Which Pride & Prejudice Adaptation was best?

[LadyW]

Okay from the two adaptations of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice

BBC Mini Series: Pride and Prejudice (1995)
2005 film: Pride & Prejudice
Which one do you personally favour?

Personally I believe that Lizzie and Darcy had a stronger chemistry in the latest version (the scene in the rain...ahhh); not to mention the much improved quality of directing - the closing scene with the mist on the meadow where the protagonists declare their love is fantastic.
However, I believe that Jennifer Ehle played Elizabeth with alot more wit than Keira Knightley, with the perfect facial expressions. On the otherhand, Keira had more fury and edge about her.
As for Mr. Darcy... now that is a tuff one to call. Many ladies prefer Colin Firth and I cannot blame them as he is a rather dashing a sweet fellow - although I don't think many were too phased by this when the "wet - shirt - scene" was on. I have to admit, I think Matthew Macfadyen was better... it was something about those intense blue eyes and abnormally large forhead that pulled me in. Plus I think he was slightly cute when furious.
Also, I think that Donald Sutherland wasn't as dry and sarcastic as Benjamin Whitrow...
Oh and Mr. Whickham was much more charming in the earlier version than the 2005 one... (no offence to Keira - now dating the guy - but Wickham II needed a haircut).
I think we can all safely say that the beautiful Rosamund Pike played the part of Jane miles better than the original.

In conclusion... well, I cannot possibley choose actually.
Any comments? :)

[Niamh]

I think the BBC version was the best. So much meaning in those glances!

Moved from general chat to P&P sub-forum

[JBI]

As a film the 2005, as a film though, the original is the best anyway.

[cactus]

Okay from the two adaptations of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice

BBC Mini Series: Pride and Prejudice (1995)
2005 film: Pride & Prejudice
Which one do you personally favour?

Personally I believe that Lizzie and Darcy had a stronger chemistry in the latest version (the scene in the rain...ahhh); not to mention the much improved quality of directing - the closing scene with the mist on the meadow where the protagonists declare their love is fantastic.
However, I believe that Jennifer Ehle played Elizabeth with alot more wit than Keira Knightley, with the perfect facial expressions. On the otherhand, Keira had more fury and edge about her.
As for Mr. Darcy... now that is a tuff one to call. Many ladies prefer Colin Firth and I cannot blame them as he is a rather dashing a sweet fellow - although I don't think many were too phased by this when the "wet - shirt - scene" was on. I have to admit, I think Matthew Macfadyen was better... it was something about those intense blue eyes and abnormally large forhead that pulled me in. Plus I think he was slightly cute when furious.
Also, I think that Donald Sutherland wasn't as dry and sarcastic as Benjamin Whitrow...
Oh and Mr. Whickham was much more charming in the earlier version than the 2005 one... (no offence to Keira - now dating the guy - but Wickham II needed a haircut).
I think we can all safely say that the beautiful Rosamund Pike played the part of Jane miles better than the original.

In conclusion... well, I cannot possibley choose actually.
Any comments? :)


If you are talking about the actors and actress themselves then sure I reckon Keira and the other fellow are hot stuff!.. and the 2005 version could really dramatize things. But if you want to look at how true the adaption is to the book and how well these actors and actresses portray the characters as created by Jane Austen then my vote is with the BBC version. ;)

[LadyWentworth]

I think the BBC version was the best. So much meaning in those glances!

:nod:

Do people really want to hear what I have to say about the latest version? I think it is best for me just to agree with Niamh and leave it at that! :)

I will say this, though. I used to be a member of JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America). They held their Annual General Meeting here in my town when the latest version was going to be released. In fact, we got a sneak peek. Let's just say that I am glad that I was able to watch it for free. :)

I will not make any more comments on this subject. :)

[aeroport]

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about watching the '05 version a couple hours ago - strictly, it should be understood, for the purpose of looking at Keira Knightley. It's not a story I particularly like, but I did like Ehle's portrayal of Lizzie in the older one. I imagine that one also - by virtue simply of its length - is probably a better representation of the novel, but then I still haven't read it yet (still coming up with excuses), so I couldn't say...

[sciencefan]

I preferred the cast, costuming and direction in the 2005 Joe Wright version.

I preferrred the script in the 1995 BBC version.

[Silvia]

I definetely agree with those who said BBC Pride and Prejudice is the best one...the first time I watched it, it was at school during English classes, and in the end all my classmates were in love with Mr Darcy (we are 16 girls!)!
I think this version is the most faithful to the novel and all the actors are really good! Moreover, I don't like Keira Knightley as an actess and I don't think she is the right one to play Elizabeth's role!

[sciencefan]

I had never seen Kiera Knightly before Pride and Prejudice, so I did not have a preconceived idea about her. I thought she was exquisite - an absolute genius - as Elizabeth. The script she had to work with was bare-boned Austen, yet Knightly filled in the blanks between the lines with her facial expressions and tone of voice. When reading the book after seeing the movie, I realized how expertly Knightly conveyed the spirit of Austen, and not just the words. She is one of the greatest actresses I have ever seen in my life.

[Newcomer]

... I thought she was exquisite - an absolute genius - as Elizabeth. The script she had to work with was bare-boned Austen, yet Knightly filled in the blanks between the lines with her facial expressions and tone of voice. When reading the book after seeing the movie, I realized how expertly Knightly conveyed the spirit of Austen, ...

Congratulations!
Now if only you would come around to the meaning of Matthew Macfadyen's hand after Darcy has handed Elizabeth into the carriage, my joy would be complete! (just kidding) as I have come to the conclusion that in adaptations, visualization of emotional truth is more important than linear adhesion to the text.

