Love and Friendship Review

I never read reviews before I watch movies or read books, because it colours my opinions. So I don't know what other people are saying about this movie, but what I have to say is that, in a nutshell, it DELIVERS. This is my idea of the highest compliment. So often, I have an idea of what something is or will be, and then it just doesn't deliver on its promise. I don't expect everything to be to my taste, and I don't expect everyone to like the same things I do, but I do want things to be what they purport to be. And this show does exactly that. I saw it in the theatre, twice.
I went back and read the novella, just to  be sure my recollection was correct. (By the way, the novella is called Lady Susan, in case you are confused. Love and Friendship is a different story. They just switched the name.)
Essentially, the show is a hilarious serious of nonsense and witty lines, in beautiful costumes and ancient houses, with ridiculous characters and a whole lot of scheming. It is much more Georgian than Austen's other works, and much more youthful. There is nothing profound about it, but it is deeply enjoyable. And I thought it was very true to Austen, though not all the lines seemed to come from the story itself, they were perfectly on point. I especially loved all the biblical stuff that they put in, as Austen's father was a clergyman and I think she would have appreciated the way it was used. Terrific screenwriting all round, I'd say!
The second time we went to see it, a couple of ladies approached us and were surprised at our enthusiasm for it, as they said they absolutely hated it, so to each their own I suppose, but they didn't seem all that familiar with the period, so probably thought it was going to be some sort of Brontean tragedy or something. They said they wanted it to go more slowly...???? It is not slow. It is quippy and sharp and delightful.
The casting was perfect. I found Kate Beckensale's performance very refreshing. I half expected a sort of Lady Bracknell in drag type of approach, an over-enunciated langour that tends to accompany this sort of drama, but she was very off-hand in her delivery, almost casual, and I thought it made it all the funnier.
And I would be remiss if I did not mention how I could stare at Mr. Reginald De Courcy ALL DAY! ***Sigh****
My only complaint comes from the only thing I knew about the film in advance, which had to do with Chloe Savigny. I read that she was cast, and had prepared a flawless English accent, and then at the last minute was told to drop the accent and they tweaked the script to make her American. BOO! This was a bad choice. The director said her accent was unexceptionable, but that he thought audiences would be distracted by their scrutiny of it. WRONG! We were distracted  by her American accent in the midst of a classic English setting. It threw off the whole cadence of every scene she was in and made her lines sound amateur and out of place it did not work. Furthermore, the director HIGHLY overestimates our knowledge of who the hell this actor even is. I wouldn't have known she was American. I only knew because there was an article in a doctor's office telling me as much. Apparently, she was some sort of darling of the 90s, which was when I was paying attention to what was cool, and I still don't know who she is. And when half the people going to this movie haven't paid attention to what was cool since probably the 70s and, like me, mostly watch British programs anyway, I doubt it would have been anything of an issue.
So, that is my rant. Clearly, it did not detract too much from my enjoyment of the film. I am even considering buying it when it becomes available for that sort of thing.
I've posted the trailer here for those who like to watch trailers. Let me know your thoughts on the film, whether they are sympathetic to mine or no. I do enjoy a healthy debate.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Review

You might imagine that I get asked in conversation for my opinion on this film with some regularity. I do. Actually, I most often get asked first whether I watched it, and usually the person asking cringes a little as if they might have given offence even by suggesting that I might do such a thing. But fear not! I am quite open to satire and mash-ups. In fact, the entirety of my opinion is premised on my love of the video below. I recommend you watch it with sound before reading the rest of my review, that is, if you have not watched it before.

The summary of my thoughts on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is that I wish it had been made by the brilliant amateurs who made that YouTube video! The whole film ought to have been a series of camp jokes about how difficult it is to wash brains out of a petticoat. It should have been one long, hilarious juxtaposition of strict propriety and gory violence. It should have thrown out any pretense of actually being Pride and Prejudice, aside from character names and very few plot points. Instead, it tried to fit the entirety of the novel, PLUS a whole zombie film into 90 minutes! So it neither delivered as a Jane Austen diversion, nor as a zombie movie, because they cancelled each other out instead of playing off each other. It would have been so much better if the girls from the Fight Club had been given free range to script some good quips and string them together into the semblance of a narrative. I mean, imagine what they could have achieved with a budget one tenth the size of what was spent on the Zombie apocalypse and Lily James.

I wanted more of this kind of thing - fussing about their hair and their dresses, and also whether their daggers make their bums look big... (they didn't actually make that joke, but I wish they had)

Actually, I have no issue with Lily James. I think she is all right. Her mouth kind of reminds of my irresistable friend Poppy and so I sort of find her cute, and liked her much more with dark hair, actually. The only casting error I felt was Mr. Darcy. He ought to have been MUCH better looking! I mean, he ought to have been Benedict Cumberbatch regardless of how old he is. He was born to play Darcy, in my opinion. But even without the Batch, they should have found someone more action hero, if he is supposed to be this zombie-slaying stud, basically.

In a nutshell, that is my opinion. I'm not a snob. I was somewhat looking forward to a good laugh, but it wasn't funny enough. There were a few clever moments, but on the whole, it was just kind of gross.

