MovieChat Forums > Love & Friendship (2016) Discussion > Confusing title - anybody know why?

Confusing title - anybody know why?


"Lady Susan" is the title long attached to the unfinished novel on which this movie's apparently based. "Love and Freindship" - the title and spelling are Miss Jane's - is a fantastically overwrought satire, as funny in its Regency way as the best of Perelman or Woody Allen, never published till after her death. Austen penned it when she was just 15.
Not sure what Stillman hopes to achieve with the title switch. Is this move sly, blunt, or uninformed?
Possible tiebreaker: if the screenplay includes the line "run wild as often as you like, but do not swoon," then the moviemakers are acknowledging a debt to L&F. I'll have to see the movie to understand what the L is up with this.
Please comment below if you can help solve this riddle.

reply

I'm confused a bit as well, but one possible reason for the title switch could be an acknowledgement that Stillman is creating a loose adaptation (Lady Susan wasn't exactly Austen's most accomplished work) and he didn't want to keep the title for that reason.

I don't know why he'd use the title of Austen's batsh!t insane L&F, though. Possibly to acknowledge that this is still very much an Austenian piece, despite changes (Stillman is the modern day Austen, and I'd trust him with her works over any other filmmaker to be true to the spirit of his source). I suppose I'll see when I get a chance to watch the movie.

"Hello? Mr. Ohmygodcrunchcunch? Look, spit out whatever you're chewing and start over!"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

There's an interview video somewhere online in which Stillman explains why the name change. They didn't think the title Lady Susan was marketable so they changed it. He acknowledged that Love and Friendship is the title of another piece from Austen's juvenilia. Iirc, the change was made while he was still shopping for financial backing.

I don't recall where the video interview was located. It might be on the film's website. I'm pretty sure I found it through twitter, either Stillman's account or the acct for the film. If you poke around a bit, you should find it.

reply

Thx! Financial backers would imho be just the sort to correct the iconic spelling and ruin the joke.

reply

Well they might not have ever even considered using Austen's spelling.

Lol, maybe they didn't want people to think they were emulating Inglorious Basterds? *wink*

reply

Austen misspelled A LOT of words, I don't think there was any humor intended in her misspelling of freindship (a spelling that she seemed to use all through her life -- or at least her juvenile writings, which don't have the benefit of an editor and spellchecker).

"Hello? Mr. Ohmygodcrunchcunch? Look, spit out whatever you're chewing and start over!"

reply

No, no, I didn't say nor did I imply that Miss Austen intended her spelling mistakes, to get laughs or for any other reason. The humor born of Austenites' recognition of homage is an opportunity missed, alas. "L+F" isn't funny because of poor spelling, it's a gut-wracking laff riot that just happens to feature poor spelling.

reply

Gotcha. I think that keeping the misspelling would have been a terrible idea for the film (just as I feel that it's a terrible idea for publishers of the original work), because that just makes it harder to find it when you're looking for it.

Out of curiosity (and going completely off topic), how would you rank Austen's novels and your enjoyment of them? She's my favorite novelist, and I'm wondering what the opinions of other fans may be on her books. For me, it is:

1. Sanditon (Unfinished, cut short by her death) -- Utterly hilarious from beginning to end, this satire of hypochondria and the industry of healthcare had the potential to be her greatest achievement if she lived long enough to finish it. She didn't get very far, unfortunately, and what we have is barely the setup for a plot.
2. Pride & Prejudice -- Definitely her most accomplished work, with the most fleshed out, sympathetic and real characters. The comedy is wonderful, but more than any other of her other works, this one has a beating heart underneath, as Darcy and Elizabeth mature into seeing others rather than themselves.
3. Emma -- My first Austen, and arguably her funniest work. Emma Woodhouse is her most devilishly lovable creature, a horrible beast that I loved because of her faults. I wouldn't want to be around her in reality, but as a character in a book, Emma is a gem.
4. Persuasion -- A more subdued, although no less entertaining, spin in the vein of Pride & Prejudice, with wonderful dramatic currents that are only rivaled by P&P.
5. Love & Friendship -- What manner of insanity is this!? This is one of the craziest, most over-the-top pieces of fiction I have ever encountered, and the glee of the writer shines through in every ridiculous word. It can be a bit tiring in all of its manic energy, but boy, I'll take this over Lady Susan any day.
6. Northanger Abbey -- The more mature sibling of L&F. It's a much more measured satire of the genre it inhabits, and it is pretty fun. But in comparison, it lacks the fevered joy that made L&F so special.
7. The Watsons (Unfinished) -- For unknown reasons, Austen abandoned this project to write the dreary Mansfield Park, and that's too bad. I'm unsure of exactly where she was planning on taking this, but what we have is pretty entertaining stuff, although it is hard to distinguish from any of her other books.
8. Sense & Sensibility -- I don't quite remember why, but I never cared for this book. It wasn't bad, per se. But if I recall correctly, I found "Sensibility" rather insufferable, and she brought the story down for me. I quite liked Ang Lee's film version, and I'm open to giving both the source and the film another shot.
9. Mansfield Park -- Ever seen Whit Stillman's Metropolitan? You know that scene in which Tom and Audrey argue over Mansfield Park, offering their opinions on the book? I'm with Tom. All the way. Fanny is a self-righteous, egotistical goody-two-shoes who is so caught up in herself and her irrational hatred of Miss Crawford that any sympathetic traits she may have become invisible. When Fanny gets away from Mansfield and sees her birth family, the story shows the promise of what could have been had Austen chosen a different route and followed that family and dealt with Fanny's sense of class and superiority. Unfortunately, the story soon goes back to Mansfield for a finale that left a very bad taste in my mouth.
10. Lady Susan --  This is Austen's most dull, witless, surprisingly unpleasant book, that only truly comes alive in the epilogue when a narrator takes over to tell us that the author wrote herself into a corner and can't figure out how to continue the story. I'm looking forward to Stillman's adaptation, because he feels more like a mature Austen than anyone else today (I've long called him the modern Austen), and because he could take the shell of this book and mold it into something that isn't a total bore.

"Hello? Mr. Ohmygodcrunchcrunch? Look, spit out whatever you're chewing and start over!"

reply

9. Mansfield Park -- Ever seen Whit Stillman's Metropolitan? You know that scene in which Tom and Audrey argue over Mansfield Park, offering their opinions on the book? I'm with Tom. All the way. Fanny is a self-righteous, egotistical goody-two-shoes who is so caught up in herself and her irrational hatred of Miss Crawford that any sympathetic traits she may have become invisible. When Fanny gets away from Mansfield and sees her birth family, the story shows the promise of what could have been had Austen chosen a different route and followed that family and dealt with Fanny's sense of class and superiority. Unfortunately, the story soon goes back to Mansfield for a finale that left a very bad taste in my mouth.


I hated Mansfield Park when I first read it at age 18 in 1977/1978. I had already read P&P and Emma by that point, but didn't read another book by Austen until the mid-1990s, which is when Austenmania really took hold. Yes, MP had left that bad a taste in my mouth.

But then I re-read it in anticipation of the 1999 movie (which was, IMO, such an abomination that it is the only Austen adaptation that I flatly refuse to own). Anyway, I was 40 in 1999 and this time, I absolutely loved it. There are parts of it that are laugh-out-loud funny (check out Austen's various comments about Mrs. Norris). As for Fanny being a stick-in-the-mud, I most sincerely beg to differ. She has, as I have said before, a spine of stainless steel. She runs rings around Elizabeth Bennet as a judge of character. In short, if Fanny doesn't like or trust someone, that person will end up not being worth liking or trusting. Fanny stands up to her uncle and refuses to marry Henry Crawford. It takes true intestinal fortitude to tell someone who has a lot of power over her that she will not obey him. How does that make her a weakling? I would submit that it's just the opposite -- Fanny has a lot of inner strength which is, in this book, more important than physical strength. Maria Bertram is perfectly healthy physically, but she proves herself to be weak morally. She's engaged to a man just for his money and then flirts with Henry to make her own sister jealous, marries the rich guy, dumps him for a roll in the hay with Henry and then gets dumped herself and has to spend the rest of her life with Mrs. Norris. She deserves it.

