Dude, where’s my hairbrush? A reader review of P&P3
We received the following review from a Dear Friend of AustenBlog, Kathleen, who is a Ph.D. candidate in history and a Regency re-enactor with a particular interest in period costume and musical instruments (and also one of the funniest and most fun people we know; she once attended a party at AustenBlog World Headquarters in full Regency regalia, tripping up the sidewalk on a Sunday afternoon as the neighbourhood guttersnipes stared slackjawed. It was quite a sight). We alerted her to the possibility of free passes to the film, and she sent the following review with permission to post it on AustenBlog. It contains spoilers, so read at your own risk.
In my most professional way, I tried to approach this piece objectively, seeing if it worked as both
a) An adaptation of an Jane Austen novel
b) A period film
And dearie me, if it doesn’t flunk on both counts.
The You-Are-Too-Thick-To-Understand-So-Bennets-Must-Be-Guttersnipes tack did not work. Even if they WERE penniless, surely one hairbrush among all of the girls would not be an extravagance. Perhaps Bonaparte’s Continental Blockage was working in ways unknown to historians, which may explain why Georgiana Darcy and almost every other female character regardless of wealth couldn’t find one either. Sad, sad, sad.
Mary Bennet was the only one who seemed to have found a comb so I warmed to her at once. She seemed as nice as pie: quiet, well presentable and able to do the magical task of making a beautiful square piano (which I would have given my right arm for) sound like a modern Steinway Grand (meow!). Darcy should have gone for her, I assure you.
And I’m not exaggerating the hair, we are not talking about a few artful little loose curls, instead everyone has messed on purpose hair (and I lead an active life, hiking around but I assure you that MY hair never gets to such a state, I would get toasted if I went to one of my Regency gigs like that). Lizzy is by far the worst offender, hardly anyone wears hats but when they do, Lizzy doesn’t get one, no doubt this is so that her face is not framed by a bonnet (obviously the director thought hats were a turn-off). She also goes around a lot in long loose hair. Yes, not even gathered in a bun. She appears in long loose hair at Netherfield, making Miss Bingley’s comment of “Her hair!” even more apt. I would feel quite ill myself (and Miss Bingley is to be pitied, she gets put in a dress with thin modern bra straps for the ball and I see they did Incorrect Dogs for the Period for Miss Bingley as well). And Lizzy’s slouch! She could slouch for her country. You will have seen the unperiod annoying bangs in the trailer and advertisements. Although to be fair, most of the cast was big into slouching, and seemed uncomfortable in period manners, with no posture to speak of. So ill at ease. And I don’t mean to compare with the 1995 miniseries, but one of the things that I liked of the miniseries was the right manners and posture (this Lizzy wears no gloves at the ball, groan). And subtlety! This new version is as subtle as a ton of bricks landing on your head.
Everyone over 35 was put in 1780s garb (pour quoi?), and almost all the younger women, apart from Miss Bingley were given low waisted frocks. Especially galling were the materials (rough, heavy), colours (dark green, brown), necklines (round not square), waists, I could go on but why, were all wrong. And I don’t mean that there was a director’s vision of a period (for example Mira Nair’s very colourful exotic fabrics gowns for the latest “Vanity Fair”), it was just
You-Are-Thick-This-Is-A-Real-Drama-So-Wrong-Is-Right-We-Don’t-Want-To-Be-BBC-Drama.
“Earthy”, a few sycophantic reviews have called the production. I couldn’t agree more if by they meant that it could be buried in the ground. You may have caught on that I was not overly thrilled. Yup with bells on!
I repeat how incomprenhensible the costumes were. They had two choices when setting it, they could have either set it in 1796 (when Jane started writing “First Impressions”) or put it around the date of publication (1813). But if this was the case, then they should made up their minds, not have Miss Bingley wear 1810, Lady Catherine wear 1780 and the Bennets wearing Not-Anything-Even-Remotely period. And regarding the loose hair, while it is true that young girls of the 1790s (and I quite frankly doubt they were pushing this period, but giving the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt) may have sometimes worn their hair long (as Marianne is mentioned doing in “Sense and Sensibility”), it would have been set as long curls, put in papers the night before and carefuly brushed and arranged (and takes just as long, I assure you, as putting your hair up). Not long straight (which was so unfashionable) I-Just-Walked-Through-A-Bush long hair. The later would only have been vaguely acceptable at home, NOT when paying a visit to Netherfield and seeing people you are not overly acquainted with.
Let me not go on to the costumes of the men.
Keira Gawdawful Knightley seems to think that looking winsome, giggly, superficial (argggg) and showing a lot of teeth (in a period with poor dental health for all) will do the trick and convince for us to root for Lizzy. Oh, no, she instead makes me do what I thought was impossible: feel sorry for Mister Collins and relieved that he got Charlotte instead of Lizzy because she doesn’t deserve him. After all, this is the slouching creature (the screenplay took out almost all of Lizzy’s wit, I found her annoying) who runs around in the rain and meets Mr Darcy alone in the dark in the Collins house or alone in a pseudo-Grecian temple. Are you bashing your head along with me? Don’t worry, you will.
Trying to be positive, the Mrs Bennett was quite successful and so was Jane (although I’m sure Mr Bingley would not have gone to London if she had found her hairbrush). Although there was another problem. For unfathomable reasons (comic relief perhaps?) Bingley was made out to be a complete idiot (and the sort of gentleman who walks into Jane’s bedroom at Netherfield while she is in bed in a nightgown for a chat…) Mr. Darcy’s judgement must be seriously brought into question if he considered Bingley as a close friend.
I wasn’t overly impressed with Judi Dench’s gruff Lady Catherine, although to be fair, she did have almost no screen time. And Colonel Fitzwilliam, who I have always nutured a fondness for (more my type that Darcy at any rate), becomes a bumbling heffalump. And shy Georgiana runs to hug Lizzy on first seeing her. A problem with the entire movie, the pacing! There was Lizzy walking into the house from Kent and within five minutes walking out the door to Derbyshire (with the blink and you’ll miss them Gardiners). Chatsworth played Pemberley, and like the large place that was Longbourn, emphasized that messed up Pseudo-Realism (surely they could sell some of the purposefully wandering around the courtyard pigs to buy a hairbrush). And the visit to Pemberley, while all very pretty, just seemed to give the impression that Lizzy only goes soft on Darcy after seeing all his dosh, as the housekeeper does not speak of his kindness as a employer and how well he manages the estate.
And as for Darcy himself. Well, actually he was fine at the start, just nice and reserved but again, the director being of the school of Don’t-Make-It-Subtle turned him into this raving Heathcliffian creature who forget HIS hairbrush as well and runs and rides around looking desperate. I almost expected him to start yelling “Lizzy!” from the top of the moors. I’m all for gratuitous frilly shirtage but it must be in the right context, you know, if he was privately writing in his room or with some chums in the wee hours playing cards, not visiting the Bennets for crying out loud. Oh, and because subtlety, like the fabrics, gone to the ground, his affection for Lizzy could only be shown if he is hatless and unbuttoned, gasping while she is heaving the little bosom that she can. Oh, and did I mention the heavy in your face musical chords whenever Darcy and Lizzy look at each other? And the screenplay was a total mess; you could recognize the Taken From Jane bits ‘cause they were the only bits that didn’t make you smash your head against the seat in front of you. I am a complete period movie buff, and usually will watch anything with garb in it. This is the first time I looked at my watch and wished it were over.
September 12th, 2005 at 2:29 am
OH, this is the most fun review I’ve ever read about this film. Thank you so much. Kudos to the writer.
I laughed out loud where mr. Darcy loses his own hairbrush. ROFL! Silly fangirl as I am, that bit always bothered me that he goes to ask Mr. Bennet for his daughter’s hand IN THAT DISHEVELLED OUTFIT! No way. I would love to see him go back and get dressed up and then come back to Longbourn.
