I’d like to share my thoughts on two Jane Austen movies before the end of the year: Pride and Prejudice, 2005 and Clueless, 1995.
Pride and Prejudice 2005 premiered in November ten years ago in the U.S.. I recall watching the film with two members of our Jane Austen book club. The three of us felt less than “whelmed.” We usually eat dinner after a movie and discuss the film in detail. I recall very little discussion other than sharing our sense of disappointment. Keira Knightley seemed too thin and modern as Lizzie. Matthew MacFadyen was no Colin Firth, not his fault, I suppose, but damning in our eyes.
Ten years later, my opinion of the film has changed somewhat. I have come to appreciate that Joe Wright was trying to reach an audience much younger than the members in my book club. That he targeted his audience correctly is proven by the numerous fan clubs that sprang up around the film, the tens of thousands of creative and interesting icons that were created to represent P&P 2005 characters, the many discussion forums and blogs that dedicated reams of information about the film and its actors, and the many nominations the film received at award shows (although I find Keira Knightley’s Academy Award nomination for best actress perplexing). One cannot fault the film’s cinematography and music, which were lush and gorgeous. Has England ever looked more romantic? – its ancient, gnarled oaks, sweeping vistas, misty fields lit by rising suns, and grand houses never looked lovelier on film.
Let’s not forget that PROPOSAL scene in the rain. One cannot deny the chemistry between Keira and Matthew. Pure unrequited lust sprang off the screen.
There was also a lovely scene in which Lizzie rotates on a swing in an archway as the seasons of the year swirled past. While this scene was short, it provided a unique visual of the passing seasons.
Finally, finally, this film delivered an actress as beautiful and sweet as the Jane Bennet of my imagination! I will be forever grateful to Joe Wright for hiring Rosamund Pike for the part and pairing her with the first true puppy-like Mr. Bingley.
Film directors are not expected to follow an author’s vision religiously. After all, film is a visual medium, whereas the author relies on words to stimulate our imaginations. BUT. Please. Did Jane Austen really mean for the Bennets to live in a moated manor house, with pigs, geese, and cattle meandering through a muddy courtyard?
While I adore Donald Sutherland as an actor, at 70 he was more suited to playing Mr. Bennet’s elderly uncle than Mrs. Bennet’s husband. He also interpreted Mr. Bennet as still having the hots for Mrs. Bennet, despite her irritating personality, a modern POV, to be sure, but surely not in keeping with what we know about Mr. Bennet’s huge disappointment with his wife’s foolishness (and with himself for choosing such a ninny)?
While Lizzie was definitely a tomboy compared to her sisters, did she HAVE to be shown walking barefoot or slogging through the fields and dragging her hems through mud and dew so often? Austen, in demonstrating Lizzie’s loyalty to Jane, devised a scene where Lizzie walked through 3 miles of wet fields to be with her sister. This caused Miss Bingley to note with disdain that her petticoat was six inches deep in mud. The Bennets, while upper class, were not super rich. Cloth was not easily obtained or cheap. Clothes were made, remade, reused, and worked over, until the cloth became so threadbare that it was used for cleaning. So, for Lizzie to be shown muddying her hems in so many scenes makes no sense. Her gowns would need repeated washings, which, with the strong lye soaps of the day, would have degraded the cloth too quickly for practicality. She would surely have pinned her dress and train up, exposing only the petticoat, or worn a shorter day gown, as so many commoners and country folk did. Perhaps I am being too much of a stickler, but these lapses in logic affected my experience of the film the first time around and they still do.
One more rant. It’s become de rigueur in historical films to dress dowagers in the richly made, old-fashioned clothes of their younger years (think of Violet, the dowager countess in Downton Abbey and Judith Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh in this film). We get that. My mom still wears serviceable but outdated clothes from the 1980s, but can there be any excuse for dressing Miss Bingley in a nightgown for the Netherfield Ball and arranging her hair in a 1960’s updo?
In my opinion, this 2-hour adaptation of a 200+ page novel falls short when compared to the 1995 six-hour P&P. In 2005, Wickham was given very short shrift, as were the younger Bennet sisters. The scenes moved too fast, though I suppose this suited director Joe Wright’s intent, since he was targeting an audience that can barely remember life before fast-paced electronic games, instant messages, and music videos.
My final beef is with the alternative American ending. Mr. Wright insulted many serious fans of classic literature across the Pond with the final dialogue between Lizzie and Darcy, which lowered their romance to the level of a Barbara Cartland novel.
