Precisely because if is just a little over two hours. This thing drags on WAY too long! Let the hate begin. PS: I ever prefer the Olivier Garson version better. Loved that version of Miss Bennett and Lady Catherine. Hysterical!
shareYou'll get no hate from me. P&P "in a nutshell" is perfect for those with not much time to spare, or for whom Austen isn't their cup of tea. I enjoyed both movies. Greer Garson is a perfect Elizabeth (although Olivier and Edna May Oliver were way off the mark as Darcy and Lady Catherine).
Others of us, when we have the luxury of time, appreciate the character development and intricacies of plot that are possible with a series.
If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.
Well put!
shareIMO they all have their place. The BBC series accurately depicts the novel almost to a tee, and the Hollyweird version for blaze & glory :)
The 1980 BBC series is closer to the book than is the 1995 BBC series. The 1995 BBC series does a lot of things that make me scratch my head, including the stupid pond scene.
As for the 2005 version, the writer is British, the director is British and the overwhelming majority of the actors are British (the 2 exceptions being a Canadian Mr. Bennet and an American Lydia). How does this make it a "Hollyweird" movie?
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
... How does this make it a "Hollyweird" movie?It doesn't - I know the 2005 version is pretty much a 100% British production for which you often correct folks.
pretty much a 100% British production
for which you often correct folks.
Well... every time after using a favorite moniker "Hollyweird version" someone always seems to take some kinda offence to that and clarify with something to the effect "how many times must it be said that this is pretty much a 100% British production!?!".
So... THIS time I decided to provide an explanation :)
There’s a lot I like about the 1980 (the casing the play-like quality) but I don’t consider it closer to the book. While it’s true it doesn’t have scenes that weren’t in the book at all, there are so many places where the dialog is changed or dragged out I feel like it loses its spark and sometimes changes its meaning. Also, I sometimes feel like it works too hard to get narrative into dialog. I can understand why they do it but it makes some of the conversation seem unnatural.
I like each of them for different reasons but they each have their flaws. How close we consider an adaption to the book has a lot to do with which kind of changes bother us and which don’t.
I like when Elizabeth RUNS to Pemberley.
I do love that version, but while it's more "in the style" of the book, it certainly doesn't follow the scenes of it.
There's Hollywood as the location, and Hollywood as the film industry. "Hollywood" definitely denotes a style of cinematography that is richer, more extravagant, more exaggerated, more about the stars than the story, in other words "lusher." That's all part of the so called Hollywood magic. The 2005 production was certainly more "Hollywood" in the exaggerations of behaviors, the rushed plot lines and over the top mansions than the 1995 production.
A perfect example of how "Hollywood" the 2005 production is that everyone refers to Keira Knightley, not Lizzie Bennet, whereas for the 1995 production, people refer to Lizzie Bennet and rarely to Jennifer Ehle. The star is more important than the story!
Please PM your post directly to Julie-30.
A perfect example of how "Hollywood" the 2005 production is that everyone refers to Keira Knightley, not Lizzie Bennet, whereas for the 1995 production, people refer to Lizzie Bennet and rarely to Jennifer Ehle.
The 1980 BBC series is closer to the book than is the 1995 BBC series. The 1995 BBC series does a lot of things that make me scratch my head, including the stupid pond scene.
As for the 2005 version, the writer is British, the director is British and the overwhelming majority of the actors are British (the 2 exceptions being a Canadian Mr. Bennet and an American Lydia). How does this make it a "Hollyweird" movie?
Time for a re-watch of 1980, because I don't remember that aspect of Mary at all.
Wrong I may well be, but I'm inclined to believe that consciously or not Weldon had Mary modeled after Marsha Hunt portrayal rather than the novel. Tessa Peake-Jones, though, was lovely, such fun, replete with spirit. A pity they didn't cast her as Lizzie in place of second Mrs. Fields.
She is as dangerous as a rattlesnake, a cobra, and a black mamba rolled into one.
A pity they didn't cast her as Lizzie in place of second Mrs. Fields.
I do, too. Elizabeth Garvie positively sparkles as Lizzy for me.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
That was cryptic! I thought Elizabeth Garvie was a delightful Lizzie.
I never got that impression of Mary in P&P80, and I've seen that version more times than I can remember.
As for it being "written and filmed without any respect to audience's intellectual ability" well, all I can say is, you won't make very many friends around here if you insult our intelligence simply because we disagree with you.
I happen to adore P&P80 and to thoroughly enjoy P&P05. Your P&P95 zealotry is obviously such that you fail to see all the things that it gets wrong. I highly recommend watching it immediately after you finish reading the novel. It might jog your brain into remembering that, in the book, there is no Bathtime Darcy, no Fencing Darcy, no Searching-through-London Darcy and, most importantly, no Pond-Diving Darcy.
