MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice (1940) Discussion > most accurate to novel form?

most accurate to novel form?


out of all the "pride and prejudice" movies out there, which is the most faithful to the novel? i thought it might be this version, but i have seen none of them so i really have no idea!

any advice is appreciated!

reply

I've seen four versions: The MGM film with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, the mini-series with David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie, the mini-series with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, and the latest cinematic version, with Matthew Macfadyen and Keira Knightley.

The 1940 film was based on a stage play of the novel, omits certain characters, reconceives others, and condenses the action of the story. Even the time period is changed from Regency to Victorian. Still, it's a classic movie and can be enjoyed for what it is.

The two mini-series are generally faithful to the novel, though it's been years since I've sat down and watched them. Both do, however, contain some invented scenes and details (notably in the depiction of Wickham and Lydia).

The 2005 version retains the bare bones of the story and contains some very un-Jane-Austen-like details, such as Charlotte's speech to Lizzy on getting engaged to Mr. Collins.

reply

i have watched the laurence olivier version so many times and though it is not true to the book(i have not read it) i love this film and laurence olivier is perfect as darcy.i have been watching the colin firth version just to compare it with the b/w one.i was disappointed at first but its turning out to be a very good version and colin firth is excellent as darcy(he reminds me of olivier). i also saw the new one and was disappointed in it. i was comparing it to the colin firth version it is much better and has more time to explore the story. but going back the the 1940 version it is my favorite but would have like it to elaborate on the story a bit more, but it was nearly 2 hours long so am happy enough with it

reply

Sorry, can't agree. I've read the book many times, and I have to tell you this is ghastly. The clothes are all wrong. Mr Bennet is too compliant, Mrs Bennet is not scatterbrained enough. Lizzy is not witty enough. Jane is not warm enough. Darcy is too keen and not aloof enough. The carriages are too grand. The Bennet's house is not modest enough. Lady de Bourge is not sharp enough, and she didn't give Darcy her blessing at the end. There are so many things that are not right with it. There are whole chapters omitted from the story! I love Greer Garson, but I think she was too old to play Lizzy. In my opinion the most accurate is probably the 1995 TV version with Colin Firth, but it's a toss-up between it and the '75 version with Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul, which is my favourite.

reply

@ lidiarance: I can't do more than say "exactly!" And the word ghastly is certainly "le mot juste."

I was so excited to see this -- I thought the casting of Olivier as Darcy was on a par with Gable as Rhett Butler in its sheer rightness. But I have very sour feelings about the actual experience of the film.

Now I will have to seek out the 1980 (not '75) Rintoul/Garvie version based on your recommendation!

reply

The 1940 version does have many omissions and compressions and removes aunt and uncle gardner and hurries the ending. the biggest change is the way it changes Lady Catherine's reasons for visiting Elizabeth.

BUT
I think Mary Boland is the perfect Mrs Bennett as well as the performance of cousin collins is exactly as written.

I do like this version best because it is the most faithful to the comic spirit of the novel. Of all the versions This is by the far the most fun to watch again.
And Edna Mae Oliver is hilarious.

The colin firth miniseries is probably the closest textually.

reply

This is my favorite version of the book for the reason zerbster sites; it retains the comic spirit of the novel. This is especially impresive given that a present-day student reading Jane Austen might lose the comic points (as I did when i read it in high school, many, MANY years ago). On another board, I credit Aldous Huxley with maintaining the humor while translating it to a modern understanding without ruining the spirit of the original-no small feat, considering how infrequently other screenwriters succeed in this. Today we are inundated with PI interpretations of period stories, allowing for the most egregious of anachronistic dialogue.

He died of exposure.
Not a pretty picture, Emily.

reply

I've seen this version of the film, the 1995 miniseries, and the new 2005 film. Out of the three, I'd say that this one is probably least faithful to the book, and the 1995 miniseries is most faithful to the book.

I have never seen the 1980 miniseries, but I think that I had heard somewhere that it was the most faithful to the book. But really, if you want something faithful to the book, you might as well just read the book. =)

reply

I've seen this version, the 1995 miniseries with Firth and Ehle, and the newest version. Plus have read the novel many times.

Definitely the 1995 miniseries with Firth and Ehle is the most accurate to plot,characters, and such.




"You just keep thinkin' Butch. That's what you're good at."

reply

I've seen every version out there, including the one from 2003 set more in modern times. I've also read the book and it is my favorite story. For just movie watching alone, this one with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier is very entertaining to watch. However, it is not the most faithful version out there - the 1995 miniseries is. None of the versions made have been 100% faithful to the story, tho'.
My recommendation is this:
If you like the story of Pride and Prejudice but only have a couple hours and want a quick P&P fix, watch either this one or the newest one that just came out on DVD. The newest one is, out of the two, more faithful to the book but its not nearly as funny as the one from 1940. However, if you have a day where you dont mind sitting down getting wrapped up in a 5 hour movie, definitly, definitly watch the 1995 miniseries. Out of all the versions, it is the one most faithful to the book and Firth and Ehle play a very good Darcy and Elizabeth.
Hope this helped and enjoy the movie, whichever one you may choose. :)

reply

is SO faithful that it's almost like watching someone read the book. The 1995 version has a lot of Darcy scenes that are made up in order to expand the Darcy role. It's fun and it's Firth, but it's not Austen. The 1995 version also manages to spoil the two big surprises of the book - that Darcy is at Pemberley and that Darcy arranges Lydia's marriage. In the book, the reader learns these things when Lizzy does.

