Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Reader Insights on Pride & Prejudice -- Please Help
message 1:
by
SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst.
(new)
Jan 05, 2010 08:09PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Hi there. I'm the artistic director of a theatre group in Columbus, Ohio. Though I've read most of Austen's work, and seen a heck of a lot of the movies, I'm a little new to the Pride & Prejudice phenomenon.
I ended-up here because we're debuting a new P&P adaptation, and part of the concept is that the show keeps getting interrupted by comments from critics, readers, bloggers, etc. So, I found this group in the midst of some research.
What insights might anyone have on the popularity of P&P? Is Darcy real the "perfect" male? (Commenting does not mean you'll end-up in our show. I'm jist looking for insight.)
Thanks in advance.
No, Darcy is not perfect, as we hope no one ever will be, as they would then be a very boring person. Darcy is a rich snob; but at heart he has a kind heart, honesty and sterling principles. There is no more powerful scene in English literature than when Elizabeth confronts Darcy with the result of his snobishness. But Elizabeth must also realize that she has been hasty to judge Darcy. When she admits he has always been much as he ever was; she is admitting that she has mistaken his character. I think that Austen believes that we all have a basic character for good or evil. Although we sometimes act stupidly, it does not change our basic character. We must learn to forgive and love the person beneath the silliness.
There are two observations in P&P that, IMHO, get to the heart of why Darcy is so popular. After the second proposal to Elizabeth, Darcy says he was raised with good principles "but left to follow them in pride and conceit". Earlier, when Elizabeth learns of what Darcy has done for Lydia and Wickham, she is "proud that in the cause of compassion and honor he had been able to get the better of himself."We see the most demonstrable growth in Darcy's character - Elizabeth has a change of heart, but her behavior is pretty much the same; Darcy, on the other hand, exhibits a definitive change in his conduct, an emergence of a chivalry that had been part of his early training, had been overshadowed by pride, but ultimately loses out to his love for Elizabeth, and his own natural gallantry.
Elizabeth - and the other characters - do not demonstrate great shifts in their conduct throughout the novel; Darcy on the other hand responds differently to Bingley than he does to Lady Catherine, different toward Lady Catherine when compared to Georgiana; etc - I think this gives him a lot of "hooks" for an actor to exploit.
janetility.com
If you need a perfect male character, then make an adaptation of Mansfield Park and you'll get Edmund. Such a boring character!! :-\ LOL!No, seriously. Fitzwilliam Darcy and Frederick Wentworth (Persuasion) are, to me, the most complex and interesting male characters starring Austen novels. They suffer a change during the plot that makes you never get bored when you read their scenes; on the contrary: you're wishing them to appear more and more.
Darcy is an intelligent man who knows that. He also is conscient of his good looks and his money and power. He's absolutly convinced that few men in the country could be a better prospect for a woman than he is, and with all these in mind, he is sure very few women deserve him. Could such a man possibly be a perfect one?
What attract us to Darcy is the way that he is brought down to earth, and the way he accepted that and react to it. At first, it was with haughtiness, but he had enough intelligence to realize that he had it coming. And he changed! He changed out of the love he felt for Elizabeth, and nothing could be more romantic than that. That's what makes him IDEAL, not perfect.
I am not commenting this of Darcy as a literature character, but as a romantic novel hero, because the question was: "Is Darcy real the "perfect" male?"
Sarah wrote: "This is from new member Matt:Hi there. I'm the artistic director of a theatre group in Columbus, Ohio. Though I've read most of Austen's work, and seen a heck of a lot of the movies, I'm a little..."
Columbus, eh?
Me too:)
Women love P&P because it's our gender's favorite fantasy: a man is humbled by a witty woman and they fall in love and live happily ever after. This man "rescues" her and gives her a life fit for a princess. A Jane Austen novel is a world that seems like it could have been a real place in history, so much so that the reader doesn't feel guilty for wishing he/she was one of the leads.
Austen's men all have faults that make them even more endearing.
Each book shows an example of the battle between the sexes at a time when there wasn't equality. What person doesn't love that?
