Back to Top

Category: TV and Film

Discussion of TV shows and movies

Eye of the Beholder

Updated on by


A few days ago, I was having dinner with some friends who are also Janeites, and we talked about the Jane Austen movies. Specifically, the Pride and Prejudices–1995 and 2005. One of my male friends made the comment that the ’95 Lizzy was obviously much prettier than Jane, thereby making the fact that everyone considered Jane the “famous local beauty” puzzling (an argument I’ve heard before). To modern eyes this is probably true–Jennifer Ehle is quite lovely, maybe more obviously so than Susannah Harker. But I do think Ms. Harker was a good choice for the part. She has very “classical” looks that would have appealed in the Regency period (she looks almost like a Grecian statue). Plus I thought she captured Jane’s serenity and sweetness (and slight dimwitedness) well.

In the 2005 P&P, it is more obvious. Rosamund Pike is so angelically pretty that it’s clear why she was so acclaimed in the neighborhood. Keira Knightley is also stunning (she was recently on the cover of Vogue twice within four months!), but in a more contemporary, angular way. It’s easy to see why she would capture Darcy’s fascination, but also why she was slightly overshadowed by her sister.

It’s so fascinating how each period has its own concept of “beauty,” and how and why those ideas change and evolve. I recently read a thesis that said “beautiful” equates with whatever is high maintenance. I.e., in the Renaissance, when food was scare and most people worked outdoors, “zaftig” and pale was In. Now, very slender and tan is in, when it costs money and time to join a gym and buy bronzer to combat our office-bred pallor and softness. Of course, there are always a few women who transcend whatever the fashion is and make their own style of beauty. And there are many (like myself) who will never be happy with their looks, and yet always will be searching the cosmetics counters for that “miracle in a jar.”

Here are a few quotes I found concerning women of the Regency who were renowned, in one way or another, for their style:

Lord Byron on Lady Caroline Lamb (who had a very “modern”, Keira Knightley-style beauty, being very slim and elfin): “The lady had scarcely any personal attractions to recommend her” and her figure “was too thin to be good” (from Benita Eisler’s “Byron: Child of Passion, Fool of Fame”

A Swedish diplomat on Emma Hamilton (seen in the portrait above): “she was the fattest woman I’ve ever laid eyes on, but with the most beautiful head”
And Lord Fitzharris: she is “without exception the most coarse, ill-mannered, disagreeable woman I’ve ever met”
An Anonymous observer: “She is indeed a Whapper: and I think her manner very vulgar”
(from David Howarth’s “Lord Nelson: The Immortal Memory”)

Madame de Remusant on Josephine Bonaparte: “her limbs were supple and delicate, all her movements easy and elegant”
Another Anonymous: “young and charming face, surrounded by a profusion of light hair, with a pair of large dark-blue eyes, and exhibiting altogether the image of the most graceful of sylphs”
(from “Josephine: A Life of the Empress” by Carolly Erickson)
Napoleon about Josephine: “…full of graceful charm–a woman in the fullest meaning of the term” (from Evangeline Bruce’s “Napoleon and Josephine: An Improbable Marriage”)

Mary Tickell (Sheridan’s sister-in-law) on Dora Jordan: “little she is and yet not insignificant in her figure, which, though short, has a certain roundness…which is very graceful”
Harriet Bessborough: “she is terribly Large, but her voice and acting still delightful”
And Leigh Hunt: “she was neither beautiful, nor handsome, nor even pretty, nor accomplished, nor a lady, yet was so pleasant, cordial, so natural…had such a shapely leg withal..that she appeared something superior to all those requirements of acceptability”

And Lady Spencer, her mother, on Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, one of the most famous beauties of her day: “Without being very handsome or having a single good feature in her face, she is one of the most showy girls I ever saw” (thanks, Mom)
Horace Walpole: “without being a beauty; but her youth, figure, flowing good nature, sense and lively modesty make her a phenomenon.”
(from Amada Foreman’s “Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire”)

Posted in Jane Austen, Regency, Research, TV and Film | Tagged , | 7 Replies

Regency Heroes by Diane Gaston Perkins

Updated on by

Let’s face it. I’m in this business for the heroes.

What could be better than spending your days with some hunky gentleman in pantaloons, Hessians, and a coat by Weston, who says things like, “You’ve bewitched me, body and soul.”

Sigh!

The Regency gives us such wonderful heroes. Wealthy marquesses and dukes. disreputable Rakes (as opposed to my Reputable Rake, on sale in May, shameless self-promotion here), corinthians, gamblers, impoverished vicars, and my favorite–

The soldier.


