Jane Austen discussion

59 views
1995 vs 2005 characters

Comments Showing 1-50 of 71 (71 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments So... P&P
I was thinking the other day about which characters I prefer in the 1995 and 2005 - as in if I could mix and match and the perfect adaptation - who I would pick ;)
And I was wondering what others thought?
We have ....
Bennet Sisters
Mr and Mrs Bennet
Collins and Charlotte Lucas
Darcy and Georgiana
Bingley and Caroline (and Louisa)
Gardiners
Wickham (grr)
Lady Catherine and Anne

And how about the locations?
Longbourne
Pemeberly
Nertherfield
Rosings

Hard for me to say... I'm still thinking :)


message 2: by Leonora (new)

Leonora Marie (leonoramarie) Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this! The 1995 version gets points for sticking to the book and having the perfect Darcy - so I would keep Darcy from that version, definitely!
The Bennet sisters I would take from the 2005 version. I always thought that they seemed a little too old in the 1995 version, and in 2005 they act much more like sisters and a family. :)
Mr. Bingley I would definitely take from 1995, because in 2005 he has the silliest haircut I have ever seen.
All the rest I'm not too sure about. I think they were portrayed equally well in both films. :)
On a side note - having watched a lot of Downton Abbey recently, I've started thinking of Maggie Smith as the PERFECT Lady Catherine. I can really see her nailing that role :)


message 3: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Leonora wrote - 'The 1995 version gets points for sticking to the book and having the perfect Darcy - so I would keep Darcy from that version, definitely!'
Yes! but MafCafyden did well i think, but Firth was more true to the book :)

'The Bennet sisters I would take from the 2005 version. I always thought that they seemed a little too old in the 1995 version, and in 2005 they act much more like sisters and a family. :)'
I agree as well, though i would have to this about Lizzy a bit more... they do act more like sisters and seem more closey knit, and i think Mrs. Bennet in 2005 is more motherly :)

'Mr. Bingley I would definitely take from 1995, because in 2005 he has the silliest haircut I have ever seen.'
His hair is funny!!! And in 1995 doesn't seem as uninformed and overly innocent as he does in 2005. but he is sweet... ;)

' On a side note - having watched a lot of Downton Abbey recently, I've started thinking of Maggie Smith as the PERFECT Lady Catherine. I can really see her nailing that role :) '
Thats a really good point - she would be really good!! but i think Judy Dench was very good :)


message 4: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments lemme see...

Bennet Sisters: I like the way they are portrayed better as sisters in the Kiera Knightley version; how they look their ages and all but I like how they develop the characters deeper in the Firth version. I also like how (in the Kiera Knightley version) they get across that Mary likes Mr. Colins.

Mr and Mrs Bennet: Hard decision; I like how they play across each other in different ways in each version, but I think overall I like the newer couple better. ;)

Collins and Charlotte Lucas: I like how Charlotte is portrayed better in the newer version and I "like" Collins in both, although he's more disgusting in the BBC version! XP

Darcy and Georgiana: I like how they play across each other better in the new version; Georgiana I DEFINITELY like better in the new version cause her age is portrayed way better and she acts more like the little manipulative sister she is. ;) so cute. and Darcy....such a hard decision...I think again with the ages I like the new one better but Firth was GR8 too! (altho he NEVER smiled til the end!! :P)

Bingley and Caroline (and Louisa): Bingley was portrayed better in the old one but I also like how he acts so awkward and cute around Jane in the new one. ;) altho it kinda "gets to the point" :P lol Caroline is well portrayed as a snob in the new version so I'd probly have to say that one. ;)

Gardiners: hmmm the new ones. ;)

Wickham (GRR): Hmm thats probably the hardest yet...I think it's easier to dislike him in the old one cause they show more of him.

Lady Catherine and Anne: I've never really noticed Anne before...so idk. Lady Catherine was portrayed as the old busybody that she is well in the BBC version, but she has more snob and dignity(like she would have had) in the new one, AND theres just no topping Judi Dench!! XD

thanks Soph! this was fun. ;) <3


message 5: by LadyDisdain (new)

LadyDisdain ^ Nu uh. Firth DOES smile before the end. When Lizzie's turning the music pages for his sister and their eyes meet *_* Sizzle.

