Elise Despujols
Senior Thesis | 2026
EliseDespujols
SeniorThesis
17January,2026
AppropriatingAusten:HowFilmAdaptationsRecastFeminist
RealismasReductiveRegencyRomance
Inthelastseveraldecades,filmadaptationsofJane Austen’snovelshaveearnedhundredsofmillionsofdollars worldwide.Withmorethanseventyscreenadaptations,reboots, andAusten-inspiredromanticcomediesreleasedinthelast half-century,JaneAustenhasbecomenotjustanovelistbutan entertainmentfranchise.Thesefilmstendtoemphasizesweeping romance,visualopulence,anddramaratherthantherealistic, everydaylifeofthegentrythatisatthecoreofAusten’snovels. Thisconflictingportrayalofherworkinmodernfilmmoreclosely resemblesthe“silverfork”genrethatwaspopularduringhertime. However,thereisevidenceinlettersAustenwrotetofamily membersthatsheexplicitlyaimedtodifferentiateherselffrom thoseworks.Despiteherefforts,modernadaptationstendtodistort Austen’sintenttothetropesthatresemblethoseofher contemporaries,transformingawriterwhooncemocked“serious Romance”intoaglobalcinematicbrandbuiltalmostentirelyonit. ThoughJaneAustendistancedherselffromtheclass-obsessed, melodramaticsilverforkgenreofhertime,contemporary adaptationsofherworksreframeherrealistandfeministnarratives intoromancesthatalignmorecloselywiththetropesshesoughtto subvert.
Thesilverforknovel,orthe“fashionablenovel”,sawits peakintheearly1800’sasthebestsellersoftheregencyera.The termsilverforkwascoinedbyWilliamHazlittin1827afterthe upper-classpracticeofeatingfishwithtwosilverforks(University ofGlasgow).Thesenovelswerefullof“thefolly,caprice,
insolenceandaffectationofacertainclass”accordingtoHazlitt. Ashesuggests,theyfocusedondepictingthecontemporary fashion,socialrituals,andetiquetteofthearistocratichighsociety duringtheRegency.Thesenovelswerewaystoromanticizeand marketthislifestyletothemasses,butinpracticethecharacters andplotlinesofthesestorieswereoftenjustasunrealisticas aspiringtobecomeamemberofthearistocracy.Thesetaleswere putonsuchapedestalinfactthatwhenBenjaminDisraeli,author ofthesilverforknovel The Young Duke, wholaterbecameprime minister,wasoutedasamemberofthelowerclasstherewas publicoutcry(Hughes329).Theaimofthesilverforknovelwas consideredduringitstimetobe“thatofauthenticity.Onlywriters whowerethemselvesintheknow,sotheyortheirpublicists implied,couldclaimtoprovideanaccuratetranscriptionof aristocraticlife”(Hughes336).Becauseofthereputedglamour andscandalofthearistocracyinsilverforknovels,authorswere alsoexpectedtobepartofthiselite,onlyfurtheringhow inaccessiblenotonlyelitestories,butalsoelitevalueswereforan everydayperson.Silverforknovelssoldatwo-foldfalsehood:the fairytaleofascenttoaristocracy,onethatwassoelitethatthese storiescouldonlybewrittenbyamemberofthisinsidegroup,and yettheseauthorswereoftenhidingbehindthisimagetolend credibilitytotheirnovels.
InDisraeli'snovel,hepokesfunatsilverforktropesby writingthatthereisacommon‘receipt’orrecipeforwritinga novel:“Takeapairofpistolsandapackofcards,acookery-book andasetofnewquadrilles;mixthemupwithhalfanintrigueand awholemarriage,anddividethemintothreeequalportions” (BookIII,ChapterI).Clearlyevenheasanauthorknewthese storieswereridiculousanddramatized.Similarly,Hazlitt’s reasoningfornamingthesilverforkgenreafterhowoutoftouch
thearistocracywerealsoactsascritique:“theseprivilegedpersons arenotsurelythinkingallthetimeandeverydayoftheirlivesof thatwhichMr.TheodoreHookhasneverforgottensincehefirst witnessedit,viz. that they eat their fish with a silver fork”(Hughes 329).Theoriginofthegenreanditspopularitywasoneof initiationintoanelitegroupofpeoplethatwasnotjust inaccessiblebutridiculous.Thesamecanbesaidaboutits portrayalofcharacters,particularlythewomen.Femalecharacters wereeitherincrediblyscandalousexamplesofinappropriate femininity,ortheywereperfectlyidealinallaspects.Thisclear boundarybetweengoodandbadfemininerepresentationwasnot onlycommonbutconsideredessential.Criticsatthetime,suchas SamuelJohnson,werewhollyinsupportofthis.Hewrotein1751 recommendingthatauthorsshouldonlywriteheroinesof “virtue thehighestandpurestKindthatHumanitycanreach”(Johnson 24).Hedidacknowledgethat“viceisnecessarytobeshewn,”but healsobelievedthat“whereveritappears,itshouldraiseHatred bytheMalignityofitsPractices;andContempt”(Johnson24). Thisdidn’texactlyallowanyroomfordynamic,ortherefore realistic,femalecharacters.
