Film Adaptations - Pride and Prejudice

Discuss & compare the film adaptations of this novel.

Wow, I feel like there have been so many comments and criticisms leveled at the two most recent versions of P&P that I do not know if I have anything new to say. One thing that I do notice about the fans of PP '95 and PP'05 is that it seems that each group feels that they can only love one version at the expense of the other. Personally I love both versions. I saw the '95 version first and I was blown away by Ehle and Firth. The acting was superb, costumes lovely and the scenery was breathtaking. I love the fact that enough time was invested in developing the story and we got to see this great work very well fleshed out.

The '05 version has grown on me over time and though I think that some of the casting may have been a bit off, even the actors that I was not in love with to begin with really grew on me. I love McFadden as Darcy and I love that he brings out a certain side to the Darcy character that shows that yes, he does feel pain and yes,he is hurt beyond the level of pride when he is rejected by Lizzy. I did not like how Donald Sutherland played Mr. Bennet. Sutherland's Mr. Bennet seemed like a lush. I never remember Mr. Bennet of the book being a drunk.

Much as I abhor the 1980 one, of the things that it talks about that really was true was that Mr. Bennet was not exactly the best of persons. It was obvious he did not respect his wife(not that she was easy to respect) but his lack of respect was much too obvious, enough that his children would notice. In the 1980 version, Elizabeth reflects on this sad fact and determines that when she marries, she would be careful in her choice so that she does not repeat her parents mistakes. The other two versions kinda gloss over this fact and relie on our distaste for Mrs. Bennet to make any slight directed at her seem acceptable.

But one of the things that irks me about the '05 version is that the Bennets look like they are living just a smidge above the poverty line. Maybe I did not read the book right but the Bennets were definitely not poor. Their father had not spent his money prudently and did not invest wisely because he hoped to have a son to pass everything on to, but they were certainly not poor. They could still afford pretty dresses and keep a nice house but their future once their father died was in jeopardy much like the girls of Sense and Sensibility. The '05 version had them living much to rustically for my liking. That whole angle bothered me.

As for the '95 version, I am sure there were some little things here or there that I may not have liked but I can't remember them right now. I know that some people think that Andrew Davies sexed up Darcy and made him lustful. Personally I don't get that. I thought Darcy was so restrained and to see him dive into the pool(Yes I know its not in the book) made him seem more human. I certainly did not see the sexed up part in that but may be that is just me. Also by the time Darcy does his swan dive, we were hours into the mini series and we had formed an affinity to the character.

Wow that was a mouth full!!

Anyway the '05 and '95 version are my favs. The 1980 one was not bad but lets just say that I was less than enthused about it. It is the most true to the book but that is one of the only things its has going for it.

I also saw the 1995 version and an earlier version from the 1940s. I definitely enjoyed the '95 version. I first saw it on A&E; it was shown on two separate nights.
The 1940s version is all right. (Anyone else seen this one?) It's in black and white. There are liberties taken with this one. For example, Mr. Collins is a lawyer instead of an Anglican minister.

I think I have always preferred the Darcy as played in the 1980 version of P&P because I thought he was rather closer to the correct interpretation of the character.

I liked the '95 version because I thought the version of Lydia in that one matched up well with the book.

I wanted to like the most recent version, but I really felt they mistook P&P for Wuthering Heights in that shot of Keira Knightly overlooking the valley.

As for the 1940 version, it's a lovely bit of froth but rather too far removed from the real thing. I enjoy it for its own worth as opposed to thinking it has any real relation to Austen's work.

My husband and I watched the entire five-hour P&P last night. It was wonderful, as always. It makes me see the many flaws of the Keira Knightley version even more sharply.

#3 - Yes, I have seen the 1940's version. Although fun, it has many flaws - costumes, age, the whole Lydia storyline and of course, Lady Catherine, just to name a few.

