Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 249
  1. #81
    Reality TV's Bytch
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oblivion
    Posts
    1,815
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I own the 2005 version. I originally watched it borrowed from the library and just didn't like it but then I bought it cheaply from Wal*Mart. I don't watch it very often though. Certainly no where near as often as the 1995 version. I just don't think it works as an adaptation of the novel. I have to watch it as something unrelated, otherwise, I get annoyed with it.

    I own both versions of Sense and Sensibility. The Emma Thompson version has some very good performances. I love the way she cuts down Lucy, and Kate Winlet's Marianne was quite the selfish brat! She did a good job. I just like how the BBC version is a bit more faithful, plus the setting is simply gorgeous. I love love love the images of the sea.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    9,855
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4867
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Wiki's definition of a gentleman farmer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman's_farm
    I think that this is a more recent definition. In Jane Austen's world, Emma does not consider Robert Martin, who is explicitly called "a gentleman farmer", a good enough match for her friend Harriet who is the illegitimate child of unknown parents and she tells Harriet that she couldn't visit her if she married him. In Persuasion, Mary prefers to wait outside in the damp rather than step into the home of the Hayter family, even though they are her husband's cousins.


    Also found this, not sure what this source is but they mention Mr. Bennett and Mr. Darcy while discussing the definition of a gentleman farmer: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_b...sages/544.html
    I don't know who those people are but I don't agree with their opinion.

    Speaking of Persuasion, I simply adore the 1996 BBC movie. IMO it is one of the best novel adaptations in terms of translating the spirit of the novel. The acting, the script, the music - it was all perfect.

    Also, the way that the actors did not wear make-up was very refreshing. In adaptations such as the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, of course the characters are not supposed to wear make-up, so they can't use eyeliners or mascara, but they make heavy use of foundation, blush and lipstick. In Persuasion I enjoyed seeing the real skins of the characters, the beautiful differences in their complexions. They looked like real people! I wish this were the case in more movies.

  3. #83
    Cruder than you thought
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    All choked up
    Posts
    19,144
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14963
    Robert Martin is the only character Austen ever describes as a gentleman farmer. Mr. Bennet is landed gentry, albeit owner of an estate that is very small and not lucrative by Pemberley standards. The reason Elizabeth is considered really an inappropriate match for Darcy, aside from being much less wealthy, was because her mother did not come from the landed gentry (ie, Mrs. Bennet's father wasn't a gentleman).

    Mr. Bennet's estate would have been farmed, but definitely not by him, by his tenants, whom he theoretically oversaw - but he was probably fairly negligent in that respect, just as he was with his family - in contrast to Darcy or Knightley, for example, who are portrayed as conscientious landowners. Particularly Knightley was very involved in the operations of his estate (meeting with William Larkins all the time to discuss crops, etc), but he was definitely not a gentleman farmer. Bennet, Darcy, Knightley, etc were all, in fact, squires, which is defined simply as the chief landowner in a district. They didn't do the physical work, they owned the land that was worked.
    Disclaimer: The post contained herein represents the opinions of a fan and may or may not bear any relation to reality.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37350
    Quote Originally Posted by AYS View Post
    Robert Martin is the only character Austen ever describes as a gentleman farmer. Mr. Bennet is landed gentry, albeit owner of an estate that is very small and not lucrative by Pemberley standards. The reason Elizabeth is considered really an inappropriate match for Darcy, aside from being much less wealthy, was because her mother did not come from the landed gentry (ie, Mrs. Bennet's father wasn't a gentleman).....
    In that fabulous scene between Lady Catherine DeBerg (sp?) and Elizabeth in the 1995 Colin Firth version, Elizabeth states very clearly that she considers herself to come from the same sphere as Darcy. She says something to the effect that he is a gentleman and she is a gentleman's daughter therefore they are equal. Now, quite clearly, from a monetary standpoint they were not. Also, Darcy's mother was a Lady and Elizabeth's was nothing close. That said, I think that supports the idea the Mr. Bennet was landed gentry, albeit not very wealthy. He also, as they say, made a very unfortunate match.
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,377
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    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.
    I don't believe Mr. Bennet farmed, so while he was a gentleman, I don't think he was a gentleman farmer.

    Quote Originally Posted by AYS View Post
    Bennet, Darcy, Knightley, etc were all, in fact, squires, which is defined simply as the chief landowner in a district. They didn't do the physical work, they owned the land that was worked.
    Is Mr. Bennet the chief landowner, though? Or is it Sir William Lucas? I'm not sure it's specifically mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by mag View Post
    In that fabulous scene between Lady Catherine DeBerg (sp?) and Elizabeth in the 1995 Colin Firth version, Elizabeth states very clearly that she considers herself to come from the same sphere as Darcy. She says something to the effect that he is a gentleman and she is a gentleman's daughter therefore they are equal. Now, quite clearly, from a monetary standpoint they were not. Also, Darcy's mother was a Lady and Elizabeth's was nothing close. That said, I think that supports the idea the Mr. Bennet was landed gentry, albeit not very wealthy. He also, as they say, made a very unfortunate match.
    Did Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Darcy's mother make (relatively) poor matches? Their titles indicate that they were at least the daughters of an Earl, but Lady Catherine married a Sir (so at most a baronet) and her sister married a Mister.

    The main objection to Elizabeth would have been that she had family members who were in trade, and yes, they were all from Mrs. Bennet's side of the family tree. The description that comes to mind re Mr. Bennet is that his blood was a rather rural shade of pale blue.

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jani-Ayil
    Posts
    3,313
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Lady Catherine's main objection to Elizabeth was that she, Lady Catherine, had an unmarried daughter of marriageable age.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37350
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Lady Catherine's main objection to Elizabeth was that she, Lady Catherine, had an unmarried daughter of marriageable age.
    Yes, and she considered her daughter to be engaged to Mr. Darcy, even though it more of a hope shared by two mothers when their children were very young. Interesting how marriage to a first cousin was considered quite acceptable. Nowadays that would be considered quite odd.

    I always thought that Lady Catherine had married Mr. Darcy's uncle ie. Mr. Darcy's mother's brother, and that is how she became a Lady.
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Austen explains that Sir William did well in trade, made a decent amount of wealth and became a town official thus getting his title which I believe it is noted was not one that would be passed down to his heirs. After being titled, he purchased an estate to live up to the title. It is therefore not likely that he is the principal landowner in the area.

    Mr. Bennet seems to own land, the farming of that land is specifically mentioned when Lizzy cannot have the carriage or a horse to go to Jane when she is ill at Bingley's residence. Mr. B says the horses are needed for the farming. His fortune is modest but does exist. The problem is the entailment which means that it cannot be used for dowries for his daughters or the support of his widow--it must be reserved for a male heir. Only the small dowry Mrs. B brought into her marriage is available for the girls. Thus, even though Mr. B has a profitable estate, the girls are technically poor in terms of what they can bring into a marriage. He notes late in the book that he has not managed the cash available to him well or he would have set aside money for them. He explains that he never bothered in the hope that there would be a son eventually.

    Lady Catherine is the sister of Darcy's mother. Her concern is not only marrying off her daughter, but with keeping the family fortunes in the form of the two estates firmly in the family.

  9. #89
    Cruder than you thought
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    All choked up
    Posts
    19,144
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14963
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    Is Mr. Bennet the chief landowner, though? Or is it Sir William Lucas? I'm not sure it's specifically mentioned.

    Did Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Darcy's mother make (relatively) poor matches? Their titles indicate that they were at least the daughters of an Earl, but Lady Catherine married a Sir (so at most a baronet) and her sister married a Mister.

    The main objection to Elizabeth would have been that she had family members who were in trade, and yes, they were all from Mrs. Bennet's side of the family tree. The description that comes to mind re Mr. Bennet is that his blood was a rather rural shade of pale blue.
    William Lucas was in trade before being elevated to the knighthood, he is not a landowner. He left his business and bought "Lucas Lodge" after his knighthood (and "Lucas Lodge" was Austen being snarky about his pretensions). He has no estate.

    Lady Anne would have been considered as marrying "down" but Darcy (senior) was extremely wealthy and his fortune and land was generations old, which apparently makes up for the lack of title (as opposed to Bingley, whose father had just become extremely wealthy one generation ago, and who is trying to break into the landed gentry business).

    Lewis de Bourgh was of the nobility (he was Sir Lewis, which had to be his own title, he wouldn't have gotten Lady Catherine's).
    Disclaimer: The post contained herein represents the opinions of a fan and may or may not bear any relation to reality.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,377
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mag View Post
    I always thought that Lady Catherine had married Mr. Darcy's uncle ie. Mr. Darcy's mother's brother, and that is how she became a Lady.
    No, Lady Anne Darcy and Lady Catherine De Bourgh were sisters.

    Also, if she'd gotten the "lady" by marriage, she wouldn't have been known as Lady Catherine but as Lady [Husband's title/name] (depending on whether her husband had a title or not).

    Sir Lewis was not a peer; at most he was a baronet. If I'm not mistaken, this means that he was landed gentry.

  11. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    California Dreaming....
    Posts
    1,208
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    IMO there is only one version and that is the production with Firth/Ehle.

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,945
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    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.

  13. #93

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    9,492
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1231
    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)…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia...n'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.

  14. #94

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,967
    vCash
    1271
    Rep Power
    5546
    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.

  15. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
    Posts
    4,418
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by aliceanne View Post
    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.

  16. #96

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    9,492
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1231
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis@BC View Post
    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.
    x100!
    I will also add after "laziness": "or any altering of any sort to please the current audience".

  17. #97
    Recovering from the Olys
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    28,304
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    16759
    Quote Originally Posted by DCA View Post
    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. I enjoyed Elizabeth Garvie's spirited portrayal of Lizzie, too.
    "Randy [Starkman (1960-April 16, 2012)] lived by the same motto as the rest of us. The Olympics isn’t every four years, it’s every single day. He just got it." --Canadian Olympic kayaker Adam van Koeverden

  18. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    572
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  19. #99
    Title-less
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,691
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DCA View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia View Post
    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.
    I'm so jealous.
    Last edited by jlai; 05-24-2012 at 11:35 PM.

  20. #100

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Driving the Han Yan Fan Van
    Posts
    8,829
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.
    BARK LESS. WAG MORE.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •