No Taste, Less Filling: The Editrix Reviews P&P3
The producers of the new adaptation of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE like to boast that their film is the first big-screen version of the book in 65 years. We begin to think there is a reason for that. Two hours cannot really tell the story with any complexity or completeness; it is a Cliff Notes, Readers Digest Condensed Version of Jane Austen’s story, with regrettable “modern” touches that add little of value to the severely truncated story.
However, we have been scolded recently for dwelling upon the negative in relation to this film, so let’s start out with what is good. First on that list with a bullet is Matthew Macfadyen. What a very fine, strapping, juicy hunk of British woof on the hoof. Bring that gaping frilly shirtage over here, sir, and you can leave your boots on. His wounded-Darcy bit reminded us of a sad little kicked puppy, bringing out one’s maternal instinct and wishing we could take him on our lap and zhuzh his hair and say soothing things while rocking him to sleep. (We’re always a sucker for the soup-and-blankie treatment.) He wasn’t given enough to do to develop his character, but just standing there looking handsome works for us.
We enjoyed Brenda Blethyn’s delightfully vulgar turn as Mrs. Bennet. The only problem is that she did not contrast sufficiently with the rest of the Longbourn Hillbillies, but more on that later. We’re not crazy about the Only Sensible Mrs. Bennet Truly Understands The Desperation Of The Situation meme, but it is not so intrusive as to be annoying. Judi Dench rocked our socks in an all-too-brief appearance as Lady Catherine. (An amusing aside: Our second viewing of the film was Over The Bridge in New Jersey, and on the way home, an impertinent Young Person challenged us to drag race on the public highway; apparently many Neon drivers engage in that sort of behavior, but not us, and besides the voiture is in desperate need of a tuneup. We gave the Young Person our haughtiest Dame Judi stare and he slunk away, as the kids say, pwn3d.)
We also rather liked Bingley, despite his goofiness. He was just adorable, and we would like to pinch his cheeks and pat him on the head. He was as cute and likeable as he should be, if not the brightest candle in the chandelier, bless him. And who cared if Jane married an idiot, because she was barely in the movie; it wasn’t like we got attached to her or anything. Tom Hollander was a low-key hoot as Mr. Collins, mainly because they pretty much put Jane Austen’s words in his mouth. Any half-talented actor (and Mr. Hollander is much more than half-talented) could knock that out of the park.
We will also add that all the lovely shots of the British countryside made us nostalgic for England. If nothing else, this film should definitely boost tourism!
So much for the sunshine and daisies.
We recognize that the transition from prose to screen dictates changes in the way a story is told, and that such a long book would require some severe cutting to fit into a two-hour time period. For the most part we didn’t mind the cuts, and we didn’t miss any of the characters that didn’t make it into the film. However, we would have liked to see 15 or 30 minutes added to the running time to further develop a few weak points in the story: namely, the relationships between Elizabeth and her father, Elizabeth and Jane, and, frankly, Elizabeth and Darcy. The transition between beginning attraction and a mature relationship seemed rushed to the point of being inexplicable. Why did Elizabeth change her mind about Darcy? The uninitiated might think it was because she was impressed by the splendor of Pemberley, and that is doing our favorite heroine of all time a disservice indeed.
Mr. Bennet, another favorite, was not a convincing character. His hilarious sarcasm was missing (the snark directed to Mr. Collins was put in Elizabeth’s mouth, to unfortunate effect). His unshaven and slovenly demeanor made us think of him as some kind of creepy drunken neighbor who would corner the young girls and try to cop a feel. Why did Lizzy love him so? He didn’t do anything to deserve it, and the connection of intellect and personality between father and daughter simply wasn’t given time and space to develop.
Which brings us to the Longbourn Hillbillies. The Vulgar!Bennets thing was much too heavy-handed. Did no one ever bring in the damn laundry? And why would it have been remarkable if the pigs had got into the Hunsford Parsonage garden if they roamed free throughout Longbourn? We are not a Miss Bingley to scruple at a muddy petticoat hem after a country walk, but the Bennets seemed to delight in their grubby vulgarity, listening at doors and slouching and licking their fingers at the dinner table. It was unpleasant and unnecessary, it was incorrect historically and textually, and frankly it made us sympathize with Miss Bingley in her endeavors to separate her brother from Miss Bennet. Who would want to have Christmas dinner with that bunch?
