Pride and Prejudice
discussion
Book first but after that which film was best?
date
newest »
newest »
Olivia wrote: "The 2005 film starring Keira Knightley is by far the best version made! I'm not a huge fan of Knightley usually but it was so much more exciting and romanticised. It's my absolute favourite book in..."Colin Firth wooden and awkward?
This made me laugh, really!
One of the best actors of today and you describe him as wooden, awkward and a-ha crime! old...that is a view of someone who just looks at appearances and not acting skills; not to say that Mathew McFadyen is without skills, but it simply seems that you are detracting one from the other merely because of age: it´s decriminating not to mention totally whithout reason.
Do you know that Collin was (and is) a very talented theater actor? Maybe this is a fact you do not know or care, because....he is wooden....
Olivia: I'd highly recommend "The King's Speech" starring Colin Firth. Absolutely wonderful! Further cements his standing as a fabulous actor. :)
Eliza wrote: "Olivia: I'd highly recommend "The King's Speech" starring Colin Firth. Absolutely wonderful! Further cements his standing as a fabulous actor. :)""Claps"
I couldn´t have given a better exemple of how good of an actor Collin is!
And with this i rest my case.
I loved the BBC's version as it had so much more detail from the book in it but also who am I kidding it had Colin Furth in it
Among the people I talk to the 1995 version is considered the standard. I think the Elizabeth Garvey/David Rintoul version, though it's shot mostly in video rather than film, has a lot to be said for it, and in places it is much truer to the novel. The Keira Knightley version is lovely but is only tangentially related to the novel and is therefore hard for me to watch. I doubt the writer of the Greer Garson/Lawrence Olivier version ever read the book.
My favorite P&P movie is the BBC version with Colin Firth. Between that one and the Keira Knightley version, I think that the former was the most faithful to the book. I also like Laurence Olivier as Darcy in the 1940 film.
The Keira Knightley version was awful -- completely lost the irony and nuances of the novel. Stick with the BBC version with Colin Firth and the wonderful Jenifer Ehle who played Elizabeth.Do read the novel!
BBC with Colin Firth Definitely for me. Have seen it a million times. I the other versions I have seen as well, Keira Knightley is a 2nd. Other versions I have seen are more like mini series versions. I believe one of which you can watch on Netflix.
The BBC version is one of my absolute favorite. I never saw the Kiera Knightly one just because I suspected it would pale in comparison.
The 2005 movie with Keira Knightly and Matthew Macfadyen will always be emy favorite movie of all time! Absouletly loved it!
Hey, i did not knew where to post, but i've one request, plz anyone, be my friend, i've no friend;-)
I like them ALL (and I think I've seen every one of them made since 1970). But the Kiera Knightley version, in my opinion, is the deepest, with the most nuanced acting, and it does the best job of showing the reality of class divisions in Jane Austen's time.
I'm not a snob about the Kiera Knighly version, but I'm bummed that so few people have seen the 1980 BBC version with Elizabeth Garvey and David Rintoul. Check it out -- it's streaming on Netflix.
Sam wrote: I think the Elizabeth Garvey/David Rintoul version, though it's shot mostly in video rather than film, has a lot to be said for it, and in places it is much truer to the novel.
I would go farther and say it's the best version I've seen! So much of P&P is epistolary, and this version solves that problem very neatly. There is a breathtaking scene when Elizabeth reads the letter of explanation Darcy wrote after the first proposal. During the voice-over, we watch Darcy walking away across the fields and the camera draws back as they get further and further apart. I haven't seen it since the 80s but that image sticks with me.
Sam wrote: I think the Elizabeth Garvey/David Rintoul version, though it's shot mostly in video rather than film, has a lot to be said for it, and in places it is much truer to the novel.
I would go farther and say it's the best version I've seen! So much of P&P is epistolary, and this version solves that problem very neatly. There is a breathtaking scene when Elizabeth reads the letter of explanation Darcy wrote after the first proposal. During the voice-over, we watch Darcy walking away across the fields and the camera draws back as they get further and further apart. I haven't seen it since the 80s but that image sticks with me.
As a sidebar, just wanted to mention that I am reading Jane Austen, Game Theorist. Looks interesting.Shelley
http://dustbowlstory.wordpress.com
Kelly wrote: "Definitely the Keira Knightly version. It was so much more entertaining,and although they condensed the book's plot to fit the average run-time of a movie, it still stayed pretty true to the novel...."I beg to differ...Kiera Knightly's version deviated from the book a few times. important scenes as well :P
Bridget wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Definitely the Keira Knightly version. It was so much more entertaining,and although they condensed the book's plot to fit the average run-time of a movie, it still stayed pretty true..."Yep. One of the frustrating points for me.
