1995 Versus 2005 - Pride and Prejudice (1996) Discussion

[–] Annabelle2918 9 years ago

I agree about the 1995 estates. No mere Mister would own Chatsworth House (2005) for heaven's sake. It was as ridiculous as having muddy pigs walking around the Bennet house (2005).

The 2005 costumes are a joke. Elizabeth dressed like a chambermaid, with no bonnet, gloves or even shoes sometimes. Her hair a mess. Mr Darcy roaming the countryside half-naked.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

No mere Mister would own Chatsworth House (2005) for heaven's sake.

What do you mean - isn't Darcy much more than just a "mere Mister"?

It was as ridiculous as having muddy pigs walking around the Bennet house (2005).

Clutter, dirt all over the place, farm animals, mess, and hanging laundry, did tend to depress the movie a bit...

The 2005 costumes are a joke. Elizabeth dressed like a chambermaid, with no bonnet, gloves or even shoes sometimes.

The dresses could have always been a bit more flattering for movie purposes. However, Elizabeth is a bit of a rebel.

Her hair a mess.

MANY people like this - IMO from other threads MOST like it.

Mr Darcy roaming the countryside half-naked.

Why did you put this under "2005"?

reply

[–] tally1-934-484232 9 years ago

Chatsworth was the seat of the Duke of Devonshire, one of the grandest and richest men in all of Britain. The Devonshires income approached 100K a year, well over 100K acres in multiple counties and they owned multiple great houses as well as a London palace. The scale and size of Chatsworth, if you haven't been there, is genuinely impressive. It takes serious wealth over multiple generations to achieve something of that grandeur. Lyme Park, used for Pemberley in 1995, is more appropriate as it was the home of a more minor aristocratic family who were leading regional, not national, landowners, and if you have been to both houses you can understand why.

Darcy is certainly a grand man himself, but compared to the Devonshires he was minor. The difference between Darcy and the Devonshires might be akin to the difference between a wealthy man worth 100 million and a billionaire. Both rich in the eyes of average people, but in very different leagues within the upper classes.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

In the case of many characters including Darcy & Bingley it seems like wealth is almost always inherited. But was lavish inheritance good enough if there were for example, several sons in the family, or for all further generations, and did they live off only the appreciation of their properties, or was it more involved?

For example, it's stated that Darcy was worth around "10,000 pounds per year", but how exactly did that 10k derive? Was it only from appreciation of his land/property, or did he rent out houses on his property, or did he work, etc? I THINK the housekeeper said something to the effect "landlord".

Similar applies to Bingley, what did he do to earn "5000 per year"?

It seemed like Darcy & Bingley hardly ever did any actual work. How did people like that CONTINUE INCREASING their income? Land/Property appreciation only gets you so far.

I think it was also stated, and apparently speaking, that the Bennets also "lived off the land", however unlike Darcy and Bingley the Bennets did not have much property. So in the Bennets case, what does "live off the land", mean, how exactly did the derive income? I am guessing it has something to do with the farm animals we saw, etc.

reply

[–] gorye 9 years ago

The key to the ways of making their money, speaking of Darcy and Bingley, is what Mrs Bennet said in the very beginning of the novel. So it's easy to find:

"Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England". Bingley is newly rich and his money came from trade, whereas Darcy is a landowner - so, what kind of business bind them together? Speaking of the North and the rush of the industrial revolution - Darcy's mining operations, mineral extraction and all that - and Bingley's trading contacts, commercial business.

Alas, but the land for agriculture, farming and all that brought little then, look, Mr Bennet worked hard, but surely wasn't getting rich. The South got stuck in old ways and deteriorated steadfast, the North where manufacturing industry blossomed on the contrary, found the surest way from poverty to prosperity.
So Darcy was a smart guy in making friends with Bingley family.

if there were for example, several sons in the family

No, the land, money and all the rest got solely the hair. It never was devided, to prevent disastrous dissociation of capital and land. Otherwise it might come to nothing very quickly. Other sons, well, they got some solid education, or the noble profession in army maybe, and through their position and relationships more often than not - rich wives.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

"Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England". Bingley is newly rich and his money came from trade, whereas Darcy is a landowner - so, what kind of business bind them together? Speaking of the North and the rush of the industrial revolution - Darcy's mining operations, mineral extraction and all that - and Bingley's trading contacts, commercial business.

Well if you read the Subject Line of this thread, all we ever SEE of both Darcy & Bingley in BOTH 1995 and 2005, was that they always just sit around, or go horse riding, and occasionally dance at balls. We never see any actual work, or any knowledge thereof of any skills, trade, or industries. We know Darcy can write letters, but that's about the extent of any real work he undertook.

Alas, but the land for agriculture, farming and all that brought little then, look, Mr Bennet worked hard, but surely wasn't getting rich. The South got stuck in old ways and deteriorated steadfast, the North where manufacturing industry blossomed on the contrary, found the surest way from poverty to prosperity.

In terms of the Bennets my post isn't referring to "getting rich", but more so wondering how exactly the Bennets made a "living off the land", and if this is related to the farm animals we see, for example did they butcher up and sell pigs, or sell milk from cows, chickens, vegetables, etc?

reply

[–] gorye 9 years ago

Have you ever read the novel?

For Austen mere hints were more than enough, it's Elizabeth Gaskell, who had to struggle with detailed manufacturing proceedings, which only made them unbelievable.
That's why Austen is a genius, and Gaskell just a diligent craftsman (umm.. craftswoman). LoL.
Artist hadn't to paint a perfectly detailed picture; it would make just a copy and not a work of art. The Art must leave the space for imagination; beauty is in the eye of the beholder; otherwise we'd left with nothing own in the minds.
Art is not a dull soap operas which designed for chewing the cud.

And... pray, how many days exactly could you count when observing Darcy's activities in the P&P? Out of more than a year, which he actually lived within the plot of the novel-film?
Not much, and being far from his property, visiting, socialising in fact.

You may think he got the money just from box of tricks or the air, but in reality people from North rather had to dig their rocks to be rich. Pigs hardly would be of help.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

Have you ever read the novel?

Yes, but unfortunately at the drop of a hat I cannot remember exactly every word, line for line, from several 100s of pages in P&P, and similar applies to novels from many other authors I've read, which amounts to MILLIONS of words, and lines, and pages, and chapters, over the course of many novels, nor can I recite them all only from memory. Can you? The ONLY person I am aware of who is capable of such a feat is Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man, however he is a movie character!

Then again, this is more of a forum for movies. It's called IMDb which stands for Internet "Movie" Database, so it's preferred to discuss what's presented in movies as opposed to novels, however novels may be referenced as a secondary source, because according to IMDb, movies are the primary source.

Novels are the primary source of discussion on INDb, which stands for Internet Novel Database.

reply

[–] gorye 9 years ago

OK, but you explore rather IMDb, not movies. They are works of Art, too.
That's what is important. Books or film are the same in the sense I tried to discuss, so no matter. But not number of pigs or what.

How the makers do a piece of Art, or don't, failed.

And one mustn't remember every word of every book read, it's impression what lasted. Some knowing more, some less, but if one uninterested at all, then, why to bother typing MILLIONS of words, and lines here... and why am I to waste my time here, I wonder.

Back in the 90s, I liked this P&P board very much, till P&P2005 fans made it pet subject for trolling. And as can I see, nothing changed really. The same petty talks as ever.

So, time to go one more time for another decade???
See you in 2025!!! 

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tally1-934-484232 9 years ago

Darcy and the Bennets were both landowners who owned estates (very large in Darcy's case, smaller in the Bennets' case).

As landowners they lived off the incomes from their estates. Mr. Bennet is probably a straightforward situation of an estate comprising of a number of tenanted farms, and the farmers pay him rent (I think it the norm was on a quarterly basis). Longbourne is not far from London, so the crops from the tenanted farms were probably produce and grain for the London market.

In addition to the tenanted farms, there was probably a "home farm" that was not rented out but worked by labourers under the Bennets' direct employment. The general purpose of the home farm was to grow provisions for the Big House, where the milk cows were kept and livestock raised before butchering (assuming the Bennets didn't use the local butchers, which many gentry families did), and horses put to pasture when not needed. The surplus from the Home Farm could be sold for additional income.

In general, Mr. B doesn't really do anything except collect his rent and live well. He's a member of the landed gentry and a gentleman, so this type of idle lifestyle was the standard among men of his class and background.

Darcy's situation is the Bennets, but on a bigger scale. In addition to his estates, he may also have coal mines as Derbyshire was a coal mining country. The family would likely have owned the land prior to the development of the coal industry, and they would capitalize on the growing demand for coal by developing mines on their lands. He may also own town properties in local towns, which would be rented out.

He probably has substantial monies tied up in government bonds and securities and banks. His estate affairs would be more complicated than the Bennets, but he would also have estate factors/agents, who did most of the day to day administration and collection of revenues and rent and maintenance of infrastructure and assets, leaving Darcy to focus on the long term plans for the estate. If he was so inclined, of course. He may be just as idle as Mr. Bennet, happy to collect the rent and making sure the estate buildings are in good shape and spend his pastime reading, socializing and the winters in London for the season.

Most of the landowning gentry were thought of as part of the idle rich and derided by some people for not having proper jobs, but living off rent and profits generated by others, simply because they owned the land. Their lives were certainly very easy. This lifestyle as considered the proper lifestyle for a gentleman, which is why Bingley uses his family's fortune, generated from trade, to buy an estate and to set himseful up as a landed gentleman.

reply

[–] sokeyt 9 years ago

No mere Mister would own Chatsworth House (2005) for heaven's sake.

Why bring up Chatsworth? Lyme Park was the stand in for Pemberley. At the time the novel is set, it was owned by the Legh family: a mix of Misters and Sirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_Park

Everybody in the novel comments on the splendours of Pemberley. And it was owned by a "mere" Mister.

Vote Syriza and Podemos!

reply

[–] klorentz 9 years ago

Darcy half naked? You mean after his swim in the pond? Surely you don't mean 2005...all he was missing was a cravat.

reply

[–] supergran 9 years ago

It's irresistible, isn't it? 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] ninthcentury 9 years ago

It was putrid. Can you spell "anachronism"?

"Oooo, lookee, a Sneerfest I can jump in on!!!"

reply

[–] supergran 9 years ago

Pardon?

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

It was putrid. Can you spell "anachronism"?

Pardon?

Just Disregard - @ninthcentury might be a bit of a weirdo, shifting through everyone's posts writing one or two word responses and strange questions, like the one above! :) LOL

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I wouldn’t call the 2005 Darcy half naked but he’s missing more than his cravat, he’s not wearing a waist-coat or jacket. Unlike the 1995 Darcy he threw a coat on but he’s still not properly dressed.

Now that I think about it I find it more plausible that Darcy would go swimming on this own property and try to nip back to the house without being properly dressed, than I do he would walk all the way to Longbourn and then speak to Elizabeth’s father and ask for her hand in his 2005 state.

reply

[–] klorentz 9 years ago

Austen's Darcy knows that when he's not at home, his staff make extra tips by showing off the house. It's unlikely that Darcy's swim itself would have been observed, but since Darcy's staff still thinks him away, it's not at all unlikely that he would run across visitors on his walk from the pond. So Darcy's state, in broad daylight, even though on his own land, was far out of character than a dawn stroll sans cravat, and yes, you're correct, without waistcoat or jacket. I agree that Austen's Darcy would have dressed properly for a proposal.

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

Sure he knows it’s possible but it may not be on the top of his mind. It’s much like my thinking I can run over to the store real quick looking a mess even though I know I have acquaintances who shop in the same store. He may have come home on other occasions without running into anyone or momentarily forgotten that his staff doesn’t expect him, or told his steward he’s coming and expected him to pass it on. It’s not the sort of thing Darcy would normally do but sometimes people do things they normally wouldn’t and it speaks to the distraction of his mind.

