Jsut a quick question about this story. We have recently turned and interest to seeing this movie. Recently, however, I’ve heard of several versions. The is supposed to be a BBC, a mid-40’s and I hear a recent release of this one.
Any feelings on which to see? Will seeing one before the others take away from the impressions?
To the Teemings, I beseech you.
My wife likes the BBC version. I have never watched the whole thing. We recently watched the newest version with Kiera Knightley and I thought it was excellent. My wife thought it was good as well, although I think she still prefers the BBC version. Sorry, I can’t be of more help.
I watched the BBC series on DVD last year, shortly before the release of the film. I thought the series was much much better, if only because it could tell the story more comprehensively. And while Keira Knightley (yum) was really good, Matthew Macfadyen is no Colin Firth.
I’ve never read the book.
The book is, of course the best. Of the adaptations, the BBC version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle is far and away the best - not even close.
The movie is a nice, condensed version and Keira K overcomes her own a-bit-too-beautifulness to do a good job.
The earlier BBC version from the 80’s I think is quite bad.
The movie with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier is fun but not that close of an adaptation.
I just rented the recent film version, and I hated it. Matthew McFadyen’s Darcy was the only good thing going for it (well, the cinematography was pretty) – he really brought out Darcy’s shyness.
Shoot, I have to go! I’ll add more later. Let me just say the 1995 miniseries was very good.
This version was adapted from a stage play, hence some of the dramatic shortcuts (no visit to Pemberly, and all the loose ends tied up in about 2 minutes). I know a lot of Janeites hate it, but I think it has its charms).
My favorite, and I think the best, is the 1995 BBC version. It also introduces the theme of the “dripping wet” Darcy (Mr. Darcy takes a bath! Mr. Darcy jumps into a lake!), which is carried on in the movie that came out last year. (Mr. Darcy proposes in the pouring rain.) 
Last year’s version: The lead actors are okay, but a whole lot of subplot is chopped out and I’d be surprised if it makes sense to viewers who aren’t already familiar with the story.
The 1980s: I like David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie as Darcy and Elizabeth, but the staging of this version had a very limited budget, and it shows.
There’s also a late-1960s version, which I haven’t seen.
I agree with ** Miss Mapp** - the mid-90s series is the best. After watching that, Colin Firth is Mr. Darcy, for me. I didn’t like the recent movie because of the many cuts to the sub-plots. Wickham and Mr. Collins in the recent movie just didn’t work for me - Wickham because you never saw his charming shallowness, which is essential to the character, and Mr. Collins because he didn’t seem so much a figure of fun - too edgy.
The Laurence Olivier version took too many liberties with the text, one of the major ones being Lady Catherine de Brough visits Elizabeth to test her, but actually approves of the match - that makes the whole thing just to easy an ending. Lady Catherine is a spoiled rotten rich bitch [oops - I don’t think Miss Austen would approve of my language], not a tart little old aunt hiding a heart of gold..
I’m a bit embarrassed to admit I was totally unfamiliar with “Pride & Prejudice” when I saw the new version last year with Keira Knightley. I loved it. (I’ve since read the book). And I thought the lead actor did a wonderful job, as well as Ms. Knightley and the rest of the cast. My 14 year old daughter & her friend (a guy) loved it too. Rent it!
I watched the BBC miniseries version after & of course it was more thorough, and covered many plot points better, being longer. But, although I must be the only one in the universe, I did not prefer Colin Firth as Darcy. I really preferred Matthew McFadyen’s Darcy from last year’s film.
My roommate is a die-hard fan of the BBC version. She likes the new version, as well, but expect to get deathrays from her eyes if you suggest it’s better than the BBC version. In fact, be prepared to get these deathrays if you say anything that could possibly be construed as negative about the BBC version.
My 18 year old daughter is a pretty diehard JA fanatic. She owns the BBC version, and has little use for the recent movie.
I did not see the recent movie, but I believe she thought Kiera’s portrayal was too - uh - forward or assertive.
She, her mom, and her brother are into historical re-enactment, and are somewhat of sticklers for historical accuracy in manners and clothing. I believe they had significant problems with someone (Lady DeBoergh? (sp?)) making a visit at night (to the parsonage?) and being received by her hosts in their nightclothes. And in another scene, I believe Darcy was clad in his small clothing - sans coat and tie, which was nearly tantamount to prancing around in his underwear.
Not the kind of things that would necessarily interefere with a couple of hours of mindless fun in the theater, but reason at least 1 JA fan preferred one version over another.
BBC (Ehle & Firth), hands down. It was one of those rare & lovely instances when a movie looks just like the pictures in my head while I read the book.
The recent movie is decent, but it cuts soooo much out, it seemed very choppy and rushed. Personally, I found it made that much worse by the several occasions when the director chose to linger endlessly on pretty visuals - I just kept thinking they could have used the time better including Darcy’s comment on Lizzy’s eyes, and such great bits that were cut.
That said, I do wish I could magically cut Jena Malone and Judi Dench into the BBC version - it would be damn near perfect then. For some reason, Julia Sawalha grated a bit (and she seemed much too old). Oh, the other casting choice I liked better in the new movie is that Jane is truly drop-dead gorgeous, and prettier than Lizzy (at least as they had Keira made up). It’s pretty key to the plot, and doesn’t work in the BBC series, because Jennifer Ehle is standing there glowing with beauty, while the gal who plays Jane is . . . nice - not thrilling, but nice.
