As fans were celebrating the 20th anniversary of the film, I thought why not revisit it? So I did. And I didn’t like it, though visually it is beautiful.
Let me explain why.
First of all, at two hours, the film feels a bit rushed. This is a common complaint, I know—certain things get cut, certain characters are underdeveloped, the film cannot have the complexity of the novel—but I can’t help noticing that the 2005 Pride and Prejudice emphasises the attraction and romance and neglects the prejudice, and the development of the relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Some of it is because the Mr Wickham plot is barely there—there is not much space between the introduction of Mr Wickham and the reveal of his character (Elizabeth doesn’t have much time to like Mr Wickham for the revelation to be a blow either). The film also reduces the ridiculousness of Mrs Bennet, and the wit and irresponsibility of Mr Bennet.
Another problem is that Matthew Macfadyen is not very good as Mr Darcy. Keira Knightley is good as Elizabeth Bennet (much better than her own performance as Anna Karenina) and I can see why her Lizzie is so beloved, but Matthew Macfadyen is more or less inexpressive for the entire film. Colin Firth is so popular as Mr Darcy not because he’s hot (though that helps), but because he conveys so well the pride, the awkwardness, the struggle between his own passion and his distaste for Elizabeth’s embarrassing family, and above all, because he depicts the change, the development of Mr Darcy. As a character, Mr Darcy unfolds rather than changes, but he does adjust his manners—because of Elizabeth’s “lectures”, he learns to open up, and learns to speak to strangers with more warmth and friendliness. I saw that in Colin Firth’s performance; I didn’t really see it in Matthew Macfadyen’s.
There are other irritations. Certain lines seem wrong (Mr Darcy says “You have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love… I love… I love you”—really?). Certain actions seem out of character. Would Elizabeth join with others in eavesdropping on her parents, or on her sister? And then burst in on them? Would she remain in Pemberley, knowing that Georgina is there, then watch her behind the door only to suddenly find Mr Darcy and run away like a rude intruder? Would Elizabeth snatch a letter from her father’s hand?
I would also add, though some of you may find it petty, that after the clearly-spoken BBC adaptations I recently saw, I couldn’t help noticing that a few times in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, the dialogue was almost drowned out by music, or other noises (such as the sound of rain).
The main strengths of the film are the cinematography, Keira Knightley’s performance (I did like her witty, amused look), and the bond of the sisters, especially between Elizabeth and Jane.
But as a whole, the 1995 series handles much better the characters and their relationships.
Now did you know that there’re currently two Pride and Prejudice series in the works? One is a six-part series, made by Netflix, with Emma Corrin and Jack Lowden in the main roles. The other is a ten-part adaptation of The Other Bennet Sister, a spin-off focusing on Mary Bennet (the Bennet sister nobody likes). Not hard to tell that both would be travesties.
I saw this movie when it first came out, and then a few months later saw it several times on a plane (it's a long flight from Australia to Europe ...). I also went through it with some care a couple of years ago, for a paper I was presenting.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction was that I enjoyed it more than I had expected to, but every time I rewatched it I found I liked Kiera Knightley less, and Matthew McFadyen more. I actually felt that he made a rather nice romantic hero. Unfortunately his romantic hero had (IMHO) very little to do with Jane Austen's Mr Darcy, but in and of itself, I enjoyed it. Kiera Knightley, on the other hand, just somehow felt too modern to me.
I agree with you that this film focused exclusively on the romance plot, heightening it to occasionally Bronte-esque levels, and sacrificed a lot of other stuff in order to do this. (And I also HATED the listening at the door scenes.)
So while there are some aspects of it I do enjoy, I'd still always take 1995 over it. (And the original book over that.)
The reason I revisited it a couple of years ago was because I was giving a presentation about Darcys on screen - looking at 5 versions (1940, 1967, 1980, 1995 and 2005) to see how the character is reinterpreted through the lens of the time the adaptation was made. Should you be interested, it's available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/xqhWjCDyqiE?si=0FAtXqhKebSnLHb3&t=18
I liked a lot about the adaptation, but appreciate the criticisms also. Regarding the cinematography and pacing:
ReplyDelete1. I, too, was struck by the cinematography--but also by what exactly was striking about it. Many a shot looks like a beautiful painting, but was more interesting that way than in its use to advance or deepen the storytelling in a "poetry of cinema" way. (I tend to think of this film as "high concept" Jane Austen for that reason.) Where the more conspicuous use of the camera is concerned I was also struck by the Netherfield ball, and the part where the Bennets are mostly embarrassing themselves. The camera roams all over it in a spirit of "What an amusing spectacle!" (the more in as Elizabeth is ducking Mr. Collins), where in the book (where the farce with Collins wasn't at issue) there was a sense of Elizabeth's claustrophobic horror as everywhere she looks there is a sibling or parent humiliating themselves and the family--as Mr. Darcy looks on. ("Elizabeth blushed and blushed again with shame and vexation. She could not regard her mother, or her sisters, without pain. Mr. Darcy was silent, but she could not help feeling that he was observing them with critical attention.") Especially given the significance for the plot this seemed to me a poor choice (and reflective of how little there was of the "prejudice" in this Pride and Prejudice).
2. Where pacing was concerned I remember how compressed in particular was the seventh or so of the book in which the family is suffering through Georgiana's running off with Wickham--the extended tension of the situation. It seems to me, though, that the truncation of this important part of the book is a matter not just of "keeping things moving" (the Bennets can do little but suffer here), but that (perhaps reflecting the "high concept" aspect again, and aiming for a wider audience with this particular Austen adaptation) the makers of the film didn't expect a 21st century audience to be able to understand well enough, or care enough, about Regency-era notions of "reputation," and what the ruin of a daughter's reputation could mean to a whole family, to properly appreciate a fuller treatment--important as the event was for the characterizations and the plot. (The makers of the film may have thought that for the kind of general audience this would have been something like explaining the customs of an alien planet, with all the "alienation" of an audience involved in that.)
Harriet,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, I'm interested in your thoughts comparing the adaptations but I'm afraid I prefer reading to watching a video, haha. Do you have it written down somewhere? Let me know what you think about the 1980 adaptation.
Nader,
I think I have heard that before, that the Lydia-Wickham plot is cut down because modern audiences may not understand it, but I don't know, to me it sounds like a rather condescending attitude towards modern audiences. Jane Austen is extremely popular, so I think people understand it just fine. It's something like the play-acting scene in Mansfield Park that people struggle more to understand, but some readers (like me, haha) still understand it.
I think the problem with this film is simply that they focus almost entirely on the romance and attraction.
Have you seen Joe Wright's Anna Karenina. Also starring Keira Knightley, as she's his muse apparently.