If in 2005 he only means to go for a stroll and isn’t actually planning to walk the three miles to Longbourn then I can see it. I had the impression he walked there on purpose after his aunt's visit taught him to hope but it’s not actually stated so you may be right.

reply

[–] klorentz 9 years ago

We can twist this any way we like to suit our notions of who and what Darcy is. I was so appalled by the swim scene waaay back in 1995 and absolutely loathe the whole encounter between Lizzy and Damp Darcy, in that they're both embarrassed for all the wrong reasons...Davies v. Austen.

I really doubt 2005 Darcy thought he'd find anyone about at dawn.

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

Yes but in your opinion did the 2005 Darcy just start walking and unintentionally end up at Longbourn? If not why would he walk the three miles to Lizzy’s house and then, what, turn around and walk the three miles back before it gets late enough for anyone to see him?

My impression was that after his aunt’s visit he was determined to know all and that if Lizzy hadn’t been outside he would have called on her and that the early hour was intended to show the strength of his feelings, as if he could no longer stay away. As I said that if that wasn’t the case I find it more plausible that he’s so underdressed.

Also it looks to me like he’s in the same state when he delivers his letter to Lizzy, does he not expect to see anyone on that occasion either, even though he’s entered the parsonage?

reply

[–] klorentz 9 years ago

I thought of it more along the lines of "on the street where you live." He couldn't sleep, he went walking and his subconscious took him to Longbourn. Surely he didn't think Lizzy would be about at that hour.

As for the letter scene, I think most of it is Lizzy's imagination....staring in the mirror...coming up behind her without her ever moving? Makes no sense.

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

OK that I can see. (But I didn’t mean that he expected Lizzy to be outside.)

If the letter scene is mostly imaginary than I have to say that the 2005 wins for imaginary Darcy popping up in mirrors because 2005 Lizzy has the imagination to see him dressed as he will appear in the future rather than how she has actually seen him while 1995 only has enough to imagine his decapitated head. ;)–OK now I’m getting silly – thanks for your replies. :)

reply

[–] klorentz 9 years ago

Weeeeelll, as much as I love this adaptation (and it was NOT love at first sight), there's a lot to get silly about. "Mr. Darcy, what are you doing here?" "I'm a guest." Duh.

reply

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

I agree with your list for the most part. The 2005 version has brilliant actors, great scenery and interiors, and wonderful costumes. Unfortunately, the 1995 version wins out in what I think are the more important matters of being true to the original novel and to the characters. The 1995 Pride and Prejudice is a faithful translation of the novel to film; the 2005 movie is not. I sometimes wondered while watching the 2005 version whether the scriptwriters had ever read the novel; they could have easily made the film by basing a script on the study notes.

One example: the character of Charlotte Lucas was badly mismanaged in the 2005 film.
According to the novel, Charlotte is supposed to be as intelligent and sensible as Elizabeth. She is more or less forced by circumstances to accept marriage with a conceited dunce. So far, both films capture the situation well enough.
But when Elizabeth goes to visit Charlotte after her marriage, she finds that Charlotte has found ways to be happy and comfortable, by avoiding her husband when she can, and ignoring his foolishness when she can't. She and Elizabeth clearly understand the situation, and Elizabeth sees that her friend has made the best of her bad circumstances. The 1995 film captures this perfectly, and without losing Jane Austen's humour.
In the 2005 movie, married Charlotte has been turned into a female Mr Collins. She adopts his abject reverence for Lady Catherine; she takes on his ridiculous interests and obsessions; she totally changes her personality and loses her common sense. The poignancy of Charlotte, left without options, being tied to a fool for life and bravely coping with it is missed altogether. It's a complete misunderstanding of the character and her situation.

And that's just one character!

The 2005 version is enjoyable to watch, but it simply is not Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The 1995 movie is the only one which truly captures the book, its humour, and its characters.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

... the 1995 version wins out in what I think are the more important matters of being true to the original novel and to the characters. The 1995 Pride and Prejudice is a faithful translation of the novel to film; the 2005 movie is not.

@ Mamabadger56 - that's why the OP states 1995 wins wrt "Accurate Portrayal of Novel" and "Character Development". I think most agree that the 1995 series is a much more holistic depiction of the novel, whereas the 2005 version forces the audience to grasp subtle cues, often read between the lines, do more research after the fact, and get around to reading the book! :)

The 2005 version is enjoyable to watch, but it simply is not Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The 1995 movie is the only one which truly captures the book, its humour, and its characters.

The 2005 production deliberately took a different approach to Pride & Prejudice ~ a completely different beast if you will. I know that it is documented & quoted somewhere that the film makers had objectives of introducing P&P and Jane Austen to a New Generation, appeal to broader based Younger Audiences, and attract their attention to the novel.

I sometimes wondered while watching the 2005 version whether the scriptwriters had ever read the novel; they could have easily made the film by basing a script on the study notes.

They had to condense around 400 pages of the book including so many characters & events into around a ~2 hour movie because they did not want to stretch things out to an epic of around 3+ hours. This is a challenging and difficult task and I think absolutely that they very carefully studied the novel in an attempt to extract critical & pivotal elements, as well as decide on inclusions, exclusions, and how everything should be presented. How could this possibly be achieved by NOT carefully studying the book and resorting merely to Cole's Notes?? Given the little time that they had to work with, IMO the objectives were achieved, and the result is a masterful production.

Now to address the majority of your post. When you think of most "Hollyweird" flicks how many main characters are there usually? In the majority of cases we have our hero//protagonist who is our central figure around whom the story encompasses and evolves, his/her love or romantic interest, a primary antagonist or group thereof, and perhaps several fill in characters if you will, which usually include the protagonist's best friend(s), some family members, etc. IMO this "design" is adopted, encompasses, and transcends throughout the entire 2005 production from script, to screenplay, to character development, etc, and more so, cinematography, music, and scenery, was INTEGRATED par excellence.

