Praise and censure
Plenty of press in the wake of the premiere of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.
The Daily Mail has two reviews: Christopher Tookey raves about the film and says that Keira Knightley deserves an Oscar (psst, Chris: It’s Darcy, not D’Arcy…and we saw THE JACKET and um, well, better shut up now) and Katie Hampson thinks the film does not compare to previous versions.
Natasha Walter muses in the Guardian about Gritty RealismTM and whether it works for Austen adaptations.
Empire Online dishes the premiere bash, and Matthew Macfadyen says lovely things about that other fellow who played Darcy (and we ain’t talking Olivier):
“The curse of Mr Darcy?! I don’t know. Good for him, I mean, this will sound overly serious, but he’s one of the reasons I became an actor – I saw Tumbledown, the thing he did about the Falklands, so to be in such good company playing the role is great.”
Paul from KeiraWeb.com files his report of the premiere and his review of the film (a very enthusiastic thumbs up…and Paul, yes, P&P is very funny, as are all of Jane Austen’s books, although the Bennets aren’t really poor.)
September 8th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Is it a curse to play a character so loved by the world? Will MM hate being loved by the audiences? I dare say,he won’t.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:30 am
Judi Dench had a crush on Donald Sutherland ? My, my! Wish I was there
September 8th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Liz/ That bit of news was really funny. I can’t picture her hiding behind a bush without giggling to myself like an idiot.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:07 am
Grr, it bugs me that K Hampson is so convinced that Lizzy wasn’t supposed to be pretty. Her figure was “light and pleasing”, she was reputed to be a “famous local beauty” and Darcy himself was captivated by her eyes…
I also have a feeling - maybe I am prejudiced - that no one could even begin to stack up to C. Firth in her eyes. I am not even sure she tried to be open minded. Doesn’t she also describe Austen’s Lizzy as petulant! As if..
It seems to me that one reviewer has all the understanding, the other all the appearance of it!
September 8th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Tumbledown was really an amazing film and Colin did an fabulous job, really. The scene where he got the bullet in the head was quite shocking. He was shouting with a big grin on his face, ‘aren’t we having fun?’ or something like that…then bam! Wow. It was a mind-blowing moment and I can’t forget it. Matthew seems to be very considerate in choosing his words, to pick Tumbledown of all Colin’s works. Colin would be proud of his heir apparent.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:17 am
Cathy/ Yeah, I got the same impression from Katie Hampson’s review. She actually compliments Matthew’s acting in many ways - unforgettable, strangely affecting, emotionally effective etc. - and then find faults simply because he’s not Colin Firth, because he’s *different* from Colin Firth. From the last line, she seems to be already resolved to resist the charm of new Darcy no matter who he is. Oh well.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Anyway the point is we all love JA’s Darcy, not particularly the actors that try and portray him. There is enough merit in all the Darcy’s to make one good Darcy?
September 8th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Oh, give Katie Hampson a break. At least she is honest. Everybody feel what they feel, you can’t force anybody to have a RIGHT feeling. I wish all the reviewers reveal their own preferences and agenda first, so at least you can have a better perspective on their opinions. And no review is objective and nobody’s opinion is more right because he/she is non Firth fan or Keira fan or MM fan or nobody’s fan.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
“There is enough merit in all the Darcy’s to make one good Darcy?”
Well said Vee!
September 8th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
That was an interesting comment Rosamund Pike made about Keira (in the Empire Online article)–sounds like she was initially as skeptical of the casting as many of us were.
It was interesting to read articles from so many different viewpoints. I love this blog.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Well reviews are out about P&P3 and people are divided as they can be.
Of course we knew they would be.
Most people think Keira Knightley is too pretty to be Elizabeth Bennet but Rosamund Pike is has just the right ammount of beauty to be Jane Bennet. I say, like Jane Austen, that their beauty is not to be compared, they both have their faults, their own style of beauty, and their own personalities. They both poses inner beauty which for Jane shines out more readily than Elizabeth’s who takes a little bit longer to get to know. It is also Lizzie’s beauty that makes what Mr. Darcy says about her ‘being tollerable but not handsome enough to tempt me!’ quite ridiculous. She IS his kind of woman inside and out!
The other objection raised is that Mr. Darcy is not handsome enough, too brooding and unaproachable. Not enough like Colin Firth. I’m sick of it! Colin Firth’s preformance in the A&E mini series was good but like anyone’s protrayal of a fictional character not perfect. No actor can potray Mr. Darcy as Jane Austen thought of him. No actor needs to duplicate another’s premormance. Mr. Darcy isn’t supposed to be so completely sexy as we think. Macfayden has all the looks Jane called for, and who cares about the wet shirt scene anyway(roles eyes)!
I was worried about Donald Sutherland’s preformance and am glad to hear he pulled it off. Did anyone notice that from the clips it looks as if he is more into plants than books? Kinda weird! Kinda cool! Sutherland seems like more of a plant guy anyway.
So I am prepared to rave about this new version of P&P and recomend it to all my friends Austen-fan or not! Can’t wait for the US release!!!!!!
September 8th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
KK for Best Actress? I think not! And as for her being too pretty I disagree - not pretty enough!
I also disagree with the idea that MM’s Darcy is brooding and unapproachable - I thought he showed his vulnerabilities more than CF’s Darcy and was less ’stuck-up’ (although I do still prefer CF’s Darcy!).