Definitely BBC's version with Colin Firth. It is SOOOOOO good. I can watch it over and over and never get tired of it.
Tory wrote: "Keira Knightly version. I adore Colin Firth, but I could not sit through something that was ruining one of my favorite stories."Interesting, I had the exact same response to the Keira Knightly version. I lay a great deal of the blame for this at the feet of the director, Joe Wright, who made several unfortunate decisions in directing this film. I'd had advised him to read the damned book before starting the project but like most first time directors (it was the first feature film of his career) he made the mistake of thinking he knew everything already.
In addition to Wright's occasional cock-ups (the proposal in the rain will forever be my standard for WTF?) the costuming was, at best, questionable. The color schemes, fabrics, and even styles were wrong - I'm sure there was a closet somewhere in the back lots of the BBC that jam packed with historically accurate and attractive gowns for women, so why the need to dress them up as if they were attending a cocktail party in the late 1980's is beyond me. Hair, makeup, comportment, all things done better in the BBC mini-series and among the nits that most need picking in the 2005 movie - not surprising, really, if you can't get the little things right you won't get the big things right.
As per Ms Knightly herself. I found her casting as Lizzy to be odd from the outset, she's more Lydia material than anything. Her portrayal of Lizzy certainly confirms that in that it was decidedly off putting, over the top and often contrived. Lizzy, as written, is intelligent and known for her dry wit, quick minded and clever she was ever mindful of propriety and decorum and rarely gives herself over to emotional outbursts. Jennfer Ehle captures that Lizzy perfectly in the mini-series. Her Lizzy is charming and engaging yet always there is that sense that her impish humor and keen mind (and sometimes sharper tongue) are barely held in check. Contrast that with Keira Knightly's o'er wrought, often incomprehensible acting choices and you'd swear you're watching a student run adaptation of the classic, not a professional actress in a feature film.
I'll skip the other niggling details, like poor supporting character adaptation, bad scene setting, and a general lack of chemistry on screen amongst the cast, and just point you to this site for more of the same:
http://ladygilraen.wordpress.com/2013...
Wonderful analysis, Robert. I feel exactly the same.
Maria wrote: "Olivia wrote: "The 2005 film starring Keira Knightley is by far the best version made! I'm not a huge fan of Knightley usually but it was so much more exciting and romanticized. It's my absolute fa...":snip: One of the best actors of today and you describe him as wooden, awkward and a-ha crime! old...that is a view of someone who just looks at appearances and not acting skills; not to say that Mathew MacFadyen is without skills, but it simply seems that you are detracting one from the other merely because of age: it´s discriminating not to mention totally without reason. :snip:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Maria. Colin Firth simply is Mr Darcy to me. Now Mathew MacFadyen is a perfectly good actor, and his portrayal of Darcy in the Keira Knightly
Seriously, one cannot discuss the shortcomings of the 2005 version with sufficient disapprobation. It is an anathema to the Regency romantic. I think the thing that still grates on my nerves the most, however, is the portrayal of the Bennet family as being poor. A pig-stye adjoining the house? Wash hanging on a line in the yard? Servants eating with the family? Poor furnishings, scraps and clutter heaped about the rooms, and the general feeling of...ennui that permeate every scene at the Bennet's home. The Bennets were not poor, Mister Bennet was a country lawyer with a modest estate that included a park (formal garden) large enough to take a tour (a long walk) in. The Bennets were, in point of fact, lower order members of the Ton, British high society. Being Gentry they were members of Regency England's social elite. You may recall Lizzy's comment to the Lady Catherine de Bourgh when she implied that Elizabeth Bennet was socially beneath Darcy:
'In marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman's daughter; so far we are equal.'
A gentleman farmer during the Regency didn't live with livestock wandering in and out of the lower levels of the house. Any ass would know that, unless that ass was Joe Wright.
Definitely the BBC miniseries with Colin Firth. But I liked the Keira Knightley version too. I saw an old black and white one once but didn't like it too much, mostly because the actress playing Lizzie just didn't look or act the part.