JaneAusten’sheroinescouldn’tbemoreofacontrast.Her narrativesplayoutwithintherealmsofthepossible,setinEnglish landscapesandsocialscenesthatAustenknewwell.The adventuresherheroinesmeetaren’tscandalousorevenparticularly unique,butratherthingsanyofherreadersmayhaveencountered, likepreparingforadanceoratriptotheseaside.Moreover,her heroinesresembledrealwomeninwaysthatweren’tcommonor encouragedfornovelsatthetime.Inalettertoherniece,Fanny, Austendeclaresofheroinesandnovelsthat“picturesofperfection, asyouknow,makemesickandwicked”(Woosley313).Fanny hadsentherAuntagentlemanfriend’sreviewofhernovels,and
hewasevidentlyunimpressedbyAusten’sheroines.Shenotes;“he andIshouldnotintheleastagree,ofcourse,inourideasofnovels andheroines”butalsothatshe“particularlyrespect(s)himfor wishingtothinkwellofallyoungladies”(Woolsey313).Austen clearlyrebukestheideathataheroineshouldbeperfectlyideal, andshefullyembracestakinganunconventionalpathinherown writing.Shecommentedonherworkthatshe: couldnotsitseriouslydowntowriteaserious Romanceunderanyothermotivethantosavemy Life,&ifitwereindispensableformetokeepitup &neverrelaxintolaughingatmyselforother people,IamsureIshouldbehungbeforeIhad finishedthefirstChapter.–No–Imustkeeptomy ownstyle&gooninmyownWay;AndthoughI mayneversucceedagaininthat,Iamconvinced thatIshouldtotallyfailinanyother.(Sutherland)
Austenwassocommittedtoportrayingrealityratherthanthe idealizedextravagancesocommoninsilverforknovelsthatshe remainedcommitteddespitethepotentialthatfollowingsucha pathwouldlikelynotleadtohersuccessasanauthor.
Austen’slowopinionsofhercontemporariesarefurther revealedbyherconversationswithhernieceaboutthe1806silver forknovel Lady Maclairn, the Victim of Villainy.Fannydescribes thebookas"avoluminousandmosttiresome&prosynovelthat AuntandNiecehadbeenreading&laughingover,together.Itwas ineightvolumes[recte four]andthetearsoftheheroinewerefor everflowing"andthat“thesamestoryaboutthesamepeople [was]representedatleastthreetimesover”(Sotheby's).Austen’s realismwasadeliberatecontrastfromthedramashemadefunof. Herfocusonmiddleclasslifeexploredthroughrealisticscenarios
resultedinfeminismthatsubtlysubvertsandcritiquesregency societyandsocialnormsratherthanglorifyingitthroughdrama. Austen’sownnovelsaren’tcompletelydevoidofdrama,butthere isalackofmelodramaincomparison.Theeffectisplotsthatare stillentertainingwithoutriskingidealizationofaflawedsocial landscape.Despitehercleareffortsandopinions,however,she wasn’toftenportrayedduringhertimeasthedeliberatefeminist shewas.
