Inquiring readers,
We have reached episode four of Andrew Davies’ eight-episode mini-series on PBS Masterpiece. Mr. Davies is a master cinematic storyteller. Austen told her stories through words, while Davies takes advantage of showing dress, customs, manners, and settings visually.
The challenge in adapting the novel for a film is how to stay true to the source as you proceed to bend it into the medium of film. The first thing to consider is adapting prose to dramatic writing and the limitations of the screenplay format.” – Adaptation: From Novel to Film, by Judy Sandra, 27 November, 2017. Downloaded 1-25-20 @ https://www.raindance.org/adaptation-novel-film/
By episode four, Davies’ cinematic adaptation of Sanditon has strayed from Austen land and into Georgette Heyer territory. Not that this is a bad thing and it explains why so many Austen fans love his interpretation of Jane’s incomplete novel.
Some of Vic’s Georgette Heyer books in her collection.
At 19 years of age, after reading Austen’s six novels, I wanted to read more Regency romance between heroes and heroines sparring verbally with wit and daring. I quenched my thirst by devouring all of Georgette Heyer’s delightful novels, even her mysteries. Heyer knew the Regency and Georgian eras intimately. She and her husband lived in Mayfair, the London setting of so many of her books. Her details were historically accurate, and, best of all, she was a prolific writer. Heyer’s novels, set mostly in the highest circles of society, were as exciting as they were delightful. They were funny and romantic and brought the Regency era alive through her detailed descriptions and historical content.
Heyer’s best novels – The Grand Sophy, Frederica, Venetia, Sylvester, Arabella (my first introduction to her work), The Corinthian, The Reluctant Widow described in great detail Regency customs, male and female fashions, social interactions (such as the use of calling cards), descriptions of White’s Club or Almack’s, Bow Street Runners, 19th century inventions, and all the minutia that Austen rarely bothered to mention. Through her sparkling stories, Heyer appeased my youthful cravings to inform me about Jane Austen’s regency world. Her often crazy plots offered pure escapism.
In a review of Heyer’s biography by Jennifer Kloester (which I also own), Rachel Cooke writes:
If you want fun – if you want elopements and quadrilles, velvet britches and sprig muslin gowns – you will have to go back to the novels, still in print, and still the greatest and most surprising of pleasures.
After viewing four episodes of Andrew Davies’ adaptation of Sanditon, I am reminded more of a Georgette Heyer plot (with added sex) than Austen’s unfinished manuscript. Which is OK. The melodrama makes for great television.
It just isn’t Austen.
Do you agree? Or not? Both opinions are welcome on this blog. Please feel free to leave your comments or take the poll:
Georgette Heyer and Jane Austen, Linnet Moss, May 2017. Downloaded: January 25, 2020:
Georgette Heyer and Jane Austen
Jane Austen's World 
I have seen the whole series as I live in the U.K but I won’t give away any spoilers. I found the series disappointing in many ways. The dialogue is sparse and much of the action is just filling time I think. The heroine is frequently seen walking around Sanditon smiling but in no way furthering the plot.Relationships are described in a way that would be totally alien to Jane Austen. I had better wait until you have seen the whole series before discussing it further !
Thank you, Lorraine. This poll and the first one I created show around 75-80% support so far. Very interesting. We’ll see how this develops.
I, too, devoured Georgette Heyer after finishing the entire canon of Austen, including all of her minor works, etc. I am continuing with this production for the costumes, scenery, and any visuals of regency life I might gain insight on. The story is engaging but it is not Jane Austen. Seen from this perspective it is entertaining and good for further conversations.
Precisely my thoughts!
Predictable fare. Time spent panning the camera on the actress’s smiling face is annoying, as is the reliance on costuming and sets in place of the author’s written word. Mostly, I find the idea of needing sex to sell Jane Austen to be laughable.
Agreed. In Jane Austen’s World, sex as depicted in this mini-series holds no place. And I am NOT a prude.
I feel like the screenwriter is reusing some of the plot devices from other Jane Austen Books such as my favorite Persuasion(the falling of the older gentleman from the scaffolding & Sidney becoming aware of Charlotte’s nursing capabilities reminded me of Louisa Musgrave falling in Bath where Captain Wentworth was reminded anew of Ann Elliot’s “grace under pressure) and many of the characters seems to be speaking reworked conversations from Jane Austen books. I find the sex scenes very inappropriate for an Austen book(yes, I am a prude!) and I suspect Jane Austen would agree with me.
I agree. When Charlotte comes to Old Stringer’s aid I was like, “Are you kidding me?” There are other JA allusions, all so obvious.
As for the sex scenes — don’t let me get started.
Margaret, your opinions are spot on – mostly because I agree! The series really ceased to be even an interpretation of Austen after the 1st episode. And the sex and innuendo are totally out of place. And after this evening I would be hard pressed to like any of the characters very much except Charlotte. My curiosity keeps me watching, though – we’ll see how it turns out.
