Pride and Prejudice, Why?

The trailer in the US makes it look absolutely nauseating.

But then again, I'm a sucker for anything Austen.

Even the Republic of Pemberly thought it was well done.

That was the brilliance of Jane Austen, that it could be social commentary *and* sentimental love story at the same time.

Have you seen the ILB "Summarise a Novel in 25 words thread"? Someone did P&P.

High-principled woman who is not so superficial as to be taken in by wealth and good looks chooses the handsome, shaggable one anyway.

-- All Bunged Up. (qp10q...), February 24th, 2004 12:36 AM.

From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.

Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.

The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.

It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.

Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.

Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.

Is anything worse than wannabe Entertainment Weekly writers?

-- Theorry Henry (miltonpinsk...), November 7th, 2005.

You're totally off the mark here. There's a big difference between "OMG film not like book," and "OMG, none of the people involved in this film appear to have the slightest idea about the book, or the time period in which it takes place."

That imdb review is awesome. If it were edited a little, I'd think it was the writing of a pro film critic.

Romance-Porn for 30-something women, really.

Any resemblance to the classic of english literature is entirely coincidental...

ie much like the original.

-- Alba

Touche! Thanks.

By the way, I certainly don't think a film has to follow its source book--at all. In the case of Austen, however, you might as well. You're unlikely to improve on it. This film version is sappy. Austen never is.

Even Clueless caught the spirit pretty well, obv. changing much.

Film-makers can't resist spoiling this by casting beauties as Lizzie. OK we expect good-looking people in movies, but it is ridiculous that the actresses playing Elizabeth should almost invariably be much, much prettier than the ones playing Jane. Darcy's falling for Lizzie is meant to seem utterly improbable. How can it seem so if she looks like Greer Garson or Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightley? Casting these actresses turns the novel into just another formulaic despite-initial-difficulties-alpha-male-gets-it-together-with-hottest-babe story.

iPride and Prejudice, Why?

http://www.lyceum.org.uk/sites/press/images/Look%20Back%20in%20Anger/Production/Kelly%20Reilly,%20David%20Tennant%202.jpg

other great things: the chaotic ball scenes where you really get the feeling of being right there in the room as the camera makes its way busily through the crowd. Matthew MacFadyen's Mr. Darcy - far superior to Colin Firth's. Simon Woods - really charismatic as Mr. Bingley. I suppose the weak link is Keira Knightley who i found pretty annoying at times (but not as annoying as i had imagined she would be) though i dare say Lizzie Bennet would be just as annoying.

Great little details: Mr. Darcy flexing his hand with desire as he first touches Lizzie; Mrs. Bennet piss drunk at the second ball and dialogue interrupted by precise dance steps in the same scene.

I'm not making any grand claims for the film but it's great fun.

one can only hope...

Zing? Not so! I thought she was a confection. Fun in the Bond film too.

I enjoyed the film, but as with any film trying to cram a book into a few hours, some things were rushed, some things were missed out, and character development suffered a lot.

That was one of the good things about stretching the text out over a television series (was it six parts?). It allowed for all the "slow" moments and natural pauses in the narrative, as well as character development.

Salexander also, well, not OTM exactly because I both agree and disagree with her. I think P&P is of just the right complexity to translate into a satisfying sub-two-hour film, but then I also enjoyed and appreciated the 6-part series. Indeed, the fact that it works well in both formats is something that I'm happy to celebrate.

Jocelyn - I think you're over-worrying about the shabbiness. The Bennetts are portrayed in a seemingly authentic way, with workaday clothes, semi-domestic animals rootling about, dust and clutter in some parts of the house - but they're still more than capable of slipping on a tidy gown and receiving guests in a well-appointed drawing room.

[Lizzie] is attractive, sure, but Jane is the real beauty

I humbly suggest that this is very much the case in the film too.

But that's exactly what I meant by Darcy feeling culpable/fond of Lizzy)!! And Wickham would hardly have targeted the Bennett girls in the hope that Darcy would cough up.

[Lizzie] is attractive, sure, but Jane is the real beauty

I humbly suggest that this is very much the case in the film too..