I still don’t like P&P 2005 half as much as P&P 1995. Yet, despite my misgivings, P&P 2005 has held up relatively well and I think younger viewers still prefer this adaptation to P&P 95. The second film on my mind is Clueless, which premiered several months ahead of Pride and Prejudice 1995 in the U.S., and which also targeted the young theater goer.
Amy Heckerling’s 90’s take on Jane’s meddlesome Emma is as fresh and funny today as it was then. It’s hard to choose which is more ridiculous: the slang of the 90’s valley girl airheads, the over-the-top fashions, the conspicuous consumption of LA teen culture, the banality of Cher’s high school education, the immature boyfriends, or the neutered adults.
Who can forget Cher’s mugging, where she resists lying down on the ground in her designer outfit, even with a gun to her head? Or how Heckerling turned Frank Churchill into Christian, a disco-dancing, Oscar-Wilde-reading, Streisand-ticket-holding-friend-of-Dorothy cake boy?
As Dion reminds Cher, “He does like to shop and the boy can dress.” Cher’s classic reply to Christian’s being gay? “Oh, my God, I’m totally buggin’!” Then there’s the girls’ inability to drive in LA, where driving is as essential as breathing. Those scenes are still classic and not to be missed.
Amy Heckerling did a smart thing in reinterpreting Emma. She brought Jane’s heroine over to California and gave her a different name, and moved her from a dull, country town and dropped her in the center of Beverley Hills, the Mecca for consumption-driven materialists.
Like Emma, Cher is motherless. Whereas Emma’s mama died a natural death, Cher’s mom died from the complications of liposuction on a plastic surgeon’s table. Both Cher and Emma are rich, bored, and meddlesome. Cher babies her father, much as Emma caters to Mr. Woodhouse. In Clueless, Cher’s father, a lawyer, is more dynamic than Mr. Woodhouse. One senses that he tolerates Cher’s mothering more than needs it. The love between them is palpable, and Cher’s kindness to one and all is genuine and sweet. These traits save her shallow character.
There are many similarities between the Emma characters and Clueless characters, and it’s fun to guess in the film who is who. You can tell from my excited tone how much I like this cinematic take of Emma. Clueless is a broad satire that seldom delves below the surface. The film is a feel good movie designed to give the viewer a rollicking good time.
Clueless has the same energy, sense of fun, and satiric take on human foibles as Jane Austen’s Juvenilia. I wonder if Amy Heckerling, having lumbered through all 400+ pages of Emma, turned to Jane’s juvenile stories for inspiration? They are filled with zany plots and joie de vivre. I wonder if she decided to meld the boisterous tone of Jane’s youthful stories with the more layered and complex plot of Emma. Meld? I think not. I think Amy gleefully tossed Emma’s subtext aside in favor of a bit of fun.
I am curious, gentle readers, about your take on both films. Do you agree or disagree with my assessments? Please let me know.
Jane Austen's World 
I agree, Vic. You’ve said it all beautifully. Happy Holidays!
The scene in the rain from P&P 2005 ranks up there with Colin Firth emerging from the lake in 1995. In 2006 I made a bee line for the temple at Stourhead where the 2005 version was shot, It did not disappoint in the least! You walk uphill along a little path through the woods to the temple. When you arrive, the view is stunning. I channeled my inner Lizzie and had no problem imagining Mr. Darcy offering his proposal. The only disappointment was that it was a sunny day. I begged my friend to climb onto the dome with a watering can and pour the contents in my direction so I could experience the whole rainy shebang. Alas, she declined. I had to rely on my imagination, which is over active to say the least. By the time I ran across the stone bridge, it was an easy thing to imagine that my frock was soaked and my hair was plastered to my skull. Imaginary great lashings of rain are thrilling, and I highly recommend them to anyone who wants to add a bit of drama to their day. A most satisfying adventure.
I also made the trek to Lyme Park (Pemberly in the 1995 P&P). And yes, reader, I was able to touch the very water that clung to Colin Firth in such a memorable fashion. Don’t know why the gift shop doesn’t sell little bottles of the stuff. I’d love to dab a little behind my knees every now and again. ;)
I truly loved Clueless. One of my favorite lines was the clueless reference to Tony Curtis starring in both Some Like it Hot and in Sporadicus.
