PDA

View Full Version : Pride & Prejudice: your favorite version?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Peaches LaTour
05-24-2012, 07:29 PM
IMO there is only one version and that is the production with Firth/Ehle.

A.H.Black
05-24-2012, 07:48 PM
Both links that I posted say that a gentleman farmer is a landowner who farms for pleasure, not for income. One of the link said that Mr. Bennett fits the definition.

A gentleman farmer is not a tenant, neither would he farm for a living. He doesn't have to work.
This.

Tinami Amori
05-24-2012, 07:49 PM
On the subject of “Gentleman” and “Gentleman-Framer”. My compilation of information over a period of time lead me to believe that “Gentleman” in the early 19th century England (due to industrialization and following the French Revolution) the use of the term expanded from the original “a person of noble descent”. I found a good article to demonstrate it, instead of paraphrasing (alas, out of Wiki)… :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_society_in_Jane_Austen's_novels


The concept of gentleman in England is more flexible than that of nobleman in France. A gentleman is distinguished by his personal qualities as much as by his status as a member of the landed gentry. He does not need to be of noble lineage, like his French counterpart thegentilhomme, or to have a noble name. As the successor to the franklin, the free landed proprietor, who occupied the lowest rank of the nobility in the Middle Ages, the simple gentleman therefore comes after the Esquire (title derived from Squire, the chief landed proprietor in a district), who in turn is inferior, in ascending order of precedence, to theKnight, the Baronet, the Baron, the Viscount, the Earl, the Marquess, and finally to theDuke. Only the titles of Baron or higher belong to the peerage, to which simple knights or baronets do not therefore belong.
It is the gentleman of the Georgian period who is the precursor to the gentleman of the Victorian period in that he establishes a code of conduct based on the three Rs: Restraint, Refinement and Religion. During the reign of George III, the British begin, by their reserve and emotional control, to distinguish themselves from the peoples of southern Europe who are of a more hot-headed temperament. The literature of the 19th century does nevertheless privilege emotion, often to the point of pathos, as in Dickens.

Gentleman-Framer, I thought, has two meanings in the 19th century Europe/England

- A gentleman, with wealth and/or other sources of income, who lives in rural area by choice and farms or owns a farm for pleasure/hobby.

- A gentleman, who derives most or all of his income from agricultural/farming activities, may or may not over-see or manage the work on the land, may or may not permanently reside on the land. Similar to plantation owner.

aliceanne
05-24-2012, 07:57 PM
I am so familiar with P&P (and some other classics) that I actually like it when the filmaker takes a new approach or changes the period. I thought it was great that the latest Jane Eyre started the tale at the Rivers house and told the story through flashback and dreams instead of the usual linear progression.

I have the 1940's version of P&P, the 1995 miniseries, Bride and Prejudice, and the 2005 version. I like them all for different reasons.
I've never seen the 1980 one.

I bought the Amanda Root/Ciaran Hinds "Persuasion" out of the bargain bin. I thought that one was actually better than the book. The actors made the characters more interesting.

Artemis@BC
05-24-2012, 08:22 PM
I am so familiar with P&P (and some other classics) that I actually like it when the filmaker takes a new approach or changes the period.

While I don't object to deliberate "changing the period" or setting for creative reasons, I do object to blatant historical inaccuracies or anacronysms that are obviously just errors or laziness.

And of course changing the setting depends largely on the execution. Some re-settings of Shakespeare, or Gilbert & Sullivan, for example, are hugely successful; others fall completely flat or just feel wrong.

IKWYM about mixing up a familiar story for the sake of variety, too. I went to a recent production of The Importance of Being Earnest where the director decided to use a lot of (additional) humour -- inspired largely by the comic genius of the actor playing Jack. Many local critics (and audience members, no doubt), were outraged that the director would dare to think he could improve on Wilde's writing. But because I'd seen the play, and studied it, sooo many times, I thought it was completely brilliant.

Tinami Amori
05-24-2012, 08:50 PM
While I don't object to deliberate "changing the period" or setting for creative reasons, I do object to blatant historical inaccuracies or anacronysms that are obviously just errors or laziness.

:respec: x100!
I will also add after "laziness": "or any altering of any sort to please the current audience".

Sylvia
05-24-2012, 08:58 PM
I am so happy to see so many votes for the 1980 P&P with David Rintoul. It is the best version.
I just looked up the running time of this version (226 minutes) vs. the 1995 BBC version (300 minutes). My impression is that the 1980 mini-series is the most faithful to the Austen book? I may be a wee bit biased when it comes to this adaptation because Rintoul sent me an autographed photo in response to a fan letter I wrote. :swoon: I enjoyed Elizabeth Garvie's spirited portrayal of Lizzie, too.

Spiralgraph
05-24-2012, 09:25 PM
Oh this is a difficult choice for me, but by a whisker I prefer the 1995 Ehle/Firth version of P & P. Jennifer Ehle is terrific as Lizzie, and Colin Firth is very, very amiable.. :D

I also love the 1980 version though and I prefer the Mrs Bennet of this one, because, as a previous poster said, Mrs Bennet from 1995 was too over the top for me.

I own both versions and watch both often. :) I have seen the KK movie and it's okay but it doesn't excite me at all.

jlai
05-24-2012, 09:35 PM
I am so happy to see so many votes for the 1980 P&P with David Rintoul. It is the best version. You can even follow along in the book while watching the film. The changed ending of the 2005 movie was ridiculous. In the 1995 BBC production, it always bothered me that Jane was not better looking. There are so many references to Jane being the prettiest Bennett sister, and this was rather a plain Jane..

Yes, another vote for 1980 P&P, low-budget camera work and all.

Re: 2005 P&P: if you're looking for a faithful portrayal of the novel, you'll come away disappointed. The heroine is too pert, the hero too plain, the important scenes too short, and the ending too rushed. The last 30 minutes is a mad dash towards the finishing line -- where the hero and heroine kiss.

But if you expect a slightly modern rendition of the tale, you'll enjoy it. Though some dialogues sound like a hasty cut and paste job by the sreenwriter, the cinematographer lets the scenes speak for themselves, and the pauses and glances between the dialogues captures a humor not conveyed in the other P&P versions. The dialogues are deliberately set in different settings to give the movie a different feel, thus saving the movie from unfavorable comparisons.

Of all the four P&P's, Matthew MacFadyen is probably the least convincing Mr. Darcy. David Rintoul (1985 BBC version) is still unparalleled with his perfect display of reserved dignity. Haven't found a perfect Lizzy yet, though Eliz. Garvie is pretty close to what I have in mind


I just looked up the running time of this version (226 minutes) vs. the 1995 BBC version (300 minutes). My impression is that the 1980 mini-series is the most faithful to the Austen book? I may be a wee bit biased when it comes to this adaptation because Rintoul sent me an autographed photo in response to a fan letter I wrote. :swoon: I enjoyed Elizabeth Garvie's spirited portrayal of Lizzie, too.

I'm so jealous. :swoon:

LilJen
05-24-2012, 10:01 PM
Did not like the Willoughby in the newest S&S. He's kind of, well, froggy-looking. Just ewww.

Okay, to stir the pot: Who else was REALLY annoyed by the 1999 film adaptation of Mansfield Park? They made Fanny into this confident person who was secretly a writer. And who DID get engaged to the cad/scumbag and even KISSED him! Instead of the shy, self-effacing character with enough intelligence to see that Henry Crawford is a louse--y'know, how the character was actually written by Austen. I got the idea that the movie writer didn't like Mansfield Park or the character of Fanny and just wrote the film she wanted to write instead of actually adapting the book.

A.H.Black
05-24-2012, 10:23 PM
I just looked up the running time of this version (226 minutes) vs. the 1995 BBC version (300 minutes). My impression is that the 1980 mini-series is the most faithful to the Austen book? I may be a wee bit biased when it comes to this adaptation because Rintoul sent me an autographed photo in response to a fan letter I wrote. :swoon: I enjoyed Elizabeth Garvie's spirited portrayal of Lizzie, too.

Very cool. Have your framed it?


Did not like the Willoughby in the newest S&S. He's kind of, well, froggy-looking. Just ewww.

Okay, to stir the pot: Who else was REALLY annoyed by the 1999 film adaptation of Mansfield Park? They made Fanny into this confident person who was secretly a writer. And who DID get engaged to the cad/scumbag and even KISSED him! Instead of the shy, self-effacing character with enough intelligence to see that Henry Crawford is a louse--y'know, how the character was actually written by Austen. I got the idea that the movie writer didn't like Mansfield Park or the character of Fanny and just wrote the film she wanted to write instead of actually adapting the book.

I agree. My biggest objection (if I'm thinking of the right version) is the bed scene. A BED SCENE? In a Jane Austen movie? I don't care if it wasn't the main character. My jaw dropped and I was disgusted with everything else.

cailuj365
05-24-2012, 10:39 PM
I confess that I really enjoyed the "Mansfield Park" 1999 adaptation when I saw it, but I hadn't read the book at the time. When I did read the book, I kept waiting for certain parts to happen, which of course never did. It's a nice movie, but "Mansfield Park" it is not. I tried to watch the 2007 ITV adaptation recently, but the actor who plays Edmund also plays Mr. Elton in the Romola Garai version of "Emma," and I just couldn't unsee him as Elton.

Nomad
05-24-2012, 10:54 PM
Did not like the Willoughby in the newest S&S. He's kind of, well, froggy-looking. Just ewww.

Okay, to stir the pot: Who else was REALLY annoyed by the 1999 film adaptation of Mansfield Park? They made Fanny into this confident person who was secretly a writer. And who DID get engaged to the cad/scumbag and even KISSED him! Instead of the shy, self-effacing character with enough intelligence to see that Henry Crawford is a louse--y'know, how the character was actually written by Austen. I got the idea that the movie writer didn't like Mansfield Park or the character of Fanny and just wrote the film she wanted to write instead of actually adapting the book.

Color me annoyed and then some. I HATED that adaptation. "Who thought THAT was a good idea?" must have popped into my head about twenty times while I watched it.

AYS
05-24-2012, 11:02 PM
Okay, to stir the pot: Who else was REALLY annoyed by the 1999 film adaptation of Mansfield Park? They made Fanny into this confident person who was secretly a writer. And who DID get engaged to the cad/scumbag and even KISSED him! Instead of the shy, self-effacing character with enough intelligence to see that Henry Crawford is a louse--y'know, how the character was actually written by Austen. I got the idea that the movie writer didn't like Mansfield Park or the character of Fanny and just wrote the film she wanted to write instead of actually adapting the book.
It really peeved me! I adore MP and actually love the character of Fanny (though it wouldn't surprise me if the person that did this screenplay didn't, apparently many don't).

Latte
05-25-2012, 12:22 AM
Hands down for me -- all BBC. :swoon: Mr. Darcy.

YES! Colin Firth was the perfect Darcy, and the rest of the cast were far above the newer one in being faithful to the book.
But, I must say, Mrs. Bennitt was way over the top in that one.:rolleyes: