AustenBlog . . . she’s everywhere » P&P05 ending one of Entertainment Weekly’s 20 perfect film endings

10 August 2007

P&P05 ending one of Entertainment Weekly’s 20 perfect film endings

Filed under: Pride and Prejudice (2005) — Mags @ 7:22 am

Have to agree; we haven’t laughed that much in a movie theater since we saw Blazing Saddles. You know when you laugh so hard you think you’re going to throw up? That’s how it was exactly!

Thanks to Alert Janeite Paola for the link!

31 Responses to “P&P05 ending one of Entertainment Weekly’s 20 perfect film endings”

Carmen Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Pleeease!!
Dianna Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 11:51 am
That’s awful!
Stefanie Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I have to say I agree with EW. I loved that movie, and despite the fact that the leg rubbing was a bit too scandalous I really liked how it ended.
Chantel Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Ick! At first I thought the ending was alright b/c I thought there should be a kiss, but now I cannot stand watching it! It’s not laughable, it’s just barfable.
Marylou Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I have to agree with EW as well. I loved that movie and what is so wrong about a happy ending and a little leg rubbing and smooching?!
Mags Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
It wasn’t what happened so much as what was said–the mawkish lovebird language. If people speak like that, that’s their affair, but I don’t want to listen to it.

Much better to use the dialogue Jane Austen so obligingly provided for the purpose (which, by the bye, an earlier draft of the script did):

ELIZABETH’S spirits soon rising to playfulness again, she wanted Mr. Darcy to account for his having ever fallen in love with her. “How could you begin?” said she. “I can comprehend your going on charmingly, when you had once made a beginning; but what could set you off in the first place?”

“I cannot fix on the hour, or the spot, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.”

“My beauty you had early withstood, and as for my manners — my behaviour to you was at least always bordering on the uncivil, and I never spoke to you without rather wishing to give you pain than not. Now be sincere; did you admire me for my impertinence?”

“For the liveliness of your mind, I did.”

“You may as well call it impertinence at once. It was very little less. The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking, and looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused, and interested you, ecause I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable, you would have hated me for it; but in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart, you thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you. There — I have saved you the trouble of accounting for it; and really, all things considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure, you knew no actual good of me — but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love.”

“Was there no good in your affectionate behaviour to Jane while she was ill at Netherfield?”

“Dearest Jane! who could have done less for her? But make a virtue of it by all means. My good qualities are under your protection, and you are to exaggerate them as much as possible; and, in return, it belongs to me to find occasions for teazing and quarrelling with you as often as may be; and I shall begin directly by asking you what made you so unwilling to come to the point at last. What made you so shy of me, when you first called, and afterwards dined here? Why, especially, when you called, did you look as if you did not care about me?”

“Because you were grave and silent, and gave me no encouragement.”

“But I was embarrassed.”

“And so was I.”

“You might have talked to me more when you came to dinner.”

“A man who had felt less, might.”

“How unlucky that you should have a reasonable answer to give, and that I should be so reasonable as to admit it! But I wonder how long you would have gone on, if you had been left to yourself. I wonder when you would have spoken, if I had not asked you! My resolution of thanking you for your kindness to Lydia had certainly great effect. Too much, I am afraid; for what becomes of the moral, if our comfort springs from a breach of promise? for I ought not to have mentioned the subject. This will never do.”

“You need not distress yourself. The moral will be perfectly fair. Lady Catherine’s unjustifiable endeavours to separate us were the means of removing all my doubts. I am not indebted for my present happiness to your eager desire of expressing your gratitude. I was not in a humour to wait for any opening of your’s. My aunt’s intelligence had given me hope, and I was determined at once to know every thing.”

“Lady Catherine has been of infinite use, which ought to make her happy, for she loves to be of use. But tell me, what did you come down to Netherfield for? Was it merely to ride to Longbourn and be embarrassed? or had you intended any more serious consequence?”