Haha. Yes, I have to say the 2005 version made everything more 'natural'. I JUST watched the BBC version and they all sit around like they're on a stage or something. They sit around doing absolutely nothing a lot of the time, and just say the lines that they're supposed to say. Don't get me wrong, every single one of them can act well but it just seems a bit flat when compared with the 2005 version. I dunno..did anybody else feel that way?

And if you look closely you can see that in the 1995 version, also, Mary's portrayed as having a preference for Mr. Collins ;)

I actually don't mind Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy - in fact, I quite like him. I think he does well with what he was given and I know this is scandalous but while Firth is spot on acting wise I prefer Macfadyen as Darcy.


message 6: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments LadyDisdain wrote: "^ Nu uh. Firth DOES smile before the end. When Lizzie's turning the music pages for his sister and their eyes meet *_* Sizzle.

Haha. Yes, I have to say the 2005 version made everything more 'natu..."


I agree about Darcy. ;)


message 7: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Thanks LadyDistain and Alice :)this really interests me for some reason... haha and glad it was fun Alice :)

Alice wrote - 'and Darcy....such a hard decision...I think again with the ages I like the new one better but Firth was GR8 too!'
I like MacFayden too :D but can't pick bewteen i watch one and think yup this is my fav, then watch the other and its the same story!!!

LadyDistain wrote - 'I actually don't mind Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy - in fact, I quite like him. I think he does well with what he was given and I know this is scandalous but while Firth is spot on acting wise I prefer Macfadyen as Darcy. '
Really glad to have some MacFayden supporters as i know there is a lot of Firth love out there - he did set the bar pretty high!! but as i said, can't choose between but i love them both and, unlike some opinions, i think MacFayden did a great job and adapted him well for the film which was a lot shorter :)


message 8: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments Soph wrote: "Thanks LadyDistain and Alice :)this really interests me for some reason... haha and glad it was fun Alice :)

Alice wrote - 'and Darcy....such a hard decision...I think again with the ages I like..."


exactly! In all, I think I like the new version better. ;)


message 9: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments one of the few people who would say that Alice! but i really like the newer version, partly because of the changes it makes which the propsals for eg, and i love MacFayden and the music is gorgoeus (and i play the piano and can therefore play the pieces my self) and i can and have visited the locations, and also it has to have a special place in my heart as it was my first ever Austen. Watched it when i was 10 :)


message 10: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments Soph wrote: "one of the few people who would say that Alice! but i really like the newer version, partly because of the changes it makes which the propsals for eg, and i love MacFayden and the music is gorgoeus..."

Ooh I took piano for a few months but it wasn't for me so I know a little, but I don't take it any more. that's so cool! we play the soundtrack around our house ALL the time! :D


message 11: by Mimi (new)

Mimi (juleseemimi) | 95 comments This one is easy! I like everything about the 1995 better. :) (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 2005 hater; it's OK. But to me, there's no comparison).


message 12: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 26, 2012 06:46PM) (new)

I definitely prefer the 1995 version,however, when i can't watch all 5.5 hours of it, I also enjoy the 2005 version.I love,love,love Colin Firth but think McFadyen makes a great second-rater. I do like Mary,Kittie, and Lydia better in the 2005 version.


message 13: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments Rachel wrote: "I definately prefer the 1995 version,however, when i can't watch all 5.5 hours of it, I also enjoy the 2005 version.I love,love,love Colin Firth but think McFadyen makes a great second-rater. I do ..."

definitely (about the girls)


message 14: by [deleted user] (new)

And Firth as Mr. Darcy does smile before the end-favorite scene!


message 15: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments Rachel wrote: "And Firth as Mr. Darcy does smile before the end-favorite scene!"

yea, when Lady Disdain mentioned that part, I remembered. Although he doesn't smile much. ;)


message 16: by Sophie (last edited Feb 27, 2012 09:55AM) (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Alice wrote - 'we play the soundtrack around our house ALL the time! :D '
I know! its sooo amazing!!!