I agree to all these comments. I watched episode 1 and started on no 2 but it was actually quite painful to watch it.
I have not watched the program, but I agree with the above commenters, and, of course, Jane Austen was far more concerned with the interiors of people’s lives and thoughts. Seems to me these sorts of productions are simply using Austen’s name and fame to promote their productions and make money, and I am rather dusgusted, though not surprised.
Perfectly said. Jane Austen’s interiors of peoples’ lives vs. Heyer’s superficial character studies (I still love GH DEARLY) and Davies’ pandering to today’s sensibilities is just too much !
Meant disgusted, not “dusgusted.” Just saw what I did.
I think that you have hit a very good analogy in that this is less like a Jane Austen work and more like somebody else’s regency novel. The attention to historical detail is excellent and the story is interesting, but the only Austen left in my opinion is the character names and the setting. However I do like being visually transported back to that era, and to me this show is doing that.
Yes, Kevin, which is why I am enjoying the series. We cannot hold Davies to a Jane Austen purity test. He is entertaining us while jumping off JA’s original ideas. The show is beautifully produced and one should appreciate it for what it is. Vic
At times, I felt it was a name that quote and Austen book for things in the adaptation. He borrowed a lot from her collective works, but it seemed more copy and paste than a good flow.
Still trying to have an open mind.
denise
Davies gives us Austen crumbs here and there, but many of these moments seem contrived. Austen was an original.
I was enjoying the Esther vs Clara subplot up until this episode…I’ll still watch the show for the acting and costumes though!
When you compared the series looking more like Georgette Hayer than Austen I was very amused because when I was watching ep 1 and sidney was introduced I thought he looked like a GH hero!
I’ve just finished reading Sara Sheridan’s excellent ‘The World of Sanditon’ which gives a very good account of the period circa 1819 in which the show is set, and how it was put together (in particular pages 130-131 ‘Shaping The Story’). It is clear that where the production, action and detail is thoroughly ‘invested’ in the period:- the outside locations, cricket, regatta, horses and carriages, costumes etc. the show is brilliant. But where it is not invested in the period or credible, like some of the sets, and Davies’ first three ‘foundation’ scripts:- it is not. For a dramatisation that is for the most part trying to be faithfull to the period, why on earth does Davies throw away the character traits that Austen gives her cast members, and the intricate interests and relationships that she sets up between them? The four episodes written by Justin Young and Andrea Gibb are infinitely better than those by Davies, but do make the show even more uneven. Sadly the fascinating history of what happened to Jane’s unfinished manuscript after she died is covered in a few brief words on page 113 where I was fascinated to see that I get a somewhat inaccurate mention! With something like ‘Pride & Prejudice’ there have been so many different versions that it can quite happily be plagiarised without detracting from the Austen original or the more authentic dramatisations. With Davies’ ‘Sanditon’ being the first biggish budget dramatisation of the last novel I think it a pity that any more considered production that might follow it will have to try and undo some of the more weird constructions that Davies has placed upon it, such as the relationship between the two Denhams, who he makes step-siblings. My vote went to the ‘middling score’ option. ‘Good in parts but a missed opportunity’.
Great analysis. I enjoyed the series against my better judgment and not once did I believe that I was watching a story based on an Austen novel.
I’ve watched the whole series. It isn’t all bad, some parts are even entertaining, but in general I’d rate it ‘middling to absurd’. It feels like an historically inaccurate fan-fiction, with inconsistent characterisations, occasionally clunky dialogue, and some very silly plot twists.
“It feels like an historically inaccurate fan-fiction,”
Spot on.
Nice costumes, lovely settings, but lacking the wit and subtlety that we love in Jane Austen. I think even to compare this to GH is a bit insulting to GH, whose work was, as you say, historically accurate. But Sanditon. What use is it to get the costumes right if you have people saying and doing things that seem so wrong for the time? Just a few things I noticed from Episode 3
Asking permission to write to Esther: Unmarried, unrelated people of the opposite sex did not write to each other unless they were engaged. That is Jane Austen 101. Violation of this rule happened, of course, hence a major plot element in Emma and S&S. But it was a big deal, not the small aside it’s presented as here.
Tom Parker is sending Charlotte to deliver a letter to the foreman? That’s what servants are for. Besides, he would never expose a lady to worksite.
Bone-setting is a surgeon’s job, not a physician’s. Physicians were gentlemen and did not touch their patients. Surgeons were rough men who mainly amputated things. I suppose this was an emergency and he happened to be the closest person at hand? But still.
Charlotte is calling Mr. Parker “Tom” and he’s calling her “Charlotte”? No, I don’t think so. It’s unsuitably intimate. Although I suppose the effort is to create emphasize the distance between Sidney and Charlotte? But still. Feels wrong to me.
