This morning, the man about the house and I were discussing whether we preferred the movie adaptations of Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility. In different areas I think both excel over the other. Some are from comparing the cinematic with the literary. Others are just preference. Seeing as G. has not read her books, his only point of reference is the likability of each movie as it stands on its own.
This morning's topic reminded me of a recent Times article about the Rice portrait's accuracy concerning her beauty. It is interesting to note that all the heroines of recent interpretation have been played by beautiful women (Knightly, Thompson, Paltrow) and in the upcoming Jane Austen movie, she is even portrayed by the stunning Anne Hathaway. The controversy regarding her own physical features and our own imaginings of the beauty of her literary counterparts intrigues me.
Why do we continue to define beauty by things that clearly fade? This cannot be true, and in fact in God's society, isn't. "What matters is not your outer appearance—the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes—but your inner disposition. Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in."
And now I am chastised within. What am I teaching my three daughters?