I was making a general point and haven't seen the most recent film: I must have seen 4 or 5 film dramatisations though and invariably the actress playing Lizzie has been prettier. I didn't even know who played Jane in this one when I posted, although I've just checked on IMDB. I suppose with Keira Knightley playing Lizzie I assumed the pattern was probably continuing (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, and to be frank KK's figure is a bit too boyish for her to be my idea of sexy, but facially she is very beautiful - wasn't she recently voted the most beautiful actress in the world in some poll or other?). But based on a quick glance at the pics on IMDB you might have a case.

The underrated 1995 adaptation of Persuasion is almost as lively and intelligent as the novel.

I was counting the BBC series (why wouldn't I?). I know I've seen at least two of those, and the film with Greer Garson. I'm certain I've seen one or two others, but my memory is vague: IMBD lists several more adaptations.

the one with ciaran what's-his-name? and amanda root? that's my favorite by far.

And her laughter when she first sees the size and grandeur of Pemberley was just perfect, it totally captured the sense of ridiculousness of the whole situation in about 2 seconds.

I've had so many conversations with girls over the past few weeks where, without having seen the film, they have decried the casting of Knightley as Lizzie and the non-casting of Firth as Darcy. This seems to be not only a tad hypocritical but also a bit unfair as i reckon both actors in the new version do better than those in the old version.

I was impressed, too, at how successfully the whole thing fit into a 2 hour format. Yes, it felt like a compression relative to the book/BBC version, but without the luxury of those for comparison i doubt that people watching would notice.

Sorry, I'm going to stop cluttering up the rolling walking thread and post here instead.

I wasn't bothered by its lack of faithfulness to the book as much as some others. There were scenes where I kind of hissed "that NEVER happened" but quickly forgot them, due to being caught up in the loveliness of the cinnematography. It was a modern adaptation, it's allowed to be modern, in terms of relaxing of utter stiffness of class and conversation. (Though it was still "19th Century" enough to make my mother sigh for the Auld Days in terms of manners.)

I don't like Keira Knightly as an actress, but her Lizzie didn't offend me. (Though the giggling schoolgirl bit annoyed me, it did seem appropriate - the whole thing about Elizabeth is supposed to be her sense of fun. She is not Eleanor from S&S, totally controlled.) I thought this Mr. Darcy was MUCH better than Colin Firth, but that could be because I never fancied Firth much, while the pointy nosed brooding Darcy got me going.

He never came across as snobby enough, though. It was rather too obvious from the beginning that he was shy, rather than proud. When part of the point of the book was him recanting of his pride as his surprising love softened him. (And the shyness was secondary.)

The complaint about the rowdiness of the dance scenes, too - I think that was deliberate, the contrast of the first ball, simple country gentry, and slightly wild - with the much more formal and stately city aristocracy of Bingley's ball was part of the class commentary. Like the contrasts between the informality of the Bennett home (and the Collins home, inside Mrs. Collins' private study) and the extremely stratified and regimented social lives of their "betters".

The first time you really see Darcy act like a human being is at home, with his sister - and that, rather than the grandeur of the house, I think, is where Elizabeth chances his mind about him.

Thankfully, this scene was omitted from the UK version. Even I watched the alternate ending, and nearly vomited.

And I *liked* the dirty dronerock Darcy.

Yeah, exactly. There were some efforts made to show how proud he was ("once my confidence is lost, it is lost forever" -- or something like that), but it didn't really work out. He was just a shy dude who looked out for his friends.

Still, he was hott and filled out his fall-fronts nicely, so I don't really care.

My mum insisted that I get the film over Xmas. We were having a bit of an Austen binge (we'd had Sense and Sensibility earlier and were arguing over Colonel Brandon vs. Edward Ferrars.) I think she thought we were getting the other one, but I prefer this one.

He's not unpleasantly muscled up in the film. I like men that can put their arms down, if you know what I mean.

I've realised that actors are almost never anything to do with their roles. It's the role that one is attracted to, not the actor.

mm - when last seen hair was swooping a bit, but no sideburns

I don't find his character attractive because he's a "beefcake." He's just really cute. I find his brooding and awkwardness really endearing.

