So, my last but one post on this blog was a summary of what was coming up in 2022 (I nearly wrote ‘coming up in 2020’ because I still think of 2020 as fairly recent, rather than two years ago, which I choose to attribute to the pandemic rather than my age) in which I outlined several projects that I have singularly failed to start. This post marks the start of a new project that I didn’t even consider at the time.
A little while ago, I did the Grantathon, a chronical watch-through of every film Hugh Grant has ever been in barring those I couldn’t find or couldn’t be bothered with. Retrospectively, I don’t quite know why I did that, but I’m glad I did. And then I did a watch-through of Star Trek: TNG but, in many ways, that’s much longer than Hugh Grant’s entire filmography and much more repetitious and then I cancelled my Netflix subscription. I’ve been vaguely thinking of doing a replacement for a while, and I did consider doing Alan Rickman, partly because I thought it would be interesting to re-watch the films he did with Hugh Grant with my Alan Rickman goggles on, rather than my Hugh Grant goggles on, but it did genuinely strike me that then I’d have been doing two long-running, high-effort blog series dedicated to the creative works of … well … two dudes.
So instead I’m going to do every Jane Austen adaption I can reasonably track down/watch/be arsed with.
Just to answer some of the obvious questions first: yes, this will include tangential things and spin-offs such as Clueless, Death Comes to Pemberley and possibly even Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It won’t necessarily include every single hallmark movie to have a Jane Austen allusion in the title because those are sometimes not even tangentially related to the source material. Like I watched one a year or so ago where the connection was “the hero’s name is Darcy and literally that’s it”. Similarly, I won’t be including Bridget Jones because, again, it’s more “alludes to” than “is directly inspired by”. Obviously there is a huge grey area around “is an adaption of”, “is a riff on” and “references” but, what can I say, my rewatch, my rules.
The other thing to get out of the way upfront is that I won’t be doing a goodness versus grantiness equivalent because I don’t think it would be as funny and I don’t want to reinforce that fidelity to the original source material is the primary metric by which adaptations should be judged. I will, instead, be giving them a rating from zero to twelve in terms of “thousands a year.” For what it’s worth, the reason it goes from zero to twelve, rather than zero to ten, is that Mr Rushworth in Mansfield Park has twelve thousand a year. My current vague intent is to try and make sure that ratings correspond to the exact net worth of Austen heroes but I might give that up as a bad job.
For what it’s worth the list I’m running off, and I reserve the right to add to or take way from this list at any point, looks like this (and I will add that, some of these, I have no clue what they are or how to source, but I’ll do my best)
- Pride and Prejudice (1940)
- Sense and Sensibility (1971)
- Persuasion (1971)
- Emma (1972)
- Jane Austen in Manhattan (1980)
- Pride and Prejudice (1980)
- Sense and Sensibility (1980)
- Mansfield Park (1983)
- Northanger Abbey (1987)
- Sense and Sensibility (1995)
- Persuasion (1995)
- Pride and Prejudice (1995)
- Clueless (1995)
- Emma (1996)
- Emma (1996)
- Mansfield Park (1999)
- Kandukondain Kandukondain (I Have Found It) (2000)
- Pride and Prejudice (2003)
- Bride and Prejudice (2004)
- Pride & Prejudice (2005)
- Becoming Jane (2007)
- The Jane Austen Book Club (2007)
- Persuasion (2007)
- Northanger Abbey (2007)
- Mansfield Park (2007)
- Sense and Sensibility (2008)
- Miss Austen Regrets (2008)
- Lost in Austen (2008)
- Emma (2009)
- Aisha (2010)
- From Prada to Nada (2011)
- Scents and Sensibility (2011)
- The Lizzie Bennet Diaries (2013)
- Austenland (2013)
- Welcome to Sanditon (2013)
- Death Comes to Pemberley (2013)
- Emma Approved (2014)
- Unleashing Mr. Darcy (2016)
- Love & Friendship (2016)
- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)
- Sanditon (2019)
- Emma. (2020)
- (Pride and prejudice – musical) ??? – I spotted this randomly on Amazon prime,
All written out in a list, it’s simultaneously a huge amount and not very much. It’s less than the Grantathon but it does include a bunch of actual mini-series … mini-serieses … mini-serii?