Nineteenth-centurywomen’speriodicalsofferaglimpse intohowAustenwasperceivedshortlyafterhertime,butrather thanexamineherwork,theyemphasizehermeritsasa“womanly woman”(Cano-Lopez259).Austenisandhasbeenmuch discussedthroughouthistory,andthedistortednarratives surroundingherworkstartmuchearlierthancontemporaryfilm. DiscussionofAustenandherworkwasespeciallyrelevantto women’smagazinesfromthe1870sto1890s,morethan50years afterherdeathin1817.Manysuchpublicationsfocusedon suggestionsaboutsewing,cooking,fashionandoverallhousehold management.Oneofthemostpopular, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, boastedacirculationof60,000copiesby 1860,andpublishedseveralarticlesaboutAusten(Cano-Lopez 256).Therewassomediscussionabouthernovelsspecifically,but forthemostpartshewasacceptedasanaccomplishedauthorand focuswaslargelyonherpersonallife.Themagazinecelebratedher hobbiesandherloveofvisitingBath,callingher“essentially domesticinheraffectionsandpursuits”andemphasizingher “sweetnessofdisposition”(Cano-Lopez258).Byomitting discussionofherworkandinsteadportrayingAustenasamodelof middle-classvirtue,themagazinereframedherasawomanwho exemplifiedtheveryvirtuesshesoughttosubvertinherwriting. Anotherpopularmagazine, The Girl’s Own Paper,whichwas
Despujols6 amongthetoptwentytitlesinladies’readingroomsatVictorian publiclibraries,hadsimilarportrayalsofAusten.Theydescribe herasseeming“tohavewrittensolelyforherown amusement, indeed,atnotimeinherlifedoessheappeartohavebeenfully consciousofhergreatliterarymerits”(Cano-Lopez261).While weknowfromherlettersthatAustendidn’tnecessarilycareabout acknowledgementofherwork,thissentimentisonethatreduces bothhereffortsandherachievements.Tosaythatshewrotepurely forherownamusement,andtoclaimthatshewasblindtoherown meritsreducesherdeliberationasanauthor.Despite acknowledgingher“greatliterarymerits”,toframeherasnaive aboutherownsuccessesstripsherofacertainlevelofautonomy andimpliesherachievementsarenotthankstoanydeliberate effortsonherend.
Whilenineteenth-centuryperiodicalsreframedAusteninto afigureofdomesticvirtue,contemporaryfilmsamplifythis distortionbytranslatinghernarrativesintoeasilydigestible,visual spectacles.Inadaptingoneformofmediaintoanother,somelevel oftranslationandchangeisnecessary.However,moderncinema doesnotmerelymisunderstandAusten’swork;itactivelyreshapes it,privilegingromance,grandeur,andemotionalexcessoverthe socialrealismandfeministironythatdefinehernovels.Inpractice, thisresultsinmainstreamadaptationsofAusten’sworkthatmore closelyresemblehersilverforkcontemporariesthanherown intentions.Nowhereisthismoreevidentthaninoneofthemost popularfilmadaptations,the2005versionof Pride and Prejudice. Therearedeviationsthatarenotsimplydisloyaltotheoriginal,but thatdirectlysubvertAusten’scoreintent.Rightoffthebat,thereis astarkcontrastbetweenhowtheheroine,Lizzie,interactswith Darcy,hermalecounterpart,whentheyfirstmeet (00:05:51-00:08:58).Thesettingisaball,andthroughoutthis
scenetheyareexchangingwistfulglancesandcheckingeachother outuntiltheyfirstspeak,whenLizziesweetlyaskshimifhe dances.Hecurtlyresponds“notifIcanhelpit”andLizzielooks hurtandshrinksoff.Thisiscompletelyunfaithfultothenovel. RatherthanLizzieaskingDarcytodance,anothercharacter,Sir William,triestosetthemuptowhich“sheinstantlydrewback” andstates“Indeed,sir,Ihavenottheleastintentionofdancing.I entreatyounottosupposethatImovedthiswayinordertobegfor apartner”beforeshe“lookedarchly,andturnedaway”(27).Not onlyisLizziestandoffish,butthere’snotalkofDarcy’slingering glancesthisearlyeither.Onthecontrary:“herresistancehadnot injuredherwiththegentleman,andhewasthinkingofherwith somecomplacency”(27).ByomittingLizzie’sinitialprejudice towardDarcythemovieeffectivelylosesthepartsofhercharacter thatmakeherdynamic,andtheydiminishhowsheevolves throughoutthenarrative.Lizzieisaflawedcharacter,thenovel clearlypresentsherasrude,andwhenthemoviehasher coquettishlyaskDarcytodanceitdiscardswhatmakesherso dynamic.Inthisinstanceshemorecloselyresemblesthe“pictures ofperfection”thatAustensworeoffofwhenwritingaheroine. AdditionallywhenthefilmshiftsthefocustoDarcy’sinterested glancestowardsLizzie,thenarrativeiseffectivelyrecentered aroundhowromanticthemalemaincharacteris.Theplotthen losesthenuanceandevolutionofLizzieandDarcy’srelationship andisinsteadreducedtoastraightforwardromancearc.In contrast,AustenallowsLizzietobeafemalewhoisflawed,whois literallypridefulandprejudiced,butwhoisalsostillallowedto evolveandredeemherself.Thisiscompletelyunlikethefemale charactersofhercontemporaries,whowereeitherexpectedtobea pictureofperfectfemininityordeeplyflawedinawaythatis irredeemable.WhentheLizzieofthefilmislessblatantlyrudeand
morepalatablysnarkyitfurtherenforcespatriarchalidealsofideal femininity.Byrejectingtheseconstraintsontheportrayalof women,Austen’swritingisquiteradical,andwhenthemovie dilutesthecomplexityofhercharactersitlosesthefeminismthat issoessentialtotheoriginalnarrative.