The entire production was an attempt at extracting the main elements of the original novel as per Hollyweird standards and tell the story of Elizabeth - our central figure, Darcy - love interest, Lady Catherine - primary antagonist, and Jane - family member. The latter more so than others because Jane's sub-plot was more critical to "Elizabeth's story", whereas Lydia's and Charlotte's sub-plots were not as critical, nevertheless, IMO, Lydia, Charlotte, Collins, and Wickham, did get adequate screen time to afford an understanding of how they're associated with our central figure.

I read the book, watched both 1995 & 2005 several times, and re 2005 if you consider subtle cues & nuances, almost everything was fit in to some extent or another. So if you look at it this way, 2005 extracted and gave focus to what you wrote - "more important matters".

Further to the above, characters & events critical to supporting the main elements - in this case Elizabeth's story - received sufficient screen time, and characters less critical to Elizabeth's story, were given less screen play, or excluded entirely. Some other examples of this versus 1995 include the Bingley/Darcy entourage being reduced by 3 people, much less Collins involvement, the story of Lydia & Wickham which was significantly stretched out to the max in 1995, and showing Darcy writing his letter to Elizabeth took a LONG TIME in 1995 -- "OK - we get it already"! lol

reply

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

I don't see the problem as too little screen time to certain characters or situations. I can see that the story would need to be pared down considerably. That's not the same thing as altering some of the characters beyond recognition.

Even if, as you say, the 2005 film focused more narrowly on the central character (Elizabeth Bennet) and the main plot of her complicated romance, changing characters she's closely involved with affects how that character is defined.

Take the example I mentioned before - Charlotte Lucas. In the novel, Charlotte is Elizabeth's closest friend. It's established that Charlotte is as intelligent and sensible as Elizabeth; they have a close connection and understand each other well, and their relationship is part of understanding Elizabeth's character. That all changes if you decide to make Charlotte foolish and gullible, a ridiculous character as opposed to a noble one who is forced into a ridiculous situation. It also removes from the story an experience that contributes to Elizabeth's gradual learning curve regarding love and marriage.

The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Mr Collins. In the 2005 version, he is still ridiculous, but less offensive. He is not as pretentious, arrogant, and self-important as in the novel (and the 1995 film); mostly he is just dull and socially awkward. This makes the reasons for Elizabeth's refusal of him just a little less clear cut. It also makes Charlotte's marriage to him, combined with the revised version of Charlotte, seem like much less of a sacrifice than it was supposed to. It was Charlotte who was pressured into an unfortunate marriage, but Elizabeth is subject to all the same pressures, and knows she might well find herself in Charlotte's position, so again, we lose some understanding of Elizabeth as a character.

The same goes for changes made to the character of Mr Bennet. In the novel, Elizabeth is close to her father, but is also distressed by the way he subjects his wife to ridicule, and uses his daughters as subject matter for his biting humour. Her primary example of marriage is a negative one, mainly for this reason. While Blethyn's Mrs Bennet is just as silly and shallow as Austen portrayed her, the 2005 movie took away Mr Bennet's defining characteristic, his sarcasm. He's portrayed as mostly lethargic, and his vicious jokes are softened into friendly joshing. The home which formed Elizabeth's idea of love and marriage is therefore altered as well.

None of these changes helped shorten the film time or clarify the story in any way. They simply change the characters Austen wrote, and for no good reason I can see. Why would the filmmakers want young readers to look into Austen's novels, if they don't like or respect her writing, or the characters she created, enough to portray them with a reasonable amount of accuracy?

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

I don't see the problem as too little screen time to certain characters or situations. I can see that the story would need to be pared down considerably. That's not the same thing as altering some of the characters beyond recognition.

Who is altered beyond recognition? I don't consider dialog, or lack thereof, or the script necessarily, as a map for a character's personality or traits, especially when it comes to movies. Given that, I think the 2005 Mrs. Bennet is a much better portrayal than the 1995 Mrs. Bennet who is pretty much botched. In fact, prior to being given the job of Mrs. Bennet, Alison Steadman was barely familiar with Pride and Prejudice, had not read the book, did not understand the character, and completely botched Mrs. Bennet. So it's not dialog & verbiage, or lack of it, that ruins a character in movies, it's the actor, and acting, and direction!

Even if, as you say, the 2005 film focused more narrowly on the central character (Elizabeth Bennet) and the main plot of her complicated romance, changing characters she's closely involved with affects how that character is defined.

I don't think anyone is "changed", and in fact, I think everyone is enhanced, so on this point I guess we have to agree to disagree :)

Take the example I mentioned before - Charlotte Lucas. In the novel, Charlotte is Elizabeth's closest friend. It's established that Charlotte is as intelligent and sensible as Elizabeth; they have a close connection and understand each other well, and their relationship is part of understanding Elizabeth's character. That all changes if you decide to make Charlotte foolish and gullible, a ridiculous character as opposed to a noble one who is forced into a ridiculous situation. It also removes from the story an experience that contributes to Elizabeth's gradual learning curve regarding love and marriage.

If you are implying that in 2005 "Charlotte (is made to look) foolish and gullible, (or portrayed as) a ridiculous character", I emphatically disagree. In all of the novel, 1995, and ESPECIALLY 2005, Charlotte is made out as the most impressive & strongest woman in the cast. Charlotte is in her situation due to societal circumstances and pressure, however she takes power into her own hands, makes a point of doing something about it, and sculpts her own future.

In 2005, Charlotte scopes out Collins during the Bingley ball - not the other way around - the same way Darcy scopes out Elizabeth. After Elizabeth rejects Collins, Charlotte sees her opportunity, seizes it, capitalizes on it, secures her stability for the rest of her life, and as a bonus, she ingeniously architects her own private living quarters!

Charlotte is polite, but steadfast, in the face of humiliation (by Lady Catherine). Given the situation, Charlotte is aggressive if called for, reacts, and adjusts her demeanor & disposition accordingly. If all of the above can't be described as "intelligent and sensible" then I don't know what can. Can any of the above be characterized as "made to look foolish and gullible, (and/or) a ridiculous character"?