We regret to report that Keira Knightley just wasn’t Lizzy. She does not bring any warmth or likeability to Elizabeth Bennet–and that is a failing indeed. Her Lizzy is a vulgar, smart-mouthed spoiled brat in need of a slap. There is none of the sweetness of manner that Jane Austen tells us balances her archness, though she sometimes assumes a sort of smirky wrinkle-nosed grimace that we suppose is meant to be a smile, and there is no indication of why her thinking changed toward Darcy. There’s a lot of soulful staring and standing on rocky precipices that presumably is meant to make us understand that Lizzy is a Deep Thinker, but she doesn’t open her heart to Jane or Mrs. Gardiner or anyone, which on film, without benefit of the omniscient narrator, has to occur for the audience to understand how Elizabeth’s ideas change.
Upon our second viewing, we were ready for the anachronisms and weirdness, so we concentrated more on the plot and dialogue. We came to the conclusion that it wasn’t too bad as long as they stuck to Jane’s words–even with the necessary plot contractions. But as soon as they put in someone else’s words, it became trite, insipid, cringe-worthy. Several important, emotional scenes were utterly ruined for us by these digressions. We do not consider Jane Austen’s prose sacred, but additions and changes need to be of high quality, and here they just are not. It was like putting worn-out denim patches on a designer gown.
And dear God in heaven, the final scene at Pemberley. It was cheesier than the pizza we had for dinner. We burst into laughter and giggled all the way through. If we must suffer through filmed fan fiction, can we at least get some good fan fiction instead of some teenybopper dreck? Normally we love mushy romance, but that was ridiculous.
(I can’t believe that Emma “Alan Smithee” Thompson had anything to do with it, but if she did, no wonder she didn’t want to be credited for her involvement with the film. Em, sistahfriend, whassup with that? I know you’re married to Willoughby now and all, but Judas H. Priest on a unicycle, woman, that was teh suck! Even Marianne Dashwood would have turned up her perfect nose at it!)
On the way home from New Jersey, we missed our turn coming off the bridge, but were able to find Frankford Avenue. Stopped at a red light, we were struck by a building on the left. We could not figure out why it seemed so familiar. Then we realized it was the Holmesburg branch of the Free Library of Philadelphia, where the Editrix got her first library card at the age of six. A new library branch was built much closer to home a year or so later, so we only went there for a year or so, but it was imprinted in our memory. It seemed appropriate to see the place where we first learned the joy of books on our way home from this film, because it served as a reminder that if the film was an unsatisfying snack, we still have the book in all its meaty, savory glory. Thank heaven for that.
I always wonder how Darcy manages to get himself inside, gets himself out of his wet shirt etc
I always thought this was a little joke (one of the many sly jokes in P&P2)that both men and women would appreciate. If my wife and I are going out to dinner, for instance, I can get dressed adequately in about 45 seconds. She, by contrast, will take about an hour and a quarter, with several appeals such as: “does this go with this?” or “is this too wrinkled?”
Sure, Darcy gets dressed pretty quickly; but doesn’t his hair look like it may still have some pond-weed in it?
Re: P&P80
I was quite young when this P&P was broadcast on PBS (successive Sunday evenings, if I remember correctly?), married 4 years, no children as of yet, and so excited that an adaptation of my favorite book was going to be on television that I basically cleared my calendar of any engagements for those dates(don’t recall how many episodes there were, does anyone remember?). My husband was informed that if there were any monumental sports events to be viewed, he could do so elsewhere! (These were the days of no cable TV, no VCRs or DVDs, and when two people would make do with one television!)
The only P&P I had seen before this one was the Olivier one, which left me perplexed because Darcy was way too affable…and Lady Catherine as matchmaker? YIKES! I can’t say that I hated it, just that it didn’t satisfy.
So I suppose because I was so P&P starved at the time, I remember loving the 1980 P&P. Yes, David Rintoul was quite wooden (the polar opposite of Olivier in many ways), but he was closer to my idea of Darcy than Olivier had been. However, if there was passion bubbling below the surface, it was way below the surface!
In the intervening years between seeing P&P 1980 and P&P 1996 (on A&E), I read the book at least another dozen times and had 5 kids. I was ripe for another P&P (not to mention another Darcy) and this new one (viewed with the VCR taping it) fit the bill. And Colin Firth…Colin Firth…oh my! He most definitely fit the bill. Those home-recorded tapes were viewed many times until replaced with commercially produced ones, which were then succeeded a few years ago by the DVD version.
