Jane Austen's Lady Susan Comes to the Big Screen

I had no idea that Jane Austen's short epistolary novel, Lady Susan, had been adapted to film. It opens in New York, Los Angeles and Paris this weekend, and opens nation-wide on May 27th. But don't go looking for a film called Lady Susan at the movie theaters. The title has been changed for the film to Love & Friendship (which is the title of one of Jane's early juvelinia works).

I am very encouraged after watching the trailer that this should be really good. It's also nice to see Kate Beckinsale in another Jane Austen adaptation 20 years after she was in a wonderful version of Emma.

The Face of Jane Austen

A waxwork likeness of Jane Austen was unveiled at the Jane Austen Centre on Wednesday in Bath, England.

A former FBI forensic artist, Melissa Dring, used the Cassandra Austen's sketch of her famous sister as the starting point for the waxwork. She also used diaries, letters and other contemporary accounts of Austen's appearance. Mark Richards, a sculptor, took Dring's final findings and created the waxwork itself.

It's a very nice life-like waxwork, and I, along with many Jane Austen fans, find it interesting to see what these artists think Jane may have looked like.

Anna Chancellor, who played Caroline Bingley in the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice is actually a direct descendant of Jane Austen's brother, Edward. Do you think there's any "family resemblance"?

There's a waxwork of Jane outside the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, and it's very different from the new waxwork that is supposed to be the closest "anyone has come to the real Jane in 200 years" (according to a spokesman for the Centre). I took the picture below during my first trip to Bath in 2010.

Stage Review: Emma

I have seen four stage adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. One was a musical. I only enjoyed one, and it wasn't the musical. So (although I was excited to see it, because I love all things theatre, and all things Jane Austen), my expectations were not extremely high when I went to see Pioneer Theatre Company's stage adaptation of another Jane Austen novel, Emma.

I am happy to say I was pleasantly surprised. The script, adapted by Jon Jory, stayed true to the book, and although some scenes and characters from the book had to be cut due to time limits, for the most part he chose well what and who he cut.

The production was well staged, and the play flowed seamlessly from scene to scene. The set was nice and simple, but the audience was still able to determine where the scenes were set. The costumes were pretty and well researched for the time. Because Emma was in almost every scene, she didn’t have time to change her costume off stage, so she changed onstage with the help of a “maid,” and I think it was a clever way to do her costume changes.

Speaking of Emma, Nisi Sturgis did a wonderful job portraying the character that Jane Austen herself said that no one would like but herself. Michael Sharon played Mr. Knightley (my favorite of all Jane Austen’s heroes). I have seen Sharon in many plays at the Utah Shakespeare Festival, and I’ve always enjoyed his performances. This performance, however, was not my favorite in the production. In Act I he didn’t quite seem sure of who his character was. He was stiff and a little boring. But that did change in Act II when he chastises Emma. After that scene, he seemed to loosen up more, and I enjoyed his performance.

The strawberry picking and Box Hill scenes were combined, and were set at Mr. Knightly’s estate, Donwell Abbey. I understand why this was done, and at first I was disappointed, but then I think it was a good choice. This is the scene where Emma makes fun of Miss Bates. I thought that there should have been a bigger reaction from the characters at Emma’s remark to Miss Bates. I wanted the scene to have more of an impact, but it seems it was just glossed over until Mr. Knightley chastised her.

The other characters were well cast. Katie Fabel played a sweet, innocent Harriet Smith, Richard Gallagher was a good-looking Mr. Elton and had the right amount of ego. I especially enjoyed the performance of Paul Kiernan who played Mr. Weston. I liked his interpretation of his character, and he really made the most of small part. Jenny Mercen, who played Mrs. Elton was snobbish and entirely unlikable, which was exactly who her character was.

I was pleased with the performance and I especially enjoyed the evening with a friend whom I haven't done much with lately.

Trying to "Out-Austen" Jane Austen

Jane Austen is everywhere! And I love Jane Austen. But if I hear “It is a truth universally acknowledged…” at the beginning of another novel (other than Pride and Prejudice), or a variation thereof, I’m going to something drastic.

The literary world and the world of movies have been inundated with everything Jane Austen. Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Jane Austen. I have read all of her books, and I love them. I have enjoyed most of the film adaptations of her books. I have read many of the modern “sequels.” But lately I’ve read some “Jane Austen rip-offs” and seen adaptations of her books that have not been the best quality. No one can really get it right. Only Jane Austen.

I recently read about a reworking of Lady Susan, a novella that I don’t think Jane ever wished to have published (not in the state that she left it anyway). In the description it states, “Jane Austen’s novella Lady Susan was written during the same period in which she produced Elinor and Marianne. Like Elinor and Marianne, Lady Susan focused on the economic and romantic plights of two heroines displaced when the family home passes to an unworthy heir; but while Elinor and Marianne was revised and happily expanded to become Sense and Sensibility, Lady Susan was abandoned. Until now.”


It just gets my goat that the publishers say “until now” referring to its abandonment. The novella was still abandoned, because Jane never rewrote it. Just because another author rewrote it, it doesn’t change the fact that Jane abandoned it. Okay, maybe I just need to lighten up, but there's more. The publishers also state, “In Lady Vernon and her Daughter, Jane Rubino and Caitlen Rubino-Bradway have taken letters from this novella and transformed them into to a vivid, authentic, and more recognizably “Austen” milieu.” Now, what can be more “Austen” than something that Jane Austen actually wrote? I ask you.

End of rant.

However, as much as I complain, I’ll probably still read it. Hypocrisy at its highest.