The P&P3 News Roundup: The Penguins Christmas Caper
(Anybody else see MADAGASCAR? Aren’t the penguins a hoot? “Just smile and wave, boys, just smile and wave.”)
The Stateside publicity begins in earnest, to our combined amusement and consternation at the general cluelessness of the media, not to mention some of the stars of the film.
Alert Janeite Lorraine sent us a link to Peter Travers’ review in Rolling Stone; he gives it three (out of four, we think) stars.
Granted that screen and tv adaptations of Jane Austen’s most popular novel are nothing new, the last being the 2004 Bollywood musical Bride and Prejudice. And granted that the peak is still the five-hour 1995 BBC miniseries starring Jennifer Ehle and a never-better Colin Firth. But even the most rabid Janeites must allow that director Joe Wright, 33, has given Austen’s novel a beguilingly youthful spin without compromising the novel’s late-eighteenth-century manners.
Director Joe Wright goes over some old ground with the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune. He didn’t read the book, wanted to use young actors, yada yada.
But in the next breath, he cautions Austen fans against expecting too accurate an interpretation. While he’s proud of how closely the movie reflects the tone of the book, there’s no way that it can match the breadth of the context.
“The movie is only two hours and seven minutes,” he said. “We had to focus on Elizabeth and Darcy [her suitor], and that detracted from the other stories. The most unfortunate is Jane [Elizabeth's older sister]. I would have liked to have done more with her story.”
Canoe.ca passes on the groundbreaking aspect of the film: it’s Lizzy’s story! Who’d've thunk it?
Sutherland’s quibble with past versions of Austen’s most famous and most influential novel is that the dour character of Dr. (sic) Darcy overshadowed the drama. That was at the expense of the Elizabeth/Lizzie character, the fiery young woman of inferior social rank who first despises his arrogance and then grows to appreciate and love Mr. Darcy, perhaps after it is already too late.
You’ll have to picture us rolling our eyes here. Is this going to replace Gritty Reality™ as the new meme? “It’s Lizzy’s story this time!”
Jena Malone, who plays Lydia, is profiled in the New York Daily News.
“If they made ‘Pride & Prejudice 2,’ Lydia would become more of a tragic figure,” Malone says. “Her innocence and the way she views the world will crumble. She’ll be able to see more clearly the man she married. As they drive off, she has an inkling of an abusive relationship.
“But Lydia is the type of girl who will make things happen. If she has to go live with her sister Lizzie and Darcy, she’ll just show up on their doorstep. She’s a feisty little monkey.”
For the benefit of Miss Malone, we provide the following bit from the final chapter of the novel, in which Jane Austen, in her infinite wisdom, prevents us from having to speculate on Mrs. Wickham’s future:
(Wickham and Lydia’s) manner of living, even when the restoration of peace dismissed them to a home, was unsettled in the extreme. They were always moving from place to place in quest of a cheap situation, and always spending more than they ought. His affection for her soon sunk into indifference; her’s lasted a little longer; and in spite of her youth and her manners, she retained all the claims to reputation which her marriage had given her.
Feisty little monkey, indeed.
Matthew Macfadyen is interviewed by the International Herald Tribune and comes off as a rather likeable chap.
“I don’t feel like a romantic lead; I guess I feel more like a character actor,” MacFadyen confessed recently. Dressed down for an interview in jeans and a sweatshirt, he lived up to his advance billing as the epitome of non-starry casualness.
“I don’t look like Mr. Darcy in my head,” he went on. “If I could paint Darcy, he would be dishier, darker-haired than I am.”
Brenda Blethyn chats with the Seattle Times.
“There are little patches in [Mrs. Bennet's] dresses that have been made with the new fabric from the girls’ dresses,” remembered Blethyn. “The dresses are all handmade, as they would have been.”