More generally, there is a directness, a coarseness, even, in the way people speak to each other with that is so not Austen. As when Sidney delivers a tongue-lashing to Charlotte at the end of Ep. 1 with scant motivation. Or the amazing rudeness Lady Debham shows to Miss Lambe at a luncheon supposedly in her honor?
Also, luncheon, not yet a thing in 1817.
Sorry to go on. Obviously I have some feelings.
I agree that the language and actions of the villains of this piece are crude. Davies admits that he modernized the plot to appeal to television audiences, but time and again he crosses the line, This is his Sanditon, not Jane’s.
Yes, more Heyer than Austen for sure. Though, more broody than most of Heyer’s. I’m enjoying it all.
Yes, more broody indeed. I agree with the statements by Flynn. Heyer would not have made the mistakes regarding Regency customs and manners that are evident in Davies’ plot. Single young ladies did not go around unescorted like Charlotte, for example.
I rather like the series and expect to watch to the end but find rather a lot of things jarring. The dialogue is quick and natural-sounding (something Jane excelled at) except for the fact that simply everyone is raising their voices to shout their emotions. The music is a series of constant dramatic stabs and anxious hurried beats designed to wind up the viewer as if it is demanding we stay breathlessly wrapped up in the next twist of the plot. The sex, well, Jane certainly acknowledged inappropriate relationships without winking but this stuff all smacks of twenty-first-century me too movement sensibilities chucked in there for yet more dramatic effect. Jane Austin social situations larded with an unpleasant slime of Game of Thrones intrigue, not Georgette Heyer but rather George.R. Martin when it comes down to it.
About young ladies wandering about unaccompanied, however, they certainly did. Think of Anne walking about Bath and accosting Admiral Croft on the sidewalk or Emma saying goodbye to Jane Fairfax as she hurried away or Catherine walking “with great elasticity” clear from the Tilney’s lodgings at the top of Milson Street to Pultney Street (a ten-minute walk) without the faintest remark. What they didn’t do was go rattling around town in carriages accompanied by strange men which is something my beloved G. Heyer constantly had her heroines doing at the drop of a beaver fur hat. Ah, well
Good points all. Anne Elliot, however, was not a young miss of impressionable age. She considered herself, much like her creator, Jane, on the shelf. The Grand Sophy felt that she could gallivant around town alone because she had deemed herself too old to be chaperoned. She, like Emma, was also rich. Emma was on top of the food chain in Highbury — the mistress of the house who oversees society functions. She, too, is given license because of her exalted status.
Catherine Morland and Charlotte Heywood have much in common – they are rural daughters of a Gentleman’s family who have an excessive number of children. The two girls are of marriageable age and should take care to ensure their “reputations.” Both are a bit reckless.
Don’t get me wrong. I love these discussions, in which I am often wrong. I learn more from readers of this blog than from my history professors. Thank you for stopping by to comment. Feel free to disagree and continue the debate.
No, it’s gotten away from Jane Austen’s sweetness. But the actors and actresses are wonderful in their parts. Believable. I love their facial expressions! You feel what the characters are feeling.
Hello from England.
I too have seen this series and again, not wanting to give anything away would have preferred it to finish at episode 7, whilst I still had some hope…
There was quite a big hoo ha (!) after the final episode, social media went insane and not in a good way. I actually shouted “NOOOO!!” at the TV screen at the end of it… Personally, I HATE a cliffhanger and as yet there are absolutely no plans for a second series. I really don’t mind modern interpretations of Jane Austen’s work but leaving everything ‘out there’ in the ‘hopes’ of a second series would surely have her spinning in her grave: her stories always had a definite ending and leaving it hanging smacks of 21st cynicism. NOT HAPPY :(
Ref my last comment, pressed enter too quickly.. last comment should be 21st Century cynicism..!!
I watched the first 2 and could not figure out why I was so annoyed with the portrayal of the men in the plot. I quipped to a friend that I thought they looked like misplaced Silicon Valley tech workers with the 5 o’clock shadow. To test my theory I visited the Yale Center for British art and wandered through the wonderful collection. It was a slow visitor day (as in I was the only one in the Long Gallery) and I could not find one portrayal of a man with the now popular look. Even the guard, who asked me why I was going back and forth through the galleries, agreed that no matter which social class was portrayed (farmer, horse groomer, aristocrat) all were clean shaven even if they had sideburns, mustache etc. I know this is a nit but, since we have been spoiled by other directors who were so meticulous, I expected more.
I enjoyed your account of wandering the galleries to the point of arousing the guard’s interest, and how fortunate are you to have such a wonderful resource close by! Well done for confirming your suspicions.
Thank you! It is wonderful to indulge ideas in this way. I always feel very lucky to have this opportunity. I remember the days when I had to wait months for library loan to explore a concept.