Pride and Prejudice
discussion
Book first but after that which film was best?
I liked them all. The BBC version was closer to the book, I thought. The Kiera Knightly version was good entertainment. The Garson/Olivier version was extremely shortened but very well done.
I think the BBC version is overwhelmingly superior to any other version, partially because it had the space both to add in many of the ironic touches from the book, and which are the essence of Jane Austen's novels, and to take a few liberties, such as the iconic lake scene, which generally worked very well. And this version had a much better cast than the 2005 film, particularly Alison Steadman, in a great comic performance, and Colin Firth. I didn't like Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy at all. He got the inital woodennes of the character all right, but never suggested any depth beneath it, which Colin Firth did much more successfully - an all-round better actor, and better looking!
Morticia wrote: "I think the BBC version is overwhelmingly superior to any other version, partially because it had the space both to add in many of the ironic touches from the book, and which are the essence of Jan..."I thought Brenda Blethyn did a better job as Mrs. Bennet than Alison Steadman (she was entirely too shrill) and I LOVED Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins, although David Bamber was great too. I did not like Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet though. But Judi Dench as Lady Catherine??? She was wonderful. Lydia (Julia Sawalha) did a better job as Lydia in the 1995 version. I liked both portrayals of Darcy. Colin Firth is excellent, but Matthew Macfadyen brought something to the role as well. There is a great debate about whether or not Darcy is shy. The scene in the book at Lady Catherine's where Eliza accuses him of not asking anyone to dance at the assembly, he replies: "I... do not have the talent of conversing easily with people I have never met .." I think this points to his awkwardness and introverted nature. Macfadyen played this interpretation very well in my opinion.
Loved the BBC Collin Firth P & P version and the BBC Emma (especially the Emma/Knightly dance at the Crown Inn ball - perfection!).
The BBC tv series with Colin Firth and the film are both better than older versions in my opinion. The series had the time to develop more aspects and characters of the book but the film had good points too. I didn't think any actor could improve on Colin Firth's Mr Darcy and felt guilty that I had really enjoyed Matthew Macfadyen in the role. I felt he brought a vulnerabilty to the part that you can pick up from the book.
after all the good reviews of how great colin firth was as mr darcy i watched the bbc version... although i like colin, as mr darcy i didnt like him at all... he always looked angry, and kind of stalker too, watching over the window all the time... i prefer matthew as mr darcy... he showed more passion IMO
I know P&P made Colin Firth's career and I always loved him in the 1995 version. However, Matthew MacFadyen's portrayal, I thought, showed his discomfort at social interaction better. When he says during the first proposal "are you laughing at me?" I thought that spoke volumes about hurts from his past. And when he smiles after his sister teases him, it's like the sun comes out! That's when I think Lizzie really fell in love with him.
Without question I prefer the 1995 mini-series. As a mini it had the time to really showcase more of the secondary characters than the movie did. I thought the movie with Keira Knightley was just OK.
@ Amanda: ...and you are entitled to your opinion of what the characters would do, just as I am entitled to mine. Joe Wright did a much more earthy presentation of the book. The house was not pristine all the time. Ribbons and plates of food had to be quickly tidied before Darcy and Bingley were allowed in the parlour. The house had peeling paint demonstrating Mr. Bennet's lack of financial foresight (the house in the 95 version could be construed as too fine for the Bennet's finances). Servants did work and washed clothes and hung them out to dry. I think he tried to bring a bit of realism to the film that was lacking in previous films - to show beneath the surface to how people really lived. So I have no trouble in this instance believing that two married people could be alone on their balcony next to their private bedroom with their nightclothes on. Now if he had stripped them naked, I might agree with you .
I enjoy all of the interpretations for different reasons. The Keira Knightly version is great for a quick watch, but I definitely think Jennifer Ehle was the better Lizzie. I also like the Greer Garson version for a change. Even if they were dressed in the old Gone with the Wind costumes.
Amanda - I do not mean to sound defensive. I really am not. I LOVE the 1995 BBC version. I own it and watch about once every six months. I do not think the 2006 version is better, just different. I also love Colin Firth and Rene Zellwegger in Bridget Jones' Diary. I like time travel books and often wonder what life would REALLY be like in the past and I also wonder what our present will look like to people in the future. We know through history what life was like in the 18th-19th century. We also know that the mores that people held to be true were not always adhered to. It is estimated that one third of women were pregnant at the time they were married in the Victorian era. Regency and Georgian times were less restrictive in terms of social morality. All I am saying is that when looking at the past, there is the idealized and there is the reality. I believe that Andrew Davies' production leaned toward the idealized and Wright's toward the realistic. That is not a judgment on either one, just a different perspective. I enjoy having both to choose from.