So. Let’s get started.
Pride and Prejudice (1940)
This one stars Laurence Oliver as Darcy, Greer Garson as Elizabeth and, most importantly, Marsha Hunt as the most adorable Mary Bennet I have ever seen. Seriously, check her out. She is legitimately adorkable. I might have a raging crush.
And, actually, I’m going to go on a massive sidebar here because Adorkable Mary Bennet is amazing. Or more precisely the woman who played Adorkable Mary Bennet is amazing: and I say is because she’s still alive. She’s104, she is—at time of writing—the oldest living member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, and also the last surviving member of the Committee for the First Amendment, a group of Hollywood actors who came out in defence of the Hollywood Ten. She was blacklisted for refusing to denounce other actors accused of being communists, and just didn’t back down.
Like, it genuinely gives me a bit of an existential crisis because old Hollywood feels so distant and otherworldly (party, at least, because of the deliberately distant and otherworldly image it cultivated) and the notion that there are people who lived in that world who are still around today, and that I can be here, watching a film from 1940 on a streaming service that utilises technology that people in 1940 not only could not imagine but could not imagine imagining, and then I could write a blog post about that film that someone who was in that film could technically read eighty years later. And I know, theoretically, somebody who wrote a book could read a review written decades after the book was published but it feels different when it’s a visual medium. Rightly or wrongly, there’s something almost intuitive about the idea that printed words are static and permanent, but when you’re watching someone give a performance on screen it’s like that person is there. And being confronted with the fact that they are also a real person who is still really around in the real world, and that they are going to do and experience a huge amount of remarkable things, between being the them that they are on the screen and the them that you’ve just Googled genuinely fucks with my head.
Sorry. That got long and was probably a bit trite.
Anyway, this movie was better than I expected. I did kind of shit a brick going in because the title card is “It Happened In Old England” as if everything that’s gone down in this country between the Roman Invasion and the First World War was basically all going on at once. And then when I saw the costumes I shit another brick because … what? I mean, seriously what? They’re dressed in the kind of wide-hooped skirt crinolines that were popular in the mid to late Victorian era before the silhouette narrowed again. Except with bonnets that you can see FROM SPACE. And don’t even get me started on the fabric choices: I know they were probably going for highly textured because there’s no colour but what is going on with, like, … any … of … this.
I did eventually come to the conclusion that it looked a bit like Gone With The Wind, which was actually a made a year earlier so maybe they just had job lot of huge skirts lying around. And I do sometimes wonder if American audiences instinctively default to that era of American history as their visual reference for the Regency because some media seem to portray them quite similarly, although I’m not completely certain that’s a rabbit hole I want to go down.
So, yeah, back to the movie.
If you set aside the superficial elements like the dresses, the dresses, oh my God the dresses, and focus on the actual film, it’s—initially at least—a pretty straightforward adaptation. I might even go as far as to call it “faithful”, in spirit at least, to the original. Sure it cuts and compresses a lot of things for the sake of time, and seems to have decided that having two ball scenes would be unacceptable so it replaces the ball at Netherfield with a garden party where Elizabeth impresses Darcy with her ability to shoot a bow and arrow, but it all felt surprisingly un-jarring. And given the limitations of the medium it did a good job of conveying a lot of character information quickly (although in the case of Mr Collins it does this primarily by giving him a very 1940s Hollywood “this is a comedy character” musical theme that always felt about two bars away from turning into Yakety Sax).
Towards the end, though, it gets a lot more…not like that?
