First Impressions of the new Pride and Prejudice
Sarah Sands of the Telegraph saw a screening of P&P3, and offered her opinions on Knightley as Elizabeth, Macfadyen as Darcy, and the virtuous rich.
She describes Knightley’s Elizabeth as modern, and Macfadyen’s Darcy as true to the period.
Working Title is proud of its contemporary Elizabeth Bennet in Keira Knightley. No bodices and bonnets here. You would not be surprised to see Lizzy rolling a cigarette on the kitchen table. By contrast, Matthew Macfadyen is resolutely period, with a deep voice and breeches.
No comment.
And as for the virtuous rich?
You will see a lot of the virtuous rich over the next month with the Make Poverty History campaign. Working Title is full of the virtuous rich and Freud Associates are the VR of public relations. Price and Prejudice may turn out to be the VR film of the year. Darcy’s time has come.
She also threw in the answer to a question I had after viewing the trailer:
The scriptwriters say they have been faithful to Jane Austen; and the author’s witty realism survives all but the last scene, in which Macfadyen, dressed as Adam Ant with his Minotaur physique filling the screen, kisses his new wife by flaming torchlight on the steps to the house. Part of Working Title’s commercial genius is packaging Englishness for Americans. But the English audience I was part of rebelled at this.
Ah, so that shot of Darcy and Elizabeth in front of Pemberley is after the wedding. I don’t claim to be a purist, and love the thought of seeing Darcy welcome Elizabeth back to Pemberley, this time as his wife. Of course I am also an American, so that must explain it as well, as it does so many other things.
(Dorothy, quickly woman! The vinaigrette!)
June 5th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Knightley, a slouchy laddette who appears to be wearing Doc Martens beneath her empire dresses
YES! That’s the best description I’ve seen so far, and why I am so annoyed with the costuming for this film.
I could wish for a little Merchant Ivory. Poor Ismail, the man’s not cold in his grave and his cinematic legacy is being trod upon by laddettes in Doc Martens.
In this film, one falls in love with him at the same pace as Elizabeth does. That is to say in leaps and bounds, particularly once she has clocked that Darcy lives at Pemberley.
Argh. ARGH. Another pet peeve of mine. LIZZY IS NOT A GOLDDIGGER!!!! If she was, she would have accepted Collins. QED.
She tells her father, played by Donald Sutherland, how Darcy won her heart: it was the discovery that he had bailed out her sister. This is not a matter merely of kindness. It is about having the means to be kind.
Okay, that’s better. The thing about Darcy wasn’t that he was rich, it was that he used his money wisely, husbanded his land, and took care of those dependent upon him. In Jane Austen’s time, that was the way society worked. She was always severe upon estate owners who did not perform their duty in this respect–Sir Walter Elliot, for instance.
I will say that I’m very interested in the concepts that I’ve read (and posted here about) that Lee Hall and Joe Wright seem to have zeroed in on: that Darcy is very young for the responsibilities he has shouldered. Matthew seems to have bought into it, with his comments about Darcy mourning his father. I’m sure Darcy was raised with the idea that eventually he would assume the responsibility for the Pemberley estate, but still, it must have been an adjustment–and it’s only been five years since he became master when the story opens.
Sorry to ramble on, but this is a subject that interests me, as anyone who reads my stories would know.
The class thing in Austen is definitely tetchier with the Brits than the Yanks. I wonder why that is?
June 6th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
The thing about Darcy wasn’t that he was rich, it was that he used his money wisely, husbanded his land, and took care of those dependent upon him. In Jane Austen’s time, that was the way society worked.
Yes - and in this article from the Daily Telegraph, Sarah Sands’ point appears to be that the sense of noblesse oblige seems to be newly risen from the ashes with the Labour Government. (In contrast with the nouveau riche brashness of the Thatcher years.) Perversely, she seems to be attacking Labour because, as the new orthodoxy, it is supported by the Virtuous Rich. She doesn’t quite go so far as to say that if Darcy were alive today, he’d be a Pillar of the Labour Party - but that seems to be where she’s heading.
The class thing in Austen is definitely tetchier with the Brits than the Yanks. I wonder why that is?
As an Englishman, I’ll have a stab at this one.
Some people (the British tendency) may look at issues of class in Jane Austen in terms of the extent to which social and economic developments over the last two hundred years have changed things, and the extent to which class phenomena persist over centuries. The British, whether conservative or progressive, left or right, view the world through a Marxist lens; that is, they believe in the implacable forces of history, are aware of the power of economic and social change, and know that people can usually only achieve anything by suppressing individualism and banding together to force change in the political and social arenas.
Others (many Americans fall into this category) assume their society has few historical holdovers, has a high degree of social mobility, and very little in the way of a class structure. So when they read Pride & Prejudice, they are much less likely to relate it to their society (now or historically) than English readers.
Additionally, Britain has a polemical, no-holds-barred, free press. Every newspaper has an ax to grind, and delights in doing so in the gardening section, the book reviews, and the arts pages, not just the op-ed page. The British (it seems to me) are just much more political than the Americans, who are encouraged by their political masters to emulate Dr. Pangloss… but no, I shouldn’t go there.
June 6th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought. We Yanks perceive our society as democratic and classless, because we’re brought up to believe it–or at least if we are a society of haves and have-nots, that any have-not has a shot at being a have. The Brits seem, as a society, a little embarrassed about their feudal past, while we Yanks are fascinated by it.
I’m perfectly comfortable with setting aside the parts of history I don’t necessarily agree with in order to understand Austen, but I’m not a Brit. It’s always hard to read literature through uncomfortable history; witness our problems with Twain, etc.
June 7th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
“There is nothing graceful about Macfadyen, but neither does his misshapen form have the magnetism of a Gérard Depardieu. I do not know why he is so handsome, but he is entrancingly so.”
Having watched “Enigma” and “The Way We Live Now”, Macfadyen’s acting ability renders him extremely attractive to me. The writer’s pleasant surprise in finding herself beguiled by Macfadyen’s portrayal of Darcy may be a frequent event. Any actor playing Darcy becomes handsome because the character makes him so. A perfect costume for anyone that has the moxie to put it on! What is the opinion of others? I’m afraid my anticipation of Macfadyen’s portrayal has clouded my judgement.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
No, I don’t find all Darcys attractive. David Rintoul looks so weird to me, not handsome at all. And Macfadyen, tolarable, I guess, because I haven’t been entranced by him yet even after numerous Darcy pictures and trailer, all those flaws are still very distracting.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Matthew Macfadyen achieves a perfect balance of unease and latent passion. The new trailer provides a better introduction to the character of Darcy. It is not limited to sullen looks and silent glances. There is more substance to it…and Macfadyen carries it of perfectly.
July 13th, 2005 at 8:35 am
THIS BOOK IS HARD TO READ
July 13th, 2005 at 8:36 am
could someone remove my comments cheers