Pride and Prejudice

(Non-spoiler review)

What happens when you take one of the most beloved works of classical romantic literature, one that has been given an amazing 5 hour miniseries treatment, and reimagine it with new stars but less than half the screen time? Surprisingly, despite some flaws, it turns out to be a very pleasant theatrical experience.

The biggest complaint I have about director Joe Wright’s version of Pride and Prejudice is the time factor. Why make a 2 hour version of a movie that requires a crash course introduction to the characters when adding 30-45 minutes could have done wonders in making the first third of this film far less confusing? I have to admit that I am extremely enamored of the A&E/BBC version starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. It is extremely faithful to the book and allows the viewer the time to get to know the Bennet family and all the other important characters in all their flawed glory. I had predetermined that I was not going to see this new version out of loyalty to the other but I love period romantic movies and being a holiday weekend it was a perfect movie to go see as a family. I am so glad that I had seen the miniseries a few times. The reason being that the several hours of that version, equating to several chapters of Jane Austen’s novel, flash by on the screen with little chance of comprehension if you are not familiar with the source material. To be fair, this new version makes no bones about the fact that it simply wants to concentrate on the relationship between the main characters, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. Even this, however, is very rushed at first and I was thankful that I had the background to better understand the antagonism between these two characters.

Again, this is my biggest complaint. Other than the first third of the movie having to cover far too much ground I really enjoyed this film. Keep in mind throughout the review that I would give the BBC version a full 5 out of 5 stars. I would give the latest version of Pride and Prejudice 4. I would love to see these actors and actresses given a decent amount of time to handle this source material as the cast was wonderful. I prefer Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle as the leads but Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFayden were fantastic. The gave a slightly younger energy to the roles and despite the time/editing constraints they had a very believable chemistry throughout the film. Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn were terrific as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. Again though I felt like the roles suffered some due to the lack of time to flesh out the characters. My foreknowledge of the characters went a long way towards my ability to understand them on the screen but I’d love to hear what others thought who are not familiar with the story. Particularly in regards to Sutherland’s Mr. Bennet. Alison Steadman and Benjamin Whithrow were marvelous in the 1995 miniseries. In that version the roles were played more strongly to their comic element and in some ways I actually prefer this version. The characters are still very funny but Sutherland and Blethyn made the characters seem much more real and less one dimensional. The joy of any of Jane Austen’s works is the wit and satire of her language and Sutherland and Blethyn did not get the screen time necessary to revel in their many wonderful lines. One of my favorite scenes in this version is a conversation late in the movie between Elizabeth and her father…I like the emotional resonance in it much better than the BBC version.

The turning point of this film, for me, came in the second ball scene…the one held at Mr. Bingley’s estate. Mr. Darcy asks Elizabeth to dance and their repartee during the dance is terrific and Joe Wright films this scene in such a remarkable way that I was sucked into the film. It is a fantastic moment in the movie. There are several other wonderfully filmed moments, one of the best being an outdoor scene where Darcy and Elizabeth have a very heated exchange. Wright picked an outstanding location…lots of beautiful green trees and land with rain falling down…that really adds alot to the scene. Another thing I really enjoyed about this version is that the settings were slightly darker than the BBC version. The Bennet home better depicted their social status giving better understanding as to why Mr. Darcy would object to any relationship that would require ties to the Bennet family.

The only other complaint I have is the fact that the screenwriter, in the interest of trimming material to fit the time constraints of the film, squashed scenes and settings together that are actually more powerful and entertaining in the more faithful BBC version.

Ultimately what it may come down to in regards to preference is which version you’ve seen first. I am happy that I went and saw this version and I will definitely check it out again when it comes out on DVD. The cast was great and there were several terrific scenes. The settings of the film were beautiful and the soundtrack was wonderful. If you are a fan of period pieces I highly recommend this film…but don’t let it be your only exposure to Jane Austen. Read the book and/or see the BBC version to experience all the marvelous nuances of her work.

18 thoughts on “Pride and Prejudice”

  1. I’d have to disagree (respectfully of course). I hate this film, with a passion, a fiery passion that is almost entirely directed at the director πŸ™‚

    First off, what’s with all the pigs? And the pig’s balls? Maybe I missed some social commentary there. Also the balls looked like medieval barn dances.

    And it was sucha pity, because there was one wonderful emotion-filled scene in the middle between Elizabeth and Darcy that showed that this version could have been so much better.

    Caught the BBC version a short while ago, and really enjoyed it. Although I really don’t get all the sighing over Colin Firth

  2. I just think Firth does a great job at playing emotionally torn romantic roles. And I agree that this version could’ve been better but I liked most of the scenes and settings, they just needed more time.

  3. Carl, I’m glad to hear you and the family were able to get out and see this film. I read the book back in high school and really enjoyed but I’ve never seen any filmed version of it. Hopefully Keri and I can catch it soon and then I’d like to see the BBC version for comparison.

    We must both be in a period piece mood because Keri and I watched Vanity Fair with Reese Witherspoon last night. It was pretty good but quirky.

  4. Thanks for the review and the head’s up – I will have to re-read the book to brush up on who’s who. We saw Harry Potter over the weekend – I usually try to read the book again just to jog my memory since they tend to run together, but I didn’t on this one. Probably a good thing – otherwise I’d be pointing out everything that was left out!

  5. Yes, I heard that HP was alot darker and was the most significant one so far in regards to straying from the book/leaving things out.

  6. I will have to agree with Carl on this one. I really enjoyed both versions of the story for their own unique view of the novel. For the most part the BBC version is better because it had the time to really develop the story completely, but this was a very enjoyable 2 hour movie.

    Fence, I thought the pigs were to show a more realistic image of what it was like to have land and animals during that time not to mention showing general ideas about cleanliness or lack thereof. I am torn between liking cleaned up versions in movies and going for the realism of what your hair would look like without modern hair products. hehe. Of course, I have not done any authentic research on the time period…

  7. Ah yes, the dir did state somewhere that he was aiming for realism. Hence the pigs. But I think he over did it.

    And while I am a fan of Matthew McFadyen (he wears a coat very well in Spooks or MI5 I think it is called in the States) but here I though he looked terrible.

    Still, to each their own πŸ™‚

  8. i wanted to see this too.. but there are so many movies i want to see that are out right now.. not enough moolah.

  9. I don’t recall ever seeing McFadyen in anything before this. I don’t mind the realism…though the pig ball shot was ridiculous…but it annoys me a little that the director didn’t read the novel…his first exposure to the story was through the screenplay.

    And what are you talking about Angela…you’re the free sneak preview queen!!! πŸ™‚

  10. I have, as Carl and Mary know, seen the BBC version and thought it was a faithful adaptation of the book.

    I am hesitant to see this one because with only two hours, they had to have cut out so much of the character development that makes the story. Worst case, I suppose I can ask Carl if he’s willing to lend me the DVD when it’s out.

  11. We’ll have to Netflix it when it comes out Nick and have you over and we can all watch and critique. I need to get you your BBC version back as I noticed that I still have it! πŸ™‚

  12. We have sneak peek tickets to Aeon Flux thursday night that were delivered to the comic shop last week so several of us are going to that. I wanted to see that one and am excited that I don’t have to pay for it. Too many expenses during Christmas season!!!

  13. oo.. i do want to see that too..
    maybe i’ll luck out & my comic guy with hook me up with free passes.. he has before..

  14. well, he just gave me a pass to see the preview of The Family Stone.. not exactly Aeon Flux, but something i want to see just the same.

  15. I have seen pride and prejudice a few times, and I think it`s a great movie! it`s about love, and I love it! =)

Comments are closed.