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.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Thank you for your ‘honest’ review. I kinda braced myself for the impact(re. this film, my heart and my brain tell me such different stories, I’m really torn) but your snark was rather gentler than I had expected. I wholeheartedly agree on almost all the points raised here. Especially the ending was laughable. Ugh. They could have done much, much better. Somewhere in the middle of teary mr. Bennet and super cheesy calf-stroking, there must have been a perfectly-acceptable-in-every-culture happy ending.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Oh, one more thing. I also hated the writing. The script was a dreadful mess.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Thanks for the female point of view and a very entertaining review. Thanks again to the reviewer for taking so much of her time. I haven’t seen the flick, but I find her take plausible at least on general grounds.
The New York Times and Slate reviews make the point the 128 minutes is severe compression that puts the film at a great disadvantage to Colin Firth’s BBC miniseries (which stirred many women viewers apparently). That effort should be considered an abortion for its manhandling of the themes of pride and prejudice or at least the portrayal of Darcy’s pride. If memory serves, in the famous scene of the rejected suitor Darcy at one point is almost pleading.
But perhaps I misremember?
In any case I’m here to plug the Garvie-Rintool-Weldon ‘79 miniseries which nobody has an excuse not to see since the DVD was released over a year ago. That version is the least unfaithful to the novel and omits very little of the central story line, the exchanges between Lizzie and Darcy.
Oh, and the plus for the male viewer is Elizabeth Garvie who, I’m not the first to point out, manages to embody the “mixture of sweetness and archness in her manner which made it difficult for her to affront anybody…” She’s a beauty to boot.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
I am going to see it tonight. I have been told that the HBO “First Look” makes the film appear to be more than acceptable (I have not seen it, but it will be recorded by my DVR while I am actually in the theater), but I am not heartened by reading the Editrix’ review. I will post my own thoughts later tonight or at some point tomorrow.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
The New York Times and Slate reviews make the point the 128 minutes is severe compression that puts the film at a great disadvantage to Colin Firth’s BBC miniseries (which stirred many women viewers apparently)
(Raising eyebrows and grinning - um, yes, apparently!)
The NY Times review this morning was as close to an unqualified rave as NY Times reviews get! I am heading into the city momentarily to see P&P for the third time, having seen it twice at the Toronto Film Festival. I enjoyed it thoroughly, with reservations of course, but what can be better than two hours in a dark movie theater munching popcorn while watching a Jane Austen adaptation, imperfect though it may be?
I already know that MacFadyen does not…ahem…”stir” me to the extent that Firth did (and still does!), but I don’t number myself among those who are “shaken, not stirred” (couldn’t resist the James Bond quote, it seemed particularly appropriate here) by the newest P&P.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I specifically did not compare the film to any of the previous efforts. I think it deserves consideration on its own merits and should be compared only to the book that it is adapting.
I suppose some comparison is inevitable but I tried to avoid it in my review.
I do like P&P2 (the Ehle/Firth version) but I’m not one of the obsessives. I’ve only seen P&P1 once and I remember that I liked it.
November 11th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
“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.”
*looks puzzled*
Did I miss something? What final scene at Pemberley? Are you Americans getting a different version than we in Europe? The ending of the movie I saw (both times) was Mr Bennett announcing he was quite at leisure, and if any young men came for Mary or Kitty to send them in.
November 11th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Did I miss something? What final scene at Pemberley? Are you Americans getting a different version than we in Europe?
Yes. Apparently it tested better here with the cheesy ending. God help us.
November 11th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Well, maybe I can give you something fresh and fizzy to cut the cheese. A friend who knows of my Austen addiction just sent me this review from the NY Post’s Kyle Smith that almost made me pee my pants.
“LISTEN up, guys, have I got a flick for you: It’s all about money, sex and slammin’ babes in saucy-wench get-ups, and it goes down in the same country that gave us Led Zeppelin and the Clash. This weekend, forget “Jarhead” - two hours of guys playing grab-ass in the shower and no chicks. If you’re lucky, you can con your girlfriend into seeing “Pride & Prejudice.”
The Bennets are a family of four raging hotties (one mope’s thrown in for contrast) looking for action in the randy years of the Regency - before that whole Janet Jackson crackdown on sex. The two girls most worthy of knocking boots with are sarcastic Elizabeth and sweet Jane, played by Keira Knightley (No. 53 on Maxim’s Hot 100 List this year, down from No. 18 last year - she’s 20 years old, guys, catch her before she wrinkles up) and Rosamund Pike, respectively. Brunette or blonde, spicy or sweet, Radcliffie or Tri-Delt sister - one of these two will get your knickers in a twist, no matter what your type.
Their dad is played by Donald Sutherland, the stoned college prof from “Animal House.” He’s just as funny here, always ragging on the old lady (blithering Brenda Blethyn), and unlike the rest of the cast he doesn’t fuss too much with the Brit accent. Oh, and batting cleanup there’s a cameo from M herself, Dame Judi Dench, and does she ever go yard in the few minutes she gets to swing the bat.
Elizabeth and Jane are looking to get hooked up in the meat markets of the country-party scene, which is sort of like a rainier Hamptons only without the risk of getting sideswiped by Billy Joel. Two rich guys with crazy frat-brotha names have target-locked on them: goofy redhead Bingley (Simon Woods), who’s kind of like a funny Carrot Top, and hard guy Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), who’s so tough that he won’t smile or dance. Their game is gold, baby. They’re like Wedding Crashers who don’t have to do the hora.
Jane tumbles hard for Der Bingster while you-make-me-dizzy Miss Lizzie swaps putdowns with Darhead. The mercury is spiking so fast around these four that you and all the other dudes crammed into the theater will be screaming, “Get a room!”
But working from a book by 19th-century fox Jane Austen, director Joe Wright (how many helmers have manlier names than that?) has engineered a big, intricately designed, fast-moving Hummer of a plot - again unlike “Jarhead,” which is all, “And then this happened! And then this happened!”
Before they can get on with the getting it on, the two top guns have to blast away at all things heinous. There’s a preachy little nerd named Mr. Collins who’s panting in Elizabeth’s general direction, a cash crunch (even the girls’ house is in play, like it’s an off da hook round of Texas Hold ‘Em), and a ponytailed metrosexual named Wickham who says things like, “I have very good taste in ribbons.” But the director jukes and spins his way through it all as righteously as LaDainian Tomlinson vs. the Jets’ linebackers.
Here’s the beauty part: The ending is a weddingpalooza. You know what that means, hussy hounds. Everyone gets a lusty license to no-limit nooky, forever and ever.”
*can’t stop giggling and sniggering*
November 11th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Oops, sorry, I’m new to this board, and reading over how it works, I think I maybe should have sent you the link rather than posting it here. Sorry!
November 11th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Stephen, I don’t think this review is particularly “female.” It was an excellent, balanced review. And I’m not sure what to think of your comments about the 95 miniseries (P&P2). I don’t think it has to be reserved for “female” appreciation either, and that version has many lovely scenes besides those featuring Colin Firth. I don’t think it’s perfect, but it’s a good adaptation.
But I won’t disagree with you on the 79 version (P&P1). I enjoyed it very much, and even though I too am a woman I thought Ms. Garvie’s portrayal really wonderful.
November 11th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Woo Hoo!!!
Another Karen Lee! I’m Karen Lee, too!
I have to say that the review you posted makes as much sense as any other review I’ve read of this film.
Look, here’s where I come down on Keira. I think she’s a long-necked SWAN of an actress with beautiful brown eyes and classic bone structure and very much in the mold of a young Audrey Hepburn. However, I think she has no more business being cast in this role than another great actress who I think is one of the world’s consummate beauties–Halle Berry–would.
She’s NOT Elizabeth Bennet. No way. No how. And it practically ruins the movie.
But if the fanboys enjoy goggling at her, who am I to quibble? So long as they let me have my fun, I suppose I should allow them to have theirs.
But I agree wholeheartedly with another thing Mags put in her review. The character of Mr. Bennet, and his relationship with his favorite daughter, was a HUGE GIANT problem in this flick. I certainly like Donald Sutherland and appreciate his body of work. But this was a case of miscasting, combined with poor screenwriter choices and an utter lapse of integrity in the costume, hair, and makeup department.
Remember when Bingley says there should be no problem–”You are a gentleman, and she is a gentleman’s daughter”. But this Mr. Bennet seemed more like a muttering homeless person. I was shocked he didn’t ask Bingley for spare change for “bus fare”.
This cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. One of the very most delightful and insightful characters in all of lit turned into a character from “Down and Out in Pemberley Hills”.
Heaven, forfend!!
And yes, much as we might like to fantasize in our more Mary Sue Fanfic moments about fondling Darcy’s bare calf, the ending scene looked like two shipwrecked castaways had been washed ashore upon the storm-tossed steps of Pemberley. It’s one thing to fantasize. It’s quite another to be confronted with the full horror of the cheese factor of those fantasies onscreen.
