This has been one of my favorite films for decades. I grew up watching it with my mom and sisters, and it’s a favorite around the holidays. But since being on tumblr (it’s been a while now) I’ve noticed lots of people dog on the movie for manipulation and lying and so on and so forth. And while I’m not here to say it’s the depiction of the perfect relationship, I am here to give my reasonings for why these critiques are as silly as the one about Beauty and the Beast being a case of Stockholm Syndrome.
The rest under the cut cuz I wrote like 4 pages of this. Also gifs.
This is fascinating. I think what modern adaptors are actually uncomfortable with is Lydia's consignment to perpetual obliviousness. Her greatest sin is the same as all other benign Austen villains: the lack of self awareness. So she lived with a man before she got married. So she likes soldiers and flirting and parties. So what? The modern Elizabeth comes to understand that these are not bad things because our modern sensibilities demand this. That part of Austen must be fixed in any modern retelling. Also Elizabeth's prejudice towards her sister is just too good a tie in to pass up.
But the Lydia of the books will always make people cringe because she's just so damn clueless and forever remains so. Lydia does not defiantly reject the moralizing. She does not revel in her girlhood and femininity with any sense of self. She doesn't even recognize that her rescue is indeed a punishment so strong is her delusion. She buys into the frameworks of her society without any sophistication. She's better than all her sisters because she married first. They are less than her because they are still single, and she condescendingly offers to help them find husbands as if she found a man and convinced him to marry her using nothing but her charm and wit.
It feels unfair to have Elizabeth and Darcy learn and grow, but 15 year old Lydia is written to remain just as obtuse as ever. That's what she must be ultimately rescued from.
90% of ‘representation’ problems could be answered with just more variety. “This rep is BAD because a gay guy being femme is stereotyping”/”no it’s important, femme gays exist and deserve representation” – sounds like we need both kinds. “Queer stories shouldn’t be focused on sex”/”sex is important to the queer experience and should be represented” – sounds like we need both kinds. “Hypercompetent disabled characters like Toph and Daredevil don’t represent me and suggest that disabled characters are only valuable if their disabilities aren’t ‘disabling’ them”/”hypercompetent disabled characters like Toph and Daredevil are empowering” – sounds like we need both kinds.
Most of the Problems of Bad Representation TM aren’t problems at all, except when they’re the only Representation available. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with gay or disfigured or mentally ill villains… except when it’s a pattern across media, and there’s no variety. There’s nothing wrong with stories where the character who happens to get killed off is the minority and all the cishet white abled people make it through and live happily ever after… except when it’s a pattern, and it’s always the minorities getting killed off, rather than teh frequency you’d expect in a random distribution. There’s nothing wrong with a walking stereotype (people who are walking stereotypes do exist!), except when the stereotype is the only kind of character we’re given.
Expecting anything with a diverse cast to act as a PSA that fully explored the nuances of every race, sexuality, gender or subculture it includes and decrying it as ‘problematic’ if it doesn’t meet (your idea of) Perfect Representation is shooting ourselves in the foot. 1 piece of Perfect Representation is so, so much less valuable than 100 pieces of kinda fucked up representation that are fucked up in different ways.
Jane Austen really said ‘I respect the “I can fix him” movement but that’s just not me. He’ll fix himself if knows what’s good for him’ and that’s why her works are still calling the shots today.