atwoodsmith

I really enjoyed this movie but, like most Austen interpretations, there were moments to cause me to wince. This one had more than the classic Ehle/Firth 1995 miniseries in less than half the running time, but the result was entertaining.

Plusses:

+ The film did a better job of "show, don't say" than earlier versions. My main complaint about the Garvie/Rintoul BBC version of the '80s was that characters too often mouthed Austen's words when there should have been a visual portrayal instead. This film cut letter-reading to an all-time low.

+ Related to the above, this version drew a sharp visual distinction between the costly gentility (and cleanliness) of Netherfield and the shabbiness of the Bennets' Longbourne. The Bennets "cleaned up nice" when needed, but they didn't live in spotless splendor.

+ There was a tendency to move scenes to more dramatic settings, like the portico of a rainswept mausoleum. This was both good and bad.

+ The film brought out the character of the father a bit more. Donald Sutherland was terrific.

+ Judi Densch as Lady Catherine.

+ I liked how the script compressed the early action and drew out the final resolution. Again, an opportunity for Donald Sutherland.

+ Kiera Knightley is lovely, and a treat to watch on the screen.

Minuses:

• Related to the above, Elizabeth was much prettier than Jane. Wrong.

• The movie had too many "Harlequin Moments" in which the characters did the sort of gestures associated with hormone-driven romance stories. This had the most kissing and almost-kissing of any Austen adaptation I've seen. I wonder if this was just to provide imagery for the previews.

• Related to the above: unmarried male characters spent an unrealistically large amount of time in the presence of unrelated female characters whilst the latter were clad only in nightwear. Titilating and suggestive, perhaps, but unrealistic for the period.

• Time and story compression. At some points it seemed like we were being propelled through the plot at breakneck speed. The script does a reasonable job of covering the major events, but of course some are shortchanged in the warp speed presentation.

• I had to get used to various bits of modern speech, like the clip from the preview where Darcy says "Not if I can help it!"

Unlike other films, Elizabeth was shown to be only slightly competent at the piano, making it clear that Darcy could only like her for her "liveliness of mind." An interesting difference that I'm not sure is good or bad.

This movie taught me the danger of anticipation. After "Bend It Like Beckham" it was clear that the director could portray Indian expatriate culture with enjoyable, ironic humor. I expected a lot of the same in "Bride," but it fell a bit short.

While the musical aspects were nice, I thought they detracted from the social satire. Placing the story firmly in India gave the director a culture where marriage was arguably as important as in Regency England, but I suspect the humor would have been sharper if she has placed the story among expatriates in the UK again.

Maybe I'm too much of an Austen/P&P junkie, but I found myself impatiently waiting for the social repartee that was being delayed by the musical numbers.

On the other hand, it was hilarious to see a chorus of drag queens in saris.

I think the director wanted to do a musical, and she wanted to do P&P, but she didn't want to do another expatriate movie after "Beckham." I'm sorry she made the choices she did, since the movie isn't as sharp and entertaining as it might have been.