I picked up the 1980 version of P&P 1980 in DVD about a year ago and watched it again. I did think Elizabeth Garvie was a wonderful Lizzy, but David Rintoul still does nothing for me. (Of course, the question might be raised whether it is his function to “do something” for me!) But I still remember it fondly for the sense of occasion it inspired (much like waiting each year as a child to watch the Wizard of Oz). I had to sit and pay close attention to it while it was on, because there was no guarantee I would ever see it again!
There can never be enough P&P for me. 1996 remains my favorite, Colin Firth my Darcy (for one thing, Colin had the good grace to grow older along with me!) , but I loved the newest version and will see it again.
And the fact that it will require just two hours to view in its entirely pretty much assures that I will view it many times when it is released in DVD. I can’t wait for Thanksgiving weekend, when my eldest daughter (named Elizabeth, after you-know-who) will be home from school and I can take all 3 of my daughters to see it together!
Hey, Mags! I shudda stuck to my original naming scheme. Of course, I meant: where’s your rev of P&P1? But I think I know the answer.:-)
BTW has any Brit followed Garvie’s later stage career? I gather that she played that very strong woman, a survivor of political torture, on stage in the lead of Death & the Maiden (D&M henceforth). See Sigourney Weaver in that role on DVD.
To whom it may concern here is my save from last year’s search:
Theatre Royal Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4HT
Elizabeth Garvie
Elizabeth’s theatre credits include: Death and the Maiden (Paulina Salas), Watermill, Newbury; Gaslight (Mrs Manningham), Theatr Clwyd; Duet for One (Stephanie), Riverside Studios, Hammersmith; The Thickness of Skin (Roxanna), Royal Court Upstairs; Party Tricks (Frances Darling), Nottingham Playhouse; Shadowlands (Joy Davidman), national tour; A Day in the Death of Joe Egg (Sheila), King’s Head; Three Birds Alighting on a Field (Lady Lelouche), Royal Court; Serious Money (Scilla), Wyndhams; Wild Honey (Sofya), National Theatre; The Importance of Being Earnest (Cecily), National Theatre; Arms and the Man (Raina), Cambridge Theatre Co; A Month in the Country (Natalia), Bristol Old Vic; While the Sun Shines (Elizabeth), Bristol Old Vic; Charley’s Aunt (Kitty), Cambridge Theatre Co; The Relapse, Cambridge Theatre Co.
Television credits include: Midsomer Murders (Muriel Saxby), Bentley Productions; Lucan (Veronica Lucan), Lucan Productions; Smith & Jones 1997, Talkback Productions; Jane Eyre (Diana Rivers), LWT; Diana – Her True Story (Camilla Parker Bowles), NBC; The House of Eliott Series II (Lady Montford), BBC; Miss Marple/The Mirror Crack’d (Ella Zeilinsky), BBC; Shrinks Series 1 (Beth), Euston TV; The Mozart Inquest, BBC; The Case of the Frightened Lady, BBC; Jane in Search of a Job, Thames TV; The Good Soldier, Granada; Something in Disguise (Elizabeth), Thames TV; Pride and Prejudice (Elizabeth Bennet), BBC.
Film credit: Hostage (Mary Rennie), Portman Entertainment.
I just got back from my 2nd viewing. I went with someone who had never seen it. She still prefers Colin Firth as Darcy, but MM merely cemented my preference for him. As for the rest of the film, I will say that I don’t hold grudges and, unlike Darcy, my good opinion, once lost, can be found. Towards the end I felt a little less upset with the portrayal of Bingley. I still think his hair was horrendous, but I was less unimpressed with the rest of the portrayal of this character. And I liked KK even more than I had during my first viewing.
I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out on DVD.
Interesting review, Mags. Many fair and well made points – I just can’t comprehend your liking Bingley!
I admit to having been curious about the puke-inducing final scene, although I love the description of it in the comments. I’m sure I’ll be retching when the DVD comes out.
Loved the review. I also really liked Matthew M. in the role and I’m a huge Colin Firth fan. I actually loved the movie as a fun/romantic moview but I don’t see it as Pride & Prejudice. I enjoyed several laugh out loud moments:
- When Lizzie giggles when first seeing Pemberly.
- When Darcy jumps up and says that Lydia’s elopement with Wickham was his fault right after it was announced (that was what, a 50 page leap?- really came as a surprise to me).
