Netflix's Pride and Prejudice shows how tedious television has become

Telegraph

4 days ago

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a journalist, when writing about Jane Austen, must resort to an opening sentence that riffs on her most famous novel. So here we are again. Why? Because an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is in production at Netflix and has already attracted attention for its diverse cast, which includes Daryl McCormack (the Irish actor whose father is African-American) as the amiable Mr Bingley.
Of course, this is now the norm: Armando Iannucci's 2019 Dickens adaptation, The Personal History of David Copperfield, featured Dev Patel in the title role, with Rosalind Eleazar as Agnes Wickfield; David Oyelowo played Javert in the 2018 BBC adaptation of Les Miserables; while Bridgerton turned the notion of costume dramas being the preserve of white actors on its head (on screen, at least – theatre has exercised diverse casting for decades).
There will always be those who are upset by the idea of a traditional English period drama that features actors of non-Caucasian heritage, but to my mind the real story about this latest Austen adaptation is that it shows how unimaginative television has become. We simply don't need another Pride and Prejudice.
For me, the BBC's 1995 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle is definitive, although I realise that Joe Wright's film – made for cinema a decade later, starring Matthew Macfadyen and Keira Knightley – also has its fans. Both were built to last, and while you could argue that new productions of Hamlet and Macbeth are endlessly trotted out on our stages, theatre is an ephemeral art form. An actor on a stage doesn't have the global reach of Colin Firth in a dripping wet shirt.
This year marks 250 years since Austen's birth, and while a new adaptation of her most famous work may seem fitting, it does not add very much to the world. In fact, I would argue that we have had quite enough Austen to be getting on with. In the past 20 years, there has been at least one new adaptation of each of her six novels (not to mention Whit Stillman's superb Love and Friendship from 2016, based on Lady Susan, and ITV's strangely popular Sanditon which ran for three seasons from 2019, despite being inspired by a working manuscript from Austen that stretched to a mere 120-pages).
If any new Austen adaptation were needed, it would be Mansfield Park, of which there hasn't been a decent version since 1983 (available on iPlayer). The most recent, from 2007, saw a woefully miscast Billie Piper attempt to elicit sympathy for Fanny Price, Austen's difficult heroine. For a lot of readers, Fanny is insipid and moralistic; to my eyes, she is one of the most misunderstood characters in literature. We need, frankly, a new Fanny, from an actress who can bring out her quiet fortitude and strength of will. I would suggest Patsy Ferran, who is watchful, instinctive and always gives the impression that she is capable of great courage.
Yet Netflix would never commission Mansfield Park, not unless it has secret plans for an exhaustive, Marvel-Style 'Janeiverse' which would stretch to origin films about Mr and Mrs Bennet, and spin-offs featuring the Bateses from Emma. Why? Because Pride and Prejudice isn't just a better and more accessible novel than Mansfield Park, it is also a brand. People who care little for bonnet dramas or English literature are likely to watch a new Pride and Prejudice simply because they have heard of it. It is strong IP.
And of course strong IP is becoming the main reason that things get commissioned in the first place (particularly in the TV industry). That is particularly frustrating in terms of costume drama because, despite having hundreds of years of literature on which to draw, we are seeing the same classics being adapted time and again. That explains why we got three productions of Great Expectations in as many years – in 2011, 2012 and 2023 – and, I believe, no other major Dickens adaptations, at least in this country, during that time.
In olden times, Andrew Davies would approach the BBC with Little Dorrit or Bleak House and get the green light, but that seems unthinkable now. For many years, BBC radio gave a home to more unusual works, such as new adaptations of Balzac or Gissing. That era is also coming to an end, as radio drama continues to fall victim to budget cuts.
Radio 3 no longer broadcasts any, while Radio 4's output has decreased considerably in recent years. There is a little more room for manoeuvre in the film industry, but even there the decisions are crippled by cautiousness. Next year we will be treated to another Austen, Sense and Sensibility with Daisy Edgar-Jones as Elinor Dashwood, as well as Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights, starring Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff and Margot Robbie as Cathy.
With traditional broadcasters feeling the pinch, and unable to stretch to the budget that a lavish costume drama demands, it is up to the wealthy streamers to do their bit and take a gamble on something that doesn't smack of algorithmic approval.
History has proven that with the right cast, director and writer you can make much of a little-loved work. I am thinking particularly of Cranford, Elizabeth Gaskell's – dare I say it, slightly boring – vignette of a provincial town. When it aired in 2007, the combination of a clever script by Heidi Thomas, and the talents of Judi Dench and Eileen Atkins, proved irresistible to both viewers and critics; it won Baftas and became the BBC's most-watched costume drama of the decade.
As to whether Netflix's Pride and Prejudice will create a conversation in the same way that the BBC's adaptation did 30 years ago, only time will tell – but it seems unlikely. The problem with repeatedly revisiting a known and much-loved story, is that people eventually get bored. Perhaps somebody will take a chance on Mansfield Park, after all.