*clutches head in hands, wills it to not explode*
Perhaps if we type veeerrrrrryyyyy slowwwwwwwwly and use words of less than two syllables, we can make them understand? Worth a try. Hence, today’s lesson:
Yes, dresses were made by hand in Jane Austen’s time, as the sewing machine was not yet invented. (three syllables, dang.) These “handmade” dresses were still well-sewn. All women could sew. Jane Austen’s sewing was exquisite (we saw it up close just last week; you’ll have to take our word for it, but trust us on this one) and if one may believe her letters, she took pride in the neatness of her work. That being said, she and her sister–who were not the daughters of a landed gentleman with a handsome income if no savings–sent their gowns to a dressmaker to be made up, because that’s what ladies did in those days.
In simpler terms: “handmade” does not necessarily equal “poorly sewn burlap bags” as the costume people dealing with this film seem to think. (Saw the costumes up close, too. Trust us, once again. Poorly sewn burlap bags.)
And lastly, Paul of KeiraWeb.com wrote to tell us that the U.S. premiere of the film will be on Thursday, November 10, at the Loews Lincoln Square Theatre, 1998 Broadway (at 68th Street) in New York. Just smile and wave, boys, just smile and wave!
November 7th, 2005 at 3:28 am
I must say that reading this about the poorly made costumes is quite disturbing. You would think that with a multi-million dollar film they would work to produce quality work. As a costumer for my college’s theatre, I say there is nothing like a quality sewing machine and doing them by hand is a waste of time when a sewing machine is available. I highly commend the dressmakers in Jane’s time (and before that as well) for having the patience to do such a task.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:10 am
My advice to everyone is go and see the movie, enjoy it - they only have 2 hours to tell the story - the 2 leads are very likeable. Don’t get hung up on costumes etc, life’s too short!!
November 7th, 2005 at 5:25 am
I see that THE KISS is on the Keiraweb site, we never got to see that in Britain, it is quite a thrill!! Keira won’t say if Matthew is a good kisser, just that his wife is a lucky woman!!
November 7th, 2005 at 8:06 am
You seem determined to dislike this new film. I have been visiting this site for a number of weeks and I can hardly believe the superior, petty minded snobbishness displayed. Just the kind of behaviour Jane Austen wrote about and hated. If you have already made up your minds that this movie is awful (and I don’t think it is) then no you won’t like it. Just stop trying to poison other people’s minds.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Fiona, I so agree with you. It is a lovely film, I can’t understand the comments if they feel like that - purists stay away!! Maybe try and think about the more important things in life other than if the film is true to Jane Austen or not!! It is just a film, it is not going to make a re-write of Jane Austen’s novels necessary! We should celebrate the fact that it is a thoroughly nice romantic film and the ending is heartwarming - what more can one want? Come on, give the film a chance then go on with your lives.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Fiona, are you kidding? Jane Austen cavil at a little snark? Have you READ her books?
And if my comments (which are mostly poking fun at studio publicity, not the film, which I haven’t even seen yet) prejudice anyone against the film, it’s no worse than the studio and the media putting out a lot of b.s. about the film and about Jane Austen’s work and trying to shape public opinion. I am simply pointing out that the emperor, if he is not precisely naked, occasionally forgets to put on his pants.
I’m sorry if this is not Happy Shiny Let’s All Get Along Janeite Land, if that is your vision of what an Austen site should be. As far as speculating as what Jane Austen would have thought about it, as Henry Tilney said, if it is to be guess-work, let us guess for ourselves. And I think she would have laughed at people saying stupid things about her work in the media. Your mileage may vary.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Maybe try and think about the more important things in life other than if the film is true to Jane Austen or not!!
I saw an ad for the film last night for the first time; the first words out of the announcers mouth were “From Jane Austen, beloved author of…”
That makes it very important indeed.
Also, I’ve never said whether the film was true to Jane Austen or not. I have not yet seen it and have not yet expressed an opinion on it–just on the media, the publicity, and the costumes (which I have seen, up close). It’s interesting that you are defending the film against something I haven’t said. Bit defensive, are we?
November 7th, 2005 at 9:50 am
P.S. The costumes are still ugly.
Lynne, it wasn’t a cost-saving measure, I don’t think; it was an artistic statement, and perhaps a misapprehension of history. (See? I can be generous.)