Is all this modern Austen attention a phenomenon or a common interest that everyone seems to finally embrace outwardly? Austen is no longer an author one is ashamed to come out and say, "OMG! I love her!"
Star Trek had its success because all the old fans came and united under a new banner paying homage to the original material. Just like Bond. Just like comic book movies. All these characters have been icons for so long but now they have been materialized on screens large and small for newcomers.
I think for most of the "accomplished" females of Darcy's time, he was indeed the perfect male. Rich, well-educated, commanding an impressive estate -- he was a great catch! If Charlotte could settle for Mr. Collins, then Lizzie was (by the day's standards) insane not to accept Darcy, even if he was a snob who puts her down while he expresses his undeniable love for her.
But, after Lizzie knocks him off his high horse, he does become the perfect male. He not only retains the "financial goods", but he earnestly and honestly reflects on his faults and shortcomings and improves himself. And, he does this to receive forgiveness from a young lady that society considers beneath him.
But, after Lizzie knocks him off his high horse, he does become the perfect male. He not only retains the "financial goods", but he earnestly and honestly reflects on his faults and shortcomings and improves himself. And, he does this to receive forgiveness from a young lady that society considers beneath him.
Mod
J., I love that you brought this out in your comment. I think that commonly we see Darcy as heroic, because he obviously steps up to the plate and shows a generous soul and helps Elizabeth in the family crisis. But he doesn't get enough credit for all the changes he goes through, the tough decisions he obviously has to make, overriding Aunt Catherine and much of society for that matter in giving his heart to Lizzie. He also chooses to keep quiet and suffer the low-life Wickham, not only bailing him out of debts but knowing that someday he'll meet him again as his brother-in-law. That is a lot to put up with, so we learn that Darcy has a great storehouse of patience and knows how to use it and be a gentleman about it.
Austen has some beautiful male characters, but I don't know if any of them actually can surpass Darcy.
I overlooked his huge store of forbearance in my answer. Imagine arranging to have Wickham as a brother-in-law (or esteeming Lizzie enough to take on her mother)! I don't think overriding Aunt Catherine was a chore -- it was probably liberating! :)
These comments are wonderful. Thank you so much. Keep em coming, please.
I've cherry-picked just a few paragraphs from the above to put on our blog for the show (http:/darcy4ever.com) ... if you're interested, there's also a "Best Adaptation" poll over there with 13 options. (Colin Firth is running away with it right now.) Here's a direct link to the poll: http://bit.ly/p2ppoll
Mod
Sarah wrote: "Sarah wrote: "This is from new member Matt:
Hi there. I'm the artistic director of a theatre group in Columbus, Ohio. Though I've read most of Austen's work, and seen a heck of a lot of the movi..."
Maybe you should go and check out this play! If you do, let us know how it is.
Hi there. I'm the artistic director of a theatre group in Columbus, Ohio. Though I've read most of Austen's work, and seen a heck of a lot of the movi..."
Maybe you should go and check out this play! If you do, let us know how it is.
I am going!! No doubt.I am making Joshua (my spouse) come too. He'll love it:) He loves this book. He's read P&P as many times as I have. LOL.
Sarah
Matt wrote: "I've cherry-picked just a few paragraphs from the above to put on our blog for the show (http:/darcy4ever.com) ... if you're interested, there's also a "Best Adaptation" poll over there with 13 opt..."Well, of course! When I read P&P and Darcy come out, I instantly thought of Colin Firth. He's the best Darcy ever. If you've read more Austen novels then you know that she gave few importance to pysical appearance, therefore you have the chance to give the character the face you like the best. But I think that Colin was not only my idea: BBC thought the same, and most JA fans agree that the choice was more than fortunate =)
One line from As Good as It Gets with Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson embodies Mr. Darcy. This is when Jack Nicholson tells Helen Hunt, "You make me want to be a better man." I always thought that was one of the most romantic things a man could say to a woman. That is essentially Mr. Darcy's relationship to Elizabeth.
Bill wrote: "One line from As Good as It Gets with Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson embodies Mr. Darcy. This is when Jack Nicholson tells Helen Hunt, "You make me want to be a better man." I always thought that wa..."Completely agree!!