And, speaking of completely changing a character's personality, since when is Bingley a naive twit? That's the impression I get from both P&P95 and P&P05. But the Bingleys in P&P40 and P&P80 are far closer to the book's Bingley.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
I'm quite puzzled because I decided to re-watch it yesterday and P&P80 loses no time in establishing Mary as a lively, active girl. In the very first scene, a horse-drawn cart loaded with luggage catches her attention, she immediately runs up to the road, makes inquiries with the driver, then rushes back to the house to tell the family of Bingley's arrival.
There are a couple spots, particularly the Lambton encounter, where Crispin crosses into comedy but, overall, his portrayal doesn't stray too much from a diffident young man, who often, especially in matters of heart, relies on advice of his friend described by Austen.
I don't consider myself fanatically devoted to the series, though I don't want to conceal that I believe it by far the best screen representation of the book. There are faults (Ehle, Wickham, second proposal) which I readily admit. On the other hand, I don't believe that an adaptation should be word-for-word true to its source. There is a basic screenwriting principle of "show rather than tell", which a good script should try to follow.
She is as dangerous as a rattlesnake, a cobra, and a black mamba rolled into one.
To me the 1995 screen play is closer to the book (yes even with the additional scenes), the dialog especially. But for the most part I thought the casting/characters were closer in the 1980. I agree that a screen adaption must “show rather than tell”.
Re Mary running to the cart for gossip:
It would have made more sense to have one of the younger girls, who are so interested in gossip, do that but it didn’t give me the impression of her being vivacious. Other than that scene I found her very much like the Mary from the book if not more so.
Re Bingley in the 1995 vs book:
In the book Bingley doesn’t seek Darcy’s approval before he rents Neatherfeild. Also, the way Darcy goes racing to Longbourne after getting Darcy’s “blessing” can give the impression that it’s Darcy’s “blessing” rather than Darcy’s assurance of Jane’s feelings that is important to Bingley. Also in the book we get Bingley teasing Darcy, “He studies too much for four syllable words”, “if Darcy were not such a great tall fellow…” and saying that Darcy can go to bed if he doesn’t want to come to the ball. So there’s more balance to his character. I realize and adaption can’t get everything in but to me it does make him look more dependent on Darcy.
The 1980 Bingley is excellent. He's a very nice man who admires his friend Darcy but who is not completely dependent upon him.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
The 1980 and 1995 versions are the best. Knightey's version is too Hollywood...
shareMeh, the histrionics and (deliberate!) historical inaccuracies of the 2005 version annoy me more each time I see it. I like the 1980 version, even if it's too stagey for modern tastes.
shareWhat, pray tell, are the historical innacuracies of the 2005 version?
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
Botox hadn't yet been invented. That's one.
shareI can't do this again and again. Remember when JulieW meticulously documented every alleged inaccuracy ten years ago....down to the fabrics, the paint use on the wall, the hairstyles...the PIG.
shareIt's amazing how people take their opinions and turn them into facts despite there being nothing factual whatsoever about said opinions.
Alas. As Taylor Swift says, "haters gonna hate."
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
There are several types of inaccuracies.
Inaccuracy as per the novel's storyline and character's personalities and Austen's description of the environment. A perfect example is Pemberly =/= scale, size or grandeur Chatsworth, or that the Bennets were not shabby "genteel" but a profligate family who spent every penny of a handsome income.
Inaccuracy as did not exist at the time period. This could be fashion, colors and materials used.
Inaccuracy as in behavior and attitude. The last is actually the most difficult for modern audiences to understand. Our assumptions today are based on the 21st century model of thinking, and not the 18th/early 19th century model of thinking. How the gentry behaved, acted and expressed their emotions was defined by the parameters of their fairly rigid, class bound society and could be very different from the 21st century, and this could go all the way down to the clothes people wore, the colors they selected, the way they ran their houses. People who violated those parameters could be punished and ostracized by their society.
FWIW (without claiming great expertise on the relative accuracy of the various version), on the three types of inaccuracy:
I wouldn't call the first "inaccuracy," really. The book is a work of fiction; the movie is a different work of fiction. The movie is an adaptation from the book, but they're allowed to change things. Movies based on novels often change a lot, adding and subtracting characters, sometimes even changing basic elements of the story.
The second is what I'd call inaccuracy. Of course, there's still room for some variation from reality, in that any fictional world is different from the real world in certain respects: they almost always have people who never really existed walking around, for one thing. And the practical necessities of making a movie require a certain degree of "inaccuracy." For example, often some real-world location in the present has to stand in for a historical location that no longer exists.