Jamie wrote - 'This one is easy! I like everything about the 1995 better. :) (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 2005 hater; it's OK. But to me, there's no comparison). '
Short and sweet! to the point and no mixing and matching for you ;)

Rachel wrote - 'I definitely prefer the 1995 version,however, when i can't watch all 5.5 hours of it, I also enjoy the 2005 version.I love,love,love Colin Firth but think McFadyen makes a great second-rater. I do like Mary,Kittie, and Lydia better in the 2005 version. '
I agree with you as i love them both and its nice to have one to watch if you don't have 5 hours to spare ;) and i like the younger Bennet's too. And generally then Bennets seem more sisterly to me in the 2005 :)

And yes he does - but i'll agree that he doesn't smile loads! but it is AMAZING when he does - real swoon moment!!!


message 17: by J. (new)

J. Rubino (jrubino) | 209 comments One problem I have with both versions is the ages of the older characters. The usual course was for the first child to be born within the first year or 18 months of marriage, and we know that Mrs. Bennet was young - "young" being anywhere from late teens to 21, 22 or so. I think Mr. Bennet was also on the youngish side, since it's hard to believe that a man who is generally sensible would have been captivated by her youth and the appearance of good humor if he had some seasoning. He sounds a lot like Edward Ferrars falling for Lucy because he was young and deluded and she was pretty.
I think the Bennets are likely under 50 - she is probably in her mid-40s. As for Lady Catherine, since Anne is roughly the same age as Darcy, it's possible that she is 50 or more, but likely not much more.
In terms of the general portrayal of the Bennets, I thought the first film did a better job. Mr. Bennet was a gentleman, his daughters had nothing to do in the kitchen, and while Elizabeth may have some knowledge of the pigs getting into the garden, they certainly didn't wander through the house.


message 18: by SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst. (new)

SarahC (sarahcarmack) | 1473 comments Mod
Good points, J. It is likely that film makers today try to fit their movies to our mental framework. For example, 20th century couples steadily waited until later to marry so we can mentally relate to seeing an older parent, thus we didn't think it odd to see a gray-haired parent in the Austen films.

In 2005, I do think they carried Lady Catherine too far to the end of the age limit though for anyone's mental framework. She was into her seventies when the film was made. NOBODY loves Judi more than I do, I'll just say, but I even think they made her look older than she does. She is a beautiful woman, but they made her look over-the-top stiff.

I don't believe Georgiana Darcy would have much experience in kitchen matters, but I still think the level of the Bennet daughters might have been such that they helped with things like preserves from select things they may have overseen in their own garden, some amount of kitchen management, and other light household management. A "gentleman's" household would have had all sorts of personal preferences as well as necessary adjustments due to finances. It is a very broad class term.


message 19: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments J, I really agree about the ages of Lady Catherine and all the older characters.

'and while Elizabeth may have some knowledge of the pigs getting into the garden, they certainly didn't wander through the house.'
Haha i see what you mean ;)

SarahC wrote - 'It is likely that film makers today try to fit their movies to our mental framework. '
Yes this is true, and similar story with modernising them. They want to have them appeal to a larger audience so they modernise it sometimes - even if the true Austen fans don't agree with the changes!!
And a agree about Lady Catherine. she looked really old, and i almost forget that she can in theory be not that much older than Mrs Bennet ... but i love her :)

And interesting points - thanks Sarah, so which do you prefer? casting wise. 1995 or 2005?


message 20: by LadyDisdain (new)

LadyDisdain Hmm, I never really gave much thought to their ages in the BBC version. I guess because everyone's such a splendid actor. But you ladies are right, of course.

Casting wise, I don't really mind either. For me, as long as the acting is spot on I don't really mind who is playing the character. Although I do remember being very resentful of the fact that Knightley was going to be playing Lizzy but she does such a good job that I take it all back :)

There are definite differences in how the actors from both portray the characters though. For example the 2005 Mr. Collins is not as smarmy and not as seedy (shudder) as the BBC one. And he seems more human as well in his proposal. The way he gives her that flower. And he's playing with that flower the night before at the ball in a dejected manner as well. That was a heartbreaking shot for me, almost.

