.jpg)
So, which is your favourite version of Pride and Prejudice? As this is my blog, I get to fire the first salvo here and I say that my fave is 1995 Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, but only just. This miniseries kept me sane when I was the working mother of a toddler and a preschooler so this will be hard to beat as number one for me. It also introduced me to Jane Austen as I am ashamed to say I had not read any of her books before 1995.
I have a theory that the first version of P&P you see is likely to be your fave. Not always, but there is usually a soft spot in your heart for your very first Mr. Darcy and Lizzy.
My other theory is that every 10 or 15 years, there will be another version out, so each generation can have their own Mr. Darcy. And I think that there can never be too many Austen adaptations out there. If they are really trying to do it right, (not modern or time travel or different cultures) I think we can welcome another version in a few years. What do you all think?
Shall I start with the most recent first? I have to say that there is an advantage to the length of a feature film. When I want a little dose of P&P, this is the version I usually reach for. A miniseries is a time commitment which I used to find easier than I do now. This is my bite-sized version. I also love the "muddy hems" and more realistic late 18th century settings and costumes. Gorgeously filmed and the music is lovely.
I think the leads were well cast. Lizzy is the proper age and Keira Knightley is a wonderful actress who loves the book and threw her heart into it. Matthew Macfadyen is a great Darcy. He puts a bit more shyness and awkwardness into the role which is a great take on the Darcy character.
I adore Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet. She brings a realistic and loving touch without losing the comedy. Well done. I think Tom Hollander is brilliant as Mr. Collins with his exemplary vegetables and his amazing facial expressions. Claudie Blakely also deserves kudos for her Charlotte Lucas. We truly feel her fear of being "left on the shelf".
I do admittedly adore Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the 1995 version. He is verrrrry sexy and perhaps the fact that he was having a wee fling with Jennifer Ehle during filming adds a little spark to the chemistry. And Jennifer Ehle's little smirk and all of her eyebrow raising is very effective to make you really love her as Lizzy.
It is also truly gorgeous in it's locations and costumes and the fact that it is so true to the book. The length is a plus unless you only have two hours to spend with the Bennet family.
I love Benjamin Whitrow as Mr. Bennet. When he kisses Lizzy on the head and gives his blessing to the marriage, well I just want him for my father. And could you want any more in Lady Catherine de Bourgh than we get from Barbara Leigh-Hunt? The scene with Lizzy and Lady Catherine in the garden is perfection!
My only knock against this version is the shrill tone to Alison Steadman's voice as Mrs. Bennet. Although I love her portrayal otherwise the thought of her voice has actually prevented me from popping this in on occasion (usually when I have a migraine).
I remember many years ago, raving about Colin Firth to an older co-worker and she said that David Rintoul was a far superior Mr. Darcy. So you see where I started my theory about each generation having their own version. Elizabeth Garvie is a wonderful Elizabeth and I think it's a shame we haven't seen her in more films over the years, although she was great in The House of Eliott too.
This is a wonderful adaptation, only really suffering from being recorded on video tape instead of film, and the basically low production values of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The scene which really stands out in my mind is when Darcy finds her walking in the park at Rosings and hands her the letter, the way the camera follows him as he walks away is truly effective. Off he goes into the future without her...
The 1940 version with Laurence Olivier as Mr. Darcy and Greer Garson as Elizabeth is really much better than it could have been considering what Hollywood was doing at the time. They brought in talented screenwriter Jane Murfin along with Aldous Huxley (yes, the Brave New World one) and other than the hoop skirts and the abominable change in Lady Catherine in the last scenes, they got a lot of Jane Austen in there.
I love the comedy in this version. It is just a very fun, light Pride and Prejudice. And again, think of all of the people who picked up Jane Austen's novels in the 1940s because of this adaptation. What a blessing in the midst of WWII to have this film and a renewed interest in Jane Austen.
And Laurence Olivier is really not a bad Mr. Darcy (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more). I wish we could see Greer Garson's red hair in this, though I don't wish to see a colorized version. I'll take it in black and white.
OK, now I am going to hold my breath and post this. Please feel free to give your opinions in the comment section below. There are no right or wrongs on this topic. Everyone's opinion is valid and truly welcome. I want to know when you think we will get the next version now too. We are almost due...
P.S. To see my other Austen Adaptation Smackdown, Sense and Sensibility- 1995 vs 2008
I must confess that I have never seen the earlier BBC miniseries or the 1940s B&W version of P&P. But I am rather partial to the 1995 version. I definitely prefer it to the 2005 version for keeping to the storyline. However, the 2005 version is good for those times when you really just want a "shot" of P&P. And Macfadyen’s awkwardness was rather heartwarming compared to Firth’s seeming standoffishness. Additionally the cinematography and music in the 2005 version really is gorgeous. But overall there is just too much left out for it to win my heart away from the Jennifer/Colin duo.
ReplyDeleteYou have an interesting theory about loving the first version of P&P that you see. Makes me wonder if it's the same with other literary/Austen adaptations. I just recently watched the 2009 Emma miniseries with Johnny Lee Miller and Romola Garai. Although the Gwyneth Paltrow/Jeremy Northam (1996) version was my first Emma adaptation, I think I much prefer the Johnny/Romola version. The 2009 miniseries includes more about the Jane/Frank/Emma dynamic; it presents a more complicated social situation and critique. I also thought it did a great job of taking seriously the arguments between Emma and Knightly – they are allowed to really fight and really make up, not just sweep it under the rug or laugh it off. I think that captures a much richer, deeper picture of love.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I may not always comment, but I always enjoy reading your blog!
Hi Alayna! Thanks for the lovely comment. I totally agree with you about the versions of Emma. I too saw the Paltrow/Northam version first but I WAY prefer JLM and Romola. No contest. And yet, all 3 versions (even the BBC Kate Beckinsale one) have lots of good points. I think I will end up doing comparisons of all of the Austen adaptations this winter. :)
DeleteCheers!
Yes, of course I have to comment on this .
ReplyDeleteJane Austen is all about characters. She can sum up a character in one beautiful paragraph to the point where you know exactly the kind of person he or she is; thus the need for a 6 hour experience. We need the dialogue! The 2005 version was a beautiful experience with the music and scenery but like many movies of our time, fills in important moments and conversation with fluff.
I wish I could meld these two movies together, picking and choosing who to keep and banish from the cast. Of course, the final movie would be the same length as the mini-series. Here we go:
Mr. Bennet: 1995 I couldn’t stand Sutherland and kept wishing he’d just take the dentures out and stop talking like a stroke victim, just horrible. In the 1995 version, you can see where Elizabeth got some of her sense of humor and love of the ridiculous.
Mrs. Bennet: 2005 but with more accuracy to her character, her voice is much more bearable. She really was an a pitiful person and the 1995 version portrayed her more accurately, but it’s hard to see the beauty that attracted Mr. Bennett long ago.
Lydia: 2005, perfect!
Kitty: 1995
Mary: either
Jane: 2005 Beautiful. But, I do miss the sweetness of Jane portrayed in the 1995.
Elizabeth: 1995 I sometimes liked Kiera and sometimes her lines felt awkward. I didn’t get the impression while reading the book that she was such a rag-a-muffin. At her age, her hair would have still been kept up even if it did end up in a ratty bun. I liked the costumes in both but I really wish they would have given Kiera a chest as she’s always reminded me of a teenage boy. Jennifer Ehle really showed the intelligence and wit that we love about Elizabeth; her understanding of human folly but also her own blindness because of her wounded pride. Maybe had Kiera been given a bit longer of a movie to play in, we might have seen more of this from her. I can go on…
Mr. Darcy: Let me write that again, “Mr. Darcy!” Colin Firth, but also Mr. 2005. I could do both but Mr. 2005 would need to be tried in a 1995 manner. Oh, I could take either but I am still soooo curious how Mr. 2005 would do in the long version. Sexy, both. I love that style of clothing and the perfectly fit coats, pants and black boots.
Charlotte: for appearance, either one. You definitely do feel the pain and worry of being left “on the shelf” with the 2005 version.
Mr. Collins: 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love, love, love that actor! Perfection!
Lady Catherine: 1995. I too saw that 1940s version and almost gagged with that scene that you mentioned.
Mr. Wickham: 2005, he’s beautiful, pretty even.
Mr. Bingly: 1995, just adorable! He was not an idiot as the 2005 version portrays him to be. 2005 guy is cute though.
As you know, I have an infinite amount of words that I could share on this subject but I will hold back. You can call me if you want more on my opinions .
Hi Becky, awesome comment! I am so glad that I am not the only one with such definite opinions on this topic. So what do you think of our chances of getting another version in 2015? Another miniseries from the BEEB perhaps?
DeleteI agree that Alison Steadman's Mrs. Bennet is the only knock on the 1995 version--it is hands-down, my favorite.