The third is also a bit tricky. One observation: movies are always stylized. Even in realistic movie set today, people don't quite talk the same way people do in real life (not even in a Robert Altman movie, where at least they talk over each other like real people do). In a period piece, some additional stylization is pretty standard, because the movie has to communicate very quickly and efficiently. Generally, you need to understand the gist of a character within a minute or two of seeing him or her, and characters need to convey their moods and intentions pretty clearly. If people behave and speak in an exactly period-accurate manner, you may wind up confusing the audience - for example, into believing a friendly, charming character is aloof and overly proper.
One example, from a quite different show: in "Deadwood," they had the characters (well, some of them) dropping four-letter words into virtually every sentence, though real people in the late 19th Century wouldn't have done so. But the words they really would have dropped - which sound quaint and only mild off-color today - would have sounded the same as the F-word to contemporary people. Leave it perfectly period-accurate, and a modern ear completely misinterprets the characters.
Anyway, there's a balance between making the movie seem in-period and making it understandable. I don't think all those tidy RP accents are period-accurate to Austen's time either (though that's a lot closer than having Shakespeare speak with an RP accent).
Meh, the histrionics and (deliberate!) historical inaccuracies of the 2005 version annoy me more each time I see it. I like the 1980 version, even if it's too stagey for modern tastes.
No hate, although I don't agree.
I think every movie version has its good features and its weaknesses. I prefer this one (the 1995 mini-series) but I admit it would be too much to view it all at one time. I like the fact that it allows for the same slow pace as the book itself; but there's a lot to be said for paring a story down for a film version, too.
I can appreciate the benefits of taking liberties with dialect, costume, historical background, and other details; or of moving the pace along by showing the audience facts which, in the novel, were written out as letters or lengthy dialogues. It's all fine, as long as the basic story itself is kept intact, and the characters and the tone of the book are retained. The Greer Garson film didn't stray too far from the novel; neither did the 1980 film, although it was low budget and a little tedious at times. The 1995 version, in spite of a few flaws, was in my opinion the most faithful to Austen's novel.
I must say the Keira Knightly version is not my favourite. The 2005 film, although gorgeous and full of brilliant actors, and certainly enjoyable to watch, strayed too far from Austen's book, not only missing some of her humour, but altering several characters beyond recognition, which I find pretty high-handed. Mr Bennet, for example, whose defining characteristic is his sarcasm, and who dismays Elizabeth by openly subjecting his wife to ridicule, is turned into a harmless, lethargic old coot, his biting remarks made into harmless joshing, and his bitter relationship with his wife turned friendly. You might say, what does it matter, since he is a minor character, and the central love story is intact; but as we read in the novel, Mr Bennet has influenced main character Elizabeth's attitude toward marriage very strongly. That is certainly relevant in a version which makes the main love story so central.
Changes like this not only alter the back story, they show a complete lack of respect for the author whose work they are supposedly portraying. It's a pity, because the movie was well made and well acted, not to mention a watchable length. I just wish the scriptwriters had trusted Austen with her own characters.
Changes like this not only alter the back story, they show a complete lack of respect for the author whose work they are supposedly portraying. It's a pity, because the movie was well made and well acted, not to mention a watchable length. I just wish the scriptwriters had trusted Austen with her own characters.
As an aside, P&P95 isn't as slavishly faithful as people think. Lots of good stuff in the book was left out, some of it in favor of gratuitous wet Darcy scenes.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
Very true, but you catch my drift. P&P95 goes in that direction; P&P05 in the other.
shareAbsolutely. But my personal favorite version is P&P80, which is even more "slavishly faithful" to the book, but I like the characterizations better than in any other adaptation.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
The wet Darcy scene was put in by Andrew Davies, to add sex appeal to the story. That was an admission on his part.
shareYou have just reiterated my point.
He also added the bathtub scene and the fencing scene, both of which were also meant to titillate and not to advance the plot.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
It worked. For those, and myself included, who have never read the book, that can be misleading, when Writers and Producers bring their own adaptions to the screen.
shareTry reading the book. It's so much better than any adaptation.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
He admitted that? I've heard him say pretty much the opposite.
shareYep!! My blu-ray set has interviews with Davies and some of the cast and crew. He states that scene was added for sex appeal. It's definitely not in the book. He also mentioned it in some other online articles.
share2005 is the worst out of all versions made!
shareI've seen interviews where he says it was a scene about "social embarrassment" and they were surprised by sex-appeal reaction it got. I don't really care one way or the other but he ought to stick to one story.
shareI imagine you'd be ecstatic when Disney produces an animated short version.
She is as dangerous as a rattlesnake, a cobra, and a black mamba rolled into one.
I prefer the Keira Knightley movie
Not true.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com