Which Pride & Prejudice Adaptation was best?

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

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.

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.

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! ;)

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."

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:

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.

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.

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..

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?

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.

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.

:lol:

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!!

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.