“My real purpose was to see you, and to judge, if I could, whether I might ever hope to make you love me. My avowed one, or what I avowed to myself, was to see whether your sister were still partial to Bingley, and if she were, to make the confession to him which I have since made.”

A little transition and an ending smooch, and all would be well.
Ana Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I agree; the idea of ending the movie with Elizabeth and Darcy kissing and being all romantic isn’t the problem - it’s the dialogue. They look wonderful, but I always start cringing when they speak. I’m actually embarrassed for them. It’s sterotypical chickflick mush, words from a bad romance novel and totally un-Austenlike.

I can just picture the writer, definitely a guy, thinking to himself “chicks really dig this stuff!” as he typed away on his laptop. Ugh.
Helen A. Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Mags, Ana, I agree– it was the dialogue that ruined the ending–it was daft. But then I really didn’t care for the film as a whole; an ending using JA’s dialogue however, would have gone a long way toward improving my perception of it.
Mock Tudor Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 2:09 am
“I can just picture the writer, definitely a guy”

Emma Thompson wrote this ending you’re railing against. The other draft ending was by Deborah Moggach who’s also not a guy.

While I wouldn’t call it the greatest ending ever I must say I much prefer it to the yet another clichéd wedding ending.
Ending with Mr. Bennet - as was done in the European version - is probably better, though.
Annie Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I like it.
May Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I thought the ending was nice, what was the matter with it? The Jane Austen version is too wordy for movie-goers and sounds daft in this day and age, IMO.
Julie S. Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I had dragged a friend to see the movie with me. I walked out embaressed that I had made her come with that ending.
Lori Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 6:36 am
It was a truly embarrassing movie, unless you voided it as PP and just accepted it as some other story. For movie goers who don’t really want the 19th century period stuff, the writers might at least have stayed true to the actual story and respected the social proprieties of the day. Darcy walking into her bedroom?!! I love you body and soul? (I notice that phrase is in the Becoming Jane trailers, too)..in short, PP5 should have been named something else and it would have been fine. As PP, awful awful awful.
Mock Tudor Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 8:11 am
P&P05 didn’t take place in the 19th century.
Darcy didn’t walk into anyones bedroom.
The word bewitched is used about Darcy in the book.

Next!
Mags Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Let me try to explain why many Janeites don’t like the ending. We are spoiled, you see. To us, Jane Austen’s words are like filet mignon. The film ending (which, I repeat, contained nothing that she ever wrote) is like a fast food hamburger, not even the quarter-pound burgers but the little value menu burgers that are mostly roll and a bit of nasty gray-looking meat. They’ll keep you from starving, but if you were hoping for filet mignon they are a tremendous disappointment–as is this film to many of us.
Mock Tudor Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
The idea that everyone who likes the works of Jane Austen must do so for exactly the same reason puzzles me. Surely her writings are rich and multifaceted enough to appeal to different people for different reasons?!
I’ll never belong to the particular “club” trumpeted by this site, but that won’t keep me from rereading and enjoying the novels. The contempt, disdain and overbearing smugness seeping from every pore of this otherwise fairly interesting blog notwithstanding.

An adaptation using the words of Jane Austen verbatim would be terrible. If it’s Austen’s words you want then read them. Her novels are better than any adaptation ever will be.
But if you want a film - a proper film, not an illustrated audio book - then you’ll have to leave some things behind and accept changes. Because no two people ever read the exact same book.

And I’m not even very fond of the American ending of P&P05. It does achieve a number of the same things Austen had in her own ending, but it’s something that works better in book form. I feel film versions probably ought to end when the second proposal is accepted.
Elizabeth Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Wasn’t it Anthony Lane who said that the film had been Brontefied? (Not that there’s anything wrong with Bronte.) It wasn’t Austen. Austen liked to mock mawkish sentiment.
Rosana J Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
My second literary passion after Austen is the Bronte sisters and with all respect to Mr. Lane, Anne/Charlotte/Emily wouldn’t have gone with the American ending. When I watch P&P05, I stop where the region 2 DVD stops - with Mr. Bennet happily stating that he was entirely at his leisure.
Mags Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
The idea that everyone who likes the works of Jane Austen must do so for exactly the same reason puzzles me. Surely her writings are rich and multifaceted enough to appeal to different people for different reasons?!

Indeed. I’ve said that all along. The media likes to paint a picture of the Janeite diaspora as a homogeneous group who, for instance, will lurrrve Becoming Jane because oh look! It has actual stuff from Jane’s novels in it! Instead of being able to recognize weak writing when we meet with it, because (as I said above) we’re accustomed to the very best. That said, you’ll notice I was careful to use the words “many Janeites” instead of “all Janeites,” though I assure you my opinion in this matter is not singular amongst my Janeite acquaintance and correspondents.

The contempt, disdain and overbearing smugness seeping from every pore of this otherwise fairly interesting blog notwithstanding.

Oh, we were doing so well having a pleasant, grown-up discussion. So we’re going with ad hominem attacks and name-calling now? Or just at women who express strong opinions?

An adaptation using the words of Jane Austen verbatim would be terrible.

I’m not asking for verbatim, but they’re a darned fine place to start IMO.
Lori Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Everyone who loves the works of Austen does not have to do the same thing. Comments posted are just one’s (mine) opinion. Nothing wrong with that, I hope. PP5 was called Pride and Prejudice. Not Bridget Jones or any of a zillion other loose story lines borrow from Austen. PP05 –ok, so 1797, 98, 99, 1800…19th century. Seems alot of hairsplitting designed to miss a poster’s point. If adapting from a novel, and using the novel’s very title, some slightly stronger effort might be helpful. They did indeed hit many aspects quite true to the mark, taking shortcuts when they felt necessary for time and audience lack of literary knowledge, evidently (Wickham’s explanation to Lizzie about Darcy) and some character perversions (Sorry, Darcy would not walk into Lizzie’s room, and Lady C would not travel at night to vent her wrath). But everyone has different tastes, to be sure. Let’s just all grant the right to our opinions without being hung with the slur of “overbearing smugness’.
Mock Tudor Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Lori, my remark about smugness wasn’t directed at you.

I thought you were being unfairly dismissive based on a few minor points of perceived inaccuracies and thought I’d sort of reply in the same way.
But something that’s of no importance to some people can indeed be very significant to others and I’d never question anyone’s right to an opinion.
Mock Tudor Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 4:32 am
The media likes to paint a picture of the Janeite diaspora as a homogeneous group who, for instance, will lurrrve Becoming Jane because oh look! It has actual stuff from Jane’s novels in it! Instead of being able to recognize weak writing when we meet with it, because (as I said above) we’re accustomed to the very best.

That’s an unfair characterization of the overall media reaction to Becoming Jane (which has been very mixed).
You then go on to speak on behalf of all Janeites by proclaiming that you’re capable of recognizing weak writing when you meet it. Thus everyone who didn’t find the writing in BJ weak has now been banished from the official Janeite club and told they’re incapable of recognizing weak writing.

I haven’t seen the film yet and I’m not sure I’m going to. Maybe I’d also find the writing to be weak, but even if that’s the case I still wouldn’t agree with the tone of the above.

Oh, we were doing so well having a pleasant, grown-up discussion. So we’re going with ad hominem attacks and name-calling now?
It surprises me a bit that you see it as an attack. I had the clear impression the tone and attitude displayed was a very deliberate choice and even a point of pride. Do you really not think you’re showing contempt and disdain towards points of view not in line with your own? (I’ll concede that “smug” is probably a quite subjective evaluation.)

None of this makes the opinions expressed either more or less valid, but it does seriously lessen my enjoyment of this site. There’s no reason why that should be a concern of yours, of course, unless you want dissenters to feel welcome.

Or just at women who express strong opinions?
Nothing wrong with strong opinions. I’d just prefer a more respectful attitude displayed towards those who don’t happen to share them. Nice little slur, though.
Mags Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 7:39 am
That’s an unfair characterization of the overall media reaction to Becoming Jane (which has been very mixed).

Did you miss the “for instance” part? I was seizing on a single example.

I had the clear impression the tone and attitude displayed was a very deliberate choice and even a point of pride.

It is. You might be surprised to learn that not everyone considers that a negative.

Do you really not think you’re showing contempt and disdain towards points of view not in line with your own?

I’m entertaining a difference of points of view in this very thread–and attempting to explain mine (which, I repeat, is not singular) for those who have disagreed. That’s how debate works. Responding to an argument with “Oh yeah, well, you’re mean!” is not.
Christen Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
The “incandescently” is the ultimate eye-rolling moment for me. And what are they sitting on? It certainly puts one in mind of an altar. Perhaps they were trying to show the sacrifice of Austen’s words to modern romantic comedy?

Overall, I think it’s just too mushy and emotional. Sometimes when I’m reading Austen’s novels, I wish there was a little more of those romantic details (note, emphasis on a LITTLE), but later I am reminded that it’s so much better to be left wanting more of something, than regretting what is there.
CurtB Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I’m sorry, for a “romantic comedy” the ending might have been okay; for an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, it was pathetic. I agree about using the dialogue Jane Austen provided - with a little judicious editing for the screen, it would have been perfect. They could even have used the beautiful perch they shared in the American ending. A bit of wit, then fade into black and on to the credits.

For the record, I didn’t like the P&P ‘95 ending either; ending with Mr. Bennet would have been perfect in P&P05- I didn’t like how Donald Sutherland played him during most of the movie, but the final scene with him was right on the mark. For all Mr. Bennet’s wit and sarcasm, Austen made it clear he had very tender feelings for Lizzy.
james Says:
August 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Brontefied? “not that there is anything wrong with Bronte”. I beg to differ! 1.they did not like jane austen. 2.their writting is CRAP!
calling any p&p film brontified is an open declaration of war!,as well as insulting! Anne Colter writes better than the bronte sisters.
JMHO
James
james Says:
August 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Oh boy! Now Im in for it!!!!!!
Mags Says:
August 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Yes, you are!!!

Many of us like the Brontës AND Jane Austen (perhaps not as much, but that’s okay), and I think it’s a shame to pit them against one another. And it was only Charlotte who didn’t care for Jane–we don’t know how Emily, Anne, and Branwell for that matter felt about her!
James Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Mags;
I have “disliked” the Bronte sisters since childhood,when at age 4,I had to watch english literature turned into film.My mother loves to read….and loved the books and movies.
As for miself,seeing children treated cruely just made my blood boil in rage.Later as I was older learning Irish and American history did not exactly make me love the “British”either.
And yet with every Film or movie that made me dislike the british/english there was always films to counter the films I did not like.
Pygmilion/My Fair Lady, The adventures of Robin Hood,Greer Garson in P&P and Mrs Miniver.Little Lord Fauntleroy and The Little Princess,A Christmas Carol and any film about knights in Armor and Castles…..made me like them.And anything Jane Austen.
Odd how Dickens was both negative and positive.
Marie Says:
August 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I just find it funny that sometime ago, right after I watched the movie on DVD, I read a report somewhere in the internet that the UK fans were annoyed that they weren’t shown the “mushy” American ending. I think the reports even stated that they were insulted that the ending was deliberately edited for them; I forgot why. Now I’m reading disgust for this “mushy” ending that other people had so wanted to see.

It’s true what they say. You can’t please everybody. XD
Mags Says:
August 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
My understanding is that the end was edited out of the version shown in the UK because it did not do well in focus groups, so I would say those who wanted to see the ending were a very vocal minority.

Presumably the ending did better in the U.S., and I am sorry to say those who didn’t like it also are a very vocal minority. UK FTW.