Hunh. So the upcoming movie From Prada to Nada is being billed as a “modern twist on Sense and Sensibility.” To quote The Wall Street Journal, it “centers on two spoiled Beverly Hills rich girls (Camilla Belle and Alexa Vega) who are forced to move in with poor relatives in East L.A. following their father’s death. Do the girls learn to embrace their Hispanic heritage? Of course they do.” See the preview below.
I think The Wall Street Journal is a perfectly appropriate venue to talk about Sense and Sensibility. They’re both so much about money, of course. But let’s go over a few problems here, shall we?
A) Do we think Elinor and Marianne are spoiled before their father dies? (Answer: It never even occurred to me.)
B) Do we think they “learn to embrace” the values of the poor relations they now associate with? (Answer: Ha! As if! Leaving aside the quibble that the relations aren’t poor, their values differ mainly by being less refined than the Dashwoods’. And we know what Jane thinks about that. In fact, I learned from Sense and Sensibility that you can and should maintain your standards even if those around you have lower ones, while at the same time being nice to them, because hey, it pays off.)
But that rich people are spoiled and stupid, and poor people are maybe a bit rough around the edges but fundamentally more real, no, Sense and Sensibility does not go there. Even in Jane Austen’s more class-conscious books, like Emma and Pride and Prejudice, there are real rich people and spoiled rich people, real poor(er) people and silly poor(er) people. It’s hard to tell from the preview, but I hope From Prada to Nada keeps at least that much shading, and even more, that it possibly, just possibly, gets into differing expectations of love and romance. I hope they manage to get anywhere near as close as the new xkcd to showing us Marianne and Willoughby’s relationship. If so, it might be a worthwhile adaptation. You see, I’m keeping an open mind!
http://cdn.springboard.gorillanation.com/storage/xplayer/yo033.swf
austenacious 
It’s just another example of how throwing Austen’s name in the mix, no matter how oblique the reference, is marketing gold. I suppose we should be pleased by our lady’s popularity, but I have hard time accepting it.
LikeLike
I would definitely agree that the Dashwoods don’t ever really embrace the Jennings’ views and values, which has always bothered me a bit. I mean, I think the Jennings are hilarious and Mrs. Dashwood sounds stuffy and boring. But I think I’ve been influenced the awesome portrayals of the Jennings in S&S95. Who wouldn’t want to be friends with them? (Besides the Dashwoods, of course.)
But I loved that cartoon. That’s mostly all I wanted to say.
LikeLike
I agree with Alexa. Jane is marketing gold. It is the reason why such tenuous relationships are made between her name and so many current popular culture offerings.
LikeLike
I saw the preview for this film and was really depressed to see so many stereotypes wrapped up in one film. I was hoping you would have mentioned something about that…perhaps you didn’t notice them. I would really appreciate it if you watched the preview again and considered the misrepresenation of Latina/os. Thanks for your other thoughtful words/comments.
LikeLike
I agree, it never once occured to me that they might be spoilt – perhaps because I use Emma as a marker for such things?
Also, the trailer reminds me of the movie “material girls” with Hilary Duff. Not that I have seen it or anything.
Cough.
LikeLike
@Diane: I did notice the stereotypes, which were, as you point out, eye-rollingly over the top. I talked about the stereotypes about rich and poor people, but since I was focusing on the Austen connection, I didn’t get into the Latina/Latino ones specifically. They bugged me, of course, but are unfortunately all too common. I’ll think about it as future post material – thanks for the suggestion!
LikeLike