Pride and Prejudice

This movie would have been better off in its own orbit somewhere in a faraway galaxy and not associating itself, even remotely, with Austen's Pride and the Prejudice. Instead, it comes across more-like Connie Francis' Where the Boys Are (1965, Ft. Lauderdale, Spring Break). It ignores the plight of a woman who bases her own social situation on the social standing of her prospective mate. Characters, in this movie, serve very little purpose. Lydia, Kitty, Mary, and Mr. Bingley are colorless and idle and are about nothing (great teeth, however). There is no Mrs. Bennett to light the fire of 'hurry-up and marry'. No Mr. Bennett to promote non-conformity and boredom. Mr. Collins, who is traditionally portrayed as the gallant knight of the Kings James Version, is the awkward oaf but never the marital threat that made his character funny. This Wickam doesn't even come close to being an illusion of a 'fine catch'. Jane and Lizzie aren't even sisters, figuratively, in this weak rendition. But, even this movie couldn't reduce Mr. Darcy. And what woman can resist a man who says 'I'm wrong. I'm sorry. Forgive me. I love you'? (sigh) Ha! The Austen tribute in the movie comes too late. It was like receiving that expensive after-dinner-mint when you've only supped on a bologna sandwich.

Recently the basis for a well-regarded BBC miniseries, Jane Austen's 1813 comedy-of-manners is transposed to a contempo American college town in director Andrew Black's splendidly, surprisingly charming "Pride & Prejudice." Taking inspiration from Amy Heckerling's "Clueless" (loosely based on Austen's "Emma"), pic transforms its source material into a bubbly, pastel-colored frolic, while adhering closely to Austen's essential themes. Bolstered by a strong cast of relative newcomers, pic is much smarter than the fare usually pitched at its targeted teen ticket-buyers. However, the lack of name thesps (save for Carmen Rasmusen in a cameo) means careful grassroots marketing will be required for pic, which opens in limited release on Dec. 5. Modern-dress makeovers of "P & P" are all the rage nowadays, with writer Helen Fielding citing the book as the inspiration for her "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "Bend It Like Beckham" director Gurinder Chadha currently at work on the Bollywood-style "Bride and Prejudice," due next year.

This considerably lower-profile entry, cleverly scripted by Anne Black, Jason Faller and Katherine Swigert, actually represents the latest in a wave of independently-financed films made in and around the Utah area by predominately Mormon (or Latter-day Saints) filmmakers. (It's even subtitled "a latter-day comedy" in the advertising.) However, whereas such niche LDS successes as "The Other Side of Heaven" and the films of Richard Dutcher have distinctly religious themes, "Pride & Prejudice" is a movie in which the characters just happen to be Mormon.

Most non-LDS audiences may not even detect the movie's LDS content, and yet the substitution of a present-day Mormon setting for Austen's Regency England is an inspired one, given the correlation between the two cultures' emphasis on traditional values and, most importantly, marriage.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife," Austen famously wrote at the beginning of her novel, before detailing the efforts of her plucky heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, to find the right such man. Likewise, the movie's Elizabeth (Kam Heskin), a student and bookstore clerk with dreams of becoming a famous novelist, oft has marriage on her mind, though she is loathe to admit it.

The four other Bennet sisters from the book, have here been turned into Elizabeth's housemates: sultry Argentinian Jane (Lucila Sola); perpetually squabbling Lydia (Kelly Stables) and Kitty (Nicole Hamilton); and the fatally shy, awkward Mary (Rainy Kerwin). At a party thrown by the charmingly naive Charles (Ben Gourley), Elizabeth is rather disastrously introduced to Will Darcy (Orlando Seale), an expat Brit stopping through Utah on undisclosed business. It's Will's smug "pride" that, in turn, "prejudices" Elizabeth against him, although viewers may realize from the start these two are meant to be. But first Elizabeth settles for the company of with her erstwhile admirer (and inveterate gambler) Jack Wickham (Henry Maguire), as Will is pursued by Charles' strapping sister, Caroline (Kara Holden).

That's a lot of relationships for any movie (especially one running under two hours) to keep track of, but "Pride & Prejudice" does so nimbly. The screenwriters understand the story's appeal lies in its chaotic structure, in the way that its many suitors and their potential mates are constantly pairing off and trading places as if part of an elaborate square dance.

Black, the Scottish-born director whose short film, "The Snell Show," won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2003 Slamdance Film Festival, has a fine sense of pacing and timing; he keeps the movie spinning, so that no one part overstays its welcome.

The winning cast breathes new life into Austen's characters. Spunky Heskin is responsive to the comic stimuli around her like Reese Witherspoon was in the first "Legally Blonde" pic (or, natch, Alicia Silverstone in "Clueless"). And like those actresses, she's well-supported by an array of charismatic scene-stealers, including the irrepressibly emotive Sola, the hilariously repressed Kerwin and the acrobatically goofy Gourley, whose inspired physical-comedy antics dominate the movie's Vegas-set climax.

Tech achievements are well-realized on a modest budget, with Travis Cline's sunny lighting adding luster to the giddy pinks, purples and greens of Anne Black's production design. by Scott Foundas

As a devoted reader of the books of Jane Austen AND a card-carrying member of the LDS Church, I became very interested in this "Latter Day" version of "Pride and Prejudice" and finally had a chance to view it the other night. The plot of the movie basically follows the plot of the book with the action transferred to the modern-day campus of a predominantly LDS university.

As with most things, the movie succeeded on some levels and failed on others. I would like to address what I consider to be the failures first and then what worked well. If the filmmakers' goal was to market the movie to an LDS audience, then most of what I have to say in the next few paragraphs is irrelevant. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the LDS culture can appreciate most of the jokes and references. However, if they wanted a "break-out" movie (one that can be appreciated by ALL people) then the movie doesn't work as well. That's not to say the movie is an utter failure but it's missing some important elements that would make it more accessible to "nonMormon" audiences.

