|
posted Jan. 31, 2008
Pride and Prejudice: A Ridiculously
Brief History of the Novel in Film Masterpiece: The Complete Jane Austen presents the six-hour BBC production of Pride and Prejudice Sundays at 9 p.m. on Feb. 10, 17 and 24
If you’re a Jane Austen fan, you may already be familiar with the 1995 BBC production of Pride and Prejudice that established Colin Firth as a leading man. From many an Austen fan’s perspective, this is the definitive film version of the novel — and one of the most satisfying rainy-Sunday-stay-in-your-pajamas-all-day-and-watch miniseries ever. It’s certainly the most satisfying of the three major film productions of Pride and Prejudice. Let us consider, saving the best for last … Pride and Prejudice, 1940 It has all of the right period nuances, the right people in the right roles, and a tone and texture befitting an Austen novel. One shortcoming of this version starring Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet and Sir Laurence Olivier as Mr. Darcy is that it’s simply not long enough. (Is that thought similarly ridiculous to Emperor Joseph II's complaint in the film "Amadeus" that one of Mozart's compositions has too many notes?) See, the novel is narrative- and detail-rich, and we Austen fans like to wallow in detail. Olivier is a perfect Darcy, and Garson is a poised Elizabeth. But it’s just a feature film; it's not enough! The film’s background, however, is a little more intriguing. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com — a fine resource for film lovers), Clark Gable was the studio’s first choice for Olivier's role. Egad! My favorite piece of trivia, though, is that the novel was adapted for the screen by Brave New World author Aldous Huxley, of all people. That’s just wonderfully weird. Pride
and Prejudice, 2005 I wasn't
crazy about this production with Keira Knightley the first time
I saw
it, but I have grown to like it — for reasons
that have little to do with the spirit of Austen’s novel.
Being accustomed to other adaptations' almost oppressive stiffness
and
attention to the period's rigid social mores (even as Austen pokes
fun at them), I initially found this film’s ambiance of pigs
and mud and barking dogs disconcerting. "Nature?? There's
no nature in Austen!" I kept thinking. Austen writes about
a social universe. Yet, my pal Madhu's assessment is fair: “The
Knightley version is probably more true to life, but the BBC version
is true
to the spirit.” Madhu went on to observe that Knightley’s
interpretation of Pride and Prejudice, 1995 What can one say about perfection? This is the novel come to life. We’re talking Masterpiece-worthy in every respect — costume drama at its finest, perfectly cast roles and wholly immersing in effect. The screenwriter, Andrew Davies (known for the Bridget Jones films and tons of Masterpiece titles, including Bleak House), skimps on no detail. The actors who play Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins are impossible to outdo. Jennifer Ehle is a dignified, strong, charming Elizabeth. And Colin Firth? Well, I’m only human. While all three films are worth watching, this is truly the definitive version. You can watch it on Western Reserve PBS Sundays, Feb. 10, 17 and 24 at 9 p.m.
Responses to Pride and Prejudice
|
Read past blogs This week, take time to stop and smell the dirt — April 19, 2010 It’s Like Shark Week for People Who Like Documentaries on the Subject of Religion — March 27, 2010 This is about Extreme Mega NOVA — Feb. 9, 2010 Pride and Prejudice: A Ridiculously Brief History of the Novel in Film — Jan. 31, 2008 Theeere Was Johnny — Jan. 7, 2008 The Name’s the Thing — Dec. 13, 2007 The British Really Are Coming — Nov. 28, 2007 Eavesdropping Heaven — Nov. 20, 2007 The Theoriousness of Theory — Nov. 12, 2007 Queen and Country — Nov. 7, 2007 Rats — Oct. 29, 2007 I Love Ruff Ruffman — Oct. 22, 2007 Eight-letter word for quirky documentary? — Oct. 15, 2007 Does Nova have a contender? — Oct. 1, 2007 |
|||||
Elizabeth
is too modern, imitating the actress’ forward-thrusting
neck (see illustration) that suggests an aggressiveness and lack
of modesty one doesn’t associate with the literary character.
When my co-worker Diane Steinert asked me how I liked this version
after my first viewing, I complained, “Too rustic.” But
I had to admit that the lushness and the cinematography are gorgeous.
And so is that insanely romantic scene in which Mr. Darcy
(Matthew Macfadyen) crosses a meadow at dawn to express his love
to Elizabeth
once again. Some of the narrative changes from the novel are,
uh, changes (the one I just cited, for instance, despite its
effect), and some of the casting doesn't work at all (Donald Sutherland
is
so wrong as Mr. Bennet). It is, however, an aesthetically pleasing
film — rustic, lush and lovely — and the soundtrack
makes one’s heart ache.
About Me