Monday, November 28, 2005

Jane Austen not good enough for Margaret Cho

I am a huge fan of Margaret Cho's comedy and of her writing. It always puzzles me that she is so compassionate about everything else but continues to support the eating and wearing of animals, but that is the way she is, I suppose, and we must wait for her to become enlightened.

However, in her latest blog post, Cho infuriates me in a way I never dreamed she would--by dismissing Jane Austen. How dare she.

posted by Diane at 7:55 PM 7 comments

7 Comments:

She seems to be under the impression that Hollywood has made numerous P&P adaptations.

The last one was in the forties. Maybe she's thinking of the BBC miniseries, made in the eighties I believe.

Or perhaps she lumps all of Austen's novels together. Austen is a favorite of filmmakers, for good reason.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:29 AM  

I don't know what she's thinking, but her post seems to be dismissive of classic literature.

I am opposed to most film remakes, as I have written in this blog. But the "remaking" of a film that is actually a piece of classic literature is another matter altogether. It isn't really a film being remade, but a novel or play being re-interpreted. Apparently, that concept is too subtle for Cho.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:12 PM  

A quick IMDb search turned up about ten movie and teevee versions of Pride and Prejudice. I didn't check to see how many were made in the US, but maybe that's where she got the impression that this is just yet another version of yet another 18th century European novel? Anyway, the latter part seems to be the real problem she has: lots of movies about rich white people (and white people who wish they were rich), not so many (non-racist) movies about asian people. It's not a problem with Jane Austen, or classic literature per se, except insofar as the only literature that's considered classic is written by dead, relatively bourgeois, white people.

*shrugs* That's the way I'm reading her, at least.

By Blogger Noumena, at 11:56 PM  

I think you're right, and I join Cho in being angry with Hollywood for excluding any number of people. But Cho, of all people, should appreciate the satirical Austen, and I can't help but wonder if she ever read her or was paying any attention when she did.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:43 AM  

Although I do get Cho's point, surely there are better targets than Austen? The 115th remake of the same stupid movie about some guys stealing X in the middle of some stupid war or whatever (Things Blow Up, I like to call this movie); the 18th remake about how someone has an affair and it ruins his life (Women Suck, I call this movie); the 25th remake of the same stupid movie about the woman who marries the guy or doesn't marry the guy or almost marries the guy People Fuck, I call this movie); not to mention all the Disney junk where Sally or Timmy learns a really Valuable Lesson.

By Blogger delagar, at 11:51 AM  


zhengjx20160714
pandora jewelry
toms wedges
gucci outlet online
replica rolex watches
nike sb janoski
louis vuitton bags
nike store
michael kors purses
oakley sunglasses
oakley vault
toms shoes outlet online
true religion outlet store
ray ban outlet
christian louboutin sale clearance
cheap jerseys
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach outlet online
mont blanc pen
air force 1 trainers
coach outlet store online clearances
adidas running shoes
michael kors purses
cheap air jordans
adidas originals store
michael kors outlet online
copy watches
supra footwear
nike store uk
kobe shoes
coach factory outlet
fitflop clearance
coach factory outlet online
coach outlet store online
air jordan shoes
nike air force 1 white
michael kors outlet clearance
ralph lauren

By Blogger Unknown, at 8:32 PM  

pg 1
pandora charms
stone island outlet
kyrie shoes
supreme t shirt
kobe shoes
supreme
golden goose
ggdb
curry 6 shoes

By Blogger yanmaneee, at 8:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home