I do appreciate that the plot of Pride and Prejudice involves a lot of people standing around in drawing rooms talking to each other but at some point it feels the film makers decided to save time by having the entire last third of the book take place in single scene with characters shuffling in and out like a 1970s farce with less low-key nudity.
So Lydia and Wickham come back to Longbourn after Darcy bribes/horsewhips Wickham into being marginally less of a cad, and then the moment that’s finished Lady Catherine de Bourgh comes in (while Lydia is basically in the other room still showing off her ring) to give the whole “don’t you dare marry my nephew” speech and then she goes immediately outside where she straight-up meets Darcy and, like, there’s a twist where she was just testing Lizzie to see if she really liked him or not, and then Darcy bounces in and does Proposal Mark 2, during which we have to pause in order to watch Bingley, who has kind of been absent from the film for the last twenty minutes, arrive independently and propose to Jane in front of a conspicuous nude statue, before we can cut back to Lizzie and Darcy having an obligatory Hollywood make-out. At which point we return to Mr and Mrs Bennet who are watching two other dudes we’ve barely seen hitting on their remaining daughters.
This is all incredibly weird.
I can see some of it for pacing reasons. Trying to create the sense of time passing when you’re constrained by 1940s cinematic technology is probably quite difficult and I can even see why cutting the trip to Pemberley makes a certain amount of sense from a structural / story compression perspective. But why the hell did the film feel the need to face turn Catherine de Bourgh?
Part of me wonders if this is a Hays Code thing. I did notice that Mr Collins is a librarian in the film rather than a clergyman and having looked into it, it does seem that portraying a clergyman as a subject of ridicule would have been a genuine taboo in Hollywood at the time. And while the whole “never portray authority figures as anything other than completely right and justified” thing was more of a big deal in the Comics Code Authority I do get similar vibes from Actually Nice All Along Catherine de Bourgh. It feels uncomfortably like the studio just genuinely wouldn’t accept an ending in which Lizzie is actually rewarded for standing up to an authority figure, so they had to make the authority figure secretly in on it all along in order to maintain social harmony. (This gets tangential but it reminds me a little of the way the studio insisted the Wizard of Oz end with it all being a dream so little girls wouldn’t be encouraged to have aspirations that went beyond their own doorstep).
Anyway, Secretly A Goodie Catherine de Bourgh aside, the characters in the film are mostly pretty recognisable as their book counterparts. Obviously Mary is far more adorkable than she is in other adaptations but otherwise the Bennet sisters are quite well-articulated, given the space. Like, you actually tell the difference between Lydia and Kitty, Jane is genuinely sweet and—unusually—prettier (or at least more conventionally attractive) than Elizabeth. Elizabeth herself comes across as … broadly Elizabeth-like. She’s slightly, um, ruder than she is in the book, both in terms of her put-downs and her behaviour: for example she flatly refuses to dance with Darcy, which you really couldn’t do in the Regency as a unmarried woman unless you’d opted out of dancing entirely.
Darcy, however, comes across as a total prick. This is not Olivier’s fault because he’s … well, he’s Olivier. He’s got some interesting sideburns but he’s gorgeous and magnetic, and he manages to bring both coldness and warmth to the character. But because they’ve compressed a lot of things he just comes across like, well, like a flighty bench? Basically his relationship with Elizabeth goes:
- I definitely wouldn’t dance with her she sucks
- I really do in fact want to dance with her for some reason
- Chicks who read are hot
- Wow you shoot a bow real good
- ACTUAL TITLE DROP
- Fuck off I hate you
- Will you marry me?
