Pride and Prejudice
discussion
Book first but after that which film was best?
Michelle, I guess I interpreted "reslism" as a sense of grit and dirt of the time rather than faithfulness to the text. Joe Wright veered quite a bit from the text, and much of those digressions were not to my taste. I believe that the earthiness of the Joe Wright film was exaggerated, but I appreciated it nonetheless, as it, like the 1995 "Persuasion," with its uncoiffed, shiny-faced actors, made me feel as if I were watching a slice of life rather than something Hollywood-sanitized. Also, you make a good point when you say, "whether the girls were as fashionably dressed as their more wealthy acquaintances, I can't conclusively argue." I doubt that anyone could do that conclusively, because Austen was very spare of detail, which is actually one of the things I appreciate about her. But I think we can surmise that Mrs. Hurst and Miss Bingley were notably splendid in their dress, by Mrs. Bennet's saying "I never in my life saw any thing more elegant than their dresses. I dare say the lace upon Mrs. Hurst's gown --" But more so than the Bennet sisters? I agree; that's for us to guess. It seems likely that Mrs. Bennet would not have been so effusive in her praise if Bingley's sisters eclipsed her own daughters. And I agree; she would have made sure that the girls were, as you say, at least as fashionable as their neighbors!
Laurie,
I was replying one above you, but the reply button didn't seem to do the trick. Ah well. I also liked the same things you liked in the longer version. It followed the book better and so on. I've seen at least four versions. Can never get enough. I can't say I liked the first one I saw best. I don't remember for sure, but I think the first I saw was the one with Laurence Olivier. It was fun, but it wasn't nearly as good as the long one.
I was replying one above you, but the reply button didn't seem to do the trick. Ah well. I also liked the same things you liked in the longer version. It followed the book better and so on. I've seen at least four versions. Can never get enough. I can't say I liked the first one I saw best. I don't remember for sure, but I think the first I saw was the one with Laurence Olivier. It was fun, but it wasn't nearly as good as the long one.
Good questions raised here: the 1st one about the girls beying as fashionable or not as their neighbours who were more wealthy, had a higher station in life and lived in London - i don´t think that Mrs Bennett would leave her daughters to look like anything under their station if she wanted them to get married well! In the series you can see the difference in the dresses and acessories: while the Bingley sisters use silks, satins, feathers, hair-combs and fine jewelry the Bennet sisters use simple dresses, simple necklaces with a tiny cross, and bows on their heads. As where acting goes Keyra was not at her best here: Lizzy Bennett was an observer, was witty, had a sharp tongue and Keyra just couldn´t pull that off - i loved her in The Duchess, for instances: she was much better in there. Mathew was not bad but Colin really is my Mr Darcy period.
As for the realism on the sets, on the series they did say that they went for a sort of "tonned down realism" so they had clean streets, no prostituition, no one dumping their night vases on the street, by the window and that sort of things - but they said it was deliberate: as Jane Austen did not refer to those details they interpreted them at their own fashion.
The BBC Pride and Prejudice is my go to film version. The scenery, casting, and faithful script won me over the first time I was introduced to it. Mr. Darcy agonizing over Elizabeth and then taking a swim. The chance meeting on his estate. The BBC version hands down.