I can understand that they were trying to encourage a much younger audience but that was no excuse in my opinion to corrupt the story. Hopefully a few of them bought the book and learned the true story
I’ve always been of the opinion that he ideal Miss Elizabeth Bennet was Claire Foy; though I enjoy Jennifer Ehle’s Elizabeth she is not exactly what Miss Austen had in mind when describing our heroine, “my little Lizzy” Mr Bennet or “as you are neither of you large” Lady Catherine, Miss Ehle appears somewhat large almost buxom
I think Colin Firth will always be Darcy, Keira Knightly was the best Elizabeth, Donald Sutherland was a great Mr. Bennet, the 2005 Mr Wickham was better, the 2005 Lady Catherine was great and the 1995 Lydia was better. I think I like the 2005 Mr. Collins the best. The other characters are all equally good in their roles. I don’t like the change in the ending but boy I wanted a little more from Colin Firth at the end. So I guess I’m all over the place but can say I have read the book and seen both adaptations of the book at least five times. I’m hopeless. Isn’t there an older movie of Pride and Prejudice?? I haven’t seen that!
Yes, there’s a 1980 version of Pride and Prejudice that is quite nice. This production straddles the stilted staged BBC specials of the 1970’s with some outdoor scenes and less stagy sets, but the production values are nowhere near P&P 95s. I liked Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzie, and David Rintoul made a handsome if overly stiff and formal Mr. Darcy. I think the film is available on Hulu and definitely worth a view. Lady Catherine is suitably awful and Mr. Collins resembles Jane’s description in that he is tall, not short like David Bamber, who was my favorite foolish cleric.
Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier starred in the 1940’s black and white movie version. Enjoy it for what it is.
Clueless was wonderful when it was released, and it is wonderful now – both as a 1990’s evocation of Austen, and as a time capsule of that ridiculous period – the 1990s – and of Valley Girls.
As for that ghastly P&P movie adaptation with The Stick and Not Colin – ugh. Too bad all copies aren’t on silver nitrate film, as were old movies. It could be decomposing. A&E FOREVER!
(An aside – Just re-watched Kingsman last night. Colin, even though he was 20 years older, is still eye candy. If some excellent British scriptwriter [perhaps JK Rowling] could be persuaded to stand in for Miss Jane Austen, and write a sequel [I know, “Death Comes to Pemberley” has already been done, and rather well, I thought], perhaps Mr Firth and Ms Ehle could be reunited in their roles.
I had all the same reservations about the 2005 P&P except for — the dancing, a few glimpses anyway. Not enough, not as much as in the 6-hr but with the raucous fun that one imagines! and that we have in our ECD here in Toronto!
I was so thrown by Miss Bingley’s gown in the 2005 version, it took me out of the story….and although I like Matthew M….and the proposal scene was just gorgeous…Colin Firth is my one and only Darcy….the 1995 version introduced me to Jane Austen, as I hadn’t read any of her books yet….I think the cinematography and music saved the 2005 film….so many breathtaking scenes….I thought Bingley was a buffoon, but agree that Rosamund Pike was ethereal as Jane….I recently saw a movie about Hitler, can’t remember the title that had both Mr. Collins in it…with David Bamber playing Hitler….I do own both versions, but while I’ll watch the 1995 over and over, not so much the 2005….
I agree with pretty much all that you’ve posted here…so no need to post myself. I DO encourage you to read all five of Austen’s books – they are quite entertaining and, it’s fun to compare them to the different movie versions! ;-)
I have read three so far and must admit, Persuasion is my favorite….
Ugh, P&P 2005. (LOL, guess you know where I’ll be going with this…) Casting was a mixed bag: I absolutely LOVED Rosamund Pike as Jane. I liked that a younger actress played Lydia so that you really saw the age difference between her and Wickham. I disliked Keira Knightley as Lizzy (and I especially loathed her wardrobe) and while Matthew MacFadyen is a fine actor I hated him as Darcy. Darcy needs to be someone whose face, while in repose, looks severe– otherwise Lizzy would have no reason to believe he’s thinking badly of her all the time. I know she’s prejudiced against him, but if Darcy had walked around looking longingly and mournfully at her and altogether like a puppy who’d been kicked (as MacFayden’s Darcy does) she would have to have been a complete imbecile not to realize that he didn’t dislike her.
Other things I hated:
-the Bennets are portrayed as being on the same level as (or lower than) tenant farmers. Mr Bennet has 2000 pounds a year in income- he’s not super wealthy but he’s well off and he certainly wouldn’t have had muddy pigs and poultry in his yard!
-the portrayal of the Bennets as all super close; the girls all giggly together and Mrs and Mrs being all lovey-dovey. There’s nothing in the book to support that. At all.
-Mr and Mrs Gardiner were clearly portrayed as being of a lower class than Darcy, even though in the novel he takes them for people of fashion and is surprised to realize they’re Lizzy’s aunt and uncle.
-Charlotte yelling, “Don’t you dare judge me!” O_o
-As you say, the muddy hems. Lizzy doesn’t muddy the hems of her dresses in the novel, just of her petticoats– “the skirt, being let down to cover it, not entirely doing its office” or whatever snarky thing it is that Caroline says.
-Darcy walked into her bedroom to give her the letter? What??!?
-Georgiana’s personality transplant.
-when Darcy finds Lizzy distressed over the letter she received about Lydia’s “elopement” he bursts out, “This is all my fault!!” I actually said, “What?!” out loud in the theater and embarrassed my daughter lol. But seriously! Of course he *felt* that way, but if he had *said* it she wouldn’t have thought he was trying to get away from her/thought her tainted.
-Joe Wright’s general disdain for the fandom and, to a degree, for the novel itself. And his passion for “gritty realism”, which unfortunately led to the gritty unreality of swine in the yard and an incorrect difference in class status between the protagonists.
However, there were things I loved. The cinematography and music were beautiful, and the scene where Lizzy runs into Darcy at Pemberley really captures her embarrassment and humiliation perfectly. Of course, then they ruin it by having her abandon her aunt and uncle and walk the five miles back to Lambton. :( I’m trying to think if I loved anything else… um, I loved Jane and Bingley… and yeah. That’s it. :)
I’ve actually never seen Clueless– I’ve heard so many people say how good it was, but somehow I’ve never gotten to it. I’ll have to see if I can lay my hands on it somewhere. :)
“ruin it by having her abandon her aunt and uncle and walk the five miles back to Lambton”
I always thought that while she had stayed behind to gaze at Darcy’s bust, they had continued on the tour with the housekeeper. She was looking for them when she heard the music that caused her to seek it’s origin. That’s when she entered the room where Darcy was watching his sister play the pianoforte he had purchased for her. It was her embarrassment that caused her to run away from him and when she walked I presumed it was because her aunt and uncle had gone back to town without her. Looking back that was probably illogical of me to conclude. But then, there were her aunt and uncle in Lambton sitting down to dinner when she entered the inn.
Hi–You are perfectly correct in your assessment, songbirdalicia. The Gardiners were already at the inn when she arrived, having walked the entire way back by herself. Caught off guard and stunned by Mr. Darcy’s presence clearly and understandably rattled Elizabeth, and, being very young and (surmising) not yet aware how much in love she was, it is entirely plausible that these missteps could occur. This was a major turning point for Elizabeth. It worked in the film but the argument seems to be around what Jane Austen actually wrote.There is a case for either side. The 1980 film is worth seeing. However, 2005 was a visual stunner and a good film of Pride and Prejudice in my estimation,.
The earliest film version of P and P that I have seen of is the 1940 movie with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. Character actor Melville Cooper is good as Mr. Collins, but the 1995 actor is more suitably oleaginous. Garson doesn’t fit the part well, and the actors are oddly costumed in Victorian clothing. I much prefer the 1995 version over the 2005 one. Downton Abbey’s Dowager Countess is Violet, not Viola. I did like Clueless, but I saw it some years ago and would like to see it again.
I hardly ever think about the 1940 version of P&P, which I have grown to detest. Not only are the costumes awful, but the ending is even worse than the American ending for P&P 2005. The thought of Lady CdeB bringing Darcy and Lizzie together is laughable. There are a number of great actors in the film. Their performances cannot make up for the deficiencies in this movie. Laurence Olivier’s Darcy is wooden and Greer Garson is too old for the part of Lizzie. Thanks for correcting Violet’s name. I need an editor.
I read somewhere, or perhaps I saw it on AMC, that the screenwriters and studio changed Lady Catherine into a “nice” character because they were trying to foster sympathy for British people in the American public. They didn’t want people to come away with the image of the snobby, domineering aristocrat, which might have fed into the isolationist sentiment prevalent in the US at the time.
It’s an interesting theory. Wish I could find a link. Come to think of it, it may have been in Jane’s Fame by Claire Harmon.
I suppose I’ll now have to buy the 2005 DVD even though I know I shall hate most of it. Thanks for the clips.
If you do buy the DVD, after watching it watch it again with the director’s comments! It will give you insight as to why Joe Wright made the choices he did and I think you might lay aside some prejudices (no pun intended…I think).