Pride and Prejudice on the big screen

November 15 saw possibly the most enjoyable six hours I and 250 other Edmontonians have ever spent - with this guy (see below) at Fort Edmonton Park in the historical Capitol Theatre. It sold out in under an hour, and I have been overwhelmed with interest in repeating it. I enjoyed it so much, that even after six hours of sitting, I would have done it all over again the next day... nay, that very same night. "Just put it back to the beginning, Mr. Tech! We want more!"

So, since so many people were unable to get tickets, and are hoping for a repeat, and indeed even those who did get tickets would like to do it again, I thought I would write this little post letting everyone in on the background and thus the future of this unprecedented and thrilling event.

I had wanted to put this on for years. Eventually, in 2014, I started trying to track down the rights for a public screening. Many people do not understand copyright and think that as long as you aren't charging any money, or include a disclaimer giving credit to the rights holders and stating that you intend no copyright infringement, then you are not committing an offense. This is like saying, "I didn't intend any theft; I just meant to take it without paying." Or how about, "I did kill him, but look, I held up this sign as I did it!" (sign says: No Murder Intended). So, I had to actually acquire the rights. This proved quite a challenge. I contacted every copyright collective and every agency that I could find. They all directed me to each other. Nobody seemed to know how to obtain these rights. I even called 1800-O-Canada, which is a surprisingly helpful service in the most unexpected situations. They too were flummoxed. I contacted companies that arrange film rights for public viewings like the ones in Churchill square. They could not help me. I was sent to broadcasting rights organizations all across the county. They were all equally unhelpful. Surely, I am not the first person in the world ever to want to put on a show? Was there something about this particular show?

In the end, I went to the BBC shop - the online store where you can order DVDs and mugs and stuff. I dropped them a line. You can imagine, they were not really the right people. But I did not go away.

After a few months, I finally heard back from a guy at BBC International. He told me it was unlikely the BBC would give me the rights. I thought unlikely was not the same as impossible, so I asked him to look into it. He told me there would be a lot of obstacles and it would be very expensive. I may want to have a plan B. I told him my plan B was not to do the event. And let's see what those obstacles are, shall we? Apparently, the BBC never imagined anyone would want to show the program on the big screen and so had not negotiated the rights for that with people like the director. Essentially, the BBC didn't have the power to grant me a license to show the program, because they didn't actually own all the rights to it.

I told them to get me a ballpark estimate, just so I could evaluate whether it was worth pursuing. It was several weeks before he came back with a figure. He said it would be in the range of $37,000.00.

So, that was more than I had expected! And yet I was not deterred. It seems they had decided just to set the price so high that nobody would want to purchase the license and they wouldn't have to renegotiate the rights. Little did they know, I would not be so easily put off. I decided to ask what I would get for my $37,000.00. Could I sub-lease the license, for example? Would it be exclusive to Canada? To North America? For how long? Maybe I could get corporate sponsorship. Maybe I could crowd-fund it. Maybe Cineplex would like to do a national run of it. He said he would get back to me.

It then came up that some people didn't know that you needed to have permission to show programs even if they weren't charging admission. He asked whether I would be interested in a non-theatrical license (one that did not permit admission charges, usually used by schools and private groups), which would have different pricing. I said I could find a way to work with that (again, maybe corporate sponsorship, maybe crowd-funding). He said he would find out the price for that.

Some time later, I received the most wonderful and amazing email. He came back to me saying that the BBC had decided to buy out the rights to the program, so they now had the power to grant whatever licenses they wanted. (I'm not saying this was entirely my doing, but in my heart I do like to think that it was). And they were setting the fee at zero for me and my event. As long as I didn't charge admission, I could show it. He then said that the upcoming Friday was his last day at the BBC, and not to ask any questions but to take this permission and run.

So I did.

Next was the challenge of finding a way to cover the expenses of putting on a film screening without any income from ticket sales. I was not hopeful about grants. I could sell really expensive refreshments. Maybe do a Kickstarter campaign, but with no rewards, since I couldn't offer admission as a reward. I approached my first choice of venue, which was Fort Edmonton Park, just to get an estimate of costs so I knew how much I had to fund-raise. They took a while to provide an answer, but after several phone conversation and email exchanges, they offered to put the whole thing on for free! We would co-host it. I would provide the license and they would do everything else. What a dream come true! All they asked was the right to sell us food. All the costs of running the theatre and paying the staff would have to come out of the food sales, so they were kind of expensive, but considering the entertainment was free, it was still a good deal.

It turned out I was not the only one with this dream, as I did no advertising and it sold out almost instantly. All I did was make an event on Facebook and invite my friends to it. There were over twice as many people wanting to go as there were seats, and that was just according to the Facebook numbers. There may have been others.

Lizzie on the big screen, entertaining the throng

The event itself was absolutely glorious. The weather was perfect. The venue was perfect. Everything was even better than I had imagined it. I was a bit worried that six hours was going to seem long. It didn't. It was such a festive atmosphere. The jokes were funnier with such a large group, and the nuances of the acting, the directing choices, even the editing, were so much clearer and more entertaining when blown up to such a large size. It was truly magnificent and completely unforgettable.

Some people even came in costume!

The food was delicious, and so plentiful!

Treats laid out for our enjoyment in the original Selkirk Hotel,
beside the theatre

I have written to the BBC to seek permission to repeat this event. I have not yet had a reply, but it is Christmas time. Everyone is no doubt run off their feet. But fear not. I am not easily dissuaded, and I hope, before long, to be able to post good news here, or at RegencyEncounters.com, or on our Facebook page or Twitter. In the meantime, if you are interested in getting first dibs on tickets once I wrangle the BBC into letting me do it again, you can put your name on a waitlist I created on Eventbrite.ca. Just click the "Get Tickets" button and then the "Join Waitlist" button in the window that should pop up. (It was brought to my attention that these links were not taking readers to the waitlist. I have fixed this error and it seems to be working now. Sorry about that!)

Hopefully I will see you at Fort Edmonton Park soon!

Melanie Kerr is the author of Follies Past: a Prequel to Pride and Prejudice and founder of Regency Encounters

Read Chapter 1      Watch the Trailers      Buy the Book

5 of the best Costume Dramas you have probably never seen

I concede that I may underestimate the comprehensiveness of the viewing public's experience with costume dramas, and that you may, in fact, have seen all of these, particularly if you are someone who reads this blog, which is clearly directed at people like me, who are costume drama junkies. This is a list of costume dramas that I count among my favourites, but that I rarely, if ever, hear anyone mention. I confess, I kind of like that nobody ever talks about them, because it allows me the somewhat narcissistic pleasure of being the one to tell others about them. These are listed in no particular order, except that I saved the best for last.  And I limited myself to films, just to be kind of consistent.

Songcatcher
If I could describe this movie in a word it would be 'subtle.' It doesn't beat you over the head with anything, and it kind of fades into the background of your memory, which is probably what accounts for its obscurity. But that does not mean you should not watch it. It means that you can watch it again and again without getting sick of it. The story is of a musicology professor who visits her sister in the mountains and becomes determined to capture the traditional music she there discovers. It is just sort of lovely, and with such great music. Snuggle up on the couch with a cup of tea and a ready sigh, and enjoy.




The Damned United
This probably pushes the definition of costume drama since it is set in the 1970s, but still, it is a different time, and the aesthetic takes some crafting. Therefore, I am including it. I am also including it because it is such a great movie, and I have  never heard anyone mention it. I am pretty sure it was not a huge box office hit, even across the Atlantic where people know who Brian Clough was. He was a football (soccer) manager, and is the lead character. Normally I would not have five minutes for a sports film, but this was really a character piece, subtle and stylish and not at all requiring any interest in the game itself.





The Conspirator
I think about twelve people saw this movie. I certainly do not see it included in any lists of best costume dramas anywhere, yet it is, in my opinion, one of the most clever and thought-provoking films of our time. Do not be put off by the Americana look of the branding. The plot is based on the trial of one woman accused of conspiring to assassinate President Lincoln, but the theme is really an exposition in defence of the rule of law that I expect escaped the average viewer. I, however, left the theatre reeling with the implications of all the film had to say. It is a movie that will make you think, in a good way, while engaging you in a riveting drama that stands on its own as a fascinating bit of storytelling.

Max
Of all the films I am listing here, I feel most confident in assuming you have not seen this one. It was a made-for-TV movie that I only watched because I was determined to watch everything John Cusack had ever been in, and he plays essentially the lead role. It is the story of Adolph Hitler in the early interwar period, when he was an aspiring watercolour artist and WWI veteran. Cusack plays a Jewish art dealer who takes an interest in his work. The portrayal of this character of Hitler can only be called brave and fascinating. Who is there in history more infamous, more reviled? How can you possibly show him as anything but a horrific, demented monster, while still trying to offer some kind of understanding of where he came from? The character in the film is despicable and pathetic, and still believable. It feels like you could actually know that person, which is terribly frightening. It is not a luscious kind of costume drama. It is not about the aesthetic of the period. Most of it takes place in a warehouse. It is character driven and incredibly well done. Plus it has Molly Parker in it (go Canada!).

Down with Love
From what I can gather, this film was a box office flop, and being set in the 20th Century, might not be what you think of as a costume drama, especially since it is a comedy. Some might think it not deserving of inclusion with the other films listed here, but I stand by my choice. I don't subscribe to the view that a movie has to be weighty to be good. There is no angst involved in this one. It is clever, adorably mid-century and highly enjoyable. Yes, it is not a serious film, but it gets 5 stars from me because it does precisely what it sets out to do, and does so with style. If you are looking for something light-hearted yet well-crafted, this one comes with my enthusiastic approval. I have probably watched this ten times and am still not tired of it.



Cradle Will Rock
This is my favourite film of all time. I have yet to be so blown away by a film as I was by this one, and were it not for a mention of it in a newspaper listing in the late 1990s, I might not have heard of it. That's a lie. It has John Cusack in it, so I would undoubtedly have heard of it. The incredible fact of this film is who else is in it: Bill Murray, Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, Emily Watson, Joan Cusack, Hank Azaria, Cary Elwes, Paul Giamatti, John Turturro, Tenacious D (both of them), and the list goes on. How could you not have heard of this movie, you might ask yourself? I ask the same question.  It is written and directed by Tim Robbins, who, though famous, is not as renowned as he deserves for all his diverse genius. I cite Bob Roberts as my evidence. (It's not a costume drama, so couldn't list it here, but watch it anyway. It is my second favourite film after Cradle Will Rock. It's like Wag the Dog meets Best in Show meets something infinitely superior to either.) When I watched Cradle Will Rock for the first time with a group of friends, we actually all stood up and cheered aloud at the screen. BRAVO! BRAVO! Oh, I am getting excited just thinking about it.

In addition to the films listed above, there were a few that I thought too well known, or critically recognised, to be included, but still somewhat obscure, and deserving of a little more praise, even if you have seen most of them. I have set them out below. If there are others you think worthy, please mention them in the comments as well.

Mrs. Henderson Presents
Judy Dench plays an eccentric, aristocratic widow who decides to take charge of a theatre left to her by her late husband. It is set in WWII during the blitz, and is poignant, amusing and everything you want it to be.









Amazing Grace
I don't really know what to tell you about this film except that if you are looking at it thinking, "I wonder if this is any good?" it is, and you should watch it. It has lots of great actors in it, including the ubiquitous Romola Garai and many, many others. It is about Lord Wilberforce and his quest to abolish slavery. It is the first film in which I saw Benedict Cumberbatch, playing Pitt the Younger long before he was any kind of heart throb. It captures both the personal story of WilliamWilberforce as well as the great historical drama of human rights and the law.





Moll Flanders
You might be aware that there is a novel of this name, by Daniel DeFoe. Do not be fooled. They both bear the name of their title character, a woman in 18th Century England. However, there end the similarities. There is virtually nothing in this movie that could be said to have been taken from the book, but it need not necessarily follow that the movie falls short. In my own, possibly singular opinion, the film is actually far superior to the book, perhaps not in their entire respective historical contexts, but just as something to pick up here and now. I expect the discrepancies account for the mixed reviews. If you haven't read the book, or are able to set aside any expectations of this as an adaptation, I recommend this as a film that will make you want to cheer out loud.




Hilary and Jackie
This film was nominated for 2 Oscars, but it still is not that well-known considering how brilliant it is. This might have been the first role in which I saw Emily Watson, and I have certainly been devoted to her ever since. The film is the true story of the famous cellist, Jacqueline Du Pre, and her lesser known sister, flautist Hilary. It tells the story twice, once from the perspective of each sister, and it has such great acting and writing. It is moving and at times a bit disturbing, but utterly compelling.





Miss. Potter
This one did win a Golden Globe and it does star more Hollywood-level celebrities, specifically Ewan MacGregor and Renee Zellwiger, a pairing I think is destined to be classic. Oh, and again it features Emily Watson. I must really like her or something! It is the story of Beatrix Potter, with all her brilliance and idiosyncrasy.  It is so pretty, and touching, and lovely. I could watch it over and over







The Young Victoria
Oh what a pretty, pretty film this is. If only Queen Victoria had looked anything like Emily Blunt, poor girl. You have all probably seen this, but I just wanted to list it because I love it so much.









Ever After
I have confessed many times in this blog to being a huge Disney fan, and lover of fairy tales. I hope the readers are not so prejudiced as to consequently doubt my intelligence or discernment in the art of film or historical portrayal in general. This film is supposed to be the story of what "really" happened to the "real" Cinderella. To me it is a terrific balance of Hollywood fantasy, humour and great storytelling.

Bright Star
The worst thing about this film is the Scottish accent of one character. Otherwise, I cannot find any fault with it. It does get mentioned in lists occasionally, but I don't think it is a really high-profile movie. It is a very personal and understated portrayal of Keats near the end of his all-too-short life. It captures his genius and the tragedy of his death without milking it. It makes the people all seem very real and, to a point, ordinary, though obviously poetic and intellectual. It is beautifully shot, but still a bit gritty, though not in that obnoxious let's show everyone how horrible the olden days was kind of way. It's just very intimate. Plus, it stars Freddie from The Hour and I love him.




These are all based on my personal taste, which not everyone may share, but I hope I may have brought to your attention a new favourite that you might not otherwise have heard of or considered watching.

Please also do watch the video at top right about the upcoming Regency costume ball taking place in Calgary May 16, 2015.

Melanie Kerr is the author of Follies Past: a Prequel to Pride and Prejudice

Read Chapter 1      Watch the Trailers      Buy the Book

Wolf Hall and The Lamentable Monotony of Anne Boelyn

There is a third episode of Wolf Hall. My skin is itching to watch it, but I promised my husband I would wait for him so we could watch it together. We just started watching it this week. At first I thought hey, didn't they make this show already? Wasn't it called The Tudors? But friends, this time Henry VIII is played by my darling Damian Lewis, of Forsyte Saga fame. (Yes, he was also in Homeland, but that is for me forever eclipsed by the unimpeachable perfection of his performance as Soames Forsyte). And while watching Wolf Hall, every few minutes one of us will spontaneously remark, "This is SO much better than The Tudors!"

I don't mean to bash The Tudors too much, because I did enjoy it for what it was, and it really pioneered a new approach to costume dramas, which I appreciate. But I do find that shows since have really taken the whole gritty reality of history thing to entirely unnecessary levels. How bloody can we make the violence, and how raunchy the sex, and how filthy the peasants, while maintaining the smooth skin and perfect teeth of the romantic leads? I cite The Borgia, Pillars of the Earth and Marco Polo as examples, especially Marco Polo: "For your first challenge, you must pass through this this den of writhing, naked sex workers without giving in to temptation."