And you should be worried about Donald Sutherland’s performance - he does not pull it off one bit. The accent, Louisa!
September 8th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
Susannah Harker: plain? The writer is surely blind!
September 8th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Although I almost heartily agree with Ms. Hampson’s views (I share her prejudices re: P&P3) and she seems to have read the book and seen the other adaptations, she doesn’t seem to have seen the allegedly portrait of Mrs. Bingley (JA wrote she saw the portrait in an exhibition and some believe they have traced which one was). Susannah Harker resembles very strikingly to that portrait, so for me she is Jane Bennet.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Positive and rave reviews get me excited while ‘negative’ — oh, I mean opposing — reviews keep me in check. Like Amy P said, it’s interesting to read the diferent viewpoints. I’m all for it.
That said, I’ll be in line to watch the movie when it comes here. And as I’ve already ‘made up my mind’ that it’s another adaptation of P+P with different approach, I don’t feel that after 22 times of watching P+P2 is gonna ‘influence’ me, anyway
September 9th, 2005 at 2:56 am
Liz/ Only 22 times??? How shocking!
Don’t even ask me how many times I’ve seen it. I literally lost track long, long time ago. Now it’s my “cleaning” DVD. While I’m cleaning the house or ironing, I just automatically put the DVD and let it play, like a background music to a film. LOL. Alright. I’m not sane, right?
However, as much as I love P&P2, I sincerely wish P&P3 lives up to its glorious predecessor and has this wonderful feeling that it actually might pull it off. You know, I miss the day when I first saw P&P2. It was so fresh and amazing. I’d like to plunge in the story one more time, feel the incredibly romantic vibe all over again.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:40 am
Hooohooo — sorry to disappoint you
Actually, the breakdown is 19 times before marriage + kids (in the course of one year!) and only 3 times after — let’s see, it’s been 7 years of marriage bliss 
so on average only once every two years since then 
To tell you the truth, it’s more to Disney stuffs at home these days *sigh*
And to make things worse my VHS (I haven’t been able to find a copy of DVD here *sniffs*) just got ruined about 2 weeks ago *sob!sob!sob!* I think it’s a ‘hint’ to order that 10th anniversary DVD (with that fab pic of Lizzy+Darcy) from Amazon. Now if only I could get that bro of mine to help with his credit card …
September 9th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Susannah Harker resembles very strikingly to that portrait, so for me she is Jane Bennet.
I’ve always liked the late Ashton Dennis’ theory about the casting of P&P2:
http://www.ashton-dennis.org/dancer.html
Scroll down to the pics of Jane and Jennifer and Cassandra and Susannah. The fact that they copied Jane and Cassandra’s cross pendants for the costuming reinforces his theory, in my mind.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean for this to turn into the “Jane Bennet: Pretty or Not?” thread, but I did want to make a quick point.
As you well know, what was thought of as beautiful in the time of Austen is much more different than what is “thought” of as beauty today.
A search on the web last night revealed these (sorry, I forget the website where I “lifted” these portraits) as the paintings Jane viewed that day in Spring Garden.
http://www.elegantextracts.com/mrsbingley1.htm
Oh and Mags, please note: No tables!
September 9th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Oh and Mags, please note: No tables!
Teresa, I’m so proud of you. *sniff*
And she does look like a plumper, darker-haired Susannah Harker.
I’ve always loved the idea of Jane Austen walking around that exhibition looking for portraits of her heroines. I do that in art museums…the Philadelphia Museum of Art has Henry Tilney, his Newfoundland (but that’s on loan), his mum, a miniature of Captain Wentworth, Georgiana Darcy, Willoughby, and other JA characters.
September 9th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I guess Ms. Hampson goes in for that “obvious, willowly, modernistic, rail-thin, waifish sort of beauty. There’s nothing wrong with it, but for casting a period piece, I’ll side with the P&P2 crew every time.
This reminds me of when I go back and view period dramas made in the 40s and 50s (I won’t even mention those made in the 60s: her hair, Louisa!) and look at the make-up, hair, and costumes. You’ll see a definite sort of “in the present” sort of influence.
It always irritated me when actresses in the 50’s had that hard edge eyeliner on when they were supposed to be playing some civil war belle. I know they didn’t know any better in those days, but it always bothers me.
That also goes for films made rather recently that take place in the past. Watch any old Betty Grable or Fred and Ginger film and then go and watch something newer like Pearl Harbor to see what I mean. Women in those 1940s films were so so much more zaftig than today.
September 19th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
I saw the original series with Colin Firth and enjoyed it very much. But I must say that Martin MacFayden’s Darcy is far more as I imagine Darcy from the book. Slender, pale and with sharp, aristocratic features; Martin is haughty but with a hint of hidden passion and a subtle edge of vulnerability. His Darcy starts off seeming rather bored and distant at first, then he begins to look at Lizzie like a panther sizing up its prey, then by turns his eyes become fearful or confused, the mouth quivers and his whole body language takes on a kind of haunted or worried look. At times his face had an almost ethereal beauty in its vulnerability, which is something you can only imagine in your mind’s eye when reading the book, but which an actor like Martin can give you in a split second that leaves its honeyed afterburn in your mind forever. What a great film! I love, and love, and love it!!!
By the way Kiera, you were pretty good too and Judy Dench was terrifyingly good… Sara.