P&P3 News Roundup: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Now that the Editrix has been outed as having Minions at her command, all she wants are some sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads! No more chocolate till we get the sharks! Throw us a bone here!
In its first week of wide(r) release in the U.S., PRIDE AND PREJUDICE was seventh at the box office, grossing $7.2 million over the weekend. And Premiere magazine thinks Keira Knightley will get an Oscar nomination for her performance.
Alert Janeite Kira (not Keira, DOWN fanboys!) wrote to tell us that THAT Keira is on the cover of the December issue of Vogue magazine, with an accompanying story in which she talks a little about P&P.
And for those still on a post-cinematic high from the film who can’t quite understand why anyone could possibly dislike the film, Rebecca Mazzei in the Detroit Metro Times does a pretty good job of summing up the sense of disappointment and dissatisfaction that some of us (not all, we hasten to add!) have experienced.
November 29th, 2005 at 3:35 am
Oh dear! That Detroit Metro article was so sad and raised, again, my fears about the new adaptation. They were lulled, temporarily, by the other reviews and opinions. It looks like this P&P3 will not be for me “the defining movie” of the early 2000’s, after all .
Before I “aid and abide” though: what do you need them for??
At least not the way “Dangerous Liaisons” was in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Of course they had Close and Malkovich, but still this one had JA book to support it. Pity!
I’m still going to see it, of course! And, probably, more than once (!). I suspect this is the secret to its box office success: we, JA fans, are masochistic.
FYI to “She, Who Must Be Obeyed”: I might have a line on “sharks with lasers”, but, alas, they probably will be “Made in China”.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:17 am
Good article, but Jane did not ‘grow up’ in Bath.
*sighs*
November 29th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Where do you want the sharks delivered?
November 29th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
so what do we all think about the oscar nomination for keira knightley? i think she deserves it.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Keira’s Elizabeth rubbed me the wrong way I’m afraid. If she does get nominated, I doubt she will win.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I think they should nominate Matthew.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
It would be quite horrific if she wins!
November 30th, 2005 at 12:22 am
My money is on Charlize Theron to get herself a nice bookend.
The sharks can go in the moat, Laura. Good minion! Have some chocolate!
Joanna, I just think it befits my Evil Editrixly dignity to have sharks with laser beams in their heads to go with my horde of Syncophantic Minions. (And it’s an Austin Powers reference if you’re not familiar with that film–thus the title of the post.) “She Who Must Be Obeyed!” I like it! Have some chocolate!
Karenlee, sigh, you’re right; DOROTHY! Fetch the Cluebat of Historical Rectitude! I have another journalist to smack! (but gently this time.)
November 30th, 2005 at 3:30 am
I agree with Mags about Charlize for Oscars and NOT because of the chocolates (thank you very much for the pralines, by the way :-)).
I did see all 3 Austin Powers movies but I was hoping that, maybe, sharks are for the jerk from Detroit, who said we shop at “Talbots”!
Oscars are known for some bizzare choices, though (see “Lord of the Rings” sweep), and Keira might even get nomination (this should be considered by her a great success indeed). To be fair: Charlize isn’t that much better an actress than Keira really (in my humble opinion) but has a better judgement (or agent?) when it comes to picking roles/directors and knows how to woo the Academy.
The thing I’m hoping for is an Oscar for P&P3 score - amazing!. But sandly even in this cathegory there is no justice in the showbiz world (see “Schindler’s List” score winning with Michael Nyman’s “Piano” score! - I’m still bitter about it:-))
November 30th, 2005 at 8:32 am
MM for Best Supporting Actor - which he was, unfortunately!
November 30th, 2005 at 11:25 am
MM was not bad but really Tom Hollander outshone him in this production, or at least it seemed so to me. His acting during the proposal scene was fantastic and he actually made me sorry for him during the Hunsford scenes. Which is odd because in the book I definetly feel for Charlotte. I must hunt down his other movies now.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Joanna/ Totally OT, but I just wanted to say here’s another grumpy who’s still cross about Michael Nyman not getting Mr. Oscar. Hi, fellow grumpy!
Well, the Oscars has never been fair. In what parallel universe other than the Oscars can Titanic beat the hell out of LA Confidential?
I’m a cynic. Keira taking Mr.Oscar home, that can actually happen. Oh, yeah. That aside, I’d be happy and content if I could catch a glimpse of fabulous Mr. and Mrs. Macfadyen in one of those award shows. They are such a cute couple so would make a very nice picture on the red carpet. ;-p
November 30th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Mimi/ Yay for Tom Hollander! He’s such a versatile actor and I loved the way the camera followed his entrance to the Netherfield ball.
November 30th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
questiioon that maybe someone could help with: what’s with minions of sharks and chocolates? am i missing something
November 30th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Mimi: I too loved Mr. Hollander’s Collins. I actually liked him in this version *gasp*
Something I found interesting is that both he and Keria are in PotC 2 and 3.
November 30th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Ah… Tom Hollander, a stalwart of British TV and film - and rather cuddly!!
November 30th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
I think Keira will be nominated, but she won’t win. She’s too young and too much of an IT-girl for that to happen. Having said that, I thought she was excellent in the movie. However, my money’s on Reese Witherspoon this year.
As for Charlize, she was good, but the movie itself was a major disappointment. It could have been so much better.
November 30th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
If any nods come out of this movie, they should go to Tom Hollander.
But he’s just not enough of a “name” over here that I think he’ll get one.
