Orgoglio e pregiudizio

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.

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!

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.

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

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I began my "Pride and Prejudice" attempt with the well regarded 1995 five hour classic with Colin Firth, a BBC mini-series. And it is so poorly filmed (visually) and so utterly about recreating the text (the Austen original), it ends up being awkward and sort of awful. As a movie.

I know that is sacriledge to some. But I switched after an hour to this one, which I had seen before. And in two minutes I was sucked in. I think the biggest first point is this: to be true to Austen, you must find a way to put us there, to make us feel it. It's not about the text, the facts, the truth of the translation to film. It's about the effect and the final "truth" that this movie manages in a short two hours.

So, yes, this is a filmic film. It's gorgeous and thoughtful for how it handles the scenes and the light, the movement of camera and the capturing of space. It's a wonderful film on a physical level. (There are particular scenes, in the middle especially at a party, where the camera follows the action from character to character through several rooms for a glorious long take that just fills the sensation of being there beautifully.)

You might say this is Keira Knightly's movie, since she is Elizabeth. And she's kind of great (I've always had a reservation about her sincerity on screen). The cast around her is terrific--even the somewhat troublesome casting of Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy. I know that Mr Darcy is meant to be unpleasant, but he comes off as somewhat wooden for too long here...as he does in Colin Firth's hands, too, in fact.

But I warm to him by the end, so maybe it's perfect. And the other cast, including stars like Sutherland and Dench, is great.

The director, Joe Wright, is basically unknown to me, though I see he did the more excessive Knightley vehicle, "Atonement." So the tendancy for dramatic ambiance is a given, not to mention Anna Karenina (also starring Knightley). It all works. It's a kind of dramatization that purists probably hate, but for me it makes an original take on a classic that has its own dignity and beauty.

And I'll add that Knightly is just 18 for this filming, and shows amazing depth for a young actress.

Recommended!