I also got to see costumes from other JA adaptations at the Costume Museum in Bath. The costumes from P2 (which I don’t think had a real big budget) took my breath away. The gowns that Anne and Elizabeth wore for the concert scene are absolutely stunning. The film doesn’t do them justice. They also had Elizabeth’s yellow velvet spencer from the Molland’s scene, with the embroidery on the collar and cuff. It was gorgeous. They were all period-correct as well–more so than just about any other JA adaptation.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:11 am
Just stop trying to poison other people’s minds.
If your mind is that easily poisoned, you should maybe stay away from the internets, to preserve your sanity! I plan to see the film when it arrives at my local cinema.. I’ll be watching out for any gardening scenes, to see if there are any historically incorrect hybrids or cultivars.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:19 am
I am not at all defensive about the film, in fact I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. I feel sad that everyone is getting tied in knots over unimportant details, but I do understand how much you all love Jane Austin’s novels and would feel disappointed if the film falls short. Stick with the BBC version if you are that way inclined. The movie was made to make money and entertain and they had to cut certain characters out. Just enjoy the movie for what it is and forget all the other misgivings. Go and enjoy yourselves! It’s not often a film is shown that you can settle down in your seat and know that you won’t be bombarded with bad language and violence.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Robin, we await your report with bated breath.
Did you know Chawton Cottage is looking for a head gardener? *runs away, laughing*
November 7th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Stick with the BBC version if you are that way inclined.
Actually, I’ll stick with the book, thanks.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Nothing wrong with a bit of snark, but when it’s as consistent and negative as has been the case here right from the start it’s hard not to get the impression that you see this movie as a bit of a personal insult.
Well, in a couple of months all this will have passed and you can breathe a sigh of relief. Until the “Bocoming Jane” stories start to appear.
November 7th, 2005 at 11:13 am
I guess whether snark is “negative” depends on what side you’re on.
No, I don’t see the movie as a personal insult. Who knows? I might like it. I thought I would hate MASTER AND COMMANDER and ended up absolutely loving it; I thought I would hate VANITY FAIR and ended up rather liking it (not loving it, but liking it at least). I’ve been wrong before. And I don’t think I’ll hate this movie, actually; I’m not sure what to think, I’ve heard some interesting things and some very weird things. Overall, however, I’m one of your more liberal Janeites; the only adaptation I don’t like is the most recent Mansfield Park, and I tried very hard to like it on its own merits, but I just couldn’t do it.
However, if I couldn’t relax into laughing at myself or this movie, I would have gone barmy by now, after a year and a half of it.
“Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can.” - Lizzy Bennet
November 7th, 2005 at 11:24 am
My favorite bit in the canoe.ca was this:
Wright, new to an obsession with Austen’s original book, was drawn to it because he recognized that it is the first modern English novel. Originally titled First Impressions, the autobiographical novel was written in 1796-97, when Austen herself was just 21.
Whoa! Jane fell in love with a rich Derbyshire landowner and married at 20!
November 7th, 2005 at 11:39 am
I am still excited to see the film, i will see it on Friday here, and when i do I am sure it will be fantastic. One thing i want to know is where is the Kiss on Kieraweb?
~R
November 7th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Click on Pride and Prejudice on the right hand column, then P&P US TV Spot
November 7th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
One reason for all the snarking (is that a word?!)I think is that the marketing of the movie in the US, from what I have seen on the web, has been totally naff. The FocusFeatures trailers are utterly appalling - so corny and full of spoilers. They are a sure way to wind up Janeites. I’m not saying that the UK trailers were good but they weren’t quite as bad!!
Believe it or not, the movie is worth seeing!
November 7th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
“I feel sad that everyone is getting tied in knots over unimportant details…”
I LOVE picking at the details. Details are what makes Jane Austen (in my opinion) so fascinating. You think you’ve found them all, and then WHAM! on the 50th read-through, you find somthing new that gives you a deeper understanding of her work. It’s entirely appropriate to apply this kind of critical thinking to film, as I am sure that (good) film makers take as much time with the details as (good) writers. In fact, I would argue that discussing the little details is a complement to the film makers, because it shows that we’re paying close attention to their very hard work.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
er… *comliment*
November 7th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
“Blast me eyes!”