I’d like to see a cinematography nod and an original score nod. If they nominate this production for costumes, I shall be obliged to hurl into the nearest suitable receptacle.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Joanna et al, The Detroit Jerk who thinks we all shop at “Talbots” (ha ha, can’t afford it/would never wear it) shines light on the utter ignorance of much of the poor deprived world of the JA genious…Talbots to me is conformity and convention, Jane is vivacity and honesty and humor and freedom…so much for him. Whack, whack! (can I borrow a shark to render a tiny bite, She Who Shall Be Obeyed Mags?)
Tom Hollander, yes, utterly, pititably, hillariously perfect with the purple flower. If Paul Giamatti can be awarded so can Tom!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:16 am
Check out Tom Hollander in CAMBRIDGE SPIES, he was great.
And we have yet more proof that Keira Knightley is stalking me…I found out today that one of the photos in the Vogue layout was with the Penn State Blue Band, of which I am an alumnus. I. Can’t. Get. Away. AAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHH!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:31 am
Tom Hollander in Cambridge Spies…is pure perfection. Ah. I love Cambridge Spies. I mean, not just Tom, but everybody including lovely Patrick Kennedy as Julian Bell.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:57 am
Regarding Jen’s comments about Mr and Mrs MM being a cute couple, I saw Keeley Hawes recently in a BBC television drama in the “Shakespeare Retold” series. She played Lady MacBeth, but it was set in a modern restaurant kitchen (plenty of knives available!). She was absolutely excellent and a very pretty girl. I hope she isn’t eclipsed career wise by her georgeous husband. I apologise if this posting is getting off the subject of P&P a bit but thought it might be interesting to MM fans.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:11 am
I am hoping Judi Dench gets an Oscar nod; she was perfectly haughty. Although I agree that TH was marvelous as Mr. Collins, I am more inclined to agree with Jen & co. that Oscar picks do not always make sense; thus the possibility of *gasp* Donald Sutherland getting nominated is not far beyond the realm of probability.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:41 am
Jessica, as someone who has shopped at Talbots for the better part of 25 years, I will try not to be insulted by your comment that “Talbots …is conformity and convention…” Talbots clothing suits me. Why in the world would I spend good money to wear clothing that doesn’t suit me?
As for JA being about “vivacity,” I have not the pleasure of understanding you. She’s not about “vivacity” or “honesty,” or whatever. I’m not sure where you got that from. Have you read MP or P? Neither novel has anything remotely to do with vivacity or honesty (except to oneself). Or with most of the other items on your list.
JA was a social critic. She was the Queen of Snark. Which is probably why I love her so much.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:52 am
Julie B., I do apologize for the thoughtless fling at Talbots and by association Talbot wearers such as yourself. I am sure they make tasteful, quality clothing, and you probably look great in it. It was rude of me and I fell in to the trap of making as much of a generalization as the man in the article I was responding to. Mea Culpa.
As for your kindly inquiring into whether I have read MP and P, yes I have read both; on most readings P is my favorite until I read P&P again and then they swap. Anne Elliot is my favorite female character of all her novels, much as I love Elizabeth, although I have a soft spot for Catherine M as well, and I am drawn to Fanny and her bravery. At this point I have read MP only 3 times, although in some ways it is my third favorite. Since I rotate the novels on a regular basis I have in fact read them all multiple times. But I gather from your question that you feel we have not reached the same conclusions from the book and so must not be reading the same author. This is peculiar, since my comment about “conformity” was against that man’s assumption that those who read Austen’s work are all the same and think alike, even to the point of dressing alike.
I find myself astonished that you don’t find “vivacity and honesty and humor and freedom” in Jane’s works. Of course she is a brilliant social critic, that goes without saying, but this is not incompatible with other qualities, in fact seems born of them. It takes a lively, spirited, vivacious honesty and free-thinking wit to think critically of one’s society. A dull, dishonest, chained mind could never be Jane’s. “Vivacity” in my dictionary is defined as “The quality of liveliness, spirited”. I cannot think of one work which does not strike me as a tribute to those qualities. “Honesty”: to me Jane is a great teller of human truths, with her dead-on perceptions of people’s strengths and weaknesses which I find refreshing. I think what is stirring about Darcy’s first proposal is they way they really say what is on their minds even if it hurts. “Humor”–I think nothing needs to be said here. If one could not find humor in Jane’s work there is no hope. Surely we are in accord about using “humor” to describe her works?
Last, freedom…I guess I feel a personal sort of freedom when I read her works. They breathe such life into me. I find the dialog to be so liberating and fun to follow. I wish I could be as sharp as she is. And I see her as free in that she wrote what others might think inside but would never say. To me, Lizzie out on a solitary hillside ramble is perfect freedom, she has her dignity.
There, now I feel better having shared my thoughts. Julie, I hope you find them worthy of some consideration, and of course we may disagree, but really I think we probably both love her works for many of the same reasons, and so have little to quarrel about in the end.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
The author touched up my two biggest problems with the new movie. The dialogue was excruciating. It sounded so out-of-place, so un-Austen. And the rapidity with which the movie jumped from plot point to plot point allowed for no character development. Perhaps those minutes chewed up by the camera following Kiera around while she was doing nothing but walking and looking around could have been used for some much needed Darcy/Elizabeth banter.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Melissa, I agree. The movie just makes the original text more delicious to savor. I re-read the post-second proposal between Darcy and Elizabeth and it shone even brighter in comparision.