No sideburns, no deal. I will repost the pictures.

http://cleobulle.perso.cegetel.net/prideandprejudice/pics/pain.JPG

http://europeanfilms.net/images/matthewmcfayden.jpg

http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/downloads/images/darcyScreensaverLarge.jpg

Just a nice expression.

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/4117/darcy57pg.jpg

I'm swooning. Big time.

This actor doesn't quite play the pride enough, he's just more awkward than proud, as I've complained before - but that moment where the vulnerability shows through as he realises he's blown it... (and, assumingly, makes up his mind to do whatever it takes to win Elizabeth...) aaahhhh! I'm a sucker for that shit.

but then I'm old skool

So cute! So uncomfortable!

vs.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f0/180px-Matthew_Macfadyen.jpg

I'm the dandy highwaymen so tired of your excuses!!!

(Sorry, Aimurchie made me do it.)

::cue antmusic drums::

The video should be an extra feature on the DVD!

Other people would inherit property, investments, etc. which would provide a yearly income, such as the younger Dashwoods got (£500 a year) - also, Darcy's £10,000 a year is probably this kind of thing - the tennants' rent on his miserable half of Derbyshire, for example.

Have you ever seen "Regency House"? It was on our PBS over here, but it was a REALITY SHOW set in the 1810s! It was on here about 3 years ago. I was completely hooked.

1) they didn't let the people's status be known (as regards income) which it certainly WOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN as you know from the gossipy close knit nature of Regency Society

2) two of the protagonists COPPED OFF WITH ONE ANOTHER WHILE IN THE HOUSE - these two would have been OSTRACISED had this happened for real - well, more the woman. She would never have been able to show her face in polite society again! And he would have had a hard time of it, too through her associates and relatives - though probably not as bad as she.

Which book are you reading? I've always loved this era (hello, Complete Works of Jane Austen for my 12th birthday)

It's a bit early for the Regency Period - 18th rather than early 19th C, but many things did not just snap over overnight. I've always found the liminal eras more interesting - hence why I prefer the Regency to either Georgian or Victorian. And the Restoration period, as well.

Reality TV is silly at this sort of thing, because people can never quite pop out of their 20th/21st Century mindsets to *actually* experience The Regency or the 1900 House in any meaningful way. I watched quite a lot of the 1900 House, and the mother in it just could not get her head around the idea of having a servant. Even though her status and wealth would have allowed her one, freeing her to pursue a middle class lifestyle, she could not get her head around it, and couldn't do it.

I think I started to watch one episode of 1900 house, but couldn't handle people's reactions to what they were expected to do. I think I liked Regency House better (problems and scandals aside) because it was so far removed from what today's ladies and dudes are expected to do.

All of his books are fascinating in their detail - keep an eye out for them:

http://www.alibris.co.uk/search/search.cfm?browse=1&author=Girouard"%20Mark

Life in the English country house : social and architectural history / Mark Girouard.

Have you read:

The gentry : the rise and fall of a ruling class / G. E. Mingay.

I'm going to go peruse the stacks at lunch.

This movie rocks. The BBC version was great, and obv. much more true to the book, but it lacks this film's energy and verve. The performances are top-notch (except for Donald Sutherland's), especially MacFadyen as Darcy (and Tom Hollander as a particularly rat-like, toady Mr. Collins).

Half the time my wife is in love with MacFadyen. The other half the time she's in love with Richard Armitage, who played John Thornton in the BBC miniseries North and South (not the former U.S. Deputy Sec't of State).

the bbc version's on pbs tonight. should i invest the time in it?

yes! if you haven't seen it already, do. it's a whopper (4 pts), but worth while.

Daniel RONG about Donald Sutherland, despite S's unwieldy accent.

yeah, it's gonna be a multi-week commitment (only part 1 on tonight) but i just heard an interview with colin firth about it the other day so maybe i'll give it a shot.

i didn't really love the adaptation of "mansfield park" on this current pbs austen series, but was pleasantly surprised with "northanger abbey" which made me re-read the novel again.