The newest film is still a two hour film. A lot is compressed -- but there a surprising amount going on in the background. It's lovely to look at, the music is terrific. It restores the Lizzy-centric balance to the narrative too.

This 1940 version is my least favorite, even behind Bridget Jones' Diary.

reply

Of all the versions I've seen, I'd say that the 1995 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle was by far the most accurate. (And the best). The 1940 version annoyed me a little bit because it was so different, eg the character of Lady Catherine. What was all that about? And the new film version with Keira Knightley also left out a lot of things, and also rushed bits of it and didn't allow sufficient character development etc, especially in the character of Wickham, but I suppose that it's necessary to speed things along when you've got so much to fit in to a 2 hour slot or whatever.

reply

Much as I love the 1995 version, this version changes the author's POV very much by adding a lot more Darcy than appears on the book. This is not a complaint, mind you, but an observation. This version also spoils the two major surprises of the book -- that Darcy is at Pemberley and that Darcy arranges Lydia's marriage to Wickham. In the book, and the 1980 and 2005 versions, the reader and viewer learn these things along with Elizabeth. I prefer that.

reply

One more thing about the 1995 version (don't read this if you want to see the 1995 mini-series first and don't want spoilers): the screenwriter used a moral sledgehammer to convey the decadence of Lydia Bennet and George Wickham. In the novel, it's perfectly clear that Wickham is immoral, manipulative, and vengeful, and all that is conveyed in straightforward descriptions of what he tried to do to the Darcys and what he succeeded in doing to the Bennets. A lot of the criticism of Wickham is conveyed through humor, though, with Mr. Bennet's ironic asides regarding his son-in-law.

In the 1995 mini-series, Wickham is shown with a prostitute and, in his final scenes, in a drunken stupor. I'm sure that if mustaches and railroads had been historically accurate, the screenwriter would have had him twirl his mustache and tie maidens to the tracks.

Lydia is depicted romping around in her underwear.

In the novel, Wickham and Lydia manage to maintain just enough respectability to be able to visit the Bingleys and for Lydia to visit the Darcys. It's clear their marriage is not on solid ground, nor is their financial status, but they survive. Jane Austen is a little more succinct in her description of their wrongdoing.

How do you spell "litigious lout" with only 10 letters? R-A-N-D-Y Q-U-A-I-D.

reply

that the woman in Wickham's lap is a prostitute. I just assumed she was a local barmaid. But I agree that your image of twirling moustaches is accurate.

reply

You are right, klorentz. We don't actually know who the woman is or how she met Wickham. It was just an extra dollop of icing on the sordid cake!

reply

I have to agree with you. The Keira Knightley version annoyed me intensely. There was too much where there was nothing at all going on,for eg Austen's Lizzy was an avid reader and letter writer (as all young ladies were in that time) but Knightley's Lizzy seemed to me to be idle and empty headed, really I just wanted to shake her. But I have to say all these versions help to make a mental picture that satisfies you when reading the books. I'm looking forward to the new Austen novels versions currently being made and released in the UK.

reply

"really I just wanted to shake her"

Uh-huh. Your nine year old posts in this thread certainly paint some pictures of you in my mind :D

The Cockroach Honor Award
2008: WALL-E
2009: G-Force
The cockroach is a noble beast

reply

I've seen 1940, 1980, 1995, and 2005. I agree with the poster that said 1980 is the closest to the book, but imo it's not as much fun to watch as 1995 and 2005. Of the four, I like 1940 the least.

reply

Im in a Jane Austen class, and this one technically has the smallest amount of deviation from the novel, believe it or not, only 11%

reply

The 1940 I believe is the one Jane Austen would claim. For one thing, it completely captures her humor which is often downplayed in the later versions which at times seems perilously closed to a filmed Harlequin paperback romance.

Elizabeth is also more true to form in the 1940 film. She is a very loving and wise girl but makes sharp clear-eyed observations and can be caustic but is ultimately charming and kind. I felt the 1995 version played her to be a little too harsh and cold.

The fans of the 1995 version - mainly women with crushes on Colin Firth it appears - have gone overboard at times on the net knocking the earlier version but it's pretty clear in most cases their main interest is in Firth not Austen.

reply

Lizzy is so impressed with her wisdom that she accepts everything that Wickham says about Darcy without ever checking her sources. Halfway through the book she realizes how little wisdom she actually has.

reply

11%? LOL!!!! This has got to be a fake post though it was good for a laugh.

reply

[deleted]