开云体育

I've just watched Episode 1, and I give it an A, it was surprisingly
excellent. How close it is to actual history, I am not so sure, but Gill
Hornby has done such a brilliant job, and the acting in all the roles is
pitch perfect, so
it's worth watching regardless of how accurate it is.

I eagerly look forward to seeing the whole series.

ARNIE

It was superb. The book is too. Ellen

Elaborating jut a little, The script writer and director are two women whose names I repeatedly observe on the best TV dramas. One aspect of both book & film is Cassandra Is presented with having chosen not to remarry, and content with her choice. At least to her no other is possible, and that's largely because she loved Jane. Her grief is having lost Jane.

The authors all keep to the edges any disapproval of her choices. Where there is a problem is the book presents Jane as depressive -- a mature perhaps accurate reading of the letters, and fans don't like
that. In the book you have letters which contain this and the darkness is therefore contained (not not explored even in the book). In the film we are given little of Jane and encouraged to see Isabella as our
heroine, who does travel the trajectory, from unhappy to conventional happiness.

More practically I suspect many Austen fans will not recognize these more distant relatives. They are there in the Austen papers and wuld, should be there on biographies, but romance ever rules, and women don't matter even here -- but for this book :)

Glad to know others are watching.

Agree totally with Arnie and Ellen that the cast of “Miss Austen” is pretty great. Among them the casting and portrayal I find especially excellent – Patsy Ferran as the young Jane Austen. It's the rare (unique?) film portrayal of JA that isn’t Hollywood prettified, for one, combined with a characterization that captures both her intelligence and humor. She has a certain tartness seems to accompany by one or the other, someone with a light touch. She’s even able to pull off a playfulness that's attractive rather than cloying.

That said, I felt a slight disappointment in the story. Some of it seems melodramatic, which I’m guessing is in part due to needing to squeeze the novel into a teleplay. (Have not yet read the novel.)

And my expectations were probably too high, no doubt.

Dorothy


Episode 1 of Miss Austen on Masterpiece
From: Arnie Perlstein <mailto:arnieperlstein@...?subject=Re:%20Episode%201%20of%20Miss%20Austen%20on%20Masterpiece>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 22:05:10 PDT
I've just watched Episode 1, and I give it an A, it was surprisingly
excellent. How close it is to actual history, I am not so sure, but Gill
Hornby has done such a brilliant job, and the acting in all the roles is
pitch perfect, so
it's worth watching regardless of how accurate it is.

I eagerly look forward to seeing the whole series.

ARNIE

Let me concede other problems with the film, more than the book,
Dorothy. Earlier today I suggested the film-makers are aware to
present Austen as depressive and you add non-glamorous unprettified,
tart tongued will not produce high ratings so they marginalize the
stealth heroine. They also don't articulate Cassandra's choice to stay
single and make Isabella's traditional romance ending the center --
Isabella is not in the book its center.

I am now covering the later episodes without giving away anything. We
all know by now Cassandra has come with the aim of destroying the
majority of Jane's letters and we have seen her find one packet. She
will find others. I won't give away why Isabella and Mary Austen (the
bullying dense sister-in-law, now widow of James perversely proud of
what she berated him for in life (being a gentle poet) don't want
Cassandra there and seek to stop her from finding, hiding, and
probably destroying the letters. But I can say Cassandra succeeds in
her aim.

Partly it's the problem of transferring a semi- or heavily epistolary
novel into a film. It can be done. The 1991 Clarissa succeeded.
Andrew Davies He Knew He Was Right is a triumph out of a semi-
epist;ary npvel

What I want to critique as a flaw is how lugubriously the final scene
is treated, as well as half-crazed over the top as Cassandra sits
there ecstatic over burning the letters and "keeping Jane's secret,
which in both book and film i the affair with the young man one
summer. In the book she's not ecstatic nor lugubrious, but quietly
intent, maybe relieved but not happy. After all Jane is dead, Tom
Fowle is dead, and she is alone. It's a sombre ending.

I suppose again the film writers worried about ratings so were
overly-emotional altogether for the watchers and ludicrously upbeat. I
felt sorry for Keele Hawes sitting there with a frozen smile on her
face, Presumably the actress knew this was all wrong.

Ellen

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:26?PM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

Glad to know others are watching.

Agree totally with Arnie and Ellen that the cast of “Miss Austen” is pretty great. Among them the casting and portrayal I find especially excellent – Patsy Ferran as the young Jane Austen. It's the rare (unique?) film portrayal of JA that isn’t Hollywood prettified, for one, combined with a characterization that captures both her intelligence and humor. She has a certain tartness seems to accompany by one or the other, someone with a light touch. She’s even able to pull off a playfulness that's attractive rather than cloying.

That said, I felt a slight disappointment in the story. Some of it seems melodramatic, which I’m guessing is in part due to needing to squeeze the novel into a teleplay. (Have not yet read the novel.)

And my expectations were probably too high, no doubt.

Dorothy