posted December 26, 2006 09:37 PM         

BUT...

This is the second time around I'm watching Pride and Prejudice. You know that dang film has solidified for me?

It's SOOO wrong, the word out there is, believe what a man says because that's what he means. WRONG. So many times a man's words are contrary to his actions. Which confuses the heck out of us women!

Jane Austen is on to something here....

So we know Mr. Darcy is smitten by first glance at Elizabeth, but his words are contrary to that. But Elizabeth senses it, that he wants her, and he wants her bad. She sees him peeping at her. Staring, dazed, but he says, no, her beauty is too common for him. But right there, she can see his heart all beating out of whack

So, here's the new word...

Know that with his words, he's trying to convince himself contrary to what's truly going beneath the skin, BUT, as woman if he can't admit it, then FORGET HIM!

LOLOL!!!

posted December 26, 2006 11:12 PM         

First of all, it is not MY history BUT I'm just amazed that these woman had nothing to think about but find a good marriage. And so I watch it with a profound sadness, because I know in the world it is set in that they MUST find a partner or else lose their puffed up income status.

Bourgeousie.

They're quite high brow, and privileged. The distinctions in suitably are made in things like, the sort of servants one has, or if they have a country home, God forbid they live in the country home! So, I'm thinking her depictions are class depictions and do not necessarily represent the popular culture of the time.

I HOPE!

posted December 27, 2006 12:11 AM         

jane austen's novels feature a rich depth in character study. i think that what she does actually, is to highlight these class distinctions, in the novels at least, and then illustrate how a person's character, regardless of caste, is the true measure of his or her 'status' in this life. in this regard, she provides a more profound measure of a person's status, based upon his or her individual merits, rather than social standing.

of course this all occurs within the framework of the milieu, but these distinctions that she makes, within a very traditional and genteel framework, rather highlight her intentions, i think.

i do love how her detailed descriptions of the material and social world of this era reflect the interior life and psychological makeup of her characters and their interactions with each other.

posted December 27, 2006 03:53 PM         

She's definitely getting to the humanistic, common qualities that frame this elite class. No doubt. However, also, what I like about the films I've seen, haven't read the books, could never get past the bourgeasie language, that's just me. I prefer writers like David Benioff. Visual, tell what's part of the action and move on. Plot, rather than language. BUT, what I liked about the films is we as the viewer do not want to be a part of that class. It's pretty sexually repressed and slothful, especially for women. It's so different from contemporary society. However, she steadily shows the decline of the caste system, YET, for women, marriage is the only way out, not enterprise. If you know of one of her novels where enterprise leads a woman out of "lower wealthy socio/economic structure, into a higher level of that structure", then please do tell. I would like to adapt that work into a screenplay.

However, after you've laid out the benefits of reading the novels, I actually might, try Emma again. Tried it once but, it got all bogged down in the details and character painting, rather than characterization. In characterization, we learn a character by their actions and reactions. In character painting we learn a character through exposition.

posted December 28, 2006 02:27 AM         

i think that the appeal of Jane Austen is that of her universal treatment of the human condition...good literature conveys universal truth through a myriad of techniques.

we can become enveloped in her exquisite recreating of the excitement of a ball, or the drama in parent/child/sibling relations at tea time...but above all this, Jane Austen's gentle treatment of the human condition is one of subtle insight, empathy and generosity. her touch is light, incisive and penetrating.

something inherent in her art as well is a very refined sense of high comedy. she is a master at expressing wit, and both subtle and overt humor, among her characters and their predicaments.

i don't think that Elizabeth herself was that worried about getting herself married...i believe she took a rather amused view of the social scene, and was tolerant of her mother's aspirations, but somewhat patronizing of them, if in a kind way. she seemed to understand that marriage wasn't the only goal to which she should apply her life.