Mags should receive widespread admiration for her firm grip on the plastic shopping bag from the Jane Austen house in England, which she refused to let me hurl into.
November 11th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
So, we Europeans didn’t miss anything after all? The snogging-end is not worth wasting one single tear? Well… I will tell it to the other sobbing Austenfans on our board…
Maybe, our ending here was the one from Mrs Thompson.. no snogging, no moonlight… just a litte laugh at the end?
Oh, Mags, I loved your review… especially the head patting part.
November 11th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Ok, here’s the ending for the “You’re-Americans-you-must-be-thick-so-here’s-a-clue-they-have-had-sex” crowd.
Lizzie and Darcy sit on the shores (steps) of Pemberly in the starlight as if they were washed up there on a raft. Her hair is still all to let, and he is now in breeches, but no hose, shoes, or jacket. She fondles his bare and hairy calf as he gazes soulfully out on the reflecting pool in front of Chatsworth/Rivendell/Pemberley/Versailles (not clear). He squats back down in front of her, and they proceed to have the sort of squicky conversation that would nauseate anyone not having sex with either one of them, whereby they delineate which pet names are to be used under which circumstances.
I think a certain amount of airsick bag-grasping was not entirely out of order, on my part.
I have quite a good imagination, and have long cherished my own mental image of how romantic and sexy Lizzie and Darcy were when they arrived at Pemberley as man and wife. I am certain he expressed himself as sensibly and warmly as a man violently in love could be supposed to do.
But really–geez, Louise, do we have to endure their babytalk?
Blettchhhhh!
November 11th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
I also REALLY missed the ‘intelligence’ connection that Mr Bennet had with Lizzie. But that’s neither here nor there at the moment.
For the benefit of us Europeans, could somebody in the US please relate what happens in the movie after Lizzie runs out of her Daddy’s study, as painful as it may be to describe :p?
November 11th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I saw the movie tonight and have to say that I was very happy with it. Yes, it wasn’t as long as it could’ve been so you didn’t get to “know” the characters as well, but I still think it was very well done. My only problem was the last scene.. a little too cheesy, I agree
November 11th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
I agree that the Rintoul/Garvey P&P was very true to Jane and a fine adaptation.
Many of us older folks have fond memories of it, I am sure.
November 11th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
I also saw the movie tonight and I loved it. In my opinion, Matthew McFayden is a far more appealing Mr. Darcy than Colin Firth (and I really liked Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy ten years ago). It was an excellent movie and I even liked the final scene because of its tenderness.
November 11th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
“And dear God in heaven, the final scene at Pemberley.”
I liked it(my dad hated it). I didnt go into the movie theatre thinking I was going to see JA’s work a la P&P2. I went to be entertained, and to see P&P on the “big screen”. I found the last scene to be simply adorable, and was happy that Mr.Darcy could finally be at ease with Lizzie.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:12 am
I saw it tonight, and I just loved it. I confess to being surprised because I was fully prepared to hate it with a passion. I even liked the cheesy ending. I thought it was very, very sweet. I plan to see it again on Sunday.
However, it had its negatives. Those would include everything about Charles Bingley. His hair Louisa! What was with his hair??? I could never find myself attracted to any Charles Bingley, but this one was a complete and utter waste of space. Other Bingleys have not terribly bright but have been lovable and we can understand why Darcy is so fond of him and why Jane loves him. This Bingley was not even “not terribly bright” and I could not fathom what Darcy or Jane saw in him.
My fears of the Bennets being turned into Regency white trash were fulfilled. Mrs. Bennet may be tacky, but she is not white trash. There is a difference, even if it is hard to explain. Watching the scenes at Longbourn reminded me of something I read in the Making of P&P book from P&P2. In that film, the producers tried to match the family’s income with what kind of house they’d have. Mr. Bennet’s income is 40% of Bingley’s, and his house and lifestyle should reflect that. This film did not attempt to do that. They gave the Bennets a house that was falling apart around them. No wonder — what with livestock wandering all over the place.
My last major quibble has to do with the engagement scene in the garden…IN THEIR PAJAMAS????? What were these people thinking?
Now for the pros. Except for the fact that I was afraid that Darcy would cut himself on her bones, Keira Knightley was a darling Lizzy. I beg to differ with my friend Mags, but I did like Keira as Lizzy very much. Jane was appropriately sweet, and I thought that Mr. Collins stole the show. He had the whole theater howling with laughter.
I loved the Meryton Assembly. These people looked like they were having the time of their lives. The music was wonderful, and the dancing was highly entertaining.
But I saved the best for the last. Matthew Macfadyen is now officially my favorite Mr. Darcy. He embodies what I liked about both David Rintoul and Colin Firth and takes these qualities to the next level. The Firth Fangirls will hate me for this, but I have to say it — Firth never seemed truly comfortable in the role. Maybe it was the wardrobe. Who knows. But Macfadyen was wonderful. A girl could drown in those gorgeous eyes and not care a whit. He said a lot with those eyes. And most of it’s not printable at a family site.
I cannot believe I liked it, but I did. Very, very much.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:27 am
(Hi, Julie!)
I saw the film again tonight in NYC. I liked it even more tonight than I did in Toronto.
First off: I adore Colin Firth. My PC screensaver (and my cell phone screensaver!) is of Colin Firth. I have watched the BBC P&P literally hundreds of times, and will no doubt watch it hundreds of times more. (I guess that numbers me among the P&P2 obsessives!)
However…
I loved this new P&P. Very different from the other versions, even while telling the same story. The big screen makes a difference, Darcy and Lizzy being (literally!) larger than life. (And if someone is going to be larger than life, he may as well look like Matthew MacFadyen, no?)
A five-hour P&P has the luxury of greater character development, and obviously, a two-hour version does not. So what this P&P very wisely does is sweep you along with both humor and emotion, so that it is somehow more crisp and poignant. Don’t blink, you may miss something!
I loved Lizzy’s nervous giggle upon seeing the splendor of Pemberley for the first time. I loved Darcy’s quick doubletake of Elizabeth at the assembly dance. I loved…loved…loved…Darcy’s stuttering “I love…love…love…you.”
And I especially loved the kiss. Big, satisfied sigh.
November 12th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Just saw the film - rather enjoyed its sexually-charged atmosphere. Always thought Matthew was great in MI-5, so I’ve been holding my breathe for his Mr. Darcy.
Physcially, I think MM is much better-suited for the role than Colin Firth (the pond-diving scene was ridiculous!). As an actor …. the lack of screen-time has curtailed any potential for character development, stripping this Mr. Darcy down to a shy, sulking boy - more Pride please, Mr. Darcy would have been too proud to beseech anyone. Still, I am most pleased with the latest incarnation.
Keira is a vivacious Lizzie if somewhat immature. Funny there’s no mention of those “Fine Eyes”, when it’s one of her most obvious assets? I prefer the Jane here than P&P2 - definitely more convincing as the sweet-natured Beauty in the family.
Enough has been said about the amount of dirt and vulgarity in Longbourn, just how the director viewed them as historically realistic for a squire’s household baffles me. As with other reviewers, I find the frequent state of decolletage of our protagonists outdoor (as well as Lizzie’s receiving visitor at the Vicarage in her negligee) rather disconcerting, such behavior would have been most compromising in the Regency period.
Oh, the cheesy ending. Is it true that it’s added for the benefit of American audience? If so, such is the impact of pop-culture - has anyone notice the hommage to “Sixteen Candles” (even if it may not have been the director’s intention)?
November 12th, 2005 at 3:29 am
Add me to the “i loved it” column. I first read P&P when I was in the 8th grade, and I can honestly say I’ve read the book at least 100 times. I’ve seen every adaptation, and they all have their good and bad points. And I felt without a shadow of a doubt that this film stayed true to the spirit of the original story, if not the letter. I think the director did a fine job, the acting was superb, and the sheer gorgeousness of it washed over me like…like…like the rain when Lizzie flees the church. I’ll see it several times, I’m sure.
November 12th, 2005 at 5:44 am
I loved it as well. It was just such a gorgeous adaptation, and KK’s Lizzy and MM’s Darcy really won me over. Yes, there are certain things that have been cut, but I can forgive them for doing that. Furthermore, it’s been a long time since I’ve been to a movie where the audience was so enthusiastic about the whole thing. Blethyn’s Mrs. Bennet got big laughs, and the same goes for Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins.
And yes, I really enjoyed the Pemberley-finale as well. When someone makes a romantic movie that’s this good, we deserve a real kiss in the end, so I was all for it. I’m going to see it again tomorrow, and I’m sure I’ll be able to enjoy all the details even more this time around.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:35 am
My husband took me to see it last night. It was open in select citys….I happened to live on 30 minutes away from Albany,NY. I bought my tickets online….I am glad I did because the movie was sold out! And just an FYI, the kissing scene is back in the movie! The one at Pemberly at the end of the movie, it’s very sweet. Loved it. Hope you all get to see it soon too. And the Hunsford scence was amazing, I have to say almost better then the BBC version…much more emotional! Amy
November 12th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
I saw the movie last night and was dissapointed. Why so much time spent on Keira Knightley looking seriously into the camera when every single minute is needed to tell such a great complex story. There was no time for Whickem, Mary or Kitty. Even lydia, a main character barley spoke and why was Jane giggling all the time. Some other things I found distracting were Kiera Knightleys wig that didn’t cover her hair and why did Lady Catherine de Bourgh mention the ‘prettyish kind of wilderness’ and then not take a turn in it. I think the scenery was breathtaking and the actors all did their best but feel that a better script and better directing could have made this version great.It is a testiment to Jane Austin that versions of her books keep being made into movies and I am very glad that someone would want to bring this story back into the theatres. However, when doing Jane Austin, it’s needs to be put in the proper hands. Where was Emma Thompson or someone like Andrew Davis when you needed them? Still believe the A&E version to be the definitive.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I knew this would be the place for some really entertaining film discussion! Though I agree almost entirely with Mags’ review, I have to say that I found the film totally endearing in spite of its many, many flaws - at least up until the last ten minutes when I started to gag over the really awful writing.
Though I thought the attempt to modernize the movie caused a lot of problems both in the dialogue and the storyline (like the inconsistent emphasis on propriety - Mr. Collins can’t introduce himself to Darcy, but Lizzy can just poke around Pemberley or run around with Darcy in her nightgown?), I loved the young cast and the very natural feel of their interactions. Even if the giggling went a little overboard, the feel of the household relationships and, as Julie points out, the Meryton assmebly, seemed much less stilted than in other film versions. Though the individual relationships were sadly underdeveloped. I wasn’t crazy about Donald Sutherland’s performace of Mr. Bennet, but perhaps it’s more a reflection of the writing. Like Julie, I much enjoyed Keira Knightley, and felt any flaws in the portrayal of Lizzy were more a problem with the script than with her performance. MacFayden was much closer to the Darcy I envision than is Firth’s version - his manner was nicely tempered by an awkwardness and inexperience that I find lacking in the overly-arrogant Firth version. And I did love Bingley!
The biggest flaw, in my opinion, was the completely lack of subtlety in the film - the heart & soul of Austen’s brilliance! Is our culture really too dumb to get, for example, Elizabeth’s jab about practicing the piano? Isn’t the repressed passion of a single “dearest, lovliest Elizabeth” superior to a lot of kissy-faced babbling about bewitchment? And what was with the fan-fictionesque interpretations of the minor characters - like Mary glancing longlingly after Mr. Collins or Georgiana’s transparent attempts to encourage her brother & Elizabeth?
As visually stunning as the film was, I couldn’t help but think that everytime someone walked slowly across a picturesque landscape we lost another plot point!
But none of these flaws could overshadow my overall delight in seeing the story played out on the big screen. Then again, I think even MP2 has its redeeming qualities, so maybe I’ve become too forgiving!
November 12th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
I just want to respond to what some have said about the slow aspects — the lingering close-ups of Elizabeth, or a long, slow walk against a picturesque background. For me, those really enhanced the movie…I felt that I could take that moment to really get inside the character’s head. I think I understood, in this version more than most others, how every moment of time that passes makes it less and less likely that Lizzie’s dreams are going to come true, and that life is passing her by.
I also want to say that Brenda Blethyn’s portrayal of Mrs. Bennett gave me a totally new sympathy for that character.
November 12th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
In my mind, I am busy cutting and pasint Jennifer and MM into the same movie together. That way, everything is perfect.
November 12th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Amusing to see reader reaction to KK’s bony Lizzie in P&P3. Mine too. At the opposite pole is Aishwarya Rai who is said to have put on 20 lbs for her portrayal in B&P. This was intended to make her look more like a “regular person”.
Thanks to Katherine T for putting me on to the shorthand on this site and sharing my affection for Elizabeth Garvie’s performance in P&P2.
Where is Mags’ rev of P&P2? Is there a search function I’m missing? Mowing down the archives is too inefficient except for the 18th century.
November 12th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
“My last major quibble has to do with the engagement scene in the garden…IN THEIR PAJAMAS?????”
I KNOW! And then Darcy goes to Lizzie’s father, to ask for consent, STILL dressed like that! If I were her father(esp during that time pd), I’d be questioning what they’d been up to.