Robert wrote: "Seriously, one cannot discuss the shortcomings of the 2005 version with sufficient disapprobation. It is an anathema to the Regency romantic. I think the thing that still grates on my nerves the most, however, is the portrayal of the Bennet family as being poor. A pig-stye adjoining the house? Wash hanging on a line in the yard? Servants eating with the family? Poor furnishings, scraps and clutter heaped about the rooms, and the general feeling of...ennui that permeate every scene at the Bennet's home. The Bennets were not poor"Yes, this was what really annoyed me in the 2005 film: Lizzie dressed no better than a kitchen maid - brown horrible dresses!!! Brown was the colour the people used, not gentry. And the overall air of poorness that doesn´t exist in the book, much less if you do some research in about Regency England. But i must confess it escaped me that Mr Bennett was a lawyer...i thought that he was a tennant, and simply that: gentleman were not supposed to have a profession. And since he married in the hopes of having sons, it never crossed his mind that he would loose the estate and the income.
But seriously: proposal in the rain? How Hollywood-y! That´s another one that really got to me - the original cene in the Pemberley lake was just fine as it was, Joe Wright!
Seriously: the thing that, in my opinion, desfigured the most, that stick out like a sore thumb was the whole interpretation of Keira: maybe she was just mis-directed by Joe Wright, but all the sharp tongue replies, the stares that said whole sentences: i remember the long stares that Lizzie and Darcy had, at Pemberley, when she was visiting, and she was near Georgiana, and those looks they esxanged meant whole dialogues - it takes a really good pair of actors and great acting skills to be able to pull that one off.
Olivia: if i mis-interpreted your comment, my excuses, but you did wrote what i said - that Colin was old and wooden.
I don´t mind a question of different taste - we are all different, so it fits that we have different opinions and like different stuff - but then if you don´t want to be misunderstood, you can just simply point out what positive points it has to you, rather than detracting the other version on very unsolid arguments.
Maria wrote: "But i must confess it escaped me that Mr Bennett was a lawyer...i thought that he was a tennant, and simply that: gentleman were not supposed to have a profession. And since he married in the hopes of having sons, it never crossed his mind that he would loose the estate and the income."You are absolutely correct and I am somewhat humbled, but I'll claim in my defense to have been quite deep in my cups when I made that statement. In truth I should have said that it was Mrs Bennet who was the daughter of a Meryton attorney, Mr Bennet was most definitely a gentleman, though not a tennant, farmer. The issue of the marriage of his daughters became important because, as you so rightly point out, he'd married expecting a to have a son. The Bennet estate had to go to a male Bennet heir, and since the Bennets had only daughters the house and lands were entailed away to the nearest male relation, Mr Collins.
By the by, while it was not considered altogether seemly for a member of the Gentry to work for a living, there were a few acceptable professions, such as gentleman farmer (meaning others did the farming), being a commissioned officer in the army or navy, doctor, lawyer (mostly for those with political aspirations), and of course minister. In fact choosing the clergy was one of the most common things for a lower order member of the Ton to do as almost any large estate, and even many of the smaller ones, had vicarage or parsonage attached to them and those had a guaranteed separate income. So having a profession was entirely possible, what was important above all was that one not be seeing to work.
Robert wrote: " In truth I should have said that it was Mrs Bennet who was the daughter of a Meryton attorney, "I was not aware of this, also....i guess that some things just "dropped" out from the translation, as i read it in Portuguese. I was under the impression that it was the brother of Mrs Bennet that was a lawyer, at Merryton, but it fits the fact that sons usually carried out their father´s profession.
My other misunderstanding is the word tennant: out here it translates that it was someone who had people farming his lands, and he only colected the rent. The definition of farmer aplies to someone who actually got his hands dirty....
So having a profession was entirely possible, what was important above all was that one not be seeing to work
Yes, appearances were very important - gentry were not supposed to be seen doing work, just vaguely talk about a respectable trade, but very quickly dismessed and the conversatikn be taken arounf other more agreable subjects.
I cringe every time I watch the version with Keira Knightley. In the book she was described as having a lively wit, in the movie she was rude and disrespectful. If she were in high school today, she would be described as a mean girl. The BBC version is much more accurate and follows the book better. Plus I just want to punch Keira Knightley in the face every time she smiles that ridiculous smile.
Amanda wrote: "The 2005 version is fine if you're cool with Hollywood bastardization of a classic. What the hey-who was up with that ending? Darcy and Lizzie would never have sat around in their undies OUTSIDE, e..."Just to point something out to you; that scene outside in their undies is just the US version, the rest of us just get to se the UK ending (at least the UK + some the Nordic countries, don't really know about the rest of the world), which is that the movie ends a little bit after Mr. Bennet gives his consent to Lizzy and Darcy in his study. I don't care much for the US ending, I find it quite tasteless. No way they would behave so improper.
2005 was adorable in my opinion, so full of emotion and soul and lovable characters, whereas I found the BBC version very slow and the interaction between the characters were too stiff and staged. It lacks feeling, I think. So, even though the Keira (2005) version isn't completely faithful to the book when it comes to the scenes, I still think it more true to the book because of the emotion and feeling it leaves behind.
Aerykah wrote: "I don't know how anyone who has read P&P could possible like the 2005 version with Keira Knightley & Matthew Macfadyen. I have watched it twice (1st time just to see for myself how it was & 2nd tim..."Well, now you know of at least one person :) I've loved P&P ever since I first read it when I was 13, and I've reread it several times. I love the 2005 version. Keira and Matthew have an amazing chemistry, and their characters seem to be developing while the movie and the plot unfolds. I love the feeling the movie gives me, it's the same feeling I got while reading the book.
I can hardly get any kind of feeling at all from the BBC version, I find it too stiff and overly formal, and the actors seem to be lacking some emotion in the performance (at least until the very end). I suppose that is what it's supposed to be like, though. I still respect that version because it's so true to the book, but I'll watch the 2005 version over the 1995 mini series any day.
But everyone has different taste, and every book or movie appeals to different emotions in different people, so it's great there are so many versions out there :) Which reminds me, I'd really like to see the 1980 and 1940 versions!
Sofia wrote: "The 2005 version with Matthew MacFayden, definitely!He's the best Mr Darcy of the cinema ;)
I made a broadcast about the 3 big movie adaptations of this book, so I'm really giving my conscious op..."
You said it! MacFayden is perfect as Mr. Darcy. He adds awkwardness and some kind of vulnerability to the role that I think really suits him. I really like that :)
Maria wrote: "Robert wrote: " In truth I should have said that it was Mrs Bennet who was the daughter of a Meryton attorney, "I was not aware of this, also....i guess that some things just "dropped" out from t..."
Mr. Bennet was not a farmer. He was a gentleman. His estate had a farm, which was very common. It was likely that even Mr. Darcy's estate had a farm. In Emma, Mr. Knightley's estate had a farm. He often gave Miss Bates meat and produce from his farm. Mr. Knightley was in every way a gentleman, which was a man who did not have to work to earn a living (other than administrative duties on their estates/fortunes). Mr. Martin, however, was a tenant farmer (a farmer who rents the land he farms from the landowner) and not considered on the same level as Mr. Knightley, or even Mr. Elton, a clergyman, which was considered a noble profession along with attorneys. A yeoman would be a farmer who owns his own land. If Mr. Bennet was a farmer he would not have been considered one of Mr. Darcy's peers and thus Elizabeth's statement to Lady Catherine that Darcy was a gentleman and she was a gentleman's daughter and so they were equals (in the same social class) would not have been correct.
Mrs. Bennet's father was an attorney, as was her brother-in-law. This put her a level below her husband socially. One thing that's kind of amusing is that the Bingley's wealth was acquired from their father's successful trade. A person in trade was considerably below a gentleman and below professions such as clergymen, lawyers, and officers. For an example, this can be seen from Emma's reluctance to invite the Cole's to her party because Mr. Cole was in trade, but she had no such hesitation in inviting Mr. Elton, a clergyman, Mr. Weston, a retired officer, or her brother-in-law, an attorney. Another example, from a few decades later, but still relevent, was in Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South. Mr. Hale was considered genteel, as a clergyman, even though he was “poor”, yet Mr. Thornton, who was much wealthier, was not since he was in trade. So the Bingley's were in a socially lower class than the Bennets (especially since they did not own an estate), and in the same class as Mrs. Bennet's relatives, yet Miss Bingley turned up her nose at them.
Maria wrote: "My other misunderstanding is the word tennant: out here it translates that it was someone who had people farming his lands, and he only colected the rent. The definition of farmer aplies to someone who actually got his hands dirty....So having a profession was entirely possible, what was important above all was that one not be seeing to work
Yes, appearances were very important - gentry were not supposed to be seen doing work, just vaguely talk about a respectable trade, but very quickly dismessed and the conversatikn be taken arounf other more agreable subjects. "
A member of the gentry (upper class) did not work, other than administrative duties on his estate (as I mentioned in the previous post. A clergyman, attorney, or officer was in the upper middle class. Respectable, but still not the same level as a gentleman. Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bennet were in the same class. Mr. Collins and Mr. Phillips were in a class below them, as a clergyman and attorney. Mr. Gardiner was still a level below Collins and Phillips, since he was in trade.
A landlord is the person who owns the land and collects rent. A tenant is the person who rents from the landowner.