MP is, to me at least, a story about appearance over substance. The Crawfords have all the appearance, and Fanny has all the substance. Edmund who, like most of us, is somewhere in the middle, falls for Mary, and it does take him a while to realize that she is as shallow as the kiddie pool. She sneers at his vocation for the clergy and even wishes that his brother would die. How does that make Fanny's dislike of her irrational? Mary Crawford would make a terrible clergyman's wife, and Edmund really does want to be a clergyman. As a younger son, he could have chosen the military or the law instead, but he chose the clergy. Fanny, on the other hand, would be an excellent clergyman's wife. She has empathy and compassion, two qualities which you appear to dismiss as unimportant. I, however, do not.

I can't think that Fanny and I would be friends because we don't have much in common, but she is a better person than most of us.

As an aside, Metropolitan is an all-time favorite movie.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, they weren't really spelling mistakes. During that era, many words didn't have a consistent or "standardized" spelling/form. There weren't yet style manuals and standardized grammar and punctuation rules either.

reply

Which makes it more puzzling why people insist on including her spellings in modern editions. Give the girl a break, I'm sure she never intended her books to be harder to read due to spelling changing over 200 years.

"Hello? Mr. Ohmygodcrunchcrunch? Look, spit out whatever you're chewing and start over!"

reply

I don't see the problem with doing that, Leaving Austen's work as she wrote it, as long as it is noted that the text is Austen's original, as published and printed in the edition she proofed. I quite enjoy it, personally.

As for your last sentence, by that philosophy, a case could be made for simplifying everything from Shakespeare to Twain. I'll gladly stick with the originals. 

(Yes, I love reading "shew" for "show.")

reply

I'm not saying that we should simplify the work. Just modernize the spelling and grammar. I'm a great fan of Shakespeare (watching Othello tonight in D.C.), but I don't read his plays with all of the old fashioned spelling. It makes it harder to experience the way it was intended (granted, Shakes intended for his plays to be watched rather than read, but why make the reading harder?).

"Hello? Mr. Ohmygodcrunchcrunch? Look, spit out whatever you're chewing and start over!"

reply

There are editions that do that. In the US, I think Modern Library and/or Everyman -- at least one of those uses modern spellings.. I'm pretty sure Penguin, Oxford, Broadview and Norton all maintain Austen's spellings.

Oxford editions tend to have Chapman's notes on Austen's spellings and punctuations.

reply

I also hate that they went with the title of another Austen work. I actually thought it was an adaptation of the satire when it was announced at Sundance and was really disappointed when it was not.

reply

@randommovies2002: Thanks for pointing out that the spellings in Austen's works were not spelling "mistakes." For good or ill, English is a living, ever-changing language, and the spelling of 200 years ago should not, and cannot, be judged by the spelling rules of today.

reply

The esteemed Doctor Chapman did a couple of things that I believe he should not have done. The most glaring example of this is from "Emma."

In "Emma," Mrs. Elton refers to her husband as caro sposo or cara sposo, or other variations on that theme. The correct form is caro sposo, which means "dear husband." Anyway, Dr. Chapman corrected the spelling so that every time Mrs. Elton said it it was consistent. But some believe that Austen did this intentionally, to show that Mrs. Elton wasn't quite as bright as she thought she was. Personally, I have no problems accepting this explanation.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

Yes, I think it's very "Austenian" to make fun of Mrs. Elton not only for showing off her Italian but also repeatedly getting it wrong. This reading is far better than assuming Austen was being sloppy or her typesetters were making mistakes.

reply

It comes from a passage in the book.

Lady Susan Vernon and Reginald De Courcy are having an affair, which lady Susan wants to break off. So she tells De Courcy that she is going to end their relationship, but wants to remain friends, whereupon De Courcy replies, "Oh, does that mean that we can still have sex?"

reply

Oh my, your comment has given me the vapors, big time. Whoever told you that a book by Miss Austen contains the 2 consecutive words "have sex" has earned his or her wicked laugh at your expense.

