The debate rages on
We were amused by Chris Campbell’s review of P&P3, which included some editorial commentary that verged on the Machiavellian.
Here’s a little suggestion for men who derive entertainment out of seeing their better halves get steamed up.
Tell them that Matthew Macfadyen is better than Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy.
If they’ve seen both versions of Jane Austen’s classic novel, you WILL get a reaction and it will likely involve expletives you’ve never heard come out of their mouth before.
In my experience, women adore Firth as Mr. Darcy in the 1995 mini-series. I’ve heard it from female reporters, friends - even strangers in restaurants. The guy is a friggin’ icon.
We will go out on a limb and say that Mr. Macfadyen, though handsome and talented and whose fans are certainly enthusiastic, is not The New Colin Firth. We think that sobriquet belongs more properly to Richard Armitage in NORTH AND SOUTH. The excitement around his portrayal of John Thornton in that series has the same intensity we remember from the early days of the Firth!Darcy phenomenon. Now despise us if you dare! 
March 9th, 2006 at 1:48 am
I actually liked Olivier’s Darcy best. Although…there was no pond scene.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:06 am
I find it intriguing that in the section you quote the writer talks about women as if they are some exotic and totally different species.. (Locate a Woman. Carry out this interesting experiment…)
March 9th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Well, I am a Matthew McFadyen lover. I really loved him as Darcy above and beyond Colin Firth, sorry. I love Colin Firth very much ( and Richard Armitage was faboulous on N&S) but to me MM was more my Darcy.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:41 am
It’s funny, that first line describes Mr Bennet himself. That is, the real Mr Bennet, not Donald Sutherland’s version who seems more likely to give a girlish shriek and go hide in an armoire if confronted by an angry Mrs B.
I recently found an old copy of Pride and Prejudice at a library book sale (1907 Everyman’s Library edition) which I purchased even though the binding was broken and the two halves of the book are held together by only three threads. Just couldn’t help myself, but that’s enough about my mental issues.
The woman I paid was older, probably in her seventies, and P&P was the only book in my large stack that she commented on–”Oh, I love this book” she said dreamily. Then her eyes narrowed and she barked out, “What did you think of the new movie?” I gave my brief opinion (that it was a pretty good movie, but it certainly wasn’t JA and it wasn’t even a very good period film, detail-wise) which fortunately made her believe that she didn’t need to harm me ;), and off she went. She lambasted the screenplay, the director(rightfully so, but Joe Wright should be glad he wasn’t there–who knows what torture she would have subjected him to!), the actors–esp. Donald Sutherland, MM (”He seems like a nice young man, and I suppose he can act, but he was NOT Mr Darcy”–direct quote) and KK (I’m not positive what she said since she was spluttering, but I doubt if they were words I could post here anyway). By the time I left the other two ladies that were working there were involved in it too, so I grabbed my daughter and my bag of books and fled, glad to have escaped with my life.
Well, no not really. I was enjoying myself too much to flee.
I shared all of this to point out that obviously any sick-minded man who likes to upset women need not restrict himself merely to his significant other. Oh no, he can upset his mother and grandma, too. And aunts! And cousins! Think of the possibilities! Of course, once you rouse this mighty horde of women to fury you may need to hide for the rest of your life, but you would have your memories. Wouldn’t it be worth it? Ya sicko.
Risking making this long post even longer to agree with you about Richard Armitage, Mags. Yes, indeedy.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Ali: no need to apologize. I like Matthew, too, and I know interest in him is tremendous just from the statistics on this site–we get lots of hits from people checking Google for information on him.
What I mean is that the feeling around Colin Firth as Darcy when P&P2 first came out, that cultural zeitgeist and the impression that here was an actor who was portraying the role he was born to play, which in my mind is a big part of the fascination with Firth!Darcy, is more apparent in Armitage!Thornton than in Macfadyen!Darcy. It’s a group dynamics thing. I don’t think there will ever be that cult-like following around Macfadyen in this role that there was (and is) around Firth as Darcy, but I can totally see it happening for Armitage as Thornton.
Amy: I have had conversations with lots of people who I never knew or would have thought were into Jane Austen who have VERY strong opinions about the film!
March 9th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hate me if you wish. I think MM was a better Darcy. At least at the end of P&P3 i believed that Darcy was in love with lizzy, CF was a little to dry for me. But before you condem me I will say that neither of them compare to the Darcy in the book, i don’t think anyone has ever played him the way he was in the book.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I recently introduced my mum to the BBC series and she has watched it many times now. Yesterday evening she went to the cinema to see the P&P3 and came home horrified. Not only did she hate what you call GrittyRealism™, but also what the had done to the story and the new Darcy. I think no one - not even my own mother - can resist Colin Firth’s Darcyness
I also loved the way he portrayed Darcy but IMHO Matthew M. is truer to the real Austen character.
I will be watching North & South in a few weeks finally. I can’t wait!!
March 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Interestingly enough, I’ve loved the four Darcys I’ve seen - Olivier (though I hated everything else about that adaptation), Rintoul (1980 BBC production), Firth and now MacFadyen. Each has been different, yet appealing in his own way. My mum missed P&P3 in the theatre - she’s coming over on the weekend to watch the DVD. Hope she likes it
March 9th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Thank you, Teresa, I’m glad to see another Olivier fan.
Although I disagree with you a teensy weensy bit…I simply loved Caroline Bingley in that version. Listening to her say “..as well as in her figure, and carriage” in the most dis-tain-ful voice I’ve heard from any actress…oooooh, I get shivers.
Where can one find the 1980 version? I’ve had no luck.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Dae, the 1980 version of P&P comes in a set of BBC Jane Austen adaptations. It’s a real treasure: I love all of them, except possibly the NA. I got mine at Amazon. Search for “Jane Austen Collection”… I think that’s what it’s called.
March 9th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Here at Amazon you can get the 1980 version by itself or in a set.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000244FDW/qid=1141931001/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-4018636-3857625?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000244FFU/qid=1141931001/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/002-4018636-3857625?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130
March 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Wholeheartedly agree w/you about Richard Armitage, Mags. The fanatical fan base he created through Thornton and North and South is something to behold!
March 9th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
My high school girls profess a preference for Matthew McFadyen. I personally do not understand it. I think Colin Firth captures the essence of the character, even the humor.