I adore commentaries…its why I buy DVDs..still don’t have Netflix…but I hated his commentary…yes it does give some insight on things, but I found it so boring….it think a good commentary should have at least two people, so they can “play”off of each other….it was just him..I would have loved having the cinematographer’s take on the movie, as that seems to be where something we can all agree on…
I appreciate both the 1995 and 2005 versions. Joe Wright’s perspective was refreshing eventhough it’s not comparable to the 1995 version. I had never seen Matthew Macfayden prior to his role as Mr. Darcy and yet I thought he showed enough disdain for Lizzie to satisfy my remembrance of Jane Austen’s Darcy. Joe Wright was aiming for a more manly Darcy. One of the most memorable scenes in the 2005 film were the proposal in the rain and the misty pre-dawn morning scene at the end. I’ve read the novel more times than I can count, seen the 1995 version several times, and the 2005 version at least 10 times. While I’m adore watching Colin Firth in anything I also view all things featuring Macfayden. Also, I give kudos to Mr. Wright for casting Rosamund Pike, Donald Sutherland, Brenda Blethyn (superb), in fact the entire cast (except for Kelly Reilly [who fares better in Above Suspicion]; whatever were they thinking allowing her to wear my prom dress!). Note: I was 58 when I first saw both productions of P&P. So much for the argument that it was directed solely at the younger age group.)
Vic, I am hoping that when Downton Abbey makes it’s finale in 2016 you will return to us with your comments after each episode. Whether I agree with your comments entirely I so enjoy reading them as well as your style of writing.
Thank you for your compliments! *blush* I certainly will try to blog during, DA. I love the reader responses.
Though you may blush, you deserve kudos for your critiques. It’s part of the Downton Abbey experience to read them. At least I’ll have your Jane Austen blog to read after DA sails off into the Masterpiece Theater archives. I am glad you will try. And, yes, the reader responses match your eloquence and articulation making them just as enjoyable.
Merry Christmas. See you in the New Year!
I completely agree with your view of pride and prejudice 2005.what a disappointment ! but (and you didn t mention it) the scene of the Netherfield’s ball was somptuous.excepted the gowns! P&P 1995 is by far my favorite and the most fidele !
your post is very interesting because I didn’t know the second film.I will try to find and watch it.thank you
On the whole I agree I with you! However, although I do like Clueless, I don’t like it as much as you seem to do but that’s probably because I am not so very fond of Emma. My favourite Emma adaptation is the 2009 BBC serial with Jonny Lee Miller and Romola Garai. That adaptation for the first time made me feel any sympathy for Emma. :)
As for P&P 2005 – yep, can’t hold a candle to the 1995 version, I agree with you! Yes, a lot of it felt rushed and especially that first proposal in the rain annoys me to no end! Yes, the almost kiss was nice, there was electric passion but oh my goodness, McFadyen just rushes through the dialogue so quickly it makes me cringe. I really do not like him as Darcy and it can’t only be because I love Colin Firth as Darcy so much. I don’t understand the Keira Oscar nomination either but I do think her Lizzy is alright. Yes, the movie does look beautiful and I do have to say I find the sunrise scene at the end lovely. I go back to watch the movie occasionally and enjoy it but no, it can’t hold a candle to P&P 1995….
hello
un billet plein de passion
je viens de faire une carte scrap pour fêter l’anniversaire de
JANE AUSTEN ( 16 décembre 1775 )
http://irisombreetlumiere.blogspot.com
je serai heureuse de votre visite
bonne journée
edith (iris)
Have you seen Aisha? It’s the Indian version of Emma. So good!
The major memory I have of P&P 05 is that Longbourne looked more like a decrepit tenant farm from the outside, and Mr. Bennet must have been The much younger brother of Squire Western from Tom Jones!
A bit off the current subject, but in case I did not already tell you, your obit of Charlotte Collins was wonderful. I enjoyed it so much and sent it to someone else (who taught Jane Austen on the college level), and she love it, too.
2005 P and P? Too Bronte. The costuming, the dramatic victimized deliveries of lines, the gothic look of things–none of it felt Jane Austen enough. Keira Knightly certainly didn’t feel like a Jane Austen heroine. That version did do one thing very well: it had Mr Bennet apologize to Mary and make things better with her after his embarrassing her at Netherfield. In fact, in spite of his advanced years, I think the 2005 version cast a much more sympathetic Mr Bennet than the 1995 one. But in every other category. 1995 wins.
Clueless? Awesome version of Emma. Far better than the Gwenneth Paltrow one. Although the new BBC one (Romala Garai) I like even better. The Kate Beckinsale one felt too long, but it isn’t bad.
While I’m at it, I loved The Lizzie Bennet Diaries online and Emma Approved. Well worth watching.
I own two or more film adaptations of each book, and have read each of the books many times. (well, probably Northanger Abbey only twice).