- When Lizzie says something about the Gardiners not knowing Wickham – my first thought was neither do we – he was only in the film for about 5 minutes!
- And then there is the ‘nose’ scene – what was that? Him? Her? riding in the carriage – that was the most bizarre moment in my opinion.
- Finally, the ending…It quickly jumped from P&P (or an attempt to be it) to Mr. Darcy takes a wife…I laughed right through it to, much to the horror of my fellow movie-goers – I just couldn’t help myself.
I’ve promised to take my 6 year old daughter when it is more widely released…
Can’t wait- and will try to control myself this time.
-
Carol, I loved Lizzy’s giggle upon her first look at Pemberley too! I think it’s exactly how a 20-year-old would react in those circumstances.
Carol Lee has no sense. A 6 year old being taken to this film -no! Take her to Wallace & Grommit or Nanny McPhee but not P&P, Carol Lee.
Mayris, please express your disapprobation more politely. I’m not sure what a six-year-old would get out of it, but it won’t hurt her to see it, and she’s not my kid, after all.
Kirsty, I wanted to scratch Bingley’s tummy to see if it made his leg twitch. He was cute like a puppy-dog is cute. He’s not JA’s Bingley, though, who is a likeable, funny, and not at all ditzy fellow.
My 10 year old son (who is very much a boy) volunteered to see it with me, as he knew the story, thanks to my obsession with P&P2. His best friend came too. They described it as ‘girly’, but they both enjoyed it. However, beware the previews before the film, adult themes are suggested.
Well, I am one of those who absolutley loved the movie. Since I have a connection who gave me a copy of the british version I’ve watched it about 6 time already, and yesterday I went to see the US version, which I also loved very much. I think that KK and MF as Elizabeth and Darcy are perfect, I loved the beauty of the scenary, the gritty realism and I could go on and on forever.
I also wanted to let my English friends know that in their version there other scene that are missing, not only the kiss. There is one scene at the Assembly ball that is missing, even though very minor, and one major scene in which Lizzie is crying under the tree right after the engagement proposal between Jane and Bingley that was cut. I am not sure why they did that because it is a beautiful and important scene.
All and all as a Jane Austen lover I am in awe of this film.
Now if we could just just have someone do a good version of Northanger Abbey, I would be a very happy girl indeed.
I consider it impolite for anyone to annoy other patrons – “I laughed right through it, much to the horror of my fellow movie-goers” – hence I was a bit harsh. It is not a film for a 6 year old, they will get bored and ask questions and annoy people around them (I know because it happened to my daughter and ruined the film for her), that was the point I was trying to make.
Well, I laughed through the final scene, too, so I am sympathetic to Carol Lee.
And I ask you again: while you are entitled to disagree and express your disagreement, please do it civilly, no matter how impolite you consider the behavior of others.
Will do
Ali, the version I saw in the UK had the scene under the tree after Bingley and Jane’s proposal scene.
It’s very interesting reading all these comments – glad to see that Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy has been appreciated on the other side of the pond. Think what he could have done in a 5 hour production…!!
Mags, my point was that in both instances at least part of the audience caught explanations where Mags saw no explanation at all (according to your review).
Now, we may argue about the kosherness of the movie (which i will gladly do; i happen to disagree with your breach-of-logic argument re: Mr Bennet, and have my own opinion on how unconvincing the Mrs Reynolds factor plays on screen in general).
But my point was not about P&P’05 being faithful to the book or not. My point was, your cry-of-horror on account of what “the uninitiated might think” was rather unfounded.
Pinkro: Isn’t it a shame that the uninitiated are missing all the lovely nuance that Jane Austen gave us and instead are left to form half-baked theories of their own? (Well, I think it’s a shame.)
Check this out – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4436062.stm
Not new news, per se, but funny comment about sweetness from Donald Sutherland.
Yes it’s a shame, but let’s face facts — more people know about JA through the filmed versions than through the books. I understand why some of you continue to snark about things others of us loved, and that’s fine (to each their own), but we cannot deny that, despite our love for the original, most people will never read it. The film was not made for Janeites. It was made for “the great unwashed” who don’t know Jane. P&P2 brought people to her, and hopefully, P&P3 will also.
As an aside, those of us who love P2 go out of our way to defend some of the choices made by the filmmakers in the interest of time. The same types of choices were made here in P&P3. They had 2 hours and a few minutes to tell us the story, but they were able to leave in the majority of salient points. As an example, we don’t get to see a lot of Lydia and Wickham, but that little incident in the carriage when they’re leaving Longbourn tells us a lot about what will happen to them after they’ve been married for a while.