I perfectly understand her points and I guess “You-Are-Thick-This-Is-A-Real-Drama-So-Wrong-Is-Right-We-Don’t-Want-To-Be-BBC-Drama” is actually what they were going for. I always wondered how this big big anxiety of influence will turn out. Can’t wait to see it myself. Thanks for this really funny, witty, and to-the-point review.
September 12th, 2005 at 3:06 am
great review!! i’m sure my opinion will be somewhat like yours.
“And the screenplay was a total mess; you could recognize the Taken From Jane bits ‘cause they were the only bits that didn’t make you smash your head against the seat in front of you.”
I suspected it to be so from the clips that are around.
oh well… I think I’ll try and entertain myself with writing an edgy review like that. ;o)
September 12th, 2005 at 5:02 am
Oooohhh - had so much fun reading this review! And - ermm - I didn’t bash my head
Thanks for planting my feet back on the ground 
September 12th, 2005 at 5:42 am
Fabulous review! I have a feeling I’ll be banging my head on the seat in front of me when I go see this.
Lizzy looking ‘winsome, giggly, superficial’?? Ayyyy…
September 12th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Ha-ha-ha, “gratuitous frilly shirtage.” What a great expression! Must borrow it at will. Thank you. But seriously, I think I will go to see it just as excited as I was. A little more Darcy can never be bad, even if he’s odd like Heathclliff… :-)))))
September 12th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Thanks for the great review. I have to admit the first thing that came to mind is the “Veggie Tales” song - Oh….Where is my hairbrush”!
I just hope this movie doesn’t deter the new generation of Jane Austen fans.
September 12th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
This review was hysterical! I was laughing and laughing! I too think I’ll feel this way, you’ve summed up so many of my fears just from looking at the previews - the Colonel as “a bumbling heffalump!” My, my, won’t that bother many Colonel lovers! Thank you, this reinforces my decision to see the movie for only one good reason - a good laugh!
September 12th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
That was brilliantly hilarious! I didn’t think there was anyone more nitpicky than myself, but you’ve proved me wrong. (Love the constant hairbrush allusions, btw.) I can’t wait to see everything you’ve pointed out.
Oh, and about the costumes - I think in the production notes it said something about the older women wearing older fashions because that’s what was in their closets. Of course, if the Bennets can’t even afford a hairbrush, I understand the not buying new dresses for Mrs. B. Lady Catherine, however, should be rich and pompous enough to buy a new dress every week!
September 12th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Oh you are spot on! Bravo!
You noted several things that I’d forgotten about (Darcy visiting Lizzy at Rosings in the dark for starters).
The hair thing didn’t annoy me as much as much as the lack of make-up, and those things not as much as Miss Bingley’s strappy top! Glad you spotted that one too!
September 12th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
But perhaps the reviewer should address the possibility that those critics who gave the film favourable reviews actually enjoyed it - and if they enjoyed it why are they not to say so? Tastes differ, and it is a little sweeping to accuse everyone whose tastes (at least as they relate to this film) differ from hers of sycophancy.
And it is a little depressing to see how many people who, if I read their comments correctly, have not yet seen the film but are going in already retermined to be displeased. Personally, I intend to wait until I have seen the whole film (this Wednesday, courtesy of the Radio Times free tickets offer) before deciding if I like it or not.
September 12th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
The funniest review ever on new P&P. After seeing so many clips (definitly to many), I’m quite used to the messy hair part now. The things seem quite alarming to me are several secenes which was raved about in the other reviews look a bit too sentimental for my taste for P&P. I cringed at the fade out dancing scene, I don’t know why.
September 12th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
PLEASE do a review of the 1940 version of P&P. (I am still waiting to see the 2005 one.) It makes me want to scream for many of the same reasons–though Darcy was to die for. Is there some kind of truth universally acknowledged that films of P&P must blaspheme?