Sakura, re the Firth vs MacFadyen debate, I think you've just highlighted the role of personal idiosyncracies in these judgements. It was precisely Colin Firth's grumpiness in the part that made me like him, I'm not sure what this says about me though!Best wishes
Morticia
Keira Knightly version is the best ..I think reading the novel first is better ..
The Ehle / Firth version is our unanimous family favorite, but the Knightley version is good, and the 1940 Greer Garson / Laurence Olivier film is excellent -- worth seeing for Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine, but with a great ensemble cast & script. Aldous Huxley was a screenwriter. Beware colorized versions.
Amanda wrote: "Ok, sorry to misinterpret your posts. Hard to read tone on the internet :)"No problem . I am just sorry for the misunderstanding.
I definitely preferred the BBC version. In this version Darcy's true character is hidden. So by the time he proposes and the truth about Wickham is discovered you're just as floored as Elizabeth! In the Kiera version it's too obvious that he's just uncomfortable. It kinda ruined it for me. (Although I agree it's just fine for a quick fix.)
I will never forget the first time I watch it. It was my introduction to this classic, so I had no idea what to expect.
I was beside myself when Darcy made his declaration! I was hanging on the edge of my chair saying "Whaaat he loves her??? I thought he despised her!!!"
It was amazing!
Some people have mentioned the last scene in the 2005 version with Lizzie and Darcy sitting outside in their underwear. I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but that scene was only in the version released in America. When I saw the film at the cinema (in Australia), the movie ends with Lizzie talking to her father. It never shows the other scene. I think this might also be the same for the British version, and maybe some other international ones too, though I cannot be sure. I have seen "that scene" though, since it is a bonus feature on the DVD. I think it is really interesting how adding or removing that scene can change a person's perspective of the film, because I preferred the way it ended with Lizzie and Mr. Bennet.
Btw, my favourite has to be the 1995 version.
I have read P&P no less than 25 times, own the 1995 BBC version and prefer the Ehle/Firth version because it is Pride and Prejudice. I don't think Knightly has anywhere near the class and humor that belong to Lizzy. I did not see anything admirable in her character. I don't have too much to say about the newer Darcy exceptt that Colin Firth is Mr. Darcy and no other actor can compare. I could barely finish the (2005) movie.My sister, who has never read the book, prefers the Kiera Knightly version.
Each year on Mother's Day, my Mother, sisters, myself and all the granddaughters get together, eat lunch and then watch a "chick" movie. We all went together to watch Pride and Prejudice when it came out in 2006. My daughters, who up to that point preferred fantasy to any other genre, wanted nothing more than to read Pride and Prejudice after seeing the movie. We bought the movie when it came out on DVD and passed it around to all of their friends who each loved it. We ended up having a group book read (that included male friends) and discussion of the book. I have owned the 1995 version for a long time (actually more than one since I have an old VHS tape) and my mother and I love to watch it together from time to time. However, because this was a BBC/A&E production, this version had more of a cult following than a general audience movie following. Whether you appreciate the 2006 version or not, that release did more to revitalize and re-popularize Austen as an author than any other version. Austen sequels exploded on the literary scene. Getting another generation interested in Jane Austen outside of a literature class is a wonderful thing. The opening line of "it is a truth universally acknowledged..." is no longer obscure except to the devoted Janites. Because of that movie, Austen has been opened up to a wider audience. We can pick it to death and compare Ehle to Knightley, but the truth is, many would have no idea who Jennifer Ehle even was if they had not seen the 2006 version first. That version led them to the 1995 version.
mcfaden or firth, could not pick if my life depended on it, each version feend me in its own way, loved them both, but if I had to pick the DARCY of my dreams......mcfaden all the way! super sexy as Darcy.
The Garson/Olivier version. Period. Garson IS Lizzie, and Olivier IS Darcy. Does the film "follow" the book? Not really, but the others don't either. I read the book at least once a year and haul out the movie even oftener. Both are oldies and goodies.