I still don’t care what you snarkers say. I loved it. And I’m going to see it at least once or twice more before Thanksgivng.
The film was not made for Janeites. It was made for “the great unwashed” who don’t know Jane.
Then they shouldn’t sell it as “From Jane Austen, beloved author of blah blah blah.”
And I don’t see why what I say should matter much to anyone. I don’t really want to sit here and nitpick, it’s just that I felt I should defend my opinion (which hasn’t changed). I’m enjoying the discussion, it has helped me to clarify my thinking.
I think why the shallowness (for lack of a better word) of the film bothers me is that the whole love-story aspect of the book isn’t exactly new to me, and it’s not what interests me about P&P anymore. The relationships and the characters and what makes them tick are what interests me. I study the book for them and I write stories about it as my way of exploring the relationships and the characters. So the fact that the meaty bits (or what I consider the meaty bits) have been skipped over disappoints me, and what is left fails to hold my interest.
I do understand that others are getting something different out of the film; to me they’re just missing a lot of what makes it wonderful, that’s all.
I think I get mad when Jane Austen’s books are called “chick lit” for pretty much the same reason. The parts of the books encompassed by that title leaves out all the best stuff.
I published a full review on my blog (click on my name, it’s the first entry), but I’d just like to say that I completely agree with your sentiments, Mags. It may be a good film, but to me it’s not a good adaptation, and it’s certainly not Austen. Too much was changed, left out, skimmed over, etc. Oddly, the only people I saw it with who felt the same as me about it were my two classmates in my English Masters program. Are we too picky? Maybe. But it’s nice to know I’m not the only one who was dissatisfied.
I think reasonable people can disagree about this film.
Does it work as a romance for ME? Yes.
Is it a very pretty piece of filmmaking with attractive leads for ME? Yes.
Did it work as a period film for ME? No.
Did it work as a JA Adaptation for ME? In my opinion, it tried mighty hard, but fell short.
That doesn’t mean that it lacks merit. There is a lot of quality up there on the screen, and some very appealing performances. But for me and other fans of the novel and past versions, it didn’t work as a period JA adaptation. That doesn’t mean that those who loved it are wrong, just that it probably failed the test of being a sublime Jane Austen interpretation which would generally please most of her most ardent and longtime fans.
I’m really happy that so many of you loved it and enjoyed it. It would be a tragedy indeed if such a lovingly-made piece of period filmmaking failed to find an enthusiastic audience. Even though this movie didn’t work for me, I have high hopes that its success will spur future projects which will.
I have to admit that even though I gasped and winced my way through it, it has set easier on my mind in retrospect than I expected. Perhaps the prettiness of the cinematography, the energy of the direction and cast, and the romantic feel of the movie seems more important in retrospect than it did when I was aghast at the liberties taken while my rear end was firmly planted in the theater seat. So, it has that going for it.
I was there with the editrix when she first saw the movie, and she was far more charitable in her review and her comments afterwards than I would have been. She has gone out of her way to be even-handed, but true to her druthers, from what I can see.
Chacon a son gout, as they say in France!!!
On the plus side, the internet film reviewer extraordinaire, the Flick Filosopher LOVED IT:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2005/prideprejudice.shtml
I dont think anyone else has linked to this article so far. It seems we in the US got an extended version of the movie. See link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4436062.stm
I was looking forward to watching the movie to revisit JA but I think I’ll take out my copy of the book re-read it instead
A 6 year old being taken to this film -no! Take her to Wallace & Grommit or Nanny McPhee but not P&P, Carol Lee.
I’m not sure what a six-year-old would get out of it, but it won’t hurt her to see it..
I find it very interesting that there’s an age limit on P&P. I first watched the P&P2 when I was 7 or 8 (and actually understood it!) Now I’m 16 (in fact, my 16th bday present was to see P&P in NYC! Best present I’ve ever gotten
), and have probably watched P&P2 60 times. I remember when I went to get the book out of the library at age 9 or so, the librarian said I was too young for that type of book. And it’s true, it was a very hard read for a 9-year-old, and even still and each time I read it I get more and more out of it. I really can say that she’s had a huge impact on my life — it’s a family joke that while most people have those WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) bracelets, I should have one that says WWED -What Would Elizabeth Do- It kinda has a catch to it, eh? 
