Pride and Prejudice - dissect the versions

[Rudy]

(this was split from the "Post pictures of your ideal mate" thread)

I actually thought that Knightly could have done a much better job with Elizabeth. Understandable since Elizabeth is an INTJ and, thus, hard for most women to play. Knightly would often say Elizabeth's biting sarcastic statements in a very flirtious way. Make no mistake, Elizabeth means everything she says, she's not flirting (usually). As my mom put it (also an INTJ), Knightly smiled too much.
I don't disagree with your assessment, though I'm not convinced Elizabeth isn't an INFJ in the book (if you want to argue about that, we should probably start a different thread, though ;).) I was evaluating the movie on its own, not by its faithfulness to the book. I enjoy the book very much, but I'm not a purist, and always try to judge movies apart from the books that they are based on.

[azelismia]

I don't disagree with your assessment, though I'm not convinced Elizabeth isn't an INFJ in the book (if you want to argue about that, we should probably start a different thread, though ;).) I was evaluating the movie on its own, not by its faithfulness to the book. I enjoy the book very much, but I'm not a purist, and always try to judge movies apart from the books that they are based on.


Rudy, I am and was on teh jane austen mailing list and I have been for years.. I am not unconvinced that she's an infj (I'd also hear out an argument for ISTJ ). Her decisions aren't terribly rational or well thought out. they also tend to err more on the side of "should or should not" I've had this argument before. I am more likely to think Emma is an INTJ.


I actually thought that Knightly could have done a much better job with Elizabeth. Understandable since Elizabeth is an INTJ and, thus, hard for most women to play. Knightly would often say Elizabeth's biting sarcastic statements in a very flirtious way. Make no mistake, Elizabeth means everything she says, she's not flirting (usually). As my mom put it (also an INTJ), Knightly smiled too much.


Keira was a HORRIBLE Horrible Elizabeth. the only actress to get the part right was Elizabeth Garvie, imho. but then the screen play for Pride and prejudice with Keira was also horrible. So was the 1996 BBC version from Andrew davis. 96 version is probably the worst (other than the 1946 version, that one was just laughable though) The problem with pride and prejudice is taht most movie script writers are not intelligent enough to get what the book was about, and as a result end up bringing it down to their level, baby.

[TheLastMohican]

Keira was a HORRIBLE Horrible Elizabeth. the only actress to get the part right was Elizabeth Garvie, imho. but then the screen play for Pride and prejudice with Keira was also horrible. So was the 1996 BBC version from Andrew davis. 96 version is probably the worst (other than the 1946 version, that one was just laughable though) The problem with pride and prejudice is taht most movie script writers are not intelligent enough to get what the book was about, and as a result end up bringing it down to their level, baby.


Have you seen the 1995 A&E version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? I think it was the second best (the 1980 BBC version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) being first).

[azelismia]

Have you seen the 1995 A&E version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? I think it was the second best (the 1980 BBC version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) being first).


it's awful. that's the one I was referring to as 1996

[TheLastMohican]

The 1980 BBC version had the best Mr. Bennett, the best Mr. Collins, and the best (by a hair) Elizabeth. The 1995 A&E version had the best Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth). The 2005 version ... :yuck:

[Storm]

I have only seen the 1980 BBC one and the 2005 movie.

I thought the 2005 movie was better because it was more dramatic, and when I'm watching a movie, I want some dramatic scenes.

Case in point, when Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth decide to get engaged, in the BBC one they just sort of decide it, like they are ordering breakfast or something. There is one camera angle, and little emotion to the actors' deliverance. In the 2005 movie, they are out on the moor, there are heavy sighs, pauses, dramatic close ups. Much better.

The problem with any interpretations is that they miss the feminist prespective of the book to a large deal. It's there, but not fleshed out as much.

[Rudy]

The 2005 version had the hottest Elizabeth, and the hottest Darcy.

In any case, are there objections to the 2005 version on its own merit, or are they all because it deviates from the book?

[TheLastMohican]

In any case, are there objections to the 2005 version on its own merit, or are they all because it deviates from the book?

It deviated too much from the book. Naturally the soundtrack, costumes, camera angles and all those technical aspects are better, simply because it was made in the 21st century. The problems had to do with the ways they portrayed the characters. You should only change something if you have a very good understanding of how it was meant originally, and why the author wrote it that way. Then you can tweak things in the transition to the screen in order to give proper emphasis to the themes that author had in mind. What you shouldn't do is take the same story and play around with the characterizations and some smaller plot points in order to add a "modern touch."
And as azelismia pointed out, Knightley is simply not a good enough actress for the part.

[Rudy]

Fair enough. I guess are viewpoints are different because I never care if something deviates from the source material, as I can always just go back to the source itself if I want the original. I understand your point, though.

