P&P3 News Roundup: Revenge of the Snog
As we have been lazing about reading bad paraliterature this weekend, we are remiss in rounding up the many reviews and spinoff articles related to the general release of P&P3 in the U.K. this weekend, apparently complete with snogging. (We would appreciate it if anyone who saw the film since Friday would confirm the presence of the snogging scene at the end.)
Firstly, for those who inquired about the availability of the P&P3 companion book outside the contest, Alert Janeite Mandy wrote to tell us that a version is available online at the Working Title site. It mentions AustenBlog, but our heads shall not be turned by such Collinsish toad-eating. 
(well, maybe a little!) Private to Working Title: Sell the book. People want to buy it. Don’t you want to make money?
Alert Janeite Lorraine sent us an article from the Guardian on How to Spot a Period Film.
Also, we note that the Boston Herald says that “next spring is all about the Empire waist,” despite Joe Wright’s aversions that they make ladies look like “marshmallows.”
Put away all those low-rise pants and skirts - next spring is all about the empire waist.
Designers such as Marc Jacobs, Proenza Schouler and Narciso Rodriguez executed the new silhouette best.
The new look is flattering, if a bit youthful, Singer said. But beware - higher waists usually mean mid-calf skirt lengths.
“That doesn’t really flatter many women,” Singer said.
But it hides a multitude of sins. (Look for a high-waisted princess style cut on the bias, ladies.) And the low-rise waistline on pants and skirts cannot disappear soon enough for us. In further fashion news, Alert Janeite Emma wrote to tell us that Keira Knightley made People magazine’s Best and Worst Dressed list for “Best Short Haircut.” Too late, she got extensions (for a film role, but let’s see if she keeps them afterward).
But on to the film reviews!
Alistair Harkness of The Scotsman has learned to like Jane Austen adaptations in spite of himself–and this new one gets his approval.
There’s a great scene early on when Elizabeth rejects a proposal of marriage from her odious though well-meaning cousin, Mr Collins. It could easily have been played for laughs, yet Wright gets some poignancy out of it by letting his camera linger on Elizabeth’s younger sister Mary. Described in the book as “the only plain one in the family”, Mary knows that, for someone like her, Collins is a catch and her sister’s instant rejection of him leaves her feeling bewildered, angry and full of despair. She’s barely in the rest of the film, but this one brief moment turns her into the story’s most tragic figure.
Aww! Poor Mary.
David Edwards of The Mirror says it’s all about sex…
It’s hard to believe any of the others could trump this sumptuous period drama, for one reason – sex. Pure and simple. Lizzie Bennet and Mr Darcy don’t even lock lips this time around but you can almost reach out and touch the hormonal heat haze rising from their period costumes.
…while Cosmo Landesman in The Times says there’s no sex at all:
This new version — the first serious film of the book in 65 years — has no hot moment. No ooze. No aaaahs. No tight britches, firm male buttocks or heaving bosoms. This is a sexless Austen adaptation played for laughs and love, so please leave your libido at the cinema door.
Mr. Landesman also seems to think there’s not enough Gritty RealismTM.
The director, Joe Wright (this is his first big feature film), has said that he wanted to take a new approach: “I wanted to make Pride & Prejudice real and gritty.” Hmm. I doubt “real” and “gritty” are the first words that spring to mind on seeing this film.
You were expecting maybe TRAINSPOTTING?
Macfadyen is very good, though, when it comes to the difficult task of declaring his love for Elizabeth. He manages to bumble and fumble without being Hugh Grant.
Well, thank Jane for small mercies!
Wright’s Pride & Prejudice is not an inspired or innovative film. It’s a well-crafted work that is convivial and, if your expectations are low, surprisingly enjoyable.
Oh, snap!
As usual, for every snarky review there are several that love it. The Derby (!) Evening Telegraph says there is an emotional content not usually felt in Austen adaptations.
Nothing about the film is twee, from the muddy tracks of rural England to the genteel agricultural poverty of the declining Bennet household.