March 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
MM is actually a fine actor in other vehicles, In My Father’s Den and Perfect Strangers and MI-5. He grew on me as he grew on Lizzy. Maybe he just had better haircuts/wigs as movie went on. My jaw went slack though when someone praised David Rintoul. I love that 1985 version (1980?) for Elizabeth Garvie, truer to the book dialogue and other characters, but Rintoul was so wooden and monotonic that I dozed off whenever he appeared. I’m not looking for a fight here, but I really would like to know what you found good about him. I felt embarrassed for him. Am I crazy? alone?
March 9th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
One more reply in agreement that a man might be risking his life by arousing the rage of females around him (not only significant other, relatives, but even friends, colleages and strangers) by making a statement like that. I believe that my mother, aunts and cousins could react more vitrously (in particular one usually demured aunt) than yours truly. Yes, we are CF/Darcy fans to the core, and they despised the new film (they have only saw it once, and they refuse to watch it again, not even if they would be payed for it, go figure).
I would also agree that Richard Armitage/Mr. Thornton is a the rightful successor, not MM.
Of all the Darcys, I certainly think CF was born to play the role (as Clark Gable is Rett Butler), then, being shallow, I think I prefer Lawrence Olivier (maybe not the interpretation, but by appearance), then David Rintoul (he is stiff but at least he has good looks), after them, Martin Henderson (B&P) and Orlando Seale (P&P Utah) as more attractive and handsome IMHO as modern Darcys. So yes, you may imagine by now that I among that scarce minority who could not find MM appealing at all (granted he has a good voice and I can say he can be an excellent actor, but not the looks and presence I would imagine in someone like Darcy), he is not handsome enough to tempt me, I could only prefer him in comparison with Lewis Fiander (whom I can only judge by that clip made available a few weeks ago).
March 9th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
I prefer both David Rintoul (yes, he was a bit wooden) and Matthew Macfadyen to Colin Firth. I do not dislike Colin, it is simply that to me, he does not have that chiseled aristocratic look needed for Mr. Darcy. Both TV series were more true to the book than the 2005 version, which I loved. I felt that the 2005 movie left out some wonderful Darcy/Lizzy and Darcy/Caroline conversations, but it had its own charm, which for me was hugely provided by Matthew Macfadyen. Kiera was good, the cinematography was impressive, but he was brilliant. I wish he could have been given more of those omitted scenes, so that more people would be able to see that brilliance, for the sake of a few less close ups of Kiera, or a slightly longer movie.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
The women in my family (3) all adored Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy, and he is the finest actor of the group except Olivier.
He simply grew into the part slowly and we came to love him like Lizzy did, and to add, their screen chemistry made both
Lizzy and Darcy a believable and very in love couple. I just saw my dvd again and it was the most romantic Austen adaptation that I have seen, and I have seen them all. Their love scens quietly smouldered.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Also does anyone else think that the medium of television might also influence this notion of cultural zeitgeist. For a long time I’ve felt that TV is just a better storytelling medium then movies because it just allows for more intimacy then the big screen. The recent furor I’ve seen surrounding North and South has been widespread across backgrounds and interests. Whereas for P&P3 it seems that the interest is mostly confined to Janeites. I’m not saying that non-Janeites haven’t watched it but just from my experience I’ve noticed N&S mentioned on other non-JA websites whereas P&P3 has largely bypassed the larger cultural radar.
I also think that Firth was so influential in the role because the production was largely tailored around Darcy and Davies’ script was very good in filling in the gaps that JA allowed. Overall I think P&P2 had a more canonical Darcy because in the new movie he is portrayed more as an 18-yr old boy rather than a 28-yr old man. I never felt anything more toward Darcy than that of a motherly feeling. There seemed to be an air of awkwardness surrounding him which didn’t match with the impression I formed from the novel of a rather urbane, intellectual man. Nothing to do with MM’s acting ability, I just think it was another aspect of character interpretation that I didn’t agree with.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Well, if we couldn’t have Richard Armitage as the new Darcy, perhaps we can start the campaign now to have him play the new Captain Wentworth.
Come to think of it, he would make a pretty wonderful George Knightley, as well… or a Mr. Rochester and an awesome Heathcliff.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:19 am
I’ve seen 4 versions of P&P now; the 1940 B/W film with Olivier, a 1980 BBC mini-series with David Rintoul, the 1995 BBC/A&E TV series with Colin Firth, and now the 2005 film with Matthew Macfadyen.
I’ve always regarded Jane Austen’s novels as being ironically too good to film; that no production could ever recreate them as envisioned in the minds of countless readers, including my own (given reading a book is such a custom tailored experience) and knowing that, I tend to judge these adaptations on their own merits, as entities unto themselves.
To date, this 2005 film is now my favorite; for feeling that in being less repressed in how they went about it, Austen’s underlying themes were allowed to breathe and resonate more openly in the foreground and thus better capture the soul of P&P - which I’ve always viewed as being about something larger than a specific era or country. That her novel spoke to the human condition itself; which is timeless and universal.
That’s why I loved Matthew Macfadyen. His portrayal of Darcy struck me as perfectly in tune with Joe Wright’s vision; one less literal-minded when compared to previous outtings, and more about what’s going on beneath the surface, within the subtext and thus Darcy’s heart.
For here’s a wealthy Aristocrat with friends like Mr. Bingley and Col. Fitzwilliam - people far more at ease with strangers outside their social circle. And that says something about them and ergo in turn, about Darcy; as it stands to reason they wouldn’t want him for a friend, if he was in truth, this arrogant insufferable class-minded snob. And if he’s not, why does he then carry himself with such pride? Why isn’t he more like his easy going pals? In this case, it’s because he wears his social standing to a certain extent like emotional armor. To protect himself from those who would make him more accutely aware of his unease (a byproduct of shyness) by effectively keeping them at a distance.
And I liked seeing that. It made it easier for me to suspend my disbelief, and buy into the idea that a wealthy Aristocrat would ever marry outside his class. Thanks to making it less about class and more about erroneous assumptions underpinned by valid reasoning - from their contrary perspectives. It makes more sense now in other words, that they’re at odds and so too, that they eventually end up together; because the actual impediment to their happiness was always something they could over come. Ie: themselves.
As for the palpable undercurrent of sexual awareness between Darcy & Elizabeth, the extent to which we can actually see it on screen, I thought it worked well for being keeping with Wright’s interpretation of the story. He’s simply pulling that bit of subtext forward along side other themes at the same time; openly acknowledging it was always there. The same way he pulled feminism to the forefront with Charlotte’s character (the plight of single women without propects) and the duty of mothers like Mrs. Bennet to marry off their single daughters for want of options. There’s a lot of truth in this version of Pride & Prejudice.
So I’m glad they didn’t cast a stereotypical matinee idol to play Darcy. That what makes him attractive & appealing are indeed nicer qualities lying beneath the surface of his initial behavior; although I do find MM attractive all the same. Had they cast some obvious hunk to play the role, I think it would have risked undermining Wright’s objective, for shifting some of the focus off the main theme - as I think he wanted to tell the story of how, at the end of the day, Elizabeth & Darcy triumphed because they let go of what wasn’t important and ultimately embraced what is. Love.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Marie: The ironic thing is that the reason I am not fond of the new P&P is that I think they did a very poor job of capturing “the soul” of the book. It’s so funny how different people are.
Mags: What surprised me was the Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde-like transformation. One minute she looked like she should have been wearing gloves and sipping tea, very calm and soft-spoken, and the next she was wild-eyed and vehement. I wasn’t exaggerating about the spluttering either. Once I got over being startled I enjoyed the conversation, but it took me aback.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Marie, I tend to apply Occam’s Razor to Jane Austen whenever possible–that the simplest explanation is usually correct. And she didn’t call the book Shyness and Prejudice. I do think that position is textually supported as well.
I thought BRIDE AND PREJUDICE did a good job of capturing Darcy’s mindset at the beginning of the story by making Will Darcy culturally insensitive to India: treating it as a theme park rather than as someone’s home and being contemptuous of the natives when they didn’t think or act like he did and wanting to buy the luxury hotel which would bring a little slice of American life to India, rather than people traveling there to experience the culture (like Johnny Wickham did, which is why Lalita responded to him positively). When you think about it, Darcy was the same way in the book. He was insensitive to the accepted Meryton norms by not dancing at the assembly and not talking to anyone.
Another good modern equivalent is the high-powered CEO who doesn’t talk to the worker bees or understand their lives. Marie Antoinette with “let them eat cake” (and yes, I know it was apocryphal, but that WAS their attitude) was the same way, but more exaggerated.
Darcy was nice to Bingley and Col. Fitzwilliam because they WERE his class (the Bingleys were rich and their generation had not been in trade) so of course they liked him. And he had never had to be nice to the NOKDs before he fell in love with Lizzy.
Most people who were not of his class either fawned over him (Collins) or just ignored him.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Pride vs. Shyness. Yes, and that’s why I like Rintoul, to answer Susan w. It’s believable that Elizabeth would hate him, because he’s really not very likeable. He really doesn’t think much of the country folk, and that’s more true to the book than either Firth (brooding) or McFadyen (shy). And I think it’s more of a sweet surprise to find him softening at the end. Of course he was stiff. I think Darcy was stiff in the book. But not boring, no.
Which is not to say that I can’t enjoy both Firth and McFadyen very much.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Amy P: I’m sorry to hear you didn’t like Wright’s interpretation and were disappointed. I confess, I’m always surprised when I actually do like an adaptation of a novel for feeling, as mentioned, that the one painted inside my head by the writer is always the best version!
Re: Austen’s novel; I personally feel the soul of it speaks to universal themes of love which ultimately transcend a single interpretation of the text, in terms of translating the story to the medium of film. Ie: I think it’s such a great novel and one so richly layered, that you can find different things to say about its characters, in other words, while staying to true to its heart - it’s a love story after all, not a documentary.
And Joe Wright presented me with a clear vision of what he wanted to say. This is his take on Darcy, and I felt he made “that” one work within the context of the screenplay. (Whereas I don’t think he would have worked in the BBC/A&E version; it had a different sensibility to it, more of comedic romp by comparision, imo.)
I agree with you Mags; as to be sure, Austen’s Darcy was a proud man, as much a byproduct of his entitled upbringing and superior social status as any modern equivilant. But imo, Wright initially showed us that pride, in regards to Darcy’s behavior & attitude. I just think he opted to approach the character from a different perspective so as to explore an alternate and thus new understanding of him, one perhaps based more on pathology. What makes Mr. Darcy “Darcy?”
They say your are the company you keep and that it reflects upon ones character. That’s what made me think Bingley and Col. Fitzwilliam must see something in him which recommends him as worth having for a friend; beyond the fact he was was nice to them. For thinking they were too good at heart to maintain a relationship with a man truly contemptuous of those outside his class. And that it helped to give credence to Wright’s vision of Darcy as being a proud man yes, but also one uneasy in the company of strangers as a byproduct of spending most of his life around a particular group or those he’s acquainted with already; thus giving rise to shyness in general when faced with strangers, which in turn, enabled his pride to go unchecked in the first place for want of conversing with a wider variety of people. Darcy himself notes that he doesn’t find it easy to talk with strangers. And imo it all works to argue a case for the character as portrayed in Wright’s film.
One of the reasons I was able to buy him so readily is because I had such a hard time imagining David Rintoul’s Darcy ever lowering himself to marry Elizabeth Bennet! As he struck me a being a truly arrogant & proud man- far too much so to ever be swayed by emotion! I could more readly believe he’d crush his feelings instead.
Whereas Macfadyen’s Darcy is truly torn. We see him genuinely struggle with his feelings when he shows up at the Collin’s, there to ask Elizabeth to marry him. The guy’s practically in a cold sweat! You can see the battle taking place - “what the hell am I doing?!” - as he wrestles with his sense of class & propriety while being pulled the other way by his heart. His brain over rules it then and he dashes out the door! But it’s just a temporary reprieve from the insanity his heart was contemplating; for he tries again, in the rain, and this time manages to spit it out. Confessing not only his love for her now, but everything he’s had to fight against for having bottled it up for so long! It all comes pouring out. And for owning too much, gets rejected.
