In accordance with the three categories presented by Cartmell about adaptions it is clear the BBC film is a transcription of “Lady Susan” simply by being a movie instead of an epistolary work. However Sanders continues without much mention of the other two categories but to role them into her first chapter. This me a disservice in disallowing me to talk about how “Love and Friendship” is also a commentary; if only for the last few minutes. As well as being able to explain how if works first or primarily as an analogue rather than transcription. Alas Sanders does not speak of these things, so I also will not. Appropriation on the other hand is well to do in the fashion of a BBC drama. “Lady Susan” could have done well in the 1950s as a radio opera. Or even rather a dramatic reading over the radio. It could have been filmed in a way where we never truly see the character interact as we only the words they used in their letters opposed to the words they may have used differently in person. In this regard I find “Love and Friendship” does the character Lady Susan a great disservice as it makes her voice as the one we hear to her letters to a friend in which typically one often misconstrues the events from the way they actually happened. It makes her character weaker by way of making her words lesser. She seems not to be the great “serpent as like the one in the garden” but as a transparent manipulator with crass lying as her tool of manipulation. However for “Love and Friendship” to fit with the style of a BBC period drama it must be visible and seem more like an American teen school drama then the gossiping rumor mills of the bible belt built in ladies nights or book clubs.


No responses yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *