1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

Pride & Prejudice: your favorite version?

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by manleywoman, May 23, 2012.

  1. Wyliefan

    Wyliefan Well-Known Member

    He's definitely the cutest. :D The Romola Garai film isn't bad, except that Garai mugs for the camera way too much.
  2. shan

    shan Well-Known Member

    I love that one too!
  3. emason

    emason Well-Known Member

    Note to Tinami:

    Pride and Prejudice is not set in the Victorian era.
  4. star_gazer11

    star_gazer11 practising choreo

    Definitely prefer the 1995 BBC miniseries. The movie is okay for when I don't want to settle down for hours to watch.

    And yup, I like the Paltrow version of Emma because of Jeremy Northam. :) If we could mix and match, Beckinsale with Northam.

    Canadians, I don't know if the sale price is still on, but I picked up the 2008 BBC Sense and Sensibility dvd for $9.99 at Best Buy in late April. :kickass: price, it also includes Miss Austen Regrets which aired on PBS Masterpiece a while back.
    flutzilla1 and (deleted member) like this.
  5. Cachoo

    Cachoo Well-Known Member

    I like the 2005 version but for me the 90's versions of P&P, Persuasion, and Sense and Sensibility are three of my favorite movies/mini-series of the decade. There was also a non-Austen little gem called Enchanted April that I loved from the 90's. Now it seems that zombies need to be added for us to see Elizabeth again on film.
  6. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    I have the piano score. I'm in Canada and I picked it up at Long & McQuade. It was published by the Universal Music Publishing Group www.universalmusicpublishing.com and distributed by Hal Leonard.
    ISBN 1 - 4234 - 1113 - 7
  7. Nomad

    Nomad Celebrity cheese-monger

    The Victorian era began in 1837, two decades after Jane Austen died. Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818, which places them in the Regency Period.
    IceAlisa and (deleted member) like this.
  8. ChelleC

    ChelleC Well-Known Member

    I've liked Matthew Macfayden since he was on MI-5/Spooks, so I love the 2005 version for him.

    I've only watched the BBC version a couple of times.
  9. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    Thank you! :)
  10. Tinami Amori

    Tinami Amori Well-Known Member

    Sorry, you're right. Then "pre-victorian"... Regency?... I believe that standards of conduct and propriety between a man and a woman were pretty much the same from Regency into Victorian... unmarried young men and women could not be alone without a guardian, females had to have escorts and companions to go out and to travel, not even kissing before marriage, minimal physical contact... Austen's novels a very respectfull of such rules. The last espisode in US version of 2005 film is very out of line.
  11. znachki

    znachki Active Member

    Add me to list of those who love the 1995 Persuasion. I do think it's the best of the Austen adaptations. I strongly dislike the newer version. Just couldn't buy Rupert Penry-Jones as Wentworth - not enough gravitas, and Sally Hawkins, yuck. I especially hated the whole running through Bath thing, and IIRC they totally blew the reading of the letter too.
  12. AYS

    AYS I'd rather have a pug for my president

    I love this movie and agree it was one of the best Austen adaptations. I've watched it many times. Anne is 27, and past the "bloom" of youth, so I felt their ages seemed not too off. From what a couple of people have told me, though, it is much richer and more enjoyable if you know the novel well. Anne's internal life is such an important part of the novel, and you miss that if you watch the movie without that background.

    I also love the Kate Beckinsale's Emma, much better than the Paltrow version.
  13. DCA

    DCA Member

    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.
    My favorite adaptation is Persuation with Amanda Root. It was even the first DVD I ever purchased. There are so many wonderful, subtle touches in it--I love the brief scene where Captain Wentworth is helping Anne into the carriage, and he gently squeezes her arm.
  14. Asli

    Asli Well-Known Member

    For me the 1995 BBC version of P&P was terrific and the 2005 version all wrong!

    Mr. Bennet is not a "gentleman farmer". He owns the estate, he's the squire. A gentleman farmer would be his tenant and would not even be invited to his table.

    Indeed the way the 2005 P&P pictures the Bennets as barely genteel - living right beside a pigsty and having to pass through drying linen to reach their front door - is completely grotesque. :rolleyes: Maybe the creators of this version thought that the audience would not understand the difference between the Darcy and Bennet families, unless one family lived like kings and the other like peasants? Ridiculous.

    As for Elizabeth, while she is clever, lively and ever so slightly ahead of her time in her ideas about a woman's place, she is not - as Keira Knightly pictures her - wild, half mad and downright rude. :rofl: A Jane Austen heroine cannot lack propriety. Otherwise the whole novel doesn't make sense, because much of the humour and the plot are based on ridiculing those who lack propriety. Why does Elizabeth censure Lydia for eloping with Wickam at all? I am sure Keira Knightley's character would have eloped with him herself! ;)

    Matthew MacFadyen is a brilliant actor. I have seen an interview with him about P&P, where he said that he had not read the novel and had deliberately only read the script. (Which is just as well probably, since the two are not compatible.) He was brilliant in showing Darcy's passion, but absolutely didn't look and act like a powerful man who governs over half Derbyshire - which is an important side of Darcy and which Colin Firth had nailed. Anyway, I always love watching him and hearing his wonderful voice. :swoon:

    One thing that was superb about the 2005 movie was the photography. Mesmerising :swoon:

    Thanks to everyone who has pointed out the 1980 version. I'll try to find it, wheee!
    Last edited: May 24, 2012
    mag and (deleted member) like this.
  15. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    While I agree that the 1995 version is fabulous and the 2005 film is all wrong, I don't think the above is accurate - a gentleman farmer would have been just what the name implies: a gentleman, but one who farms for pleasure, out of scientific interest, etc. and not as a source of income. But definitely not someone's tenant who's not fit for polite company.

    I don't believe Mr. Bennet was a gentleman farmer under either definition, but he is also not a squire, or he would have been referred to as Squire Bennet.

    Anyway, I seriously doubt a gentleman farmer would have pigs running around the house. The film exaggerated the Bennets' situation to create a contrast between them and Darcy and his relations, which was unfortunate.
  16. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

  17. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member


    Elinor Dashwood is 19; Emma Thompson was 35 or 36 when she played the part. Although the character is mature for her years, Thompson was far too old to be true to the spirit of the book.

    Anne Elliot is 27; Amanda Root was 31 or 32 when she played the part. As others have in essence already said, the character is already perceived by society as being too old to be marriageable. Root was certainly close enough to the right age and did a great job.

    I did think that Ciaran Hinds was too rough to be Capt. Wentworth, though. :shuffle:
  18. Asli

    Asli Well-Known Member

    Is this definition from the late 19th century?

    In Jane Austen's world, gentleman farmers have to work their farm to earn a living and are not fit for the company of "real" gentlemen. Examples: Robert Martin in "Emma" and the Hayter family in "Persuasion", though Charles Hayter is acceptable as a clergyman.

    Mr. Bennet is the squire, in the sense of being the main landowner of the district. I'm far from being an expert in history, but in literature I've never read of a squire being called "Squire X".

    Emma Thompson has changed many aspects of the characters in her script and I believe Elinor's age is one of them. The movie version of Elinor must be in her late twenties, because in one scene Elinor overhears someone saying "Poor Marianne will become an old maid like Elinor." Even at that time, noone would call a 19-year-old unmarried girl "an old maid."

    IMO it's a good thing, because the Elinor in the novel sounds too damn "holier than thou" for a 19-year-old. ;)
    Last edited: May 24, 2012
  19. Jimena

    Jimena Well-Known Member

    Though I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC series, I find myself watching the 2005 version often. I was very surprised I liked it as much as I did. I thoroughly enjoyed Knightly (surprising, since I don't really like her much) and the supporting cast- the parents, the sisters, Mr. Collins- were superior.

    Also, I've grown to not like Ehle too much in that role.
  20. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    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.
  21. Tesla

    Tesla Whippet Good

    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. :p

    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. :swoon:
  22. Asli

    Asli Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.
  23. AYS

    AYS I'd rather have a pug for my president

    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.
  24. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    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.
  25. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    I don't believe Mr. Bennet farmed, so while he was a gentleman, I don't think he was a gentleman farmer.

    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.
  26. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    Lady Catherine's main objection to Elizabeth was that she, Lady Catherine, had an unmarried daughter of marriageable age. ;)
  27. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    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.
  28. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    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.
  29. AYS

    AYS I'd rather have a pug for my president

    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).
  30. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    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.