Stolz und Vorurteil

Is the 1995 television version superior? Yes - every historical period is better recreated since Stanley Kubrick took up the reins with Barry Lyndon in the mid 1970s. Lighting, dress, authentic settings, more faithful adaptations - though not better acting. In the last thirty years, we've been treated to the re-making of all that Hollywood and television had adapted from much of Thackeray, Austen, Balzac, Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, James, Wharton, Twain, Zola, DeMaupassant, even Leopardi. and in virtually every case, the movies are more faithful to their books, the spirit better represented.

Why? I think because movies and television have been more segmented. In 1940, Hollywood was appealing to everyone attending their weekly movies - from the 8 year old girl to the 60 year old man, from the miner to the mine owner, banker and sewer worker. In America alone, 90 million people attended the movies EACH WEEK in the early 1940s. As a result, Hollywood felt it had to appeal to all - and that some aspects of classics could be made more palatable in making them more mainstream.

"Horrors" say the purists. Well, I don't think so - but yes I do prefer the more recent version (of everything).

And yet this is a delightful, charming, humorous, moving film. Greer Garson and Maureen O'Sullivan, Laurence Olivier, Frieda Inescourt (what a voice!), Edna May Oliver, Gwenn and all the rest of the cast are fun, great fun to watch.

In watching this movie, you're watching Hollywood at its top at the time - the same studio that produced the Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind in the years immediately preceding this. And you get to see the glowing Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier.

So, this is very enjoyable - except to the purists.

Pride and Prejudice is a familiar story - if not read in high school literature class, one can see the theme in dozens of other films: A meddling mother tries to marry off her daughter(s) to "suitable" man, the man and woman fight and all turns out at the end with mayhem ensuing between the first and final acts.

There have been several versions of Pride and Prejudice, two of which I had seen before this film and after viewing the 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier it is clear that this is the standard. Is there a better actor than Olivier in these period dramas? And Greer Garson is radiant as Elizabeth. Their performances and the pace of the film is such that while I knew the story I was still sucked into the romance and laughter - not an easy task for a hard-core cynic like me. This movie garnered 4 stars and for good reason - if you are looking for a charming, witty and romantic film, this is a must-see.

--Shelly

This film version of Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice is generally pleasant to watch. The cast is certainly glamorous and a slight change in the period moved the story into one with fancier costumes to look at. At a few places the plot had to be rushed a little to make it fit into two hours and the ending is also a touch happier than in the novel. Some critics lamented the slightly changed ending but this works actually very well for this medium. The rushed plot elements increase the overall pace but compromises somewhat the credibility of the characters, while the increased pace is at odds with the much more tranquil way of life in days gone by.

Therefore, this is really watchable, but the definite version is the 1995 BBC mini series which is much closer to the novel as well.

Even ignoring my new-found passion for Austen (yes, I'm one of those) and the fact that I had just finished reading P&P literally days before viewing this version of it, I find it hard to believe that so many reviewers find anything of value in this unfortunate production - clearly stamped out on the MGM studio factory line, with little care or thought, like so many of the films of the period. Fortunately, my love of the novel, and of the superior Ehle/Firth version, allowed me to dismiss this with very little pain.

With that said, though, I still must comment on one thing that really seemed to miss the mark, and that I don't see mentioned elsewhere, and that was the way the Bennet sisters were presented. They ALL seemed like silly little girls and, although Garson's Elizabeth had an opportunity to demonstrate how "modern" her thinking was, she still came off as comical, not to be taken seriously. Austen made a very clear distinction in her work, between Lizzy and Jane on the one hand (intelligent, reflective, serious and sensitive) and their 3 younger sisters (flighty, man-hungry, vacuous), and that difference provided a potent (frequently humourous) backdrop to the character development and plot in her work. This version didn't even come close to presenting such a distinction.

Others' comments take care of the rest of my objections to this drivel, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that even Olivier couldn't save it for me. He seemed the same person throughout the entire movie. Charming, yes, but did he show any sign of having accomplished the transformation that Elizabeth helps bring about in him in the real story? Did he learn anything about himself in the course of his relationship with her - other than her superior skill at archery (which, in its attempt to show her to be full of surprises and quite capable of upsetting Darcy's composure, only added to all the silliness).

The novel helps us understand how bright, intelligent and introspective individuals can accept their limitations, change their way of thinking about others and themselves and grow tremendously in the process. This MGM outing was more like an Andy Hardy movie with pretty costumes and a faux British setting.

Viewed solely as a movie, this version of "Pride and Prejudice" is quite enjoyable, and has plenty of strengths. Since it was adapted from a stage play that was in turn based on the novel, it is perhaps inevitable that there would be a lot of differences from the original, both in the characters and in the events (plus a few anachronisms). Most of the time, these fit in all right with the story, but it is hard not to feel that it would have been an even better film if they had stayed closer to the original in the later parts. In all honesty, though, none of this prevents it from being a very good movie in its own right.

For the most part, the main story is the familiar one, following the hopes and anxieties of the Bennet family as they look for husbands for their five daughters. Greer Garson might be slightly different from the Elizabeth of the novel, but she is very appealing, and her character is quite effective. Laurence Olivier works very well as the prideful Darcy. Most of the supporting cast also is good, especially Edmund Gwenn as the perpetually bemused Mr. Bennet. It does a good job of illustrating the main themes in the relationships amongst the characters, while also providing many light and humorous moments. It's an entertaining and effective mix that makes it a satisfying movie despite the departures from the novel.