[sciencefan]

Congratulations!
Now if only you would come around to the meaning of Matthew Macfadyen's hand after Darcy has handed Elizabeth into the carriage, my joy would be complete! (just kidding) as I have come to the conclusion that in adaptations, visualization of emotional truth is more important than linear adhesion to the text.Where in the WORLD have you been! I thought you'd NEVER come.
We're in dire need of you in another thread!
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31369


I agree with you about the emotional aspect, though perhaps I prefer both equally.

[Newcomer]

Where in the WORLD have you been! I thought you'd NEVER come.

Sleeping.
I think that you are doing the governess role quite well. The recommendations of how to write an essay was marvelous. You have one eager pupil.
Hope the farm girls will benefit from your instruction, just don't go to Africa with St. John.

[aeroport]

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about watching the '05 version a couple hours ago - strictly, it should be understood, for the purpose of looking at Keira Knightley.

*just did this, and almost cried at how beautiful she is; it simply isn't possible...* :bawling:

[Kiddjcjkk]

I way preferred the BBC version - I thought it was a good version of the book - realistic in so many ways. I do think the 2005 film version was good though. I think the thing is, trying to take a 300page long book and stick it into three hours is just not terribly plausible. If it has to be done, then the 2005 edition does it very well, but personally I'd rather watch the BBC version. (And anyone who says they prefer Matthew Macfadyn in a wet shirt to Colin Firth is CRAZY!)

[mazz]

I prefer the BBC series, but feel dissatisfied with the way they wrapped up the ending so quickly, probably due to costs but they could have given us another episode surely? The film was just ok, they cast it well and there was a realness in the way life was portrayed but it was a bit coarse I thought. In parts it was exquisite and others stupid. Emma Thompson should have done the screen play because she did such a great job on S and S.
PS.Sciencefan, if you have a thing for Kiera then watch Atonement, she is drop dead gorgeous in that.

[SleepyWitch]

hey guys, I'm a bit torn: should I watch the film version or not? the thing is, I hate Keira. She was OK as a little kid in Bend it like Beckham and I guess she's a good actress, but whenever I see her face I can't help thinking that she looks insencere and must be really b!tchy behind that baby face. This irriates me no end... should I try to be objective and watch the film anyway or would that be a waste of time?
I like the BBC one, by the way.

[LadyW]

Hmmm... I'm in two minds when it comes to Keira. I think she is beautiful, but still, she irritates me slightly in her interviews; I think she comes across a tad pretentious and arrogant. She's a good actress - not great - but she is good (especially in Atonement/ Bend it like Beckham). Otherwise, I just find her a little obnoxious...
I would say watch the film version, it is excellent :) Matthew Mcfadden and his oversized forehead....

[sciencefan]

hey guys, I'm a bit torn: should I watch the film version or not? the thing is, I hate Keira. She was OK as a little kid in Bend it like Beckham and I guess she's a good actress, but whenever I see her face I can't help thinking that she looks insencere and must be really b!tchy behind that baby face. This irriates me no end... should I try to be objective and watch the film anyway or would that be a waste of time?
I like the BBC one, by the way.I did not have a preconceived idea about Kiera Knightly. I thought she was an absolute GENIUS in the film.
You should probably try to enjoy the film for all its other benefits including excellent directing and casting.

[RaiT]

Actually i do like Kiera as an actress, however the BBC version is much better - despite the fact that Jane is not as pretty as she should be, Mr. Collins, Mary, Lydia and Lady Catherine are all perfect besides the fact that Colin Firth is dreamy! He's really good for Darcy's role. All in all i liked this version better.

[7deadlysins]

Neither quite managed to make me want to marry Mr Darcy as much as the book.
However, I am a huge Keira fan...I mean HUGE, I think she managed to capture Lizzie's wit quite well.
So, yes I would have to say I enjoyed the film more, purely on the basis of visual pleasure and brilliant editing.

[aeroport]

Hmmm... I'm in two minds when it comes to Keira. I think she is beautiful, but still, she irritates me slightly in her interviews; I think she comes across a tad pretentious and arrogant. She's a good actress - not great - but she is good (especially in Atonement/ Bend it like Beckham). Otherwise, I just find her a little obnoxious...


I am quite in agreement.


hey guys, I'm a bit torn: should I watch the film version or not? the thing is, I hate Keira. She was OK as a little kid in Bend it like Beckham and I guess she's a good actress, but whenever I see her face I can't help thinking that she looks insencere and must be really b!tchy behind that baby face. This irriates me no end... should I try to be objective and watch the film anyway or would that be a waste of time?
I like the BBC one, by the way.

I don't think you will be missing anything if you skip it, if you do not like KK. After the BBC version, it can't but be disappointing.

[sciencefan]

I am quite in agreement.



I don't think you will be missing anything if you skip it, if you do not like KK. After the BBC version, it can't but be disappointing.However, the 2 hour version with Kiera Knightly is sometimes easier to sit down for than the 5 hour BBC version. They each have their benefits.

[fabulous]

I found the BBC much closer to the book, and many of the characters were better portrayed. The 2005 version was much more artistic, and as a film I think it is an absolute gem (even though I disliked the portrayal of Mr Darcy). It's hard to compare...

[fabulous]

I find Keira has a kind of 'sameness' in all her movies... I think it's her voice though.
However, her performance as Lizzy is stunning

[huntress4eva]

I think the bbc version was far supperior to the film. It was much truer to the book. But then saying that ones what 1 and half the others about 6 hours. I think the Bingley in the film was far to dumb and where was his other sister anyway? Also the Darcy to me was a snape not a darcy. That probibly make no sense to anyone but oh well. Also im slightly bia because Colin firth in BBC version yumm.

[elsie-may]

i think that the 1995 one was more like the book, with an exelent script. and some of these actors such as elizabeth and mr. Bennet and bingley were better in the older version. but i love matthew macfayden and colin firth equally they both did a great job of mr. Darcy.[i think matthew macfayden is hotter] i have watched both versions to many times!! they are consantly next to my laptop so i can just turn it on and watch them!

