A comparison of infidelity
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)
October 18th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Ouch indeed! I love the 1940 version because even though they didn’t stick to the book, they did it so well with great writing and casting and acting. I love the 2005 for the same reason in that they stuck to the book with great writing and casting and acting. All in all, I believe the story of Elizabeth and Darcy came through. Isn’t that what’s important?
October 18th, 2006 at 10:02 am
I like the 1940 version because it is an “adaption” that doesn’t take itself seriously. It’s fluff and it knows it.
I dislike the 2005 version, because it screws up the script and the dialogue (and the casting IMO, but that wouldn’t have mattered so much if the script had been ok) and still thinks of itself as an artistic literature adaption. :/
October 18th, 2006 at 10:54 am
I agree with the “few laughs and no wit in the 2005 version” statement. I have watched P&P0 several times and there are many things that drive me mad (for example the omission of the Pemberley visit, the dreadful first proposal, the puffed sleeves and Coronel Fitzwilliam’s attire
), but it is still entertaining and great fun, which P&P should always be even if they leave out the depth of the story and the characters.
IMO, the absence of wit was worse in P&P3 than the shallow characterization. I think that you can reduce Jane Austen’s novels -if absolutely necessary- to simple love stories, but you cannot take away the wit and the satire and still pretend it’s Austen. No way.
Oh, and I think that P&P0 has the best Caroline Bingley of all versions!
October 18th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Amen to yours and the New York Suns opinion. I watched the 1940 and the 2005 versions for the first time this year and have to say, I heartily agree with your view. Even though I know they changed the story quite a bit in the 1940 version, it was witty and charming so very much in keeping with the spirit of the book. This 2005 version, IMO, was high on melodrama and not very Austen-like at all. This post makes me smile because I do feel somewhat guilty for liking the 1940 version as much as I do.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
The thing that bothers me the most about the 1940 P&P is that they made Lady Catherine NICE. Should never, ever happen.
I have read that Darcy and Lady Cat were given personality makeovers because the U.S. was considering entering WWII at that point and Hollywood wanted to create some nostalgia for England among Americans and didn’t want to antagonize American audiences with nasty Brits, since we might be fighting at their side soon enough.
I love the sisters in the 1940 version and Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are wonderful. Actually I can’t think of an adaptation that doesn’t have a great Mrs. Bennet (other than P&P Utah, which doesn’t have a Mrs. Bennet at all, I don’t think). There’s lots of different approaches but all the women have understood the character quite well, I think.
October 18th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I haven’t seen the 1940 yet, but I will.
For all of it’s flaws I do enjoy the 2005 P&P. It’s not nearly as bad as the 1999 MP, and Mr. Wright (who might have done a better job had he waited ’til he had more experience before tackling such a classic) did put in some very nice touches. I think if they’d made it an hour longer they might have made up for some of the deficiencies, just by the inclusion of critical story elements that were cut for a shorter running time. It’s by no means a definitive adaption, but it’s not as bad as some people make it out to be. (that remark is not directed at any of the comments above; there is some seriously irrational anti-2005-P&P vitriol out there, but not on Austenblog)
I have to disagree with the casting of Mr. Collins being so good in 2005. The book refers to him as, oh I can’t remember the words, but short and creepy weren’t in the description.
October 18th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Actor’s studio kitch? Hear hear! It’s been a long while since I saw the 1940 P&P and my memory of it is that it was very American in a sense that it looked more like Gone with a wind - white picket fences and such? I watched the DVD of the 2005 adaptation and got the feeling this guy has put a great deal of thinking into stuff like light reflecting on the doors and such, and though the cinematography is perfect, the spirit of the story doesn’t really come through. But I love the setting, the old house and the old interior and the old assembly hall - very beautiful and nothing like in the previous, much more bourgeois (in the lack of a better word) settings.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Well, at least in the 1940s version poor Mary appears to get a man!
I won’t go on about my negative views of P&P2005 ‘Dude, where’s my hairbrush?’ without a spork on hand to ram into my eyes in the memory. The only thing positive that stays in my mind is the very nice square piano Mary plays (apart from the instrument magically sounding like a modern grand Steinway).