Austen’s dialogue is also often spoken through gritted teeth, allowing us to better appreciate the full emotional and dramatic weight of the story.
Marriage was a serious business in these times, particularly for impecunious women (as Austen herself well knew) and the route to financial security perilous.
We feel that strongly here as we never did with the BBC.
Oh, yes, Jane Austen knew it so strongly that she stayed single and wrote books. (Back there again, are we?)
Ireland is loving the film: The Belfast Telegraph (lots of Telegraphs here today) says the film is “a delight” and Ireland Online says it is “The best ever adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.”
P&P is the Observer Film of the Week. Philip French writes about P&P adaptations in general and P&P3 in particular:
a Broadway musical used to launch the reopened Birmingham Repertory Theatre in 1991 featuring Patricia Routledge as Mrs Bennet
We cannot begin to tell you how much we would have loved to see that.
He doesn’t see Brenda Blethyn’s Mrs. Bennet as heroic, either:
There is, presumably, no way of making Mrs Bennet sympathetic and in Brenda Blethyn’s uningratiating performance, she’s the mother from Hertfordshire as the mother from hell and more grotesque than funny.
Indeed.
September 18th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
I went to see it again tonight with a fellow Janeite.
There was no kiss and it still ends abruptly after Mr. Bennet gives his consent.
I now have a worse opinion of it after seeing it a second time. My friend thought it utterly ridiculous from start to finish and had not one nice thing to say about it. The couple sitting in front of us were of the same opinion. In fact, at the end they were heard to say ‘It could only be considered good if you’d never read the book’. Oh dear.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
“You were expecting maybe TRAINSPOTTING?”
Classic. You are the queen of snark-counter-snark
September 18th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Well, he was the one who brought it up, but thanks.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:29 am
Sorry, …but I read the book 20 times or more and I liked the movie.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:00 am
Sonja/Thanks for some positive feedback. I think MM & KK should be commended for having the guts to take on the roles. I’ve read the book heaps too ,and I am definitely looking forward to the movie.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:29 am
I’ve read the book many times and I can’t remember how often I’ve seen the version of 95 … BUT.. I liked the movie, too!
And the audience in the cinema also liked the movie, they applauded during and after it.
But you have to make up your mind.
And now I’m depressed because there is no snogging…
September 19th, 2005 at 5:31 am
I enjoyed the film despite it’s faults, including the ending! However it was very much Kiera Knightley’s film and told through Lizzy’s eyes. Fine, but this was at the expense of Darcy; he just does not get sufficient screen time, particularly in the first half of the film. It is to Matthew MacFadyen’s credit that he does such a good job but he could have done more given the opportunity. Adding half an hour to the film would have provided a few more scenes to flesh out his character and those of others ( Wickham’s particularly)
September 19th, 2005 at 6:05 am
Yes, that’s a lack in the movie.
You can’t see that Lizzy falls in love with Wickham. He’s there… but that’s all.
Well, he’s handsome, so you can imagine, that Lizzy might like him. But the story is too short.
I forgot to tell you, that the audience at the special screening was well mixed!
The average must be over 20 and there were women as well as men. ( more women of course…).
So this was not the “Teenie” audience who not have the faintest idea
what this film was supposed to tell you and only want to see it because it’s a movie with Keira Knightley!
September 19th, 2005 at 8:53 am
If that’s the case, the movie will probably do well with the moviegoers here. Oh, I DO so want more people around me here to be interested in JA’s works, at least with P+P for a start. Hopefully this movie will be able to do something about it.
September 19th, 2005 at 8:56 am
**‘It could only be considered good if you’d never read the book’**
If that’s the case, the movie will probably do well with the moviegoers here. Oh, I DO so want more people around me here to be interested in JA’s works, at least with P+P for a start. Hopefully this movie will be able to do something about it.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Hi Everyone;
I read a snippet yesterday on either the Working Title website, or Focus Features (can’t remember now) stating that Europe & the UK will get the ending scene with Mr. Bennett; international audiences get an alternate ending, and both will be included on the dvd. Still not what most of us were hoping for!