Irene wrote: "You said it! MacFayden is perfect as Mr. Darcy. He adds awkwardness and some kind of vulnerability to the role that I think really suits him. I really like that :) "MacFadyen was adorable, but Mr. Darcy would not have been awkward. He was described as having a gentlemanly and proud air. A man like this would have no trace of awkwardness. If you carefully watch Colin Firth, you can see a proud man who is struggling to control his emotions and maintain a composed demeanor. You can see his feelings in his eyes. If you watch the first proposal scene, you can tell that he is fighting with himself, but is overcome with his feelings for Elizabeth. This is a man who believes that marrying Elizabeth would be a degradation to his family and name, and yet he cannot stop himself from loving her. And when Elizabeth tells him what she thinks of him, you can see that he is shocked and angered (by Mr. Wickham's lies), and yet now he understands why Elizabeth loathes him. It's pretty hard to portray those three emotions at once, Firth does it amazingly well. When she gives him the "had you behaved in a more gentlemanlike manner" speech you can see how much that line affected him and made him aware of how others perceive him. And when he exits the house, you can see the bitter disappointment that he feels. MacFadyen, on the other hand, rushes through the proposal, looking more like a love-sick teenager who's shyly trying to ask a girl out for the first time, than a proud man struggling between his loyalty to his family and his strong love for a woman he genuinely believes to be inferior to him.
Mr. Darcy would have seemed cold and stiff. That's why Elizabeth disliked him and also why she misunderstood his character so much. But to say Firth shows no emotions is kind of ridiculous. At Pemberly, when Miss Bingley mentions Wickham, you can see his distress for his sister plainly written on his face. When Elizabeth goes over to Georgiana and tries to distract and comfort her, you can see that he is truly touched by her tender compassion for his sister and the fact that this means that she not only read his letter, but believes him about Wickham. When Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy go to Longbourne and Mrs. Bennet continues to be ridiculous and rude to him, you can see the annoyance on his face. Mr. Darcy was a reserved man. He would not have let his feelings show easily. But if you watch his subtle body language and his eyes, Firth's Darcy was full of emotion. You know the saying "still waters run deep"? That's Mr. Darcy. He appears to be unfeeling and cold, due to his proud and reserved nature, but in reality he is the opposite. Firth demonstrated this perfectly.
I absolutely love the 2005 version with Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen. I think that the acting is brilliant, both Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen perfect as Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy, and the film is beautifully made. Though quite a few details were changed (for example, where the first and second proposals took place), the film is still fantastic in my opinion :) I've watched it countless times, and it seems to get better every time I rewatch it - I just love it! :)
Emma wrote: "Irene wrote: "You said it! MacFayden is perfect as Mr. Darcy. He adds awkwardness and some kind of vulnerability to the role that I think really suits him. I really like that :) "MacFadyen was ad..."
Beautifully said, Emma. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice is truly the best.
BBC VERSION! Seriously its the best version ever! It follows the book really well.
I would most certainly go for the 2005 version.I love it. It was all a movie could've been.One cannot reprimand it on not being true to the book...after all u can't present the book in 2 hrs.I could just be watching it over and over again.I believe it portrayed the characters and emotions much deeply than the 1995 version.Not just Mathew and Keira , every character was as it ought have been.Just perfect!
I loved the BBC adaptation with Colin Firth - nothing else has come close.
The 2005 version.While I love the BBC 1995 version, it's so long. I know it's more accurate, but there's not always enough time for 6 hours of Pride and Prejudice (a shame).
The 2005 version is almost like a highlight reel. The greatest hits. It gives me all the scenes that I really want to see. The cinematography is beautiful. And who am I to say no to proposals in the rain and at dawn?
I will concede that Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth are the perfect Lizzy and Darcy (not that I don't love Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen). Although, I wasn't a fan of the rest casting for the 1995, especially Jane.
After reading the book in high school I wanted to go in order for the film adaptations. So I first watched the 1980 BBC version and then the 1995 version. I loved seeing, what I now count as one of my favorite books, brought to life in such a great way in the 1980 version. Then I watched the 1995 version, and I felt it was the better of the two. Eventually, a few years later the 2005 version premiered, and I really disliked it. I felt it was too much Hollywood and too many changes that were untrue to the book. I understand the others versions were miniseries, so they were able to shoot more detailed scenes. However, changing the engagement scene was unacceptable in my opinion. Although I adore Keira Knightley as an actress, I felt she didn’t embody Elizabeth Bennett. Nor did Matthew Macfadyen, embody Mr. Darcy for that matter.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
David Bamber, Barbara Leigh-Hunt, and Julie Swahala were better as Mr Collins, Lady C, and Lydia than their other version counterparts by far.