I’m with Mrs. Bennett when, in Pride & Prejudice, she says, “I remember the time when I liked a red coat myself very well—and, indeed, so I do still at my heart.”

That’s me. Show me a man in his regimentals and I’ll show you a potential hero.

Take a look at these fellows:

Sigh!

Maybe I love military heroes because my father was an Army colonel. I grew up with that whole military mind-set of duty and honor and country. Woke up to reveille. Went to sleep hearing taps. Or maybe it was listening to all those Chivers audiotapes of the Sharpe series, hearing William Gaminara read, “Sharpe swore.”

Writing a soldier for a hero gives so much dramatic potential. The hero faced hardship, faced death, experienced scenes we would find horrific. He’s honed his body to be strong. When he returns to England from war, he must look on the society to which he returns in a whole new light. I think it makes for lots of interesting possibilities.

I have a brazillion books on the Napoleonic war. Three of my favorites are:

Waterloo: Day of Battle by David Armine Howarth. It tells the story of Waterloo from the soldiers point of view.

Redcoat: The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket by Richard Holmes, This book covers everything about being a soldier during that time period.

Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo, 1808-15 by Ian Fletcher. This covers all the major operations engaging the cavalry and discusses some of the controversy around them.

I have another book that makes me sad: Intelligence Officer in the Peninsula, Julia Page, editor. These are the letters and diaries of Major the Hon. Edward Charles Cocks, a man who loved soldiering with a passion that makes the journals occasionally boring. It makes me sad because the war takes his life. Even Wellington grieves his loss.

I’d love to write a series of Napoleonic war love stories, sort of Bernard Cornwell-style but with a really satisfying romance. A lofty dream.

Okay, let’s face it. I just want to spend my days with some hunky officer in regimentals.

Diane

Okay. It’s not Regency but it is Gerard Butler as Spartan King Leonides at the Battle of Thermopylae 480 BC. Hey, he’s a soldier, too, right?

Posted in Reading, Regency, Research, TV and Film, Writing | Tagged , , | 7 Replies

Cato Street Conspiracy

Updated on by

Argo won Best Picture at the Academy Awards last night, a movie about government intelligence and secrets and cunning and daring. I was holding out for Les Miserables, but, oh well.

Cato_Street_Conspiracy193 years ago, on Feb 23, 1820, government intelligence of the domestic sort and an almost revolution of the French sort played a crucial role in an event that became known as the Cato Street Conspiracy.

The times were unsettled. The end of the Napoleonic Wars and the shift from the rural agricultural society to an Industrial one set off economic hardships. Events such as the Spa Field Riots in 1816 and the Peterloo Massacre the previous August showed the social unrest and the call for parliamentary reform. The government’s response to the unrest were The Six Acts, repressive measures which were aimed at limiting the freedom of the press, preventing large meetings, and otherwise attempting to prevent the possibility of an armed insurrection.

When King George III died in January, 1820, a revolutionary organization called the Spencean Philanthropists saw an opportunity. They hatched a plan to barge in on a dinner to be held by Lord Harrowby and slaughter the entire British cabinet and the Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool. The man who suggested the plan was George Edwards, second-in-command to the leader, Arthur Thistlewood. The killing of the cabinet ministers would be the first act an overthrow of the government and would spark a revolution similar to the French Revolution. Or that was the plan.

The problem was, it was a set-up. George Edwards was an agent provocateur, a government spy. While the conspirators gathered at a house on Cato Street to launch their attack, a Bow Street Magistrate and twelve of his Bow Street Runners were waiting across the street. At 7:30 pm they apprehended the conspirators. In the ensuing brawl, Thistlewood killed one policeman. All the conspirators were apprehended at the scene or later.

NPG D36701; A May Day Garland for 1820 published by Samuel William ForesFour of them, including Thistlewood, were hanged and beheaded. Others were transported.

The government used this event to justify the Six Acts but in the House of Commons, Matthew Wood MP argued out that the government had used entrapment to smear the campaign for parliamentary reform. Had the government merely set the whole thing up or had their clandestine activities prevented a collapse of the government?

That could be the difference between the endings of Les Miserables and Argo!

What movies did you want to win at the Oscars? Which movie stars? (I was glad Ann Hathaway won)

Posted in Regency, Research, TV and Film | Tagged , | 4 Replies

Must-sees and Must-reads

Updated on by


Yesterday I read a movie blog entry by Jim Emerson (which can be found on Roger Ebert’s review site) called “101 Movies You Must See Before You Die.” Emerson says they are not necessarily the “best” movies, or even his favorites, but “the movies you just kind of figure everybody ought to have seen in order to have any sort of informed discussion about movies.”