C-O-M-P-L-I-M-E-N-T
November 7th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
I’ve been avoiding the trailers and clips, because I’d like to see the film as fresh as possible. They really have put half the damn movie on the Internet.
There hasn’t been much publicity at all over here, at least not yet; it might kick in big-time this week.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
From one negativist. The snark is precisely why I have been enjoying the comments here at Austenblog, where one has been able have a say in the negative side of the balance, unlike other sites which from the start have been gushing all over the new film, without having seen it either. Thanks Mags for allowing us to express.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I totally agree with Sophia and Cinthia. Snarking, and picking apart the details, is more than half of the fun. I’ll take wit over politeness any day. Mags, keep it up!
November 7th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Agreed! I thoroughly enjoy reading all the posts and that is why I check this site daily. I am going to see the new film tomorrow. Can’t wait! (May be I will have something snarky to say after that!)
November 7th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
I like the snarks only because generally they give me a laugh just when i need it. I can always come to this site and read the reply’s and find a fantastic comment which I can laugh at. This becomes more important to me daily as I am finding true great laughs harder to come by.
~R
November 7th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Much as I’d hate to ruin this movie for any delicate little blossoms who are rendered miserable by snark, I must tell you that I’ve seen it and it’s rancid. I was hoping for a bold and surprising and adventurous reworking, thoroughly grounded in an intelligent grasp of the novel. I was disappointed on both counts.
My review is here, and a hilarious follow-up from a friend is here.
Keep doing what you’re doing, Mags - it’s a service sorely needed!
November 7th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Laura/ Although I came out of the theatre very confused (I can’t make up my mind on this film. LOL. I just can’t hate all the actors who really did their very best with the given script and I love Matthew Macfadyen.), I LOVED your review. Yes. This film is a big bunch of anxiety of influences, which doesn’t want to be another BBC adaptation, but still wants to be just that. I had to go back to the cinema just to check out, and I got out still more confused the second time around. Strange way of drawing repeated viewings this film has.
And thank you for your friend’s ‘follow-up’! It’s hilarious and gave me a good laugh.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:00 am
“Mr. Darcy had at first scarcely allowed her to be pretty; he had looked at her without admiration at the ball; and when they next met, he looked at her only to criticize.” Pride & Prejudice. Chapter six.
We are all in good company, I daresay!
And Mayris, it’s Jane Austen.
November 8th, 2005 at 4:49 am
Thanks Vanessa - oh dear another little detail to worry about!
November 8th, 2005 at 7:14 am
I don’t understand Laura’s review. What a word to use, “rancid”, for a film which topped the film charts here in Britain for 3 weeks and packed out the cinemas. I thought the review and her friend’s reply was immature and reminded me of the office jokes which go round and which immediately get deleted. Matt and Keira are a delight to watch - is Laura and her friend as talented? I am thankful that I try not to laugh at other people’s efforts. Guys the film is a bit of froth and will be forgotten, or until at least Keira gets her Oscar (hopefully)
November 8th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Hello,
I belong to the camp who failed to detect the fun being poked at the studio publicity.
I really like this site, but reading some of the news articles here about P&P3 the first thought crossing my mind is this:
…and they say Star Trek fans are bad!
November 8th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Whoa, dude! Leave the Star Trek fans alone! (We are everywhere…)
November 8th, 2005 at 9:23 am
I’m truly curious: why is it okay for the studio to put out a lot of disingenuous b.s. around the film but not okay for Janeites to point it out and/or poke holes in it?
When MP2 came out, I was really annoyed both by the crap being spouted by the studio flacks and then the media lazily repeating it and then insisting when Janeites disagreed that we were provincial purists who didn’t truly understand Jane Austen–those of us who read and re-read and study her work closely. I’ve seen it happening again with this film (though not as fiercely, thank goodness), and this time I have a forum to point it out. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the film, and everything to do with encouraging people to not be misled by studio hype and think for themselves. That leaves room both for people who like it and people who don’t.
