Didn't You Used to be Depardieu? (review)

Regular Feature | Book Reviews ary criticism as each of the fourteen essays is well-researched and scholarly but with a touch ofhumor. However, the reading of the entire collection would be strengthened by having each essay in the series be more equal in length and by dividing the titles into sub-groupings based on novels, films, or thematic issues. As it stands, the collection appears much more random that it actually is. Great movie stills are included in a separate section with essay quotes as captions. Occasionally the film jargon becomes a bit excessive even for the academic reader, such as "to mirror intradiegetically the experience of the extradiegetic spectator" (107). Overall, though, most essays are so direct and informative that the collection seems to end too quickly. However, a concluding essay would strengthen the collection and draw together many of the important interpretations. One theme explored in this collection was the contrast between the early 1700s and late 1900s and the elements of feminism and power. RebeccaDickson's essay, "Misrepresenting Jane Austen's Ladies," argues that Emma Thompson's antifeminist translation of Sense and Sensibility,"—where the strong woman breaks but not the immature sister—misrepresents and fails to recognize the history and "muted protofeminist themes" of Austen's novels and era. This muted theme in Austen's literary work illustrated the courage required to step out, even slightly, from circumscribed female roles. Kristin Flieger Samuelian in her essay "Postfeminist Intervention in Sense and Sensibility" states that this "postfeminism" as found in Thompson's interpretation "fails to recognize how strong custom can be in interpreting the fate of lives" (156). Suzanne Ferriss' essay analyzes the modern film version of Emma with the translation set in a California high school. The irony noted is that the modem Clueless presents a much less modem image offemale powerthan the original text Emma. The last essay, "The Mouse that Roared," examines the film Mansfield Park and the possibility of freedom for the literary woman: "This caged, quilled creature can get out" (200). Physical and emotional presentations of male Austen characters in modern films are another focus. Lisa Hopkin in "Mr. Darcy's Body" believes this British film privileges the "female gaze." The otherpiece, "Balancing the Courtship Hero" by Cheryl Nixon, states that the modern films strive for a "masculine balance " and add scenes which "reconfigure the ideal hero" (41). No longer can an Austen male be "a representative of social restraint " but now must be viewed as "an embodiment of emotional display" (41). Other authors explore such concepts as class and landscape. Carole Dole writes that American films have resisted Austin's "keen vicissitudes of class" whereas the English versions do not "prettify" (75) the class contrasts of Austen's day. Elisabeth Ellington examines a different angle in which she states that readers and viewers become consumers of the landscape as much as the love story (91). Several authors contrast the nostalgic representations and those films with a more authentic historical perspective. Amanda Collins states that "privileging of the hyperreal over the original text" occurs, reflecting this present need for the past to be nostalgic and romanticized. Debra Kaplan addresses the mass marketing ofJaneAusten stories through attempts at a "harlequinization" (178) of the Austen era and story. But Devony Looser takes the position that the intelligent female leads in the modern 1990s films do contrast with thepredatory women characters in the 1940 movie version of Pride and Prejudice. These modern films can also provide the opportunity of creating "gateways" for students to connect to the written stories as M. Casey Diana's essay and teaching experimentation has discovered. Lastly, these films and literary essays should also serve to remind those of us who have loved Jane Austen for her brave and creative novels of an important point, as Rachel Brownstein so eloquently states, that "she, before us, was sophisticated and subtle and very, very smart." (20) Lisa Ossian Southwestern Community College in Crestón, Iowa LLOssian@aol.com David I. Grossvogel. Didn't You Used to be Depardieu? Peter Lang Publishing, 2002. 192 pages; $29.95 Cultural Differences To borrow a formulation ofE.M. Forster's, here is a muddle and a mystery...