By the way, be careful not to accidentally rent the modern day Mormon take on the story. It’s not an atrocious movie, but it ain’t *Pride & Prejudice * either.
The biggest problem I had with the movie is that you didn’t get any sense of Elizabeth’s propriety, which is what made Darcy’s inditement of her family so painful to her, since she essentially agreed with him that they were embarrassing. The Netherfield ball scene was particularly bad in this regard – you couldn’t tell that Kitty and Lydia were shameless flirts (only that they were having fun) or that Mr. Bennett made a gaffe in embarrassing Mary at the piano in front of everyone. You couldn’t tell that Elizabeth was humiliated by their behavior, which is very important to the plot!
And whose idea was it to have Bingley visit Jane in her Netherfield sick room in the film?? I was scandalized, as Jane and Elizabeth should have been.
After I saw this version, I thought that Matthew McFadyen would actually make a great Wickham; the only other role I’ve seen him in is “The Way We Live Now,” in which he plays a fortune-hunting baronet and does the charming scoundrel thing wonderfully.
Notice in this version too, how Wickham’s role as the seducer of young girls is muted: he doesn’t try to run off with Miss Darcy; he only breaks off an engagement to her. Not nice, but nowhere near as scandalous.
The 6 hour (well, not quite) A&E/BBC version really nails the feeling of the book.
And last year there was a Bollywood version called Bride & Prejudice that also felt right (even if there’s less bursting out into spontaneous singing and dancing in the actual book).
The Olivier/Garson version gets the characters’ names right, and not much else. (Nice story, but not P&P).
I haven’t seen the new version, but it looks “romantic” (things happen in thundershowers) and the book isn’t really - it’s very mundane.
Another strong vote for the BBC mini-series, shown on A&E. Absolutely lovely. Just last week I mailed my DVD set to my sister so she could watch it with my niece.
StG
As well, it was grossly inaccurate that Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle would be dining in the common room of the inn when they were in Darbyshire. As a gentleman’s daughter, she would expect to have a private dining room, and her well-off uncle certainly would have ensured that she and her aunt would have a private dining room. If he were travelling alone, he might choose to eat in the common room, but he wouldn’t take the ladies to it.
McFadyen just wasn’t there. Mr. Darcy has presence - everyone knows he’s in the room, even if he doesn’t say a word. Firth did that marvellously, but McFadyen seemed to blend in.
I was particularly struck by this in the first proposal scene - where Darcy proposes, much against his own will. That’s one of the few scenes where Darcy allows his emotions to come out - and Firth nailed it, the great struggle he was undergoing between his heart and his notions of propriety - and without even realising how rude he was being throughout. McFadyen never projected the same amount of emotion - it was a set piece that the script called for. He was just wet.
As well, I seem to recall they cut one of the key phrases from Elizabeth’s refusal: “had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner” (at least, I think they cut it - I was waiting for it (yes, I’ve read the book a few times - why do you ask? :dubious: ) and I don’t recall hearing it). That rebuke, short as it is, was essential for Darcy’s self-redemption - Elizabeth is using his own pride, in being a gentlemen, to criticise him in a way that will force him to re-examine himself and his conduct. Take it out, and the characterization suffers dreadfully. (This phrase is a typical example of Miss Austen’s economy of phrase and plot, by the way.)
We’ve got that DVD as well, and I agree with you - I thought that it did a better job of capturing the dyanamics of the plot, even though it was set in modern India, than the recent movie version set in Regency England!
The choppiness of the recent movie bothered me as well. While I accept that cuts had to be made (as they also were made in the superior Sense & Sensibility and the vastly, vastly superior Persuasion), I didn’t feel that the cuts were as smooth as they should have been.
I also had major problems with a lot of the fashion issues that have been mentioned – Mr. Darcy coming to see Lizzy (before breakfast) and without his tie and jacket; the many occasions where Lizzy was running around with her hair down and no bonnet on; the completely inappropriate and wrong gown that Caroline Bingley wore to the ball at Netherfield… Admittedly, these were small errors that I shouldn’t be so fussy about (so my family tells me), but they succeded in pulling me out of the movie (“Hey! Where’s her hat!?!”). It would have been so easy to fix these things. The BBC miniseries didn’t make these sorts of errors. Nor did the other recent Jane Austen movies I mentioned.
I also disliked some of the casting and direction choices – the actors who played Mary and Mr. Collins were both too attractive for their parts and they were both allowed to play their parts too sympathetically. I love Donald Sutherland, but his Mr. Bennet was not sharp and sacastic enough.
Definately rent the BBC miniseries – it’s the best version available.
BTW – I also like Bride & Prejudice, which was lots of fun and quite in keeping with the spirit of the original story.
I also saw a modernized adaptation(titled *Pride & Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy *) that was set on Brigham Young University. Yes, a Mormon Pride & Prejudice. It was better than you’d think, believe it or not. Interesting and fairly well done.
Thank you, thank you one and all. I feel well advised, and well forewarned. I am hoping to find the BBC mini-series at our rental store or perhaps the library. I will return to view the spoilers after we have seen one or more of the versions.
Thanks
Bumped.
The Longbourn from the 1995 BBC version is up for sale: Calling all Jane Austen fans: The house from 'Pride and Prejudice' is for sale