And gosh, but that’s such a human Darcy! Poor guy! And in that moment he’s EVERY guy regardless of birth, whose ever screwed-up for shooting himself in the foot. For he does love Elizabeth and his heart was indeed aching when he walked away empty handed. I can still recall the sight of him later on when she showed up at Pemberly; they talk, she goes, and the camera pans over his left hand; his knuckles were white.
Now this is a man hopelessly in love! One who could conceivably turn his back on the Aristocricy (to hell with what they’re going to say or think) who could marry not only beneath him, but into a family where he’s now going to be connected to the dreaded Wickham, no less! In being less restrained and reserved in the telling of it, in accounting better for how it was even possible, I was able to care more for these two star-crossed lovers than in previous versions. Which is why I liked it so much.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Marie: you said it all so beautifully that I feel like you’ve read my mind. Thanks!
March 10th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
I think the point is just to feel that excitement of a love long held in abeyance which is finally realized, and the penetration and winning of the heart of a great and proud man by an intelligent woman, and I think CF and MM serve to tell Darcy’s part that tale equally well for the different productions.
March 11th, 2006 at 3:44 am
Ali: Thank you for the nice compliment; which you kindly bestow upon me despite my spelling mistakes.
Jessica Irene: I totally agree. That’s the heart of their story; for although Austen definately wasn’t blind to the plight of her sex (ie: Charlotte’s story) she nevertheless viewed love as something capable of defeating obsticles, be they internal or external in nature; that sometimes love can conquer all, albeit not without some degree of woe along the way. And both productions speak to the joy of seeing it happen.
The CF version is of course longer, so they were able to spend more time on certain things (whereas the film runs slightly over 2 hrs) and consequently they cut to the chase faster, so to speak, but I thought both versions of Darcy worked well! So for me, it comes to down to a preference for the sensibility of “this” vs “that” production, and whether I liked the taste of an orange more so than an apple. I enjoyed the Firth version, moreover. I felt they had had an interesting vision and stayed true to it. Note: I’m an artist, and so it influences how I see and thus understand things.
Case in point: they invented scenes featuring Darcy diving into the lake after a long, weary ride to his estate, of him getting out of the bath etc and looking out the window to see Elizabeth playing with his dog, we saw Darcy venting his frustration via a fencing match, and all in a bid to shed more insight onto the character and flesh him out for the screen - given they’re employing pictures now (descriptive symbols) and not just dialogue to tell his story.
I thought both productions strived to humanize Darcy, in that sense. CF’s rendition struck me as endeavoring to take a little of the starch out the guy, and it manifested itself onscreen as a kind of droll humorous subtext. By contrast, Macfedyen’s approach focused less on humour and more on Darcy’s angst; the dire predicament he found himself in. I love Elizabeth Bennet - oh dear God, have I lost my mind?! Have you seen her family!? Which imo speaks a little more to the character’s internal battle for pulling it to the forefront. And why I personally felt Macfedyen’s Darcy (to his credit) appeared more visably shaken & undone by his love for Elizabeth and consequently, packed more of a visceral punch.
I could feel his anxiety as a kind of gutwrenching panic, the prospect of what lay ahead should he act upon his feelings clearly striking him as akin to social suicide! Thank God it all turns out well for him, otherwise Darcy would have broken my heart; chuckle!
Especially in light of how it’s ultimately resolved. Unable to sleep, Darcy seeks Elizabeth out, his hopes renewed in the wake of Lady Catherine’s earlier visit, which he quickly apologizes for (given the she was so unpleasant) but he doesn’t deliver a mea culpa for his own past behavior. He’s not in “apologize mode” in other words, and that was interesting to note, I thought. Instead he’s standing on his knees, metaphorically speaking, placing his desperate heart at her feet. Love has truly humbled him and he’s bleeding internally because of it; the fear of a second rejection causing him to stumble now over his words (underscoring then just how deep the arrow of her initial rejection must have pierced him.) Allowing for ones empathy to truly rise up now; at least in my case.
I thought CF’s Darcy felt that pain too, and that they simply conveyed it differently. I just wanted to note that for readers, as I’m aware and thus mindful of how beloved the BBC/A&E version is. For I don’t actually think one production was more right in its approach than the other. Again, for feeling it’s just apples vs oranges and which you prefer.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:03 am
I for one love MM, I think he is a wonderful Darcy and today I prefer him to Colin Firth. I dont know why, I just really like him. I will say this, I am 21, my 20 year old sister, my 21 year old best friend, my father, and 5 of my other friends all between 18 and 15 all prefer MM.
Now I cannot explain my dad, I forced him to watch the film before the oscars, to my suprise he cried at the scene on the hill. BUT, as for my female friends that are my age, who have seen both, prefer MM. He is our Darcy. I guess it is sort of how Pierce Brosnan is our James Bond, while Sean Connery is my parents Bond. Now not to go too far into 007 but its not that we dont like sean connery, or colin firth, but we fell in love with Pierce Brosnan, MM, for a reason we do not quite understand. Not that Brosnan is better or for any other reason, but he is OUR generations Bond. Just as MM is the Darcy for the women coming of age now.
~R
March 11th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
ANy actor is going to have his own interpretation of Darcy. Some are more earthbound, some more intellectual. And what appeals to various women depends on those women like. That is why some of us like FIrth, or Olivier, and some of us like
Macfadyen. There is no right answer to this question. It is a matter of interpretation and also what appeals to you. We are all differetn, within the realm of Jane Austen’s characters and novels.
March 12th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I
March 12th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Marie, Thank you so much for your wonderful comments, I too felt you’ve read my mind! I saw the movie and now the DVD (countless times), I savor watching every scene between KK and MM (especially the short scene in Netherfield where he held her hand when she was getting on the carriage, at the Collins’, the rain scene at Rosings, at Pemberley when Lizzie was running away out of embarrassment and the following meeting with Georgiana, Darcy and Bingley’s visit to the Bennet’s home, and of course the one where he confessed his love again in the early morning mist, and the final scene). To me MM simply captured the true essence of the pain and struggle Darcy was going through, that I fell in love with him just as Lizzie did.
March 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
i totaly agree with Anonomous, MM really makes you fall in love with him. does anyone else feel that CF was kind of dry?
March 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Mags, once again, this peerless romantic comedy is submerged in tears. Throw ‘em a lifeline, an oar, a compass to steer ‘er by.