[Joreads]

I have to say the BBS series. There can only be one Darcy for me from now until well forever really. The BBC production I agree was a lot closer to the book but at 6hrs long there is a price to pay - but to me worth every penny

[RingoLass]

If we are judging by the chemistry between Darcy and Elizabeth, 2005 adaption but if we are just judging the Darcy, COLIN FIRTH ALL THE WAY!

Cripes, his eyes are soooooo Darcy...

[JBI]

It has a better screenplay, there's no denying that.

[laura_nicolle]

i totally agree Kiddjcjkk .i think the 1995 version is the best: as script ,as cast, as costumes ...absolutly wonderful. After i saw the BBc version, i just loved Mr Darcy( colin firth)...the chemistrey between darcy and elisabeth is so obviously...and the wet-shirt scene...adorable...

[laura_nicolle]

fer me,there's just one Mr. Darcy :colin firth....BBC version forever...

[ryse]

I've only seen three adaptations of the film - the BBC production, the 2005 film and the Bollywood adaptation. I like the 1995 BBC production the best because it was more closely followed (in my opinion) to the book than the 2005 film or the Bollywood adaptation. Honestly, I couldn't think of better characters for Elizabeth and Mr Darcy. She [Jennifer] had expression I often saw in the book and I do believe that Keira Knightley was little TOO pretty to be Elizabeth.

Colin Firth, even without the wet shirt scene, will always be my favourite Mr. Darcy. He had the brooding, tall and handsome character I always envisioned Mr. Darcy to have.

[prendrelemick]

Finally I have seen the Keira Knightly version. (last Week)

The BBC one was better. But not a bad attempt all in all.

[Janine]

I prefer the BBC series, but feel dissatisfied with the way they wrapped up the ending so quickly, probably due to costs but they could have given us another episode surely? The film was just ok, they cast it well and there was a realness in the way life was portrayed but it was a bit coarse I thought. In parts it was exquisite and others stupid. Emma Thompson should have done the screen play because she did such a great job on S and S.
PS.Sciencefan, if you have a thing for Kiera then watch Atonement, she is drop dead gorgeous in that.

I agree with your post and others entirely, who preferred the BBC production. I was disappointed in the newer film. I am not a big Keira Knightly fan and when it was announces she would play the lead I recall groaning. I enjoyed the film fine and cinamagraphically, it is quite nice. Also, a lovely set design and locations. It really killed it for me at the end. It was so 'Hollywood' to me. I agree that to capture the true essense and the character nuances in this production requires a longer time, thus the miniseries captured the essense of the book much better than the film ever could. As a film, I would image it is well done and a good film; if we didn't have the earlier one to compare to, we all might be raving over it. But to me, there is just something vital which is missing - hard to put my thoughts on it. Let's just say, I have watched the BBC version several times, but I would not watch the newer version again if you paid me...well, maybe if you did pay me...:lol:

I agree that Keira Knightly was very good in "Atonement"...she seemed to fit that role better, in my opinion. One things bugs me about her though - she has that jaw that seems to jut out or she holds her mouth in such a way I am not too thrilled with her looks. I know that's picky but she is not my favorite actress by far...but then I am a woman! haha

I do agree - the screenplay would have been way better written by Emma Thompson. Her "Sense and Sensibility" was wonderful. She outdid herself on that one and she won for the Oscar - well deserved. The movie was terrific!

Now I will have to watch the BBC production again to see what is up with that ending. I can't recall now exactly how it ends. I saw it a number of years back. I also agree that Colin Firth in the wet shirt beat out MacFadden by leagues.

[prendrelemick]

I think My dissatisfaction with Keira's performance, is that there is no growth in Elizabeths character.

It is important that she develops into a match for Darcy, between the two proposals.- So that when she has her interview with Lady Catherine, she can hold her own, in an almost Darcyesque manner.

Knightly doesn't pull this off, she is the same lizzie at the end as the beginning.

Rosamund Pike is sooo sexy though, nearly won me round.

[soundofmusic]

Well, I will always vote for the 1940 adaption with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson...Larry's such a hunk:p

[Agatha]

I prefer definitely BBC version.
I didn't enjoy watching the 2005 one. Keira Knightley's acting wasn't really good, but the most dissapointing is Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy. He wasn't like Darcy in th book, he seemed to be shy for me than proud.
Plus the differences between social&finacial status of Lizzie and Darcy were shown in this movie in too obvious way(for example animals in Bennets' house etc). Sometimes I have felt that this movie was made as a romance drama for teenagers...
The only thing good about that movie was brilliant music and really nice landscapes.

[kiki1982]

I prefer definitely BBC version.
I didn't enjoy watching the 2005 one. Keira Knightley's acting wasn't really good, but the most dissapointing is Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy. He wasn't like Darcy in th book, he seemed to be shy for me than proud.
Plus the differences between social&finacial status of Lizzie and Darcy were shown in this movie in too obvious way(for example animals in Bennets' house etc). Sometimes I have felt that this movie was made as a romance drama for teenagers...
The only thing good about that movie was brilliant music and really nice landscapes.

I think, though, that Darcy is indeed shy, like his sister, but he should mistakenly come across as proud. Essentially he is much the same as his sister: doesn't say much and is a little scared of people he doesn't know, but gradually loosens up once he knows them. Unfortunately this was a virtue for women in those days, but not at all for men. Men had to have 'easy/happy manners' like Jane and Lizzie agree on in the beginning. Bingley is the ideal young man: he entertains, is interested, makes conversation... Darcy is much more intlligent and interesting to talk to, but sadly doesn't dare at all. So he is kind of a little stuck at the fireplace on his own at the assembly rooms and stairs to the person he so much would like to engage with... It's kind of cute, but he makes himself vulnerable to people he doesn't know, because they think that he does not want to talk/to know them 'because they are of too low class'. Sadly, that is probably what their own character is like. As he wins his battle he finally dares to go and ask Lizzie for a dance (or two) after the first time he was rudely shoved aside... No wonder his courage sunk. Although, there is some pride in him, I don't think it extends that far. His pride lies in his family connections, not his demeanor, like his aunt: she has not problem engaging with Lizzie and the Collinses but do not ask her to call them friends or even (if she had a son) to have one marry her off-spring. That is a step too far.

However, Matthew MacFadyen has the wrong looks to be Darcy. His looks are too soft, so he comes across as too soft too. He looks like a kind gentelman, lie when he plays Clenham in the adaptaiton of Dickens's Little Dorrit, but Darcy should not be a kind gentleman, at least should not look it from the start. That ruins the initial impression people have of Darcy.

And you are right on the animals in Bennet's courtyard. I mean, they weren't farmers for God's sake! Mr Bennet had a bl**dy fortune of about 40,000 pounds (generating an income at 5% of 2000 pounds), including his estate though. I mean, hello, he could afford servants!

2005 was too simple.

[Agatha]

I think, though, that Darcy is indeed shy, like his sister, but he should mistakenly come across as proud. Essentially he is much the same as his sister: doesn't say much and is a little scared of people he doesn't know, but gradually loosens up once he knows them. Unfortunately this was a virtue for women in those days, but not at all for men. Men had to have 'easy/happy manners' like Jane and Lizzie agree on in the beginning. Bingley is the ideal young man: he entertains, is interested, makes conversation... Darcy is much more intlligent and interesting to talk to, but sadly doesn't dare at all. So he is kind of a little stuck at the fireplace on his own at the assembly rooms and stairs to the person he so much would like to engage with... It's kind of cute, but he makes himself vulnerable to people he doesn't know, because they think that he does not want to talk/to know them 'because they are of too low class'. Sadly, that is probably what their own character is like. As he wins his battle he finally dares to go and ask Lizzie for a dance (or two) after the first time he was rudely shoved aside... No wonder his courage sunk. Although, there is some pride in him, I don't think it extends that far. His pride lies in his family connections, not his demeanor, like his aunt: she has not problem engaging with Lizzie and the Collinses but do not ask her to call them friends or even (if she had a son) to have one marry her off-spring. That is a step too far.

However, Matthew MacFadyen has the wrong looks to be Darcy. His looks are too soft, so he comes across as too soft too. He looks like a kind gentelman, lie when he plays Clenham in the adaptaiton of Dickens's Little Dorrit, but Darcy should not be a kind gentleman, at least should not look it from the start. That ruins the initial impression people have of Darcy.

And you are right on the animals in Bennet's courtyard. I mean, they weren't farmers for God's sake! Mr Bennet had a bl**dy fortune of about 40,000 pounds (generating an income at 5% of 2000 pounds), including his estate though. I mean, hello, he could afford servants!

2005 was too simple.

I think that Darcy is shy, but his timidity is deeply inside of him. Only very careful observer could notice his true nature. That's why he's perceived by everyone as a very proud person. But that's my point- MacFadyen looked sometimes as quite hesitant, shy guy, whereas he should be seemed to be a proud, reserved person.
I agree with you that he doesn't have the physical look proper for Mr Darcy(not like Colin Firth whose appearance is perfect for Darcy)
Yeah, that my point- Bennets weren't poor people. Of course comparing to Mr Darcy, or Mr Bingley their incomes were not equal, but still they belong to the same social class. That's why Lizzie says to Darcy's aunt "He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal". 'Coz indeed, in terms of their social class they were equal, although Mr Darcy's fortune was significantly bigger that Lizzie's family.

[kiki1982]

I agree!

Too straightforwardly shy. Too evident. It was not possible for Lizzie to mistake him for proud.

And what was with Lady Catherine comming in the mdidle of the night? Did manners not matter anymore or what?

Sorry, just ventilating :biggrinjester:

[Newcomer-2]

Recently I reread Pride and Prejudice and was astonished by the grace and subtleties of Jane Austen. It was as if a veil had been lifted from the remembrance of the schooldays assignments. To confirm my delight, I immersed myself in S&S, Mansfield Park, Emma and Persuasion. Not trusting my own impressions and to satiate my interest, I sought out the academic criticism such as Bradbrook's Jane Austen and her Predecessors and even some of the contemporary attempts to extend the small oeuvre of the original novels, such as Barrett's Jane Austen's Charlotte, an attempt to finish Sandition. However similarly to the attempts to adapt the novels to the visual medium, the attempts seem to fall short of the aesthetics of the author. A personal opinion.
This has not deterred screen writers/directors from attempting adaptations or of less strenuous intellectual effort, opinions expressed by the legion of Janeites, such as in this Forum.
When I came across the Literature Forum, I was happily anticipating of joying, er joining, a discussion on aspects of the novels. However the Forum turns out not so much about literature as of social chitchat. Examples, as if necessary, “God, I fell in love with Mr. Darcy the first time I watched the movie (I had the book for a while but I never got around to reading it).”, perhaps is typical of the Forum's responses on Austen.
JBI's succinct response “As a film the 2005, as a film though, the original is the best anyway.” , can't be improved on, but I'm tempted to digress, expand on the topic - Which Pride & Prejudice Adaptation was best?
Before I go into a comparison of the adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, let my state my own prejudices. I'm of the opinion that P&P is fundamentally ironic within the incomparable gracefulness of Austen's style. And no two readers will appreciate or understand the irony or emotionally respond to the theme and characters of the story, in the same way.
This is naïve - but how is one to understand, appreciate Jane Austen but in context of Augustan, transitioning to the Age of Sensibility, to the Romanticism and Victorian literature. Where are her influences, where stylistically does she belong?
It is more inexplicable that in the List of Authors, Henry Fielding and Tom Jones, are absent!!!!
But that is only my perspective, the readers of the Forum do not seem to have such a finicky view. Not all is dire, there are exceptions, as in http://www.theliteraryindex.com/a.html, that has fascinating references to Austen studies., but that is way-too esoteric for the Forum since there is no mentioning or reference to the source. In reality the posters on Jane Austen seem to bear an uncanny resemblance to Bennet's daughters in Pride and Prejudice.

