Orgoglio e pregiudizio

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!