I am so sick of the posts on here deriding this masterpiece because it doesn't "do justice" to that insipid piece of writing by Jane (UGH) Austen.
That is it as successful film at all (let alone a masterpiece) says more about the genius of Hollywood than it does about Austen's drivel.
Olivier as Darcy? Perfect.
Garson as Elizabeth? Freakin' damned perfect.
Everything else? Fabulous and highly entertaining.
Any questions?
Pride and Prejudice is a brilliant novel. I'm sorry to pain you, but it's true. The reason that this story is adapted and re-adapted and re-re-adapted is because the themes are timeless. The characters are timeless.
I agree with you about Garson, she's a wonderful Elizabeth. But Olivier is not a perfect Darcy. It's important to the story that the audience not know early on that Darcy is in love with Elizabeth, but Olivier and the writers twist that around.
Don't get me wrong -- I love this movie. But I love it as a movie in its own right, not as an adaptation of P&P.
[deleted]
if you ever write a book I'd be interested in reading it. I'm sure you'd transcend Austen's insipid piece of drivel.
Looking 4 P&P95 message boards? Click here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/board
Oh, but of course. I'm sure you never complain if the repair man has done a so-so job or if the electrical appliances you buy have defects. I mean, it's not like you could do a better job, so you have no right to complain, right?
I like Pride and Prejudice and by no means think it's insipid, but this must be the worst argument ever.
I understand wanting the movie to weighed on it's on merits, but to deride Jane Austen for creating the source material that has engender a legend of fans for over a century is pretty crass in my opinion. I take each version for what it is, and enjoy it as yet another on screen view of one of my favorite couples. If you wish people to not hold the book up next to the film, say that... I wholly respect that opinion, but please be respectful of Miss Jane Austen's timeless works.
I was born to sing, and I live to do just that! http://www.shebesoul.com
Though it's pretty darn obvious that the screenwriters took great liberties (to put it mildly) with this P&P, this movie is still entertaining and funny, light-weight and oftentimes hilarious. Edna Mae Oliver's Lady de Bourgh stole the show, IMO. Her facial expressions and haughty gestures have me doubled over with laughter every time I watch this film! While no one watching it should think they have the gist of the novel down pat by any means, it still is a great way to pass 1 1/2 hrs.!!
shareHow can you call Pride And Prejudice insipid? It´s a great book, and Jane Austen is a great writter!!
Have you ever thought that if Jane Austen hadn´t written this novel, this movie you love so much wouldn´t exist??
Smile, God Loves You :D
Amazing how much criticism can be heaped on this wonderful film, yet say, "boo!" about Austen and it's as if one has spat upon the flag.
Austen is a hack. At best an interesting writer, FOR WOMEN.
That's all. She doesn't compare to Goethe, or Flaubert, or Dostoyefsky, or Wolf, or any of the truly great novelists.
So don't come here, all high and mighty, deriding the film because it isn't a documentary reproduction, word for word, of your precious Austen.
Again, there is an Austen website for you people to go and bask in the glory of Jane. This website is devoted to films and movie-making.
MOVIES!!!!! NOT NOVELS!!!!!
King George IV, Winston Churchill, Walter Scott and Mark Twain read and enjoyed Austen. Last I checked, they were all men.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
Check again.
shareAusten is a hack. At best an interesting writer, FOR WOMEN.
Any questions? No, because you are armed and dangerous, but may I make a statement of clarification? Olivier is perfect as Darcy....yes! Garson as Elizabeth...even better! Everything else...Fabulous and entertaining, BUT..the last half hour crams everything in and loses the gradual and believable sexual tension of the original work. It needs Darcy presenting Lizzie with his letter of explanation, of her slow realization of how her pride has prejudiced her against him, of the beautiful moment when she is touring his historic home with her aunt and uncle and encounters him, of the changes that her impertinence have brought about in his character. Even Lydia and Wickham's return seems too abrupt (and only because I love Edna Mae Oliver can I accept Lady Catherine as "nice.") That's my only beef with this version. I do agree that it stands alone as a delightful morsel from Hollywood. Would appreciate your not trashing Jane Austen as an author. I don't care what you say, I don't believe that you've read any of the books other than something you were forced to read in a class at some time.(I'm the same way about William Faulkner.) My first intro to Austen was "Emma" in a college class on period literature. I didn't care for it at all until I picked it up years later and gave it a go when I wasn't going to be asked to write a paper about it. From there I went on to the other works. Now I name Austen as my favorite author of all time (just ahead of Stephen King, Sharyn McCrumb, and J.K. Rowling.) I'd be happy to agree to disagree with you, but I bet you are going to tear me up over this.
shareI totally get what you're saying. It seems anytime a movie is based on a book a lot of people hail the book and slam the movie because it's not what they expected. Of course there are going to be differences; even if the story is the same, movies and books are completely different. They each have their own characteristics, strengths and weaknesses.