(yeah, i've been totally watching them all)

(also, i own the BBC P&P version on dvd - it was purchased for me during a fit of bad pms)

do they take breaks? i <3 pbs for no commercials but these are LONG and there's no pause button!

one thing that bothers me about the bbc version, though:

i totally think the actress who plays jane (the eldest sister) looks like a horse. i can't get over it! esp. when they say how she's the prettiest sister! i'm like, "no way, dudes!

haha i will have to look out for her!

it was shown on A&E IIRC, so there might be spots where they *could* take breaks, but i doubt they will. they didn't for the other ones.

she IS horsey!

she looks like a dude in drag a la monty python

ENTER FIRTH, MOODILY

Molly said "SHE DOES"

"The bangs don't help"

do they take breaks

The BBC version is worth the commitment! I first watched it last month at a friend's house and loved loved loved it. I have since watched it 2 more times. If this keeps up, I'm going to have to quit my job.

The guy who played Mr. Collins in the Kiera Knightley version stole everything from the BBC Collins.

HEY IT'S CICERO!

i totally think the actress who plays jane (the eldest sister) looks like a horse. i can't get over it! esp. when they say how she's the prettiest sister! i'm like, "no way, dudes!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. She looked like a horse-man in drag.

I thought she was a strapping young filly.

Rosamund Pike a horse? You are out of your tiny minds. She's engaged to Joe Wright, btw. The Bafta Awards cameraman seemed to like her well enough.

Looking back on it, this P&P had an embarrassment of gorgeous actresses - Carey Mulligan, Rosamund Pike and Kelly Reilly.

goddamn it kelly reilly is hot.

/film criticism

Did you see her at the Baftas too? Oh my.

no :(

she is in a nic roeg film. that's got to be a good sign.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/albaalba/Picture1.png
She really needs to lose this fool.

looking pleased with himself, not very surprisingly.

Rosamund Pike a horse? You are out of your tiny minds. She's engaged to Joe Wright, btw. The Bafta Awards cameraman seemed to like her well enough.

We were talking about the actress in the 1995 version, not Rosamund Pike.

Susanna Harker.

perhaps I will name my penguin Mr. Darcy

crap i forgot to watch part 2 tonight!

also i really hope penguin is not a euphemism

but if it's not and you really did have a penguin, i would think mr. darcy an excellent name!

There is nothing euphemistic about my antarctic friend. He is an icy fellow, but most determinedly straightforward.

Name My Penguin

http://web.mac.com/ben.gardner/iWeb/Site/Library_files/P1000001.jpg
is this the penguin in question? because he does not look much like a darcy.

i like jess' "mr. pemberton" suggestion.

also 4.5 years is a long time to not have named your penguin! he is probably harboring some resentment by now.

I'm reading this for the first time, dammit what the heck Lydia!

One more time!

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/pride-and-prejudice-cast-photos-release-date-news

https://dnm.nflximg.net/api/v6/2DuQlx0fM4wd1nzqm5BFBi6ILa8/AAAAQecpGfMpE3zyCt9SnuzEnrNvyHwdmDJTFwxnRarzzGvolh3RyVeuS4wgD0tdwf9UGaoY8hR-nj-17LNHQhnKHQg2wDOzu8gLOuFPKBZS32DudltuHGR3NPxe4IIlpo2f-cFKNPo-wBw2u-_qzR2uZInW.jpg?r=31e

It IS Netflix so bring on the hotttt Bridgerton crossover action.

one thing that bothers me about the bbc version, though:

i totally think the actress who plays jane (the eldest sister) looks like a horse. i can't get over it! esp. when they say how she's the prettiest sister! i'm like, "no way, dudes!

― molly mummenschanz, 11 February 2008 02:00 (seventeen years ago) bookmarkflaglink

this was written about rosamund pike

rosamund

pike

Rosamund Pike is in the 2005 movie, but not the BBC series.

Start of thread pretty amusing. "Why make this again"!

ahhhh ty xp

Susannah Harker (BBC Jane) is the daughter of the woman who played Jane in the first BBC adaptation of P&P. She seems a bit horsey but there are many portraits of Regency beauties that pretty much look just like that.

Someone will do a supercut of all the adaptations. Make the Elizabeths fall in love with each other, have Colin Firth emerge from the water to the appreciative gaze of Jack Lowden, turn it all into a multiple personality fever dream.