More award nominations for P&P3
The CBC reports that PRIDE AND PREJUDICE has received eight nominations from the London Film Critics’ Circle Awards.
Pride and Prejudice, based on the Jane Austen novel, garnered eight nominations including best actor for Matthew MacFadyen, best director for Joe Wright and best actress for Keira Knightley. Supporting actresses Brenda Blethyn and Rosamund Pike also received nominations.
Critical reception of the film, apparently including London film critics, has been undeniably enthusiastic (the Rotten Tomatoes score is still 86 percent fresh) but in recent days it seems some writers have started to push back.
Gina Fattore, writing in Salon.com (if you are not a paying member, you will have to watch an ad to get access) weighs in from the opposite point of view.
And this is where I get into trouble. Because if I stop here to point out that in the book, Mr. Darcy tells Elizabeth that he ardently admires and loves her within the confines of a snug drawing room, we start to enter crazed, Jane-ite spinster territory. Face it. If you are a single woman of a certain age, you can either be obsessed with Jane Austen or you can have cats. You cannot do both, and a long, long time ago I chose Jane. I haven’t just read the books and reread them. I’ve been to her house at Chawton. I’ve seen her grave at Winchester Cathedral (which, for the record, is the only time Jane Austen ever made me cry). I’ve even walked around Bath with a copy of “Persuasion” trying to figure out exactly where Anne Elliot is standing when she first catches sight of Capt. Wentworth on Milsom Street.
All of which renders me uniquely unqualified to have any sort of opinion on this movie. Because really … if the whole thing functions as a satisfying piece of entertainment, why quibble about such tiny little deviations from the book? The sentiments Darcy and Elizabeth express out there in the rain — while looking just as waterlogged as Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell at the end of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” — are essentially what Jane Austen wrote in the novel. And people like it! Which means they like Jane Austen. So what if it’s outside? Conventional Hollywood wisdom dictates that it’s usually better to open up these stilted drawing room productions for cinematic purposes. We get outside, we get a little fresh air. If we’re bored, we can look at the scenery. What’s the harm?
The harm is that trapping would-be lovers in a thunderstorm was already a horrifically trite and clichéd romantic convention circa 1796, when Jane Austen first began writing the novel that would become “Pride and Prejudice.”
We had a tough time picking out a representative quote–the whole article is very good and had us nodding vigorously in several places.
LA Brain Terrain also weighs in on reservations about the film (and kindly mentions AustenBlog as well).
I want to hear what others have to say about the new Pride & Prejudice adaptation. I wasn’t that bothered by the KISS as I was by the director’s misunderstanding of Jane Austen’s sensibilities.
Basically, this adaptation was just Wuthering Heights dressed up in Pride & Prejudice clothing ( and yes, there are Bronte blogs). While I applaud any filmmakers’ effort to bring historical veracity to a film, the decision to move the timeline to the 1790s and make the scenery much more coarse and wild, also made the story more romantic, in the Byronic use of the word.
This is fine but Austen mocked the Romantic, in all her books but most especially Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey. This will not do! It’s clear the director had never read or loved the Austen books because he couldn’t love Jane for what she truly was: a clear eyed anti-sentimentalist and a Realist. She may have even been a Mannerist, who knows. The chief crime of this adaptation, directed by Joe Wright, is that he misunderstands Austen, who was telling a story about the dangers of misunderstanding people. Aargh. Perhaps P&P 3 is all just one deliberate cosmic joke on us misunderstood bluestockings.
While we didn’t like the costumes and the mud and the barnyard ambience of the film, we could dismiss them much more easily than the breathtaking misapprehension of what makes the novel great. This has been a difficult point for us to get across, as it does not boil down to details such as “the dress was wrong” or “she didn’t wear gloves at the ball” (though those circumstances also contributed to our general dissatisfaction). It also has been frustrating to have our point of view dismissed as “purist” or “prissy.” We are neither one; not by a long shot. Let’s face it, melodrama is a lot more earnest than satire. We snarkers actually are a rather relaxed lot. 
Our main emotions toward the film are frustration and disappointment and the feeling of a waste of a magnificent opportunity to make a truly great film. We cannot believe that those who enjoyed the film would not have enjoyed it just as much, if not more, if the filmmakers were more respectful of the source material and less consumed with “improving” it.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:19 am
posts like these are like a hot cup of tea you have sitting on the sopha with a purring cat on your knee.
great, thank you for pointing out these articles, now my neck aches… i’m “vigorously nodding” along with you!
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:15 pm
About the mud…I live in rural Hampshire and it’s very muddy, especially in the Winter, even in 2005!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Another fine post; thanks for the link to the “Jane In Vain” LA Brain Terrain piece.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Thanks for these articles! I wrote my own sentiments about P&P ‘05 a while back, but have felt in the minority these past few weeks. Even to the point of wondering whether Wright had read another P&P by another Jane Austen - and I just don’t happen to have THAT copy! Or else, mine got waterlogged in the rain or burnt by the flaming sunset.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Julie, perhaps that was an ill-considered mention of the mud; dog knows I squelched through enough mud during my trip to England a couple of months ago!
I have been suffering from a cold for the past few days and I’ll chalk it up to the fever boiling my brain if I may. (Am feeling much, much better today; those zinc products that are supposed to lessen the severity/length of a cold really do work! I’m a little high from Sudafed at the moment, though.)
What I really meant is the proximity of the “farm” to the house when in the novel it seems clear that Longbourn has pretty nice leisure grounds; in the scene where Lady Catherine comes to visit, she complains about the smallness of the park (but they HAD a park!) and talks of a “prettyish little wilderness” on the grounds, and Mrs. Bennet encourages Lizzy to take Her Ladyship for a walk towards the hermitage. I mean, if they had a hermitage on the grounds, I doubt they kept chickens in the yard, know what I mean? And it’s unclear to me exactly what the prevalence of Gritty Realism™ really accomplished to improve the film…I don’t mind a little roughness around the edges a la Persuasion, but they really went too far.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Mags, oh I do agree that the farm was far too close to the Bennet’s house, which was not really consistent with their position in local society. Mr Bennet was after all ‘a gentleman’ - not a hands-on farmer! The bucolic aspect was over-emphasised in P&P3 and in many ways Persuasion was far more subtle and effective in pointing out that the dirt and grime was there, but was just part of rural life at the time, even for the local gentry.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:32 pm
I just saw the film a second time, and it works as
an artistic vision of pride and prejudice. it is not
a page by page adaptation of the book, which the
bbc did in the eighties. This film is not boring, it
moves, it dances, it has spirit. so many young women i know are now reading the novel for the
first time, or the first time since high school. Why
are we complaining? It was a wonderful, romantic vision of the novel. I loved it.
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Linda, I agree with you. Does this mean we have to turn in our JA cards if we loved this movie adaptation?
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Well P&P3 may not be perfect, but I do like it too!
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:16 pm
It’s a shame they didn’t make a film that we all could love unconditionally. It would not have been that difficult to do. That was the point of this post and both the articles I linked to.
If I had a couple of thousand bucks for every time somebody has said to me, “Well, it’s not Austen, but I still liked it,” I could fund my own version. If it’s “not Jane Austen” they shouldn’t sell it that way. Every time I heard that damn commercial with “Keira Knightley in Jane Austen’s masterpiece!” I cringed.
The success of past such endeavors ensures that filmmakers and other media outlets will continue to cater to consumers of the Jane Austen™ brand (as detailed a few posts below this one). As long as we, as consumers of the Jane Austen™ brand, continue to meekly accept substandard Jane Austenesque Products, the brand will continue to be diluted. Also, as long as we who criticize the purveyors of Jane Austenesque Products under the Jane Austen™ brand name allow ourselves to be marginalized as fussbudget purists rather than perceptive and critical appreciators of Jane Austen’s work, it will continue.
I also submit that as long as Hollywood continues to take Jane Austen’s work and water it down for mass consumption–rather than perhaps challenging the mass audience to accept something a little more difficult and prickly and less sweet and cuddly–we will continue to be offered substandard Jane Austenesque products, because there is no reason for them to work a little harder to do otherwise.
I do think it’s lovely that more people are being exposed to Jane Austen through the film adaptation, but I still would much rather have had a really good adaptation. I am convinced that it could be done, and I think that we Janeites need to be the ones who hold Hollywood to high standards.
Jane Austen would not have accepted a half-assed effort, and I really don’t see why we should.