- Wickham’s a bad
- Will you marry me again? PS – my aunt is nice now
- Let’s French on this bench
It makes Darcy look legitimately worse than he does in the book, especially because they have a non-book based bit (after she’s shot a bow real good) where they’re both like, oh I misjudged you, let’s be friends (and, yes, that is genuinely expressed, and I’m paraphrasing, as “wow, I used to think you were really proud” / “yes, I used to think you were really prejudiced”) and then he overhears Mrs Bennet being vulgar (to be fair, she’s also more vulgar than she is in the book and is super explicitly, “I definitely deliberately made my own daughter ill to manipulate Bingley”) and immediately goes all like, no fuck off. Only to propose two scenes later. And, then, as if this Katy Perry hot ‘n’ cold shit isn’t bad enough, at the end he very, very directly need his aunt to ask a girl out for him. I mean, I’m not here for toxic masculinity but dude, are you fucking twelve?
The other thing I think is interesting about this adaptation, and I’ve saved it for last because it’s kind of about all adaptations, is that I think it softens the Bennets in ways that are different from but not necessarily worse than the ways I find other adaptations characterise their relationship. I mean, don’t get me wrong, Mrs Bennet is still shrill and vulgar, and “ooh my nerves”-ey and Mr Bennet is still long-suffering and inclined to tease her for his own amusement, but it feels a lot more consensual than it does either in the book or in other adaptations (with the possible exception for the 2005 film). Like there’s a bit where she’s all “do be serious, Mr Bennet” in a way that implies she can genuinely tell he’s being sarcastic rather than a way that implies she’s overreacting and can’t understand why he isn’t overreacting. And when Jane catches a cold, Mr Bennet makes a little joke about how they should send all the girls the Netherfield in search of husbands, but he does it in a way that suggests he genuinely understand who his daughters are and what they’re into, for example he mentions someone who likes reading for Mary and a dashing officer for Kitty. Which is more than you ever get from book!Mr Bennet, who mostly comes across like doesn’t give a single solitary fuck about his daughters(with the possible exception of Lizzie).
One of the things I find a little bit difficult about adaptions of and reactions to Pride and Prejudice in general is that they very often allow Mr Bennet to get away with being a really, really bad dad in ways that go unexamined. Especially compared to Mrs Bennet whose flaws as a mother—with her silliness and vulgarity—are constantly under a microscope. Like, I get Mrs Bennet is unattractive as a character because she’s annoying and not very well educated, but I sometimes think we lose sight of the context she’s operating in. Because of the status of Longbourn, Mr Bennet is fine. A huge part of the deal of Pride and Prejudice is that nothing is going to go badly for the Bennets until Mr Bennet is literally dead. So, in many ways, Mr Bennet’s detached and ironic attitude to the family’s predicament is a massive incarnation of male privilege. But from Mrs Bennet’s perspective she, and her five daughters, are completely fucked if anything happens to Mr Bennet and Mr Bennet just straight DGAF. If I was Mrs Bennet, I would act like Mrs Bennet and my nerves would be shot. Yes, she’s loud, yes she’s crass, yes she’s transparently manipulative and off-putting, but pretty much everything she says 100% completely correct.
And, actually, if you unravel the plot of the book, if she hadn’t cynically forced her daughter to get a cold, not only would Jane have had no opportunity to get to know Bingley better, but Lizzie would have had no opportunity to get to know Darcy, which means Lydia would be ruined, Jane would have to marry Mr Collins (and she would say yes, unlike Lizzie she’s nothing if not dutiful) and Lizzie, Kitty and Mary would be unmarriageable because Lydia would have ruined the family. On top of which, Mrs Bennet being publicly loud and fixated on wealth (as well you might be if you didn’t have any) doesn’t really hurt her daughters’ marriage prospects. In his first bad proposal Darcy explicitly says that while he’s not Mrs Bennet’s biggest fan, she alone wasn’t the reason he warned Bingley off Jane. He warned Bingley off Jane because he thought she wasn’t into him. And then allowed himself to propose to Elizabeth, annoying mother be damned.
tl;dr I sometimes get the sense that some Pride and Prejudice adaptations are under the impression that Mrs Bennet is simply a bad mother and Mr Bennet is a good father who happens to not get on well with his wife. And in a lot of ways the reverse is true. Mr Bennet has a tendency to come across as the classic cool dad and it’s hard not to respond positively to him, both in the text and on screen, because he’s genuinely funny. Although the fact that we’re so conditioned to see a man putting down his wife (and frequently his daughters—in this movie, when he calls them silly it’s clearly in play, but in the book and in a lot of adaptations it’s not) as evidence of what a great guy he is … well … that’s something we, as a culture, should probably examine.