And Mr. Bennet seems more innocent and bewildered in the 2005 version as well. I agree, the whole family seems like a much closer unit than the BBC adaptation but that might have to do with what Sarah said about how filmmakers today try fitting the adaptation to our modern way of thinking. I think Joe Wright definitely did that. Especially evident in the way Charlotte berates Lizzy for judging her - whereas in the novel Charlotte doesn't actually come out and say it but you can read it between the lines.

The only problem I have with casting in the 2005 version is Mr. Bingley. He just seems too young and a little TOO naive. I like how in the BBC adaptaion they included the shot of Bingley questioning Darcy angrily for having hidden the fact Jane was in London. Gives him more of a spine I think.

And Matthew Macfadyen, what can I say. I just love the guy. His voice, so deep and rich. I wish he could've talked more. And the EYES. I love how he trips up everytime he says he loves her >.<

Did anyone else find it really irritating that they wore such atrocious clothing in the 2005 adaptation? Doesn't look historically accurate sometimes. Half the time Lizzy walks around in a huge trench coat like thing. And her hair was out a lot of the time too!! Gah!


message 21: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments LadyDisdain wrote: "Hmm, I never really gave much thought to their ages in the BBC version. I guess because everyone's such a splendid actor. But you ladies are right, of course.

Casting wise, I don't really mind ei..."


Yes! that was a bit weird, especially the hair; she never would have worn her hair down other than when sleeping. I'm very into the costumes, as in, EVERYTHING MUST MATCH AND LOOK ACCURATE! so yea it bugged me too.


message 22: by LadyDisdain (new)

LadyDisdain I know. And the whole off the shoulder nightie?! *sputters confusedly*


message 23: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments LadyDisdain wrote: "I know. And the whole off the shoulder nightie?! *sputters confusedly*"

EW! XP can't stand! *gag*


message 24: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments 'Casting wise, I don't really mind either. For me, as long as the acting is spot on I don't really mind who is playing the character. Although I do remember being very resentful of the fact that Knightley was going to be playing Lizzy but she does such a good job that I take it all back :) '
I agree - she did it well :)

'There are definite differences in how the actors from both portray the characters though. For example the 2005 Mr. Collins is not as smarmy and not as seedy (shudder) as the BBC one. And he seems more human as well in his proposal. The way he gives her that flower. And he's playing with that flower the night before at the ball in a dejected manner as well. That was a heartbreaking shot for me, almost.'
Actaully - he is less hateable in the 2005 version! his little flower - bless him!!!

'And Mr. Bennet seems more innocent and bewildered in the 2005 version as well. I agree, the whole family seems like a much closer unit than the BBC adaptation but that might have to do with what Sarah said about how filmmakers today try fitting the adaptation to our modern way of thinking. I think Joe Wright definitely did that. Especially evident in the way Charlotte berates Lizzy for judging her - whereas in the novel Charlotte doesn't actually come out and say it but you can read it between the lines. '
Yes that is a good point!!!

'The only problem I have with casting in the 2005 version is Mr. Bingley. He just seems too young and a little TOO naive. I like how in the BBC adaptaion they included the shot of Bingley questioning Darcy angrily for having hidden the fact Jane was in London. Gives him more of a spine I think. '
Bless him - yes they should have included that bit and i think he was too young for the very mature looking Jane :) but love him anyway ;)

'And Matthew Macfadyen, what can I say. I just love the guy. His voice, so deep and rich. I wish he could've talked more. And the EYES. I love how he trips up everytime he says he loves her >.< '
*swoon* his voice is ... ahh... amazing... and if he was Darcy in a longer version - even better!! <3 and his eyes are gorgeous! when he helps lizzie into the carriage and touchs her - skin on skin - and looks at her! ahh! >.< and love his stuttering when he says i love you! everytime!! <3 <3 <3 i know everyone says he didn't do as well as Firth but personally i think he did :)

'Did anyone else find it really irritating that they wore such atrocious clothing in the 2005 adaptation? Doesn't look historically accurate sometimes. Half the time Lizzy walks around in a huge trench coat like thing. And her hair was out a lot of the time too!! Gah!'
Yeah i know what you mean - but thats them making it to appeal to a wider audience for you!!