Sid wrote: "Some people have mentioned the last scene in the 2005 version with Lizzie and Darcy sitting outside in their underwear. I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but that scene was only in the ve..."I'm sure I read that "that scene" was for American theater release only.
Janice wrote: "I definitely preferred the BBC version. In this version Darcy's true character is hidden. So by the time he proposes and the truth about Wickham is discovered you're just as floored as Elizabeth! ..."
I know right...I saw the BBC version on PBS when the theme for Masterpiece was Jane Austen...That was my first taste of Jane. The BBC version is the best and I could watch it all day long!!
Nobody likes the 1940 Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version? ;)My favorite is the BBC version by far. Love Colin Firth, love that they were faithful to the story. Plus, I get to indulge longer in the BBC version!
Love love love the BBC version. Own it! *winks*
Apparently, I am nobody. Who are you?
Leslie wrote: "Janice wrote: "I definitely preferred the BBC version. In this version Darcy's true character is hidden. So by the time he proposes and the truth about Wickham is discovered you're just as floored ..."I'm so happy to hear someone else felt the same way. That moment definitely hooked me. I've watched that movie so many time now. I can't even count them anymore. It's also the reason I started reading classic literature. I will love it forever!
I've watched both the Keira Knightly one and the BBC one multiple times, and the BBC version comes out a little bit on top every time.The Keira Knightly version is good for entertainment, but the BBC version is just something else.
The first time I watched the BBC one, I fell asleep halfway through, because it is long and relatively slow. (Also because I was still in elementary school, but moving along). But I've really grown to like how closely to the book that this version stayed (granted, the weddings deviated). One of the things I love about it is all the small background things that was implied in the book but captured in this version (i.e. Out of focus Jane and Bingely talking in the background while Lizzie and Darcy danced. Mary looking disappointed when Collins asked Lizzie to dance.) I definitely would recommend people to give the BBC version a try.
NanookMN wrote: "Apparently, I am nobody. Who are you?"No offense was meant. I simply didn't see your post. I guess I'm the nobody.
Of course, no offense was meant. Nor was it taken. Your review was a good one. A very good one. My comment was silly.
I hope everyone forgives this long post! As a recovering English lit major who never read all of Austen, I'm currently making my way through all the novels AND their adaptations. For P&P, they break down for me into 3 categories: Full, Condensed, and Quirky. I'll stay away from words like "best" or "worst" since every version is guilty of infidelity to the source material, some more than others. I'm looking more at how successful (or not) each version is in presenting its own take on the nearly 200 year old story.Full:
1995 A&E/BBC: This is the most true to the book in that most everything from the book makes it into the series. Most deviations from the text seem to be Darcy related---more scenes of him are included and, of course, there's the one scene in which one sees more of him than usual. Beautifully shot and acted, this one is aces in my book for being the most complete in translating the book into film, successfully getting across the tone, humor, drama, events, and characters.
1980 BBC: Functional, but dry as dust for the first couple of episodes. The low budget works against it and the actors all seem to be reciting the dialogue rather than delivering it naturally. Darcy has one facial expression throughout except at the very end and he seems to be staring off into space the rest of the time. This Darcy isn't just bored and disinterested, he's unemotional and cold. Even in the book he smirks and smiles on occasion. Also, the hundred little liberties this series takes here and there irritated me to no end---Mr. Collins' silly hat? Gah! This is certainly not the most "correct" version, not by a long shot.
Condensed:
1940: Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier work wonderfully together in this screwball comedy version of P&P. Taking all of the best comedic elements and turning them up a notch or two, everything works well in this streamlined story, hitting all the major points of the narrative. Leftover Gone With the Wind dresses notwithstanding, the characters are lively and while purists may hate the ending I have to admit I rather liked this film's version of Lady Catherine. (C'mon, who could ever not like Edna May Oliver?)
2005: With every scene resembling a painting, this is the most visually arresting version of P&P. The colors, costumes, and locations aren't just amazingly beautiful, they're downright sumptuous. This version uses the visual medium to its advantage, evoking the emotional core of the novel with dramatic flourishes (proposal in the rain, other dancers disappearing) rather than strictly sticking to what is in the book. This might be what appeals to so many people who may not have the patience for the longer version, though I think its simplification of a lot of the dialogue and plot may rankle those who want all the details of the drama.