I think that Joe Wright was "writing" and directing for a vastly different audience than the 1995 version, so some of the things in the 2005 version WERE exaggerated to show that audience things they might not be aware of. For example, most people would not realize that "morning calls" were not made in the morning, but in the afternoon. Lady Catherine showing up in the morning in the 1995 version was meant to be insulting to the Bennet family. A modern audience would not generally get this nuance, so Wright showed her visiting after dark (everyone would realize this was insulting). There was a difference in stations between Darcy and Elizabeth. There was less so with the Bingley's because they made their money from trade and I think the fashion of the Bingley sisters was more that of the nouveau riche - trying a little too hard to impress. I think the clothes were both more realistic (country fashion would be behind town fashion by a few years - so even without the differences in income, that would be realistic) and exaggerated at the same time. A modern audience would likely not note the differences in dress in the 1995 version, but could not help but note them in the 2005 version. In a longer series, there is time to spell out some of the subtleties and customs of the time, but an adaption has to cram it all in. I thought he did a good job of showing these things visually without resorting to a history lesson in the middle of the film. A BBC production has a certain audience in mind. Most people who watch these productions have probably read the books the series are based on. The 2005 version was meant for a general audience, most of whom had probably never read the book. The director could not assume prior knowledge and had to display as much as possible within a much shorter time frame. As much as I do love the 1995 version, it pretty much remained a cult series until the 2005 version came out. I love Jane Austen's books and I have read all of them multiple times over the years. While many may complain about the 2005 film, it did more to resurrect interest in Jane Austen than any other film. Its widespread appeal caused many to read Austen for the first time and we had an explosion of Austen sequels. In my opinion, that can only be a good thing. I have really never been an either/or person. I like most of the P&P adaptations for different reasons (not terribly fond of the Greer Garson version, but there were things to like in that one as well). I loved both Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy, but the REAL Darcy will always be the one in my head .
I do wish we had "like" buttons on these. Well said, Mary.
Agreed on all accounts, Mary! And the film, no matter how much i cringe at it, personnaly, had that good effect that was donne: prompt audiences, that probably never read Austen´s work to pick it up - spiked the interest in her - which is always a good thing.
I've watched the 2005 version and while it's beautiful to look at, and the music is lovely, the anachronisms and the ignorance of the social mores of the time turned me off. It felt like to me that the screenwriter/director found all the lines that people expected to hear, gave them to the wrong characters, and built the plot on those lines.
Michelle wrote: "I do wish we had "like" buttons on these. Well said, Mary."Thank you Michelle.
Love the Colin Firth version.The mini-series format allows all the story to unfold. It can seem slow but it allows the characters to develop and mature. The Kiera Knightley version is the Cliff Notes version.Lovely to look at but not filled out,Jane Austen on Twitter.I saw the Greer Garson & Laurence Olivier movie on television years ago. Liked it very much before I read the book and saw how much had been deleted,probably most books are better translated by mini-series.In a movie you get the highlights.
I agree with Gretchen. The Colin Firth BBC version dragged terribly. I much preferred the Keira Knightly version. Much better pacing. You got the feeling that something real was at stake.
BBC version, watched it at 15...still watching it at 28
I like the movie better than the BBC version. Mrs Bennett is funny, not like the BBC, who is really really annoying (omg, her voice!); i actually can see the love growing in Keira, not so much in Jennifer; the proposal from Colin has no passion unlike Matthew's, Jane in the movie is mmuch more beautiful (more like i had in my mind when i was reading the book). And of course, the soundtrack, scenography and costumes are delightful in the movie!
Mrs Bennett is supposed to be very annoying: she is a dumb woman that only thinks of how great a match she can find for her daughters; she has nothing in her head besides gowns, latest fashions, gossip and wedding bells....the BBC verssion translates all that and the actress who played it said that she "made" the voice correspondent to what the character could exude.Matthew proposed to Keyra in a dashing, rainy, soaky-wet-see-my-pecs kind of style that completly putted me off! I don´t think that that grand gesture was very much Darcy´s style - he was much more demure and confined to the courtly rules of the time, but that did not mean that he was in any way less passionate about her - just not so showy.
Bonnie - loved the expression Jane Austen on Twitter! I think that the movie was just that: a brush up on the surface of a great book.
Jennifer Ehle, to me, IS Lizzy. She captured her impish and confident nature better than anyone before or since. I haven't seen Keira's version and I'm sure she holds her own. The electricity between Colin Firth and Ehle, however, has to be hard to beat.
Nicole wrote: "Jennifer Ehle, to me, IS Lizzy. She captured her impish and confident nature better than anyone before or since. I haven't seen Keira's version and I'm sure she holds her own. The electricity betwe..."I agree.
Maria wrote: "Mrs Bennett is supposed to be very annoying: she is a dumb woman that only thinks of how great a match she can find for her daughters; she has nothing in her head besides gowns, latest fashions, go..."You mean like Colin Firth in his wet t-shirt look .