'I know. And the whole off the shoulder nightie?! *sputters confusedly* '
haha ;)


message 25: by J. (new)

J. Rubino (jrubino) | 209 comments I think that they were generally going for a turn-of-the-century look with the clothing in the 2005 version. In Sense and Sensibility, there is a line about Marianne's hair being all "tumbled down her back"; at the time Austen wrote S&S, women did wear their hair loose. However, within the first few years after 1800, ladies always wore their hair up or cropped short (a French fashion that imitated Napoleon). Mr. Gardiner, in the 2005 version, wears a powdered wig, which would have been pre-1800. Around 1805 hair powder was taxed - the government thought that since it was used so liberally, it would bring in revenue. What happened was men abandoned powdered wigs and hair powder and moved toward the shorter and more natural styles.


message 26: by CT (new)

CT (claudiasbooks) | 9 comments LadyDisdain wrote: "^ Nu uh. Firth DOES smile before the end. When Lizzie's turning the music pages for his sister and their eyes meet *_* Sizzle.

Haha. Yes, I have to say the 2005 version made everything more 'natu..."


I agree with everything you said!!! I thought I was the only one who felt that way about the two movies.


message 27: by CT (new)

CT (claudiasbooks) | 9 comments Soph wrote: "'Casting wise, I don't really mind either. For me, as long as the acting is spot on I don't really mind who is playing the character. Although I do remember being very resentful of the fact that Kn..."

I thought that the whole trench coat thing was ok, since technically the Bennets are country folk and thus more casual about what they put on? I don't know, I think I prefer the 2005 Elizabeth because she seems more independent and spunky than the 1995 version. :)


message 28: by Samantha McNulty (new)

Samantha McNulty Jamie wrote: "This one is easy! I like everything about the 1995 better. :) (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 2005 hater; it's OK. But to me, there's no comparison)."

Totally agree! I like certain aspects of the 2005 version, but I think it's rushed in comparison to the '95 version.

1995 + BBC + Firth/Ehle = Perfect P&P for me!


message 29: by SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst. (last edited Feb 29, 2012 01:20PM) (new)

SarahC (sarahcarmack) | 1473 comments Mod
Folks, I really cannot choose between the two. Superb actors in two good films. And if I go with comparisons of the two leads, it really cannot be decided. I adore Firth and MacFadyen. I probably wouldnt turn down watching anything either of them acted in. (Have you seen The King's Speech, by the way? Do if you haven't. And you wont be sorry for watching MacFayden in Little Dorrit either if you are a classic film fan.)

I am not as much a fan of either of the Elizabeth ladies but they are wonderful in that role.

I have actually commented here in the past on the beautiful wardrobe of 2002 version. It seems more historically accurate to me -- I just cant think women ran around in those gauzy white dresses and tiny shrugs predominant in the 1995 version. Those for parties probably but not everyday. They gave an impression of too much "purity" for my tastes. And English houses did not have central heat I don't believe, so a top coat (pelisse?) would have been pretty handy in those days. Chilly walks on damp days-- country life, as Claudia said.

And I consider who Elizabeth Bennet was. She was not a prissy high-fashion kind of girl, was she? Her thoughts were even beyond the norm, or we would not have had this lovely story at all. Different things mattered to her. She turned down proposals which a different type of girl would have accepted. So we aren't just talking about historical accuracy really.


message 30: by LadyDisdain (new)

LadyDisdain ^ That is true - Lizzy was different. But there has to be some influential factors from the time you were born in, I think.

Although I do agree with you about them running around the countryside in their gauzy dresses. They look a little too flimsy, but the coat that Keira Knightley's wearing seems more masculine to me. It looked as if she had borrowed her father's or something.

