Why is there a pig walking through the house? - Pride & Prejudice (2005) Discussion

You THINK you saw a pig in the house. What you actually saw was a pig walking through a passageway between the house and the farm buildings.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

[–] supergran 7 years ago

Doncha just love this old chestnut, Julie? Comes around with predictable regularity! Lol. 

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

reply

[–] the_reminder 7 years ago

Whether or not it's actually in the house or just outside it in the shot, I like that the Bennets in this adaptation lived in a house where you wouldn't really be surprised to see a pig inside. It reminded me of Mrs Collins's line about the pig escaping when Lizzy visits her. These are people who live close to animals and to nature. Nothing like the clean and polished Longbourn of the 1995 adaptation (not to mention the venue of the first ball - in the 1995 version you can't really figure out what Darcy's problem is, here you understand his sentiments a little better).

reply

[–] liscarkat (16483) 6 years ago

The whole dark and gritty past thing has become overdone in recent movies. The 1995 adaptation with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth was more like Austen's book (except for everybody's favorite part--the Darcy wet shirt scene). Austen didn't have her heroines sharing quarters with cattle.

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5947) a year ago

They moved the story in time. Whereas Austen wrote and set her story in the 19th century, this version moved it back into the more primitive 18th century.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Because the idea behind this adaptation was to ignore Jane Austen and her beliefs, and the beliefs of her time. The means to do so was to make Mr. Bennett a farmer who was on intimate terms with his own pigs, which would have made a marriage between a wealthy gentleman like Mr. Darcy and the daughter of that Mr. Bennett impossible.

In the book the main social difference between the Darcys and the Bennetts is that of wealth, they are from approximately the same social class - hereditary country landowners who are "gentlemen" and who do not work, but who are not titled. In the book Lizzie Bennett is able to look Lady Catherine DeBourgh in the eye and say "He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman's daughter; so far we are equal.", and I hope they didn't do the same in this movie because the pigs established that no, there wasn't a ghost of a hope of social equality there. That was a very important statement according to the mores of the time, a man who could make his own decisions could marry a girl with no dowry and make her the lady of his manor without being laughed out of society if she were a "gentleman's daughter", but if she were a farmer's daughter even the servants at Pemberly would cut her dead if she tried to take charge! No, if Lizzie really were a farmer's daughter, she could never aspire to anything greater than being Darcy's mistress.

But that didn't matter to the people who made this film, they didn't give a rat's ass about historical accuracy and assumed filmgoers didn't either.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16483) 5 years ago

Exactly. This movie is for people who have not read the book.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

"This movie is for people who have not read the book."

That is a beautifully succinct summary of all that is wrong with this movie, in one simple sentence!

And honestly, people who haven't read the book are better off watching "Bride and Prejudice" or any other version but this.

reply

[–] kyo (2) a year ago

not even sure the screenwriter read the book

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Maybe the screenwriter saw the excellent 1990s miniseries, and thought they could do better.

And were wrong.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Maybe the screenwriter saw the excellent 1990s miniseries, and thought they could do better.

And were wrong.

reply

[–] kyo (2) a year ago

agreed lol i truly believe they based the screenplay on the mini series and forgot to read the novel

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It’s symbolic play on the saying “making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. Darcy looks down on country women as inferior and not worthy of notice. He discourages Bingley from falling for one too. He looks around the ballroom and sees sows everywhere. At the end of the film they all eat ham, symbolic of how Darcy’s misconceptions about country women have been slaughtered.

Ok, just kidding with all that. The pig was being led through an alley near the house. Country homes raised livestock for their own consumption and at smaller country homes, the barn was located close to the main house. Watch Cold Comfort Farm to see more of English country living.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

The problem is that in the novel, Mr.Bennet is not a farmer. Making him a farmer changes completely the story.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He wasn’t a farmer in the film either. His estate workers raised pigs for their own dinners. They kept chickens for eggs and cows milk too, like most country folk did. Even Mr. Collins had livestock and he was no farmer. At some point, Lady Catherine gave him advice about not letting his hens run with roosters to get better eggs.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Well, haven't seen the movie, but they put a picture of the scene above

http://www.frockflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Pig-in-Longbourne-Pride-and-Prejudice-2005.jpg

The picture is taken from the kitchen, with the pig going through the passageway. When I was a kid, I lived for a while in a farm that was similar (but more modern): you had the passageway that connected with the cattle, and the kitchen just entering the passageway at the right, the same as the picture, and then the rest of the house. First thing in the morning, before breakfast, I used to fed the cows in that passageway.

That isn't a countryhouse, that's a farm. If that's Mr.Bennet's house, either they made him a farmer, either they messed completely the historical accuracy.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12253) 5 years ago

Beats me. Apparently the idiots making this film wanted to take the "country bumpkin" theme with the Bennets a LITTLE too seriously.

And by the way, it was a prized male pig that should have been in his own pasture, waiting for the yearly sowing of his wild oats, not wandering through the house and making it dirtier than it already was.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 2 years ago

The younger daughter?

reply

[–] Where (1238) a year ago

Same thing happens in Girl With a Pearl Earring (2003). Next scene, you see the pig’s head on a platter 😞

reply