"Pride and Prejudice" (2005 film)

Cafe Society
41

Actually, Charlotte is quite poor. The Lucas’ have a large family, and well Sir William can afford to live a life of leisure, he doesn’t have a dowry for his daughters or ample resources for all his sons. His title isn’t heiritary - it will die with him. Regency estates were almost never split up amongst sons, much less daughters. At 26, Charlotte is in danger of being a burden on her brothers (as Jane and her sister Cassandra were while they lived), or having to find a job as a governess (a horrible job that the Bronte sisters did - Agnes Grey is a portrayl of what life was like as a governess). What the humor in Austen hides (which the movie spelled out, and the Bronte’s write about) is people sort of on the edge - particularly women whose only respectible profession is marriage. Austen writes of Charlotte’s engagement:

“Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honorable provision for well-educated women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want.”

42

Dangerosa - I knew that she was indifferent about the groom - Charlotte wanted to marry. She said that you were more likely to be happy if you didn’t know too much about your groom before your marriage. But being dependant on your brothers is okay - it seemed that only being without brothers (like the Bennetts) had to worry. Mr. Bennett said that he expected to have a son, which would’ve taken care of everything. I never had the impression that Charlotte Lucas was under desperate circumstances, just that she wanted to get married. I could’ve read it wrong, of course.

StG

43

I don’t know that it is, actually. At one stage, Austen herself along with her mother and sister were left dependent on Austen’s brothers. This was after her father died. She had 5 or 6 brothers, and one had been adopted by a wealthy family so had a proper estate with all the trimmings. However, the brothers were all either married with their own 5 or 6 kids, or away serving in the navy/army. The Austen women were left to manage by themselves for a couple of years on small handouts from their brothers, until a couple of years later the rich brother said “oh hey, I’ve got half a dozen properties, maybe you could live at one of those”. The brothers not only had their own concerns, but weren’t really very considerate of the difficulty their mother and sisters were facing. And the whole situation was considered normal - no-one censured the brothers for acting this way, it was just how things were.

44

Number of times read Pride and Prejudice - at least 6
Number of 5-6 hour miniseries seen - 2 (yes, there is an earlier one than the Colin Firth version)
Number of times seen Bride & Prejudice - at least 15
Number of thumbs up on the new version - 2

It cut stuff out, it had no choice. The pigs walking through the house was weird and wrong. We didn’t see enough of Wickham. But I thought they got all the emotional impacts just right, and preserved enough of the original dialog to make me feel it was accurate. And I don’t mind the added scenes - I always sort of regretted not being present at Jane and Bingley’s engagement.

45

And even with the handouts her brother provided, the women were not well off - shabby gentility would be probably correct.

The Dashwoods are dependant on their brother, and you’ll note how well that turned out. If I recall, Austen gives the Dashwoods about the same income the Austen women had after their father’s death - i.e. not much and a free house. (The free house for the Dashwoods comes from a cousin).

(The woman who co-founded Cisco and the makeup company Urban Decay owns the Austen brother’s former estate).

Plus, there is no guarantee Charlotte’s brothers would make anything of themselves - only one will inherit property - Regency estates were seldom split. If Sir William couldn’t afford dowries for his daughters (which was apparently a problem - had her dowry been adequate, unpicky Charlotte would have found a husband before 26) then he probably couldn’t afford to buy commissions or livings for his sons. Then that son needs to provide for his other brothers, his sisters, his own family - and not be a wastrel - a common enough failing to lose everything in excess, gambling, or drink during the Regency.

Sir William ran a shop in town, used the proceeds from that shop to retire to an estate, which could support his family, but is unlikely to provide for all his offspring, if it could, providing a dowry for his daughters wouldn’t be an issue - and he may not even own the estate - he may merely rent it, in which case there will be nothing to inherit.

No, when Austen says even an unhappy marriage was Charlotte’s pleasantest provision against want, she means the Charlotte was better off married to a doofus than living with her brothers.

46

My friend Lillith Fair has now seen the movie 4 times. She has planned an outing for tonight with some friends so that she can see it a fifth time. I haven’t seen it once yet, because she keeps going when I’m working, and I haven’t had a chance to go on my own yet. I can’t believe she hasn’t joined this thread yet! I fear she has become a P and P addict, though I lost track of how many times she saw Bride and Prejudice before she bought the DVD…I only went with her once!

47

Okay, I haven’t had time to read all the posts (not right of me), but I’m going to weigh in quickly.

First of all, the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle A&E version of 1995 can’t ever be improved upon, of course. It is 5-6 hours long and wonderful. Buy it from A&E, Borders, or get it from the library. It made Colin Firth famous. I’m not sure why Jennifer Ehle didn’t become equally as famous, because she is beautiful and a perfect Lizzy.

Bride and Prejudice is a fabulous fun romp. Don’t think of it as any kind of replacement, but as a Bollywood-type blast. That was thorougly enjoyable. What a hoot to be at an engagement party when suddenly all the men start dancing and singing to the women! It’s a surprise!!

I, too, sat and stared with my mouth hanging open when I first saw the preview of the new P&P movie. Why in the world would they do it again? And with Keira Knightley? I mean, really!

But in the long run I had to go see it. Think of it as “based on” the novel. They don’t leave out any major plot lines. They leave out some minor characters. They also jam things together so if you don’t know the story you might not realize, hey, three months just passed!

The made the Bennet family too poor. Their house is kind of crumbly and needs paint on the inside.

But it is so so so so wonderful! The cinematography is beautiful. The music is so good I bought the CD.

Lizzie doesn’t ask Mr. Darcy to dance! You misunderstood that from the trailer. As always, the trailer has clips that are out of order so you may assumed certain things happen because of certain other things, and I hate that!

Mr. Darcy is played by Matthew MacFadyen. He’s not all that good-looking, but by the end you really love him. The second time he asks her to marry him he just looks like he’s going to cry if she says no.

The Jane Austen Society of North Americat totally hated the movie. So if you have a pitchfork stuck up your butt, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. But if you want to see a romantic, funny, lovely movie, RUN, do not walk, to your nearest theater and totally bask in it.

And, I don’t care who knows it, I loved the finaly scene. IT’S NOT IN THE BOOK!! So if that bothers you, stay home.

48

This is true. She says (after they have been properly introduced) something like, “Do you like to dance?” and he responds with something like, “Absolutely not!” Lizzy, of course, would never have asked a man to dance! Also, someone earlier mentioned that she yelled at Mr. Darcy during their argument after his first proposal. She didn’t – she was heated and fiery, but not inappropriately so, given the provocation. The dialogue in that scene was mostly (or even all) lifted directly from the book. I really had no complaints about Lizzy’s manners in this movie – only about her wardrobe. And, as I said, it jarred me to see a properly behaved young lady of the period running around with no hat on her head. That would have been such an easy thing to remedy, it’s too bad they didn’t do it.

A lot of the dialogue was right from the book – there were a few departures I noticed, but not many. Mr. Darcy was too flowery in his second proposal – I can’t remember the exact wording, but there was an overly Heathcliff-ey bit there about his passion for her that I didn’t care for.

I thought the coda was unecessary, but harmless. It was clear that it was taking place after their marriage, so the intimacy wasn’t inappropriate and I thought the dialogue was rather more Austen-ish than some of the other additions. I could see Lizzy telling Mr. Darcy that he shouldn’t call her “Mrs. Darcy” when he is cross with her, but only when he was happy with her – that sounded like Lizzy to me.

49

In the 2nd proposal he says, “I love…I love…I love you.” Or “I love…and love…and love you.” It’s hard to say. On the second or third one he kind of chokes.

They left the ending kissing scene out of the Brit version because the Brits didn’t like it. Now they are showing it in some places in England because they wanted to see it.

No the clothing isn’t right, the hair is mussed, yes there is a pig walking through the house, or seems to, the chickens are too close to the house, you see washing hanging out on the line.

She seemed to be yelling at him during the 1st proposal because they were out in the rain and it was noisy out there. It shouldn’t have been outside in the rain, but it was. There they are, basically yelling at each other and she basically says she hates him and he leans in as if he’s going to kiss her, but then he turns and leaves.

It is great!

50

In the 2nd proposal he says, “I love…I love…I love you.” Or “I love…and love…and love you.” It’s hard to say. On the second or third one he kind of chokes.

They left the ending kissing scene out of the Brit version because the Brits didn’t like it. Now they are showing it in some places in England because they wanted to see it.

No the clothing isn’t right, the hair is mussed, yes there is a pig walking through the house, or seems to, the chickens are too close to the house, you see washing hanging out on the line.

She seemed to be yelling at him during the 1st proposal because they were out in the rain and it was noisy out there. It shouldn’t have been outside in the rain, but it was. There they are, basically yelling at each other and she basically says she hates him and he leans in as if he’s going to kiss her, but then he turns and leaves.

It is great!

51

Funny how those of who actually saw the movie liked it better than the people who didn’t. :smiley:

52

Yeah, I was noticing that too!

My minor quibbles were that Chatsworth wasn’t really a good stand-in for Pemberly, and that Mr and Mrs Bennet seemed to get along a little too well. I’ve got no problem with dropping Bingley’s other sister and her husband, or Maria Lucas, even though they were part of what made the A&E version so thoroughly good. As characters, they don’t actually contribute much to moving the story forward.

And I loved the first proposal scene. There’s no reason for it to be outdoors in the rain, but there was no reason for Darcy to jump in a lake in the A&E version either. I loved how heated they were, and how it gave such a different take even though it was one of the places where the dialogue was closest to the original.

53

One of the differences between the A&E version and this one - and one of the reasons I didn’t like proposing in the rain.

In the A&E version, where Austen had written a scene, the screenwriters stayed pretty true to it. There are scenes that are added, like the jumping into the lake (which I don’t like), the bath (the bath seems intrusive, but the gazing out the window was necessary), or the into where Bingley and Darcy ride from Netherfield.

This version they seemed intent on improving what Austen had written- which seems terribly hubristic unless you are making fundamental changes (i.e. what was done to Emma in Clueless). Austen wrote a classic scene between Darcy and Elizabeth for the first proposal, and they made significant changes - and changes that didn’t stay in character for Darcy. Austen could have put Darcy and Elizabeth in the rain, but she didn’t. I liked this version best when they were adding to Austen but staying true to the feeling - i.e. the scene where Darcy coaches Bingley on proposing.

I don’t think its fair to compare the A&E version with this one, nor do I think its fair to criticize adaptations that made it possible to fit the story into a two hour movie. When you do that, characters need to be cut - even if they are Sir William Lucas (I was pleasantly surprised to see Colonel Fitzwilliam make the cut, Lady Catherine could have been the gossip to confirm Darcy’s involvement in Bingley and Jane - but Fitzwilliam has always been a favorite character of mine). I do think its fair to ask why they took scenes that were well written and well described in the book and changed them. They made this story a lot more romantic and darker than its ever been for me, and I appreciated some of that - but its like chocolate, there is a fine line between bittersweet and bitter. - and some scenes just left a bitter taste.