The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Mr Collins. In the 2005 version, he is still ridiculous, but less offensive. He is not as pretentious, arrogant, and self-important as in the novel (and the 1995 film); mostly he is just dull and socially awkward.

I'm asking sincerely -- when was the last time you watched 2005? Right from his introduction we can tell that Collins is a bumbling idiot, and that everyone is laughing, or sneering at his arrogance and pretension. "Oh, believe me, no one would suspect your manners to be rehearsed". This is made Crystal Clear. There are numerous examples & implications of this via both diction and acting, which transcends throughout all of (apres) dinner, the ball, Bingely's sister, Darcy, proposal, preaching at church - "intercourse" - and 2005 does a better job of depicting Collins' oblivion to all of this.

This makes the reasons for Elizabeth's refusal of him just a little less clear cut.

So we all know Collins is a buffoon. In 2005, Elizabeth begged Jane and her father to stick around, was EXTREMELY uncomfortable, screamed at Collins, and ran out the door all the way to the lake!!! LOL If you add these together how is it not clear cut??

It also makes Charlotte's marriage to him, combined with the revised version of Charlotte, seem like much less of a sacrifice than it was supposed to. It was Charlotte who was pressured into an unfortunate marriage, but Elizabeth is subject to all the same pressures, and knows she might well find herself in Charlotte's position, so again, we lose some understanding of Elizabeth as a character.

See my notes on Charlotte above, which IMO, impresses greatly upon Elizabeth. In 2005, Charlotte is responsible for Elizabeth's "A-HA" moment. In one fell swoop, the audience is privy to the dire straights of women of the era, the Bennett girls, and Elizabeth's absolute understanding of this. As I often post - it's brilliant! 2005 is extremely dense with brilliance packed into every minute! :)

... Why would the filmmakers want young readers to look into Austen's novels, if they don't like or respect her writing, or the characters she created, enough to portray them with a reasonable amount of accuracy?

I guess we again have to agree to disagree. Why would they even embark on a multi-million production ($28M according to IMDb) if they did not respect the novel or Jane Austen??? Why not just work on a different project involving a different author, or novel, or characters, that they did respect? Please review my previous post on this matter.

I think Jane Austen would be extremely entertained, honored, impressed, and fully understand every page and piece of dialog is unnecessary in the making of a movie which many consider to be a masterpiece, which in turn generates the interest to seek out her novel, and IMO they absolutely succeeded on many levels :)

reply

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

We will definitely have to agree to disagree, as we seem to see these films from very different perspectives. Fair enough.

Just for clarification, the scenes which I thought had changed Charlotte inappropriately were after her marriage; the ones during Elizabeth's visit to Hunsford. In the novel (and the 1995 film), Charlotte has found a way to live with Mr Collins with minimal irritation to herself. She spends as much time as possible apart from him; she ignores his ramblings and his fawning on Lady Catherine. It is clear that she and Elizabeth are of one mind about her ridiculous husband, and Charlotte is sometimes subtly apologetic to Elizabeth for Mr Collins' remarks. Charlotte - the original character as written by Austen - is just as intelligent as ever, and has found a way to work around Mr Collins. She still realizes how foolish he is, how much of a petty tyrant Lady Catherine is, but keeps it to herself - except for the hints that are understood by her best friend.
In the 2005 movie, however, Charlotte has completely absorbed Mr Collins' attitudes. She is just as impressed as he is by Lady Catherine, is just as excited when a barouche from Rosings drives by their house, reverently breathes "How wonderful!" when told they have been invited by Lady Catherine for dinner, and approach Lady C during their visit to Rosings with the same exaggerated deference as her husband - leaving only Elizabeth to behave rationally toward Her Ladyship. The movie even gives her a share of one of Mr Collins' stupidly rude comments: he assures Elizabeth that her clothing is good enough for Rosings, because Lady Catherine is tolerant of her social inferiors; and Charlotte, instead of recognizing how patronizing this is, assures Elizabeth that the best dress she's brought should be adequate. In the novel, that speech was made by Mr Collins; it was out of character for Charlotte to agree with and contribute to it.
The novel shows us the plight of a sensitive, intelligent woman married to a buffoon, who has calmly made the best of her situation. The 2005 film instead has her transform into the same kind of buffoon. That was what I meant by changing the character inappropriately.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

In the 2005 movie, however, Charlotte has completely absorbed Mr Collins' attitudes.

Charlotte has control & power over Collins, as well as her own life relative to Collins. Charlotte is still and always has been her own person, she's the MASTER of the household, and this is evidently depicted.

One of the first things we see when Elizabeth visits Hunsford is Collins babbling while Charlotte completely ignores him, leads Elizabeth into her PRIVATE quarters, and closes the door on him while he's still rambling!!! This acts as exemplary evidence regarding Charlotte's "attitude", disposition, & situation. If this scene can remotely be construed as an opinion, then please enlighten me!

She is just as impressed as he is by Lady Catherine, is just as excited when a barouche from Rosings drives by their house,

Not quite - Charlotte is alarmed because Collins screams at her through the window, and her initial excitement is due to thinking "the pig escaped again". She is not initially excited by LC's carriage rolling by, but rather, points out the grandeur of the entourage to Elizabeth. If you see a Rolls Royce driving by your place you might think the same regardless of distaste for the millionaire that owns it!

reverently breathes "How wonderful!" when told they have been invited by Lady Catherine for dinner,

Once again, Charlotte is making the best of what might be an uncomfortable situation -- a) she has a friend over from out of town, b) her extremely powerful neighbor whose property her house sits on invites them over for dinner, obviously in favor of Elizabeth (hence this is "wonderful"), c) this constitutes an evening of entertainment for Elizabeth on her first night - relatively speaking a pompous affair with superior cuisine, in a grand mansion - relative to the humdrum experience she could offer Elizabeth with Collins babbling throughout dinner, (again - "wonderful"), and d) most importantly - obviously an invitation she MUST accept, and cannot reject (unlike Elizabeth in 1995).