I think we just have to accept that the adaptations are never as good as the books. Thank goodness we have the books.
I’m glad to here that you’ve revised your opinion of the wonderful, magical 2005 film of Pride and Prejudice. Brava,I, too, had little interest in seeing it, given the imprint Colin Firth made in 1995’s deeply romantic and fabulous 1995 version. Howevah, Mathew Macfadyen absolutely holds his own as Mr. Darcy. I am now torn. It IS possible to love more than one at the same time.
And he was dressed to the nines in perfection, as was every single character including the Irish wolf hound. The locations and scenes were drop dead gorgeous and beyond fabulous. Jane would have been pleased with the enhanced romantic quality of those sets and details, I assure you. I see her sitting at her lovely round pedestal table leaning back against the delicate Regency chair and clasping her hands for joy. I’m sure Jane was more animated than perhaps we none of us might think of being in her time.
You are cleverly candid but much too hard on Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (and no one saw the moat regarding the old Longbourn manor (the moated Groombridge Place in Kent–I looked this up) that crumbling bit of architectural mastery and gentility worked so beautifully in every single scene of it. Unless perhaps that was the moat ambling in the middle distance with Mr. Darcy trying to help untie Mr. Bingley’s tongue. Mrs. Bennet is loved for her wiggy fanatisism in assuring she and hubby are not left with five older unmarriageable daughters. Sotherland does a great job with great mastery thoug. is different again but just as charming and entirely believable as the much older Mr. Bennet.Its always been my understanding that in Jane’s day, it was far more common to be asked for your twenty year old hand in marriage by a man 20 or more years older than you. They were very much needed for comic relief and at times, a loving parental guide in today’s guideless world. I’d have loved thse two for parents. What a hoot! And the food served at their table! Enough said.
Now about that wet hem. Interesting that you have noted the far more likely arrangement on such occasions but really, the muddied hem speaks to that walk through the wet fields so eloquently. It makes the point of such an adventure. And it gives that bitchy Ms Bingley something to point out condescendedly with such perfection.. Afterall, we know where her loyalties and interests lie, don’t we? When Keira arrives with her hair down, we are left a bit breathless at the wonder of her. Yes, she’s pretty thin but people were as a rule quite small then, I believe. And she’s supposed to be very young–and conveys this to her audience with great ease. Most convincing. I wasn’t set to like her as much but I was completely won over by the end of the film. Back to her father a moment: I suspect older folks in the day were a lot randier. Due to all that walking, i believe.
Even though the ending was a surprise and I agree, a stretch–did you not feel a pang of the honeymoon stage of love? Its a lovely fantasy fulfilled beautifully in keeping with the romance of Austen’s timeless masterpiece. Jane would have blushed at its cleverness and thought “why didn’t I think of that?!”
Penelope Wilton’s Mrs. Gardiner is a treasure isn’t she? I mean, what a foil for the hyper nervous ,irritating yet lovable Mrs. Bennett If only so many of us wish we had someone who cared that much, no matter the panicked motivations of dumb as a fox Mrs. Bennett.
Lets hope none of us is ever confronted with the impossible choice of two such Mr. Darcy’s approaching us through the early morning mists of time with ruffled shirt opened in seductive disheveledness so carelessly covered by that gorgeous perfectly cut overcoat; A sheer vision of besotted sleepless distraction bent on settling the matter once and for all. I’ve been looking all over the internet for that chocolate brown robe Elizabeth is wearing with the opened panels. Wow! Her pristine white muslin gown. I mean, really. This rivals Colin Firth’s standing wet from head to toe, after a quick cooling off in the pond at Pemberley, where most of us nearly fainted from desire.
This is what fabulous storytelling is. You are there. Whether in the book or in the film. Both are superb films–no comparison needed. They each stand on their own. Great to point out the importance of the 2005 version’s effort to reach a younger audience and the changes made perhaps to do so. Both are loved at any age. Time to loosen those laces a little, ladies, and just enjoy the moment each film invites us to do.
Thanks so much. I’m debating whether to actually post this. Love love love your blog and love the differences of opinion, and fabulous historical input you provide. Touche, Vic! In all humble gratitude!
PS. I missed the season changes during the swing scene with Elizabeth; did get the dreaminess of it and the passage of time.Thank you! I was distracted by the rain and that old breed of coos being hurriedly herded into the barn.
Hello Forthright and Fancy Free, I think you found my private journal! My thoughts on the 2005 P&P parallel your comments above and I’m glad you decided to post it. Your 4th fro the last paragraph describe those scenes so perfectly I’m there. I saw 2005 with the Director’s Comments and I invite you P&P fans to do so as well. He shares a few thoughts that brought tears to my eyes.