To be specific, the main themes I’ve identified are: Gritty Realism™; first film version of P&P since the stone age (which is disingenuous at best and absolutely ridiculous at worst in the face of the overwhelming popularity of P&P2); and now we’re getting “It’s Lizzy’s film, not Darcy’s film!” which is equally ridiculous–which of the leads won the BAFTA for P&P2? Hint: it wasn’t Colin Firth. (And none of this is to say that P&P2 is the best and nothing will ever top it. I like it very much indeed, but not uncritically, and that goes for just about every JA film adaptation, including my beloved P2.)
I understand that when people like the film they want it to succeed. I submit that Working Title and Focus Features have many more tools at their disposal to make that happen than we at AustenBlog have to make it fail, that is, if we wanted to do so, which we do not. I’ve worked with the studio and the publicity folks to bring information about the film to our readers–free screenings, clips, trailers, etc. If I wanted it to fail, would I have done that? I don’t need the attention, I don’t make any money off this blog, there is no reason for me to do any of this except to bring information to my fellow Janeites. Doing so uncritically, in my eyes, would be failing those very readers.
Remember, this is AustenBlog, not P&PBlog (or P&P3Blog, for that matter). I don’t have a dog in this fight. One of the things I learned on my trip to Jane Austen Country (and I will get that travelogue done one of these days…I wrote a book on Chawton alone) was that the best place to find Jane Austen is in her books. Not the movies or the museums, delightful though they might be. I kind of knew that already but it was an idea that really clarified for me on my trip. The novels will always be first for me, and I hope for this weblog.
I better stop now before I get all pretentious and have to start snarking myself.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Hunsford Parson: You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Mayris, re “What a word to use, “rancid”, for a film which topped the film charts here in Britain for 3 weeks and packed out the cinemas.”
A film’s popularity is not necessarily an indication of its quality.
Mags, I am also curious and not a little confused by comments about negativity. AustenBlog is a forum for dedicated fans to engage with the latest P&P movie, not serve as passive recepitcles for media spin. I stand by my right to snark, nit-pick, and vent, and I am truly grateful you have provided a place for me to do it.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:55 am
I will get that travelogue done one of these days…
…I was afraid to ask.. I keep checking the internets, and it’s not there yet..(I know, you have a day job etc.)
November 8th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Sophia, yes it is. People don’t pay good money to pack out cinemas week after week, to a rubbish film. However everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Who cares what the studios and media says, you obviously love your Jane Austen books, so just ignore the likes of me!!
November 8th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Here’s a preview: I loved Bath. Loved it, loved it, loved it. Couldn’t wait to go, wasn’t a bit disappointed, want to go back. Jane Austen’s House at Chawton: also v. cool, and I loved going to Steventon Church.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:59 am
So Mayris, are we meant to understand you are not a Jane Austen fan? (and yep, we’re picky about the i and e thing.)
And lots of crappy movies are inexplicably popular. I do not include P&P3 in that group, as I don’t know yet whether it is crappy. Will see it later tonight.
I do think it’s interesting that there was massive publicity in the U.K. but there has been next to nothing in the States, at least so far. I’ve seen a lot more ads, etc. for Harry Potter and that other kid’s movie coming out this week, Zarathustra or whatever the heck it’s called, and last week for the JARHEAD movie. I’ve seen more ads for the MADAGASCAR DVD, even, speaking of the penguins (the penguins rock).
November 8th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Mayris, if I was ignoring the likes of you, I wouldn’t be involved in this little conversation. Yes, I love the Austen books, but guess what… I was introduced to Austen by FILM (gasp!). I love film adaptations, and as I have written, I pay close attention to them BECAUSE I love them.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Also I’ve paid good money to sit through (and loudly snark) some truly awful movies because an actor I liked was in it. I would name some names of such bad films I’ve seen just in the last year but it would get me in trouble around here. *cough*
November 8th, 2005 at 10:08 am
One more thing: we need not agree, but please try to disagree in a civil manner. Merci.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:15 am
People don’t pay good money to pack out cinemas week after week, to a rubbish film.
Armageddon.