ThedynamicbetweenDarcyandLizzieisfurtherdistorted inthefilm.Lizzieiscontinuouslysocoyandcoquettishwith Darcy,unlikeherpridefulselfintheoriginal.AndwhileDarcy’s attractiontoLizziebecomesapparentfairlyearlyinthenovel,the dramaticchangesinhercharacterresultinDarcy’sattraction meaningsomethingcompletelydifferent.Attheendofthatsame firstdancescene,LizzieandDarcyspeakagain,andtheyhavea disagreementabouttheroleofpoetryincourtship (00:08:58-00:13:22).Lizzienotesthatpoetryonlyservestoend affectionsthatdon’tgoverydeep,whileDarcycounterswitha claimthatitisthe“foodoflove”(44).Thismomentisbrief enough,andLizzieisonlyinterposingthisissuetodistractfrom hermother’sgauchepraiseofhersisterJane.Butratherthan lettingthisdiscussionendinawkwardsilenceasitdoesinthe novel:“Darcyonlysmiled;andthegeneralpausewhichensued madeElizabethtremblelesthermothershouldbeexposingherself again.Shelongedtospeak,butcouldthinkofnothingtosay”,the moviegivesherasnarkycomebackaboutdancingbeingan ulteriorformofcourtship(44).Markedlyshesayssobecausehe’s justrejectedheroffertodance,andthereisafocusonhowhe looksabitembarrassedandwatcheslonginglyassheproudly walksaway.Inthenovelshewantstospeakbecauseshe’sworried hermotherwillembarrassher,butthemovieshiftshermotivation toalsobeaboutoneuppingthemalelead.Ratherthanthe aloofnessofLizzieinthenovel,thefilmmakesherengagewith Darcyfurther.She’ssnarkyandrudeperhapslikesheisinthe
novel,butit’sinawaythatrevolvesaroundgettinghisattention ratherthanjustherownpride.Moreover,whenthefilm emphasizesDarcy’sdesiremorethanElizabeth’sagency,theyturn thenarrativeintoastoryaboutbeing“chosen”ratherthan choosing.Inthenovel,atthesecondball,DarcyasksLizzieto danceandshecompletelyignoreshim,soheasksasecondtime andsheresponds,
“I heard you before; but I could not immediately determine what to say in reply. You wanted me, I know, tosay‘Yes,’thatyoumighthavethepleasure of despising my taste, but I always delight in overthrowing those kind ofschemes,andcheatinga person of their premeditated contempt. I have therefore made up mymindtotellyou,thatIdonot want to dance a reel at all–and now despise me if youdare”(50).
ThisisastarkcontrasttotheLizzieseeninthefilm.She’snotonly rudetoDarcy,shetellshimthatshedoesn’tcare.Andit’snot abouthimatall,she’srudebecauseshe'sapridefulcharacter completelyonherown.Austen’sLizziedoesnothaveflawsthat revolvearoundherloveinterestbutthatarepurelyhers.Notonly isthisLizziemuchmoredynamicandalesspatriarchalportrayal ofaheroine,butDarcy’sattractiontohermeanssomething completelydifferent.