Quirky
Bride and Prejudice: This 2004 version updates the P&P story to modern day India, England, and the United States. It takes most of the story elements from the book but makes it somewhat its own, playing up the clash of cultures well (if a little too simplistically). It's a Bollywood-style musical and while some moments worked better than others (musicals aren't my thing), it's still a fun take on P&P.
Lost in Austen: This 2008 series is a must for anyone who knows the story well, though purists will certainly have a fit. A modern day woman finds a portal to P&P’s world, trades places with Lizzie (though not being Lizzie) and then proceeds to muck up the story, making it worse the more she tries to fix it. This is quite a smart and funny take on P&P, commenting not only on the story and characters from a modern perspective, but also on how readers' expectations shape their understanding of it. Some may not like the turn of events that happen, but I think it's a great re-imagining of a story we all know so well, superbly answering the question 'What would I do if I found myself in the story?'. Suspension of disbelief is a must at certain points but this is really the best in escapist fun.
I've said quite a lot and more than enough, so I'll end with this: Some versions are more successful than others, but all help to deepen our understanding and appreciation of the original.
I liked the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version more palatable.
Andres wrote: "I hope everyone forgives this long post! As a recovering English lit major who never read all of Austen, I'm currently making my way through all the novels AND their adaptations. For P&P, they brea..."...and of course in "Bridget Jones' Diary" we get to see Colin Firth as Darcy again .
I enjoyed the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility Persuasion, and Emma most.
NuraFaisal511 wrote: "I enjoyed the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility Persuasion, and Emma most."I'm with you, Nura. Very good versions.
BBC's 1995 version is by far the best. All of the scenes and characters are perfect and the novel wasn't brutally torn apart in the name of editing like the 2005 movie was.
I watched both BBC version and 2005's Joe Wright's adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Maybe the director, the actors and, above it all, the magnanimous soundtrack (dario marianelli) can't be surpassed by BBC's version. I watch that film everytime I need to find some peace and to remind myself that we can go through our life wars without loosing it. The secret life of daydreams, oh... perfect Jane, Joe and Dario.
The new movie is not as good, you miss so much and the characters are not as good. Like the old ones =D
I haven't read the book, but have seen both movies. The Keira Knightley one was really good but nothing beats BBC! All the BBC movie that I've seen are all based on the classics and BBC leaves nothing out or adds anything stupid.
I haven't seen the BBC adaptation just the one with Keira Knightley.. If I recall correctly Colin Firth starrs as Mr. Darcy in the BBC adaptation and although I adore him as an actor and believe that this kind of roles suit him perfectly, I just cannot imagine him as Mr.Darcy.. I loved Matthew McFadyen in this role..
You could't get a better person to be Mr. Darcy than Collin Firth!
The BBC version is the best one in my opinion! Characters act more alike to the book, I believe.
I really love them all! I've actually seen three versions: The Kiera Knightley one, the Collin Firth BBC one, and a really ancient one I found on Netflix streaming. The last one is rather poor quality, so just regarding the first two: they are both wonderful! Both have their own greatness, strengths and weaknesses. In the BBC Collin Firth, you get a wider sweep of the story, more details, more of the depth of humor and irony, more richness to the story. And who doesn't love Collin Firth, right? But the Kiera Knightley one may be simpler and shorter, but with the beautiful music, stunning scenery, and poignant scenes, it really captures the richness of their love story. So, both are really excellent. I own both and watch both frequently, really it depends on what I'm in the mood for, which side of the story I want to focus on. I highly recommend both!
When it comes to the Pride and Prejudice films, I have to say I like both of them, but for different reasons. I like the BBC version for its faithfulness to the book and the actors faithfulness to the characters. From a story standpoint, it is a better adaptation. However, if I was judging from a film standpoint rather than just which is closer to the book, I'd probably say the Joe Wright version is better. The cinematography was gorgeous, it had great music, and visually captured the essence of the story beautifully.
I loved them both--Colin Firth was way hotter than the Mr. Darcyin the Knightley version. i especially loved the scene where he gets out of the water towards the end of the BBC series.
BBC version of P&P was my favorite as I felt it followed the book the most closely and captured the humorous elements best.
