Alert Janeite Cinthia sent us a link to an article in the New York Sun reviewing the 1940 film adaptation of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, recently released on DVD. The reviewer had some interesting things to say about the older film and also comparing the two theatrical releases of P&P.

It is a universally acknowledged truth that a movie studio in possession of a good fortune must be in want of Great Books. The desire fulfills two needs: to borrow prestige and flaunt high Anglican taste. In the studio era, the first helped keep watchdogs at bay and the second indulged the very pretensions that triggered Leo the Lion’s roar: ars gratia artis (”art for art’s sake”). The moguls, especially at MGM, meant to entertain and improve minds — or at least wean them from actual books, which, great or not, kept potential customers at home.

[. . .]

No better example exists than “Pride and Prejudice,” one of five selfconsciously exalted films made at MGM between 1934 and 1940 and collected by Warner Bros. as “Motion Picture Masterpieces.” As Leo the Lion would say, “Aaaarghh!” This is one of those seriously flawed films that remains irresistible and, as many subsequent adaptations prove, inimitable.

We have long struggled to explain why we like the 1940 adaptation, despite its obvious infidelity to the novel. We can’t explain it. It just makes us smile. That being said, we acknowledge that it is not even close to being a faithful adaptation.

Still, this film is more faithful to Austen than the dreary English version released last year, which wasted its additional 10-minute running time on a credit roll and a pastoral opening, complete with bleating sheep. The later film’s plot is closer to Austen, though Pemberley is shot like a documentary museum tour, which suggests how limited matters of plot become when approaching a Great Book.

Austen is nothing if not acerbic and funny, her best dialog a fountainhead for the kind of writing that would take wing a century later in the work of Wilde, Huxley, and Coward — which may help to explain why she was so long in finding a devoted audience. Austen raises characterization to an audacious pitch, almost to the level of Moliére in the instance of Mr. Collins.The 1940 film, in which Austen’s wit is augmented by Huxley’s, was one of the funniest chamber comedies of its day, and remains so today.

In contrast, there are few laughs and no wit in the 2005 version, where the actors giggle so derisively they deprive the audience of the chance. Where Leonard’s direction and the script’s machinations suggested Austen’s cool objectivity, the new version, directed by Joe Wright and scripted by Deborah Moggach, aimed for baleful realism, winding up with an accurately cast but dull Collins, a droopy-eyed Darcy (whose vaunted pride seems to stem from fatigue rather than class), and a Mr. Bennett whose final moment, as rendered by Donald Sutherland, laughing through his tears, is Actor Studio kitsch.

Ouch! (but we mostly agree)

Alert Janeite Laura wrote to tell us that a commentator on the Style network mentioned that the Dolce & Gabbana Fall 2006 collection is featuring the Empire silhouette, inspired by Pride and Prejudice and Napoleon. We think it should never go out of style!