The 1980's version has some good points to it. There are some scenes it has that the '95 version doesn't and vice versa. I used to like it quite a bit when comparing it to the 1940's version. :)

The '95 version is by far my favorite adaptation as it seems to stick closest to the book, IMO. Plus, I just love it - simple as that. :)

The latest version - I talk about that on another thread. Fooeyness is all I have to stay on that. :p

I've seen and enjoyed the various versions... I think it's difficult for any of the others to surpass the '95 version, primarily because the rest have to cut so much to squeeze it all into an hour or two, whereas the mini-series was just a terrific format to remain truer to the book. Of course it also was extremely well done and well-cast, too.

#2, Trish: "I love McFadden as Darcy and I love that he brings out a certain side to the Darcy character that shows that yes, he does feel pain and yes,he is hurt beyond the level of pride when he is rejected by Lizzy."

For me it worked well in the 1995 version, more so than in the 2005 version (I have it seen once so far). I was in tears when Darcy finally said: "I perfectly comprehend your feelings, and have now only to be ashamed of what my own have been." and left the house. And I don't cry easily watching TV/films.

And I loved the pond/park scene, not for Darcy-in-a-wet-shirt, but for the impact the bath had on the next scene: Here we have Darcy, literally fish-out-of-water, stumbling through a conversation, no dignity and pride (Lizzy had all of it here :-) ).

# 2 TrishNYC

Everyone has their own take on each version as well as the novel, but does anyone else here who reads Jane Austen ever read about the time she lived?

I ask this because I feel Mr. and Mrs. Bennett are frequently compared to modern day social rules. If Mr. Bennett did not show respect to Mrs. Bennett I believe it was because it was the norm. I don't think most people put much emphasis on others thoughts or feelings as we do now.

That is why I think Jane Austen's books stood out, she brought to life what most kept hidden inside.

And P&P still rings true today for me in remakes. We still put up walls to protect our heart, just for different reasons.

I can't accept your analysis re the Bennets - there are plenty of other happily married couples in Austen, and in writers prior to her. The truth is that Mr Bennet married slightly below him, both socially and intellectually - it is for the latter reason that he doesn't respect her. We see this pattern played out elsewhere in P&P, when Charlotte marries Mr Collins: Charlotte does not respect Mr Collins but knows she has to protect her future.
People get married in P&P for the same reasons that people still get married - money, security, necessity, and, of course, love.

Re - the 1940 film adaptation, it is fun fact that Aldous Huxley was one of the scriptwriters.

Sorry, I think we are saying the same thing from what I read from you. Yes, there are other happily married couples in Austen's writing. YEs, Mr. Bennet believed he married someone "below" him, so that gave him the right to not respect her. Yes, people still marry today for the same reasons as before.

What is the saying? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Did anybody see "Bride and Prejudice" - the Bollywood version of P&P?

We started it and turned it off about fifteen minutes in. I know people who have enjoyed it, but somehow it annoyed us. Maybe it was the thought of a Jane Austen musical (!) :-P

Although I liked "Bend it Like Beckham," I really did not like "Bride and Prejudice" at all. Jane Austen just doesn't lend itself to people suddenly bursting into song. Althogh more loosely based on the original PandP, I thought "Bridget Jones's Diary" was a much more enjoyable movie.

I give a 10 out of 10 for the 1995 version. Perfect casting of Lizzy, Mr Darcy, Mrs Bennet and Lydia.

Just this week, I saw the 2005 one with Keira Knightley. I watched it together with my boyfriend, who has never read any Jane Austen. He thought the dialogs were just standing as themselves, i.e. not fitting in the scenes. I agree. Though the film got better halfway through. I think the film would fall to pieces without the acting talent of Keira Knightley.

If I ever get the chance to buy one of the films of Pride and Prejudice, I would definitely go for the 1995 one.

