Stanzels control over fictional reality or Ricurs interventionist thrust justifies the changes applied to Austens stories. Though often heavily criticized for either more or less radical alterations, additions, and/or extractions, filmmakers have the opportunity to present original stories and are not enslaved by the source text. The best adaptations therefore, are the ones that offer a somewhat altered reading of Austen, imitations rejoicing in their difference. (Harris 66).Imitation is used here in the sense it had in the eighteenth century which was a version of a classical original into English which transposed events, characters and allusions into contemporary equivalents (Wiltshire 43). Like films in general, adaptations of Jane Austens novels respond to both trends in popular culture and industry practices of the time of production (Dole Jane Austen and Mud).Amis argues that such alterations reveal much more about the blatant sensuality of our own imagination than about the latent sensuality of Jane Austens imagination (Margolis 34).adaptations of Pride and Prejudice excellent indicators of the ideology and Zeitgeist that informed them (Goggin Pride and Prejudice Reloaded).Screenwriters and directors must slash the text to a manageable size and scale down the complexity of Austens subtle and complex narrative voice to produce a focused, manageable product suitable for screen (Macdonald 3).the focus is on a hero and heroines courtship at the expense other characters or experiences, which are sketchily represented (Kaplan 178). Even the analyses of the adaptation in this study reflect this focus. The films revolve around the main protagonists and their romantic entanglements.The films endow Austens courtship romance protagonists with emotional display emphasizing our current notions of romance rather than late eighteenth-century understandings of courtship (Nixon 25).The greatest change in Austens text, however, is the emphasis on male physical beauty. The recent film adaptations are successful because they quite literally, flesh out her male characters. It is imperative that the film reconfigure the novels romance heroes they also reveal what we, the late twentieth-century audience do not like about Austen Austens heroines fall in love with that we do not like: the male hero the films must add scenes to add desirability to her male protagonists (Nixon 23).Recent Austen adaptations also offer male protagonists increased screen time.It has been something of a trend in the most recent Austen adaptations, particularly British ones, both to fetishize the looks of the heroes and also to foreground that fetishization by a variety of devices. (Hopkins 119)Scopophilia looking itself is a source of pleasure (Mulvey Visual). the presence of a woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in a normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of the story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation (Mulvey Visual). In the 1995 Austen adaptation however, this was vice versa, it was the male lead that the viewers gaze was directed to.Cinematic Austen capitalizes on depicting repressed sexuality (Blum 164).recent popular representations reveal a distinct trend: the harlequinization of Jane Austens novels (Kaplan 178). Harlequinization [] necessitates an unswerving attention to the heros and heroines desires for one another and a tendency to represent those desires in unsurprising, even clichd ways (Radway qtd. in Kaplan 178).If these phenomenally successful adaptations have harlequinized the Austen novels, such changes have even been enabled by similarities of some sort that connect the Austen novels with our contemporary phenomenon of womens romance novels (Margolis 26). The most significant common factor is that both groups of novels consider a world of womens concerns, framed by the perspective of use-value ethics (Margolis 26). Producers think less in terms of ideology and aesthetics than of financial success (Margolis 26).