Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by manleywoman, May 23, 2012.
IMO there is only one version and that is the production with Firth/Ehle.
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)…
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.
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.
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.
I will also add after "laziness": "or any altering of any sort to please the current audience".
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. I enjoyed Elizabeth Garvie's spirited portrayal of Lizzie, too.
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..
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.
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'm so jealous.
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.
Very cool. Have your framed it?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The 1980 BBC production (video released 1985) is by far my favorite. I think one of the most difficult aspects of adapting a period novel is capturing the right tone and the voice of the author. If you haven't seen this production, but have Netflix, you can watch it tonight.
Is there somewhere I can watch the 1995 version of PP? I'm not really interested in purchasing the dvd.
Your local library might have it
*raises hand* That was extremely annoying.
I didn't know Romola Garai did "Emma". I should look for it on Netflix.
Most of it is on Youtube. So is the 1980 version.
The 1980 version starring David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie remains my favorite version as well. It is the first 'P & P' version I had ever seen and indeed it is through this production that I came to know and love Jane Austen and her great works. Rintoul and Garvie will forever remain my quintessential "Darcy and Elizabeth".
OT but has anyone read any books based on Jane Austen's novels? I read "Mr. Darcy's Daughters" some years ago and I've been considering purchasing "Christmas at Pemberley" which has gotten some good reviews on Amazon.
Back OT must admit I fell asleep in the theatre during the 2005 version. To be fair it was after a long day at work but I was eager to see yet another version of "P & P" on the big screen. I woke up towards the end and it still didn't hold much of my interest. I do like Donald Sutherland and have enjoyed his work but he seemed miscast as did frankly every one else. I didn't like that a respectable upper middle class family would look as if they were practically living in a barn with the animals. Their household had a decidely 'grubby' unwashed look. I think Jane Austen would have been appalled to have the Bennetts portrayed in such a manner.
I did enjoy the 2005 version. Colin Firth was awesome as Mr. Darcy. Jennifer was miscast as Lizzie imo. First of all I didn't think she was pretty enough and I couldn't see anything of her 'eyes' that Mr. Darcy would have admired. Her portrayal was absolutely smug. Very annoying. I love this version IN SPITE of her.
My favorite P&P sequel is still Pemberley Shades
Thank you-I must look that version up!
Believe it or not, I first found Pemberley Shades years and years ago in the English section of a library in China. That was before it was reissued.
An old maid with a thirteen-year-old sister (played by a twelve-year-old actress).
I'm sure that such age differences between siblings were not unheard of during the Regency period, but I'm also sure that the filmmakers expected the audience to accept the casting without questioning it. The problem (for me) is that I do question it. But then, my reaction when watching the scene in the Venice Catacombs in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was "There aren't any catacombs in Venice, and there aren't for several reasons!"
Think about life expectancy at the time.
(just for the record: in Venice there are no catacombs as in "burial chambers". But there are underground passages in several buildings, Doge's Palace underground prison, Dogana's basements which are now considered for exhibition space, and several other buildings and churches have passages and chambers below the water level. most of them lined with Istrian Stone which can hold water pressure).
BBC! But, I did enjoy watching the 2005 film too... the second time around haha. The first time I watched it, I feel asleep part way through... oops!
For anyone interested in a vlog (video blog) style modern interpretation of Pride & Prejudice, I suggest checking out the Lizzie Bennet Diaries over on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/lizziebennet). I think it's pretty well done!
Episode 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KisuGP2lcPs
A woman in her mid-twenties might also have been considered on the shelf. But it's not that far-fetched for siblings to have a large age gap between them - for instance, in my family, my mom is 14 years older than her brother - especially in a time when many people married young and there was no reliable method of birth control. Remember that Darcy in P&P is 12 years older than his sister.
Life expectancy in the early 19th century would have lower than today, but that's because of the relatively large number of deaths in infancy. For someone who survived childhood, life expectancy would have been closer (though of course lower) to today's. So I don't think it would have been related to expectations regarding marriage.
Well, I read Bridget Jones's Diary and P&P and Zombies. Do those count?
That's to illustrate what a silly snob Emma is, and how naive she is to think that everyone is as privileged as she is. Robert Martin is actually marrying up for Harriet.
The BBC "Emma" is fantastic. Garai is wonderful (and I hated her in "Atonement") and Jonny Lee Miller I never really liked the Paltrow Emma. Though the BBC Emma's Harriet is a total ripoff of the 1996 actress.
I'm just watching Little Dorrit now (so far, very good). Matthew Macfayden He's why I prefer the 2005 P&P, though it certainly has its flaws. The cinematography and score are stunning. I always thought Ehle rather prim and smug.
BBC's Tom Jones from the late 90s is a personal favorite. It was serialized on A&E when my family was on vacation in Florida and we watched it every night.
Separate names with a comma.