Kiki1982, one of the most interesting and prolific posters (I'm not quite ready to crown her with the laurel wreath), on 02-08-2010, wrote:
“Too straightforwardly shy. Too evident. It was not possible for Lizzie to mistake him for proud.
And what was with Lady Catherine comming in the mdidle of the night? Did manners not matter anymore or what?
Sorry, just ventilating”

Thank you Kiki for the phrase - just ventilating. I doubt that Austen would have used it, or what ironic meaning she would have implied. But I shall used it in how I imagine Fielding would have used it - farting.
In irony, and for myself, devoid of any literary pretensions.

[Newcomer-2]

Before considering the three adaptations of P&P : the 1940, screenplay by Aldous Huxley and Jane Murfin, directed by Robert Leonard, the 1955, screenplay by Andrew Davis, directed by Simon Langton and the 2005, screenplay by Deborah Moggach, directed by Joe Wrigh, I would like to take a detour and discuss the 2008 fantasy adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, Lost-in Austen. Pertinent because of the commentary of the contemporary Janite fan and as relating to the 1955 treatment of P&P by Andrew Davis.

a Janeite fan culture has developed, centered on Austen's life, her works, and the various film and television adaptations of them and the strongest contrast seems to me to be the implied and or the expressed, sexuality of the contemporary reader/viewer and of the early 19th. century sensibility as reflected in Austen. An example: in Lost in Austen, Amanda the modern personification of Elizabeth, attempts to put a stop to Bingley's advances by telling him she is a lesbian. In P&P Elizabeth importunes the father not to allow Lidia to go to Birmingham because of a perceived impropriety. The contrast could not be greater. Austen does not satirize propriety, even when interpretations of propriety by some characters are viewed ironically.

Arti, 'armchair critic' - Book into film , Ripple Effects Movies, Books, Arts & Entertainment - writes “I’m afraid to say too, that there are moments with SNL type of parody on the story and its characters, especially Colin Firth’s role as Mr. Darcy.”
His observation, “I suppose the wet shirt scene in which Darcy heeding Amanda’s request to dip into the pool is meant to be the most notable moment, or maybe even the climax, of the whole production. This scene just confirms my view that Lost In Austen is more a parody on Pride and Prejudice adaptations, rather than the novel of Jane Austen’s. There never is a wet shirt scene in the book. The parody could well be on Andrew Davis’ imaginary take on wooing modern female viewers, or a satire on the cult following of Colin Firth’s role as Darcy since the 1995 BBC production.”, acute and to the point.
In the blog Jane Austen's World, Vic writes “'Lost in Austen' is the story of a modern woman entering a time and place she dreams about, encountering customs and social mores that are familiar and unfamiliar at the same time. We assume that with our advanced technology and knowledge of history, people from our age who travel back in time would be in a superior position."
"As Jemima Rooper (Amanda Price) so charmingly demonstrates, that is not necessarily the case. She is a stranger in a strange land. Although Amanda can predict the future, she is bewildered by her situation, contrasting what “should” happen (Mr. Bingley’s attraction to Jane) with his unexplained preference for her (he caught a glimpse of her cleavage).”
The 'she dreams about, encountering customs and social mores that are familiar and unfamiliar at the same time.' is a dilemma of the contemporary reader and not just of a visualization of Austen's text. We can't be sure that our emotional response is the same that Austen intended.
Arti concludes his critique with, “ I’m sure she was confident and self-assured enough to know that parodies of her work, at best, remain only as they are, spin-offs and re-makes of something that is inimitable. No matter how you deconstruct Jane Austen, you would always come out admiring the ingenuity of the brilliant mind behind that*original creation. “
In a review of The Tempest, Charles Isherwood wrote “There is no such thing as a definitive Shakespeare interpretation”, shouldn't we bear this in mind when we talk about the adaptations of Austen?

[Newcomer-2]

P&P 1940

Of the three film adaptations of P&P the 1940 version directed by Robert Leonard, screenwriter Aldous Huxley and Janet Murfen, is an anomaly. I find it difficult to accept that it is based on Austen's Pride and Prejudice but rather that it is a vision of people who had no understanding or emotional connection to Austen.

In the blog Factual Imaging, associated with BBC and PBS, X (name unknown) writes, “I have read very little on the 1940 adaptation, starring Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, and directed by Robert Z. Leonard (Aldous Huxley was one of the writers, which I found very strange indeed, as A Brave New World and the works of Austen exist on two wildly different ends of the literary spectrum) “ And apparently tongue-in-cheek, “Why, Elizabeth! What poofy sleeves you have! What strange hair ornaments you have! What a large skirt you have! And Mr. Darcy! Why, what fancy breeches you have! What shiny, pasted hair you have! “, concluding “And oh! Those bonnets! — more like elaborate halved lampshades.*My heavens, they are outlandish. “
Somebody made the comment that the production could not afford new costumes and that they borrowed the dresses from Gone With the Wind. An accurate observation since the prevalent impression is of a costume show. Some of the most glaring distortions of Austen's P&P are: 'The characterization is a bit off, Darcy is very open and rather friendly, Charlotte is most certainly not plain, but rather very pretty, Elizabeth never visits Pemberley with the Gardiners'.

