Orgulho

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.

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.

Even ignoring my new-found passion for Austen (yes, I'm one of those) and the fact that I had just finished reading P&P literally days before viewing this version of it, I find it hard to believe that so many reviewers find anything of value in this unfortunate production - clearly stamped out on the MGM studio factory line, with little care or thought, like so many of the films of the period. Fortunately, my love of the novel, and of the superior Ehle/Firth version, allowed me to dismiss this with very little pain.

With that said, though, I still must comment on one thing that really seemed to miss the mark, and that I don't see mentioned elsewhere, and that was the way the Bennet sisters were presented. They ALL seemed like silly little girls and, although Garson's Elizabeth had an opportunity to demonstrate how "modern" her thinking was, she still came off as comical, not to be taken seriously. Austen made a very clear distinction in her work, between Lizzy and Jane on the one hand (intelligent, reflective, serious and sensitive) and their 3 younger sisters (flighty, man-hungry, vacuous), and that difference provided a potent (frequently humourous) backdrop to the character development and plot in her work. This version didn't even come close to presenting such a distinction.

Others' comments take care of the rest of my objections to this drivel, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that even Olivier couldn't save it for me. He seemed the same person throughout the entire movie. Charming, yes, but did he show any sign of having accomplished the transformation that Elizabeth helps bring about in him in the real story? Did he learn anything about himself in the course of his relationship with her - other than her superior skill at archery (which, in its attempt to show her to be full of surprises and quite capable of upsetting Darcy's composure, only added to all the silliness).

The novel helps us understand how bright, intelligent and introspective individuals can accept their limitations, change their way of thinking about others and themselves and grow tremendously in the process. This MGM outing was more like an Andy Hardy movie with pretty costumes and a faux British setting.

It does not run along the lines of the Jane Austen classic, but the 1940 movie was actually based on the stage adaption, eventually purchased by the MGM studio as what could have become another Norma Shearer expensive spectacle. Like many other projects at the studio, this collected dust after the death of Irving Thalberg, head of MGM.

Thankfully, new casting was decided on. Shearer of course is really too old for the role. The result was what I believe to be one of the most memorable movies of the 1940s. Austen's classic comedy of manners still has all its light touches of romance and humour, with the horrors of English 1800s, loss of estate, inheritance and destined sinking with no worldly stature for a family of five girls with no male heirs.

Amicably backed by a competent supporting cast including Edmund Gwenn and Mary Boland, the star of the show is really Greer Garson. Fresh from her successful debut as Robert Donat's wife in "Goodbye Mr Chips", Garson is really like Lizzy Bennett herself, charming, high spirited and strong willed. It is one of her best roles, just before she became the 'first lady' of MGM. Olivier, brooding and snobbish as the high classed Darcy, also performs well, but is still outshone by Garson.

Tasteful sets, costumes, music and art decoration helped to make this such a huge success in its day. All the right elements of acting, script and direction have made this a production that should be better remembered. We don't relate to the dilemnas of costume period drama days, but "Pride and Prejudice" is great cinematically to have lost little of its charm or its timeless appeal.

Rating: 9/10

This film version of Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice is generally pleasant to watch. The cast is certainly glamorous and a slight change in the period moved the story into one with fancier costumes to look at. At a few places the plot had to be rushed a little to make it fit into two hours and the ending is also a touch happier than in the novel. Some critics lamented the slightly changed ending but this works actually very well for this medium. The rushed plot elements increase the overall pace but compromises somewhat the credibility of the characters, while the increased pace is at odds with the much more tranquil way of life in days gone by.

Therefore, this is really watchable, but the definite version is the 1995 BBC mini series which is much closer to the novel as well.