The tone Charlotte uses for "how wonderful" is not an exclamation, but more so resignation to all of the points above. Despite that, how would you react, what would you say?

In this scene, if I was the screenplay writer, I might write - "well she's a bit of a bitch - but we might have fun - let's try to make the best of it". How would you depict this situation? If you were in charge of the script how would you write it?

and approach Lady C during their visit to Rosings with the same exaggerated deference as her husband - leaving only Elizabeth to behave rationally toward Her Ladyship.

Not only is Charlotte a GUEST invited to her LANDLORD's mansion for dinner, it would be paramount to suicide for her to challenge Lady Catherine, who she must put up with for who knows how many years! You're equating Charlotte's silence and manners with Collins' enthrallment of Lady Catherine???

I see no evidence of Charlotte exhibiting similar excitement or sentiment regarding LC as the over-enthralled Collins. She's merely resigned to her situation. Charlotte is also aware of her manners, place in society, holds back when it's called for, and reacts to LC's innuendos & insults with control, discipline, politeness, and undue courtesy & respect. I wrote more about this in my last post. In this case Charlotte has no choice!

On the other hand, it is within Elizabeth's character to be more strong headed, thus her perceived irreverence wrt Lady Catherine. You seriously cannot expect Charlotte to interject on Elizabeth's behalf, especially to LC, but the opposite is plausible. This contrast between Charlotte and Elizabeth gives us deep insight into both the characters. Elizabeth challenges attacks head on and speaks her mind - that's her character. Charlotte avoids such situations, or flips them, or takes a back seat, but all the while she remains extremely observant.

The movie even gives her a share of one of Mr Collins' stupidly rude comments: he assures Elizabeth that her clothing is good enough for Rosings, because Lady Catherine is tolerant of her social inferiors; and Charlotte, instead of recognizing how patronizing this is, assures Elizabeth that the best dress she's brought should be adequate. In the novel, that speech was made by Mr Collins; it was out of character for Charlotte to agree with and contribute to it.

In the movie it's not a "speech", but rather a simple statement, but acts as another example that strongly emphasizes Collins arrogance, pretension, inappropriateness, & offensiveness -- the opposite of what you wrote in an earlier post that such examples are not so evident in 2005.

Again, as per my last post, and as stated here, Charlotte always understands the best way to control, handle, and manage situations, as well as herself, and 2005 absolutely portrays this. Also, that's exactly what Charlotte is doing here. She's Countering and Controlling and Managing the situation and Collins' erratic insult and ridiculous words, by smiling, reassuring Elizabeth that it's OK, and putting her at ease by saying "just put on whatever you bought that's best".

You are yet again associating Charlotte's SILENCE, or lack of speech, with AGREEMENT of Collins' non-sensical philosophy. This scene does not at all convey what you described - that Charlotte AGREES with Collin's insulting disparagement and BS! Charlotte has not miraculously absorbed or encompassed Collins' idiocy!

Why are you associating Charlotte with Collins' absurdity, and placing blame on her for his stupidity?? Charlotte can't control what spews from Collins' offensive mouth, let alone agreeing with it!

The novel shows us the plight of a sensitive, intelligent woman married to a buffoon, who has calmly made the best of her situation. The 2005 film instead has her transform into the same kind of buffoon. That was what I meant by changing the character inappropriately.

Obviously you know my sentiments regarding this statement.

Anyway, let's consider that this transformation of Charlotte in 2005 is in fact accurate. How do any of the examples as cited have an effect on the central plot, and/or critical elements of the story, and/or major premise(s)?

Charlotte is a supporting character whose demise acts as a point of reference for Elizabeth, the plight of many women in the period, and the socio-economic pressures they experience & undergo. You seem to portray Charlotte as evolving into some kind of antagonist, whereas she holds Elizabeth in high regard, and wishes only the best for her. They are best friends!

reply

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

I guess we're of two minds on this. To me, Charlotte's taking on Mr Collins' attitudes, seconding his patronizing statement, etc. was presented in a very obvious and deliberate way, and was inconsistent for the character. I think our opposing views of this have been made clear, and other viewers can judge for themselves.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

I guess we're of two minds on this. To me, Charlotte's taking on Mr Collins' attitudes, seconding his patronizing statement, etc. was presented in a very obvious and deliberate way, and was inconsistent for the character. I think our opposing views of this have been made clear, and other viewers can judge for themselves.

Agree, but just to clarify/confirm/summarize your view - you are saying that in the 2005 version of Pride & Prejudice, Charlotte is portrayed as, or the character has undergone a transformation from the novel or 1995, which includes absorbing, encompassing, agreement with, or support of, Collins' seemingly erratic and outrageous attitude, views, philosophy, etc - is that correct?

reply

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

Yes, or rather, the married Charlotte has taken on some of Mr Collins' attitude, his tendency to fawn, and his insensitivity. In the 2005 film, Charlotte prior to marriage was closer to the original character, and in any case her personality wasn't shown in enough detail to be entirely sure. But once married, the 2005 movie changed her in that way, and I find it completely inconsistent with the character in the novel, or with anyone who could have been the closest friend of Elizabeth Bennet.

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I agree with much of what you say but I don’t see Charlotte (in the book) as giving Lizzy any hints about her true feelings or as “subtly apologetic to Elizabeth for Mr. Collins' remarks”. (Maybe she was too subtle for me ;o) She strikes me more as the sort of person who is always professional and you never know how she really feels. I do see these hints in the ’95 but I take it as something that was done because we can’t read Lizzy’s thoughts rather than something Charlotte would really do.