Everyone: Please excuse all the replies I made to comments. I just get so intrigued with this blog where genteel women gather (and a few gentlemen as well) to take a sip of tea as they share their minds on matter Jane Austen.
Thank you so much, songbirdalicia. I’m happy to hear it. I also enjoy your comments very much. I’m checking back to read more. Cheers!
Hi Vic! I have to agree with you on this, The 1995 P&P is far superior to the 2005 one. Given the complexity of the plot and the dialogue, a longer version makes much more sense than a shorter film. You made a good point saying that the newer version caters to the younger population…I grew up thinking Colin Firth WAS Mr Darcy and Jennifer Ehle was Elizabeth, and that would be hard to beat. The whole dramatisation – setting, costumes and acting – in 1995 was much more thought out. I did like Jane Bennet and Mrs Bennet in 2005, and the rain episode is epic. :)
Not such a huge fan of Clueless, as I’m not so fond of the genre, but the bollywood version, Aisha, was fun.
Oh boy. Hear not “here” Nothing like staring off with a glaring mispell.
Let’s try this again. There must be a brownie in my laptop: Oh boy. Hear not “here” Nothing like starting off with a glaring mispell and now a glaring incorrect correction. I think I’ve got it this time.
A wee rebuttal to Judi Dench’s Lady Catherine de Bourgh who is dressed so magnificently if not historically correct in 2005’s Pride and Prejudice.. Dench IS Lady Catherine and you are absolutely clear she is as rich and powerful as the Duke of Devonshire. Again, it makes an emotional point and a very romantic one. Its the experience of the moment that is so unforgettable. I doubt it would have made quite the same impact if she were dressed more appropriately for her age at that time. Its a very restrained flamboyance masterfully done and to my thinking, goes well with Lady Catherine’s personality.
I regret not editing my lengthy rebuttal but I will have to live with the errors. Sigh.
I agree with you entirely concerning both films. “Clueless” is a delightful update on Emma, and it never bothered me at all that it upended the original story, as it remained true to the characters as they might be today in modern L.A. Adorable. BUT – and it’s a huge BUT (butt?) – “Pride and Prejudice”, 2005 was, to me, a mess.
If you can divorce yourself from the idea that the 2005 movie was intended as a version of “Pride and Prejudice”, and simply think of it as “a nice Regency love story starring Keira Knightly”, then it’s ok, even rather lovely at times. However, the characterizations of most of the principals are so very different from Jane Austen’s intentions that I, like one of the comments above, yelled at the screen several times (I saw it at home on DVD, thank God!)
As you have already put it so well, I will only say that the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Bennett is loving and teasing in the movie, two totally different people from the Bennetts of the book. I have not seen it in a long time because it disappointed me so much, but I do recall particularly Matthew MacFadyen’s Darcy was portrayed as shy rather than aloof – or rather, his aloofness was actually because he was shy, which made him more to be pitied than censured. Also, I do not fault MacFadyen’s acting as this was a directorial and script choice.
Which brings me to more directorial choices like the strangely lower-class home and clothing the Bennett family owned. And like you, as much as I love Donald Sutherland, he was waaay too old for the role. I have to say the same thing for Judi Dench, one of my favorite people of all time, but she, too, was too old for Lady Catherine. (She was too old for Lady Bracknell in “The Importance of Being Earnest”, too!) Unlike “Clueless”, the script did not remain true to the characters. Because of this I think my main objection to the 2005 P&P is that it may be the only version of P&P some people ever know, and it is simply not a true version.
Some quick final thoughts on other P&P’s – The 1980’s version is quite lovely with good script, acting, costumes etc. and best of all, it remains true to Austen’s story. As Andrew Davies has said in several interviews, he wanted the 1995 Darcy to be sexier and more accessible, and he certainly managed that with Colin Firth! But Jane Austen, as you all know, never wrote about men unless they were in company with women. So the reserved Darcy of David Rintoul is just exactly as written. (Sort of in defense of!) He is just as written, as is Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth. In fact, there were times I felt her Lizzie’s reactions were a little less modern than Jennifer Ehle’s (and I love Jennifer Ehle’s Elizabeth). So see it, it is well worth it if you love the story.
Finally, I believe the 1995 P&P has my heart as my favorite version. I LIKED being able to see into Darcy a bit, and that made it more fun for me. I think every bit of it was great, from casting to script to costumes to scenery to direction. I have wanted to vent about the 2005 version of P&P for years, so thanks for the opportunity!