‘Nuff said.
Laura, I found your review quite intriguing. It make a great deal of sense to me that the filmmakers would want to divorce themselves from the BBC version, but it hadn’t occurred to me that this desire would so adversely affect the end product.
I’m now quite curious to see the film myself. No idea when it’ll come to Israel, though.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Mags
I am not a fan, but it is heartening to read how much you all love Jane Austen, I have bought 3 of her books this week because of it - P&P, Emma and Northanger Abbey (sorry if that is not right but I haven’t the book in front of me), I am fascinated how passionate you are about her, and you have been educating me throughout this debate.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:37 am
I’ve seen the film and, personally, I think it’s fabulous. Though, you probably won’t be able to enjoy it if you’re going to dissect every scene discussing whether the fabric used for Jane’s dress is appropriate for the occasion or whether the third candelabra on the right exactly matches the historical period.
As for ST, next thing you know Lady Catherine de BORG and her drones will appear patronizing some ST-P&P crossover FF. Would that make Lizzy 2of5? Oh the horror…!
November 8th, 2005 at 10:42 am
On P&P3 Box Office success in the UK. IMHO it is all relative, yes it was top for 3 weeks, but one has to see what competition it got during those 3 weeks (I can’t remember what it was), number of screens where it was shown (to have a more real comparison) and then let’s mention the following champion of that Box Office, Wallace and Gromit and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit (I loved that film!) which made more money in less time (either in total and also by average earning per screen).
November 8th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I’m one of the weirdos who liked ARMAGEDDON. *blush*
Lady Catherine de BORG
Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa! Excellent!
November 8th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Mayris: An excellent selection of Jane’s novels to begin with. I hope you enjoy them!
I have to admit it was Persuasion that made me a raving Janeite, though. But everyone has different favorites.
November 8th, 2005 at 11:02 am
And ANOTHER thing and then I really have to go do some work: If I really love a film, anachronistic details are less bothersome (Captain Wentworth and Anne’s smooch in P2, for example). So I guess I don’t let them “ruin” a film. I’ll just say, “Gee, it’s a good movie, shame about the costumes, hope they do better another time.”
I am also perfectly capable of enjoying a bad movie that has really great costumes…THE AFFAIR OF THE NECKLACE, for example (also has My Sweet Babboo, Adrien Brody, in gaping frilly shirtage and swordfighting). So it does work both ways.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
I recently saw two not-very-good films that had excellent wigs;
Farinelli: Il Castrato
Longitude
November 8th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Mags, I know what you mean. I, for one, loved this Darcy. He’s so beautiful, but Matthew Macfadyen is magnificent in any movie to me, so mine hardly qualifies as an objective or sober opinion.
My main issue with the film is the script, actually. There are some appalingly written dialogues and some plot choices were plain odd, which bothered me so much.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think there are so few publicity efforts for P&P3 on your side of the pond? Does the studio think it’ll flop in America?
November 8th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Jen, no idea why the dearth of publicity. I could e-mail and ask but I doubt they’d tell me.
It’s easy to say, “Oh, they think they have a dog on their hands,” but who knows? They could be waiting till the film is in wide release for the big push.
Sam West’s wig in LONGITUDE was wayyyy sexy. Also his baldie cap that he wore underneath.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Oh, I always thought that I was the only one watching crappy movies just because there was my favorite actor in it. (I’ve seen movies with Colin Firth after my affection for P&P.. well… not ALL are good…
)
I love the snarks around here, although I like the new P&P. It has it flaws but someone told me, before I watched it the very first time: Just forget all about P&P 95 and Jane Austen, just enjoy.
How boring would it be around here without the “naughty necrophiliac nerds” and the “gritty realism”.
And the movie has at least done something good… people buy Jane Austen’s novels… the interest is rising, we can see it on our page.
But what I don’t understand are people, who only dislike the movie, because Keira Knightley plays Elizabeth or Matthew Macfadyen is Darcy. Well, I dislike some actors, too, but that’s not the point, that makes a movie good or bad. ( O.K. if it is a Steven Segal movie… than it’s probably bad..