September 19th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
That’s what I call unfair!
Aren’t we European souls not romantic enough?
September 19th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
We’re probably more likely to discover a movie to be romantic without the obligate snogging. ;o)
Anyway, I’m rather happy it’s not included, I liked “Sense and Sensebeility” all the better for there being no kiss. It’s so… prosaic! ;o)
September 19th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
I don’t think “the American version” is available here.
Having seen P&P3 3 times (twice for free and once for real money)I can say that there are things to be said in favour of the ending. I personally would like to see the leads firmly established at happy and reconciled as JA does. I am not bothered about snogging. As a historian of the period, I have some objections to violent sexually expressed passion at such an early stage in a relationship and as a literary scholar I object to that violation of Austen’s intentions (except in P2 please, love the kiss hate the wrtetched band). Love is not only expressed sexually and an adapation should respect her omissions and opacities. IMHO of course.
I will happily watch the alternative ending if and when i can but in general I think scenes that depart from Austen quickly come to look dated and tired and silly comapred to the book. So I am not that bothered by Georgiana being pert and bubbly and not shy - they lost something by departing from the text but it is their loss not mine.
Lots of people I went with and spoke to liked the delicacy of the ending, especially those who knew something about the period. The text is always there to allow the imagination to run any riot it pleases.
Alison
September 19th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
I am sorry I sound so snooty above - it is just I have 2 professional hats on this.
A
September 19th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Alison/Well said. Pride and Prejudice is a favourite of mine for exactly that reason. I love the respectability of the period and anything else I wish to add is at my discretion.
September 29th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
I believe the truncated UK ending (the one with what sounds like a very romantic scene at Pemberley was certainly shown at previews and its music is on the soundtrack CD, to judge from the fact that there is a track called “Mrs Darcy”) is a Judgement on us for having been smug when the US relase got put back to November and ours did not.
October 9th, 2005 at 12:36 am
Yup, us Americans just love kissing. Glad we get the good ending. I can’t wait to see the movie here in the U.S. November is too far away.
October 14th, 2005 at 11:52 am
I felt cheated the first time I saw it, as the end is so abrupt [and no snog] but the second time, I realised they had built up such a head of steam in the early morning mist, that if they had kissed the only logical conclusion would have been a quick unAusten-like tumble. So then I liked the restrained ending the better for its restraint.
Can’t wait to see the alternative, though, and I hope the DVD is out for Christmas. Its top of my stocking list!
October 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
At last I’ve found somewhere I can chat about this film! I completely LOVE it and am torn at fustration between wanting to know what happens next - ie THE kiss and satisfaction at a very typical Austen ending, Mr Bennet’s having the last word. I’ve seen the film 4 times now but no sign of a kiss! Did anyone else find the comment ‘your hands are cold’ a bit off putting?
Doubt if the DVD will be out in time for christmas due to it’s slow release elsewhere. I can highly recommend the soundtrack too. It’s so lovely and soothing.
October 19th, 2005 at 7:47 am
I think ‘your hands are cold’ is a reference to ‘warm hands, cold heart; cold hands, warm heart’ and as such is her way of recognising the depth of his feeling for her. I’ve only seen it 3 times as my family is starting to give me grief, but am making-do with the trailer for the moment [but my computer won't download very well]. There is a scene at the end of the two together and Darcy seems to be in shirtsleeves - is this the American alternative ending?
We will just have to hope for Christmas - it has been known to happen, I believe?
October 21st, 2005 at 1:46 pm
The scene with Darcey in shirtsleeves outside pemberley IS the american ending to the movie. Lucky them!
I don’t think it’s very long though cos although there is a track called Mrs Darcy on the CD it covers alot of the stuff where she’s talking to Mr Bennet.
March 25th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
The alternative US ending pleased my cheesy side, but it appears too modern…How have you found it?