I plan on watching Little Dorrit - simply because Macfadyen's in it ;) Ok, that isn't the only reason. It's mostly the reason, but the book is the rest as I'm waiting to read it before I watch the adaptation itself. I can't wait!
P.S. have you seen "The Way We Live Now"? It's got Macfadyen in it and the screenplay was written by Andrew Davies, the same guy who did the BBC P&P. So there's double incentive for me to watch that as well.


message 31: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Thanks for that J. :)

Claudi wrote - 'I agree with everything you said!!! I thought I was the only one who felt that way about the two movies. '
I love the film as much as series - your not on your own :)

'I thought that the whole trench coat thing was ok, since technically the Bennets are country folk and thus more casual about what they put on? I don't know, I think I prefer the 2005 Elizabeth because she seems more independent and spunky than the 1995 version. :)'
I see your point - ahh i can't decide - i like them both!!

Sam wrote - 'Totally agree! I like certain aspects of the 2005 version, but I think it's rushed in comparison to the '95 version.
1995 + BBC + Firth/Ehle = Perfect P&P for me! '
Yeah well thats probably due to the limited time... and love the second comment ;)

SarahC wrote - 'Folks, I really cannot choose between the two. Superb actors in two good films. And if I go with comparisons of the two leads, it really cannot be decided. I adore Firth and MacFadyen. I probably wouldnt turn down watching anything either of them acted in. (Have you seen The King's Speech, by the way? Do if you haven't. And you wont be sorry for watching MacFayden in Little Dorrit either if you are a classic film fan.)'
Yes same! that is why i posted this thread :D and i LOVE the kings speech and i LOVE little Dorrit too! recommend both!!!!

LadyDistain - some info on that film please - MaFayden = i wanna watch!! ??? :)


message 32: by SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst. (new)

SarahC (sarahcarmack) | 1473 comments Mod
Yes, I also forgot to thank J also -- her comments were interesting -- the details we don't begin to realize -- like the hair powder!

I did not yet see The Way We Live Now. We did a group discussion in Victorians, here on GR, and I intended to watch then, but got sidetracked. The original novel is one of Trollope's more intense stories I think and it was hard for me to get through. The character Matthew plays is certainly not heroic in this story, so it should be an interesting comparison. His Arthur Clennam in Lit. Dorrit is sublime I think.

And I enjoy more reading the lit first before the movie in most cases too. I seem to be able to form my own thoughts of it better that way. Of course, sometimes a film can lead me to a book or author that I didn't know about.


message 33: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Matthew is wonderful as Arthur .
In fact , Matthew is wonderful full stop!! ;)


message 34: by Lorraine (new)

Lorraine (saanichlori) | 48 comments Hear, hear - I couldn't agree more. Loved him in everything I've seen (MI-5, Death at the Funeral, Little Dorrit). I really enjoyed his Darcy, but would have to rate Firth as #1.


message 35: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Death at a funeral good?
And it's hard!! I cant pick!!! So I have decided I won't :)


message 36: by Lorraine (new)

Lorraine (saanichlori) | 48 comments Death at the Funeral (British version) is a very funny movie, with one rather squeamish scene about getting the old man to the toilet on time. Haven't seen the American version but have read bad reviews of it.


message 37: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Haha!! Have you seen the one mentioned a little while back, The Way We Are Now ??


message 38: by SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst. (new)

SarahC (sarahcarmack) | 1473 comments Mod
I felt like adding a little tribute photo to Matthew MacM. Check the group profile pic :)


message 39: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments LadyDisdain wrote: "^ That is true - Lizzy was different. But there has to be some influential factors from the time you were born in, I think.

Although I do agree with you about them running around the countryside ..."


Ooh Little Dorrit was good; VERY long and rather depressing (like the whole thing til the end) and there were a few graphic parts, but it was a good watch! :D


message 40: by Mimi (new)

Mimi (juleseemimi) | 95 comments This group seems to have this discussion topic pop up again and again. And we always seem to have people on both sides. While I prefer the 1995 as infinitely superior, I do like the 2005.