So, the Tudors was fun in the way it sort of spiced up history and got folks interested in the fact that people had sex in the olden days. Plus, it had great costumes. I can overlook a lot on the strength of good costumes. I even actually enjoyed The Other Boelyn Girl (the one with Natalie Portman and Scarlet Johansen), though it may have been a result of going in with incredibly low expectations: "Let's watch Hollywood starlets heave their overflowing corset bosoms!" And then it had some acting and a plot, so that was sort of an unexpected delight, and left me with kind of a pleasantly surprised feeling which has lead me, perhaps mistakenly, to remember it as somewhat of a good film.

But back to Wolf Hall. It also had great costumes, and subtle acting, and clever writing, essentially, everything I love in a show, plus Damian Lewis - bonus. And it has this lovely, natural pacing, and no artificial lighting, and apparently they did all the filming in the actual places where the historical events took place (at least, in all the buildings that still exist). Yes, it gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from me. I heartily recommend it.

It has for me but one flaw, well, I won't call it a flaw, because in isolation there is nothing wrong with it really, but it makes a particular choice which, in the context of all the interesting things they are doing with everything else, sort of irks me, because of how every other show on this subject has made the same choice despite very clear alternatives.

The portrayals of Henry VIII in all thees shows are varied and explore the complexities of his character and the different aspects of his person, even going so far as to cast Jonathan Rhys Myers in what I can only assume was an attempt to shed light on the athletic, young and virile incarnation of his lecherous self. Questions are explored, like was he really a bad guy, or just someone trying to keep his country together under trying circumstances? Cardinal Wolsey is shown sometimes as proud, ambitious and full of self-interest, and sometimes as a devoted and loyal servant who sacrificed everything for his king, and sometimes as a kind and holy man who was wronged by everyone he tried to help. The same diversity of angles are explored for other characters, like Sir Thomas Moore and Thomas Cromwell.

And this is all great. I love that sort of thing, considering what they all might really have been like, how history has painted them, and what the range of possibilities might be given what we know, or don't know, and maybe the annals of history have been tainted by the passage of time and the record-keeping of its adversaries... except for one thing. What about Anne Boelyn?

Anne is the pivotal character in the story. Anne changed everything. Anne was a fierce advocate for religious reform, long before and well after she set her sights on the crown. Anne outdid her predecessors in her acts of charity, both publicly and privately. Anne was raised as a courtier, yet became a skillful and clever politician. Anne bore Elizabeth I, possibly the most legendary of the country's leaders. Anne got everything she wanted and then got her head chopped off, the first queen ever to be executed. Anne was posthumously alleged (albeit falsely) to have had six fingers on her left hand. Anne is arguably the most fascinating figure in the entire story: complex, intelligent, devoted and courageous.

So why, I ask you, with ample vexation in my voice, has nobody ever done anything interesting with Anne? Why is she always portrayed as a saucy, tetchy, manipulative, precocious and even sometimes silly minx? Do none of the writers of these shows realize how misogynistic this is? Nobody ever explores the possibility that her religious beliefs were anything but conveniently adopted in order to get herself on the throne, when the historical evidence is that she was deeply religious and had been so since her days in France. Plus, even after she was crowned, she continued fervently to confront corruption in the Church and to press for changes that even exceeded King Henry's intentions. She kept illegal religious material on display in her chamber, material which others had been burned at the stake for possessing. To me, this is clear evidence that her religious beliefs were more than just a means to an end, but were matters she took very seriously. And look at this picture. Does she look like a seductress to you? Or does she look like a severe and strong-minded woman?

The fact that she refused to sleep with Henry before they were married is never treated as anything but a cunning device to keep him interested and ensure that he marry her. I have never seen it suggested that perhaps she was actually concerned with her own virtue, that she actually took her chastity seriously, which conclusion would accord with her level of religious commitment. I think it at least worth considering that she was actually just sticking to her guns and wasn't going to compromise her soul for any man, not even the King.

I would like to see a portrayal of Anne that proposes that what she purported to be she actually was, that maybe she was extremely principled, that Henry was drawn to her not because she tossed her hair like Natalie Dormer, but because her core was as tough as his, because she had a keen mind and because she was interested in her country and cared about how it was run.

I mean, maybe she was just a selfish, conniving wench, but I think it terrifically unimaginative and lamentable, if not actually offensive, never to consider any other possibility and to leave such a dynamic and intriguing historical figure so one-dimensional and monotonous, particularly when giving all the male characters such multi-layered and original treatment.

Read Chapter 1      Watch the Trailers      Buy the Book

Non-Review of Promise and Promiscuity by Penny Ashton

(Disclaimer: I don't write reviews of literary works. I write non-reviews. That means, I tell you what the piece is like, what its appeal is and who would like it and who wouldn't. I find this more helpful than traditional reviews.)

How can I not be prejudiced in favour of this show? She's kiwi, she's indie, and she's doing a bloody one-woman Jane Austen musical. Am not I categorically obliged to support this?

When I learned that the score had been arranged and recorded specifically for the production, all potential for criticism went out the carriage window with my bonnet.