September 12th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Veggie Tales is what I thought too AmyH.! I’ll probably love the movie despite it’s blatant flaws. The hair and costuming don’t bother me too much. But things like Bingley visiting Jane in her BEDROOM! Or Col. Fitzy, who I’ve always had a soft spot for, Col.Fitz, who’s supposed to be the epitome of the gentleman (I think), is portrayed as a “heffalump.”
But especially I’m mad (or will be when I see the movie) that Georgiana runs to meet Lizzy. Like HELLLOO!! Georgiana is supposed to be SHY! She’s supposed to seem proud, but when you look a little further, incredibly shy, can-bearly-get-a-word-out-of-her shy. I haven’t seen a good perfomance of Georgie yet. P+P1 girl was okay, hardly saw her; P+P2 was a little shy, and very sweet (I love her, even though it wasn’t a perfect portrayal); and B+P: Alexis Bledel playing Georgie. The new Georgiana sounds exactly like B+P’s Georgie. She came up to Lalita and smiled and was like “Will told me ALL about you! You’ll play guitar for us when you’re here, right?” It’s like “When is the real Georgiana gonna enter, and this imposter gonna leave?”
September 12th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
And it is a little depressing to see how many people who, if I read their comments correctly, have not yet seen the film but are going in already retermined to be displeased. Personally, I intend to wait until I have seen the whole film (this Wednesday, courtesy of the Radio Times free tickets offer) before deciding if I like it or not.
Oh, come on. If Jane Austen fans can’t engage in a little good-natured mockery, who can?
September 12th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Yup! That’s why I love this site
September 13th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Loooooool!!! And thanx a lot! Your awsome review isn’t just downright fun to read; it’s also the first reasonable one on this movie I’ve seen to date. I got suspicious the moment I saw KK’s face. To me, she looked as if she couldn’t be witty, even if her life depended upon it. Concluding that the script would take care of this; and reading on the official website that Mrs. Bennet “really cares” oh so much for her daughters, gave me a sound prejudice against the movie. Don’t ask me, please, to speak of the impression I got from the clips and trailers — being far less witty than you, or Lizzie, there’s too much of a risk that I should give way to all the genuine frankness of my character, and send you language so very abusive, especially of KK, that for some time my intercourse with this most charming AustenBlog would be at an end.
No, really, there’s no need to watch this movie to hold it in low esteem, and I don’t care to make a spectacle of myself by whining, moaning, and sobbing in a public cinema. I’ll wait till the DVD is in the wild: there’s a friend who will surely buy it. I will watch the onslaught in bits and pieces, in the privacy of her living room; maybe she can even persuade me not to commit harakiri on her hearth rug…
September 13th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Rip-roaringly fantastic review! Thoroughly enjoyed it…especially since it confirmed many of my fears about the film. I’m still going to see it, to give it a fair shake. (Plus I’m an Austen nerd, so of course I’m going to see it!) Alas, being in the US, I must wait for the Nov. 18 release date. Where’s that time machine when you need it?
September 14th, 2005 at 3:33 am
Wow! I cannot wait to see the film…being in US, I must wait until November. I am a big fan of period pieces and a bigger addict of Jane Austen. I will try not think of the beloved 1995 version. I will try! I promise!
September 16th, 2005 at 8:40 am
I’m so proud I could bust! To think I knew her back “when”.
The peripatetic Kathleen has always been one of the funniest, snarkiest, gushiest reviewers in the Hornblower-fandom. Now that that one is puttering out due to lack of new material, I’m ecstatic she’s turned her wry eye to other period fare.
I had no expectations of this movie in the beginning, then I read some more positive things and began to worry that perhaps it wouldn’t be good enough to excite me or bad enough to be fun to snark at. Looks like the latter will be true after all.
The producers won’t care. They’ll still get my admission fee, even if I only go to see just how bad it really is.
Does Kiera ever close her mouth in this movie? I saw her in “The Jacket” and she gaped, slack-jawed like a beached mutton snapper through the whole thing.
K
September 16th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Very witty and enjoyable review. Had been anxious about P&P3 upon hearing comments from director. Know now anxiety was well-founded. Will see film, prepared to utter, “Heathcliff,” throughtout film just as I usually mutter, “Fiddle-dee-dee, Rhett” whenever I watch the Olivier-Garson version (rarely).