Inthebook,Darcy’sinterestinLizzierestsonhowsheis completelyaloofanddoesn’tcaterherbehaviortomen,sowhen sheisinsteadcoyandsnarkyinawaythatrevolvesaroundDarcy inthefilm,theirromanceisonethatsubscribestotraditional genderrolesratherthansubvertingthem.Infact,Darcy’sfeelings inthisregardarerevealedexplicitlyinhisstatementthat,
“Undoubtedly…thereismeannessin all theartswhichladies sometimescondescendtoemployforcaptivation.Whateverbears affinitytocunningisdespicable”(40).Theword‘condescend’ impliesamoralloweringofoneselftogainattention,andhe’s directlycondemningtheideathatwomenshouldtryandcater towardsmaleappeal.EvidentlyhisattractiontoLizzieisbecause ofherrefusaltoingratiateherselfandhowshechallengeshim ratheropenly.Ratherthanfindingherbehaviorimpertinentor unfeminine,Darcyisdrawntoitpreciselybecauseitalignswith hisidealofauthenticity.Thebasisoftheirattractioninthefilmis thereforecompletelydifferent.Lizziehasallthe‘cunning’thathe deems‘despicable’.AsAustenwritesit,Lizzie’srefusaltoshape herselfaroundmaledesireandthefactthatDarcylovesherforher authenticityisastorythatinsistsawomancanbevalued without cateringtomen.WhenthemoviereframesLizzieascunningit suggeststhatfemaleintelligenceismostacceptablewhenitis instrumentalizedforromance,ratherthanexpressedasprincipled honesty.Austen’sfeminismliesinallowingElizabethtobeliked despite herrefusaltoperform.Whenthefilmturnsherintowhat Darcyclaimstodespise,ittradesthatfeminismforasafer,more traditionalnarrativeinwhichwomenwinbystrategyratherthan byselfhood.Thisshiftalignswithapost-romanticfantasyrather thanfeministresistance.Inatimeperiodwhenexpectationsfor womenweresostrict,andwhenfemaleautonomywasstructurally impossible,Austen’ssubversionofnormsisparticularly meaningful.Whenfilmadaptationssoftenandromanticizethe verysystemAustencriticizes,theyturnhersocialcritiquesinto lovestoriesthatfeeltimelessratherthanpoliticallysituated. Austen’shistoricalcontextispreciselywhatmadeLizzieso radical;hersubversionoccursunderreal,restrictiveconditions, whichmakesLizzie’sintegritybothcostlyandcourageous.When
moviessmoothoverthoseconditions,theycelebratetheelegance ofaworldthatAustenwas,quietlybutfirmly,exposingasunjust.
Thispatternisperhapsmostcrucialinthefilm'sclimax, whenLizziefinallyacceptsDarcy’sproposalanddeclarationof love(1:51:49-1:55:57).ThesceneopenswithLizziewoefully meanderingthroughhergardensatdawn,andjustoveraminute latershenoticesDarcyheroicallywalkingthroughthemudand shrubstoherhouse.Thecamerapanstohim,andasthemusic crescendoswewatchhimapproachthroughtheearlymorningfog, backlitbythesunrise,forawholeminuteandsixteenseconds. Theybothverybrieflyexpressregretforhowthey’vetreatedeach other,andthenDarcypassionatelyconfesseshestilllovesLizzie. Sherespondsbytakinghishandandwhispering“Wellthen,your handsarecold”(1:55:27-1:55:36).Unsurprisingly,thatisnotaline Austenwroteinanyofherworks,muchlessinthismoment.The sceneinvitestheviewertofeelsweptawayratherthantothink aboutthesocialconditionsthatstructureLizzieandDarcy’s relationship.ThevisualandmusicalchoicesaestheticizeDarcyas aromanticheroratherthanhowheisshowninthenovel:asaman whohashadtoconfrontandcorrecthissocialarrogance.Thisfinal sceneismuchlongerinthenovel,andatonepointDarcysaysto Lizzie,“WhatdoInotoweyou!Youtaughtmealesson,hard indeedatfirst,butmostadvantageous.Byyou,Iwasproperly humbled.…Youshewedmehowinsufficientwereallmy pretensionstopleaseawomanworthyofbeingpleased”(349).In thenovel,Darcy’ssecondproposalispowerfulpreciselybecauseit isnotcinematic.Hisadmission,‘Byyou,Iwasproperlyhumbled’, centersLizzie’sintellectualandethicalauthority.Sheisnotjustthe objectofdesirebutthereasonforhisevolutionasacharacter.By omittingthisspeech,thefilmremovesDarcy’sexplicit acknowledgmentthathewaswronginwaysshapedbyclassand
gendernorms.Withoutthatacknowledgment,theproposal becomeslessaboutmutualmoralgrowthandmoreabout emotionalinevitability.Surelythoseseveralminutesspent emphasizingsweepingromanceandvisualopulenceratherthan realism,couldhavebeenusedfordialogue.Therewrittenscene romanticizesthesystemsanddynamicsAustencritiques.Austen’s DarcyearnsLizzie’slovebyarticulatingself-knowledgeand humilitywithinarigidsocialorder.Thefilm’sDarcyearnsitby arrivingbeautifullyframedingoldenlight.Asaresult,social constraintsonwomenareaestheticizedasperiod-dramanostalgia andAusten’ssocialcommentaryisflattened.