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you’re never too young (or too old, for that matter!) to enjoy Austen. And if you get even a little bit out of her works, then it’s worth it. After all, why take a little girl to Wallace & Grommit when she can grow up calling Elizabeth Bennet her hero?
All my ranting aside, I loved your review of the movie Mags. I agreed with almost all your points, although I absolutely loved it despite its weaknesses.
Mags, no. Anecdotal evidence shows the “uninitiated” walked away from P&P’05 with Moggach’s (fully-baked i suspect) interpretation of Austen’s P&P. Just like they walked away from S&S’95 with Emma Thompson’s interpretation of S&S, or from MP’99 with Patricia Rozema’s interpretation of MP. Lots of them will proceed to read the book. There’s no shame in that, mere praise for the quality of the movie discourse (and its director).
B.t.w, it is rather disingenuous to expect all of Austen’s nuances to survive in a movie adaptation. Austen was a novelist, not a playwright. Not to mention that some of Austen’s points simply cannot be delivered in a movie (”really? she trusted his *nanny*’s praise? my mom will tell strangers i’m an angel as well”).
But then, part of the nuance-obsession may originate in the American (British also?) educational system. I suspect American Austenites are terrorized that lazy/overworked kids will use the movie as an illustrated version of Cliff’s Notes without ever reading the book.
Anecdotal evidence shows the “uninitiated” walked away from P&P’05 with Moggach’s (fully-baked i suspect) interpretation of Austen’s P&P.
Yes, and that is precisely my problem with it.
And no, I don’t really care about lazy kids who can’t be bothered to read the book.
first off, everyone doing these harsh criticims are making me kind of mad. i mean, can one possibly even hope to come close to the p&p2? absolutely not. five hours of heaven that only true austen fans could fully appreciate. however, i think that they did a great job with this film. they had a short amount of time to work with, yet managed to cover all of the focal points as far as i was concerned. naturally, there were some scenes that i would have liked to see, but i think they did a fantastic job. the script was excellent and the filming was fantastic. i loved how unique it was.
yes, the ending was almost painfully corny, but everything has a low point. we should all be grateful that that was the only one. i think that they did a wonderful job.
Speaking for myself, I compare this film only to the book that it is purportedly adapting.
Why are people so threatened by ideas and opinions different from their own?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not threatened in the slightest. I found the movie to be extremely entertaining and enjoyable. You didn’t. I plan to see it a few more times before eventually buying my own copy. You won’t.
To each her own.
The part I loved the best about P&P1 was Mr. Collins, because Mr. Collins had a BASSOON theme!
Nothing says completely and utterly silly as well as a good bassoon theme. I get the giggles just thinking about it, and it’s been over a decade since I’ve seen that version!
Sometimes the movies are a great aid to understanding, too. For some reason, I just don’t quite get Emma, but I am sure after I see a version of it (Clueless doesn’t count), the appropriate connections in my brain will be activated. (Which is very weird, since I normally don’t have trouble with classics in general or much of Austen in particular, but Emma just throws me for some reason.)
But it’s the book I appreciate… the movie’s just a means of getting one person’s interpretation to bounce thoughts off of.
Too funny – sorry I missed the responses to my comments. My 6 year old has watched the Colin Firth version twice and loves it so I’m anticipating that she’ll enjoy this one. Guess it depends on the six-year old! But then again – I have no sense – I should probably mention that to the high-profile university that employees me
. Actually No offense taken – even if it was meant and I have to say – I wasn’t the only snickering patron. God forbid we live in a society where we are not allowed to laugh at a movie…
Carol Lee, I saw Tom Jones at about 6 years of age (and read P&P, Emma, Jane Eyre and The Talisman Ring all before the age of 12), so I cannot see anyone having a problem with a child that young seeing any version of P&P.
Entertainment Weekly gives it an A
Oh an P&P2 is on the Biography channel. Watched the first 2 hours last night…
One of these days I’ll find time to post my review of the movie, but until then…. I think the cheesy dialog at the end of the movie included an ‘inside’ joke. Seems to me that Knightley’s request to be called “my pearl” is a wink to her being in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black PEARL.
I loved it. It was a beautiful, funny, well-acted film. I give it a 9/10.
[...] e to see it. Maybe if it’s on cable one day I might watch it. Anywayz, just read the review from the Austen Blog and am still not incline [...]