“P&P 2005 has held up relatively well and I think younger viewers still prefer this adaptation to P&P 95. ”
They do seem to prefer the 2005 version. I fear sadly Colin Firth is too old to appeal to them. My biggest complaint about the fans of the 2005 movie is that they have never read the novel and don’t intend to or they think the movie is better. My complaint with the movie is that it strips away Jane Austen’s beautiful language. I am vastly annoyed every time I see the quote “You have bewitched me mind body and soul. I love you…” attributed to Jane Austen. (There are others too). For me the 1995 version is the definitive P&P and I don’t think I could enjoy another as much. However, if Colin Firth was not THE Mr. Darcy, I would say my favorite Darcy is the one in Lost in Austen. Mr. Collins in Lost in Austen was also very great in an icky sort of way.
I loved Clueless when I was a 90s teen. I didn’t know at the time it was based on Jane Austen’s Emma and I hadn’t even read Emma (though I owned it for many years before I opened it). It’s a perfect capture of the 90s teen culture and so funny. The movie gave us famous sayings like “oops! My bad!” and “As if!” Alicia Silverstone “Cher” was great. Brittany Murphy was memorable as Harriet as well. It’s on TV a lot and might be on Netflix or Amazon Prime for those who haven’t seen it yet.
QNPoohBear: I run a tumblr site and follow many others, and I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen that damn “Austen” quote, “You have bewitched me, body and soul etc.” And I completely agree with you about the lack of dialogue from the book. Many advantages were taken, shall we say, in the 2005 movie, from bad dialogue (meaning modern) to characters Miss Austen would never have recognized. If you or anyone else also loves “Jane Eyre”, I highly recommend the version with Sorcha Cusak and Michael Jayston. It relies completely upon the original text for dialogue and is just simply wonderful, with a subtle sense of humor shared by Jane and Rochester which I’ve never seen in any other version, but is clear in the book. They are, after all, kindred spirits!
Some of these comments sound a bit like Mary Bennett: “I am happiest with a book.” Yet Jane’s wonderful Elizabeth Bennett says” “I am not a great reader and I have pleasure in many things.” Which character would Jane identify most with?
Vic, great post AND great comments! This is a post I’ll be revisiting from time to time for the comments. I don’t think I ever knew that the 2005 ending I saw was just for American audiences. Interesting! Now I want to see the “real” ending.
Hi Jean!! The “real” ending did not have the Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy litany, kissy face in the moonlight
The tedious Mary Bennett, who’s portrayal is farcical in the 1980 film, says ” I am happiest with a book” and we know how dull and colorless Jane Austen intended Mary to be. A great foil for the obnoxious Lydia. Or Kitty. I believe its Kitty who winds up in questionable circumstances in the fabulous and extremely funny epitaph for Charlotte Lucas posted on this site. On the other hand, Elizabeth Bennett says: “I am not a great reader and I have pleasure in many things.” Austen would have been entertained, if scandalized, by the ending of the 2005 film. Of all the Bennett sisters, Jane would have wanted to be Elizabeth.
To correct: The obit for Charlotte Collins (nee Lucas) is priceless. There is no kissy face in the moonlight Mrs. Darcy Mrs. Darcy litany, however. You’ll have to see the 2005 film for that.
Thanks for suggesting the 1980 film. I loved it. Regrettably,it probably wouldn’t fly today, given 3-second attention span audiences. As Milan Kundera begs us in his novella “Slowness”, to paraphase: “For god’s sake, please slow down or you’ll miss everything.” We need Jane Austen more than ever. David Rintoul’s Mr. Darcy is now my new favorite.. Reminded me a little of Lord Merton, whom I have a crush on, from Downton Abbey. We so hope Mrs. Crawley reconsiders.
So glad you watched it. I loved Moray Watson as Mr. Bennet as well.
The dance scene from 2005’s Pride and Prejudice was exceptional in both its cinematography as well as choreography–and the color of it is extraordinary.
It may look random or unstudied but from an artists perspective, its like a moving painting. There are certain colors that punctuate the scene–give it a cohesive quality it would otherwise not have. Loved it. Joyous result.
I’m referring to the more raucous dance given by the Lucas family at the very beginning of the film.
Country vs. gentry. There are two wonderful dance scenes in the 2005 film.
I really enjoyed the 2005 version of “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” very much. It’s not my favorite adaptation, but I always enjoy it, when I watch it.
I know a lot of people claim that the 1980 version of the story is more “true” to Austen’s tale. But the reality is that it is no more accurate than the other adaptations.