ReplyDeleteI did watch my VHS tape of the earlier BBC version until I knew every word and gesture and scene by heart. That tape got me through two pregnancies and 11 weeks of bedrest on the second. There's a lot to love in that version, and I think Fay Weldon is a talented screenwriter. If only we could see her version of Sanditon!
I also like the WWII era movie--it is fun, and sparkling, and if they hadn't ruined the Lady Catherine character it would have more of a following, despite the hoop skirts!
Hi Jane! Another vote for the 1995 version! I guess my theory about your first P&P being your fave is being knocked down if the 1980 version was your first. Glad to hear it got you through a rough time in your life. Better than meds, right?
DeleteYou sent me scurrying to look up what else Fay Weldon has done. I must check out some of her novels too!
1940 and 1995 are my favorites, but I think I HAVE to watch all of them again just to check.
ReplyDeleteOooooh, great idea. I haven't been sick this winter but if I do come down with something (cough!) I will be prepared!
DeleteI notice that you didn't mention Donald Sutherland and he was/is my major objection to the 2005 version. His father was all wrong and I believe the father is the centerpiece of the story. How the five girls react and respond to men is based on how they are treated by their father. So Sutherland's cuddly daddy just didn't work for me. Although MacFadyen for me was no Darcy, I base my objection to him on the fact that as I was leaving the theatre my grandson asked who the actor was and I had no idea - he was so unmemorable. Keira Knightly seemed forced to me.
ReplyDeleteThe first time theory didn't work for me. I saw the 1940 version a few months after reading the book the first time and was horrified. I've seen every version after that waiting for a good one. Olivier and Garson were much too old and changing the story always bugs me.
You did miss one from 1968, also on tape. The biggest problem I have with the 1980 version is that they tried to stay too close to the book the screen writer forgot that he was dealing with a visual medium.
I've always seen the 1995 mini-series as something of a symphony. Simon Langton and Sue Britwistle conducted. They had Andrew Davies script which was true to the spirit of the book but Davies remembered that television is a visual medium. The cast and crew were the orchestra.
For me Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth were the perfect Lizzy and Darcy. And I can say that other generations can appreciate it without a new version (although I know there will be more to come). My grandson who saw the 2005 one with me told me the other day that he wants to see Pride and Prejudice I assumed and asked if he meant the 2005 (as I don't own that one) and he said no he wanted to watch the one he remembered from when he was a 'kid' (he's 18 now) and watched with me (it was the 1995 one). I reminded him that it was five hours long and he said 'yeah but it's way better'. Nice to know he has such good taste and is willing to take the time to enjoy it.
Hello Sally! Your grandson has impeccable taste. Someday the woman in his life will thank you for influencing him in such a positive manner. At least I am hoping that is the case for me too, as my 21 and 18 year old sons have watched a lot of Jane Austen adaptations. I may have overdone the Colin Firth when they were young however! ;)
DeleteThe 1995 adaptation is my favourite! I watched P&P'95 in 1997 which was the second time it was aired on TV in England & I was recovering from an operation and spent 6 weeks in pot so P&P was a nice distraction although I didn't fully understand the story at eight, I loved the clothes. I remember watching the proposal scene and thinking, 'Lizzy is very cross.' Colin Firth is the BEST Darcy ever. P&P'95 is the first period drama I saw and I haven't looked back since. xx
ReplyDeleteHi Kate. So great that you were able to recover with such a lovely distraction. I'll bet you grew into the story and understood it more each time you watched it. Even adults get more out of the story when either reading or watching it repeatedly. There is just so much great material that Jane Austen put in there!
DeleteI wonder if Colin Firth will ever be replaced as the definitive Darcy. Not yet I think!
Hi Jenny,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great post. And, I really enjoyed reading all the comments. I have been tring to figure out my self which version I like best. But I think I'm going to shatter your theory about liking the first version you saw best. My first exposure to Jane Austen was as a kid when I watched the Olivier/Garson version. I had no idea who Jane Austen was at the time. I enjoyed the movie. I remember liking the lively dialogue and humour. My next exposure to Austen was the 1995 Sense and Sensibility, which I adored. This time I wanted to find out all there was to find out about this 200 year old author who had so captivated my imagination. I then saw the beautiful Pride and Prejudice mini series and had a new favourite, and only then became aware that the Olivier version had been my first exposure to Austen.
I have read all of Austens books a few times, and will read them again. When the 2005 P&P was released I went to see it more out of curiosity than anything, because, I thought, how can anyone improve on the1995 version, especially in a shorter feature lengh version. My initial response was lukewarm. I was comparing all the characters to the 1995 version.
