being spammy today
Sep. 18th, 2009 07:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lotesseon poking about the 'net for discussion of the terrible and egregious 2005 Pride and Prejudice film, found this absolute gem of a review (positive): "A good, old-fashioned movie with a pretty star. The story is good-hearted, romantic, and lacking in any sort of cynicism"(!)
Because clearly, it's a plus in an Austen adaptation that the work be devoid of cynicism.
Ugh. Do they know who they're talking about? Do they not get the absolute, utter, incandescent ironies of Austen? This is why I sometimes get worried about satire - it's so easy for rubes to declaw satirical works. Poor Austen, they've made her all hearts and flowers and sugar and sunshine!
I mean! "It’s a winning, old-fashioned movie, a time machine that removes you from 2005 for two hours and tells you a satisfying story of love"? As if!
Because clearly, it's a plus in an Austen adaptation that the work be devoid of cynicism.
Ugh. Do they know who they're talking about? Do they not get the absolute, utter, incandescent ironies of Austen? This is why I sometimes get worried about satire - it's so easy for rubes to declaw satirical works. Poor Austen, they've made her all hearts and flowers and sugar and sunshine!
I mean! "It’s a winning, old-fashioned movie, a time machine that removes you from 2005 for two hours and tells you a satisfying story of love"? As if!
no subject
Date: 2009-09-19 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-22 05:28 pm (UTC)