Bill wrote: "One line from As Good as It Gets with Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson embodies Mr. Darcy. This is when Jack Nicholson tells Helen Hunt, "You make me want to be a better man." I always thought that wa..."
Very nice! :)
Very nice! :)
(Hi Matt, it's Kelly)Why not ask if Elizabeth is the perfect female?
Jane Austen didn't do perfect (except in plot construction) she did real, and that is the reason for her enduring popularity. The characters' imperfections drive the plot, and all her plots. If Darcy were perfect, he would instantly recognize Elizabeth as his soul mate/worthy opponent, tell anyone who didn't like it to shove off, and the book would be 2 paragraphs long. Elizabeth is smart and charming and witty and a loyal friend and sister, but is also judgmental, snarky, gullible, a little vain, and hypocritical (she's as taken in by a handsome figure in a red coat as the rest of them.) But she's still my favorite character in my favorite book ever. I still want to be friends with her, just like I see my own faults and the faults of my friends and still love them. Austen's characters are so acutely drawn, you feel like you know them, that they really exist. The psychology behind the characters' thoughts is spot on. She doesn't let anyone get away with anything -it's all there on the page. Every petty thought and selfish whim, along with generosity and love and dialogue that still crackles.
Austen's genius is that she holds up a sometimes painfully detailed and accurate mirror to humanity, and yet still writes comedies, not tragedies.
Kelly wrote: "(Hi Matt, it's Kelly)Why not ask if Elizabeth is the perfect female?
Jane Austen didn't do perfect (except in plot construction) she did real, and that is the reason for her enduring popularity...."
Funny how the complaints I often read are about Darcy's portrayal, and not Elizabeth's. The imperfections and virtues you talk about are really difficult to transmit for a medium talented actress... yet I don't read any complaints about Keira Knightly being Lizzy, and as an admirer of Lizzy as I am, that was unbearable to me.
Wickham could be anybody, the same as Bingley, Jane and the others; but Darcy and Elizabeth are particularly difficult to portray faithfully.
So, true, we never seem to debate Jennifer Ehle vs. Kiera Knightly, do we? Is it because we always tend to "dissect" the perceived hero of the story? Is it because Darcy apparently strives to change, whereas Lizzy just is changed because Darcy changes? Is it because so many reader's of P & P are women?
So, tell me, what faults do you find with Kiera's portrayal?
So, tell me, what faults do you find with Kiera's portrayal?
I didn't think much of Keira's performance. I don't know who I should blame for that. I saw the A&E version ten years before I saw the later adaption. I was so entertained with it. I couldn't bear to go to the theater in 2005 to see some fille-de-jour playing Elizabeth. I waited until it came out on video and was disappointed. It took me a couple of years to rewatch it and find anything I liked. Keira Knightley was really moody. Knightley would get so melanchoy but I always found Elizabeth to repress her more tender emotions and aggressive with matters of principles. Why did Elizabeth get so annoyed at Lady Catherine at the dinner table? Elizabeth may be pert but not rude. She seemed more like a twenty year old than the other versions but her language was more modern than of Regency England.
Jennifer Ehle was a more mature than maybe necessary but had more consistancy of character and took a more purist approach which is way I still put her performance above others.
I agree. Being twenty in 1805 was different then being 20 today. Elizabeth and Jane are the most mature members of their family. They were well past being teenagers. Keira just didn't have the gravitas for Elizabeth. I've only seen the KK version once, so I can't comment much more about it, but I was also really, really bothered by her wig. I know Lizzie was exuberant and fond of long walks, but she would have brushed her hair. It looked like a rabid squirrel crawled onto Keira's forehead and died there. Overall, the whole feel of that version was too wild and Bronte for me. I know they were going for realism, but there was a shocking lack of Regency elegance.
Yeah, poor Keira, she gets awfully beat-up by a lot of P&P fans. I might mention that in our show, our Lizze takes a moment to do spot-on imitations of both Keira Knightley and Jennifer Ehle. It's quite funny.
