Jane Austen: Then and Now

In Jane Austen’s novel Emma, the protagonist Emma is a young woman with high social status, a know-it-all attitude and little vexations. Much like the main character Cher in the film clueless, she acts to serve her own interests and her restlessness leads her to take on projects that play with the fates of other individuals. The parallels between this film adaptation and Jane Austen’s original piece are abundant, from the matchmaking Emma sets up for Harriet and the ploys Cher develops for her teachers to the noticeable romantic tensions between Emma and Mr. Knightley and Cher and her step-brother Josh. Both heroines believe they are acting for the good of society in their matchmaking schemes and Cher claims this isn’t her only wonderful contribution to society and when she finally receives her license, she plans to “brake for animals” and donates her italian clothes to Lucy. While Emma is set in a small town and Clueless in a high school, the social hierarchy and decorum is reflected by the levels of popularity in the high school. Much like Emma takes on projects to set people on a certain path most beneficial to her, Cher gains a sense of control in a chaotic world from doing so as well. This theme of control, stemming from Emma’s confined nature as a women in a male dominated society to Cher’s limitations as a high school student are underlined by both plots. I really enjoyed the film and think it was a great modern twist on Austen’s work.

One decision that the director of the film made that I feel is very important to point out is the interpretation of Frank Churchill as Christian Stovitz. He became the love interest of Cher in the movie. She went as far as sending flowers and love notes to herself to show him that she feels that she would be very desirable to him. He ignored all of her advances up until the very end when he accepted her invitation to a party and finally revealed that he was not interested in girls. At the time when I watched this film, I never really thought much of it and thought that he didn’t like any girls at the school but now that I think about it, it was implicitly making a reference to his sexuality and him being considered gay. In the 1990’s when this film was released, it was something that I have never even heard about up until the past 5 years when it has been gaining a lot of attention. It is not quite a solid interpretation of Frank Churchill in the novel since he was considered very stuck up and spoiled.

Clueless is as entertaining as the novel, even though it is not completely faithful to the original source. The decision that really interested me was the portrayal of Emma’s self-indulgence with her powers of match making. In the novel, Austen does a great job of showing the reader the high regard that Emma has for herself and this would have been difficult to translate to the big screen but I think that the creators of the film did justice to that. The example of Cher playing matchmaker and setting up her teachers is a great one because it reveals the nature of Emma. First of all, she wants to accomplish this task because it will serve her interest. After she has completed this task, the round of applause that she gets from everyone is a great insight to how Emma must feel the world sees her. This is a solid interpretation of the characteristic of Emma, with her idea of being the best in her community and of having no equal. This scene really did capture that essence of the novel and I think that by having Cher explicitly state that everyone was thankful for her work, the film also reveals, to the same extent as the novel, the extent of Emma’s self-absorption.

What is the real story of the elusive Frank Churchill? In the movie version, Churchill, aka Christian is portrayed as gay and the clueless Cher still doesn’t get it.

A few questions about Churchill, in the novel are left to the reader for personal interpretation. First he never visits his father and when he does finally, after 20 some odd years, he spends time traveling to London to get a haircut. Although is not necessarily a big deal, a big deal is made of it, which leaves one to wonder what else is going on with Churchill.

And even after his secret engagement is discovered, he does not spend any time with Jane Fairfax. In fact he only talks to her through Emma. What is that all about.

The film’s explanation of Churchill/Christian is as plausible as any other. It works.

When reading the novel Mansfield Park, I pictured Henry Crawford as an overly flirtatious and somewhat villainous character. He finds Maria more favorable of the sisters but knows he’s expected to capture Julia’s attention. In the novel he is portrayed more so like a man that holds the final word and makes the decisions regarding his private life. He comes off rather vain, arrogant and manipulative, hoping to make Fanny fall in love with him and be left in ruin. However, in the film, he seemed much more redeemable. He was moderately attractive and had a charm to him. His persistence fighting for Fanny seemed rather genuine and made me think I judged him too harshly in the novel. Its clear his character has serious flaws regardless and I think the director did an outstanding job portraying his scenes with Maria. I particularly liked the scene where he reads to Fanny and Maria is seen peering through the door with some jealousy. I think all the characters where portrayed slightly differently in my mind than on screen, like Edmund seemed to be immediately enthralled by Fanny, Fanny seemed too caustic and confident at times, and Mary Crawford had a really serpentine character in certain scenes. All the other characters however seemed to be on the mark aside from William who was entirely missing. Overall I really enjoyed the film and think that although there were slight adjustments made, it captured the novel as a whole pretty well.

The focal point, to me, was the ushering in of slavery to the foreground.  In the novel, that topic was delicately, but firmly, positioned into the background.  The movie found a way to both address it and even use it as a catalyst for some key pieces of action.

Tom’s alcoholism, in the movie, became a symptom of his anguish, suffered due to the mental chore of reconciling immorality with desire.  Being the older son, he was, of course, due all the wealth that his father had acquired, along with all the accoutrements of riches and power; however, the wealth was built on a foundation of the inhuman practice of slavery.  Tom’s excess in drinking led to his serious injury, which was the impetus for much of the social-maneuvering and jockeying by the Crawfords, at the center of the story.

Moreover, the sketchbook, which Tom composed – and which probably sparked his cognitive dissonance and fueled his misery  – displayed to Fanny the very extent of immorality.  Fanny was appalled by these images and rightfully blamed Sir Thomas, but the sketches were so shocking that the audience could not have moved past.  And since the director’s vision seemed to hinged on the connection of Fanny (a character that was seemingly disconnected in the novel) to the audience, it was necessary to disallow the glazing over of such depictions of violence and rape.  This connection in reproach, between the audience and Fanny, led to Sir Thomas severing his ties of Antigua and picking up the leaf.

One interesting change that the movie makes in regard to the novel is the conversation between Sir Thomas and Edmund about Edmund choosing well. Sir Thomas states that he is happy with Edmund’s choice and that the people are respectable to which Edmund replies, “the Prices”. This change of affection in the movie makes the ending more realistic than the novel and I think it works well. In the novel Edmund’s love for Fanny grows spontaneously and this makes the ending less credible. The movie fixes this issue through this scene which reveals that Edmund already has feelings for Fanny but it is unsure of which woman he likes more.

The novel and film differ in many ways not only because they different depictions of the same story but because of the novel’s length, the film had to cut out many parts. One part that was vital in the novel but missing in the film was Fanny’s brother William. He was the focus of Fanny’s affection and also was what led her to feel guilty / have a sense of a duty to Henry after his proposal to her. Another big difference in both was the emphasis and depiction of slavery. In the novel,  it was only just mentioned indirectly however the film goes the extra mile and depicts dialogue and even ships. This may have been because the director felt that it was very important to point it out because it was the source of their wealth. Marriage at this time was seen as an action that connects two families but also was viewed as a financial transaction.

Tom Bertram gives the audience a graphic pictorial of slavery in the film version of Mansfield Park. He has drawn pictures of rape, lynching and Sir Thomas having a sex act performed on himself. One could only wonder why Sir Thomas in the novel, comes back a changed man – more relaxed.

Austen’s novel alludes to slavery without any mention or showing the horrible effects of it. These drawings, very effectively show an evil within an evil.

In the film, Edmund, the clergyman to be, reminds Fanny that she lives off of the profits of slavery, but he does not seem to be troubled by it.

The film does a much better job of showing the ill effects and moral wrong that the novel barely touches.