November 12th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
I didn’t review P&P2 because I saw it ages ago!
I like it a lot, and I am pleased they had five hours to fit just about all the story in. I have a few quibbles here and there but nothing major.
The weird thing is that they made Lizzy and Darcy look just like the Lizzy and Darcy in my head, as far as haircolor and style, etc. if they do not look precisely like Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.
I’m not all obsessive about the pond scene–my favorite is the exchange of meaningful looks while Georgiana is playing the piano at Pemberley. My favorite character is Benjamin Whitrow as Mr. Bennet; I love his sharp sense of humor. That’s a difficult character because he’s certainly got his failings but the way Jane Austen wrote him, you still laugh at him and find him intelligent and interesting. (Well, I do, anyway.)
I confess I’m disappointed that my campaign to poison everyone’s mind about the new film has failed… (KIDDING!)
November 12th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
ROTFLOL!!! I know it is not much, but if you want, you could keep trying with my mind (a few more months might do the trick) ;).
November 12th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Lindsey wrote,
what was with the fan-fictionesque interpretations of the minor characters - like Mary glancing longlingly after Mr. Collins
This also occurred several times in P&P1 - Mary making eyes at Mr. Collins; P&P2 avoided the suggestion completely. And yet, here is Jane Austen’s text;
Mrs. Bennet wished to understand by it that he thought of paying his addresses to one of her younger girls, and Mary might have been prevailed on to accept him. She rated his abilities much higher than any of the others; there was a solidity in his reflections which often struck her, and though by no means so clever as herself, she thought that if encouraged to read and improve himself by such an example as her’s, he might become a very agreeable companion.
V.I Chapter XXII (p.124 in Chapman’s edition)
November 12th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Stephen, Elizabeth Garvie was Lizzy in P&P1. Jennifer Ehle played her in P&P2.
My father (now 76 years old) had the cutest crush on Jennifer…until he found out that she was really a blonde and had worn a brown wig for the series. He was crushed.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I’m not all obsessive about the pond scene
I agree, the pond thing leaves me cold. I love the way they do that same scene in P&P1 (Garvie/Rintoul;) the dog walks around the corner, Elizabeth gapes, Darcy then walks around the corner…!!
my favorite is the exchange of meaningful looks while Georgiana is playing the piano at Pemberley
Me too! But what is the meaning of the meaningful look…. is it raw sexual longing, or is it - “She’s very good with Georgiana. She would make a good older sister, or surrogate mother..” ??
November 12th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Robin: both, I think! Also, “I wub her, I hope she wubs me!” on his side and “Oh dear, I think I wub him!” on her side.
Darcy is eager to have Lizzy like Georgiana and vice versa, as they will be sisters if his suit is successful. He truly loves his sister, and it is a happiness to him that they get along.
November 12th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
I didn’t love “You’ve Got Mail,” but I did notice that Nora Ephron put the P&P1 meeting-at-Pemberley scene into YGM. For those who either did not see it or do not remember it, at the very end of YGM, when Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks finally “officially” meet each other, they do so in Riverside Park (on Manhattan’s West Side) and Meg realizes it’s Tom’s character she’s waiting for because she sees his dog come around a corner, quickly followed by Tom itself.
It is only later that I learned that P&P is Nora Ephron’s favorite book of all time.
I now officially have plans to see it at 12:20 tomorrow. *happy happy joy joy*
November 12th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Hello All,
I must say that I was very relieved to find that I was not the only person who thought this latest version an immense disappointment. I had loved the A&E version but had a few small quibbles with it, among them the physical appearance of several of the characters. This latest version, I had thought, matched the actors and the characters better (save Lizzie of course), but the rest of it was a complete mess.
Honestly, I think that if I had never read the book or seen the A&E version, I probably would have loved it. As it is, I intend to tell anyone who asks me about the movie that it was great and encourage them to see it. I personally feel that a good box-office showing for a movie such as this would show Hollywood that there is a demand for quality PG-rated films without all that gratuitous sex and violence.
Personally, though, I was extremely annoyed by much of the film. I couldn’t agree with you more about the ugliness of certain parts, especially the comparison of Mr. Bennet as a drunk–that’s exactly what I thought! The director was so inept, I can’t even imagine how people like him are allowed to create films of this magnitude. The screenwriter was probably a fool who never even read the book. I shudder to think how Jane Austen’s brilliant lines were butchered in such a merciless fashion.
I remember the first time I read P&P in high school. I’d always been a hopeless romantic, and I truly had a visceral reaction to it. I’d never read such a powerful love story or a social tale told with such wit and satire. I looked forward to reliving those moments with this film. I’ve been anticipating the release for months. Unfortunately, I had not a single emotional reaction to the entire thing. Oh, I laughed all right, especially at the hilarious scenes with Bingley, but I did not feel moved, and P&P is an extremely moving, emotionally-charged novel. This was just a silly Hollywood period drama with little substance.
It’s such a pity that so much money and talent was wasted. It could have been brilliant.
And thank goodness you British fans were spared the embarassing ending. If they’d cut it off right after Elizabeth’s meeting with Mr. Bennet, I might not have been so critical of the whole movie. But with the final 3 minutes, it just confirmed for me how ridiculous the entire film had been. I’ve got to find a way to erase that horrible moment from my memory.
Offering my condolences,
Toni
November 12th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Robin - I’m with you. The way this scene is executed in P&P1 is for me the very best way it has been brought to the screen. I love the very distracted manner that Elizabeth Garvie brings to Elizabeth’s lines in this one.
I always enjoy watching this scene in P&P2 too, but not as much. (I always wonder how Darcy manages to get himself inside, gets himself out of his wet shirt, gets his waistcoat and cravat on, and then manages to head Lizzie and the Gardiners off at the pass! Especially considering the speed with which Lizzie walks.)
This scene was the most disappointing for me in the latest version. While I very much enjoy their exchange of words, we don’t get enough of his shock in seeing her, or in his attempts to put her at ease.
Even so, I enjoy this latest version very much indeed. I’ve now seen it three times, and want to see it at least once more on the big screen. MM is very much my favourite Darcy.
We don’t get the final kissy kissy scene here in Australia, which I’m kind of pleased about. But I do hope it’s in the DVD deleted scenes when it gets released here.
November 13th, 2005 at 12:27 am
well, I submit that it is possible to be both a purist and a hopeless romantic.
hated: Mr. Bennett, longbourn, Georgiana, and the “perhaps you should practice” line.
loved: the movie.
It’s not the book. In fact it doesn’t really resemble the book except in major plot points. (kinda looks like Wuthering Heights…)
It’s a movie in its own right, and it’s wonderful. I loved it. Even the American ending.
Quibbling over trifles, you miss the heart.
November 13th, 2005 at 1:29 am
Food for thought, Mags:
1.”Why did Elizabeth change her mind about Darcy?”
Says male viewer aged 31, non-Austenite: “Because she realizes Darcy wasn’t being an ass and belittling her when he talked about social distinction between them. The poor guy was being completely honest. Something women *claim* they appreciate in a guy” (digresses into Tootsie reference)
2.”Why did she love [...Mr Bennet] so?”
Same source:”What do you mean?! How about that wonderful line,’If you marry Collins, i will never see you again’? Or ‘Goodness, I *must* pay him back’? He’s at least a darn decent person.”
Pinkro: “I think the editrix means, like, the Lizzie-Mr. Bennet ‘intellectual connection’ is missing…”
Same source:”Mr Bennet’s the only person in that house, aside from Elizabeth, to be ever seen with a book. What, did you see Mrs Bennet read? Of course he’s Elizabeth’s mentor, how much clearer do you need it put?”
November 13th, 2005 at 1:54 am
Well, if your idea of being faithful to Austen’s spirit is having an actress step in, look straight at the camera, then recite like a parrot ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged etc’, then, yes, by all means, go buy P&P’80 on DVD. May it be to your liking. As far as I’m concerned, from the five P&P versions i own, P&P’80 ranks rock bottom.
November 13th, 2005 at 2:50 am
pinkro/ Actually I have to agree with you on P&P ‘80 being the rock bottom. I just can’t help laughing out loud whenever I think of Mr. Darcy walking away from Lizzy after handing her the letter, it was like…forever! He walks and walks and walks away until he becomes this little dot on the horizon. LOL. All the while he doesn’t move any of his body parts except for his legs. It’s like a pair of chopsticks walking. Uh..sorry for his fans out there, but it wasn’t really cinematic or realistic or interesting or dramatic…at least, pretty, no?
November 13th, 2005 at 2:53 am
Pinkro, the “I will never see you again if you do” line was illogical considering that Mr. Bennet had already deserted Lizzy when Collins requested his audience; which, by the bye, cheesed me off tremendously, as it was totally out of character for Mr. Bennet. Had Mr. Bennet as written by JA known of this interview, he would have headed Collins off at the pass, not slipped off into his bookroom and left his favorite daughter to be annoyed by a pompous ass. And Sutherland was like this weird creepy stoner guy hanging around the house. I didn’t feel a connection between Mr. Bennet and Lizzy at all.