I’m not quite sure how to do ratings for this movie because it’s the first adaption I’ve watched and I feel like I should establish a baseline. So on the assumption that the 1940s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is slightly below average due to its going completely off the rails at the end, I’m going to give it five thousand a year (out of, you may recall, a potential twelve thousand a year). BUT I’m also going to give it an extra thousand a year for including a hilariously clangy title drop. Obviously this won’t be a formal policy for all adaptations because it doesn’t really work for, say, Emma.
So:
Pride and Prejduice (1940): six thousand a year. Quite marriageable, although it is terribly silly and all its servants will cheat it.
ok very much looking forward to this series!! i unironically love pride and prejudice and zombies. and yeah, i’m almost certain the comically large dresses are bc of the success of gone with the wind! i think the 1940s movie is so much fun, and i think colin firth’s darcy reminds me a lot of olivier’s (but firth’s is much more… nuanced?? maybe? of course, he is given that time to develop in a miniseries). ANYWAY!! excited to be here
I was consistently distracted by Olivier’s hands? I think it’s just a style of acting that’s gone out of fashion but, like, nearly every thing he said he would punctuate with an … honestly slightly camp hand gesture. And obviously Olivier has wild charisma but I don’t think he’s my favourite Darcy. Or maybe, though no fault of his own, he was just trying to play a really odd version of Darcy whose behaviour is incomprehensibly inconsistent from the outside.
I think my favourite Darcy MIGHT be Macfadyen’s “clearly has severe social anxiety” Darcy? But I don’t want to get ahead of the Austathon.
A friend of mine describes the 2005 film as “Pride and Prejudice, by Charlotte Brontë”, which I love. Colin Firth has been so iconically Mr. Darcy for me for so long that he’s my point of reference for all other performances, but I have a lot of affection for Macfayden’s Darcy. (He is such a swoony-worthy bundle of anxiety and big eyes and raindrops in that storm scene.)
Your reading of the respective portrayals of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet is really interesting and spot-on. I’ve always loved Mr. Bennet. But I’m now cringing a bit at the thought of how much of his “cool Dad”-ness (which is also, I think, tied to the way that he is able to actually see Lizzie, unlike most of her family, and is perhaps the source of Lizzie’s own wit and strength of character) is at Mrs. Bennet’s expense. I’ve set out on an Austen re-read for Spring and I’m curious to reencounter the Bennets in this light.
I’m delighted that you’re undertaking this and looking forward to future posts!
Ooh, that’s a really interesting perspective on the 2005 film which, err, I embarrassingly didn’t like the first time I saw it. But I’ve since come round.
I totally agree that Mr B seems more supportive of Lizzie’s wit than the rest of the family (with the exception of Jane?) but I’ve kind of never forgiven him for the Mr Collins business. Like, he could have stopped that shit at any point, but because he was disengaged or, worse, amused by it … he didn’t. And at the point he’s delivering the ‘you must from this day forth be estranged from one of your parents speech’ Lizzie is legit distressed. It reminds me of the game he plays with his wife over visiting Mr Bingley right at the beginning, except this is the daughter he’s supposed to care about? DUDE.
I haaaaaaated the 2005 film the first time I watched it; thinking of it as Brontë-adjacent helped me come around. (My mother still gets furious about the pig in the house every time that adaptation is mentioned!)
I tend to read that scene as Mr. Bennet giving Lizzie permission to turn down Mr. Collins, which is what she obviously wants to do, and of bringing levity to a situation that’s distressing her rather than seriously suggesting that he will be estranged from her. But you’re right that he could have stepped in much earlier to everyone’s benefit. And, on looking over that passage, I’m struck by the “calm unconcern” with which he regards Mrs. Bennet. She’s so distressed and is, as you say, trying to make sure that her daughter will not end up destitute.
It also definitely reads as Mr. B swooping in, wittily siding with Lizzie, and then wanting to immediately fuck off back to his books because he can’t be bothered with financial security or other Frivolous Lady Matters. (Which…I’ve always found relatable? And I’m not sure how much of that is down to Austen’s textual portrayal versus genre expectations versus, you know, unexamined internalized misogyny.) It’s going to be very interesting to reread this with a view to interpreting Mrs. Bennet more charitably.
Hi other Meg! I just watched some snippets on YouTube, and yes, Firth Darcy is a lot like Olivier Darcy, to the point that I bet Firth studied Olivier’s performance.
Wow this project sounds fun and Mary is so Adorkable, I’ll need to watch this one. So excited to read your thoughts about all of these! But that’s quite a daunting list. Sense and Sensibility 1995, Pride and Prejuice 2005 and Emma 2020 *SWOON*
“Lets French on this bench” made me cackle, thanks for that 😉
Also, you may have heard this already… Sanditon Season 2 comes out on March 20th on Masterpiece (PBS here). I believe they are going beyond the book again since it’s unfinished. Not sure if that counts for your list?
I don’t think I’ve even watched the first season on Sanditon to be honest. Which I have no excuse for because it would have been on the BBC. In any case, it’s going to be an interesting journey.
(Currently I am lost in the 1970s).
Nice. I’ll be curious to see what you think about it. There was a big social media campaign here to get a Season 2 which seems to have worked! They left S1 on such a cliffhanger.
Anyway, Bee Gees Austen sounds fun. Enjoy!
Ooo, I am so looking forward to the rest of these posts!
My image of Mr. Bennet is hopeless entangled with the 1995 miniseries, but it would be interesting to know how Jane Austen herself would have had him portrayed. I think there are hints she would have made him less likeable than he’s usually shown.
The 1995 mini-series had the most egregiously unforgiving portrayal of Mrs Bennet I think? Not the actor’s fault, of course. But I seem to recall she was borderline drag queen.
Agreed. I feel the same way about Bingley’s sisters in that version, particularly Caroline.
Oh! But she’s played by Duckface … Anna Chancellor, who I love as an actor.
I agree that it’s not her most subtle performance though 😉
I’m excited for this adventure for you and for us. Seeing all of those titles listed, fuck me – I’ve seen a lot of Austen adaptations. But there are a few on this list I haven’t heard of so I’m going to investigate those further. But I have seen this version of P&P. And I am frantically nodding as I read your comments about the dresses. That’s EXACTLY what I thought – it’s Gone with the Wind but in England (fashion-wise not plot-wise). I think there’s a scene where they have to turn sideways to get through a doorway and I remember saying out loud as I watched this “NOPE.” I remember not really liking Darcy or Lizzie in this adaptation. And it probably didn’t help because I watched this after much later adaptations – but Lizzie (as played by Greer Garson) just seems mean and superior. And the scene where Aunt Catherine is really a sweetie after all is just wrong. If I remember correctly, Darcy is sulking in the carriage and once he receives the “okay” from her he decides to propose. Nope – that’s not the characterization of Darcy I want. But I loved Mary Bennet in this film. She is as you described adorkable. And I’m loving that sidebar about the actress who played her.
I forgot about the Mr. Collins profession switcharoo – and I think your Hays Code suggestion is an interesting explanation for that choice. Mr. Bennet always frustrates me because he gets played for laughs in the adaptations and acts, or pretends to act like he is unaware of their situation and and I think in Lost in Austen there’s a moment where’s he’s checked on that (sorry to jump way ahead in your itinerary) but Mrs. Bennet (despite her annoying personality traits) knows what’s at stake for her daughters and is actively trying to improve their daughters’ marriage prospects. So I appreciate that analysis. Those upcoming 1970s BBC adaptations are a trip. I should re-watch those.