That didn't stop me from buying the DVD though. And I have since watched the 2005 version several times. My opinion has changed on several characters, except Donald Sutherland, with his glowing teeth. Reminds me of an episode of the show Friends. Those who watced it will know the one I mean.
The 1995 version by far is a much more true adaptation. And like many have said above, it has always been my go to film when I have been under the weather. But, I am aware of the constraints placed on feature films and like the 1940's version, I see it as a Jane Ausen inspired film, not a true rendition. And seen in that light, I'm not sure which version I like best. I love Matthew Macfaddyn's Darcy. We are told in the book that he is shy, Matthew, gives a more complex Darcy performance. Especially when you consider that he has a lot less dialogue to flesh out the character. Kiera too does a good job, again we get the essence of Lizzie, with very little comparative dialogue. As much as I love Jennifer Ehle's Lizzie, she seems a little too foward for someone so young. I do prefer Julia Swalha's Lydia, because of her intensity. I like the 1995 Lady Catherine better, than my favourite Dame Judy, but this may simply be because she had such a small part in the 2005 version. Tom Hollander hands down is the better Mr. Collins.
I guess my point is this. The 1995 version is pure satire, and if I'm in a flipant mood or need cheering up, it's the one I want. But, if I want a more realistic version with characters which feel like real people with a more serious tone, I like the 2005 version better. Another difference is that when I saw the 40's and 1995 version, I had no doubt that all would end well for the characters. They have that safe sort of feeling about them. I saw the 2005 version at the theatre with a friend who was having her first exposure to Austen. She was on the edge of her seat the whole time worried that the characters might not get to have a happy ending. I'm glad I had the opportunity to see that well known story for the first time through someone elses eyes.
Hi Olga. Great comment. We do love our Jane Austen adaptations, don't we? I wonder who will be brave enough to tackle the next Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Or will we finally get a really good version of Mansfield Park? Only time will tell!
DeleteI first watched the 2005 version and loved it. It is beautifully shot and the music is just stunning! I do prefer the 1995 version though because it'smore faithful to the book and I adore Firth's Darcy.
ReplyDeleteLike you, depending on how much time I have, I choose between these two adaptions.
I haven't seen the older ones yet and I am a bit reluctant to do so.
Hello Carry. I think we all seem to like both of the most recent P&P versions for different reasons. I can recommend the 1940 version as long as you keep in mind the fact that it took a few liberties with the story. It is really a lot of fun.
DeleteI'm only familiar with the 1940 and 2005 versions. They both have their pluses and minuses. I thought Greer Garson did a nice enough job, but I had the same problem with her as Elizabeth as I had with Emma Thompson as Elinor in Sense and Sensibility, just too darn old for the part no matter how good an acting job they did.
ReplyDeleteSir Laurence may have been a great stage actor, but in front of a camera when he was younger (here and in Wuthering Heights) I found him to be somewhat wooden. Macfadyn's Darcy is far better than Olivier's.
I love both versions and watch them frequently. This page has piqued my interest in the other versions and I will seek them out.
Hi Brian. I think we have probably convinced you now that if you haven't seen the 1995 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, you have a treat in store. Come back and tell us how you liked it!
DeleteI'm watching the 1980 version as I write this. I really dislike this Darcy. He has none of the redeeming qualities of Oliver's and Macfadyn's Darcy. I almost feel sorry for Elizabeth knowing she's going to wind up with him.
DeleteWell I've now watched all four. I like the 1995 version a lot. I watched it three times in the first two weeks that I owned it.
DeleteColin Firth is easily the best of the Darcys. I really disliked David Rintoul's Darcy. There was really nothing likeable about the guy. I couldn't imagine anybody watching that version hoping that Darcy and Elizabeth wind up together.
I think the casting was superior in the 1995 version pretty much across the board. My only quarrel with the 1995 version was Jane. She was almost homely looking, not the beauty in the other versions and the book.
My favorite thing about the 1995 version was that you could feel the sparks between Firth and Ehle from the moment they met. The other versions didn't give you that.
I put the 2005 version at a distant second. I don't like the way they presented Bingley as a total goofball. And making the Bennetts out to paupers rather than the upper middle class family they were was pointless.
I personally found the 2005 movie far too Disney-fied. Kiera Knightly annoys me greatly for no particular reason, so I should not begin on discussing that particular aspect of the movie or I will be ranting for an hour.
ReplyDeleteIt was exceptionally odd that the Bennets were portrayed as peasants. There were farm animals wandering at will about the house, which makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Bennet is a gentleman, not a farmer.