Hi Mags and all,
I guess your site is now the only one where I do feel comfortable posting a review. I saw the movie recently and overall the experience has made me understand both the positive and negative sides.
My own opinion tends to be slightly less then impressed. I do love some things about the movie:
- Tom Hollander’s Mr. Collins- absolutely awesome. Didn’t think I could feel sorry for him but as I was watching I thought he was too good for Lizzy and way above this movie’s version of Charlotte. He was the only one where it looked the character was natural.
- Simon Woods’ Bingley- Yes, I do hate DM’s interpretation but the character itself is so fluffy that I think its really hard not to love him. Just like a newborn kitten. Although I really don’t see how he could have mistaken Jane’s intentions- she was bloody obvious. So I guess that’s why DM had to add the “unmitigated ass” dialogue. Although besides the rehearsal scene by the river, I really don’t get any reason why he should have been friends with Darcy.
- I didn’t agree with DM’s interpretation of Darcy but was once again the acting was good. I didn’t get the feeling that this Darcy was an intellectual but his vulnerability came through rather well. I think another thing that probably did this Darcy a disservice was the props given to him. He was a sartorial mess and the images associated with Pemberly did little to convince me that this man could manage an estate as grand as that. He seemed more like 18 then 28.
-Dame Judi Dench- Great Rosings scene and kudos to her for acting through that disaster of a midnight visit. Why did they make her say something about a pretty wilderness- how could she even tell in the darkness plus it had really nothing to do with her talk with Lizzy.
Dislikes-
Jane Bennet- Yes, she was beautiful but where was the quiet contemplative nature I had come to associate with her. She didn’t seem at all shy or modest during the balls or really during any type of interaction. What was that midnight trip to London following Bingley’s leaving about? Seemed like she was chasing him rather than mourning his loss. Although having to utter the trite “A thousand times yes” did fit DM’s characterization. I also missed Jane’s unique ability to see the good in everyone which was why I cringed during her calling Caroline pernicious after her engagement, and also earlier on where she doesn’t try to defend Darcy. It seemed that she was just another lovelorn girl.
Lizzy- I can’t even associate the decorum of Elizabeth with DM’s characterization. Once again she pushed the youthful angle and this combined with KK’s delivery just made my head spin and ache after the screaming. I got more of a combative energy from her rather than JA’s archness. However, I do concede that sometimes the props given to KK to work with weren’t the best. I know the sculpture scene was included because of Chatsworth but I’m wondering how realistic was it to expect a girl to wring the essence of a human being from a block of marble. Maybe DM thought she was improving on the original text wherein a lowly housekeeper triggers Elizabeth’s change of mind. But this scene left me literally stone cold. Plus her running away- not only rude but also cowardly. I particularly don’t understand why we see such a change in the movie between the first and second half- during the first half the family is very close but by the end she’s screaming at them to leave her alone and she doesn’t even mention to Jane about Darcy’s proposal. It just seemed really uncharacteristic and furthermore an unnecessary change to JA in order to heighten the [melo]dramatic effect. Once again the intelligence I associate with Elizabeth came off more as cleverness and flirtation.
Mr. Bennet- Truly hideous. Why so somonolent and henpecked? If Lizzy and Darcy were dumbed down then Mr. Bennet was given a lobotomy. Plus I wasn’t the only one to giggle at the end when he had his final scene with Lizzy and the pearly whites came through. Why does Lizzy look up to this man- I know there was some knowing looks exchanged during the dinner with Mr. Collins but it looked to me like DS was just becoming tipsy. Does it really make sense for him to humiliate Mary- the humiliation really didn’t come through because it looked like nobody was paying attention- and then run after to comfort her?
Charlotte- I’m a true Charlotte fan both in the book and in the other adaptations. This one was just horrid. Rather than being level-headed and rational- she was no better than an of the other girls. Plus the calculating to get Collins was overdone. Overall, DM took a character that had dignity and made her desperate for no discernible reason. I don’t think there was the beautiful line of “I am not a romantic you know. I never was.” Rather there’s some pseudo-junk about her being a burden on her parents. And stomping away. Just all around a forced and cringeworthy scene.
I’ll come back and say more later.
Mimi
90 comments, people? 90?! Heavens. I don’t know about you, but I’m going to trade my cow in for some beans.
Mags: Out of curiousity, which scenes were ruined for you when it wasn’t Jane’s words being used?