We decided to go to the show in costume, out of solidarity and a love of attention, and I gave her a copy of my book, which I hope she will read and thoroughly enjoy and pronounce publicly across the internet as a wondrous triumph.

But how was the show? you all ask. Well, it is something like the stage equivalent of a cross between Lost in Austen and The Lost Memoirs of Jane Austen, but with musical numbers and a good dash of Fringey, modern references and speculation about what may or may not have changed in 200 years.

I was a bit concerned by the title that it might be a lot more Fringey, in a rompy, raunchy sort of way, maybe the sexy, cabaret what-really-happened-at-Pemberly version of Pride and Prejudice, but fortunately it was not. Other than a few insinuations involving balls, it wasn't really scandalous at all.

Miss Ashton was excellent, questionable accents notwithstanding. She plays all the characters, each distinct and easily recognizable through physical and vocal cues. The story is her own, but draws very heavily on the plots of the novels, and a good portion of the dialogue is composed of Austen's own writing. There are characters similar to Austen's, like a Mrs. Bennet and a Lady Catherine and a Mr. Darcy, sort of, though they go by different names.

Promise and Promiscuity is a bit of Regency mash-up fun, neither completely farcical nor to be taken too seriously.  It is not a musical of Pride and Prejudice. It is not an adaptation of any particular work. And it is not a wacky, how-weird-can-you-be desecration. So if you are looking for either of those things, you will not find it here. Instead, you will find an impressive performance of a pleasant and amusing show. It is on at the Edmonton Fringe until August 24.

Melanie Kerr is the author of Follies Past: a Prequel to Pride and Prejudice.

Read Chapter 1    Watch the Trailers     Order the Paperback     Download the eBook  

Pride and Prejudice: a Tale of Two Mini-Series

Recently I was trapped in a hotel room in Slave Lake, Alberta. Too tired to do anything productive, and with no local entertainments to draw me out into the bitter, frigid night, I did the only reasonable thing that occurred to me. I watched the 1980 mini-series of Pride and Prejudice on Youtube.

I was deeply apprehensive about doing so. I have attempted to watch pre-nineties adaptations before, and been horrified, so it was with no small suspense that I began the first episode. I think what surprised me the most was how not terrible it was. I would be tempted to say that it is Jane Austen's writing that is so genius, it shines through any production, but one need only look to the latest screen adaptation of the same work to be woefully disproved in that theory.

The 1995 version is definitely superior, on balance, but I must give credit to the 1980 series, as it did many things right. Most importantly, the writers kept as much of Jane Austen's words as they could. Something I cannot tolerate in adaptations of her work is when they totally change the words to the point that none of the underlying genius remains. I understand that dialogue needs to be adjusted to make it work, and I completely allow for the difference between the art forms of novel writing and film-making, but I was nonetheless pleased at the respect for the original work that was shown in the writing.

The casting of Jane Bennett was also excellent in the 1980 show. I have nothing against Susannah Harker, but she is not even as pretty as Jennifer Ehle, much less ten times prettier.

Susannah Harker and Jennifer Ehle

Sabina Franklyn was just right for the role, even if her hair was kind of frizzy in a rather 1970's kind of way.

Sabina Franklyn as Jane Bennett

Barbara Shelley as Mrs. Gardiner

I also really liked Mrs. Gardiner. I thought she really seemed elegant, yet unpretentious. She seemed like just the sort of person Lizzy would confide in and love. She was just as I imagined her in the book. There is nothing wrong with Joanna David's performance. I enjoyed her as I have in all her other roles. I just don't find her as warm as I did Barbara Shelley.

Even with these considerations, however, my opinion of the 1995 series as definitive and best was not threatened in the slightest. A lot of that has to do with advances in film-making generally between 1980 and 1995. We just got a lot better at making shows. I say "we" meaning humanity in general, of course.

In criticising productions, I very rarely blame the actors, and in the case of the 1980 production I am not sure the actors themselves were to blame but the acting itself certainly was. Acting is one of the things that, in my opinion, got a lot better between 1980 and 1995. There will be some who disagree, citing some stellar performances of a bygone age, but really, acting for film and television, generally, has developed as an art form, which is as one would expect given the novelty of it.

It may have been the director making it happen, but the acting was far too artificial, far too choreographed to draw me in. Jane Austen's dialogue is certainly archaic and may feel foreign, but there is no reason it cannot be recited naturally, as we have seen in many subsequent productions.

Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzy

I suspect the director was experienced in classical theatre but not screen acting. There was no intimacy to the performances and it kept me from being drawn in. I just didn't care about the characters that much because they didn't seem like real people.

Perhaps the greatest victim of this was Lizzy. I just didn't like her. I couldn't believe Mr. Darcy would feel so passionately about her. She didn't seem to have any depth. At first, I thought Mr. Darcy was excellent, but that was only in the first half of the show, when he hardly spoke and was disagreeable. Once he started talking, and trying to get Lizzy, and by extension the audience, to like him, it all fell apart. He had convinced me to dislike him, but he could not convince me to like him.

Also, Lady Catherine wasn't funny enough. Mr. Collins was trying to be funny, but he didn't make me actually laugh, not like David Bamber. Mrs. Bennett was quite good. Actually, she might have been one of the better ones, but she just didn't throw herself into it and make it as ridiculous as it should have been, not the way Allison Steadman does. And in much the same way, there is simply no competing with Julia Sawalha as Lydia.