)
So, I hope, you will all enjoy the movie…
November 8th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
I think that the publicity in the USA will increase as we’re getting closer to the awards season. There is Oscar buzz for Keira Knightley (Roger Ebert is convinced she’ll be nominated), so I’m sure the producers want to take a fairly low-key approach and hope that word of mouth will make this movie a winner. Obviously, it won’t be #1 at the box office, what with Harry Potter opening next weekend, but I think it’ll be successful nonetheless.
I’ve seen the new American trailer dozens of times on TV over the last few weeks, and they’re definitely trying to win over the female audience. White shirt and snogging in the moonlight… It’s all about the KISS here in States…
November 9th, 2005 at 5:54 am
Has everyone seen Anthony Lane’s review of the film in The New Yorker? It’s deliciously snarky, and confirms the impression I got from the trailer - this is Pride and Prejudice by way of Wuthering Heights.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:10 am
People don’t pay good money to pack out cinemas week after week, to a rubbish film.
I’ll see Abigail’s Armageddon and raise her a Titanic. Plenty of godawful movies pack the cinemas.
That said, I’ve been reading the Times of London’s coverage, and it sounds interesting. As a devotee of P2, I wholeheartedly approve of the “Gritty Realism” Mags talks about. A big problem I had with P&P2, E2, E3 and S&S2 is the fact that, except for the fact that people were dressed in period clothes and drove period vehicles, THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE NOW. P2, on the other hand, showed us that life in the early years of the 19th century was not pretty, even for the rich.
I do, however, have a problem with making the Bennets live like pigs (and, from what some reviews are saying, with them). They might not have been as wealthy as the Darcys (or even the Bingleys), but they were not dirt poor white trash, Mrs. Bennet’s innate tackiness notwithstanding. They were gentry. Lizzy is, as she reminds Lady Catherine, a gentleman’s daughter.
And Mags? Keep up with the snark. It’s one of the many things I like about you.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am
PS…
The Penguins most definitely do rock! I’ve seen them twice now (before both my viewings of Wallace & Gromit), and they do not get old.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:05 am
A big problem I had with P&P2, E2, E3 and S&S2 is the fact that, except for the fact that people were dressed in period clothes and drove period vehicles, THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE NOW.
I agree.. but I don’t see that P2 was so different. They gave us those brief montages of peasants and fishwives, but the principals were dressed exquisitely (I loved Mrs. Croft’s and Lady R’s headdresses, for instance) and lived in very nice drawing rooms. P2 emphasised the old fashioned, bucolic lifestyle of the Musgroves, but they still looked well dressed and well scrubbed.
making the Bennets live like pigs (and, from what some reviews are saying, with them).
gives new meaning to the term “Netherfield Ball…”
November 9th, 2005 at 8:12 am
I’ll see Abigail’s Armageddon and raise her a Titanic. Plenty of godawful movies pack the cinemas.
I was going to mention Titanic, but then I remembered that I liked it very much, and even saw it in the theatre a second time.
Hey, I was 16! Don’t judge me!
November 9th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Robin, P2 most definitely did show more grittiness than the other adaptations.
Ladies’ hair got mussed. They had mud on the hems of their dresses. They didn’t have impeccable table manners. Carriage rides were decidedly uncomfortable. Candlelight is not bright and cheery. None of that was glossed over in P2.
The lighting in P2 is way more appropriate for the period than it is in P&P2, etc. Case in point — the Netherfield Ball. (Yes, you can even see a klieg light in the mirror during one scene.) And even the Meryton Assembly is well lit. In S&S2, the ballroom in London is also extremely well lit. But not in P2. It’s much more authentic.
And Abigail, I think I can forgive you for liking Titanic when you were 16 because you have obviously outgrown that stage and are showing good taste and judgment now. What a truly dreadful movie. And I’m not even taking the historical inaccuracies into account when I say that. Feh.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Actually the Bennet’s Drawing Room isn’t too bad - it’s seen better days, but it’s definitely not a pigsty!
November 9th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Re: Lighting. I don’t think the makers of P&P2 could have gotten away with more realistic lighting on television. And of course, we did have muddy skirts…six inches deep!