Mary wrote: "Maria wrote: "Mrs Bennett is supposed to be very annoying: she is a dumb woman that only thinks of how great a match she can find for her daughters; she has nothing in her head besides gowns, lates..."No, i didn´t mean that: i distinctly remember that on one scene it was raining heavy and Matthew was standing in the rain, Hollywood style. Colind did that but with a much more natural atitude, felt more natural to me.
Nicole - exactly how i feel: Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth´s electricity are visible, palpable, throbbing. She IS Lizzy!
I switched off the Kiera Knightley version, I thought it was only released as a way to milk more money out of Austen's famous book. The BBC version from 1995 is spot on, it doesn't stray too far from the actual sotry line and is wonderfully acted
The 1995 version with Colin Firth was the best film adaption but the one with Kiera Knightley was also pretty good. There is also a modern day adaption called "Pride and Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy" that was made in 2003 that was pretty good although it definately did make some story changes.
Marina wrote: "BBC version for me.. I have to wath it at least one a year..Colin Firth willl always be Mr.Darccy to me.. :) The Kiera Knightley version is ok.. but nothing more than that.."I agree that Colin Firth is the BEST Mr. Darcy.
Of course BBC version in all aspects!!! I couldn't watch Keira Knightley version - after the cast of BBC!!! BBC version is ideal!
I think the sets were lovely in the newer version and Mr. Darcy was well done, but BBC all the way! Even if you take Colin Firth out of the equation (as if we could), Babara Leigh Hunt was amazing as Lady Catherine. Too bad, cause Judi Dench is one of my favorites.
I like the BBC version as I love almost everything from bbc.I think they do everything,especially classic movies and series with great care.But the movie with Keira and Macfadyen is my absolute favorite.I know some parts of the book are missing but in my opionion the movie is a masterpiece.That is because the chemistry between Kiera and Matthew is breathtaking.The landscapes are great, along with the photography and the music that shape such a magestic atmosphere that make the movie a lot more romantic than I ever thought could be.My favorite scene, maybe of all romantic movies ever, is the one where they meet at dawn and after the second declaration of his love Lizzy hold Darcy's hands and say "your hands are cold".I think we can really feel their deep emotions in that part.That movie is romantic in all its aspects not just words but images too. That's why I love it soooooo much.
Maria wrote: "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 v..."
While I dislike the Kiera version, I am sure it was good as a movie. However, I didn't want the movie, I wanted the book to come alive and in doing that the BBC version was great.
A agree with Lena - I hated how in Kiera's version they made the Bennett family appear to be in poverty. Lizzie was practically in rags, the pigs in the house, dirt everywhere - definitely a house/lifestyle befitting a gentleman.
Kathleen wrote: "Maria wrote: "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 depa..."
Sorry! I agree with Maria! Sorry Lena :)
I agree with those who don't like the Kiera Knightley version. It was too short to do justice to the dialogue. Everytime someone spoke, they had to spit out the dialogue so quickly to fit it in! The BBC version is definitely the best - it does justice to the dialogue, the character development, the scenery, costumes, etc...
I hated the Kiera Knightley version. She was a terrible Elizabeth.And that movie left out so much. The other two were so much better.I'm curious if it's the younger folks that are posting who like the Kiera Knightley version better because they relate to her more?
I love Colin Firth and I love Matthew MacFadyen ... but not as Mr. Darcy. I know people loved the way Colin Firth smoldered with banked emotion throughout most of the series -- not a bad thing ordinarily -- but not my idea of Darcy. And I thought Matthew MacFadyen wasn't dignified enough for the unreformed Darcy.But in spite of myself, I did love that scene in the rain. There was something explosive there just waiting to happen. It shouldn't have been there, because Elizabeth wasn't suppose to be attracted to him at that point, but still, it gave me me a sort of little thrill when they almost kissed.
Maybe I'm showing my age, but the 1980 BBC production will always be my favorite. I thought it caught Elizabeth and Darcy perfectly, and so many of the lines were taken straight from the book, it just delighted me.
I haven't seen the 1980 one, however, I think it may be on netflix., I will have to check it out!