September 16th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Definitely also will be on tenterhooks to see the Incorrect Dogs for the Period.
Please, please tell me not Chinese Cresteds, again.
Hmm….now, if I were going to pick out incorrect dogs for Miss Bingley, which post-Regency era breed would I choose? Dobermans? Nope, they look fierce but are actually quite sweet. I’ve got it–Boston Terrier. Wrong country AND decade!
Am I close, am I close?
September 17th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Oh, not even warm! Should I be mean and keep you guessing? No, even I am not that cruel.
Now, this may just be me being utterly barmy, especially at that point of viewing or so my controllers of P.O.P.P (Protection of Peculiar People) have told me, but Miss Bingley appeared to have a long haired dachshund by her feet.
If I have erred, you have my full permission to stab me with a spoon.
September 18th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Ooop! Actually, not Incorrect!!
It’s the Wirehaired Daschund that was of recent vintage. The Longhaired variety was around in that time period, and probably already in England, although it would have been more correct to give a lady of wealth an English Toy Spaniel or a Cavalier King Charles.
A few sharp jabs in the ribs with a runcible spoon for you! But you are spot on in the matter of bra-strapped ballgowns.
September 25th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
I went to see the film and enjoyed it so much I went to see it again. I enjoyed the second time around even more because I was more relaxed and wasn’t studying everything. KK brought a youthful freshness to Lizzie and MM grows and grows on you until he becomes irresistbly gorgeous. Please don’t go and see this with negative thoughts in your head, if you go looking for faults then you will find them. Enjoy it for what it is, a new adaption of the P&P book and not a remake of the 95 T.V. version.
BTW I am an avid JA fan and adore the 95 production.
Also, the music is totally enchanting!
November 9th, 2005 at 11:42 am
I have seen the film, and feel Kathleen was too kind in her review.
She could have made much of the dreadful table manners of Miss Elizabeth Bennet, who licked and sucked gravy (presumably) off her fingers (at least two each AND the thumb) during each dinner scene.
I laughed at many points, too–none of them intentional, but by the end I was pining for the credits to roll as soon as possible. Seeing Darcy ask Mr. Bennet for Lizzie’s hand in marriage with his shirt gaping open and in a state of near-undress had me writhing in my seat, not in lustful gaping-shirtage inspired throes of frustrated Firthesque Darcy longing, but in dental pain brought on by grinding my back molars down to tender, throbbing nubs.
Speaking of teeth, Keira appears to have twice the normal compliment of dentition. I did not know at one point if she was about to snog Darcy or cannibalize him. Thankfully, it was a snog. Even Hannibal Lector knew to use a napkin to tidy up afterwards, but all bets were off on this version of Lizzie doing the same.
I never thought a mere movie could do this to me, but I found myself wanting to befriend Caroline Bingley and cuddle and console the Reverend Mr. Collins. The only fan fic moment this movie would inspire me to write about would be what appeared to be a certain disappointment in Mary that Mr. Collins hadn’t chosen HER instead. I think they’d have made quite a good match.
We were not amused by Sassy!Georgiana, either. This version of Georgiana Darcy, far from being the sort of shy, sheltered, artistic young woman who would fall prey to the slimey charms of a Wickham so hopeless he could not even match his hair ribbon to his uniform jacket (baby blue with red–WTF!?), was a different kettle of fish entirely. THIS Miss Darcy was more the sort who would grasp Wickham by his lapels, slam him against the wall of the Orangery, stick her hand down his breeches, and demand that he come up to scratch. Giddyup, George…
My patience was so exhausted that by the time Lizzie was standing on that cliff high atop the craggy moors of Rohan, I mean–Derbyshire (Derbyshire has craggy Moors, right?)–brooding about Heathcliff–I mean Darcy!–I was really wishing Warg Riders would show up to liven up the proceedings. It was nice of the director to throw in a picnic in Fangorn Forest not much later.
