Pride and Prejudice

Mrs Vache Folle and I have a tradition of going to the movies on holidays. We saw all the Lord of the Ring films on Christmas. This Thanksgiving, we took in Pride and Prejudice.

I fully expected and intended to hate it, being a rabid fan of the 1995 miniseries (I own the DVDs and have watched it at least 20 times). I have to say that it was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, although it is much inferior to the 1995 Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle production. It is better than the 1940 version by a long shot.

The 2005 film is grittier and portrays the Bennetts as barely respectable. Mr Bennett takes a keen interest in his pigs and the workings of his estate. The hogs and poultry are maintained right in the yard. The house is a wreck. None of the Bennett girls is at all accomplished or even very charming, and they are simply physically attractive. It is hard to imagine that Bingley or Darcy would be much attracted to them, let alone fall in love with them. The social chasm between the Bennetts and the Darcy and Bingly families is, in my view, much too wide for any connection with the Bennetts to be plausible. In the book, the main objection to the Bennetts is that they have near relatives in trade (Phillips and Gardner, the uncles, are both attorneys) and that they have no independent fortune (the Bennett estate's being entailed away). Moreover, Mrs Bennett is quite silly and crass, and the younger girls are a bit wild. This is enough to make them poor prospects for good marriages.

To fit the story into a little over two hours, some of the ancillary characters are left out. There is no Louisa Bingley Hearst (and no drunken Mr Hearst), and Charlottle Lucas has no younger sister. This is understandable and detracts little from the story, but some other critical story lines were abandoned and this renders much of the overall story nonsensical. George Wickham barely appears. Mrs Bennett is not nearly as ridiculous as she ought to be, and the imperious Lady Catherine de Burgh is largely defanged (Dame Judi Dench was wasted in the part, I think, since Lady Catherine has only brief appearances). All in all, the film has the feeling of a Cliff Notes treatment.

Mr Darcy lives in what appears to be a museum and never displays anything but the sourest expression. The 2005 film’s Darcy is a complete social retard, and the only thing to recommend him is his fantastic wealth. Keira Knightly’s performance was quite good, and she has to endure and pull off a lot of close ups and to tell much of the story by her facial expressions and body language.

If you are a Jane Austen fan, you are going to see this movie. You won't be able to help yourself. Enjoy it for what it is, and don't expect it to be better than the 1995 version.