[Storm]

Actually, I don't think it was Knightly's fault that her portrayal of Elizabeth was so bad. The script itself was well written and had the potential for a very good portrayal. However, it was obvious that Knightly had not read the book, or had read it very poorly.
She misunderstood Elizabeth and took many of her serious statements to be subtle flirts - which they weren't. Understandable since there are few female characters as anti-flirty and upfront as Elizabeth, especially in the movies. The director should have realized how Knightly had read the character and corrected her.

Fayden didn't read the book either, he has said so, but he somehow managed to get Mr. Darcy right, perhaps because his character comes across so strongly.

[TheLastMohican]

Fair enough. I guess are viewpoints are different because I never care if something deviates from the source material, as I can always just go back to the source itself if I want the original. I understand your point, though.

I don't automatically dislike deviations from the source either; I just dislike them when I think the source was better. Jaws, for example, was changed significantly, but was consequently better than the book. In the case of Pride and Prejudice, I think they missed a lot of good material by making the changes. Take Mr. Collins, for example. Watch the 1980 BBC version shortly after the 2005 version, and see which Mr. Collins seems a more interesting (humorously irritating) character. In the 2005 version, they made him undesirable, but they did so by making him short and awkward, and missed the fun of making him an obnoxious buffoon as he was in the book.

[Rudy]

I actually liked the 2005 Mr. Collins much more because he was pitiable, as opposed to mostly detestable. Some of the minor characters that seemed more like caricatures in the book, (Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennett come to mind,) were humanized more in the movie. In my mind, if I can't find enough in a character to empathize with them on some level, then there is no value in them except as scenery.

[TheLastMohican]

I actually liked the 2005 Mr. Collins much more because he was pitiable, as opposed to mostly detestable. Some of the minor characters that seemed more like caricatures in the book, (Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennett come to mind,) were humanized more in the movie. In my mind, if I can't find enough in a character to empathize with them on some level, then there is no value in them except as scenery.

Oh. I can see wanting to empathize with the characters more; it's just not my focus, I guess. When the humanization makes any part of the caricature seem inconsistent, I prefer for the former to be put aside for the sake of the latter. I prefer to have Mr. Bennett remain a sarcastic jerk, Mrs. Bennett remain a well-meaning dolt, and Mr. Collins to remain a bumbling annoyance.

To each his own, then.

[azelismia]

The 1980 BBC version had the best Mr. Bennett, the best Mr. Collins, and the best (by a hair) Elizabeth. The 1995 A&E version had the best Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth). The 2005 version ... :yuck:


no way! David Rintoul.. hands down.. Darcy.. absolutely. it's been awhile since I watched these. the only way to dissect this bit by bit is if I sit down and rewatch all of them and reread the book and compare. I joined the austen list in 1997 not too long after the a and e version had been released nad I did just that. I remember having some solid points as to why the 1996 version missed it entirely. but unfortunately I am fuzzy on what they were. it's just been too long. Rintoul was the hottest darcy of all the productions as well. absolutey, by a mile. in my ever so humble opinion. but pride and prejudice isn't about hottness of the actors and actresses (addressing a later post)

I have no problems with the most recent movie on it's own, not as a representation of austen but as a chick flick. but as a representation of the book.. it fails. absolutely and totally.
Austen was not about dramatic pauses and starts, she was understated subtle and droll.

Andrew Davis going back to 1995, didn't understand austen. He didn't understand the motivations of the characters, he just didn't get it.. Darcy.. does not.. absolutely does not strip down and go swimming infront of ladies.. that was put in for the harlequin romance factor..
the characters.. all wrong.





azelismia added to this post, 1 minutes and 18 seconds later...

Oh. I can see wanting to empathize with the characters more; it's just not my focus, I guess. When the humanization makes any part of the caricature seem inconsistent, I prefer for the former to be put aside for the sake of the latter. I prefer to have Mr. Bennett remain a sarcastic jerk, Mrs. Bennett remain a well-meaning dolt, and Mr. Collins to remain a bumbling annoyance.

To each his own, then.


Collins is SUPPOSED to be a caricature.





azelismia added to this post, 1 minutes and 6 seconds later...

I don't automatically dislike deviations from the source either; I just dislike them when I think the source was better. Jaws, for example, was changed significantly, but was consequently better than the book. In the case of Pride and Prejudice, I think they missed a lot of good material by making the changes. Take Mr. Collins, for example. Watch the 1980 BBC version shortly after the 2005 version, and see which Mr. Collins seems a more interesting (humorously irritating) character. In the 2005 version, they made him undesirable, but they did so by making him short and awkward, and missed the fun of making him an obnoxious buffoon as he was in the book.



I have a problem with it when they can't match the book for intelligence and wit. If you're going to drag it down to a horrid level why even bother? If you can't match it, then follow it and tell a good story.

[Rudy]

Collins is SUPPOSED to be a caricature.

Oh, I perfectly understand that Austen intended him to be a caricature. All I'm saying is that I don't like caricatures in stories, so I regarded his humanization as an improvement. *shrug*

[TheLastMohican]

no way! David Rintoul.. hands down.. Darcy.. absolutely.

I thought he was too hard to warm up to after coming across as a jerk at first. The change didn't seem big enough. That might have to do more with his face, though.

EDIT: 5000th post, w00t!

[azelismia]

I thought he was too hard to warm up to after coming across as a jerk at first. The change didn't seem big enough. That might have to do more with his face, though.


Breeding. the world was a very different place in 19th century Britain if you were a member of the upper crust. The change in the book was very subtle too.

[TheLastMohican]

Breeding. the world was a very different place in 19th century Britain if you were a member of the upper crust. The change in the book was very subtle too.
Like I said, it has to do with the face. Looking like you're capable of cracking a smile is important.

[azelismia]

Like I said, it has to do with the face. Looking like you're capable of cracking a smile is important.

he did crack a few smiles. they were just reserved smiles. all of the other darcy's were way over board the other way. Over emotional, over touchy feely, they were not darcy at all to the way he was written in the book. Darcy of the book was a very cold man to all appearances. if you looked beyond his appearances into his actions it is apparent he was much deeper than that and actually quite full of passion. you're just never ever ever going to see that unless you're in his very close circle. the only one of his party that he seems to actually like is Bingley. Really, I thought they basically turned Darcy into bingley more or less for the 1995 version and just made bingley even MORE bingley..

[Storm]

What about the 2005 version? I thought they did a good job of slowly showing you Darcy's soft side without making him into a puddle of mush. Bingley in the 2005 version was a little over the top, though. I didn't mind him because he's sort of a minor character, but I was not that happy to see him.

[curiousjane]

I loved both the 90's version with Colin Firth and the 2005 version with Keira Knightly.

The long one was the most satisfying, but the cinematography was so elegantly sweeping in the most recent. Knightly was a bit of a downer. She smirked the entire time. Those little smiles ... smirks. But Jane was more convincing as a beautiful shy older sister in the new one. And Bingly was positively charming in an awkward kind of way.

[integratedvelocity]

Hmm...this thread has been dead for almost two months, but I shall resurrect it!

I had tendinitis in 2004 right after finals such that even buttons/doorknobs were a challenge (that's what I get for trying to memorize a Beethoven sonata), so I was mostly limited to watching television. I went to the public library and checked out P&P with Rintoul and Garvie. Watched it constantly until it was due the next week. Then I switched to the A&E version for a week.

1995 is definitely more sleek and "pretty," but Garvie just strikes me as more sparkly (in a non-Twilightesque way). She acts very quick and intelligent. Rintoul also looks like Darcy in a way Firth doesn't. Firth has always struck me as slightly sketchy. He would fit better in some modern Regency romance adaptation, IMO. I second azelismia's comment about the Harlequin romance factor :)

2005 should have been called something else, inspired by Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. It's a restrained chick flick. And Keira Knightley (sp?) was a terrible Elizabeth. She seemed slightly whiny and vindictive. I'll admit, I do own it and watch it on occasion, but mainly because I like the cinematography and coundtrack. Though "The Ash Grove" and "Voi che sapete" are two of my favorite songs.

Final verdict: 1980

If you disagree with me, check out this clip (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of the ballroom scene on Youtube. Vastly superior to the other two versions.

[azelismia]

I say we all open the three movies together (4 if you include the 1946 version with sir olivier) and compare them that way. a re-reading would also be in order.

[Stratego]

Wow--there's a lot of Austen fans here, and I was not expecting this.:stunned:

So, weighing in:
I loathed the 1946 version with Olivier. (But then, I generally loathe Olivier himself).

I love the 1995 A&E version, and think it's the best by far of the three I've seen.

The 2005 version with Keira Knightly was OK, for the most part, but Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were all wrong, (too lovey-dovey) Mr. Collins was all wrong, (too creepy) and Mary Bennet was better (19th century goth chick).

Though I haven't seen all that are out there, I have to defend my love of the A&E version, since I've read some disparaging remarks earlier in the thread. To my mind they got it totally right in that one---the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet was not a happyish one, and they truly didn't suit each other. That was converyed very well in this version, most especially via the obnoxious flaky personality of Mrs. Bennet.

Jennifer Ehle was excellent as Lizzie. She had the right mixture of intelligence, spirit and wit, IMO. And Colin Firth was not only most handsome as Darcy, he was great---cold, aloof, serious and quiet and intense. And the haughty Mrs. Hurst and Caroline Bingley were also right on the money---catty and snide and wonderfully stuck up. What is not to love about it?

And the diving in the water thing---that is one of my favorite parts. It was a minor addition to the story and not at all unbelivable. It was also great eye candy.:lovestruck: