Pride & Prejudice (Orgullo y prejuicio)

Director Joe Wright seems to enjoy creating adaptations of classic novels that are modernized in jarring ways. His 2005 version of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is no different. Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, one of the most beloved heroines of English literature, is sharp-witted and feisty, but her hairstyles, costumes and overall presentation-she never wears gloves and rarely a hat or bonnet, both being standard attire for a woman of her class while out in public-are just wrong. Lizzie wears the ugliest, shabbiest dresses in most scenes, including olive drab, brown and gray gowns that appear to made of sack cloth. The Bennets are minor rural gentry and somewhat cash-strapped compared to Messrs Darcy and Bingley, but their home, Longbourne, is presented as a raucous farm, with hogs running through the interior in one scene.

I believe that modern viewers would be able to understand that young genteel ladies of that period would have dressed formally, not like today's more "let it all hang out" casual at all times. The men never wear hats. Caroline Bingley is shown at a ball in a shockingly skimpy gown with spaghetti straps. I don't think any lady in Austen's time wore anything like that-indeed, I'm not sure dressmakers even knew how to make a dress like that at the time. Again, these are small details that are nonetheless jarring.

Still, this version of Pride and Prejudice does introduce young, modern viewers who have not read Austen or any classic literature to a world and values that may be quite alien to them. Unlike other reviewers, I think Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen have good chemistry, although in the earlier scenes of the film, they are both quite unpleasant! But true love finds a way. The cinematography and musical score are beautiful and enhance the movie to a great degree.

The book by the wonderful Jane Austen is definitely better than the film, dealing with the consequences of love, and the social differences of the late 18th century. The film is certainly handsome looking, with some truly beautiful locations and costumes, with a nice script and some excellent performances from Keira Knightly as Lizzie and in particular Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. Donald Sutherland (yeah, you saw right) was quite charming as Mr Bennett if you put his awkward accent aside. I liked Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, with his handsome looks and all that, but I will say I do prefer Colin Firth's interpretation from the sublime 1995 mini-series, Firth seemed to adopt a more likable and sympathetic approach to the character. I liked the way the film dealt with the period look and the social differences, and while there was a lot of the pride I would have liked to have seen a little more of the prejudice. If anything, the film could have done with being twenty minutes longer, as I felt there wasn't quite enough content from the book. Then again, it's been a long time since I read it, so I could be wrong. Overall, a beautiful film, not quite as good as the 1995 film Sense and Sensibility with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, but worth watching for the detail that obviously took a lot of effort to get right. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox.

I'm amazed at how many people think of books as being encompassed by their stories. When that story appears in a film relatively unaltered, purists rejoice.

How silly. Stories are there as frames on which all the meaningful stuff is draped. Or so it would be after Jane Austen invented the novel. The way an idea appears has more effect than the idea itself, and so with images as well. Jane had two great inventions.

The first was in building two parallel narratives: one of individuals bumping into each other and the other of grander forces of life and society. The two interact at times (and much is made of these turning points) but usually the two are layered one on top of the other, shifting dominance as they go.

The other great invention was devising a narrative style that sometimes centered on the people and sometimes on their containing world, using the one to poke sly fun at the other.

So converting Austen to film is a challenge, indeed, but only if you want to capture Austen's magic. Past P&P projects have used the Merchant and Ivory approach which just takes the people alone. There is a context, but it is there only to provide lushness and decoration, not fate. Not what would become known as noir.

The challenge comes in how to handle the layers. We have already many ways of "folding" in films, but they mostly require structure in the story itself. How to introduce this notion of a second flowing layer without changing the story? Why you do it cinematically.

And that's what we have here. I don't know this director, but he is from TeeVee so obviously is inexperienced in these matters. I credit the producers for specifying the technique.

And we have it to glorious excess. Nearly every shot is structured with at least two layers, with things happening both in foreground and background. The opening scene introduces this to us, a wonderful sequence worthy of Welles, as we follow our girl down the road over a bridge behind laundry to the house. Then we leave her and enter the house and noodle around a bit, always still with layers, then wander to a window where we see her passing by behind the house.

Any movie only has a few moments to introduce itself and tell you how the visual world will be constructed and this does it well. This layering is kept up throughout, with a tour de force in the ball, where a seemingly seamless eye goes all over the building, capturing glances at people we know and those we don't.