November 9th, 2005 at 9:48 am
P2 invoked Gritty Realism™ when it was appropriate–after the Long Walk to Winthrop, after a walk on the windy Cobb. At a dinner party or an evening concert at the Rooms, the ladies were nicely dressed and well-coiffed.
I see the elegance of former adaptations as reflecting the elegance of Jane Austen’s prose style, rather like Pemberley was not just a fine house richly furnished but a representation of Darcy’s real worth as a man and the protector of a parish. Corny but true.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:51 am
P2 was a TV production - in the UK at least.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:17 am
…anyway, back to the costume debate for P&P 3 which is where this started. I wanted to let you know that I went to Wilton House (where the Pemberley interior scenes were shot). The Double Cube room takes your breath away and is really worth a visit. They had Lizzy and Darcy’s outfits from the film and I was really surprised how good they were. In the film the dress looks quite drab but it actually looked very well made with little pleats etc and was very elegant with details you would miss on the film.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Oh, my, what a string of emails! The issue for most of us Janeites is that the movie does not capture the spirit of a book referred to by Austen herself as “light, bright and sparkling.” To fail to capture the essence of any book on film is not a detail. The “snarking” about the costumes is merely Janeites recognizing the portent of things to come. After all, we are not “dull elves.” Yes, I’ve seen it. I borrow a phrase from another writer on a par with Austen: Much Ado About Nothing.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Fiona B have you visited The Appollo Temple at Stourhead Gardens which is also in Wiltshire, where the scene of that passion charged first proposal was filmed? It is truly delightful, unfortunately no Mr Darcy was lurking waiting to propose to me when I visited.
Yes, Wilton House is fabulous, my family and I often picnic in the grounds during the summer. I must go and pay the house a visit again to see the P&P costumes.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Hello Fiona, Haven’t visited Stourhead but it’s on my list of things to do. Just wanted to let you know Wilton House is no closed for the winter so let’s hope they still have the costumes in for next year. Isn’t the house just amazing and the grounds are breathtaking too. Good for the family, my kids loved it.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Fiona/Fiona B, The props and costumes at Basildon Park (Netherfield) are on display next year, so I expect they will be at Wilton House.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Elizabeth/ I’m afraid that’s only your opinion and you can’t expect others to think alike. There are so many people who like it very much obviously, so it’s not “Nothing”. The film has many faults that make it very open to delicious snarks but it also has its merits. You can’t dismiss other people’s opinions only because they don’t agree with yours. For example, I don’t think the film’s problem (although there are more than one) is its not being “light, bright, and sparkling”. I loved the “Look” of the film but I rather had problems with the inner rhythm, or the lack of. So can we just agree to disagree?
November 10th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
No matter how I like the movie itself, which I am almost certain I will, I plan on having a ball. My family has been laughing at my plans for the past year. For my bachelorette party, I’m dressing up in costume, complete with bonnet and chemise, to go to P&P3.
StarTrek and StarWars fans, behold a Janeite.
My fiance has promised me he will try his own period costume “at least once”. He read Persuasion just because of my love for it, not having heard of Jane Austen before we met. Horror of horrors! I am so excited that my own wedding takes place in the fall, just like Anne Elliot.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Goodness, to read these comments, it’s like a battleground of snark. Reminds me a bit of the post-HBP Harry Potter fans having an all out ’shipping war’ between HMS Delusional the Harry/Hermione shippers and the Ron/Hermione shippers… oh, dear.
Can’t we just resolve to agree to disagree?
Besides, I didn’t see the editor’s comments as particularly offensive… witty, perhaps, a tad snarky, but not as judgemental as everyone’s making it out to be. Hmm.
Have you guys seen the new clip of the first proposal? Am caught between squeeing in joy at the rain and banging head in agony at the un-Austen-ness of it all.
But then, I’m not such a purist, so perhaps it won’t be too horrid?
Cheers, eh?
Love from,
Lynn
November 11th, 2005 at 1:20 am
Tuh. Ron/Hermione is so OBVIOUS.