It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a book in possession of the name Austen, must be in want of an adaptation.
In her work, The Paradigms of Popular Culture, Paula Backschneider claims that, for her, “popular culture is defined by its relationship to the dominant culture and that is one of perpetual tension, sometimes antagonistic, sometimes perpetuating, but always a site of potential critique,” (20). It is this statement on popular culture I will focus on in this essay as I discuss the differences between Jane Austen’s, Pride and Prejudice, and the 2005 film by the same name directed by Joe Wright. I will attempt to discover the ways in which both of these sources play into and push against the status quo of their time, and how postfeminism plays a major role in the adaptation of this Jane Austen novel.
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice
Jane Austen’s novel, Pride and Prejudice is at once a site of feminist acclaim as well as a site for critique. The historical significance of this text, of course, cannot be overlooked when discussing the contents within its pages. The popularization such a text, that is to say, one written by a women in the 18th century, and one that focuses predominately on women and their relationships is in itself a contributor to feminist discourse. However, the politics of the socio-economic standings for the novel’s characters is a sight for critique in modern day feminism.
The novel follows the story of Elizabeth Bennet, and transversely the Bennet family as she tries to navigate the marriage market, the social politics of the time, and her existence as a women within these two spaces. Through this, the reader follows Elizabeth as she navigates her relationships with the women in her life, and with Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham, however, most of what transpires between Elizabeth and the men in the story is told through the relation of events between her and another woman, or between her and a letter. The men are not afforded depth through this type of storytelling and instead at as a means of simply furthering the plot, whereas the women are afforded insight into their character and therefore personhood. One such moment is when the reader gains a background description on Mrs. Bennet, “had Elizabeth’s opinion been all drawn from her own family, she could not have formed a very pleasing opinion of conjugal felicity or domestic comfort. Her father, captivated by youth and beauty, and that appearance of good humour which youth and beauty generally give, had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her,” (Austen, 254). At first, the reader sees a man who has fallen out of love with a silly woman, however, upon further reflection the reader sees a much sadder tale of a woman who has had five children with a man who has no affection for her and holds her in very little opinion. Though Mrs. Bennet is a silly woman, as is noted through out the story, she is also a very realistic woman. Rude in her manners as she may be, she is rightfully concerned with making strong matches for her daughters in marriage, to make sure that they, as well as herself are taken care of when her husband dies, a fact that he seems to be concerned very little with.
While Mrs. Bennet’s story line and the ultimate ending for the women of the Bennet family centre around marriage, it is the interpersonal relationships between women that propel this story forward and what this story is truly about. Though, while this is acknowledged in academic spaces, in todays era of Jane Austen adaptations, the story of Pride and Prejudice has appeared to lose its true meaning in the hands of the masses.
Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice (2005)
Before writing this article I sent out a poll, that I will refer to as poll A, through the social media platform, Instagram, in which I asked my followers if they had read Pride and Prejudice, seen the 2005 feature film version of Pride and Prejudice, or had both read and seen each version, or if they had neither read nor seen either version. Two hundred and forty seven people responded to this poll, of this two hundred and forty seven, only forty two were men. 10% had neither read nor seen the novel or its adaptation, 14% had only read the novel, 26% had read the novel and seen the film, and 50% had only seen the film. I then conducted a second poll, referred to as poll B, asking this time only two questions: is Pride and Prejudice a story about women’s relationships? vs. Is Pride and Prejudice a love story between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet? This poll had a response of two hundred and seventy people. Unsurprisingly, 74% of people voted in favour of Pride and Prejudice being a love story between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet. Though poll B had more responses, with the overwhelming majority of poll A voting in favour of having seen only the film version of this story, it is highly suggested that this modern day film adaptation is the reasoning for this shift in understanding what exactly Pride and Prejudice is about.
Image courtesy of intofilm.org
Upon rewatching the 2005 film adaptation, it became clear how this misinterpretation of Austen’s work began. I cannot say that the poll takers overwhelming response in favour of Elizabeth Bennet’s story being reduced simply to a love story between her and Mr. Darcy is wrong, because Pride and Prejudice (2005) is simply that: a love story. From the opening scene it is clear to the audience what this story is about, and how they should interpret it. The film begins with a serene landscape view of a field surrounded by slight woods, the sun shines bright in the morning dew and radiantly intensifies before cutting to a scene of Elizabeth, book in hand, as she walks through the field. As she reads she coyly giggles to herself and lifts her hand to her face to demonstrate her lady like demeanour. She then closes the book after ever so gently caressing the page, and notably does not mark her page, even though there is a book mark previously lain in the pages before her (00:00:47-00:01:30), letting the audience know that she is studious yet care free and lady like all at once. Directly after, she wanders through a mass of neatly hung white linens, signifying her purity. From the moment the film begins the audience is given a version of Elizabeth that demonstrates her ease of self and her desirability.
The next moment of note comes not long after, at the assembly. Elizabeth asks Mr. Darcy if he dances, to which he replies rather rudely “not if I can help it”. Elizabeth then walks off and we see her pass by the dancing scene, laughing coyly to herself yet again. As the scene follows and she and Charlotte hear Mr. Darcy’s response to Mr. Bingly’s praise of herself, Elizabeth appears to the audience as sad and disappointed, rather than offended and turned off from any acquittance of Darcy’s as she is in the book. From this moment, nearly every moment of interaction between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy is filled with subtle, and some not very subtle flirtation, removing entirely Elizabeth’s original and genuine dislike for him that follows her through the books until the final third.