The reason we can appreciate "Pride and Prejudice" and the films based on that book is that it envelops us in the culture of that time. We may not understand all its references (things like "entailed away from the family line" or "Are all your sisters ‘out?'") but such things don't annoy us because we have the larger understanding (from our reading of the book) of the context in which the action is occurring. We know it's different and we have some idea as to why it's different.

`Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy' doesn't provide the viewer with enough background to allow him or her to appreciate and understand (even if only superficially) the cultural differences. Movie watchers with no understanding of the Mormon culture never get a chance to realize how similar the culture of a modern Mormon university is to the 19th century world of Jane Austen because the filmmakers don't take the time or trouble to point out those similarities. For example, the fact that Elizabeth Bennet is 26 and unmarried in this film is never shown to be unusual. (Contrast this with the movie `My Big Fat Greek Wedding' where the viewer quickly understands that for the protagonist to be unmarried and 30 is very unusual for her culture.) In addition, the average viewer never gets to appreciate the irony of characters like Lydia, Kitty, and Collins because he or she isn't shown how that behavior is at odds with the teachings AND culture of the LDS Church.

One of the reasons Jane Austen's books have remained popular for 200 years is due to her skill in pointing out the hypocrisy, foolishness and frailties of human beings in HER culture. That same kind of scrutiny would have helped this film appeal to a wider audience. Then Lydia's and Kitty's extravagant preparations for "church", their husband hunting antics, the irony of the "Pink Bible" and Lydia's elopement to Las Vegas would all have been better comprehended as behaviors totally at odds with what is considered "proper" and `right' in Mormon culture. Then you would have had an amusing film that all could have learned from and appreciated.

That doesn't mean that what is presented is without value. Overall, the movie is a delightful, amusing romp that aficionados of Jane Austen and the Mormon culture can appreciate. Elizabeth Bennet has always been a delightful literary creation and Kam Heskin creates a full (and flawed) character, charmingly disorganized and impetuous. It is not hard to understand Darcy's fascination with her. Heskin and Seale have good chemistry and interesting interactions and because we root for them to get together, the relationship works. Seale does a good job in portraying the Darcy that Jane Austen readers have come to know and love (or hate). Basically, Orlando Seale's Darcy is a good guy with an unpleasant personality that is nicely contrasted with Jack Wickham, who is a bad guy with an engaging personality (in both the book and the film). One especially nice touch is a scene where Elizabeth talks with Jack over a game of pool. The final frame of Jack as their conversation ends has him framed against an entirely black background foreshadowing some of the less than virtuous actions that he will engage in later.

There's a whole host of other amusing characters: Collins' arrogant righteousness and his constant invoking of his mission president's advice (President DeBourgh!); Charles Bingley's goofy charm; Mary's social ineptitude; Lydia's single-minded pursuit of a husband and that ridiculous Pink Bible (I don't know if such a book exists but if it did, it would probably be a best seller!).

One of the cleverer aspects of the movie was the presentation of quotes from the book as preludes to the action that followed. This and the penultimate shot of Heskin looking at a portrait of Jane Austen is a nice way of tying the movie back to the book.

Overall, I enjoyed seeing characters I knew well translated into a Mormon-type fairy tale. As I said earlier, my only problem with the movie is that it could have been so much more.

I really wanted to like this movie. Modern day adaptations and twists on Austen can be wonderful, many on here have mentioned Clueless, another great one is the Lost in Austen miniseries.

The problem here is not so much the Mormon setting, but the limitations and constraints that Mormon culture appears to put on the writers in terms of plot. I gleaned enough of the cultural setting from other reviewers on here for that to more or less make sense (those reviewers are correct in that it's not very well explained/explained at all).

So what's good? It's nice, bright and colourful. Casting the five sisters as various college friends was an interesting idea. The main actress playing Elizabeth is very watchable. The actor playing Darcy is competent (even if he often looks uncannily like Adrian Lukas, who plays Wickham in the definitive BBC adaptation). Chemistry is more or less there. The quotes from Austen, had they been less hideously pinkly presented, were nearly an interesting touch.

The problem is tone. Austen's work is sharp and exacting, biting, witty and harsh. This was bland. It lacked edge. One got the sense that there was a culturally religious nicely-nicely thing going on here, and it just doesn't work with the background material.

There were slapstick moments that really jarred: particularly in "imagination" sequences - ie they didn't really happen. (Is slapstick perhaps a more tolerable form of humour to Mormons than satire or saucier wit?) Regardless, the movie should have had the guts to follow through with these moments if it wanted that tone, instead of: "no, not really! It didn't really happen, it was just in her mind!" every time. In doing so it weakened the heroine and made her look passive and victimy.

It's hard to fit a novel like Pride & Prejudice into a feature film length, as there are so many characters, and that weakness showed here. The writers would have been better to reduce the amount of female characters (Mary's and Charlotte's roles were mixed up anyway) and they did at least axe one of the Bingley sisters. But ultimately Kitty and Lydia felt very extraneous. From memory, Clueless was slimmed down in terms of supporting cast compared to Emma.

All in all it's a pleasant, visually colourful movie to watch. But it lacks edge, guts and is at times painfully naive. Which, given its religious subtext, is perhaps unsurprising.

I am a big Jane Austen fan and I am a big fan of the A&E miniseries and so my boyfriend took me to see this. It was a big waste of our time. I thought that Elizabeth was RUDE and why anyone liked her I will never know. Why do filmmakers have to ruin a potentially good movie by making the characters LDS? We walked out on this movie halfway through and rented Bridget Jones's Diary which is a better modern day adaptation than this piece of trash.