Deb and I had a delightful time talking with VPR listeners and Vermont Edition host Jane Lindholm today at noon. If you missed the broadcast, hear it online. If you wish to continue the conversation on this blog: post a comment!
* * *
Please see the following page for more information on the various portraits of Austen (this question came up in the interview, so what follows is some explanation…), as well as some comments…
Various websites feature the portraits (disputed and otherwise) of Austen:
• Britain’s National Portrait Gallery owns the c1810 pencil and watercolor portrait by Cassandra Austen (see NYTimes; Wikimedia).
• An engraved image based on a revision of Cassandra’s portrait accompanied James-Edward Austen-Leigh’s Memoir of Jane Austen (NPG; 1871 edition; 1906 edition).
• Constance Hill’s Jane Austen: Her Homes and Her Friends (1901), a knock-off portrait.
• For a change of pace, see a description of the Stanier Clarke watercolor and read the Persuasions article on the Stanier Clarke friendship book.
• And how about the NYTimes’ article on the “new and improved” Jane found on the Wordsworth edition of the Memoir.
• The Jane Austen Society of Australia has an extensive collection of “portraits” including the 1873 knock-off and some recent depictions.
• Wikimedia has a nice one-page examination of all those similar-yet-different pictures.
• Jane Austen’s Regency World article gives background on one recreation (btw, the magazine reproduced the NPG portrait in a mirror image!)
* * *
I realize, as an afterthought to Louise’s call during this broadcast, just how JASNA News did a disservice to JASNA members who may reside part-time in Vermont. The Spring 2008 issue carried an announcement about the formation of the Vermont chapter that included the phrase “JASNA members living in the Burlington area”. This annoyed because those gathered at our Organizational Meeting in November 2007 at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library, in Montpelier, were from a wider area than just greater-Burlington. And the non-members it attracted all lived elsewhere in the state. If only the JASNA News story had come back to Deb and I for proofing! Unfortunately, JASNA News has only three issues per year… So no story about the chapter is going to hit print for some time to come.
A JASNA Life Member, Louise mentioned relatives in Arlington, the long drive to Burlington, and her hopes for meetings in her area of the state — Or how about a southern-Vermont Chapter?, she asked.
JASNA does not alert chapters about members who have secondary residences (after all, they probably do not know your alternate address). If you live part-time in Vermont – no matter in which part of the state – let us hear from you. To anyone comtemplating having energy enough to create a new chapter, be it in southern Vermont, mid-state or wherever, contact us; Deb and I can put your energy to good use… As our November 2007 organizational poster pronounced: JANE AUSTEN WANTS YOU!
[BTW, Louise we have one – brand new – member right in your neck of the woods.]
Jane Austen in Vermont 
Just read JANE AUSTEN TODAY and the comments of Laurel Ann in response:
http://janitesonthejames.blogspot.com/2008/07/for-love-of-jane-austen-radio-broadcast.html
Thank you both!
Deb and I thought the broadcast went well – just wish there had been more time; we were told afterward there were phone calls and emails that, due to time, we did not get to hear.
Maybe VPR will do more on Austen sometime in the future???…
LikeLike
I just now listened to the podcast, Deb and Kelly. Well done. I thought it amusing to hear (again!) the typical press topics brought forward during the interview: “Nothing ever happens in Austen,” kissing in the adaptations, etc. But I suppose it is to be expected, especially as we are a new chapter. I agree with Kelly that the segment was too brief; I join you in hoping there will be other opportunities in the future!
I was suprised to learn about the annual Austen teas Deb has been hosting for several years. (How have I managed not to hear about these before?!) I’m really looking forward to this year’s event on December 7!
Did you know that Margaret Sullivan posted about the VPR segment onAustenblog ?
About the 2005 P&P film: I’m pleased that someone else enjoys the film as I do. Like Deb, I acknowledge its faults–there are plenty of things it gets wrong but also plenty of things it gets right. I enjoy viewing someone else’s vision/interpretation, just as I appreciate reading essays and research by scholars. I think every adaptation, at the very least, adds something to the Austen dialogue. Watching a film always send me back to the books to reread scenes and consider other interpretations. Viewing this film has compelled me to learn Austen’s novel better.
It seems to be a common misconception that the post-wedding scene at Pemberley was filmed specifically for the North American audience. This scene was actually the intended ending for the film (all versions), but during some focus group screenings, UK test audiences did not respond well to the scene so it was removed from the European version.
Another interesting bit of trivia: this scene wasn’t written by screenwriter Deborah Moggach (the ending she wrote is very different). Before shooting began, director Joe Wright approached another screenwriter, requesting some additional dialogue. Did you ever wonder why Emma Thompson is thanked during the credits? She is the writer of the final scene– as well as the scene when Charlotte tells Elizabeth about her engagement to Mr. Collins. Thomspon’s dialogue is mentioned by Wright in the audio commentary bonus feature included on the DVD.
http://www.scriptfactory.co.uk/go/WhatWeDo/Extract_282.html
LikeLike
Hi Mae, thanks for your response to the VPR show! I agree it was too short and not enough time to say so much more about Austen and how her works enrich our lives, but it was hopefully good PR for the chapter! (I also had never been “on air” before and felt as though I was under water with the headphones on and a mike right in front of my face!…yikes!…better prepared next time!)
I was at the AGM in Milwaukee and we were given a pre-release screening of the 2005 P&P, and as I said on the air, very few of the 500 attendees liked the film, especially the ending, but also most were appalled at the idea of pigs running through the house, Bingley’s ridiculous hair (have you noticed how hair is such an indicator of character in these newest adaptations…see for instance Fanny’s hair in the latest MP, which has been a huge turn-off for viewers!) !… we were told at the time about the different ending in the British version and that this ending was “tacked on” for American viewers. If they had taken an interest in that Austen-crazed audience’s viewpoint, I am sure that this pre-screening would have certainly led to it also being removed for its wider release here as well!
However, as I said, I LOVED the movie, and thought that they did an amazing job of conveying the story in a much shorter time than the 1995 A&E (which is really incomparable; but how wonderful to have such choices that send us back to the book!)…I thought that Macfadyen portrayed Darcy as a less self-assured, more vulnerable young man and liked him for this; and Knightley very beautifully gave us a young lady of any time, who slighted by a few words, also showed her vulnerability…she was just lovely! I have seen it a number of times, and find that I smile through the whole film! …. I just think they should have tanked that ending!… and I agree with you that every adaptation adds to the Austen dialogue, sending us off to another re-read, with more conversation following!…[ and my son wonders what we can possibly talk about when she only wrote six books! HA! ]
Anyway, Mae, thanks for the additional information on this scene and Thompson’s role in it (whatever was she thinking??!)…. I appreciate all your comments and added information on our posts… so please keep adding to the mix!
Best,
Janeite Deb
LikeLike