Pride & Prejudice 2005 is a disgrace to Jane Austen! discussion
"Your hands are cold"
date
newest »
newest »
Let me explain: At the end of the book, Mr. Darcy is suppose to allude to the prior declaration and Eliza is suppose to say her great lines "My feelings are quite the opposite." Everything is suppose to culminate to that point in the story. Instead we get her walking about alone before the sunrises. They meet, he takes her hands and she says, "Your hands are cold." I was so disappointed with such a betrayal of the text. "Your hands are cold!" No declaration at all. I heard the director loved that take because the sun was rising at the perfect spot and supposedly Knightly said that because his hands were actually cold, but couldn't they have re-done the words and gone back to the sun coming up. Sorry for the tirate--
Amy
I always disliked that scene anyways...both going out in improper clothing??...she's in her nightdress! With just a coat...it was rather unseemly in my opinion.
Ack! I accidentally hit "enter" before I finished saying what I wanted to say...Anyways, I was saying I thought it was stupid that she'd go out dressed like that...if it was "cold". lol. And, it just wasn't proper...it irked me.
I have to say I LOVE the "declaration" in the '95 version! "I do NOT repeat what I said then!" :D *sighs* Walking along the path, and just smiling and talking to each other. *sigh* Perfect. :D
Her going out in her nightclothes by herself at that time of night would have been the equivalent of what Lydia did. It just spells promiscuity and inpropriety. It wouldn't have been tolerated in that day and age.
I purposely did away with that movie from my mind and so do not remember that particular scene...:) The whole movie was, like Becky said a total butchering of Austen's writing. The '05 version is every minute of it way too modern for my taste--or probably for Jane's, if she were alive!
Mellie- I completely agree. I saw it once, when it came out, and have since banished most of it from me head, but a few things were SO wrong that they have been branded into my brain and refuse to leave.
I despise the 2005 version! Ugh it was like 2 hours of having a headache. I liked it, I admit that, but I then read the book and saw the '95 version, and I realized how horrible it was! Oh my goodness! Matthew McFadyen WISHES he was Mr. Darcy, and Keira Knightly couldn't be Elizabeth Bennett of her dreams. She should stick to Elizabeth Swann/Turner. My favorite saying comes from my friend; Matthew McFadyen is tolerable...I suppose...but only Colin Firth is handsome enough to tempt me. Ahhh....I about have the '95 version memorized. And I didn't like the, "your hands are cold." I agree with all of you. The clothing, nor the hair is up to date. oh I was just so sad when the movie got way to scratched to work...;)cheers,
shalyce
That scene always bothered me, as well! I found many problems with the dialogue in the Knightly/McFayden version, not to mention the fact that no-one can live up to Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy.
I just gave a coworker of my daughter the BBC Colin Firth version of P&P to watch this weekend and I can't wait to see if she likes it because the first one she saw was Knightly/McFayden.
I have to agree with the people who already commented about the inpropriety of Elizabeth going out, at night, undressed (by 19th century standards), and that the lack of declaration IS intolerable! (As is SO much of that version!) And whether in love or not, a gentleman of as good breeding as Mr. Darcy NEVER would have shown up in her room in the middle of the night...nor would Mr. Bennett have allowed it!
Nah, the movie is a masterpiece; it adds a dimension of realism and passion to the story that the antiseptic '95 BBC edition lacked. I daresay the movie is even better than the book itself; and the book is great.Due to time constraints, the movie sharpens an already-great story, it removes extra fluff—the second Bingley sister, the Hursts, Wickham's scheming—and concentrates on what matters.
It also time-compresses some of the events like Rosings and the awkward Pemberley visit.
Placing the story at the end of the 18th century, adding more "shade" to it by making the Bennets poorer and less squeaky-clean, having only Caroline Bingley wear the cutting-edge Empire fashion dresses was a stroke of genius and enhanced the social conflict of the story.
The movie positively makes the first rejected proposal a great cinematic experience, bringing it to life, and using the weather and the musical score as a symbolic backdrop to the events.
The acting is superb. Keira inhabits Elizabeth and brings her to life. She and MacFadyen are both the right age for the part and have smoldering chemistry.
The support cast is also superb; Tom Hollander is a fantastic Mr. Collins.
Where the movie is better than the book is in showing the audience that Darcy actually is taken by Elizabeth in the first half of the story, whereas in the book his first proposal comes out of nowhere, and does not quite work out for the audience as it does in the movie.
Notice how the movie shows Mr. Darcy's attraction to Elizabeth from the very beginning, but in subtle ways (the double-take on her at the Meryton ball, his stunned reaction when she "looks positively medieval" visiting her sick sister Jane, his holding her hand onto the carriage, etc). The audience can tell he's in love, even if Elizabeth can't.
The movie is also very, very artistic; the cinematography is luxurious, merging moving camera realism and heritage camera use; the single, sweeping take at the Netherfield ball is great stuff.
The musical score is superb.
The movie also employs a lot of symbolism, visual and aural symmetry, and frames some scenes like classical paintings.