The2020filmrenditionof Emma makessimilarchangesto Austen’sstory;subvertingherfeministintentbychangingthe heroine’sarctorevolvemorearoundhermaleloveinterestin muchthesameway.Austen’s Emma isataleofmoralgrowth rootedinselfreflectionfortheheroine,whileherromanticinterest Mr.Knightleyservesasaguideratherthanthesourceofher development.However,thefilmadaptationsignificantlyalters theirdynamicbyinfusingEmmaandKnightley’sinteractionswith heightenedromantictension,reframingmomentsofcorrectionand disagreementasemotionallychargedexchanges.Thefilm thereforeshiftsEmma’sarcawayfromAusten’semphasison independentmoralevolutionandtowardanarrativeinwhichher growthiscontingentuponherromanticrelationshipwith Knightley.Thischangeindynamicbecomesapparentwhen KnightleyfirstargueswithEmmaabouthermeddlinginother’s romanticlives,andwhentheyfinallymakeup,thefilmdiverges significantlyfromthenovel.Onscreen,EmmaandKnightleyare leftalonetogetherandtheatmosphereissuddenlyverytense.They sitveryclose,armsbrushing,andthereisclearemphasisontheir romantictension(00:33:35-00:34:38).Emmastubbornlydeclares
thatshehasn’tyetbeenprovedwrongabouthermatchmaking,and Knightleygetsangryandbeginstoleavebeforeshecallshimback. Heswiftlywhipsbackaroundsothatthey'restandingalmostnose tonose,thecameracloseupontheirfaces,allemphasisonthe tensionbetweenthem.Emmaasks“WasMr.Martinvery disappointed?”andKnightleyverysolemnlysays“Amancannot bemoreso”,beforehesighsandretreats.WeareleftwithEmma regretfullywatchinghimleaveheraloneinthisroom.Thisisa starkcontrasttohowtheirinteractiongoesinthenovel,where Emmarespondsinstead;“‘Ah!—IndeedIamverysorry.—Come, shakehandswithme.’Thishadjusttakenplaceandwithgreat cordiality”(122).Thefactthattheirexchangeconcludesherewith ‘greatcordiality’andarationalacknowledgementoferrorfrom Emmasignalsthatsomedisagreementbetweenherandherlove interestdoesn'tthreatentheirfundamentalequalityoremotional security.Bycontrast,thefilmreimaginesthismomentasoneof romanticestrangement.Emma’sregretisframedvisuallyand emotionallyasaresponsetoKnightley’spainratherthantothe ethicalimplicationsofheractions.Knightley’semotional withdrawalpositionshisdispleasureasthecatalystforEmma’s remorse,whichreinforcestraditionalnarrativesinwhicha heroine’sgrowthrevolvesaroundthefearoflosingmaleaffection.
Thereisanothertension-filledsceneinwhichKnightley andEmmaareleftalone,alsounlikeinthenovel,whentheyare arguingaboutFrankChurchill’sfailuretovisithisfather (00:36:55-00:38:11).EmmagivesFrankthebenefitofthedoubt andsaysshecan’tpossiblyjudgehimwithoutknowinghim,and Knightleyisofthebeliefthatanygoodyoungmanshouldbeable tomakethetimetodohisduty,inthiscasevisitinghisparents. Beyondtheadditionoftheromantictensionbetweenthetwo, somelinesarechangedthatmakethisargumentmuchmoreabout
KnightleyandEmma’srelationshipthaninthenovel.Inparticular, EmmavouchesforFrank,mentioninghowhisfather's“fondreport ofhimasaveryfineyoungmanhadmadeHighburyfeelasortof prideinhimtoo.Hewaslookedonassufficientlybelongingtothe placetomakehismeritsandprospectsakindofcommonconcern” (21).However,inthefilm,thislineistweaked.Knightleysaysall he’sheardaboutFrankisthatheis“well-grownand good-looking”,andEmmaresponds“Well,ifhehasnothingelse torecommendhim,hewillbeatreasureatHighbury.Wedonot oftenlookuponfineyoungmen”.Itisclearbythewayshelooks atKnightleythatthisisintendedtobeaslighttohim.Bymaking thisargumentrevolvemorearoundEmma’sfeelingsforKnightley ratherthanherownjudgements,whenshedoesfinallyrealizethat Knightleywasright,itportraysheracceptanceofherfeelingsfor Knightleyaswhathelpsherbeabetterperson,ratherthan evolutiononherown.Thefilmthereforereframeshergrowthas relationaltoKnightleyratherthanintellectualonitsown.Emma’s positionintheargumentisundercutbyitspresentationasflirtation orprovocation,whileKnightley’scorrectnessisvalidatednot throughEmma’sreassessmentofherprinciples,butthroughher emotionalalignmentwithhim.Asaresult,thefilmshiftsEmma’s arcawayfromfeministself-governancetowardanarrativein whichhercharacterdevelopmentreliesonromanticunion.