I own the 1995 version - by far the best IMHO. I just started watching the 1980 version last night and couldn't watch it past the "she is tolerable" scene. It was so awful! (I was watching it for free on Netflix). It was so staged and stiff, and the man who played Darcy was so wooden and severe, (as well as Mr. Bennet) I couldn't bear to watch it! I'm going to have to watch my 1995 version again today just to erase the memory of it from my mind! LOL! About the 2005 movie, it's lovely to look at and the music is beautiful, but it's not P&P, it's some gothic version that the director decided to make, not caring how it differed from the book. And as much as MM is a good actor - he's no Darcy! And about KK's Elizabeth - "Her hair, Louisa! Her hair!" (there wasn't even a Louisa in this version!)

I really loved the 1995 Ehle/Firth version of Pride & Prejudice. I haven't seen the newer one (I'm not a gigantic fan of Kiera Knightly).

I just watched part of the Ehle/Firth again tonight (I own it so why I should feel obliged to watch it on PBS I don't know) I admit I skipped the Knightly one.

I came in just at the disastrous ball where all Lizzie's family manages to humiliate her and I was thinking just how well Austen captures social awkwardness and mortification.

Same for me, Marensr, I own it, but I felt compelled to watch it on PBS. I watched for an hour, but then I decided I better go to bed. I teach elementary computers and my last few weeks have been thrown off by not getting enough sleep each Sunday. Of course, there is a snowday today, so I think I may have to get the DVD out and watch the Elizabeth/Darcy dance scene. That is my favorite!

My favorite scene (as I have the DVD too) is the one where Lizzie is helping Georgianna turn the pages at the piano and she and Darcy exchange glances! Sigh! He is so completely besotted. :)

I love the dance scene compski. My husband and I had a long conversation about how difficult it must have been to film and for the actors to both dance and speak and have the lines coordinate at certain moments in the dance. It really is marvelous.

20 Jannief: That is one of my favorites, too!

21 Marensr: It must have taken days to practice and shoot. I also like the way many of the support characters are either dancing or in the background. I have to admit, I cried the first time I saw it. I was very upset at the time, though. My newspaper had reported that it started at 9 instead of 8 and I missed the first hour.

I've never seen this adaptation before -- I must say, I'm thrilled! (and was so disappointed to find that I have to wait a whole week to watch the rest)!

I too was bummed to find I have to wait a week for the ending, even though I've seen this adaptation before. Is Ehle Lizzie? She is so wonderful in the role. Just the perfect look in her eyes.

Unfortunately, the ending won't be for another two weeks. It is a three part miniseries. Better break out those DVDs. I watch the parts I missed when I went to bed. It was very hard to stop watching.

There was a big wind storm at my house last night and the lights went out! So, I missed the show. Where did they leave it?

I love the 95 version and when my sister was recuperating from surgery, I purchased it so she could have a marathon of P&P. I knew it would bear more than one viewing. I love everything about it except Mr. Bingley, who is a twit. But he was in the book as well. And Mrs Bennet is grating, but then Austen made her grating and I have met women like her and as always, Miss Austen was so spot on.
I will say, though that there were some quiet moments in the new one that pointed out how smitten Mr. Darcy was early on, that were arresting. When he is handing her into the carriage after Jane's illness, for instance.
The 1940's is witty, but it just strays too far from the book for me to enjoy it unreservedly.

Mr. Bingley is far more "twitty" in the Keira Knightley version, poor man.

I'm home sick and so watched the entire P&P and I have to disagree on the whole Mr. Bingley being a twit. I don't think he is at all. Twit to me implies stupid (hence Monty Python's "Twit of the Year"). I think he's just a nice, sweet guy.

Now, a question to those who have read P&P more recently than I have - didn't the Bingley's get their money from trade? I thought of that when Caroline and Mrs. Hurst were insulted that Sir Lucas could perhaps introduce them at St. James and they ridiculed that Sir Lucas most likely got his money from being a merchant. I was thinking they had a lot of nerve since I was pretty sure that's where the Bingley money came from. Anyone remember?

I agree that Bingley's not a twit... which is part of why I can't forgive the Knightley version for making him one. Ha ha, let's all laugh at poor stupid Bingley.

Hope you feel better soon, jannief! Have some hot tea :-)

#29 As I recall, Bingley's father made his fortune in trade.

29 Jannief: Yes, their father's money was made in trade. I think Austen points it out in the book. It just shows what hypocrites the Bingley sisters are. They mock the Gardiners as well as Sir William Lucas.

But I think there is a difference between trade and being a merchant. I believe trade means that they're involved in shipping and the import-export business. Large scale, overseas, British Imperialism stuff. Conversely, being a merchant is small scale. And merchants were often shop keepers, which was definitely looked down upon throughout the 19th century. Merchants were considered to be from a lower class; however, some of them did extremely well financially. There's a motif that I often see in 19th century novels where one character is from the gentry, but is struggling financial, and looks down on another character who is a wealthy merchant. Part of it is the old money-new money thing, and the belief that family money is worth more than earned money. So the Bingley sisters may just be pulling class rank, and not being hypocritical (I can't remember who the Gardiners are, so I don't know if they are from an equal class or not).

That's my take on it, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong. :-)

They're the aunt and uncle who take Elizabeth to Derbyshire with them. Mr. Gardiner is the uncle in trade who lives in Cheapside (which is one thing the Bingley sisters poke fun at).

Oh, those Gardiners. Now I remember. Thanks! :-)

The point being that the Bingleys don't have such a position that they can afford to be as gracious as the more securely landed (literally) Mr. Darcy. The Gardiners, with their financial security, are a little too close for comfort. The pragmatism and good nature of both Gardiners makes them one of my favorite couples in all of Austen.

>Mr. Bingley is far more "twitty" in the Keira Knightley version, poor man.

This just made me laugh out loud!

And I agree with you, owenre, about the Gardiners. They are such a great show of why snobs miss the best people: Mrs. Gardiner is so wise and Mr. Gardiner so warm. Its Darcy's appreciation of them that begins to endear him to me.

Did you watch it last night? How about that proposal? I also love it when they run into each other at Pemperly and when he hands her into the carriage! *swoons*

mess 38

Do you mean when they have their serendipitous crossing in the field? I love that part :)

38 and 39 oh they are both worth watching again. . .

It looks like I'm just repeating, but '95 is by far the best.

And about '05, Knightley annoys me quite a bit... I felt like she spent the entire movie showing off her teeth. Regardless, I still enjoyed it... but then again I am a sap for costume dramas!

I agree with the last post-I've really tried to like her but Keira Knightley is so irritating. I also think they got Lydia and Kitty mixed up. I much prefer Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy and Julia Sawahla's Lydia in the '95 version.
Still, anything is better than nothing and I will watch any adaptation!

Keira Knightley is my least favorite Elizabeth. I'm sure she's a perfectly lovely person but she just annoys me a bit. At first she bothered me in Atonement but I actually began to think it works for that character. That whole "My tummy hurts and I'm not happy about it." look that she always has.

The PBS version didn't have much feeling. I did like the character of the father, and the mother showed more passion then Jane or Lizzy.

Sorry to necro, but I loved reading this thread!  I finally got around to watching the 2005 movie, and stopped after Mr Darcy's first visit to see Elizabeth at Charlotte's.

Since I'm a completionist, it takes a lot to discourage me from finishing something I've started.  If I can finish watching Neon Genesis: Evangelion, I can finish this little feature.  It feels like an over-crowded version of the superbly executed 1995 miniseries, set on fast-forward.  There's no time to just breathe or just be.  I realize that there's a lot to set into one movie, but if you can't do it correctly, call out for more assistance!  I found the 1980 version to be a little boring, but I didn't struggle to finish it as I'm struggling with this one.

I know that each rendition of any work brings something new to the table, so what does the 2005 version have to offer that the other's do not?  I haven't finished it and EddieZorro (#15) says it got better half way through, so I'm gonna cheat and ask the experts (psst! that's you lovely people!) what I'm missing.