@Jessica: I loved the Keira Knightley version and I am 53 years old . My 81 year old mother (who first introduced me to Austen when I was about 11 ) also loves the 2005 version. I liked the Georgian setting since that was the era when Austen began writing P&P. I liked the earthiness because it was likely closer to the way people lived back then and not a sanitized depiction of it. Everything was not all nice and tidy. The Bennet girls' things were all over the house and the working Bennet farm looked like a working farm. I liked that Lizzy looked her age and that Jane (Rosamund Pike) really WAS the prettiest girl in the county. I LOVED the musical score and the beautiful cinematography.
I also understand this version was an adaptation meant to be shown in 2 hours vs. 7 hours. Of course we are going to more of the book in a mini-series vs. a feature film. How many people would have been willing to sit and watch a 7 hour movie in a movie theater? That is why Peter Jackson split The Lord of the Rings into 3 movies. I think Joe Wright did an absolutely masterful job with the time constraints he had to abide by. I think whether or not people like the 2005 version depends on their expectations. If one expected all of P&P to be crammed into 2 hours, then one would certainly be disappointed. I have every cinematic version of Jane Eyre (except the one done in the 40s). They are each different, some are better (in my opinion), but they all make me remember my second favorite Austen book with a reader's longing. I feel the same way about the P&P movies. I appreciate all of the P&P versions out there including the modern adaptation of Bridget Jones' Diary and the Bollywood Bride and Prejudice. I don't hate one because I love another.
The 1995 BBC version is my favorite. Didn't like the Kiera Knightley one mainly because I already had given Colin Firth's and Jennifer Ehle's faces to Darcy and Elizabeth. Their acting was incredible and the story stuck to the book, every bit of it!
I liked the Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle version. They were very well matched up in my view. Kiera can play other period pieces, I liked her as the Duchess of Devonshire. she was more equipped for that role.
Yeah, Keyra was not at her best in this role: she was divine in the Duchess - loved her to bits! But Lizzy is not her cup of tea, really.I can aprecciate other versions and movie adaptations:what counts to me is the acting and the authenticity of the movie, if it feels real - i saw the Vanity Fair mini-series and the movie with Reese Witherspoon and although i did like the BBC version better, the film was very good, i liked it a lot, had a good photography and stuck faithfully to the book, in general; this 2005 version of P&P just didn´t struck a chord, here or better yet, struck the wrong one.
Mary wrote: "@Jessica: I loved the Keira Knightley version and I am 53 years old . My 81 year old mother (who first introduced me to Austen when I was about 11 ) also loves the 2005 version. I liked the Georg..."
Peter Jackson split the Lord of the Rings into 3 movies because there were 3 books. I do agree that Jane looked better in the more recent movie, but like the BBC version better. My sister likes the Knightly version better.
Rosamund Pike is more beautifull than the BBC actress that played Jane, i will grant that.
I've seen every P&P film and there is no question of the BBC version being truer to the characterization and plot. Beyond that, Firth is the quintessential Mr. Darcy who is stubborn and socially inept just as Austen pens him to be. Moreover, Ehle's Lizzy is a good girl with an infectious personality who is fiercely loyal to her family and blind to her prejudices. On the other hand, MacFayden's Darcy is shy and so obviously enamoured by Lizzy right from the start. He doesn't struggle with his attraction to Lizzy like Austen's Darcy does (and as we see Firth doing in the BBC version). Moreover Knightley's Lizzy is mean-spirited and not very likeable.
And Mr. and Mrs. Bennet spring to life in the BBC version too. In fact, I can't think of a character who is mis-cast in this film.
Just my 2 cents, but I just love these characters so much. However, I'm just happy to know others share my passion for this book.
Michael wrote: "I agree with Gretchen. The Colin Firth BBC version dragged terribly. I much preferred the Keira Knightly version. Much better pacing. You got the feeling that something real was at stake."How could you say that!?!?!?! Sure the BBC version was long. The Keira Knightly version WAS good, but skipped SO much of the book! BBC barely skips anything!
Several people mentioned Knightly's other movie, The Dutchess. Here's an interesting connection. The Dutchess was a real, historical figure. She was used as a supporting character in a mystery book where Jane Austen is the slueth.
While both the 1995 BBC miniseries and the 2005 film adaptation had their strong points, I didn't like either of them. I know there was an adaptation made in the 1940's with Greer Garson, but I haven't gotten around to finding a complete version for me to watch. I loved Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, though. He's my Darcy.
I don´t remember Jane Austen getting mentioned in The Duchess.....
Hayz wrote: "I liked the 2005 Keira Knightly best. Is one of my favs :)Although I do like some of the remakes, like... my mind has pulled blank. Haha. The Colin Firth one was okay. The one that was the british..."
I also loved Lost in Austen. Not exactly P&P I know, but very entertaining.
The Colin Firth version is truer to the book. And, if you have the time is the better version. However, I love how the Kiera Knightly version plays up the humor that is written into the novel. I think that for people who really struggle to read P&P the humor of the novel could be lost, but this film brings Austen's playfulness to life.
Austen was not mentioned in The Duchess. The historical figure the duchess was based on was mentioned in a fictional book with Jane Austen as the main character.
There is not even the remotest comparison. The BBC version is FAR superior.
Crin wrote: "There is not even the remotest comparison. The BBC version is FAR superior."In your opinion .
The 2005 Kiera Knightly version for sure. My first movie version was the old black-n-white. That had it's charms, but it's been 30 years since I last saw it. The Colin Firth version is just too long and it drags. It also looks washed out and faded. I like the 2005 version for the casting and the cinematography. The way the scenes were set up is amazing. The scenery and music just blend together so well. I've seen it umpteen times, probably five times in the theater and many more on DVD with groups of friends. I love the roving camera work, Bingley's character, beautiful Jane, and the casting of the older actors. Donald Sutherland is great. Having a daughter that age, and loving her as I do, I can totally relate to Donald's Mr. Bennett. Judi Dench as Lady Catherine was awesome. I know that the fight between Lizzy and Lady Catherine isn't true to the book, but that scene rocks. Over-all is is just so well put together.
Each time I see the movie I spot new things in the camerawork, or the way a scene is set up. Timing. Like the servant's announcement of all the Miss Bennetts when the come to visit Jane. The spinning swing when Charlotte appears with her news. The room with the statues. The dance. Both letter scenes. . . Bingley rehearsing his lines on the riverbank. Put all this together with the seamless integration of the soundtrack. Like the contrast between Lizzie's piano playing and Miss Darcy's piano piece. Yep, this one is definitely my favorite.
I really don't have anything against Kiera Knightly (maybe because I'm not a big Pirate's fan or something).
I am not a Pirate´s fan and still i don´t think that Keira could pull Lizzy well - she was much more intense in The Duchess: she rocked there!BBC version all the way, as i´ve already said - my kind if Darcy, my kind of Lizzy, my kind of Bennett girls, etc. Fantástic dialogues and the chemistry between Firth and Ehle....just amaizing: they talk with their eyes, to each other!
I like the Colin Firth version the best.I think he comes the closest to doing an accurate portrayal of Mr. Darcy.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Whether the girls were as fashionably dressed as their more wealthy acquaintances, I can’t conclusively argue. A point was made of how fashionable Bingley’s sisters were, but nothing was said, even at the cattier moments, about the lack of fashion seen on the Bennet girls. I suspect they were at least as fashionable as most of their country neighbors, which would have been behind the London set, but only so much as was expected. Mrs. Bennet would have made sure of it. The girls had money from her. Mr. Bennet said that Lydia cost him about 100 pounds a year from gifts and pocket money her mother gave her. I doubt she only gave such things to the one girl even if Lydia was her favorite. Appearance was everything to her, after all.
Whatever they lived on during their father’s life, the future was bleak. Once he died, almost all they had would be gone. That was where their poverty really lay. If they did not marry, they would have next to nothing and nowhere to live except upon the charity of relatives. Mrs. Bennet would not argue with any kind of husband for her children on that account, as you correctly said.
Anyway, I am not disagreeing with you in general, it’s just a few little details I couldn’t leave alone. It’s entirely possible I made a mistake or two since I didn’t pick up the book to check my memory, so feel free to catch me on them if I’m wrong. I do love these discussions and what you can learn from them.