this case

reply

I don't see why she couldn't call him that in public.

In "Emma," we see that Mrs. Elton refers to Mr. Knightley as "Knightley." And, since Mrs. Elton does it, we know immediately that it's not appropriate. But Mrs. Elton is not married to him, and Emma will be. I've read other books of the period in which a wife refers to her husband in such a manner in public.


http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

Yes, I must admit that I'm rather confused. Doesn't Lydia refer to her husband as simply "Wickham" rather than using his first name (and damned if I can even remember what that is right now.) and without always putting a "Mr." in front?

Also, I have to wonder if these instances of Elizabeth calling her husband "Darcy" were early on in the show? If so, could it be that the writers decided to go with that mostly as exposition? Of course many of the viewers will be incredibly familiar with P&P, whether by the book or by film or both, but many won't be. They'll maybe have only read the book once long ago, or saw the movie once, or maybe they're unfamiliar with the story entirely.
Most people that have grown-up in a developed, primarily-Anglophone nation will probably be familiar with Jane Austen, the name of the book Pride & Prejudice , and with the couple Elizabeth and Mr Darcy. So in the beginning of the show, they'll have to write it so that those with this very basic knowledge of P&P understand what's going on and who is who. Seeing as very few people know Mr. Darcy's first name off the tops of their heads, they had to establish that this is The Mr. Darcy.

Also, despite the setting being the 19th century, they're having to write it for 21st century ears. Fitzwilliam is rather a mouthful and a bit clunky. It's really not reasonable to use that name all the time in a show. Well, not for one of the main characters. It's the kind of name that takes you out of the story a bit when you hear it. Darcy is much more first-name-like to modern ears (and I don't know about the UK, but in the states it's become a moderately popular given name for girls. Especially in the 60s, 70s, & 80s) so it makes sense to me that the writers might prefer having the characters use it rather than his given name.

I'm no expert in literature or in the proper forms of addresses in the 19th century (far from it), but I know I've read plenty of books where male characters are referred to by their surnames. I always figured it was similar to how even now some people- usually men- prefer to go by their surnames or a nickname of it. I think this usually happens when they have a very common first name or several family members with the same first name, and so he starts being called by his surname to differentiate him. Sometimes it's due to a clunky, hard-to-pronounce or disliked first name. My brother has one of those first names that suits as adult fine but is unweildy on a child. Our surname happens to be a common-ish male given name, so through our school years he was frequently called by his last name.
I figured that when Austen's characters call someone simply "Wickham" or "Willoughby" or "Darcy" it was akin to modern men and boys using their surnames as first names. Only that for Austen's characters, the usage is probably borne mostly out of being unable to use their first names to the gentlemen's faces, but they were familiar enough to drop titles.

Now you're going to have me going through my Austen books looking for any cases of someone calling a gentleman by his surname with no title preceding it to his face. ...or maybe I just want an excuse to go through a couple of my Austen books again. ;)

reply

I don’t want to deny you the pleasure of going through the books again but here a couple examples:

Chapter 3, Bingley: "Come, Darcy," said he, "I must have you dance….”
Chapter 31, Lady Catherine, “…How does Georgiana get on, Darcy?"

Surely if his friend and aunt can do it, it is not to intimate for his wife. The only time I found it odd for her to drop the “Mr.” was when she was speaking of him to a servant.

reply

Not quite sure why you object to Darcy being called Darcy. Using the surname without title when addressing the person himself was a pretty common form among social intimates and family members well into the 20th c. and seems to be well attested for early 19th c. Britain. Lizzie refers to him as "Mr. Darcy" when speaking to a third person, as form dictated; one notes that when being interviewed by Sir Selwyn Hardcastle, the publican's wife refers to her husband as "Mr. Whatsit". The lowest classes possibly apart, wives would have been unlikely to address their husbands by their Christian name in public, possibly not even in private. Title and Christian name, as in "Miss Georgiana" or "Master Fitzwilliam", usually denoted a respectful form of address for dependents of the head of household. The vicar calling Lizzy familiar might be unusual but, as I recall the scene, they were alone and he was acting in his pastoral capacity, a special case in which the use of the Christian name might not be thought unusual. In general, I thought the etiquette was fairly well done.

What I thought was anachronistic and distracting, though, was the use of Chatsworth for Pemberley. Mr. Darcy is a very wealthy gentleman, of course, but he's not the Duke of Devonshire; Chatsworth is far too grand to be his house, while there are plenty of historic houses which might have played the part of Pemberley more justly.

reply

I agree with you 100%. I couldn't find anywhere else to post this and it was mentioned earlier.
"Even in her blindest moments, Elizabeth Bennet is an unfailing attractive character. She is described as a beauty and has especially expressive eyes, but what everybody notices about her is her spirited wit and her good sense." Anna Maxwell Martin is not even close to the character. The first thing I noticed was that, even though ladies of class did not do so, she would look a little better; maybe just a pinch of the cheeks and a bite of the lower lip, a la Scarlett O'Hara. She is bitter, disconnected, and disrespectful to her husband, which would never be tolerated in a public setting, such as in and around Pemberley. Her face is mean; she looks 15 years older than Darcy. Darcy stays pretty much close to character. AMM never gets close. I am so disappointed with the finished product. I, too, was distracted by the horrendous casting and portrayals, I couldn't pay attention to the program. Pity.

Wait. Did I say that Elizabeth is as ugly as a mud fence?

I just thought of something else. In the version of P&P with Sir Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, the ladies practically glided when they were walking. I tried it and it is not easy to do. It would have been a hell of a lot more difficult while wearing 20 pounds of costume. So, if this was the norm for that time period, would AMM's Lizzie have swung her hips like a wanton woman? This seemed out of character; of course there are other things out of character that she did.

I hate people who use big words just to make themselves look perspicacious.

reply