Top Five Favorite JANE AUSTEN Adaptations

[seldonp38]

As far as I know, there have been at least twenty (20) television and movie adaptations of Jane Austen's six published novels. There may have been more, but I am unfamiliar with them. Below is a list of my five (or seven) adaptations of Austen's novels:


TOP FIVE FAVORITE JANE AUSTEN ADAPTATIONS



1. "Pride and Prejudice" (1995) - For me, this television miniseries adaptation of Austen's 1813 novel is the crème de la crème of the Austen productions. Adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by Simon Langston, this miniseries starred Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.





2. "Sense and Sensibility" (1995) - Ang Lee directed this award winning adaptation of Austen's 1811 novel. This movie was adapted by Emma Thompson (who won an Oscar for her efforts) and co-starred her, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman.





3. "Emma" (2009) - Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller were delightful in this colorful television adaptation of Austen's 1815 novel. The miniseries was adapted by Sandy Welch and directed by Jim O'Hanlon.





4. "Persuasion" (1971/1995/2007) - I could not decide which adaptation of Austen's 1818 novel that I enjoyed the best. I really enjoyed all three adaptations, even though I believe all three had its flaws. Anyway; the 1971 television adaptation starred Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall, the 1995 movie starred Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds, and the 2007 television movie starred Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones.





5. "Emma" (1972) - Another adaptation of Austen's 1815 novel made my list. This time, it is the 1972 miniseries that starred Doran Godwin and John Carson. Adapted by Denis Costanduros and directed by John Glenister, this miniseries is my second favorite of the Austen adaptations that aired during the 1970s and 80s.

Comments

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

Too bad. I rather liked Keira Knightley's performance in "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE".

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Yeah that's the one I was thinking of ;) I guess it wasn't just her performance... it's the whole idea of squishing P&P down into a two hour movie. It just felt so... rushed and icky.

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

It's a movie. They had no choice. Even the six-hour 1995 version isn't completely accurate. Why would you expect the 2005 movie to include all of Austen's novel? That doesn't make sense to me.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

(Wow, this was a blast from the past...)

As far as the movie goes, if you can't do it justice, why do it at all?

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

They can't do justice to the novel in a television miniseries, let alone a movie. Why do people insist that a novel be adapted for television or the screen with no changes . . . when such a thing is impossible?