What nonsense. If Scarlett had ended up with Rhett at the end of the movie, would you have blamed the audience for howling?
But I must agree, if they had no intention of portraying Pride and Prejudice, a new title would have been the wiser course of action.
Alas, I must reveal the following: Towards the end of the novel Pride and Prejudice, Fitzwilliam Darcy proposes a second time to Elizabeth Bennet and is accepted. In the 1940 film adaptation, Darcy proposes a second time and is accepted.
So no, Lizzy doesn't go off with Colonel Fitzwilliam or become a pole dancer or something. She meets a proud young man, hates him on sight, changes her mind on getting to know him better, and falls in love. That, my sweets, is the basis of Pride and Prejudice.
The 1940 is an adaptation, as are all the other versions floating around. Even the much-adored 1995 mini-series embellishes and excludes and invents (The script's clunky approach to Wickham in particular is enough to make purists throw tomatoes at the TV screen).
So the 1940 version eliminates characters, much as Emma Thompson's wonderful 1995 screenplay for Sense and Sensibility did, and much of Austen's social criticism is omitted or softened, some of that due to the censorship of the time (Yes, really). But watch it with a copy of the novel handy, and you'll be amazed how much dialogue is lifted straight out of the book.
Plus you've got to love that Mr. Bennet. Edmund Gwenn kicks some Meryton butt with that role.
reply
share
klorentz
16 years ago
I agree that the 1995 mini makes many changes that a lot of people gloss over. The biggest change is the expansion of Darcy's role. Each adaptation must have a point of view, otherwise they'd all be the same. My only point was that saying that people are fools to compare a film based upon a novel (in this case upon a play upon a novel) is ridiculous. That poster seems to believe that people in Hollywood MUST know what they're doing because a film or studio is commercially successful. There are other standards by which one is allowed to judge a film. (I have no objection to the elimination of certain characters such as the Hursts, but I do think elimination of the Gardiners and making Lady Catherine the heroine who saves the day is going a bit too far.)
Getting back to 1995, I did in fact throw something - a pillow - at the TV set in 1995 after the second proposal. What a letdown. I actually turned to my sister who had not yet read the book and said "Oh, the book is so much better!" And yes, the Wickham was a bit awful. The best Wickham is Peter Settelan in the 1980 adaptation.
reply
share
liberalmedia
16 years ago
My only point was that saying that people are fools to compare a film based upon a novel (in this case upon a play upon a novel) is ridiculous. That poster seems to believe that people in Hollywood MUST know what they're doing because a film or studio is commercially successful. There are other standards by which one is allowed to judge a film.
Yes, I agree that box office isn't the standard by which to measure the artistic success of a film, especially when I read about just what people are paying 10 bucks to see these days. Eek!
That said, I enjoy the 1940 Pride and Prejudice for what it is: a creation of Hollywood's golden age, complete with recycled costumes, evidence of the Hays office at work, and an overly large dollop of sweetness. But it also contains character actors who deserve to be remembered these days -- Edmund Gwenn, Mary Boland, Melville Cooper, and especially Edna May Oliver. Every last one of them is a treasure.
reply
share
joystar5879
9 years ago
Dear "liberal"
Please repeat this phrase Fifty times, at top speed in PIG LATIN!!
"....THEY DID NOT RECYCLE THE COSTUMES...."
The costumes for GWTW were designed by WALTER PLUNKETT, using contemporary illustrations of the 1860s-1870s. They also used photos from the time period
The Costumes from P & P were designed by ADRIAN (for the women)and Giles Steele, who handled Men's Historical Clothing and Uniforms.
Louis B. Mayer had a big stake in GWTW: His top male star (Clark Gable) had won an ACADEMY AWARD for BEST ACTOR. Vivien Leigh, The BEST ACTRESS winner, was also working at MGM, at around the same time as P & P., making WATERLOO BRIDGE.
There was also the family situation: David O. Selznick was Louis B. Mayer's SON-IN-LAW. Mayer could be nasty and often vindictive, but stupid he wasn't.
He wouldn't risk the prestige that GWTW gave his Studio, by recycling another designer's work....especially when he held the contract of the greatest designer of them all... ADRIAN.
"....THEY DID NOT RECYCLE THE COSTUMES!!!...."
I do hope he won't upset Henry...
reply
share
Julie-30
9 years ago
In addition, as I (and others) have pointed out before, this P&P takes place in the 1830s, and the fashions of the time were not the same as those in the 1860s. I even posted pictures to show the differences.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. And the fact remains that (as you put it),
"....THEY DID NOT RECYCLE THE COSTUMES!!!...."
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
reply
share
flavia18
15 years ago
Even the much-adored 1995 mini-series embellishes and excludes and invents (The script's clunky approach to Wickham in particular is enough to make purists throw tomatoes at the TV screen).
Thank you! I wasn't impressed by the '95 version.
Then again, I was spoiled by the '80 miniseries.
Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
reply
share
liberalmedia
15 years ago
Thank you! I wasn't impressed by the '95 version.
Then again, I was spoiled by the '80 miniseries.
I too enjoyed the 1980 version and found it particularly faithful to the novel.
But I've no objection to seeing more adaptations of P&P. It's sort of like a piece of classical music: worth interpreting over and over again, as long as it's done well.
reply
share