October 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I’m glad to hear some positive comments about the 1940’s version. Greer Garson was a bit old for Elizabeth, but I think she delivered her witty lines with great skill and believability. And Edna Mae Oliver was a very funny Lady Catherine even though her part was twisted to suit Hollywood. And who could have been a better Darcy than Olivier if this had been a more accurate version? If you can accept the lack of fidelity to the original book,the movie was great fun. As to the costumes, I read some place that a studio mogul didn’t like the proper Regency dresses that were first designed and demanded that they be changed. I have always suspected that the dress designer took her (his?) revenge with those very exaggerated puff sleeves and enormous skirts.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
I think the funniest scene in P&P0 1940 is the carriage race in the opening scenes, with huge puffy sleeves flying and Mrs. Bennett panting, “Faster! Faster!” Right away one knows, with a wink, that this is the Gone With The Wind version on happy gas. The gilded comic version bordering on farce, though Olivier and Garson’s wit saves the day, thanks to Huxley’s preservation of Jane’s essential repartee. But I did so hate it too when Lady Catherine softens up at the end. AAARGH! I had never heard the English/American Need-To-Be-Allies theory, but it seems plausible. I had always thought that audiences would be too uncomfortable with the idea that Lizzie is marrying into a hostile family with a Queen Bee Alpha Shemale who shuns her. “You will be censured, slighted, and despised, by every one connected with him. Your alliance will be a disgrace; your name will never even be mentioned by any of us.” Yikes! I would be intimidated, I have to admit.
I feel protective of Lizzie and a wee bit worried for her, even if she is remarkably unworried for herself. As she says, “the wife of Mr. Darcy must have such extraordinary sources of happiness necessarily attached to her situation, that she could, upon the whole, have no cause to repine.” Maybe they could not believe audiences would buy such a rational, unafraid female.
I think it diminishes Lizzie and Darcy both in the 1940’s version that the proposal only happens after Lady C relents. Slushy! But That is the Tara version for you as Mr. Giddens says…and worth it all for the archery scene.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Mags got it right about Lady Catherine. But that’s typical Hollywood of that era. Cheese all around. However, this film had a number of redeeming qualities. The screenplay was written by the great Aldous Huxley and he did a commendable job of condensing the novel.
The archery scene, admittedly out of place here, was used effectively. When Caroline was warning Lizzy about Mr. Wickham, (in the book) “I do not know the particulars, but I know very well that Mr. Darcy is not in the least to blame.”
Jane Austen wrote Lizzy’s retort: “His guilt and his descent appear by your account to be the same, for I have heard you accuse him of nothing worse than of being the son of Mr. Darcy’s steward, and of that, I can assure you, he informed me himself.”
Huxley rewrote it as: “How clever of you, my dear Miss Bingley, to know something of which you are ignorant.”
If I didn’t know better, you could have convinced me that it was lifted directly from the book. He must have been a Jane Austen fan. Lizzy then dismisses Darcy and Caroline with, “Oh Mr. Darcy, Miss Bingley is eager for her [archery] lesson. I hope you will enjoy it, Miss Bingley, and that you will learn to direct your darts with greater accuracy.”
Later, the obligatory answer to how did they come up with that title? Lizzy says, “You’re very puzzling, Mr. Darcy. At this moment it’s difficult to believe that you are so–proud.”
“At this moment it’s difficult to believe that you are so–prejudiced. Shall we not–call it quits and start again?” the boy replies.
Laurence Olivier, arguably the greatest actor of the 20th century, played Darcy magnificently, irrespective of the flaws in the script. In fact, I consider him better than that other guy…
[Ducking.] Hah! I was ready for your slings and arrows, ladies!
I was starting to get concerned that my videotape copy was getting worn out. The DVD came out just in time. The screenplay was indeed well written, unlike the 2005 version that seemed like they merely copied and pasted as much dialogue from the book as they could fit into two hours’ worth of babble. Reminds me of that remarkable invention that allows you to time-compress audio without making it sound like Donald Duck.
Some trivia: Studio execs wanted Gable and Leigh to play the lead roles. “You could not have made the offer of your hand in any possible way that would have tempted me to accept it.” “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a…”
Props and costumes from Gone with the Wind were blown into Hertfordshire.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
ROFL! The more I hear about this version the more anxious I am to see it.
I could almost see Vivien Leigh as Lizzy, but Gable as Darcy? NO WAY! (pardon my shouting, I was raised without a governess)
Love the theory of the vengeful costume designer.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Are you familiar with the Charlie Brown Christmas special? Lucy asks Schroeder to play ‘Jingle Bells.’ He plays several different versions, none of which she likes. Finally he plunks out a very simple version and Lucy screams, “THAT’S IT!” That’s how I felt just now.
And, by the way, Olivier: the best Mr. Darcy, bar none. Imagine what he could have done if he’d had a script closer to the actual book. Sigh!
October 21st, 2006 at 10:24 am
I have found something to like about every version of P&P. The book captivated me at the age of 11, and my mom always talked about the Greer Garson version, so when it came on TV (before VCRs, so I had to watch with my undivided attention), I just adored it and watched it every time it was on. I think I can even recall watching it in the middle of the night once when I was a teenager. Laurence Olivier…YUM…although I liked him even better as Max deWinter. My copy arrived last week, and I’ve already watched it twice.
If we want faithfulness to the book, one can ask no more than the 1980 version, but I dunno, it lacked spirit. Still, I watched all the episodes on Masterpiece Theater, Channel 13 here in New York, broadcast on Sunday nights. VCRs (remember Sony Betamax?) might have been invented by then, but I was a newlywed and no way I could have afforded one. So I took my phone off the hook, told new husband that he could watch any late football games at his brother’s house (those were also the days when two people actually made do with just one television!), and just reveled in ALL of P&P, finally, even if Rintoul’s Darcy lacked something. (I still fondly refer to him as Robo-Darcy.)
1996. Colin Firth. Still haven’t recovered! Don’t want to recover! No, not as faithful to the book as 1980, but if I wanted to conjure up Darcy in my bed (There! I said it!), he would look, talk and smolder just like Colin Firth. Maybe not Darcy as Jane would have imagined him, but definitely as I would have! That’s the first adaptation I bought, at the exalted price of $90 as I recall for the 6-tape VHS version. Money well spent, those tapes wore out. Now I am embarrassed to admit how many different variations of P&P 1995 I own. But when there are twenty of them, I will buy them all!
And yes, I did like 2005 P&P, even with MM’s puppy-dog eyes and Lizzy’s big teeth. It had spirit and introduced another generation to P&P because, let’s face it, some of ‘em haven’t read the book. (I bet you all knew that.) In fact, at one of my viewings at the Menlo Park Mall in NJ, a teenage girl behind me exclaimed at the first propsal, “Oh my God! He’s in love with her!”
You know what? I envied her! I was 11 again, reading the book, and having the identical thought.
Next Saturday: P&P at Drew University in Madison, NJ, and I can’t wait to fall in love all over again. Madison’s Darcy looks kinda Matthew MacFadyen-ish, but I am willing to overlook it, as long as he says “Every savage can dance” with the proper degree of haughtiness.
October 21st, 2006 at 11:27 am
Michele A: You’re right, there is something to like in all of the adaptations.
But, I also agree with Carrie Rickey, the film reviewer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, who spoke at a JASNA Eastern PA regional event earlier this year, when she said that the perfect adaptation of P&P has not been made yet. That’s part of the reason why there is disagreement among Janeites as to the “best”–really, they mean their favorite. (Mine, these days, is BRIDE AND PREJUDICE, believe it or not–I certainly watch the DVD more than any other.) Of course everyone has their favorite, because tastes vary; I always like to point out that Janeites are not such a homogenous group as some would like to paint us!
November 1st, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Michele A: He didn’t say it!! He didn’t say “Every savage can dance”! I just realized that.