Some people have a preference and that's okay but many of us enjoy both books and movies. If you love a book it's important to remember the movie is always an adaptation. There are many people involved in making it but usually the director's vision is what we see. It may not coincide with what you had in mind but it may be a slightly different story and still be pretty good. If the author had made the movie they might have made changes too. In a movie, you have only so much time to tell the story and can use a lot fewer words.
I loved this version of the movie. It was so entertaining I didn't want to see it end. When I read the book years ago and when I've seen other adaptations of it on film I didn't like them nearly as much. Clearly, these changes worked for me.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
Bravo! Or Brava! whichever may be appropriate.
Yes, you hit on the key word, "ENTERTAINING." This movie is a grand ENTERTAINMENT from beginning to end with wonderful stars, great character acting, a wonderful script, wonderful music, basically, all the things that go into making a SUCCESSFUL Hollywood film.
I detested the book. It is insipid tripe; pretentious without an ounce of the profundity it pretends to have; it is not poetic nor in any way dramatically satisfying, unless I suppose you are a 13-year old girl living in 1920 New England.
The other filmed versions try too hard to capture the feel and flavor of the novel; which they do quite successfully, which explains why they are exceedingly boring, slow, and ultimately very unsatisfying.
The changes you see made in THIS film which worked so well for you worked just as well for millions of movie-goers in 1940 and millions of viewers on TV and (where I saw it first) in revival houses. It is an under-valued masterpiece.
So let them scream about how the costumes are all wrong and how Lizzie is "too old." (I love it. Greer Garson, too old. Good thing these Austen heads were not in charge of making movies).
i don't find the novel insipid, but I do enjoy this version. Don't care particularly for Garson, but Olivier is perfect. It follows the plot of the novel reasonably closely, at least as close as one could expect from Hollywood. Pity about the costumes though. fashion reached its height of elegance in the Regency era.
shareWell, well, well, you don't care for Garson. . . gee, too bad the studio heads didn't have you around to correct their mistake. Maybe the film would have been successful if YOU had cast it instead of the biggest female star of the past three years who had just won as Oscar. Yes, I'm sure you would have saved it.
And who cares, if the plot follows the novel well, reasonably well, or not at all??? That's the whole point of my rant!!!
This is not a documentary page for page re-creation of the novel. It wasn't SUPPOSED to be. That would be impossible.
It is a "movie" -- loosely based on a COMEDY (play) loosely based on the novel. Helloooooooooo!!!
well, I do care if a film of a book follows the plot of a novel raesonably closely. otherwise, there's not much point in making a film of a book is there? You might as well make something up without bothering to link it to a book. Save yourself a lot of bother. Why drag the book in at all?
And yes, I do think they could have picked someone better suited to play Elizabetj Bennet than Garson. She's too stately. Peggy Ashcroft would have been my choice. i agree with you it's a pity I wasn't there to advise them. You are quite right that I would have saved it. how perceptive of you.
I have always loved this movie: the cast; the tone; the tempo of the script. We should be aware that the opening credits make it very clear that the screenplay is based on a stage play adaptation of the novel and not the novel itself. It is a take on a take. By that token, it's already freed itself of the obligation to match the novel.
It is, to me, so much fun to watch the actors play off each other: they seem to have enjoyed working together - such lovely exchanges of expression and gesture between them all. For example, at the very start of the movie, in the dress shop, Jane asks Lizzy "How shall I look?" "Adorable my love, as always," Lizzy replies. Jane looks up at her and reproves: "Lizzy." And Lizzy gives her that sweet, knowing Greer Garson side-look and comes back with "Mm-hmm." This tiny moment doesn't feel scripted - it feels like a natural moment of affection between two sisters, which George Cukor may even have encouraged, and was certainly wise enough to keep in the editing. There are many, many moments like this which enrich the relationships between everyone and give a positive energy to the viewer (Catch the little side look Garson gives to Olivier right before she shoots the arrow at the Netherfield party - the viewer slides right into the anticipation of the "punchline" and waits for it. Bulls-eye on all counts).
elena,
Yes, those are just examples of how great an actress Greer Garson was. One of the very best, it's a shame her films are not more well known.
She had great comic timing, but could play the dramatic very well, as well as anyone. And so beautiful.