*insert Alexis Rose ‘love this journey for me’ gif*
I’ve watched a fair few Austen adaptions down the years myself but I had no idea there were so many.
While I was writing this I did sort of go off on a ramble about why, maybe, America likes to imagine the Regency as the South but it felt … out of my lane and too abstractly speculative. I don’t think I was able to have strong positive/negative feelings towards Lizzie because I was too appalled at her clothing – I think it’s sort of clear that *some* of her very mean sassing comes from vulnerability (and actually a lot of meanest sass from the book – that directed at Charlotte for marrying Mr Collins is cut) but there’s an abrasiveness to her that doesn’t feel like a fair reflection of her character in the book. The bow scene, in particular, was odd: I kind of feel Book!Lizzie wouldn’t need a bow to make you respect her, she’d just do it with a flash of her fine eyes and a sardonic retort.
I think Olivier managed to capture a certain swooniness around Darcy’s intimate moments: the entire register and pitch of his voice changes, along with his body language, as he goes from withdrawn and composed to eagerly hanging on Lizzie’s every word. Unfortunately the broader context of his character (like the Lady Catherine business and the business at the garden party) made him hard for me to really respond to.
I definitely think this adaptation has one of the most interesting portrayals of the Bennet parents: it’s assuredly not book compliant, but it is a way happier marriage, and Mr B is way, way less of a dick. Yes, he’s a tease, and a bit emotionally detached, but he seems to mostly care about his daughters. I seem to recall the 2005 P&P had actual intimacy between the Bennets?
Ahhh,I love a well placed gif so I respond to your excellent Alexis Rose gif with *insert Alexis Rose Totally gif* I think you’re right about the Bennets in the 2005 P&P. There’s definitely more intimacy and affection and even a glimpse of them in bed canoodling?
Excited for your next installment 🙂
While I am obsessed just a bit with Pride and Prejudice, I’m more blown away with how much you read, watch, and write. How do you even have time to eat? I see all your reviews on GR and now completely understand the frustration when your beloved readers want you to write a continuation to something you feel is finished. Just wow.
Honestly, I think I’m just good at leveraging stuff I do to enjoy myself into stuff that generates content for the social media engagement I particularly enjoy. Like both my partner and I have always had a thing for themed watching: I remember when DVDs were a thing and we’d play this game where we’d browse the “3 or 2” sales in HMV and we had to pick three DVDs that made up a ‘theme’ of films. I think it might be a choice paralysis thing? There’s so much CONTENT out there that saying ‘okay, I’m going to watch all of this random thing’ is kind of a relief.
I love the idea of themes to combat choice paralysis! I was overwhelmed at the thought of attempting your Austen list. That framing with very freeing somehow.
I doubt I’ll follow along though (not that you’ve implied you expect us to. I’ll look forward to reading about your viewing.
Definitely not expecting a follow-along. More a sort of “oh this one sounds interesting, I think I’ll try it” or a “I saw this in 1473, thanks for the reminder” 😉
This is going to be fun.
I recently read The Other Bennet Sister (by Janice Hadlow) and it made Mary Bennet an understandable and sympathetic character. Apparently it’s been optioned for a movie and now I’m wondering whether it might be out in time for you to add to the end of your list – probably not, given the usual production timescales. Unless you take a very long time to get through your list.
I mean, I do take a long to time do things so … you never know 😉
Adding to your book recommendation here… I read The Other Bennett Sister in 2020 and thought it was delightful! Especially the 2nd half of the book. It was so nice to give Mary her own story and agency and an HEA. I always loved Mary and thought there was more to her than just being bookish (as if that’s a bad thing!) It’s almost like a P&P epilogue.