Diagnosis: Poseur *fail*. Rx: Read the effing book b4 claiming to quote it.

reply

Oh my, your comment has given me the vapors, big time


And so you should.

I have just had a glance at Pride and Prejudice, which hinges on a 15 year old girl running away with a man at least 10 years older. And is she offered counseling? She should be so lucky. All that happens is that her mother urges her husband to call the offender out and blow a hole in him.

It isn't as though Persuasion is much better, what with Mr Elliott obliging everything in skirts. I like to think that I am as broadminded as the next man, but I would hate to see these celebrations of sex, snobbery and violence fall into the hands of the womenfolk or servants.

I imagine that the title was a bit of advertising, with the hope that the viewers would automatically associate Love and Friendship with Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility.

reply

"I like to think that I am as broadminded as the next man."

I'm not seeing evidence of either proposition. If you liked to think, you'd write more thoughtful posts. And unless "the next man" sports a Make America Great Again cap, you are not his equal in broadmindedness.

In kindness I must admonish you to abandon this thread before persuading all gentle readers that you cannot tell the difference between 1816 and 2016, or between Jane Austen and Judith Krantz.

reply

1816 and 2016, or between Jane Austen and Judith Krantz.


Of course I can tell the difference between 1816 and 2016. Apart from anything else, 1816 was at least twenty years after Jane Austen wrote Lady Susan, the novel upon which Love and Friendship was based.

And although there are similarities between Jane Austen and Judith Krantz, there is a major difference in that Austen's heroines only have one thing to sell, and they ain't going to do that unless the price is right.

reply

"I have just had a glance at Pride and Prejudice, which hinges on a 15 year old girl running away with a man at least 10 years older... [and] all that happens is that her mother urges her husband to call the offender out and blow a hole in him."

Dude, you should have more than a glance before presuming to comment. I'm afraid you missed a rather large part of the story, and the part at which you did glance, you remember incorrectly.

However if you're trying your hand at an Austen parody, it's coming along fine. You sound exactly like John Thorpe commenting on novels in Northanger Abbey.

reply

All that happens is that her [Lydia Bennet's] mother urges her husband to call the offender out and blow a hole in him.


. . . A considerable mischaracterization. At most, Mrs. Bennet expresses fear that her husband may feel obliged to call the offender out--and wind up having the offender blow a hole in him instead (a much more likely result, with the offender being young and a military man). This is the last thing Mrs. B wants--as she herself says--inasmuch as it would result in her and her entire family getting kicked out of their house, since someone else inherits it after her husband's death. (That's aside from her hubby's not having life insurance, of course.)




reply

Not sure what Stillman hopes to achieve with the title switch.
No doubt for marketing purposes. They want the title to connote the idea that it's a third in a series after Sense & Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice, films/series that did very well. It's all about the ampersand. :)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Stillman said in a video interview that it was a marketing decision to help him sell the film to his backers. As someone else already pointed out, it follows the naming scheme of two Austen novels:
Pride and Prejudice
Sense and Sensibility

Hence:
Love and Friendship

reply

[deleted]

I suspect they chose the Love & Friendship title because they figured a general audience would associate it with Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility and be more likely to seek out the film--that "Lady Susan" would be a weaker brand except for dedicated Austen fans.

I may be wrong about this, but I believe the handwritten, recopied notebooks of Austen juvenilia has the original spelling Freindship corrected to Friendship--but publishers always like to use the charming juvenile misspelling. Whether that spelling correction was made by Jane Austen herself, or by her sister or nephew after her death, I don't know.

reply

The only love part is Frederica and Reginald at the end, and the only friendship is Lady Susan and her buddy Alicia Johnson.


Also it could be an ironic title, the main focus on the film is not about love or friendship, but about cold calculated attempts at matchmaking by a cunning woman who wtill stop at nothing.

reply