There is only one casting that I think none got quite right (the 2005 is really off - granted they don't give her much dialogue to work with). Kitty Bennet.

Think of the references to her in the novel:
1. She is sickly (they never get this right)
Kitty coughs...

Kitty got sick in the carriage on the way to pick up Jane, Lizzy, and Maria.

"Kitty is slight and delicate;"

2. Vain and easily influenced - but could be good(seen more in the 1995 version):

Only care about dancing at the assembly...

Their minds are more vacant...

can barely endure waiting for the dance...

Is lead by the more headstrong Lydia, lets Lydia do most of the talking.

"... In this danger Kitty also is comprehended. She
will follow wherever Lydia leads. Vain, ignorant, idle, and absolutely uncontrolled!

"Kitty might in time regain her natural degree of sense, since the disturbers of her brain were
removed,"

"Kitty, to her very material advantage, spent the chief of her time with her two elder
sisters. In society so superior to what she had generally known, her improvement was great.
She was not of so ungovernable a temper as Lydia; and, removed from the influence of
Lydia's example, she became, by proper attention and management, less irritable, less
ignorant, and less insipid."


message 41: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments Soph wrote: "Matthew is wonderful as Arthur .
In fact , Matthew is wonderful full stop!! ;)"


did you like Little Dorrit, Soph? :)


message 42: by SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst. (new)

SarahC (sarahcarmack) | 1473 comments Mod
Yes, Little Dorrit was long -- it was a Masterpiece miniseries and the Dickens novel is one of his longer works.


message 43: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments SarahC wrote: "Yes, Little Dorrit was long -- it was a Masterpiece miniseries and the Dickens novel is one of his longer works."

Amy's older sister drove me NUTS!


message 44: by Lorraine (new)

Lorraine (saanichlori) | 48 comments Soph wrote: "Haha!! Have you seen the one mentioned a little while back, The Way We Are Now ??"

Yes, I've seen that too - he makes a good bad-guy too!

Love the new group profile picture!


message 45: by Caity (new)

Caity | 144 comments YES, the new pic looks GR8!


message 46: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments 'I felt like adding a little tribute photo to Matthew MacM. Check the group profile pic :) '
Thanks - better than Bingley :)

Thank you Jamie for your thoughts :)

and I LOVED it Alice - though some bits were a bit depressing and was long - but totally worth it!!!
and Matthew a bonus!

Lorraine - 'he makes a good bad-guy too!'
WOAH!! bad guy - no no no no!! :o


message 47: by Charlotte (new)

Charlotte (charlotte_sometimes) IMO, the 1995 version is superior in every way. It will always be Colin, Colin, sweet Colin for me. ;)

Whenever I see Keira Knightley, I just want to force-feed her an entire box of Twinkies and tell her to stop doing that weird thing with her teeth.

I like Donald Sutherland, but I found his Mr. B. too soft-spoken and subdued.


message 48: by Sabrina (new)

Sabrina Amanda wrote: "IMO, the 1995 version is superior in every way. It will always be Colin, Colin, sweet Colin for me. ;)

Whenever I see Keira Knightley, I just want to force-feed her an entire box of Twinkies and t..."


lol - I'm actually a fan of Keira Knightley's but didn't like her in this film. . her bangs drove me crazy. She did mention once in an interview that she was asked to "fix" her jutting chin problem :-). . I'm sure it worked as a model, but not as an actress. She does it in every movie gggrrrr.


message 49: by Sophie (new)

Sophie | 1458 comments Haha - I love how people seem to be really for one or the other - mainly bbc ;)
I love both but agree me Bennet wasn't quite right and Knightly can be annoying!!!


message 50: by SarahC, Austen Votary & Mods' Asst. (new)

SarahC (sarahcarmack) | 1473 comments Mod
Remember we are discussing the characters, the actor's work, the written work, the themes, etc. within the world of Austen. With absolute due respect to you members, we'll need to avoid discussing physical attributes of actual people, who may not able to do anything about their physical appearance, and in my view, shouldn't have to worry about it. We are too heavy into appearance in our society anyway.


« previous 1
back to top