As for symbolism, notice how the movie starts in the morning and ends at night (US version), it shows a lot of scenes through windows (the windows of ours and/or Elizabeth's perceptions and prejudices), Darcy's hands throughout the movie (including "well then, your hands are cold"), the Bennet house surrounded by a moat (castle, virgins, moat).
Look at the symbolism during the Pemberley art scene, where Elizabeth sees the statue of a blind virgin (herself, blind to the truth), an agonizing Achilles (Darcy), and naked statues (her awakening sensuality).
Notice the visual symmetry of Elizabeth walking at dawn at the beginning of the movie, letting out an excited gasp upon finishing a love story, when her love story is about to start; notice how, at the end of the movie, at dawn, it's Darcy that walks towards her in the same spot and she lets out a passionate sigh at the sight of him.
Notice the symbolism of Darcy walking to her. Throughout the movie she's fond of walking, which is considered "positively medieval" by snobby Caroline Bingley, and here is Darcy, shedding his pride and walking miles to get to her.
Notice the aural symmetry of blackbirds chirping every time something is about to happen to Elizabeth.
Notice the symbolism of the piano piece played beautifully at the beginning of the movie (it's Elizabeth's home), played badly by Elizabeth at Rosings (it's not her home), then played beautifully again by Georgiana at Pemberley (Elizabeth's future home).
As for art, notice the Sherwood forest scene, with Elizabeth resting by a tree with her aunt and uncle. It looks like a classical painting. Also the scene at Rosings, with Darcy, Fitzwilliam, and Mr. Collins standing in the middle of the frame (in social hierarchy to boot) between ladies sitting on the two couches at left and right. Another scene that looks like a classical painting. There are others.
I could go on and on.
We have a movie that sharpens a great story and turns into a cinematic feast for the eyes and ears of the audience, and captures the essence of the story with passion and superb acting.
It's a masterpiece.
Totally agree with Francesco, and still say more. The film uses Roman symbolism, which you would not expect in a movie of the late eighteenth century. Family Bennett (from Benedictus) itself presupposes the lowest nobility, with Roman Celtic origin (superb casting of Knightley, brunette, very dark eyes), compared to the one with Saxon origin (the Bingleys) and especially to the one with Norman origin, the truly, which they are recognizable by their French names (Darcy, from D'Arcy, and especially his aunt, Catherine de Bourgh).
The evening statue that is the key to the film, is a Vestal, a Roman priestess who guarded the sacred fire. The Vestal virgins are the five sisters. Look at the scene with Elisabeth talking to Jane in bed. Both have the head covered by a sheet, like the ancient vestals.
Also in the Roman tradition crossing a bridge is a very important event. That is why the Pope is Pontifex Maximus, the maker of bridges, a title that took the emperors. Elisabeth crosses three during the movie.
Look at the Temple of the impressive first declaration (is circular, like Vesta temple in Rome), at the garment removed when she gets there (the veil), the Janus (Roman god of the mysteries) on a table at Pemberley...
There is much to say about all this, and perhaps this is not the appropriate forum. At the end Darcy's hands are no longer cold because he has been accepted by the priestess guarding the sacred fire, beautiful allegory.
There are many more symbols, hanging clothes (white veils of the Vestal Virgins), the two huge trees that frame the Bennett's house, the geese, ...
It is a masterpiece.
Greetings.
Francesco wrote: "Nah, the movie is a masterpiece; it adds a dimension of realism and passion to the story that the antiseptic '95 BBC edition lacked. I daresay the movie is even better than the book itself; and the..."I logged in just to say thank you. I love this movie to death.
Diana wrote: "My favorite love movie of all time. A beautiful romance we all dream about."Yes, it's a great movie. By any chance, have you watched the movie A Walk to Remember or the TV show Chuck? If not, you may like them.
Hi Diana,Yes, I watched Emma a couple of years ago. Loved it.
Also watched Dr. Thorne with the same actor who plays Mr. Collins in Pride & Prejudice 2005. Loved that one, too. Just finished Chuck (comedy TV show), which is a surprisingly insightful exploration of the possibility of real love in the spy world of lies and deception. Great acting and chemistry.
They should both be free on Amazon Prime.
Wasn't Dr. Thorne great? I just rewatched it with my kids. They loved it.I'll check out The Barchester Chronicles. Thank you for the recommendation.
Francesco wrote: "Nah, the movie is a masterpiece; it adds a dimension of realism and passion to the story that the antiseptic '95 BBC edition lacked. I daresay the movie is even better than the book itself; and the..."Kiera, with her non stop silly girl giggling and smirking, comes off as a Lydia or Kitty at best. Maybe the movie itself was a masterpiece. But it was no Pride and Prejudice. The movie was a romance as you described. I do not consider the book a romance novel, though it has romance in it. The movie misses the essence of the story.
I think the movie makes her more human. I love Austen's book and the 1995 TV series but they, especially the book, make Lizzie's decision entirely cerebral, like a CFO's cost/benefit analysis, while the 2005 movie adds the emotional component. I love the Romantic aspect of it.The 2005 movie is less realistic but it feels more real.
I love stories that examine all facets of a relationship. Have you seen the TV show Chuck?
I cannot forgive them.