The “Austenian” feeling of Love & Friendship must be more complicated than it first appears. Even when Austen switches to a third-person narrator at the end, there is no dialogue.
Scott attributes the film’s success largely to its “rapidfire sallies of verbal wit,” and critic Mark Zoller Seitz claims Love & Friendship ’s charm is in “Austen-isms walk shoulder to shoulder with Stillman-isms so gracefully that it takes a moment to realize which author is likely speaking through these characters.” However, the dialogue that these critics so praise in the film does not exist in the novella Lady Susan is a collection of letters.
They praise it for its irreverent humor, something they claim characterizes Austen’s original works, but not all adaptations of them. Taken together, Megan’s introduction is an excellent example of how to motivate a larger research paper topic on the orders of both primary and secondary sources.ĭownload printable PDF Excerpt / Megan LaubachĬritics from The New York Times 1, Roger, and The New Yorker agree that Love & Friendship, a film directed by Whit Stillman and based on Jane Austen’s novella Lady Susan, is not your run-of-the-mill Austen adaptation. Then, Megan situates her in-text motive in a larger scholarly debate within film criticism about narration, leapfrogging from scholar to scholar in order to both disagree with them and insert her own voice into the conversation: this is scholarly motive. Her introduction begins with in-text motive as Megan notices that Love & Friendship, despite being narrative in form, feels like an authentic adaptation of a novella written as a collection of letters. In a Tortoiseshell: In this junior paper on Love & Friendship, a film adaptation of Lady Susan by Jane Austen, Megan Laubach’s motive is multi-faceted.
0 kommentar(er)