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:49 pm
If this was the only adaptation of P&P then I would be furious with the liberties that were taken. However, we are very lucky to have the 1995 BBC version which adhered very well to the tone of the book. It is because of the BBC version that I can enjoy the 05 version as much as I do. We have our ‘really good adaptation.’ Why not enjoy a different interpretation? It isn’t as if they’ve changed the central story. And, in 10 years I’m sure there will be yet another adaptation, either movie or mini-series, that some will love and some will hate. Whatever the interpretation, they’ll have to do more than romaticize the plot and dirty up the surroundings to make me hate a Jane Austen story.
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:38 pm
I think otherwise, if P&P3 were the only adaptation, I guess it would be a bit more acceptable, but IMHO it is that it doesn’t bear a comparison with previous attempts that makes it more critizided.
Besides, I do not think P&P2 is the perfect, it could be improved, and I would have liked to see a new miniserie that could indeed do that by the time when the bicentennary of the publication of the novel, but now with P&P3 in the way, I do not seen that as probable. I hope I am wrong and indeed a really better adaptation (P&P4) is not far in the horizon.
December 24th, 2005 at 9:25 am
I do not think that DM and JW were attempting to “improve” upon JA the way Patricia Rozema did. I do, however, think they were trying to bring JA to the masses, which is, IMO, something quite different.
I loved this film. I thought it was highly entertaining. It was beautiful to watch. It contained more of JA’s own dialogue than S&S2 did, and I just adored the chemistry between the two leads. I still resent the implication that those of us who love it are somehow “deficient” for liking it because I know I most certainly am not. I have read and loved JA for more than 30 years and I absolutely do “get” her.
I do not think this was a half-assed effort. I have seen it 7 times and each time I notice more and more things I missed earlier. This film is not half-assed at all. There is even, perhaps, too much going on for someone who doesn’t like the film to notice because s/he won’t be seeing it again. But those of us who have seen it multiple times can tell you that there is plenty going on up there on the screen.
And, believe it or not, this praise of P&P3 comes from someone whose favourite adaptation is P&P1.
December 24th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Actually, Joe Wright has said the he wanted this to be the “Keira Knightley” version of P&P. He had been hearing about the “Olivier” version and the “Firth” version, and he wanted to create a version in which the actress who plays Lizzy is the most memorable. He may have succeeded in this.
Personally, I think debate is healthy. We should not sit back and accept all that the screen is showing us. We each have our own favorites, but in the end, analysis makes us active thinkers, not passive consumers.
December 24th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Yes, Julie, we know that you lurrrrved it. But do you mean to say that if they had not portrayed Mrs. Bennet as well-meaning but misguided instead of the comic monster that she is in the book, or if Mr. Bennet had shown the open contempt for her that he shows in the book, or that Darcy was shown as more arrogant than shy and awkward, or Charlotte Lucas portrayed as pragmatic and clever rather than pathetically desperate, and Lizzy portrayed as a mature, intelligent, sweetly arch young woman rather than a jackbooted, bratty Modern!Grrl calculated to appeal to young teenagers, that the film wouldn’t have been better? And more importantly, closer to the original in both letter and intention? And why would the filmmakers have imposed such modernities on the film if they didn’t think they were making it “better” somehow?
Are you implying that the general moviegoing public would not have accepted such a story? When P&P has not been out of print for nearly 200 years?
I don’t mean to imply that those who like it are “deficient.” My point in this post is that saying “It’s not Austen but I like it anyway” (and that’s what just about everyone who is a Jane Austen fan who likes the film has said) is just going to get us more almost-good-enough instead of excellence. I am trying to challenge my fellow Janeites to demand something better.
They changed the intentions of the plot so much with the character portrayals that when they DID use Austen’s dialogue it often made no sense. We can nitpick details all day but then we’re missing the forest for the trees.
Personally, I think debate is healthy. We should not sit back and accept all that the screen is showing us.
Well said, Frankengirl!
December 24th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
umm, I’m one of those who loved it but is not saying it wasn’t Jane Austen. I guess I’ll need to turn in my card then. I sure hope you guys who didn’t like it also had the same contempt for the last Mansfield Park movie. Now that one I would join in with you on! Talk about character changes, new plot twists and being more Bronte-esque!!
December 24th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Debate definitely is healthy. But there are quite a lot of people who most certainly do intimate that those of us who liked it are blithering, drooling Philistines. The condescension on the part of some of those who don’t like it towards those of us who do is palpable. It’s at Austnen-L, it’s at Janeites, it’s at Pemberley, and it’s here too.