Muchlikewiththe Pride and Prejudice adaptation, the climacticconfessionsceneof Emma iswhenthisdistortionfrom theoriginalworkismostobvious(1:43:50-1:48:56).Inthenovel, whenKnightleyconfesseshisloveforEmma,herthoughtsareas such,
“Andnotonlywastheretimefortheseconvictions, withalltheirglowofattendanthappiness;therewas timealsotorejoicethatHarriet’ssecrethadnot
escapedher,andtoresolvethatitneednot,and shouldnot.—Itwasalltheserviceshecouldnow renderherpoorfriend;forastoanyofthatheroism ofsentimentwhichmighthavepromptedherto entreathimtotransferhisaffectionfromherselfto Harriet,asinfinitelythemostworthyofthetwo—or eventhemoresimplesublimityofresolvingto refusehimatonceandforever,without vouchsafinganymotive,becausehecouldnot marrythemboth,Emmahaditnot.Shefeltfor Harriet,withpainandwithcontrition;butnoflight ofgenerosityrunmad,opposingallthatcouldbe probableorreasonable,enteredherbrain”(515).
EmmaisoverjoyedthatKnightleyreciprocatesherfeelings,but shefeelshorribleforherfriend,Harriet,whoalsolovesKnightley. Despiteherguilt,shedeterminesnottogiveupHarriet’ssecretor totrytorefuseKnightleyoutofasenseofhonor,becauseitwould beanabsurdactof“heroism”.ThisinnerdialoguerevealsEmma’s evolutionasacharacter;sheresolvesforthefirsttimenottodo thingsthataren’t“probableorreasonable”.Emmafeels“painand contrition”forHarriet,yetsherecognizesthatguiltdoesnot obligatehertoself-destruction.Romanceisthereforearewardfor Emma’sinternalreckoning,notacause.Thefilmadaptation radicallyinvertsthisstructure;eachthingthatEmmahasresolved nottodo,sheinsteaddoesexplicitly.AfterKnightleyconfesses, Emmalooksshockedandsuddenlyhasanosebleed,before sobbingandscreamingthatshecannotaccepthimforHarriet’s sake.AsKnightleyfranticallytriestocleanuphernosebleedshe gentlesandvowstoamendherpastmistakesofinterferingwith Harriet’slovelife.ItisconsistentlyKnightley'sromanticintent
towardEmmathatforceshertoaddresshershortcomings, thereforereframingself-realizationassomethingunlockedthrough alignmentwithamanratherthanachievedindependently.Austen’s Emmaearnslovebecauseshehaslearnedtogovernherself;the film’sEmmabecomesworthyofloveasaresultofbeingloved.In practice,thisdifferencediminishesthenovel’sinsistencethata woman’smoralauthorityoriginateswithinherself,notinher attachmenttoaman.
Ultimately,thepopularityofAustenadaptationsraisesa difficultquestionnotaboutwhetherreinterpretationisinevitable, butaboutwhatislostwhenreinterpretationbecomes standardization.AsNicolePetersobserves,thereisoftenatension between“professionalandrecreationalreaders”ofAusten(75). ShebelievesthatmodernAustenadaptations,“(have)nointerestin embeddingAusteninscholarlyorhistoricaldiscourse,butinstead forgesasocialrelationshipbetweentheromanticauthorandthe romancereader”andthatthis“bridgestheoftenintimidatinggap betweeneighteenth-centuryfictionalcharactersandteenagegirls, makingthenovelpotentiallymoreapproachableandconsumable” (91).Thisaccessibilityisnotinherentlyregressive;fandom culture,asPetersnotes,isalegitimateformofculturalcreativity. However,it’simportanttonotethatAustenadaptationshave becomea“‘productbrand’…exploitedtosellculturalgoodstoa largelyfemaleaudienceacrossawiderangeofexhibitionsectors” (Sadoff69).AdaptationsfirsttakeAusten’sfeministwork,then reworkthemtobeappealingtoabroadaudienceandeffectively diminishherfeministintent,andfinallyselltheseadaptationsback asfaithfulrenditions.Becausethesefilmsaremarketedasfaithful representationsofAusten—andalsooftenserveasaudiences’first encounterwithherwork—theirideologicalshiftsmatter.What endsuppresentedtoyounggirlsisnotAusten’sfeminism,rooted
inselfgovernance,andcritiquingpatriarchalnorms,butrather softenedversionsthatprioritizevisualopulenceandsweeping romanceattheexpenseofthatfeminism.Whilefandomculture mayfosterconnectionandcreativity,themassmarketingofa depoliticizedAustenultimatelyappropriatesAusten’sworkinto storiesthatteachthatwomenbecomeworthythroughbeingchosen ratherthanthroughchoosingthemselves.Inpractice,these mainstreamadaptationsoftenmorecloselyresemblethe mainstreamsilverforkcontemporariesofAusten’stime.In convertingAusten’sfeministrealismintoRegencyromance nostalgia,contemporaryadaptationsdonotsimplyreinterpret Austen,butoverwriteher,inawaythatromanticizesantifeminist idealstothefemaleaudiencesAustenwrotetoliberate.
WorksCited
Austen,Jane. Emma. PenguinBooks,2011.
Austen,Jane. Pride and Prejudice.PenguinBooks,2014.
Cano-Lopez,Marina.“TheOutlandishJane:AustenandFemale IdentityinVictorianWomen’sMagazines.” Victorian Periodicals Review,vol.47,no.2,2014,pp.255–73.
JSTOR,http://www.jstor.org/stable/43663242.
Disraeli,Benjamin. The Young Duke. Gutenberg.org,2016, www.gutenberg.org/files/20008/20008-h/20008-h.htm. Accessed20Jan.2026.
Hughes,Winifred.“SilverForkWritersandReaders:Social ContextsofaBestSeller.” NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction,vol.25,no.3,1992,pp.328–47.
JSTOR,https://doi.org/10.2307/1345892.
Johnson,Samuel."TheRambler,No.4"Saturday,March31,1750. The Rambler,PrintedforJ.PAYNE,andJ.Boquet,in Pater-NosterRow;whereLettersfortheRAMBLERare received.,c.1751,pp19-24. Literature in Context: An Open Anthology. http://anthologydev.lib.virginia.edu/work/Johnson/johnsonrambler-4.Accessed:2026-01-20T03:46:40.008Z
Peters,Nicole.“Austen’sMalleability:Fans,Adaptations,and ValueProduction.” Reception:
Texts, Readers, Audiences, History,vol.10,2018,pp. 74–95. JSTOR,https://www.jstor.org/Austen'sMalleability. Accessed21Oct.2025.
“Pride&Prejudice(2005)-BoxOfficeandFinancial Information.” The Numbers,2005, www.the-numbers.com/movie/Pride-and-Prejudice-(2005)# tab=summary.
Sadoff,DianneF.“MarketingJaneAustenattheMegaplex.”
NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction,vol.43,no.1,2010,pp. 83–92. JSTOR,http://www.jstor.org/stable/27764374. Accessed21Oct.2025.
Sutherland,Katherine.“JaneAusten:SocialRealismandthe Novel:TheBritishLibrary.”BritishLibrary.Accessed October20,2025.
https://www.britishlibrary.cn/en/articles/jane-austen-socialrealism-and-the-novel/.
UniversityofGlasgow-MyGlasgow-Archives&Special Collections-DiscoverOurCollections-Special CollectionsA-Z-NovelCollection-SilverForkNovels.” Gla.ac.uk,2026, www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/archivespecialcollections/disco ver/specialcollectionsa-z/novelcollection/silverforknovels/. Accessed20Jan.2026.
Wilde,Autumnde,,etal. Emma. Widescreenversion,Universal PicturesHomeEntertainment,2020.
Woolsey,SarahChauncey. Letters of Jane Austen .Boston,MA: Little,Brown,andCompany,1908. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42078/42078-h/42078-h.ht m.
Wright,Joe,director. Pride and Prejudice.UniversalPictures, 2005
“#82Austen,Jane.” Sothebys.Com, www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2017/english-lit erature-l17404/lot.82.html?locale=en. Accessed20Oct. 2025.