Orgullo y prejuicio

I really hated this - it is OK to modify scenes from the book, but to change the spirit of it completely is too much. And to change Jane Austen's witty dialogue for some of the dross, especially early on in the piece was definitely not an improvement.

This loud, grubby group were not my idea of the Bennetts or their friends. The Bennetts may have been poor and may well have lived in a shabby house, but they had more class than this lot.

As for the proposition that Darcy's aloofness was because he shy and not confident, he just seemed pathetic to me and Darcy should certainly not be pathetic.

Except for the scene where he gave a lovely smile - Mathew MacFadyen wore the same expression pretty much throughout, (which was not surprising as this Darcy was such a boring character), and Kiera Knightly just seemed much to flighty for Lizzy, she seemed more like Lydia.

To me - it is the Benny Hill version of P&P - no subtlety, little wit, almost just slapstick.

Thank God for the BBC.

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.

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.

This quintessentially English film is utterly charming - a very traditional interpretation of Jane Austen's 1813 novel that manages to entertain, amuse and even move. First time director Joe Wright has worked with television playwright Deborah Moggach's script and a wonderful collection of mainly British actors to delight us. The versatile camera-work, luscious countryside, grand settings, period costumes, and atmospheric music are evidence of a work on which much love has been lavished.

At the heart of this triumph is the delightful 20 year old Keira Knightley as the assured and sharp Elizabeth Bennett, the second of five daughters looking to be married off by an anxious mother. Knightley's rise in the thespian firmament has been meteoric and this is her best performance to date in a role for which she is perfectly cast. Matthew MacFadyen is suitably brooding and gauche as Mr Darcy, but the cast list is enlivened with splendid British character actors, including Brenda Blethyn as Lizzie's irascible mother, Tom Hollander as a diminutive cleric seeking a wife, and Judi Dench as the formidable Lady Catherine, plus the Canadian Donald Sutherland (Lizzie's wise father).

This is a Georgian world in which social conventions present a veritable minefield for indiscretions or misunderstandings and in which a formal dance can be as intricate an occasion as international diplomacy. Pride and prejudice are only two of the obstacles to be overcome before inevitably true love brings Lizzie and her dark knight nose to nose (we don't even see a kiss). Passionate stuff indeed.

Jane Austen's tale of love and economics reaches us once more with the energy of a thorough novelty. "Pride and Prejudice" has been a favorite novel of mine since I first read it and I've seen Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and now Matthew MacFadyen and Kiera Knightly. Amazingly enough I've never been disappointed. The material seems to be full proof. Colin Firth's Darcy, in many ways, is the Darcy I've always imagined. He's been an actor I've followed feverishly since his glorious Adrian LeDuc in "Apartment Zero", Matthew MacFadyen was totally new to me but he managed to create that sense of longing that makes that final pay off so satisfying. Kiera Knightly is a ravishing revelation. I must confess, I didn't remotely imagined that she was capable of the powerful range she brilliantly shows here. The other big surprise is Joe Wright, the director, in his feature film debut which is more than promising, it's extraordinary. The photography, the art direction and the spectacular supporting cast, in particular Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn, makes this new version of a perennial classic a memorable evening at the movies