Printable View
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...
fer me,there's just one Mr. Darcy :colin firth....BBC version forever...
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.
Finally I have seen the Keira Knightly version. (last Week)
The BBC one was better. But not a bad attempt all in all.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by mazz
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.
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.
Well, I will always vote for the 1940 adaption with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson...Larry's such a hunk:p
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agatha
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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 ;)