March 12th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
I refused to see the latest version of P&P in the theaters, convinced it would be awful. But I rented the dvd the other day and was pleasantly surprised. It is definitely the modern version of P&P, short and to the point, great cinematography, and hip lead actors. It lacks subtlety and nuance but in exchange we get a bloke as Darcy which I find to be a pleasant alternative to CF. It’s a bit like having a husband and a lover. For me at the moment anyhow the lover is vastly more interesting but in the end I bet the husband wins out.
March 12th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
I loved Rintoul’s Darcy. Yes, he was stiff, but so is JA’s Darcy.
That said, I loved, loved, loved MM as Darcy. I thought he was wonderful as a 28-year-old man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Watching him struggle to fight his attraction to Elizabeth took my breath away. I thought the chemistry between MM and KK was palpable. I was, frankly, surprised when I learned that CF and JE were an item during P&P2 because I never saw even the smallest hint of chemistry between them.
And last but not least, I will never apologize for saying that CF looked constipated. While his body language was not as stiff as Rintoul’s, his emotional range was not much better. But Rintoul has the advantage of looking like an aristocrat, and CF does not. This is all besides the fact that I thought CF was too old to play Darcy.
All this is JMO, of course.
March 12th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Definitely, there is a wide range of opinions. BTW, now you mention it again, Julie, I have never seen any of the Darcys with the problem you mention, though both my mother and my brother thought the one constipated was MM.
March 13th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I watched the BBC/A&E version with Colin Firth again, last night. As it had been while. And I think the main difference is that Darcy initially comes across as exasperated & annoyed with himself in the wake of his growing love for Elizabeth. He resents that she’s pierced his armor, so to speak, for being accutely aware of the differences between them socially, etc. While in turn, Elizabeth Bennet regards him as this proud, insufferable man she enjoys taking down a peg or two. The attraction is there, but they’re clearly fighting it and far more adversarial than MM and KK were.
Whereas in the 2 hour film, Darcy can’t spend 1.9 hrs verbally fencing with Elizabeth, eh? So instead, they went for pathos and pulled the emotion to the forefront. Again, just a different take on the story. I like both versions. Although that said, it was refreshing to see it told with a new sensibility.
March 13th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
And last but not least, I will never apologize for saying that CF looked constipated…I thought CF was too old to play Darcy.
julie~
Here, Here!!!!
March 13th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
MM is my favourite Darcy, despite having a relatively small role compared to that of CF’s Darcy, even allowing for the difference in the length of the productions. Andrew Davies’ script in P&P2 gave an awful lot of screen time to CF and he was really the star of the show, whereas MM was definitely the poor relation to KK; he had so few scenes. It is to his credit that he made such an impression.
It is interesting to compare MM with Richard Armitage (who’s excellent) in North & South. The role of John Thornton is huge and RA has far more opportunity to dominate the scenes he is in, which is why he has arguably gained iconic status with CF; supporting actors will never achieve the same status.
March 13th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
(Rebecca) ” I refused to see the latest version of P&P in the theaters, convinced it would be awful. But I rented the dvd the other day and was pleasantly surprised. It is definitely the modern version of P&P, short and to the point, great cinematography, and hip lead actors. It lacks subtlety and nuance but in exchange we get a bloke as Darcy which I find to be a pleasant alternative to CF. It’s a bit like having a husband and a lover. For me at the moment anyhow the lover is vastly more interesting but in the end I bet the husband wins out.”
Rebecca, you read my mind! I, too, refused to go see it, and just rented it last week. I was convinced that I would hate it, primarily from comments read here. I decided to just watch it as though I didn’t know anything about it — and found it to be a pleasant chick flick with beautiful scenery.
Then I watched it again the next night, really looking for a great JA story. All I can say is that this is NOT my P&P. I could not determine when or why Elizabeth & Darcy changed their opinions about each other. “I hate you, I hate you”…(10 minutes later run out in the rain in the dark in state of undress)… “I love you, I love you!” HUH? It made no sense. This is more Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan, or Toby McGuire/Kirsten Dunst than Lizzy/Darcy. OK for a date movie, but not JA.
I understand that the plot had to be shortened for time constraints, but in doing so, the story got lost. We could have easily given up the leisurely stroll thru the laundry yard and the multiple scenes of the singing housemaid wandering thru the house for 5 more minutes of story/character development. OK, I will admit that I did not watch a third time with Joe W’s commentary, so if I missed some important key to understanding, I’m sure someone will let me know. (On the other hand, one should not have to hear a director’s commentary to understand, right?)
I rewatched P&P2 Sunday, and will always choose it over any other version. Matthew M. does have some very fine eyes and I may even buy the new DVD to add to my JA collection. He’ll make a delicious “lover”, but in the long run, Colin Firth will always be my choice for a “husband.” Thanks, Rebecca for succinctly putting words to my impressions.
Now before you youngun’s stomp all over me, keep in mind that I am considerably older than 15. And that we are all entitled to our own opinions.
March 13th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Totally agree CF looked constipated - due to his limited range of facial expressions.
And he was too old - I think I saw him in too many things in the 80’s for him to be ever believable as the 28 year old Darcy!
March 14th, 2006 at 7:46 am
[I]Deb R: Now before you youngun’s stomp all over me, keep in mind that I am considerably older than 15. And that we are all entitled to our own opinions.[/I]
Absolutely! For I agree; everyone’s entitled to own a thought out loud. And I think it’s boring to engage only like-minded individuals moreover, as they simply echo the views you’re already well acquainted with; ie: your own. Begging the question, why bother reading a blog, then? It’s more interesting to read a mix of opinions, as then you get to see it from another perspective and in the process, potentially discover or learn something new!
NOTE: I’m 41 yrs old. I’ve always regarded that as just my physical age, and my likes and dislikes residing beyond its confines. I love Austen. But I also love Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
As for Joe Wright’s commentary, I have the North American DVD and listened to part of the film with the commentary “on” and this basically sums up his take on it:
“It’s a story about very young people falling in love for the first time, Elizabeth Bennet is like 20, Darcy is 28. This story can only be told by people of that age because it’s about falling in love for the first time and it’s about not quite recognizing the feelings you are having for someone else.”
Note: Macfadyen was 30 yrs old when they shot the film. Apparently Wright decided to cast actors closer in age to the actual characters, as the last film featured Olivier & Garson, who were older. Note: in the mini-series - Firth was 35 yrs and Ehle was 26 yrs.