And Lizzy would not like Darcy for his “honesty,” because he expressed it in an “ungentlemanlike manner,” remember? That was the stinger; that was what made him clean up his act and start letting her see his good side. The letter was the beginning of Lizzy’s change of heart, when she learned the truth about Wickham (which story was rather glossed over and hurried up) and solidified when she goes to Pemberley and sees not a fine house richly furnished, but a well-run estate supporting many people and hears the praise of “an intelligent servant” about what a great guy he is, good to the poor, good to his sister, respected by the neighborhood. This is an important theme to me and one which was completely skipped.
November 13th, 2005 at 6:49 am
Hi Mags, I’ve posted my thoughts on my blog, but I think you might really enjoy these links:
Pirates of Pemberley
Pride and Piracy
November 13th, 2005 at 6:51 am
Speaking of him being good to the poor, am I the only one who noticed that Mrs. Reynolds (the person who tells Lizzy and the Gardiners what a wonderful person he is) was played by Meg Wyn Owen? It’s been 30+ years since I’ve seen Upstairs Downstairs, but I’d recognize Hazel Bellamy anyplace!
Anyway, I am neither a purist nor a romantic, but I just adored the movie. Kissy ending and all.
November 13th, 2005 at 7:03 am
PS, I meant 20+ years since Upstairs, Downstairs. My fingers just aren’t quite agile as they should be at 6-ish in the morning.
And, while I’m at it, I loved P&P1. I thought Elizabeth Garvie was delightful. I preferred the Jane, Lydia, Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins characters to their equivalents in P&P2. Saying it’s “rock bottom” is, I think, rather insulting to the legions of us who love it (and yes, we’re out there, we’re just not terribly strident).
November 13th, 2005 at 7:16 am
I always wonder how Darcy manages to get himself inside, gets himself out of his wet shirt, gets his waistcoat and cravat on, and then manages to head Lizzie and the Gardiners off at the pass! Especially considering the speed with which Lizzie walks
As a true fan, I had my thoughts about it and I pity the poor valet. I always imagined Darcy running up the stairs to his dressing room, shocking the poor valet, because he didn’t expected his master so soon and “not formally attired”. He flounces in, yelling ” A shirt, a suit… HURRY UP!” while ripping his clothes off… and his servant is running around like a chicken.
After his master is away to head of Lizzy, the servant needs a goog cup of strong tea to recover from that shock!
I always laugh when Darcy appears in his wet shirt. His look, when Lizzy meets him, is too funny. She’s trying NOT to stare at his wet shirt and he’s trying to make some conversation.
November 13th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Julie P/ I didn’t mean it as an insult. I kinda love all the P&P adaptations and there are only 4 of them I saw. So there has to be a Rock-bottom of the 4, right?
The letter delivery scene was so unintentionally funny (well, again for me) so I thought I could poke fun at it. The rest of the film was not a laughing stock all in all, of course.
And I know you’re out there.
November 13th, 2005 at 8:47 am
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?
November 13th, 2005 at 11:47 am
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!
November 13th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
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.
November 13th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
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.
November 13th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
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.
November 13th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
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.
November 13th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
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.
-
November 13th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 5:53 am
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:28 am
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:07 am
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:24 am
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:26 am
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:41 am
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Will do
November 14th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
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…!!
November 14th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
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.)
November 14th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
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!!!
November 14th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
On the plus side, the internet film reviewer extraordinaire, the Flick Filosopher LOVED IT:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2005/prideprejudice.shtml
November 14th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
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
November 14th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
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.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
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?
November 14th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
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.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:44 am
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.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:53 am
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…
November 15th, 2005 at 9:08 am
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.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Entertainment Weekly gives it an A
November 15th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Oh an P&P2 is on the Biography channel. Watched the first 2 hours last night…
November 15th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
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.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
I loved it. It was a beautiful, funny, well-acted film. I give it a 9/10.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
[...] 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 [...]
November 28th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
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
November 30th, 2005 at 1:04 am
90 comments, people? 90?! Heavens. I don’t know about you, but I’m going to trade my cow in for some beans.
November 30th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Mags: Out of curiousity, which scenes were ruined for you when it wasn’t Jane’s words being used?
November 30th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
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.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
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.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:25 am
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.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
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