No one can touch Alicia Steadman as Mrs, Bennet. I am aware that many people find her voice irritating on occaision, but I was under the impression that her voice was supposed to be annoying. The 2005 Mrs. Bennet just seemed a tad tipsy.
Macfayden showed far too much emotion. Darcy's signature is inscrutability. End of discussion.
Jane Bennet, I will concede, was superior in the 2005 version because the 1995 Jane's beauty was not the type that I pictured Jane being as I read the book. The 2005 Jane displayed more of the sweetness and slight naivity that one would look for in Jane, and she did not perpetually sound as though she had a bad head cold.
I think that all of us who have had the pleasure of reading the book can agree that Mr. Collins is an obseqious buffoon. The 2005 Collins showed none of that. I merely saw a slightly pathetic man who was heartlessly rejected by the harpy Kiera Knightley (I simply cannot associate her with Elizabeth Bennet in my mind). The 1995 Collins was properly obseqious and creepy.
In conclusion, I infinitely prefer the 1995 miniseries to the 2205 movie.
Unrelatedly, here is a hilarious educational video that is a parody of Pride and Prejudice: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/proseprideprej/prideprej_plotact.shtml
Knightly and McFaden did a great job of convincing me that both realized they loved one another, despite all the barbs thrown. Their Netherfield dance, at the piano on Lady Catherine’s estate, and Darcy’s trainwreck of an initial proposal in the rain, conveyed this clearly. It was more the facial expressions and body language than dialog, which testifies to great acting. I smiled at the ease with which the spirited Lizzy cut the lordly Darcy down to size, and made him feel inadequate despite his superior wealth and breeding. She was no doubt the first female he ever met who was not falling all over him, and was his intellectual match. In the book, Darcy as much as admits to her, that he loved her spirit and that she brought out the more spontaneous side of his personality which was too long hidden. Is that not what we all want in a mate….someone who shores up our deficiencies?
ReplyDeleteThe libido of each for the other was on display, without the usual physical sex and language we have come to expect from today’s Hollywood R-rated product. Dancing aside, the closest they came to touching flesh was when Darcy extended his hand to help her into the carriage. The viewer knew he enjoyed it immensely and was no doubt aroused by it. When she accepts his second marriage proposal, this time delivered by him with more humility, there is no kissing, at least in the English version. The American in me wishes they kissed at the end, instead of leaving it to our imagination.
The giddiness of Lizzy’s younger sisters was over the top and annoying. So was the blatant listening at the door by Mrs. Bennet and her daughters. Neither was believable for the decorum of those times or even now. We could benefit today from more of that decorum. The old guy in me prefers more respect for women by men. And when young gals act more like ladies, believe me it is far more appealing to eligible males worth marrying.
Judy Dench excelled in the role of the haughty and imperious Lady Catherine. I was cheering for Lizzy in the scene where she justifiably stands up to Lady Catherine and refuses the dowager’s demand that she reveal her young age. This spunk by Lizzy, as witnessed by the silent Darcy sitting next to her, no doubt made Darcy admire her even more and helped convince him she would make him a proper wife. The scene with Lady Catherine barging into the Bennett house was a winner as well, with Lizzy the 20 year old, skillfully parrying Lady Cs. demands that she renounce all claims to Fitzwilliam Darcy’s affections.
I visited the actual Chatsworth mansion in Derbyshire a few years back (Pemberly House in the movie), where Darcy was raised. It made me understand better why Darcy admitted to Elizabeth in the book, that he was raised with every material indulgence and had his every whim catered to. It also explains his complete honesty in admitting to Elizabeth that despite “the inferiority of her birth”, he would marry her anyway. The poor guy could not help acting the complete ass, but he was at least straightforward about his feelings and was a better man at the end, unlike the deceitful Mr. Wickham.
The conspicuous consumption of Chatsworth/Pemberly made me resent the accepted “winner-take-all” combination of laizze-faire capitalism without responsible checks, and inherited wealth without working for it by male heirs in Jane Austen’s England. Today’s bizarre American tax system is slowly creating a society of haves and have nots increasingly like England of the 1800s. But I digress.
I found all significant lines in the book also appeared in the film, and that is a credit to the masterful job done by the scriptwriters. A feature film should not be longer than 2 hours. Austen somehow manages to consume 300 words, for what could be said in 50 without losing any meaning or nuance. I skimmed the book rather than painstaking read every line.
The scenery and the music were first rate. The movie is a breath of fresh air amidst the dreck today in theaters. It made me want to view the 1995 miniseries.