Image courtesy of RosiePowell2001
Now, the film does touch on the importance of marriage for a woman in the 18th century through the use of Charlotte’s infamous speech, “not all of us can afford to be romantic. I’ve been offered a comfortable home and protection. It’s a lot to be thankful for. I’m 27 years old. I’ve no money, and no prospects. I’m already a burden to my parents. And I’m frightened. So don’t judge me Lizzy, don’t you dare judge me,” (00:55:30-00:55:41). This speech gives insight to the politics of marriage and the need for women to make a socio-economicly smart decision in marriage. It also speaks to the class distinctions between the two women and the freedom that this societal ranking came with, “not all of us can afford to be romantic” tells the audience that Elizabeth’s rank affords her that luxury where Charlotte’s does not. However, this is the only scene in the film that does not show marriage as the fairytale depiction the audience attributes to this film.
Image courtesy of The Little Lady blog
Femininity as Function and Postfeminism
If the work of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is to tell a story of women’s place in society, and the careful dance that takes place within the marriage market and the socio-economic hardships that have high potential of ensuing if this dance is failed, then femininity functions, in the novel, as a means of storytelling and telling the truths of women in the 18th century and unfortunately in modern times as well. So how does femininity function in Wright’s 2005 film adaptation? And how does postfeminism fit into this?
In the introduction (Feminized Popular Culture in the Early Twenty-first Century) to her paper Cupcakes, Pinterest, and Ladyporn, Elana Levine states that, “postfeminist logic sees gender equality as having been accomplished, freeing up women to choose for themselves that which they most desire, both professionally and personally. That the “empowerment” of “choice” so heralded in postfeminist culture is in fact limited to a narrow range of privileged women is ignored; these postfeminist traits are naturalized as universal, which in part accounts for their power,” (5). This is the ideology that is the main driving force in Wright’s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, that this is a love story of choice, and that even though Charlotte may not have one, her fleeting moment is simply a nod to Austen’s source text rather than a true critique on the time.
In, A Theory of Adaptation, Hutcheon and O’Flynn write, “It is obvious that adapters must have their own personal reasons for deciding first to do an adaptation and then choosing which adapted work and what medium to do it in. They not only interpret that work but in so doing they also take a position on it,” (92). The position that Wright has taken on Pride and Prejudice is that it is a women’s story, and a women’s story is never anything more than a story about falling in love. Or perhaps, it is that a women’s story never should be about anything other than falling in love. “[Christian Metz remarks on cinema and adaption that] “[it] tells us continuous stories; it ‘says’ things that could be conveyed also in the language of words; yet it says them differently,”” (Hutcheon, et al. 3). It is through this “showing” that Wright changes the story while sticking relatively closely to the actual plot of the source text.
However, through the manipulation of the portrayal of the feminine, Wright is able to re-write the meaning of the text. In the film, Darcy still insults Elizabeth, and his demeanour is hardly different, if not more unforgiving than in Austen’s novel, and yet, this does not sway the audience from the belief that he and Elizabeth are destined to be together, that he loves her and she loves him. This is done through the directorial decisions of having Elizabeth’s character portrayed in such a flirtatious way that she and Darcy seem to be playing a game of cat and mouse, rather than of actual distain for the other. Wright also, while keeping to Elizabeth’s dialogue against Mr. Darcy, has Elizabeth giggle and smile to herself while she blushes at the thought of him, telling the audience that her words are simply words and hold no weight in comparison to her true feelings. Therefore, Wright weaponizes the feminine charms of actress Keira Knightly in her portrayal of Elizabeth to demonstrate a version of events that is more well suited for the male gaze and for, what is considered correct for women to consume in the media.
It is no coincidence that this retelling became one of love and desire rather than a story of the intricate social hierarchies, economic advancements, and the marriage market to the lives of women in the 18th century. By turning this cleverly written novel into a simple story of love and desire, Wright has turned Pride and Prejudice into two things. The first being a redemption story for an irredeemable and insufferable man while giving him little to no actual redemption or explanation toward his actions as is given in the books. The second, a nostalgic and romanticized view of a world where women lived as property and existed (within the socio-economic system) to please. This postfeminist take, on an arguably early feminist novel reduces it to mens idea of “women’s literature” and “chick flicks” being about a man, rather than the true nature of being about women and the depth and complexities of their relationships to one another.
By recreating a work on women’s relationships as a work of women falling in love with a man who has little to no redeeming qualities, Wright has created a piece of influential media that rewrites the source texts meaning to the general public, minimizes the complexities of women authors and the issues they tackle in their works, and created a foundation for the romanticization of a time where women were oppressed through a postfeminist lens by utilizing femininity against feminine empowerment and female agency.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Paper Mill Press, 2018.
Backschneider, Paula. “The Paradigms of Popular Culture.” The Eighteenth-Century Novel, 2009, AMS Press, pp. 19–59.
Elana, Levine. “Introduction: Feminized Popular Culture in the Early Twenty-First Century.” Cupcakes, Pinterest, and Lady Porn: Feminized Popular Culture in the Early 21. Century, University of Illinois Press, 2015, pp. 1-12.
Hutcheon, Linda, and Siobhan O'Flynn. A Theory of Adaptation. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2012.
Maggach, Deborah, et al. Pride & Prejudice. Amazon Prime: Pride and Prejudice, 2022, www.primevideo.com/detail/0TYVURAEBPFL1N1WK4U4FWNT31/ref=atv_dp_sign_suc_3P.
Comments