I am much obliged to you, good Sherrerd.
:: bows ::
I’ve come to terms with the emo version. It had some great casting, lush cinematography, and was fast paced to please contemporary viewers who might not otherwise be familiar with period dramas. There were a lot of little [sic] things that took me out of the movie the first time I watched it, eg Lady Catherine would never have arrived in the middle of the night and the family would NEVER have received her wearing their nightclothes. That’s probably the most egregious example. KK is a lovely actress but she wears all her emotions on her mobile face in this film; she does that thing where she scrunches up her nose…just no. She goes out calling with her hair an untidy mess. These are all things that nobody cares about today but in Austen’s time, woo boy. Imagine having to stand up and curtsy whenever someone came calling. Calling cards. Being “At Home”. It was a minefield of manners and reticence. I think the Georgiana plot was a bit vague, I wonder if people who had not read the book were confused by that. The actress looked about 14 even though she was 18.
It’s been a long while since I’ve seen either the 1995 version or the 2005 so these are the only complaints I remember offhand. I can understand why people like the recent one, the direction is so vigorous. But those were not vigorous times.
Has anyone watched Death Comes to Pemberley? I’d read the book and wasn’t happy with the denouement so I watched it to see if I’d like a filmed version any better. Nope. Also the actor playing Mr Darcy wasn’t very memorable.
Yes, I saw it. I thought it was OK but not great. I far prefer Keira Knightley as Lizzie to the actress who played her in DCTP.
Everybody’s mileage varies, but I much prefer the BBC miniseries. The biggest issue is Lizzie. Jennifer Ehle is attractive, but not especially so - that’s sister Jane’s job in the book - and, in the book, it is Lizzie’s character that must be her lead attraction.
Keira Knightly has a strong character, yes, but come on! She’s Keira fucking Knightly, the crush of untold millions! Would Jennifer Ehle ever be able to sell KK’s *Love, Actually *character? Nah.
So when KK turns down Darcy, is anyone really concerned for her? Ehle’s ability to sell herself as a bit more plain gives the story the poignance it needs. IMHO.
ETA: and sister Jane is meant to be beautiful and Good, but a bit less intelligent vs her canny younger sister Eliza. Rosamund Pike as somewhat unintelligent? Come on! That kept taking me out of the KK verion, too.
Jane is never described as ‘unintelligent.’ Where on earth are you getting that? Lizzy has a more “lively nature,” to be sure. Jane’s main flaw is that she is way too trusting of everyone.
My one quibble with the BBC version is the casting of Jane. While Susanna Harker is lovely, she’s not exactly a head-turner. She never stood out as “clearly the prettiest girl in the room.” (Her pregnancy during the filming may have contributed to this.) Jennifer Ehle outshone her in every scene.
Maybe that’s just me - when I read the book, I got the impression that Jane and Bingley were Good people who, yes, were too trusting - in a bit of naïve way. A couple of lambs who could be mixed-up by folks who were supposed to have their interests in mind, but really didn’t. YMMV.
I agree with many of these points; it’s understandable that producers want to cast as Elizabeth someone who will be a major draw, but it does distort the story to some extent.
At any rate the Keira Knightly version has the virtue of having brought many in its wide audience to the books themselves.
ETA: Elendil’s Heir, glad to be of some small service!
Recently I discovered why the 1995 series scores over the 1980 one. There isn’t really anything wrong with the 1980 script, it just doesn’t look as fresh as the 1995 version. This is because the 1995 version was shot on film and always meant to be so by the script writers. Meaning, on location instead of in a BBC studio à la I, Claudius.
I also prefer the 1995 actors to the ones from 1980, but mostly I think the setting really influences the sense of space.
Also, 1995 P&P was initially not even meant for the BBC, but for ITV!
As for both movies, well, they are both just a bit of a woolly American fantasy of what Europe used to look like.
Diehards may want to give the 1967 BBC version a try, or even the Dutch (1961) or Italian (1957) series for morbid fascination.
Bumped, for the Firth fans among us:
Bumped again. Now you could buy that shirt!: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/05/style/colin-firth-darcy-shirt-sale-scli-intl/index.html
Or this shirt:
This is my favorite version:
You could get your fill of any of the TV adaptations of early 19th century classics via Victoria Wood’s Plots and Proposals (see how many star cameos you can spot):
That was hilarious - thanks! 