To me 95 BBC mini-series version all the way!!I absolutly hated the 2005 movie: Keyra did not played the cool and sarcástic Lizzy that i adore - she was too bland. The wardrobe department was very poor indeed: seing what she was wearing one could not say that she was a gentleman´s daughter and the changed scenes of when Darcy proposed just made me shrink away from that horrid movie. To note that i have only seen it once and not in the full extent of it because i was bored silly with it.
The BBC mini-series is sooo much better! Colin Firth is my kind of Darcy, the perfect Darcy: cool, shy, seemingly cold but a big heart underneath, correct and just; and Jennifer Ehle is the perfect Lizzy: articulate, sarcástic, kind, gentle,not a great beauty, but a lot of personality with her that made her really atractive. The wardrobe was just oerfect and the sceneries ... i love it all! Plus, those long looks between those 2 could melt an iceberg in secunds - that is what i call good acting: those looks spoke volumes of what was going on their minds, and their feelings for one another.
As far as acting goes, I think that whether or not someone likes a certain portrayal is very personal. First, let me (again) say that I love the BBC version. I am on my second ownership as my VCR tape is no longer any good, so I had to buy the DVDs. I also love Colin Firth. Having said that, I really, really liked the realism in the 2005 adaptation. The change from the Regency setting resounded with me as Austen actually wrote P&P during the Georgian era. I have read P&P about once every two years for the past 40 years. I am also a history buff (having gotten my undergraduate degree in history). The Bennets are described as in "reduced circumstances." Mr. Bennet had not handled their money very well which was why Mrs. Bennet was so anxious that Eliza marry Mr. Collins. When Mr. Bennet dies, Longbourne is entailed on Mr. Collins as the next male heir. Mr. Bennet has not put away enough money to take care of his widow and five daughters. I think that all the girls will get is 500 pounds each from Mrs. Bennet's marriage portion. So it was somewhat irritating to me that the BBC version portrayed the Bennet girls as almost on par economically and fashionably with Mr. Bingley's sisters. Just because Mr. Bennet was a gentleman, did not mean he was in any way wealthy. A gentleman derived his income from property or an inheritance and was of "good" family. Mr. Bennet's income from Longbourne did not have to be significant to have him accounted a "gentleman" and it was fairly clear in the book that he was not a great financial manager having married beneath his station for money and frittered that away. With this background knowledge in the book, one would EXPECT the Bennet daughters to be dressed less fashionably than their more wealthy acquaintances. Their "best" clothes would be reserved for special occasions. I think Joe Wright did an excellent job of trying to insert some realism into his film. Of course we all love to see pretty clothes and we have come to expect the empire waistline of the Regency era, but I liked having an alternative vision that in this case was probably closer to Austen's world.
Have to say I agree with Shannon. I love the BBC one for its faithfulness and--hello, Colin Firth--need I say more? Though I did think Matthew MacFadyen was a gorgeous Darcy, too. And in all fairness to the Keira Knightley/Matthew MacFadyen film, the Colin Firth miniseries had five whole hours to be faithful to the story, while the Keira Knightley one had only maybe two hours. Also agree that the Joe Wright/Keira Knightley film is more cinematic, lusher to look at. But I'll bet it had a much larger budget than the BBC mini. Also agree with Mary about the realism of the Keira Knightley film. Appreciated that earthy grittiness that is usually whitewashed in most adaptations.
It's difficult to get better than Andrew Davies for an Austen adaptation (unless you're Emma Thompson), so the mini had that going for it, too.
Anyway...when all is said and done, I have a feeling that most of us love best the one we saw first. And I saw the Colin Firth one first. :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Different strokes for different folks . I have read P & P over 30 times. I own the 1940 version with Greer Garson (which is horrendous - Lizzy was not a southern belle), the 1980 version with Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul, the 1995 BBC with Firth and Ehle and the 2005 version with Knightley and MacFadyen. The 1980 version was probably the closest to the book (no wet t-shirt Darcy), but was stilted in its presentation. The 95 version was excellent, but a little too antiseptic. The 2005 version was a great adaptation as far as I am concerned. The scenery was beautiful, the musical score the best of all versions and for once the setting was Georgian instead of Regency or Victorian. Austen actually began writing P&P in 1796, a full 14 years before the Regency era began. It was originally entitled "First Impressions" and she revised it before submitting it for publishing in 1812. Most people assume that P&P is set in Regency times, but the book really does not give us a clue. I quite liked the Georgian setting and clothing styles in the 2005 version.