It was a very interesting (and very debatable!) list. I think I’ve seen less than half of them. Some of them are favorites of mine (Bringing Up Baby, The Seven Samurai, Wizard of Oz), some I haven’t seen at all but always kinda mean to (The 400 Blows–which sounds oddly like something from Ellora’s Cave–as well as Aguirre The Wrath of God, Battleship Potemkin, Nosferatu, etc), and some are pretty obvious (Godfather I and II, Persona, Rebel Without a Cause). Now, I enjoy movies very much, but since I haven’t seen so many of these does this mean I should never attempt to discuss them? Does it mean I’m less “worthy” as a movie-goer than someone whose favorite movie is, say Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (as it was with an ex-boyfriend of mine)? And what does it say about me that I am a sucker for these “countdown” lists???

Megan’s post about To Kill a Mockingbird also reminded me of all this. One of my favorite books is War and Peace. For one thing, I’m a sucker for long, sad, navel-gazing Russian novels (I definitely DON’T want to know what that says about me!!!). For another, it shows “our” period from a different viewpoint and culture, which I love. But do I think this is a must-read for everyone, and anyone who hasn’t read it is an incomplete person who should never discuss literature? Well–no. Otherwise, the fact that I have never been able to read Moby-Dick would disqualify me.

All this rambling is just meant to ask–what are your personal “must-see” movies, “must-read” books? How did they affect you, or change your life? I think I need to add to my “must-see before I die” list. 🙂

Posted in Reading, TV and Film | Tagged , | 7 Replies

Look Sharpe!

Updated on by


I posted this press release on my own blog a few days ago, and thought it was newsworthy enough to post here, too (and there are questions for you to answer at the end):

SPEND A SHARPE, ACTION-PACKED SUMMER WITH BBC AMERICA

-Romantic war saga stars Sean Bean–

Every Saturday night this summer, BBC AMERICA takes viewers on a sweeping two-hour journey to a new land, a new battle, and a new set of potential love interests with the epic romantic war saga Sharpe. Created by novelist Bernard Cornwell and starring Sean Bean (North Country), Sharpe chronicles the victories and loves of the legendary fictional Napoleonic war hero, Richard Sharpe. BBC AMERICA is showing the complete fifteen-episode series from the first episode, Sharpe’s Rifles, through to the U.S. premiere BBC AMERICA co-production, Sharpe’s Challenge, shot in India. Sharpe’s Rifles premieres Saturday, May 27, 9:00 p.m. ET/10:00 p.m. PT.

Sharpe’s Rifles begins in 1809 when Sharpe is a scrappy Sergeant. After bravely saving the life of a distinguished Captain, he is quickly promoted to Lieutenant and charged with a company of men slated for a rescue mission in Portugal. Throughout June, BBC AMERICA features channel premieres Sharpe’s Eagle, Sharpe’s Company, Sharpe’s Enemy and Sharpe’s Honor. In July and August, BBC AMERICA features channel premieres, Sharpe’s Gold, Sharpe’s Battle and Sharpe’s Sword and the brand-new, never before seen U.S. premieres Sharpe’s Regiment, Sharpe’s Siege, Sharpe’s Mission, Sharpe’s Revenge, Sharpe’s Waterloo and Sharpe’s Justice.

September brings the U.S. premiere of BBC AMERICA co-production, Sharpe’s Challenge, shot entirely in India. The fate of an empire rests in one man’s hands in Sharpe’s Challenge. Two years after the battle of Waterloo, dispatches from India warn that a local Maharaja is threatening British interests. Wellington sends Sharpe to investigate on what turns out to be his most dangerous mission to date.

For up-to-the-minute information on BBC AMERICA, forthcoming U.S. premieres, art work and news from the channel, log on to www.press.bbcamerica.com.

Seeing this made me think of many, many questions. I love reading the Sharpe series (and have never seen the series, so I am way excited), not so much for its time period (Regency), but for the amazing way Bernard Cornwell has with a battle scene, and his ability to throw in some surprising twists even through the course of what appears to be a normal action-packed novel. His writing is so fluid, and so compelling, I learn history without even noticing it. I’ve read his books set in the Middle Ages also, and he has a Civil War series I’ve gotten a few books of, but haven’t read yet.

So–have you read Cornwell? Do you like his writing? If you’ve read the Sharpe series, is Sean Bean a good Sharpe? What other series (historical or otherwise) would you like to see made into movies? Do you find that once a book has been translated to film that it limits the way you imagine the characters? What’s the best book to film adaptation have you seen? And the worst?

Thanks for answering–

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

Posted in Reading, Regency, TV and Film | Tagged , , | 11 Replies