Indeed. Knightley's Elizabeth is rude, impulsive, aggresive, impertinent and too skinny (okay, okay: scratch that last =D). To me, she's not a good actress; she only sits, because her best talent are her looks. Ehle looks more mature, indeed, and physically a bit older than twenty. But she was acting Elizabeth the way I read it: even the way she rejects Darcy (remember how Knightley did it in 2005 version, she was about to jump over DArcy as a tiger), all well mannered and courteous, but unequivocal.
I'm sorry, I can't see anything good in Knightley's performance; maybe that's why I like Elizabeth: we both are prejudiced.
Well, Sarah, you sent me back to the book again! I don't watch the A&E version as often, but the 2005 version is pretty fresh in my mind. In both scenes between Lizzy and Lady C. the dialog comes straight from the book. I imagine there was a difference in delivery (Kiera had that little sneer thing), but the language was Austen's.
I think the biggest difference between the productions is visual. The newer version was "dirtier/poorer" for lack of a better word. You could see that the Bennett's were of a lower social standing than Darcy and Bingley. Lizzie's clothes were very plain, Caroline's were gorgeous. Longbourn needed painting and fixing up. Mr. Bennett looked rather unkempt, too. In the A&E version, I always felt that the Bennetts appeared materially well-off and there was no obvious distinction between them and Darcy's class. They were all (except Mrs. B) very refined, clean, well-appointed.
The 2005 Lizzie did seem to be just 20 and not as "bookish" as I might imagine Lizzie. I felt that Ehle lacked some passion and Kiera had maybe a bit too much. I think Lydia and her mother were overdone in the A&E version, but now I'm getting off topic.
I think the biggest difference between the productions is visual. The newer version was "dirtier/poorer" for lack of a better word. You could see that the Bennett's were of a lower social standing than Darcy and Bingley. Lizzie's clothes were very plain, Caroline's were gorgeous. Longbourn needed painting and fixing up. Mr. Bennett looked rather unkempt, too. In the A&E version, I always felt that the Bennetts appeared materially well-off and there was no obvious distinction between them and Darcy's class. They were all (except Mrs. B) very refined, clean, well-appointed.
The 2005 Lizzie did seem to be just 20 and not as "bookish" as I might imagine Lizzie. I felt that Ehle lacked some passion and Kiera had maybe a bit too much. I think Lydia and her mother were overdone in the A&E version, but now I'm getting off topic.
Kelly, I agree about the hair! They all needed a good brushing -- especially Darcy!! The only one who ALWAYS looked good was Caroline Bingley and she should have had more screen time.
Yeah, that Darcy was pretty shaggy, too.I've also want to comment about why P&P is the most popular of the novels, and I think it's the plot. First of all, it's got the great "they hate each other first but then realize they love each other" thing, which is always a winner. Why? Do we secretly enjoy being told all of our preconceived notions are probably wrong? Is it because we like to think love and hate are so closely connected, two passionate sides of the same coin? If they can get together, is peace on earth just a couple of steps away? Or is it just the suspense? Of course Austen didn't invent this plot line, but her handling of it is wonderful.
Which brings me to my second point: the timing, and the reveals. Darcy's first proposal comes almost exactly halfway through the book; that he, who is portrayed as so implacable, could completely change his position with regard to Elizabeth without her even being aware of it is amazing. As Darcy says later: "I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun."
So then there is the suspense of watching Lizzie fall for Darcy. I have a vivid memory of reading the book for the first time, without having seen any movie version. I was 12 years old, sitting on the porch swing, and when Darcy unexpectedly appears at Pemberly while Lizzie is there with the Gardiners, my stomach actually did a little flip, like I was on a roller coaster. It was such a wonderful surprise. I wonder if I'd been older when I first read it, if I would have seen it coming, but I cherish that memory so much. I think that's what makes people so Austencrazy - she hooks you in with masterfully designed plots, and then on top of that makes every word delicious.
Also, P&P is the perfect balance of near miss tragedy and comedy. Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and Persuasion are much darker (at least relatively), Northanger Abbey is entertaining fluff, and no one worries that Emma will die poor and unappreciated. But we care enough about Elizabeth and Jane that the prospect of them facing lives of genteel poverty filled with nothing but mind-numbing needlework or loveless marriages is unendurable, and rooting for all the right couples to end up together is wonderfully satisfying.Thanks Matt, this is so much fun!