I agree however that the screenplay does waste valuable time on non-essential scenes, given they decided to tell the story in approx 2hrs. For I dare say if people weren’t already well familiar with the story, Darcy’s proposal might not have made enough sense. At the same time, this version is clearly being told from Elizabeth’s point of view - and she doesn’t know that he’s been struggling with his feelings. Even in the novel, his proposal arrives as a total surprise! And so one could argue that to the extent it feels like it’s coming out of the blue, is because it actually did. Had it been me though, I’d have made the film a bit longer; 2.5 hrs. And used that time to summarize essential passages of dialogue from the book to better account for things onscreen. It’s a small complaint however as I still enjoyed it!
Ironically, given it’s such a condensed version, imo it actually served to underscore the emotion Joe Wright was endeavoring to pull to the forefront. As the screenplay does cut to the chase in regards to Darcy’s struggles, but in turn Macfadyen turns up the volume at his end, for needing to convey so much with so little. And I really loved that aspect of the film. How much he owns and shows in the end of what he’s really been feeling.
His Darcy is more the unseen Darcy, if you know what I mean? The one you always knew was there beneath his cool manners: a guy quietly freaking out (chuckle!) because he’s fallen in love with the wrong sort of girl so to speak, and try as he may, there’s nothing he can do about it. His heart has a mind of its own. And it was rather endearing to see Austen’s famous character visably in a state of panic. To see Darcy so utterly undone by love. For me, it felt like Wright cracked open his 18th century shell to show us a universal truth; that regardless of who you are or when and where you’re born, a common thread of humanity unites us all.
As we all have feelings which drive us for better or for worse, in the end.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
The secret life of daydreaming is visualized by Joe Wright in P&P3. I finally got the sense that one of the most loved JA’s stories has become something more than a mere description of what Lizzie told Mr. Darcy and how he looked her back. I find Wright’s interpretation emotionally valid and hence, better fullfilling Jane Austen’s idea of finding (and fighting for, why not) the true love. This is why I highly support Marie for her underlying the universality in Joe’s version of P&P. It would be hard for me to discuss in details how the story turned to a meaningful (and, all the same, truthful) film narrative for my English is not good enough. But somehow P&P3 proves to be more convincing on the groud of why Mr Darcy and Elizabeth fell for each other (and no one else), compared to the very literal, but much loved BBC mini series (1980), and the Anniversary Eddition in 1995.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
I posted earlier suggesting that there may be an age preference we all employ when choosing our favorite Darcy. What I will do is admit that Colin Firth’s Darcy is a very different Darcy than MM. In reading the novel, I never saw Colin Firth as Darcy, but I do see MM characterization. I love his Darcy, like Lizzy I am touched by his humanity. He is a much more accessible Darcy that is more real. He is a Human Darcy, when I rewatched the Colin Firth version; I was struck by how lifeless his Darcy is. That I think is the big difference. Even though I see CF struggle, I never believed it. He was just too cold to his friends. That is very different from MM Darcy who is warm to his friends; at least he appears warmer to them than he does to the rest of the world.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
In light of comparisions to efforts past & present, I thought it might be interesting to revisit the older 1980 BBC mini-series with David Rintoul, which I did last night.
I was immediately struck by how stiff and outdated the acting felt; their manner of speaking screaming RADA and stereotypical of older productions wherein everyone is walking around like they’re performing in a stage production.
As a result, Elizabeth Garvie’s mannerisms now come across as annoyingly affected and precious, Elizabeth Bennet consequently appearing a bit too pleased with her didactic observations regarding the faults of others while congratulating herself on possessing intelligence and sharp wit. And as much as Elizabeth mocks the snobbery of the Aristocracy, she’s clearly holding herself in high regard.
While David Rintoul exudes such haughty superior mindedness and unflinching reserve in his facial expressions as to essentially render Darcy a marble statue of smug prat; his body language alone making me wonder if they’d starched his underwear and not just his shirt collar.
Note: the above is of course a purely subjective point of view.
Even so, it was subsequently impossible for me to really care about these characters. Even when Darcy and Elizabeth work out their differences in the end, and Rintoul allows Darcy to crack a smile as opposed to fighting back the impulse with a stiff upper lip, I couldn’t imagine these two ever feeling more than a restrained affection for one another. It was all too prim and proper, in other words. Too cool headed to convince me that a guy like Fitzwilliam Darcy would ever marry beneath himself.
Perhaps the passage of time is partly to blame? For when I saw the 1980 production, I quite enjoyed it. However memory fades, and then I saw the 1995 version - which I really loved, as I found it vastly superior. Now we’ve got the 2005 film with Matthew Macfadyen - which to date, is the production I now love best.
Speaking for myself, I think as I get older and view various novels adapted to the screen, be it those Merchant-Ivory films or work akin to it, I’ve grown accustomed to a less restrained approach in telling these stories. To seeing more of the underlying emotional subtext brought to the surface. And as a result, it’s harder now to reconcilce myself to the old fashioned way of doing it.
As when I compare past Darcy’s with this latest one, I find it’s far easier to embrace him. For being able to see that his heart is indeed beating beneath his wardrobe.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
MM has some interesting comments about his interpretation of Darcy as a man who is still struggling with the loss of his parents and the huge responsibilities of his life. That is an impression I never got when watching CF and can’t remember well enough JA’s view. I do see this latest film as a very male portrayal of the novel with Lizzie being portraveyd as a bit shrewish and childish — more so than the JE (?? the actress opposite CF). In light of MM’s comments I came to think that this Darcy came to love Elizabeth because of, not despite her family. He was drawn to the overall warmth that was so absent in his own and his sister’s lives.
Meanwhile, I am OLD and find MM very appealing. He has a great voice, “fine” eyes, and a solid maleness about him. I would like to see more of him.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Rebbeca; I was surfing around the other day, and I came across the very thing I believe you’re refering to!