I try to give a great deal of leeway to adaptation since the written and visual mediums have different stylistic goals. However as difficult it's to define, the standard to an adaptation that I use is of emotional truth, above of aesthetic consistency. Thus Lost in Austen which takes extraordinary liberties with the text, is emotionally true to Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Leonard's/Huxley version is not. The only merit that I find in this adaptation, is how bad an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice can be.

[Whistle]

I grew up with the BBC mini series and when reading the book I imagined the characters as those in BBC version. I've seen the newer version with Keira and it's good too but the old version will always be my favourite ;)

[kelby_lake]

The new film was terrible- it wasn't like Pride and Prejudice at all. It was dull, wet and unfunny.

[L.M. The Third]

The BBC version captured the novel best for me. Not to say the more recent one was all bad. But Kiera Knightly could not capture Elizabeth Bennett.

And, Janine, I believe Emma Thompson had a part in the (2005) screenplay. I'm quite sure the part she wrote was the Lizzy and Charlotte Lucas confrontation. One of the redeeming parts of the film, imo.

[SirLew]

Well I must say I havn't watched the BBC version yet, which is a shame. Mainly because I can't seem to find 6hrs that I can set aside. (I'll have a really hard time of stopping once I start so I kinda want to watch it nonstop). Although I"ll probably stop procrastinating soon.

I just saw the 2005 version and thought it great. It had a very similar effect on me like the book did in that I really couldn't focus on anything else for about 4 hours and have had it on my mind the past few days. Keira really helped me get through some of the plot cuts and I thought her chemistry with McFayden really showed through. Also she is who I think of now when I think of Elizabeth. I liked the more romantic versions of proposals and the continuation of some of Austen's wit esp. at the first ball.

However I thought Jane (though rosamund pike is very pretty) looked old and probably could've been more beautiful since they had KK as Lizzy. Also the poor/rich gap was way larger than it should've been between Bennets and Darcy. Overall I still thought it to be a very good adaptation and got me to read the book again.

[Valesa92]

I think that the best version of Pride & Prejudice is the film!Keira is a good actress and she played very well Elisabeth's part...and tha actor that play Darcy'a part is very very fascinate! ;)

[MrMrsDarcy]

2005! I love how there seems to be a sort of magical feeling in the beautiful scenery and in the emotion of the actors. I personally love Keira Knightley as Elizabeth. She has this great wit and charm about her that made her perfect for the role. And I LOVE Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy. He just may be the sexiest man I've ever seen! And Keira said herself that he brought vulnerability to Darcy that made him all the more romantic. It seems like all the other Darcys look very intimidating, but Matthew made Darcy so sensitive and shy that you actually do realize when he's fallen in love with Elizabeth. You can just tell by the way he speaks and his facial expressions. I love it! And those bright blue eyes make me melt! Haha And when he says "Mrs. Darcy" I get goosebumps! haha I also loved how they changed the 2nd proposal scene. Mr. Darcy's walking through the morning mist to find his Elizabeth, it's perfect. And I also love the new line they added: "You have bewitched me body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you. I never wish to be parted from you from this day on."

[Lady Disdain]

I think both are good in different ways. The BBC version was a more exact representation of the novel and a bit more rigid in its portrayal of familly life - I like how, in the 2005 version the home life of the Bennets was more casual (and I guess, contemporary audiences would be able to relate to that) but at the same time I'm not sure if people were that laid back at the time.

Plus, I though Jennifer Ehle looked the part; she had the 'fine eyes' thing down pat ;D And she had great facial expressions and everything. But Keira Knightly is a great actress, too, so I didn't think there was much lost beside the fact that Knightly looked less like Lizzy to me than Ehle did. And I'm one of those people who prefer MacFadyen as Darcy ;) I was never all that smitten with Firth as Darcy...couldn't really see the appeal :rollseyes:

[jerryball]

Even though I watched the 2005 version with Keira Nightley, I rather prefer the 1940 version with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. I love classical movies. About the novel I liked very much, it's incredible that women at that time couldn't inherit their father's properties.

[delphic_wave]

Where do I even begin? I have to express my frustrations over the 2005 film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Disclaimer: this is long. I had no idea I had so much to say on the subject. I believe it arose out of too many attempts to view the movie and try to find a redeeming quality in it. One time was too many, twice was overkill, but now I have seen it at least three times since 2005, and I feel worse about it now than on the first viewing. So if you don’t like long-winded rants, I apologize; please do not read further.

I am the first to admit that I do not always hate film adaptations. There are times when I even feel that, perhaps, the film is a viable alternative to the literature itself, as in some cases where the appeal of a book has been overblown and, I am convinced, the only reason people continue to read it in such numbers is in an attempt to appear “well-read” and not for any enjoyment of the text. I will not provide a specific example of this kind of literature, because I acknowledge that perhaps my view is not the most enlightened one. That being said, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is *not* in that category of literature. I believe that there are many very good reasons that her works continue to be universally appealing. People often remark on the wit and subtleties of her writing, as well as her ability to deliver social critique that is insightful without being preachy and is always, above all, entertaining. But I don’t think that I need to expound on the virtues of Jane Austen here. There are legions of Austen fans who would back me on these observations and probably add a more nuanced appreciation of her art than I can offer.

Now to the movie adaptations: My point above was say that if literature is great and well-loved, I believe that filmmakers have an obligation to at least *try* to capture the spirit in which it was written and to convey at least a *few* of those qualities which make the work so popular. It is my opinion that the 1995 BBC version of P&P did a very admirable job of providing just that kind of care and attention to the text, as befits one of Austen’s most popular novels; and, although I believe I will never love an Austen adaptation more than I love the BBC miniseries, I will say that I don’t believe a film needs to be 5 hours long in order to capture that spirit of the book. Another great example of an intelligent and worthy adaptation is the 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, which does take a few significant departures from the text, but still manages to be a wonderful rendering. But I digress, again.