Mod
You really have a good grasp on the character of Darcy, I like what you stated in the middle paragraph. I think Darcy's complexity just doesn't get enough air time, so to speak. It is easy to write him off as a snob who was transformed by love, end of story. But that would be pretty bland. He has a lot of subtleties, not to mention that he was a young man trying to figure all this out.
Also what you felt sitting on the porch swing when you were 12, reminded me of a quote I just read on Margaret George's page:
"'When he comes into a room, you give a little gasp, deep inside, far inside,' someone once said when trying to describe what it meant to love."
— Margaret George (Helen of Troy)
Cool, huh?
As a side note, I remember too, reading Sense & Sensibility on the porch. Must be something about reading Austen outdoors!
Jeanette, I was also very hooked with the look of the sets of the 2005 P&P version. I believe the world Austen told about would have looked closer to that of this film version. After all, they didn't have vacuum cleaners and acrylic hardwood floors. Longbourn didn't look stately, just kind of muddy with people getting on with doing the work. I believe things would have looked meticulous only at Pemberley. And I think Netherfield looked a bit TOO fancy with all those pristine footman. When they were closing up the house when Bingley left, they were all white-gloved. But Longbourn seems authentic.
The K. Knightly performance for me is hard to say. I think she did play the part too heavily, but then again Elizabeth Bennet was a standout. She did not follow the rules of society to perfection. She questioned a lot of things and had a strong mind. I really like toward the end, her scene after Bingley's proposal to Jane. She walks out and sits under the tree, depressed because she really feels that her own happiness has passed her by. That is just as much credit to the script as to Knightly, but it was a nice moment to me.
Oh, and another thing that makes Austen so popular. Men who can dance. And dance well. (Sigh)
Sarah wrote: "This is from new member Matt:Hi there. I'm the artistic director of a theatre group in Columbus, Ohio. Though I've read most of Austen's work, and seen a heck of a lot of the movies, I'm a little..."
Matt, I saw P&P Sat.night and just loved it. It was very cleverly written and and a lot of laugh-out-loud fun. All the actors were great but the young 20 something playing Lady Deburgh was especially hilarious. Congratulations to Matt and everone connected - Sat.night was sold out.
Thanks so much, Sarah. We've been pleasantly surprised by the response in Columbus - very supportive. I'm glad you were able to make it to the show. I'll be sure to pass your praise on to the actors.
Mod
I like Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy better than Keira Kneightly's overall, but as for the Darcy portrayals, when it comes to Darcy's infamous first proposal, I actually prefer Matthew Macfadyen's version to Colin Firth's.Macfadyen shows a Darcy who is just bursting to get it off his chest without realizing how it will sound, and Kneightley's Lizzy is clearly still upset about learning that Darcy is the reason Bingley has avoided Jane. So I like that scene the best; perhaps credit should go to the director?
I felt that the 2005 P&P movie was a directed as a first-person story; everything is seen through Lizzy's eyes rather than from the perspective of an amused observer.
The MacFadyen scene certainly seemed more passionate to me. Here is definitely a case of screenwriter's choice, as Jane Austen didn't flesh the scene out as much as modern readers would have liked (well, at least as much as I would). The whole 2005 movie was a bit grittier in it's portrayal of everyday life and I think a lot more realistic because of it.
I just watched the 05 P&P movie and I just wasn't "feeling it." I'm not sure what it was (I have a friend who likes this version). I liked MacFadyen as time went on during the movie, but I could not get into Keira Knightley's Elizabeth! I wish that there was more talking and less close-ups and music montages. Hm, I should have watched the movie before the mini-series. But, Judi Dench's Lady De Bough was excellent--but wish there was more!
It does suffer from it's time constraints -- a lot more had to be conveyed with looks and gestures. But, some of it was very good, especially the glum party leaving Netherfield to London. And I loved Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins.
I liked it better than I thought I would, and I agree that MacFadyen added a passion that was hard to ignore. I still liked Colin Firth though ~ perhaps we could combine them somehow? ;o) Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy was much better than Keira Knightley's.