Q. How did you go about approaching the character of Darcy?
A: I find Darcy very sympathetic, I find it heartbreaking that he’s seen as very haughty and proud – and he is those things – but he’s a young man who is still grieving for his parents. He’s from an ancient family and has this huge responsibility, but it seemed to me that he’s still trying to work out who he is and how to be in the world. I found that very interesting, and I found him very sympathetic. - indielondon.co.uk
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that what the cast & crew have done here is to film the very heart of Pride & Prejudice. Previous adapations have observed more of the surface of Elizabeth and Darcy’s world and in doing so, they arguably better resemble the book. However imo, what makes the book and ergo the story so endearing to readers is everything Austen is saying inbetween the lines; what she’s ultimately endeavoring to convey & express. Which isn’t a thought now but rather, an emotion; how you feel about what you think. Which is how they’ve obviously approached it at their end, wanting to film Austen’s emotional subtext as opposed to making a period piece documenting the life of various classes in 18th century England. And if someone were to ask you to paint love, hope, longing - it’s not the same thing as literally attempting to paint the exterior of the person feeling such emotions, eh?
And I think that’s what Macfadyen has done and successfully moreover. He’s gone inside the character to find him (as written in the script) and discovered the hidden world of Mr. Darcy. And in sympathizing, wears his emotions openly yet symbolically; everything he’s not doing or saying represents the observation of propriety and class distinctions. To the extent he appears broody, an awareness of his family & social obligations and the weight of them. For remember, he’s the brother of a beloved younger sister entrusted in his care, whom he’d almost lost in the wake of Wickham’s self-serving scheme to secure her fortune while revenging himself upon Darcy. And so one could view his broody manner as being in truth, more akin to serious-minded.
Jane Austen wrote the story mostly from Elizabeth’s point of view. And as a result, we don’t get inside Darcy’s head the way we do hers. And clearly, Macfadyen’s asked himself some interesting questions about the guy. Why are you acting this way? What could account for it? What have you seen or experienced thus far in life? What are the contributing factors which have gone into the making of you as a person? And how would you feel “as” that person? Angry? Lonely? Vulnerable? Unsure of yourself? He’s given something to Darcy which imo no previous actor thought to do; a 3-dimentional pathology.
And it makes complete sense now that a guy with his emotional make-up and background, would look and act the way he does. For beyond whatever can be said about the disperity & differences between them, the fact remains Darcy has fallen in love for the very first time in his life. Little wonder then his emotions come pouring out like the rain falling over that ruined temple! And in allowing us to see that, I think his Darcy is the character Jane Austen wrote as subtext - from Darcy’s point of view. The other half the story hitherto untold. Which likely accounts for why many failed to recognize him. Perhaps for failing to place themselves in “his shoes”? Either way, he’s more accessable (to me at least) than past interpretations of the character.
March 19th, 2006 at 8:48 am
I agree with those of you who said that appreciating MM’s interpretation of Darcy is not a question of age. I am 49, have always loved Colin Firth as Darcy, but Matthew Macfadyen (and Joe Wright)portrayed a Darcy who corresponds much better to the Darcy I had always imagined when reading the book. And thanks to the comments you mentioned above, Marie, I now understand better why. Colin’s Darcy just explains to Elizabeth why he behaved as he did and thus was judged proud. In Matthew’s Darcy, you can understand it by yourself. I personaly think MM is a great actor, able of conveying multiple emotions in quite an “economic” way.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:56 am
That’s how I feel too, Anonymous. I enjoyed Colin Firth as Darcy, but I never understood what made him tick. And as I recall, the only thing Jane Austen tells you is:
“I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was taught what was right, but I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son (for many years an only child), I was spoilt by my parents, who, though good themselves (my father, particularly, all that was benevolent and amiable), allowed, encouraged, almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing; to care for none beyond my own family circle; to think meanly of all the rest of the world; to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own.”
And so you have to read inbetween the lines: Mrs. & Mrs. Darcy had a young son. And for the next 12 years or so (until Georgiana was born) he was their only child. I dare say they likely thought they wouldn’t have any more, eh? So of course he’s going to be special in their eyes; their darling boy. And consequently they spoiled him, albeit unwittingly so; as they sound nice enough, especially his Dad (as opposed to arrogant snobs in other words.)
It appears like they simply tried too hard to be good & loving parents while instilling proper moral values into an only son, and impressing upon him the importance of taking his duties seriously; he will after all, become heir to the family fortune & Pemberley estate one day; hello huge resonsibilities & obligations! And so Darcy ends up thinking “too” highly of himself now - a self-important view which when applied like a measuring stick to others, results in him thinking less of his social inferiors. Although that said, he was hardly petty or snotty about it - at least compared to Bingley’s sister. Unlike Miss Bingley, Darcy didn’t seize upon opportunities to mock or embarass people. Note: I’ve always hated Bingley’s sister and thus like to imagine that she wound up marrying a boring idiot.
At any rate, for all his outward display of emotion, Macfadyen’s approach is indeed economical. He doesn’t over act. Or do your thinking for you. He gives you just enough to spur you into wondering what’s going on? For seemingly holding something in check. And the minute you start to wonder what a character is thinking or feeling beneath the surface - BINGO! They’ve got you; grin. As now you’re going to start peeling back some layers, and for asking questions of your own.
When A&E aired Pride & Prejudice back in 1995, I loved it so much I ordered the videos, and charged approx $180 to my VISA for the 6 tape VHS box set; which was shipped up to me in Vancouver, Canada. That’s how much I loved the production. Note: exchange rates were terrible back then, I think my dollar was comparitively worth 54 cents! Anyhoo, that’s a good measuring stick of how impressed I am with MM’s version of Mr. Darcy! As it was able to surpass something I once thought worth going slightly into debt for!
Thank God DVD’s average $25.00 CAN…!
March 19th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I just wanted to thank you for all the pertinent comments you made above, Marie, and apologize for having posted anonymously just before (first time on this blog, not used to it, sorry).
March 20th, 2006 at 4:12 am
MM has a few strokes of genius - the biggest one was when he jumps out of his seat when Lizzy turns up to see sick Jane. Other than that, someone is still to explain to me why MM has a semi-crying face/painful expression for most of the movie.
March 20th, 2006 at 4:35 am
Hello everyone!
I am new to this blog and have really been enjoying the comments on P&P3. Like many of you, I have found something to like in all three productions (own all three DVDs). The Lawrence Olivier version I saw only once and have not been able to bring myself to watching it again (enough said about that one).
I love both the 1980 and 1995 versions. David Rintoul’s portrayal was, imo, true to JA’s portrayal in the book, which in turn is a portrayal of life in England at that time. Darcy’s pride was not unusual among people of his social class. There was a definite “pecking order,” which is more clearly shown in “Emma” — people knew their place and generally stayed within their social strata. Women were not liberated yet, so their destiny was usually decided by parents, husbands, etc. I think Rintoul did a great job of portraying Darcy’s disciplined upbringing, even as a child keeping a stiff upper lip, not showing your emotions, especially to strangers. In the scene where he asks Elizabeth to marry him he is restless, like a caged animal, can’t contain his feelings and he blurts out his proposal. Elizabeth turns him down and accuses him of not behaving in a gentleman like manner. That hurt him as much as her turning him down! By the time he hands Elizabeth the letter the next day, and we see him walking away, he has regained control of himself, and I think that the stiff body language Rintoul is showing speaks volumes.
Colin Firth (who I love) did not look as comfortable as Rintoul in the period clothing as he does in modern ones, but I feel he did a great job of portraying the thawing of Darcy’s feelings for Lizzie. The lake scene is cheesy, but at the same time I can imagine after traveling by horse arriving and being tempted by a cool pond. ;-D
MM’s Darcy is more comfortable in the clothes, I think, and he reveals even deeper layers of Darcy. I agree with Marie, he portrays Darcy’s torment in a more raw manner that reaches the audience.
I have been married for 30 years. When I met my now husband in the 70’s, we fell in love, and got married. Even though economics did not enter the equation, the fact that we came from different backgrounds was a consideration which, like Darcy, we set aside as we forged ahead. But all in all, it was purely a love match. I think it is difficult for modern women (especially the younger generation that is used to so much freedom) to imagine all the restrictions regarding class and wealth that existed in JA’s times. MM’s Darcy is a more modern Darcy, one who expresses his feelings more openly — which a modern audience will relate to better.
JA’s story is universal and timeless, and it is a testament to her creative genius that it is still so beloved over 200 years later! The story is still the same, but how the story is presented to an audience has changed through the years. Perhaps in a few years there will be yet another adaptation of P&P handsome enough to tempt us all to watch it. I wonder if by that time they will have Darcy and Lizzie dancing a waltz, or perhaps Darcy will be a Wall Street banker … who knows??? I am sure that we will gather here and share our first impressions!
March 20th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Catherine; better to post anonymously than be guilty of a typo such as mine - “Mrs. & Mrs. Darcy” - ahem. Chuckle! Although that would explain why they didn’t have another child for 12 yrs; as you can’t expect a miracle every day.
[i]Note: does anyone know how to format italic text? I tried once, but the code didn’t work. Maybe you have to use a lowercase letter “i”? Hmmm. Tesing my theory.[/i]
“Other than that, someone is still to explain to me why MM has a semi-crying face/painful expression for most of the movie.” - Samba
How about this:
Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pemberley finds himself surrounded by the lower classes at play in the English countryside, bored stiff; the price of endeavoring to keep a well-intentioned eye on his friend Mr. Bingley, whom he’s accompanied to Meriton. After what almost happened to Georgiana at the hands Wickham for trusting her in the care of another, and in light of how he’s been raised, it stands to reason Darcy would self-appoint himself as Bingley’s pseduo-guardian. He’s already lost both parents and nearly his sister; I dare say he doesn’t relish the idea of any harm coming to a friend, be it tangible or in terms of social standing. Ie: it’s unlikely he’s there because it struck him as really fun way to spend several weeks. As we’ve all seen how annoying Bingley’s sister can be - he can’t even write a letter in peace!
As if that’s not enough, he was already feeling a bit out of his element for lacking the ease with which Bingley interacts with folks; whether he knows them or not. Now he finds himself experiencing new (he is after all a 28 year old virgin) and entirely unwelcomed feelings for a young woman named Elizabeth Bennet, his social inferior; who teases him, calls him on stuff, and otherwise makes him feel ill-ease. And just when he thinks it can’t get any worse, the penny drops - oh my God; I’m in love!
And outwardly, it collectively manifests itself as a pained expression. Although myself, I’d have described it a being in a state of quiet misery while struggling to exude a calm exterior, one in keeping with propriety and the stiff upper lip expected of his class. As it simply wouldn’t do to have a panic attack in public.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I am over fifty, and MM is my favorite Darcy. He truly became Darcy, which Keira Knightley noted. And i think his performance made her performance better. In any event, the two of them sizzled as Darcy and Lizzy, and most of us wanted another hour of that movie with Darcy in most of the scenes. He is just such a deep, cerebral actor, and plays a very sensitive and conflicted man who falls in love. How often do we see a man fall in love on screen? Hardly ever, and that is why his portrayal was so memorable.
March 20th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Although I thoroughly enjoyed the miniseries with Colin Firth, I can say with no shame that I have watched the new 2005 version probably about a dozen times - with friends, family or on my own.
I must confess, when it was released in theatres, I declined a friend’s invitation thinking that no 2 hour movie could captivate the essence of Jane Austen’s novel the way the miniseries did.
In fact, it probably would have escaped my memory forever if I hadn’t recieved it for my birthday! I obviously had to watch it sometime in hopes that I wouldn’t be emotionally wounded forever by this potentially horrible adaption. (as many adaptions are - especially over the past 2 years)
I was stunned. The editing, lighting, directing, casting - brilliant. Agreeing with the countless other comments, I definately agree that the MM Darcy had the emotional substance that made firth seem rather dry. In two hours, they caught the essence of Jane’s novel. Although the miniseries had more time to develop Darcy’s character, I still never understood his motive or feelings as much as Matthew was able to convey in a smaller amount of screen time.
Lastly, I think the MM Darcy is the closest thing to Jane’s novel. (With the bonus of an amaaazing voice, blue eyes and the occational smile - too much!) He is the most human darcy I’ve seen - a man trying to ignore and understand his own heart.
March 27th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Well, I was convinced then and remain convinced that there is only one Mr. Darcy (forgive me dear Olivier)and that is Colin Firth. Mr. Firth said in an interview that he is ready to hand over the mantle of Fitzwilliam Darcy to MM, but Mr. Firth just being sweet. Regardless, Mr. Firth will always be Mr. Darcy as Mr. Olivier will always be Heathcliff.