I was excited when I heard about the release of the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice. I have always liked Keira Knightley, and I think that she continues to do very good work in most of her films; this film, however, turned out to be a big exception to that trend. I think that she was a completely unsatisfying Elizabeth Bennet, chiefly because she was never able to convey the intelligence and depth of feeling that Elizabeth is expected to possess. She is supposed to inspire Darcy to change, to grow from his arrogance into someone more well-rounded and open-minded. Likewise, Elizabeth herself is also supposed to grow into a more mature version of her already exemplary character assets, so that when they do finally unite at the end, it feels like a true meeting of great minds and hearts. Knightley’s Elizabeth always comes across as a rather petulant child, with no sophistication or manners, all of which makes it very hard to believe that a person of Darcy’s caliber would even give her a passing nod. This contrasts sharply with the ’95 version, in which Jennifer Ehle did a wonderful job of being both down-to-earth and witty, of having youthful charm and a more timeless wisdom.

As to Darcy, it is my personal belief that Colin Firth captured the character and made it nearly impossible for anyone to be as well-suited for the role. There is a moment in the ‘95 version that perfectly demonstrates the love that Darcy feels for Elizabeth, accomplished without any duologue. It is when Darcy watches Elizabeth as she helps Georgiana navigate an embarrassing moment unwittingly brought about by Caroline Bingley’s crass reference to Wickham. Colin Firth is able to communicate a great depth of feeling in a single look. I think that the moment clenches the love story and conveys an intensity of romance that is all the stronger for its subtlety.

If I had never seen the ‘95 version, I might think that Matthew Macfadyen was a very good Darcy, and there were one or two scenes that he made enjoyable in the '05 film. The proposal scene, for instance, is complete with passion and restraint, creating a dramatic tension that works well. I do not even object to the filmmakers setting the scene outdoors in the rain, in a Grecian rotunda-like edifice, because I recognize that certain moments in books need to be adapted for more visual impact on screen. But I have just described the only moment I really enjoyed in the whole of the film. Even if I accept Macfadyen as a very appealing Mr. Darcy, leaving aside for a moment my abiding love for Colin Firth’s Darcy, I feel that the context of the rest of the film does not give him the latitude to make the character truly enjoyable to watch. I have already mentioned that Knightly’s Elizabeth is not very appealing or believable as a person who would truly capture Darcy’s love. Other than her beauty, she does not have much to offer, aside from some witticisms that come across more as a ghostly reminder of Austen’s intelligence than a natural expression of this Elizabeth’s own character. I have a hard time believing that Knightly’s Elizabeth would even fully comprehend the multiple layers of cultural context that created those lines in Austen’s text.

The character of Bingley is another major problem with the '05 film. He is one of the characters I love the most in the story, despite his lack of courage, because of his natural tendency to truly enjoy life and see the best in all people. I think that these traits are what make him a true match for Jane Bennet, who also genuinely sees the best in people. I feel that Crispin Bonham-Carter does a wonderful job of conveying a guileless likeability in Bingley in the ’95 version, but I’m afraid that the Bingley in the ’05 version comes across as more mentally challenged than guileless. In the latter case, I think it is difficult to believe that Jane Bennet truly does love him for more than his money, for she gives the impression of beauty and sophistication, whereas he just appears slightly infantile. Surely she could find someone better, at least in personality? All that remains is the money.

So, what can I conclude? The 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice suffers from the obvious problems of shortening the story by cutting out or condensing significant moments, as well as gross modernizations that have little to do with the real story. Case in point: Darcy not only proposes to Elizabeth in what I can only assume would be considered a half-clothed state, but then approaches her *father* to request his *consent* in the same undressed state. A gentleman of his station (or any, I imagine) would never have done such a thing. But all of these flaws might have been overlooked if the film did not also suffer from a complete lack of believability between the two central love interests in the story. I have watched this movie several times, both with friends who love it and on my own, in an attempt to try to uncover the appeal. Yesterday was my final try. I give up. I can only conclude that the requirements to enjoy this film include the necessity of having watched so many bad Hollywood romances as to be immune to their banality and—of course—to have never actually read Pride and Prejudice.

[prendrelemick]

I can't believe how much I agree with ^delphic wave, on just about every point. But the crux of the matter is, that Keira Knightly was simply not up to the character of Elizabeth Bennet. Perhaps it was the script or the direction, I don't know, but we didn't get Austin's Elizabeth Bennet in the 2005 film..

[kiki1982]

I also have to agree with DelphicWave...

The '05 Bennets were more like gentlemen farmers, having chickens running around in their yard, than middle class people of leisure...

I have ceased to care as well. At any time someone says that that adaptation was the best, I just assume they either did not see the 1995 adaptation, or they did see it and have not got a clue. Or they read the novel and it passed them by completely. And only because they like MacFayden... I mean, great actor, but I'm not sure for that part. He just hans't got a potentially stern face, too open. That can't be right.

What does anyone think about Eliot Cowan's Darcy?

[Ecurb]

Doesn't Laurence Olivier get any support? I'll grant that the '30s adaptation conflates the last half of the novel into 10 minutes, but Olivier is so deliciously snooty, and lisps so attractively, that he has to be the best Darcy.

[L.M. The Third]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Colin Firth, of A Single Man, is Mr. Darcy. Whatever the feelings or views of a tyro Janeite entering the club, the truth of P&P95's superiority is firmly fixed in the minds of the surrounding members. ;)

In short, P&P95 seems to unite some of the best blessings of existence.

[kiki1982]

:lol:

[Period_Dramas97]

What can I possibly hope to say on this subject that hasn't been said before? While I've never seen the 2005 version, and am hopelessly in love with the 1995 BBC one, I can honestly say that there are good and bad points to both.