These last two examples perhaps lead me to the belief that it is unfair to compare anything to the 1995 version. The casting was, on the whole, so inspired, and the writing and the production so near perfect, that no other attempt can be expected to rival it.

That said, there was reasonable room for improvement in the 1980 attempt. Another element of the show that demonstrated our advances in film-making was the editing. Not only was everything set up like a stage production, and the pacing very slow, but the transitions themselves were painful. Did someone invent the cross-fade just as this show was in post-production, and were the editors so fascinated and excited by it that they felt they had to use it in EVERY transition? It just made everything drag, and interfered with my suspension of disbelief. The 1995 version, by contrast, skips along at a lively pace and keeps the interest and the energy alive.

I know we fans are often mocked for our devotion to the 1995 mini-series, but really, can you blame us?

Melanie Kerr is the author of Follies Past: a Prequel to Pride and Prejudice

Read Chapter 1      Watch the Trailers    Order Paperback      Download eBook

Costume Drama Review - Austenland

Although, I suppose, it is not technically a costume drama per se, this film does take place almost entirely in costume, so to speak. And I do love costumes.

My thoughts on the film are brief. I thought it was cute. Sadly, I watched it by myself, but I still managed to enjoy it, and believed it would have been even funnier with friends with whom to laugh at the nonsense.

Essentially, I felt the film did what it set out to do, and that is the standard I hold for all films, so from that perspective it was a success. The humour was mostly of an awkward, cringing variety, but there were definitely moments when I laughed out loud. It was all a bit obvious, but for a silly romantic comedy, I take no objection to that.

Of course, it was silly. It was also impossible and not very profound or compelling, but it was also inoffensive (even to me and I am easily affronted by bad costume dramas pretending to be something they are not), occasionally clever and all-round entertaining, especially if you get all the references.

I will say (*Spoiler Alert*) that I totally saw the plot twist coming, although I must confess, they did make me double-guess myself. From the start, I thought the Martin character, the hired hand, was rather smarmy, that his lines seemed forced and unbelievable. I wondered whether he was in on the whole scheme. But I didn't trust myself because I suspected this to be simply the result of bad writing. I was very happy to discover that the writers actually intended it to be as contrived as it seemed.

Sadly, I cannot say that the actual love interest was as believable as the artificial one was unbelievable. The proposal that was meant to be real still had some of that fake quality that made me doubt the fake one. But who cares? He was handsome and he was wearing a cravate! No, I didn't swoon like I would have liked to. There wasn't enough depth in the characters, not enough invested in them for me to feel anything about the actual love story.  (*End Spoiler Alert*)

But that is all about the movie. It is kind of fun, and you might like it for a bit of a laugh, but don't expect too much. Now let us discuss the REAL issue, which is what deeply intrigued me about this film, namely the business plan!

Throughout the film, I was distracted by the actual premise of the plot, specifically, that there could be an Austenland, offering a complete period immersion experience, that people could spend a small fortune to go to, and that there would be a market for such vacation package.

Most of the LARPers I know are more into medieval stuff, and are nowhere near rich enough for this sort of extravagance. And I have never met a Jane Austen fan so hard core as to want to spend their life savings on such a holiday - and I have met a few hard-cores. There may be some very rich people, like the American woman in the film, who have excessive fortunes and just want to do something different, but where are these people? How does one find them, and sell them on a Regency experience?

You may know that for years I have been talking about a Jane Austen land, where everyone has to be in costume, and where are offered period entertainments, etc. When I heard about this film, about someone else having this same idea, a part of me screamed internally. Actually, one friend thought that there actually was an Austenland, didn't realize it was a movie, and sent me the link with glee. Sadly, there is no actual Austenland. If there were, it would have to look very different from the film in order towork. Let us compare, therefore, the resort in the film, and what I propose.

In the film, there are 3 guests. They never tell us how much it costs to go there, but it is no surprise that it uses up her entire life savings. I am surprised she could ever have enough to pay for it. A house full of staff, costumes, food, entertainment, hired actors, and all for what appears to be an entire summer? Among those who would actually want to go there, are there any who could afford this? Are there enough people to keep this going year after year? Of course not!

The kind of full, period immersion event could only really take place a couple of times a year at most, and only for a few days at a time. And it would require at least 20 guests to make it feasible. For a 3 night stay, including meals, costumes, entertainment and, of course accommodation, all in period style, would cost approximately $2,000 - $2,500 per person, with 20 people.

Food would all be catered based on recipes from the Georgian era. Costumes would be supplied by costumiers specializing in period film costumes. Accommodation would be in a beautiful historic house in the English countryside, and entertainments could include period crafts like embroidery and basket-weaving, cards, archery, horseback riding, and a private concert of popular Regency music. There would be a couple of actors to play handsome gentlemen, and of course, a ball, which would be open to the public to come, in costume, also.

This, for example, is a picture of the dining room in a house on the north Devon coast where such a gathering could take place. You could actually stay there, and eat at this table, with Mr. Darcy.

Venues are less expensive to rent in more remote locations, and so the cost could come down, or more could be made available if it were held, say, in Ireland, or the middle of nowhere in Norfolk. If it is somewhere more accessible, like Somerset or Sussex, it will cost more, or there will not be as many extras.

(This is a terrific one in Ireland, with lots of amazing interior, see below.)

In a more remote location, for example, we could afford to hire someone to pick people up in style, just like in the film. However, I should specify that I will not be setting anyone up with any handsome stable-boys or history professors.

(This is a beautiful house in Northumberland that would do very well. Don't you just want to run across that lawn in a muslin gown?)

But I can seriously make this happen with 20 people. If this interest you, please comment, or email me, or facebook message me, or tweet me. And do state any preferences as to time of year, duration of stay, programming, meals, etc.
I hope I have piqued your interest.

Costume Drama Review #2 - Lost in Austen

If anyone read my last review and wondered what it might take to satisfy me, here is my answer: Lost in Austen. My review of Death Comes to Pemberley was really more of a rant, and this is to be more of a rave.

In short, the creators of this show got it. They got what we wanted, we the fans, we the masses, we the people. They got it and then they delivered it. Lost in Austen delivers.

And what do we want? We want to find a door in our bathroom that we can walk through into Longbourn, ACTUAL Longbourn, full of the ACTUAL characters that Jane Austen created. We want romance balanced with scathing wit and ridiculous people. We want the sights and smells of history. We want escapism we can sink our snobby, desperate, anglophile teeth into.

For some time, I was considering writing a book, or possibly a series, about a girl who discovers a secret door into Jane Austen's world. I thought I was the first to come up with this idea, like the time my brother thought he had invented a high-speed rescue boat, but it turned out it had already been invented and was called a rocket ship. Well, now I can cross that off my to-do list, because not only has it been done, it has been done properly.

Does every point of this show stand up to scrutiny? No, definitely not, but I just don't care. And why don't I care? Am I not a discerning and critical purist? Of course I am. But the spirit of this production was one of fun, of frolicking and of fantasy, and most of all it was funny. And the liberties which the writers took worked internally. They added to the suspense and to the comedy, which was the point.

I do not understand how the humour is so often missed in Austen adaptations. The books are very funny. You are supposed to enjoy the process of reading them. You are supposed to laugh at the characters. And I laughed out loud, shrieking, thrilling, shocking laughter, throughout the whole of Lost in Austen.

"She is the best possible nurse. She has paracetamols!"

But the show wasn't silly. It wasn't slapstick or exaggeration. It was good drama. Even though it was about six hours long, I kept having to put on the next episode, just like Pride and Prejudice. I had to know what was going to happen.

The casting was excellent, even Mr. Darcy. I have seen this actor in other roles, and didn't particularly like him, but the Darcy role suited him so well, I didn't notice.

Some people have told me they didn't think Jane was pretty enough, but I did. I thought she was lovely.

I did notice that the actress who played Elizabeth was possibly prettier, which is not how it should be, but then, she did have those fine eyes.

 As I have said, not everything stood up to scrutiny. To prove that I am not blind or undiscerning, I shall briefly review the things that cannot really be reconciled with the novel. Note that this part may contain some spoilers.

Firstly, the character of Lady Catherine was too shrewd, more cunning than blustering and proud.

And the character of Mr. Collins was more disgusting than ridiculous, but only a little. He does, after all, have the good fortune to shoot a peacock.

The twist involving Mr. Wickham I found highly amusing, and therefore I forgive the fact that it is impossible. His debts, his lies, his running away with Lydia, his slander of Darcy, none of these accord with his being a secret good guy.

And the concern for Jane when she goes off to Netherfield on horseback is, of course, unfounded, since we know from the book that she survives her cold, so the cliffhanger didn't really leave me in any apprehension.

And Charlotte Lucas is not supposed to be so depressed, I don't think. She comes across in the book as much more pragmatic and steady. She claims, in the book, not to be romantic, but I do think you have to be a little of a romantic persuasion to run away to Africa in despair.

Caroline turning out to "steer the punt from the Cambridge end," however, I found perfectly plausible. At least, there is nothing in the text that would forbid it.

It was never explained why Amanda Price was chosen to be transported into the book. There was no assertion made that she was somehow the most deserving, which would have bothered me if it had been, because she obviously wasn't. But she wasn't supposed to be special, and that was what made the comedy work. If she had known more about Regency England, had she been more like me or some of the hard-core fans I know, it wouldn't have been as funny. There wouldn't have been as much contrast to create the drama. Yes, she was a bit annoying at times, but so people generally are. Even Jane Austen's heroines can be a bit annoying some times.

And none of these little inconsistencies mattered or detracted from the whole because the writing was so good. I think that is the primary reason I could enjoy it, even though the purist in me knew a few things were amiss. The dialogue was brilliant, which is what matters to most fans, or at least to me. There were no awful intrusions of modernity that did not come through Amanda Price. The language was accurate for the time, at least enough so to satisfy me, and I am always quick to criticise on that front.

No doubt there will be some very dry intellectual types who will say that it was all too silly, and try to pretend Jane Austen was somehow one of the Bronte sisters, or that her work is somehow sacred and we cannot have some fun with it, but I say fiddlesticks. A bit of fun is what it is all about.

Melanie Kerr is the author of  Follies Past: a Prequel to Pride and Prejudice

Read Chapter 1      Watch the Trailers    Order Paperback      Download eBook