No, P&P3 is not perfect. I have my own share of criticisms. But a whole lot of knowledgeable Janeites do like it and, just because we do does not mean we are idiots.
As for changing characters, let us not forget that P&P2 changes Mr. Collins into something JA never told us about. P&P2 makes Mrs. Bennet even worse than she is in the book. P&P2’s Wickham isn’t what he is in the book either. P&P2’s Lydia is a blowsy slut, JA’s is not. P&P2’s Elizabeth is smug, and JA’s Elizabeth is not. P&P2’s Darcy is constipated, and JA’s is not.
I thought Keira Knightley was a delightful Elizabeth. She had the archness and sweetness that JA tells us the character has. I liked MM as Darcy. I liked Lydia in this version much better too. Perhaps it’s because the actors are much closer in age to their counterparts in the book, but I really liked the younger generation much more than I did in P&P2. I did not like Donald Sutherland, and Brenda Blethyn was definitely too “normal” to play Mrs. Bennet. But at least I didn’t have to worry about hitting the “mute” button whenever she was on screen. Alison Steadman’s performance should have come with earplugs.
There is something missing in each of the adaptations, some more than others, to be sure, but none of them is perfect. But this works as a movie for me (which MP2 did not). And, I have to tell you that, during my most recent viewing (with someone who’d seen it 14 times and someone else who’d seen it 4 — both confirmed Janeites), I sat next to a woman who’d never read the book nor seen any of the other adaptations, but she loved this movie. And this movie made her want to read the book. That counts for something with me.
December 24th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Julie P., with all due respect, it is you who is twisting the use of the word improve, not me. What I mean by using the word improve is what Mags has already said, to make an adaptation:
if you did not read it like that, it is up to you, your own interpretation, not mine.
Once again, it is you who is making that interpretation, not me. For years I have read with interest your comments in other JA fora, and I had also the pleasure to meet you in person a few years back, so I have never think you defficient in mind, what we have now is a strong difference in taste. It is you, by yourself, who sees offense in those who are disagreeeing and also falling perhaps into oversensitivity.
BTW, I draw to your attention that what you feel can also be felt the other way around, as has already been pointed out, those who have not liked the film had also been accused of many things, including -you might remember- curmudgeons with necrophiliac taste, but unlike you, we do not feel that offended, sometimes we could even feel proud to be called so.
Yes, I do believe you can get her, and because of that you cannot also deny what Mags has pointed out re: Mr. & Mrs. Bennet, Darcy and Lizzy.
Yes, indeed, by now you might have the advantage of having seen the film several times, but that is also because you liked it, so you do not think it is a waste of money investing in more viewings. While those who did not will probably catch up latter, until the DVD is released, so one doesn’t need to spend more money on it, perhaps then as many discoveries as you have made could be done, but also there’s another possibility, that in closer look, more flaws can be discovered and noticed.
December 24th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
IMHO, “Yes, Julie, we know that you lurrrrved it.” sounds condescending to me.
December 24th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
It’s speaks so well of Jane Austen that so many of us feel so close to her characters. I know I’m guilty of this. I feel I “know” a particular character. This character has been my “friend or “companion,” possibly during a difficult time. She or he has made me smile or laugh or infused me with courage or comfort. I confess - watching P&P was hard for me - because I felt a friend of mine was being portrayed there. But am I a better friend to Elizabeth (or Jane) than you are? Of course not! We all adore/admire her in our own way (and see her with our own eyes). If I seem arrogant (and insanely stubborn), it’s (partly) due to this bizarre sense that adaptations of P&P are bio-pics of old, dear friends of mine.
December 25th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I agree with many of you. I was a regional president of JASNA in Illinois for
several years, so I qualify as a Janeite. I loved Pride and Prejudice 3; it was
a wondertul adaptation, but it is not the novel. The entire novel could not be presented in two hours. My two daughters love Jane Austen after seeing this
movie and are enthralled with the love story because Keira and Matthew portrayed Lizzie and Darcy so well. (They are in their twenties like the two
lovers). So, I think– why not listen to the younger generation and enjoy this
event. The three of us cannot wait until we can buy the dvd and see it again
together. The romantic scenes were especially excellent. Perhaps we are just
romantic?
December 25th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
I think the Keira Knightley P&P movie is wonderful, and I think it is Austen. It isn’t the same as the novel, but there will never be an adaptation that is. Or as wonderful. KK became Elizabeth Bennet almost immediately, and remained Elizabeth Bennet for the entire movie. MM was Darcy. They were not the same as the characters I imagine when I read the book, but there are no actors alive who could become those people.
I understand that not everyone will like this movie, just as probably not everyone liked the previous adaptations. But just because a film is not a perfect adaptation, or because it isn’t loved/liked by everyone, doesn’t mean it isn’t Austen for those of us who like it.
When I watched it, I was able to let go of the version of P&P in my head, and see it as a wonderful adaptation and film. I believe the movie will bring more people to the book, which is always a good thing. And the book is the only true version of P&P, after all.
December 25th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Commentary about P&P2, or comparisons, have nothing to do with my point, which, to repeat once again, is that they could have made the film in such a way that all would have enjoyed it, and that if we accept and support “Not Austen” we will continue to receive “Not Austen.” We reap what we sow.
Get used to it, and don’t complain about it next time.
Trinity Says:
IMHO, “Yes, Julie, we know that you lurrrrved it.” sounds condescending to me.
Wasn’t meant that way–more like, “Back there again, are we?” Though I dare say everyone reading this blog can say the same thing to me.
Happy Holidays, everyone.
December 25th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
I agree — and since I think that the KK P&P is Austen, then I will be happy to support this movie and hope to see other Austen movies that are close to this good in the future some time.
And Happy, happy holidays to you, as well.
December 26th, 2005 at 11:08 am
There are people who like P&P0 (including yours truly — probably because it was the first adaptation ever saw and I have a soft spot for it), despite the vitriol directed at it. We admit it’s “Not Austen,” but we think it is entertaining all the same.
There are a lot of us who dearly love P&P1, and we and our favorite adaptation are routinely scorned by the P&P2 aficionados. P&P1 has its faults, but it also has a lot of good things about it that too many people don’t notice because of the (admittedly) poor production values.
Yet P&P2 is not perfect either, and there are plenty of people who don’t love it. My own opinion is that P&P2 is the opposite of P&P1 — the excellent production values allow its myriad flaws to hide.
As a result, I would submit that there is no single film that we “all” would have enjoyed (let’s face it — some people who liked MP even liked MP2!). As Cassee points out, some of us did see Austen in P&P3, regardless of whether or not you did, and saying this was “Not Austen” is part of what we are objecting to. That is your opinion. Since you are the owner/operator of this site, your opinion is the one most people pay attention to. This is to be expected, and there is nothing wront with it. However, when there is a group of people who don’t know each other well, such comments can be taken as insults directed at people who disagree with you, and this does not encourage sisterly affection.
However, I will end my part of the discussion with the following:
Vive la différence!
December 26th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Without trying to stir up the above discussion even more, I would like to point out to some aspect of this new P&P adaptation which disqualifies it, in my opinion, both as a adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel, and as a romance in its own right. The love and respect of Mr. Darcy for Elizabeth Bennet are, in this movie, incomprehensible. Elizabeth, as portrayed by Keira Knightley, cannot hold a book in her hands more credibly than Miss Bingley can, and is as impertinent and ill-mannered as the latter is.
I am not even sure a justification of the romance is something to look for in this movie; there are no hints that the director makes any efforts to offer such a justification, he just goes on with the romance as if it were a given.
As for the portrayal of Elizabeth as an impudent young lady, I would like to believe that it was not in the intention of the director to suggest that this is the image an accomplished young woman ought to project in order to get attention from a young man of good breeding.
December 26th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I would have to disagree, as would many of the people (women & men) I know who have seen the movie. I thought that Miss Knightley portrayed a beautiful, young, spirited but intelligent woman with spunk and a great deal of self-confidence and self-respect.
Miss Bingley was portrayed as a snob, and then some, openly laughing at a guest in her brother’s home with some intent of impressing Darcy with her snobbishness. Elizabeth was clearly not of the same ilk. And as for Elizabeth trying to project any image “in order to get attention from a young man of good breeding,” I don’t believe that JA’s Elizabeth did that either. It worked, however, in both the novel and in P&P3. Darcy’s attention was grabbed because Elizabeth was different, because she wasn’t trying to get attention from any young man, let alone Mr. Darcy.
I would love to have had more of the build-up of the romance, but even with what the movie gave us, I had no trouble believing that Darcy was smitten with Elizabeth from a very early point. So, if it hadn’t been an adaptation of the novel, I still would have bought it as a romance. Win-win in my book.
December 27th, 2005 at 3:52 am
I appologize to all those who have liked the movie (P&P3) if I caused them any offence.
As for Elizabeth not trying to engage any young man’s attention, may I remind you that it was Elizabeth who asked Mr. Darcy to dance, in the movie we are talking about? I reckon this must have been a very direct way to engage a man’s attention a few hundred years ago.
Also, I like to believe that Mr. Darcy was not just “smitten” with Elizabeth, but appreciated her in virtue of her many accomplishments.
December 27th, 2005 at 9:57 am
No offense taken on my part. Being friendly is not necessarily trying to get attention in the way that I thought you meant, but I probably misunderstood your meaning and I’m sorry if that is the case here. Mr. Darcy, in the book and in this current adaptation, first noticed Elizabeth’s intelligent eyes and her playful manners, not her accomplishments. In the movie, when she came to Netherfield to visit her sick sister, he noticed her looks, but he would also have noticed her care for her sister, and he clearly noticed her enjoyment of reading (which is similar to the book), and her ability to hold her own in conversation.
I’m not sure what accomplishments Elizabeth had in the book that Mr. Darcy would have appreciated, other than her piano playing (which definitely seemed worse in the movie that I would have thought from reading the book). What specific accomplishments were you thinking of?
December 27th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Not to nit-pick, but in the movie Lizzie did not ask him to dance, but only asked him if he liked to dance. Two completely different things there.
December 27th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
It must have been my misunderstanding, although she does seem to take a bit of offence in him not liking to dance, which is a bit odd if she were only trying to ascertain his preferrences.
December 27th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Haven’t seen P&P3 yet. Will rent it expecting to see something akin to a Lisztian performance of a Mozart piece. However, at least Mozart was recognizable in all the exaggeration of tempo, dynamics, and phrasing. That fashion completely passed away in music as did the overblown performances of Bach in the romantic virtuoso style before the early music movement came in. That movement has left a permanent impression on music performance in a high regard for authenticity.
Unfortunately, the emotional restraint and other classical attributes of Austen’s writing (she a teenager at the time of Mozart’s death) must be sacrificed to the mass market until Mags gets financing for film-making
You may be amused to read other notions of musical styles and their play on listeners’ emotions.
–Philippe Herreweghe 1985
P. S. Julie P. has the taste to top-rate P&P1. That’s enough for me
December 27th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Flattery will get you almost anywhere.
December 27th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
A lady asking a gentleman “if he dances” at a ball can be perceived as a very broad hint that she wishes him to invite her to do so. It came across to me that way (I went about three feet out of my seat and let out a strangled cry of horror).
December 27th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Okay, enlighten me, please!
Is P&P1 a reference to the BBC version in the ’80s (Garvie/Rintoul) or the 1940 version (Garson/Olivier)?
December 27th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
P&P0 - 1940 theatrical film, Garson/Olivier
P&P1 - 1979ish TV miniseries, Garvie/Rintoul
P&P2 - 1995 TV miniseries, Ehle/Firth
P&P3 - 2005 theatrical film, Knightley/Macfadyen
P&P Utah - 2003 modern-set “Mollywood” theatrical film (filmmakers catering to Mormon audience)
B&P - Bride and Prejudice
and let us not forget:
P&PW - Wishbone episode “Furst Impressions”
(Why P&P0? Because it was forgotten at first when the numbering system was made up and it was too late to go back.)
December 27th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Thank you, Mags! Yes, starting with “0″ threw me off. Zero hardly seems flattering.
December 27th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Yes, the numbering can be a bit confusing, the explanation I know is from the Republic of Pemberley FAQ’s
“[Austen-L] members got in the way of referring to the two BBC versions as one and two, before remembering about the Olivier/Garson pseudo adaptation, and sneaked it in, database style.”
Since then and thanks to IMDB, other previous P&P adaptations have been brought to attention (but they are not available in video or DVD, we do not even now if BBC has still a copy of them):
1952 P&P, with Dahpne Slater and Peter Cushing
1967 P&P, with Celia Bannerman and Lewis Fiander
They were in black and white, and a few Janeites still have some recollection of them.
The most I have seen of both is from a Daily Mirror article made available at the Keiraweb
Furthermore, it seems P&P0 was not the first P&P adaptation ever made, there is another from 1938 listed at IMDB, with Curigwen Lewis and Andrew Osborn. I wonder how it was since it had a duration of 55 minutes. If one can complain about P&P0 and P&P3 short length, the other one beats them.
December 27th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
I don’t care what they say, I SO want to see the version with Peter Cushing as Darcy. (And Prunella Scales is Lydia!!!!)
Rumor has it the BBC is planning to put a lot of their archival material online…not sure if this is the type of thing they mean, or just news items, but boy, wouldn’t it be nifty to just download those older versions?
December 28th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Someone at Pemberley mentioned a site that allowed UK residents ONLY to view clips from one of those as-yet-unavailable versions of P&P. Since I am not a UK resident, I could not access the site. Since Pemberley is on holiday this week, we can’t access the archives to find out the particulars so that any Brits who are here can check it out for the rest of us.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
GARVIE STILL WORKING AUSTEN LODE (!)
http://www.celebrityproductions.info/downloads/cc_newsletter.pdf
(Oct. 2005)
December 30th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
I for one LOVED the new version. Nowadays, as Donald Sutherland says, you need to cut out a little bit of the verbosity of a novel. That doesn’t mean that a movie can’t be EXCELLENT. and this one was the best film I’ve seen all year.
Not to mention a gorgeous Mr. Darcy.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Donald Sutherland me no Donald Sutherlands. We’ve dealt with the likes of him already.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
When all of my friends gushed over S&S2, I demurred — the sight of Emma Thompson snivelling at the end was just too much for my own sensibilities, as was the age of the protagonists. Although Elinor learns a great deal about her own tendency to repress her emotions and to play the martyr, she never snorts and weeps hysterically. The fact that Emma was about 15 years older than the character whom she was portraying made the entire scene far more “old maideny” than it needed to be.
All this brings me to P&P3– I wonder just which parts of this adaptation were doctored by Thompson, who seems determined to turn Austen into Oprah.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Well…from S&S, Vol. III, Ch. XII:
I love that moment–Elinor finally loses it.
And I thought it was cute in the film.
That being said, I agree with you that S&S2 has some of the same thematic elements that bug me about the new P&P–the constant harping on the Dashwood ladies’ poverty (which wasn’t as bad as all that, really) and the insistence that “women can’t inherit, it is the law,” which of course it wasn’t.
HOWEVER–the big difference is that there is little change in characterizations, at least for the main characters. Marianne is headstrong and romantic and Elinor keeps her emotions bottled up inside. Granted, Mrs. Dashwood is more sensible than in the book, and Col. Brandon way sexier, and Edward in the book is not a stammering idiot as Hugh Grant played him, but it doesn’t leap out at one the way that “nice” Mr. Bennet lovingly nuzzling his wife does.
(And re-reading the passage above, maybe Edward IS a stammering idiot.)
Having read an earlier draft of the P&P script, apparently before ET was brought in, I’d say she’s reponsible for quite a bit of the thematic changes, along with Joe Wright (and it’s hard to say how much of it was done at his instigation). I think it’s very interesting that she didn’t want to be credited.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
i LOVE jane austen and all of her books that i have read so far. i first tried to read pride and prejudice (pretend that the title is either underlined) in eight grade but it was only my jounior year of high school that i was able to read, understand, and enjoy/love the briluent (can’t spell) writen world that austen has created. very nice blog.
tabz
January 18th, 2006 at 4:03 am
Now… I feel like the one person laughing half an hour after the punch line, but, sadly, P&P3 just got here (Poland) and I just went to see it (twice).
My worse fears have been realized: after shaking off the shock of hearing sad, little stups of dialogue left after the carnage of “adaptation” - I (gasp!!) liked the movie. This must mean one of the two things: I either miss something in my life (romance??) or am entering my dotage, therefore losing my edge. Of course (double gasp!!) it could be both…
The movie wasn’t as funny as it should be; was a little rushed; some characters got a short shift or were changed entirely; Keira was too pretty; Matthew wasn’t proud enough; etc. I’m going to see it for a third time… Oh gods, is there a hope for me!? Mags (”She, Who Must Be Obeyed”) does this mean no more chocolates?! (agonizing whimper!)
January 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Bring me a shark with a laser beam in its head, and you can have the chocolates.
March 30th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Maggs!!!wt does dog refer to in ur comments…r u in ur senses
March 30th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
It’s a joke, and yes, I am in my senses, as I am still able to type complete words. What’s your excuse?