And yes, Kathleen, there WERE incorrect dogs! The Scottish Deerhound during that time period was a breed which could ONLY be owned by nobility and the super-wealthy. And it certainly would NOT have been seen in the part of England where P&P took place. And so if they were going to go through all that trouble to make the Bennets look like they were so very poor, there is NO WAY they would have had a Scottish Deerhound. Very, very incorrect and not at all gritty. They should have given Mr. Bennet a crossbred-looking spaniel to hunt with, and let loose a few rat terriers, and all would have been well on the canine verisimilitude front.
Matthew MacFadyen IS sexy and HE has fine eyes indeed, and it would be nice to see him in something else, rather than having to alternate between Brooding!Stalkerish!Darcy and KickedPuppyDog!Darcy. I will give him a second chance, but not this movie. Like Mary’s piano playing at Netherfield Ball, it has delighted me long enough.
I am content to retire to my spinsterish corner with Mary Bennet, Miss Bingley, and any other curmudgeonly snarkers who care to join me while the young folks enjoy themselves at the ball.
I have more….
January 7th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Noone mentioned, speaking of teeth, Donald Sutherland’s “the better to eat you with” big teeth, and his stupid giggle at the end. He was much too soft and squishy for Mr. Bennett. Where is that acerbic wit we’ve come to expect, “What do we live for but to make sport for our neighbors and to laugh at them in our turn.” I mocked it mercilessly the first time, but on a second viewing, I agree that MM grows on you. He’s a subtle actor, and I’ve seen him in a few things now. Wait till In My Father’s Den comes to U.S. I think you’ll have a new view of MM. And while we’re talking about mocking, how about the Mrs. Darcy 5 times at the end while kissing her. I was embarrassed for the actors having to say those maudlin lines.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Having said the above, I forgot to add, in the interest of full disclosure, that I saw it for the third time today, and I like it very much. It’s not Austen, but it has its charms.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Speaking for myself, “It’s not Austen” is my main objection.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
I’ve seen the new movie 8 times, and planning to see it another 4 at least. I love the naturalism, the soundtrack, MM’s subtle mode of acting, the costumes, the music, the pacing. I particularly enjoyed the very subtle humor, such as the horribly snide looks from Caroline Bingley. Each time I have seen it I have noticed something new, and each time I have appreciated it more. Go with an open mind! It’s about LOVE! Jane would approve.
March 13th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Hello,
I am quite late since the film was distributed recently in my countryside (Normandie).
Please indulge my contribution to this blog as:
1) I am a man (seems quite scarce around);
2) I am French (please skip syntax errors);
3) I am a scientist;
4) I had never read Jane Austen’s works before watching the movie.
However, hopefully you can be interested in the way a complete stranger can be introduced to Jane Austen’s world by this kind of film.
When I watched the film, I noticed some points erroneous, approximate or probably utmost shocking for people of this time, mainly about manners and hair style (in the society of my grandmother’s youth i.e. the beginning of the XXe century, it was absolutely unthinkable that an adult woman would show outdoors or visit friends with her hair untied, loose on her shoulders: she would have been considered as a prostitute and scorned as such. And I am not a relative of Mr Darcy).
So, I can just endorse the main criticisms on those particular details.
But bearing this in mind, as the story went on, I was progressively captivated by the atmosphere and the plot -I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun- and finally I was absolutely enthralled by the literally bewitching charm and liveliness of the main character (in spite of the slightly boring stardom around –poor Kelly Reilly ! ) and by the breathtaking natural and architectural environment. I came back from the cinema quite emotionally involved, very impressed, and eager to learn more about Jane Austen. What I tackled immediately (and this is the reason was I stumbled across your blog).
And, after all, I assume that this should be quite satisfactory for you Austen connoisseurs. Or did I miss the point?
March 13th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Bonjour Eric,
I will not annoy you with my very bad French.
It’s great that you have been introduced to Jane Austen as a result of the film, but my point is that there is no reason why a more faithful film of the novel would not have been equally attractive.