I’m not convinced Charlotte shares Lizzy’s opinion of Lady Catherine, or at least not to the same degree. While Charlotte doesn’t fawn over Lady Catherine to the extent that Mr. Collins does we do see earlier in the book that she is more impressed by rank and fortune than Elizabeth is:

“One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man, with family, fortune, everything in his favour, should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud." (Ch 6)

Charlotte could not help cautioning her in a whisper not to be a simpleton, and allow her fancy for Wickham to make her appear unpleasant in the eyes of a man of ten times his consequence. (ch 18)

And more importantly she’s practical enough to do what will help her husband’s career:

Very few days passed in which Mr. Collins did not walk to Rosings, and not many in which his wife did not think it necessary to go likewise; and till Elizabeth recollected that there might be other family livings to be disposed of, she could not understand the sacrifice of so many hours.( ch 30)

This is also confirmed in her wishes for Lizzy. She thinks Darcy is a better match than Colonel Fitzwilliam because he “has considerable patronage in the church” and the Colonel none. Patronage in the church wouldn’t really effect Lizzy’s happiness but it could help her Mr. Collins’ career.

I agree that in the 2005 she looks as if she shares her husband’s opinions because she encourages Lizzy to come and see (filling in for Maria) and because she says Mr. Collins’ line about the dress.

reply

[–] Mamabadger56 9 years ago

In the novel, most of Charlotte's hints or subtle attitude about Mr Collins reaches us through Elizabeth's reactions. That is how Elizabeth reads her, and being her best friend for many years, I would assume her take on it is supposed to be accurate. The inappropriate remarks are all Mr Collins'.
But I think you're right about Charlotte having more respect, or at least practical recognition, for the value of rank.

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I take Lizzy's reactions as Lizzy being able to see what she's doing. I agree that her take is accurate I just don't see her as needing hints from Charlotte in order to catch on. "subtle attitude" I agree with.

reply

[–] fscinico 8 years ago

I don't see the problem as too little screen time to certain characters or situations. I can see that the story would need to be pared down considerably. That's not the same thing as altering some of the characters beyond recognition.

This was done intentionally by the director in P&P05.

The early drafts of the 2005 script by Deborah Moggach (available online) were very faithful to the novel, but Joe Wright encouraged her to take more liberties later on.

A few characters were indeed altered, but the essential story is there--80% or 90% of the dialogue in P&P05 is lifted from the novel, and all the key plot elements (P&P's greatest hits) are there.

Just because Mr. Bennet is more likable and less sarcastic in P&P05 than in the novel, or Elizabeth (intentionally) more modern does not prevent the viewer from understanding or enjoying the story, especially because the intended audience of P&P05 is comprised of younger non-Austenites.

The purpose of the movie is to make the non-Austenite viewers like the story to the point where they want to read the book.

The book. Not The Book.

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I know this is a tangent but I consider Wickham more of an antagonist than Lady Catherine.

Before the story even starts Wickham has frittered away the money Darcy gave him, tried to get more out of Darcy, and then tried to elope with Darcy’s sister for her money. At a time when character is everything he spreads vicious lies about Darcy’s character and in doing so tempts Lizzy to be the worst version of herself (because she finds Darcy dislikable she is easily convinced of his being unprincipled and unjust). This IMO creates the biggest hurdle for Lizzy to overcome. And of course Wickham also runs off with Lydia which would have ruined her and her sisters if Darcy hadn’t intervened. Thereby giving Lizzy reason to think she has lost Darcy’s good opinion which clarifies her own feelings. Plus it gives Darcy a chance to save the day. He’s there from early on advancing the plot.

Lady Catherine only comes in, as an antagonist, toward the end. By trying to prevent the marriage she shows that Darcy really will face some family obstacles and that Elizabeth will be able to hold her own against them. She gives Elizabeth more reason to worry but only for a short time and brings them together more quickly by giving Darcy reason to hope. An important part of be sure but IMO not as big as Wickham’s.

But IMO both Darcy and Lizzy are their own worst enemies and their real obstacles are more about overcoming their own faults than obstacles presented by an outside antagonist. And that goes back to your point about extracting the main elements. It’s a rich enough story that we aren’t all going to see the same things as important and this influences our opinions of adaptions. To me the important part of Lizzy’s story is that both she and Darcy are wrong about some things but neither is wrong about everything. They are each challenged by the other; they each confront their own faults and are better people for it. IMO the 2005 doesn’t do the story justice because Darcy’s character is softened in the beginning, his change at Pemberley isn’t as clear and we don’t get Darcy’s admission that he thinks meanly of those outside his circle or any of the “by you I am properly humbled” speech. But I can see why those who find other elements important feel differently.

About the letter: IMO the 1995 would have judged better to spend a bit more time on it rather than giving the impression that Wickham wanted revenge because Darcy gave him 3,000 pounds. ;o)

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

@ teatat - good point about including Wickham as an antagonist, and ALSO that his actions bring out the worst in Elizabeth, which includes some definition of antagonism. As far as I can tell, as it applies to Elizabeth, this is always seemingly indirect, or behind the scenes, in all of the novel, 1995, and 2005.

Lady Catherine only comes in, as an antagonist, toward the end.

In 2005 IMO Lady Catherine's antagonism against//towards Elizabeth is depicted much earlier, and made clear right from their introductions. When Lady Catherine asks "you know my nephew?", there is no reason for her to stand up, which mildly hints at aggression, as well as foreshadowing. Why else have Lady Catherine stand up right at that particular moment? During dinner Lady Catherine rudely - and deliberately I might add - interrupts Elizabeth & Darcy in the middle of a conversation, and continues badgering her with insulting innuendos. Further to my first post on this topic, this is presented by subtle cues & nuances in 2005 - more reasons for cementing my opinion that 2005 is a brilliant movie. In 1995 a lot of this is presented differently and much more politely. After dinner Lady Catherine leverages her power to demand that Elizabeth play the piano - an attempt to embarrass.

Also, good point that Elizabeth & Darcy act as their own internal antagonists, as well as playing off each other, which additionally supports this concept.

About the letter: IMO the 1995 would have judged better to spend a bit more time on it rather than giving the impression that Wickham wanted revenge because Darcy gave him 3,000 pounds. ;o)

Pardon moi ~ care to re-phrase? I thought Wickham's desire for "revenge" was more holistic so to speak. That is, revenge for things such as Darcy NOT giving him even more moola, his own disposition relative to Darcy (which btw is Wickham's own fault), and other things like that...

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

Re: As far as I can tell, as it applies to Elizabeth, this is always seemingly indirect, or behind the scenes, in all of the novel, 1995, and 2005.

Agreed

I see what you mean about Lady Catherine’s antagonism in the 2005. I guess I didn’t really think about it that way because Lizzy doesn’t seem, to me to, be much effected by it. It would have been more accurate to say Wickham has more impact (IMO).

I was being silly about the letter: In the ’95 they skip the part about Wickham spending all his money and then asking to be given the living after all. So it goes from Darcy giving him the money, to Darcy saying Wickham’s life was one of idleness and dissipation, to Wickham trying to elope with Georgiana. Which Darcy says Wickham did partly for revenge (to paraphrase). If I hadn’t read the book I might have been thinking “Revenge for what? –Giving him 3,000 pounds?” ;) (If I remember correctly the 2005 hits all the relevant points of the Darcy/Wickham back-story even though it’s condensed for time.)

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 9 years ago

Re: As far as I can tell, as it applies to Elizabeth, this is always seemingly indirect, or behind the scenes, in all of the novel, 1995, and 2005.

Agreed

Forgot to mention "except for Wickham often lying to Elizabeth's face (!!!) in all of the novel, 1995, & 2005", which btw supports your contention.

I see what you mean about Lady Catherine’s antagonism in the 2005. I guess I didn’t really think about it that way because Lizzy doesn’t seem, to me to, be much affected by it.

Agree, but only as it applies after the fact, and later, and this applies to all of the novel, 1995, & 2005. The brilliance of 2005 shines as Lady Catherine’s badgering & innuendos take place, you can in fact sense the impact it has on Elizabeth, in the moment, and during the situation. A lot people think that you need every single page of dialogue to present a picture without considering that "a picture says a thousand words" but the 2005 production team understands this, and capitalized on it!!! Here's one minor & small example:
Lady Catherine - "Do you draw"?

Elizabeth - "No, not at all".

LC - "Your sisters, do they draw"?

Liz - "Not one".

LC - "That's very strange".

Liz - Rolls her eyes and thinks "WTF".

LC - "I suppose you had no opportunity".

Liz - Rolls her eyes and thinks "WTF". Like I said, "one minor & small example", but we don't see a lot of these subtle cues & nuances in 1995. There's many examples in 2005 indicating Elizabeth's laid back, "forgive & forget", attitude & personality. However, in the moment that things happen, they do have an effect.

IMO Pride & Prejudice is one of Keira Knightley's best performances and this goes highly under-rated!

Here's another small example: Bingley - But her sister Elizabeth is very agreeable.

Darcy - Barely tolerable, I dare say. But not handsome enough to tempt me. You'd better
return to your partner and enjoy her smiles. You're wasting your time with me.

Charlotte - Count your blessings, Lizzy. If he liked you, you'd have to talk to him.

Elizabeth - Precisely. As it is I wouldn't dance with him for all of Darbyshire, let
alone the miserable half.
Yet another example of what I'm TRYING to describe here is when Darcy nabs Elizabeth roaming around Pemberley. Check out the nuances in 2005. In 1995 the situation has Darcy running into Elizabeth after taking a dip in the pond... would Jane Austen have considered this?!? :)

2005 gives us creativity into insight, acting, cinematography, scenery, sound, and tons more. 1995 serves its purpose by giving us (a video depiction of) the book on a silver platter, but we already pretty much have the book readily available, and apart from what's written in the OP, that's about it. Of course this is my own personal opinion! :)

reply

[–] teatat 9 years ago

Ah, what you took as Lizy thinking “WTF” I took as Lizy thinking “This woman is absurdly impertinent” but either way you can see through subtle nuances that like in the book “Elizabeth felt all the impertinence of her questions, but answered them very composedly” – I agree with you there.

I agree that Lizy’s part in the “she’s tolerable” is very well done. The thing I don’t like about that scene is that Darcy doesn’t see that Lizy is nearby when he makes that remark. It wasn’t a nice thing to say but that could happen to almost anyone (aside from Jane Bennet who never says anything mean). In the book Darcy makes eye contact with Lizy and sees how close she is, which gives me the impression he doesn’t care whether she overhears him on not, demonstrating the sort of disregard for other’s feelings that Lizzy latter accuses him of. (The 1980 has that problem as well.) But of course that goes back to what I said in my other post about each of us finding different things important. There are many things I enjoy about each adaption and things I find to criticize in each.

reply

[–] rfrf101 7 years ago

The 2005 version sucked on every level, was overromanticized, and just plain uncooth!

reply

[–] supergran 7 years ago

Uncouth.

Ah, but do you have the P&P first editions? Austen's publishers made her remove much of the romance for the later editions. 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] gorye 7 years ago

Do you really have the first - Jan 1813 - edition of P&P? Or a text, or facsimile or something?
I found none except 1st page of it.

I mean, can you prove the differences you've mentioned above?
Very interested to know really, and many others too, I'm sure...

Please, do enlighten us!

reply

[–] supergran 7 years ago

Sorry, gorye. It's an in-joke that I hope the previous poster appreciates. 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] gorye 7 years ago

Ah, well... I'm just a bookworm. Tried to find 1st edition once, since ready to swallow the bait.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gorye 7 years ago

Ah, well... I'm just a bookworm. Tried to find 1st edition once, since ready to swallow the bait.

reply

[–] rfrf101 7 years ago

You got me on that one. I do not own the First Editions of P&P; but I can tell you that 2005 was still out in the left field.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

1980. I like that version the best. I liked that Darcy’s performance more than Firth’s.

I did not like the Darcy in the 2005 version.Great actor but not handsome enough to tempt me

The worst version is the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version. The actors were actually well suited to the roles, but Hollywood botched the story and turned it into a silly romance.

reply

[–] Stratego (29241) 5 years ago

The 1995 version is almost perfect.

reply