A Review of Liora Brosh’s “Consuming Women”

Upon closely reading Liora Brosh’s article “Consuming Women: The Representation of Women in the 1940 Adaptation of Pride and Prejudice,” it becomes clear from the beginning that Brosh’s main argument revolves around the treatment of gender roles, specifically women, in Depression-era America and how this affects the film adaptation of the novel. First published in 1813, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice focuses heavily on the social stratification class structures of England and, therefore, places a large amount of importance on money and a woman’s duty and need to marry well. What Brosh has done in her article is to delve into the ways in which the 1940 film adaptation differs from the novel specifically by way of the treatment of its female characters. 

In order to provide the proper evidence to support her thesis, Brosh relies on a compare contrast method, constantly going back and forth between versions of the story. Her initial piece of evidence revolves around the film’s opening scene in which the Bennett women can be seen shopping, rather than the novel’s opening scene which takes place entirely at the Bennett family home. By moving this scene to a store, Brosh suggests that “the women are both subjects and objects in this commercial interaction” (148). By moving the scene to a place of consumerism, Brosh claims that this is Hollywood’s way of Americanizing the novel in a way which brings to light to changing times of the 1940s. Brosh provides further evidence by focusing statistically on women in the workplace and how, in the year in which the film was made, women were working more and, as a result, spending more. 

While the article is well-written and focused, the weaknesses lie in the ways in which Brosh scatters her thoughts. For example, Brosh focuses on the film’s choice of costume for the female characters, yet she does so in several different areas hence creating a few rough transitions within the essay. Additionally, Brosh seems to rely heavily on plot summaries where more evidence could have been provided. This is a difficult method to avoid in a compare and contrast situation, but more original thought and fewer instances of summarizing are always preferable. The conclusion is another weakness of the article. While the conclusion does do a proper job in summarizing the author’s argument as a whole, it does come upon the reader rather abruptly. 

What the article may lack in cohesion, however, it makes up for in detailed and properly supported arguments. Brosh’s essay is fascinating to read because it offers up new ideas about Pride and Prejudice and casts the novel in a light which is not often considered. By delving deep into Hollywood’s reasons for changing certain aspects of the novel, Brosh is providing her readers with a greater understanding of both Austen’s experiences with social hierarchy in the nineteenth century and the importance of gender roles in 1940s Depression times. Brosh makes specifies that “during the Depression [...] most viewed women’s relationship to money as a desire to have money in order to consume frivolous items” (154). In making this distinction between social classes in Austen’s England and consumerism in Depression-era Hollywood, Brosh provides the reader with an in-depth look into the differences not only between adaptations but between the times in which they were produced. 

Work Cited

Brosh, Liora. "Consuming Women: The Representation of Women in the 1940 Adaptation of Pride and Prejudice." Quarterly Review of Film & Video, vol. 17, no. 2, 2000, pp. 147-159.