I have never been a major fan of Joe Wright's interpretation...in fact, I have always been dead-set against it. Kiera Knightley, in particular, I have always had an aversion to (except as Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean). However, despite the well documented fact that no actor could ever hope to do justice to Colin Firth's Mr Darcy, I believe Matthew Macfadyen did the best job he could, and provided an interesting and different interpretation of this well-known and complex man. The same could be said for Rosamund Pike, Carey Mulligan and Kelly Reilly. From what I have seen, the cinematography, wardrobe and camera-work were all exemplary, although the feel I got from just looking at the pictures was more American than British. One of it's greatest advantages is the very fact that it is a film, which means you can watch it more often in less time can you can a six-hour miniseries. However, this also gives it the disadvantage of being over way too soon, and doesn't allow the audience time to truly absorb the atmosphere and become part of the story. At least, that's the feeling I got.

Delphic_Wave, I think, hit it right on the head in absolutely every catagory, especially in the portrayal's of Elizabeth and Darcy and what that then says to the audience about the characters. There is a depth of feeling and intensity to every singe one of Elizabeth and Darcy's interactions in Andrew Davies' miniseries which perfectly mirrors the feeling of the book, as does the chemistry between all the characters. Two stand-outs for me were Allison Steadman's amazing performance as the emotionally unstable and highly volatile Mrs. Bennet, and David Bamber's sweat-ridden, pandering Mr. Collins. Accolades also have to be given to Julia Sawalha, Susannah Harker, Benjamin Whitrow, Anna Chancellor, Crispin Bonham Carter and Emilia Fox.

To sum up, I don't think anybody can really capture or try to emulate the innate spirit, wit and feeling of Jane Austen's outstanding and timeless book...many have tried, and while they all provide different aspects and interpretations of the characters, there is only one which stands out to me as coming the closest to re-creating Jane Austen's incredible manipulation of language and human emotions, and that is Andrew Davies' BBC adaptation, through the wonderful casting, direction, screenplay and cinematography. Well Done!!

[CharlotteDV]

Just watch the oldest movie with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson from 1940!!

As for Keira, I don't think she's witty enough and her facial expressions are very strange...
The Joe Wright film from 2005 is nice when you don't think about the book, but he has changed too much in my opinion. The scene at the end in the meadow was beautiful but it's very strange considering what actually happens in the book.

In 1995 BBC adaptation is also nice to watch and is closer to the book. The actors as well are much better casted.

The BBC adaptation of 1980 reminds me of a dull play. You can recognise some sentences from the book, only they are used in other situations.. Strange..

I really love Laurence Olivier as Mr. Darcy because he's the only one where the admiration is visible at the ball. The others just seem as uninterested as always when they ask Lizzy to dance.

[RicMisc]

I have not seen the 1940 version featuring Olivier but I have seen both the BBC and 2005 version. The BBC version was an, in my opinion, more truthful representation of the novel, more like I had imagined it would be. Besides these three versions there is one that I have really enjoyed as well. In 2008 itv made a really fun adaption of the novel which loosely follows the story as written by Austen but it has a fun modern twist to it when a girl obsessed with Austen gets to explore the world she's been reading and dreaming about for so long. Although it's not a very accurate depiction of the novel it was not meant to be one, and for what it is it was really worth watching.

[CharlotteDV]

Just so!
Joe Wright is just trying too much.
We all love Colin!!

[gloriousausten]

I found the film adaptation to be lacking in so many ways. The quality of the acting in the BBC version was outstanding, from the amazing Amanda Steadman as Mrs Bennett, to David Bamber as the odious Mr Collins and Colin Firth as the surly Darcy. I make a point of watching the BBC series at least once a year, this is one DVD set I will never be parted from. Absolute brilliance !!!!! Kiera Knightly will never be Elizabeth Bennett !!!

[darcys-tango]

Are we actually talking here about Pride and Prejudice characters, or how gorgeous certain male/female actors are? For me the BBC series was far better than the film which couldn't possibly do full justice to the book in two hours plus. Knightley and McFadyen were indeed very good, but the omisson of key characters and the plot/dialogue changes didn't help my view of it competing with the BBC version in which Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle were superb. I have seen both versions a dozen times (owning the CD's) and read the book even more times. BBC wins hands down for me due to its adherance to the book. There's also, I believe, another newer version of the film in the pipeline.

Just a view as a new poster.

[suepyeoh]

OK, sort of torn between the two because I actually sort of blame Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice adaptation for turning me into an Austen fangirl! The quality of the film's score, that amazing cinematography (just look at the opening shot, och), and some damn emotive scenes just hit me right in the teenage feels. And then just after I saw it PBS decided to do a Masterpiece Theatre special with a whole lineup of brand new adaptations of nearly all of Jane Austen's novels. My best friend and I have never looked back since.

But anyway I digress. Now being slightly older and more read-up on Austen, I find the 2005 adaptation really doesn't seem to have the core of the novel at heart. It's still really really good at what it does, which is loosen your eyes, ears, and soul up like you're at the spa, but it won't nearly be the same experience as reading the novel or watching the 1995 adaptation of it, which is hardly as polished but is much more about the society and personal values various people would have had in the drawing rooms of Regency-era Britain.

My vote's with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth (hell yeah)! (Still love you though, Mr. McFadyen, Ms. Knightley!)

[Youssarian]

Hi,

I just joined the forum and have a question about the 2005 maybe someone here can answer. In the scene where Elizabeth first comes to Pemberly with her Aunt and Uncle she is shown grinning and smiling and a moment later with her Aunt and Uncle looking astonished. Was this a cut scene with something else intended or done on purpose? The entire scene struck me as unnecessary and failed to do anything to add to the movie or move the plot forward. If anyone can help me understand it better, I'd appreciate the assistance.