Orgulho

The last movie I watched before this one was the Mystery Science Theater edition of Devil Doll, and I'm hard pressed to say which movie has less to do with Jane Austen. Everything about this film screams MGM Assembly-Line, from the astonishing banality of the script (Huxley Shmuxley!) to the insufferable "music" to the look-at-us-we're-vaguely-19th-century costumes. Olivier's performance is so fey it's a wonder he doesn't float off the screen, Garson tiptoes around Lizzy as though terrified she might say something offensive, and Melville Cooper accomplishes the superhuman task of making Mr. Collins unfunny. This monstrosity is to the 1995 BBC mini-series as a comic-book version is to the novel itself.

Pride and Prejudice is a familiar story - if not read in high school literature class, one can see the theme in dozens of other films: A meddling mother tries to marry off her daughter(s) to "suitable" man, the man and woman fight and all turns out at the end with mayhem ensuing between the first and final acts.

There have been several versions of Pride and Prejudice, two of which I had seen before this film and after viewing the 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier it is clear that this is the standard. Is there a better actor than Olivier in these period dramas? And Greer Garson is radiant as Elizabeth. Their performances and the pace of the film is such that while I knew the story I was still sucked into the romance and laughter - not an easy task for a hard-core cynic like me. This movie garnered 4 stars and for good reason - if you are looking for a charming, witty and romantic film, this is a must-see.

--Shelly

Jane Austen's novel 'Pride and Prejudice' was probably ripe for MGM adaptation during WWII, even with the inevitable changes and rewrites from what she intended (for example, there are hints of romance for all the Bennet daughters by the end, even Mary).

What's good about it? Mainly the casting - Greer Garson is a feisty and cheeky Elizabeth (and this was more than 50 years before Jennifer Ehle played her in a similar way for BBC TV); Laurence Olivier never looked more attractive or brooded with greater effect than here as Darcy; Edna May Oliver is a memorable and prickly Catherine de Bourgh; Edmund Gwenn and Mary Boland are the Bennet parents; and the other Bennet girls are eye-catching and fun (Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane, Ann Rutherford as flighty Lydia, Heather Angel as Kitty, and Marsha Hunt as Mary).

Austen's barbs and fangs are removed from this adaptation, making it a romantic sugar gloop like many other films of the period. Still, providing you expect this, enjoy what's on the screen. MGM did this kind of thing better than other studios of the time, after all.

This film is really just 'based on' the novel and enthusiastically takes liberties with the costumes, characters, time period, etc. But if you can set aside your expectations of accuracy, and imagine this film as a stand-alone piece, you won't be disappointed. After all, if the basic Pyramus and Thisbe romance can be remade and reworked a hundred different ways, why shouldn't Bennet and Darcy? Aldous Huxley's screenplay is razor sharp, the plot gallops along, the characters are wisecracking and witty, and though I have probably watched this film more often than any other film I own, It still feels fresh and surprisingly modern. Only 'His Girl Friday' can best the deliciously quick dialog Huxley penned for his female lead.

Is the 1995 television version superior? Yes - every historical period is better recreated since Stanley Kubrick took up the reins with Barry Lyndon in the mid 1970s. Lighting, dress, authentic settings, more faithful adaptations - though not better acting. In the last thirty years, we've been treated to the re-making of all that Hollywood and television had adapted from much of Thackeray, Austen, Balzac, Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, James, Wharton, Twain, Zola, DeMaupassant, even Leopardi. and in virtually every case, the movies are more faithful to their books, the spirit better represented.

Why? I think because movies and television have been more segmented. In 1940, Hollywood was appealing to everyone attending their weekly movies - from the 8 year old girl to the 60 year old man, from the miner to the mine owner, banker and sewer worker. In America alone, 90 million people attended the movies EACH WEEK in the early 1940s. As a result, Hollywood felt it had to appeal to all - and that some aspects of classics could be made more palatable in making them more mainstream.

"Horrors" say the purists. Well, I don't think so - but yes I do prefer the more recent version (of everything).

And yet this is a delightful, charming, humorous, moving film. Greer Garson and Maureen O'Sullivan, Laurence Olivier, Frieda Inescourt (what a voice!), Edna May Oliver, Gwenn and all the rest of the cast are fun, great fun to watch.

In watching this movie, you're watching Hollywood at its top at the time - the same studio that produced the Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind in the years immediately preceding this. And you get to see the glowing Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier.

So, this is very enjoyable - except to the purists.