It isn't that they do it and it is so effective. It is that it goes on so long, layers shifting and receding to be replaced by others in the scores. It is magnificent. The film is worth it for that one scene alone.

Oh, the actors are appealing, as we expect. The story is simplified and softened, also as we expect. The father is made less culpable, minor characters are dropped. The visit to the great house adds a sensuality the book lacked. Incidentally, that house is the same one used in "Draughtsman's Contract" which was specifically about this layering technique.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Back in 1995, the definitive version of "Pride and Prejudice" was brought out--and everyone I know who saw that one agrees with me that it is simply the best. Much of it is the acting (having Colin Firth as Darcy isn't bad) but the biggest reason to adore the made for TV version is that it's long--very, very long. This allows the story to unfold slowly and is never rushed. Unfortunately, every movie version I've seen is just too rushed--and it's hard to shove this wonderful story into a two-hour time slot. So, no matter how good the 2005 movie is (and it's quite good), it cannot hope to equal the mini-series. It's a shame, actually, as there's so much to like about this Keira Knightly version. The music is great, the locations top-notch and the Bennett girls actually look their proper ages! For example, in the 1940 MGM version, the actual ages of the actresses was their mid-20s to almost 40! And, the Bennetts are supposed to be teenagers (there about)!

My advice is go ahead and watch this 2005 film--it's really very lovely. But then do yourself a favor--find the 1995 version. You'll be thankful, believe me.

Pride and Prejudice has always been one of my favourite books, so any screen incarnation has to live up to certain personal expectations of character, style etc. And of course, there is the gold standard of the 1995 BBC series, which, as other reviewers have pointed out, had the luxury of several episodes to cover a story that here takes just two hours. So I was truly delighted to enjoy this movie so much. It had a lot to live up to.

The first thing I must say is that it is exquisitely photographed. The atmosphere set by the beautiful cinematography, is perfect. The film deserves to be nominated for an Oscar on that basis alone. I am in awe of the technical crew and director who could find such unspoiled vistas and such perfect weather in England, and I say that as a Brit who used to live very close to some of the eastern England locations! I sat right through to the end of the credits to see where it was shot, because I assumed it must have been filmed in some remote, rural, continental European locale. I felt quite ashamed that I had doubted the ability of my native land to still provide such delightful scenery! The mist rising off early morning fields, geese on a perfect farm pond, magnificent country estates and enormous trees more usually associated with California than England. Also perfect were the interiors. The air of genteel poverty in which the Bennets lived was well captured. The slightly down at heel scruffiness of the Bennet's farm and house, and the general dirtiness of 18th century life for most people, contrasted well with the ridiculous, rich fussiness of Lady Catherine de Bourg's house and the stark, museum-like beauty of Darcy's home.

The cast were excellent. I thought Rosamunde Pike as Jane Bennet was perfect, Simon Woods as Mr Bingley was charming although perhaps a little too puppyish, I enjoyed Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennet and I'm one who thinks Matthew MacFadyen did a very good job as Mr Darcy, a characterization which was slightly more user-friendly than Colin Firth's 1995 Darcy. Also outstanding were Claudie Blakley as plain Charlotte Lucas, rescued from a life of unmarried oblivion by pompous Mr Collins (a very good Tom Hollander) and Kelly Reilly, as the bitchy Miss Bingley. Is Rupert Friend (Mr Wickham) destined to play Orlando Bloom's brother? Am I alone in seeing a similarity? Of course, Keira Knightley plays the title role of Elizabeth. I have followed her career closely since Bend it Like Beckham, and I thought this easily her best acting performance so far. She captured the playfulness and wit of Lizzie's bright mind wonderfully well, and made me think long and hard how truly frustrating it must have been to be an intelligent young woman in a world that expected nothing more of her than an ability to choose ribbon and to capture a husband possessed of money. The only possible slight criticism I might make, is that Keira Knightley is perhaps a little too waif-like to pull off the 18th century characterization entirely convincingly. She is stunningly beautiful, but her stick thin appearance alongside her more robust looking screen sisters, made her look as if Mr Bennet might well have doubted her parentage!