More time did help the A&E version, I agree.
Even though I prefer the 2005 version (I saw it first, I can more easily re-watch it, I am not a Firth fan), there are elements that are better in both. 1995 has the best Mr. Bennett, more true to the story. Because of the added length, we get much more of the Bingleys, too, and get a better portrayal of Georgianna.
In the 2005 film, Lizzie seems better portrayed, more natural as Lizzie. That scene where Ehle deliberately jumps from the stile into the mud seems too deliberate, and she's over-dressed for tromping around and sprinting. Mrs. Bennett and Lady Catherine are the best in 2005, as is Mr. Collins.
Well, I should stop now. I love Matthew, too! :)
In the 2005 film, Lizzie seems better portrayed, more natural as Lizzie. That scene where Ehle deliberately jumps from the stile into the mud seems too deliberate, and she's over-dressed for tromping around and sprinting. Mrs. Bennett and Lady Catherine are the best in 2005, as is Mr. Collins.
Well, I should stop now. I love Matthew, too! :)
Jeannette wrote: "I overlooked his huge store of forbearance in my answer. Imagine arranging to have Wickham as a brother-in-law (or esteeming Lizzie enough to take on her mother)! I don't think overriding Aunt Ca..."You know he knew that he was going to have to see Wickham and Mrs. Bennet for the rest of theirs or his own life. Brave soul!
Lizzie must have been some woman!!
Jeannette wrote: "Even though I prefer the 2005 version (I saw it first, I can more easily re-watch it, I am not a Firth fan), there are elements that are better in both. 1995 has the best Mr. Bennett, more true to..."To me, the Keira Knightly version is Pride and Prejudice as it would have been written by one of the Bronte sisters, not as Jane Austen wrote it. The emotion is overdone, especially the scene where Darcy first proposes to Elizabeth with dramatic music and a thunderstorm. After Elizabeth tells Darcy he is the last person she would ever marry, she looks into his eyes with quivering lips as if she is daring him to kiss her! Near the end of the movie, Elizabeth walks around outside in her nightgown--that's ridiculous. I also don't like the scene they added with Elizabeth and Darcy near the fountain at Pemberly after their marriage--again in her nightgown. The dialogue in that scene is lame. The Bennets' lack of gentility is exaggerated with pigs and chickens almost in the house. The actor who plays Darcy does a good job, though. And Keira Knightley has the right looks for the part--she looks the right age and it's believable that someone could think her not pretty at first, and then appreciate her looks as he gets to know her. Jennifer Ehle looks too much like a beauty queen to believe that Darcy could think that she is not pretty, or that Jane could be considered the beauty of the family. She's a better actress than Keira Knightley, though.
Yes, a lot of people have said that MacFadyen was more Heathcliff than Darcy! I wish that everyone in the 2005 version would have combed their hair! And, I didn't think the 1995 Jane was such a beauty.
But, the final scene didn't bother me that much -- I mean they just might have gone out at night like that on their own grounds. The scene fell flat for me because it seemed so wooden and forced, almost over-rehearsed. Now that they are married the "passion" was gone.
But, the final scene didn't bother me that much -- I mean they just might have gone out at night like that on their own grounds. The scene fell flat for me because it seemed so wooden and forced, almost over-rehearsed. Now that they are married the "passion" was gone.
I have to agree with that. I felt that it was nice to see them together, but it was a strange little scene. I kind of wish that there could have a been a P&P movie mash-up, where you can take some of the actors from 95 and 05 to make the ultimate P&P movie! My dream!
Ehle & Firth (A&E ) version is my favorite. I actually bought as a present for myself on my 28th birthday. It is faithful to the book to the letter.
Dhara wrote: "Ehle & Firth (A&E ) version is my favorite. I actually bought as a present for myself on my 28th birthday. It is faithful to the book to the letter."
Well, almost. :)
Well, almost. :)
I agree! But some additions are pretty great. I mean, Darcy diving into the pond?? I have no idea why that gets me all crazy (since he was fully clothed) but it does! Call me cheesy!