The great thing that the Emma Thompson Sense & Sensibility had, and that this Knightley Pride & Prejudice could have had but doesn’t, is the tension imposed on the main characters, whereby their sense of honor and allegiance to the rules of propriety and manners is the primary obstacle to expressing their true feelings to those they love. Elizabeth Bennett and Elinor Dashwood, as written by Austen, are great characters because they abide by their sense of honor even though it puts them at risk of never reaching those they love. This P&P, while an excellent romantic movie, deprives us of the exceptionally admirable Elizabeth of Austen’s conception, because it has removed from the world of the movie the overriding social force of the rules of propriety, as several commenters here have noted above, in an effort to make the world of the movie more familiar to the modern audience. I understand why the movie-makers did this; they didn’t want to spend time educating the audience in the social manners of 200 years ago, as that might get in the way of the love-story (although this was not a problem for the S&S movie). But their choice has cost us something fundamental, I think, because it made it impossible to present Elizabeth as she ought to have been. I am curious to know from some of the commenters above, who have felt Eliabeth to be a life-long role model for them, whether they think that the Elizabeth as presented in this movie would have inspired them in the same way, had this been the kind of Elizabeth they first encountered when they first read the book or first saw a P&P dramatization. If not, then I should think that we should urge our daughters’ first experience of P&P to one of the other dramatic versions, or to the book, before this movie.
P&P3 opened in local cinemas on the 8th. Prior to that, I’ve already read Mags review, and several others and decided to watch it with the right frame of mind: as pure entertainment.
I turned a blind eye to the liberties they took with plot, characterisation and period inaccuracies and came away quite enjoying it. KK and MM are believable as the two leads, if you can forgive the director for fast forwading some parts of the story and condensing some of the key moments in the book, then you’ll grow to like the pair as the film develops.
It isn’t a perfect adaptation, but for two hours of romantic escapism, it satisfied my curiosity. I quite like PP3 but I love B&P! But then I’m totally biased given my love of Bollywood dramas and Ashwarya.
Mags: Out of curiousity, which scenes were ruined for you when it wasn’t Jane’s words being used?
Just saw this…quickly, both proposal scenes, and the scene where Lizzy and Mr. Bennet discuss whether she should marry Darcy.
KK made a good Elizabeth because she is actually the same age as the character! Goodness, Garvie seemed about 30 and now that I’ve seen both, I have to say the Lizzie in the A&E excellent version has the maturity of someone twice her age. When KK burst into a big smile as only a young girl could do, I thought, “Well, Lizzie is supposed to be that young.” Most of this movie covers sexual attraction between Darcy and Lizzie. I’d never thought to have Darcy notice Lizzie immediately, with the double-take he does at first seeing her, but really, isn’t that how we all choose a mate? Chemistry? And this version is the first where I’ve seen Lizzie battling that chemistry with the accounts she hears of Wickham and the news that her chemistry-sparking Darcy is also the source of her sister’s misery. Excellent. A different slant. Well done. Had to see it twice, and can’t wait for the DVD!
KK made a good Elizabeth because she is actually the same age as the character!
She’s still too young.
Can’t say anything new about the new movie – indeed it is funny and romantic and modern, but it simply isn’t Pride and Prejude. To me, Garvie and Rintoul are definitely the best by far. They are not playing the characters – they simply are the characters as described in the book. Garvie, with her expressive dark eyes displays Lizzy’s intelligence, vivacity, warmth and wit on one hand, and her modesty, integrity, propriety and dignity on the other, just as they should be. Rintoul is as strikingly tall, dark, aristocratic and handsome as in the book. And we shouldn’t forget that Darcy is so arrogant, solemn, rigid and reserved that his admitting his love for Elizabeth comes as a complete shock and that even during his visits to Pemberley after lydia’s marriage Lizzy complains that she can’t understand why he came to be so silent and grave. He is supposed to be practically unapproachable, especially before the meeting at Pemberley. At Pemberley his transformation is most visible – he is friendly and obliging and smiling to his guests in his special dignified manner. And after the second proposal, he just can’t hold back his happy smiles any longer and it’s a sight to behold after all this reserve. Other important characters are also perfect in this version, especially Jane, the Bennet couple, the Gardiners, Mr Collins and Charlotte. All the other “Lizzys” and “Darcys” – well, there are many reasons to enjoy them, and I do some of them, and they are all very modern and romantic, but they are just not Jane Austen’s Lizzys and Darcys.