I didn’t know about the movie option, that’s very cool. 🙂
*Bennet (oops)
This looks likes so much fun! Tiny quibble: The plot of the first Bridget Jones book is explicitly Pride and Prejudice and the second is Persuasion. The movies weren’t nearly as good as the books, but they are retellings every bit as much as Clueless was.
Well-quibbled 🙂
I will think about adding them!
Colin Firth AND Hugh Grant. Just saying.
Yes, I watched them both as part of the Grantathon which might be why I’m slightly resistant to watching them *again* while I can still remember how bad the second one was.
Watching them MORE THAN ONCE!? That would be a bridge too far for me as well. You are excused.
I’ve loved this movie for a long time and I agree with and appreciate all of your thoughts on it! Greer Garson is probably my favorite Elizabeth because of how biting she is, and maybe how self-aware she is? I don’t know if that’s the right way to describe it. In any case, thank you! I haven’t had the chance to read about or discuss this movie before because it’s not that popular, so this was a real treat.
That’s really interesting to me because I found her just on the edge of … chilly, maybe? Although I can’t tell to what extent that’s kind of 1940s acting. She is definitely the harshest Elizabeth from all the versions that I can remember: but that is as much about the script than Garson’s delivery. And because it’s a movie, and a short movie at that, there’s less time for the softer aspects of Lizzie’s character to come to the fore, like her love for Jane, and her friendship with Charlotte.
Will be reading this Austathon blog with great pleasure and interest. Some new to me adaptations I’ll try to see but I’ll take the opportunity to re-watch some old favourites too. Hard for me to be too objective about the Garson & Olivier version – it WAS P&P to me as a child. Although it creaks a bit now I still adore Olivier and Garson’s (very clipped) voices.
I mean, objectivity is definitely not required here 😉 I was surprised by faithful-feeling an adaptation it was (costumes aside) until … it went totally off the rails towards the end.
Also both Garson and Olivier are independently incredibly charming, and that shines through.
Oh, what fun. SO MANY adaptations. Which I mostly haven’t seen.
OK, so: Olivier, Garson, *amazing* still-living actor playing Mary, librarian Mr Collins, AND swathes of 1940s-interpreted enormous 1830s-style leg-o-mutton sleeves & billowing skirts—I’m so up for this. Didn’t have anything else planned.
It is bananas – highly recommended 😉
1. Mr. Collins turned into a librarian? Damn!
2. Dresses.. even adorkable Mary Bennet can’t save this movie. Empire or Regency dresses are my favorite impractical dresses in the world.
And yes, Arabella Tarleton in the sherlocked_avocado illustration is beautiful!
3. About Darcy, who proposed to Elizabeth “annoying mother be damned”.. I remember his question that after marriage, would she not want to go away from her parents? Long story short, Darcy just ran away from her mom after the wedding. And it is unlikely that he met with her more often than once every ten years.
4. As for Mr. Bennet… it’s more complicated.
First, of course, the position of men (in comparison with women) in the Regency era plays a role here. Since this historical disparity has survived to this day, I understand why Jane Austen described a good father as such. For her, he stands disproportionately above her, and she wants to be his equal and earn his approval. Therefore, one of Lizzy’s virtues is her friendship with her father. After all, for her it is almost friendship with God.
Secondly, well, I think since Pride and Prejudice is one of Jane Austen’s early works, she wrote these characters – mother and father – as a very young girl.
I first learned this story from the 1995 British TV series, and then I treated the characters exactly as Austin intended: mom is stupid and materialistic, dad is well-mannered and very smart.
I think Lizzie herself sort of admits (I think even to Mr Darcy?) that she *too* wants to have a comfortable distance between herself and her parents: I think the point is that, whatever Mr Darcy or anyone else thinks about Mrs Bennet isn’t enough to stop the actual *marriage* happening. And she’s way more concerned with securing her daughters’ futures.
Also, I’m not an expert on either the Regency or Austen personally but that hyper-patriarchal perspective (even if it was the expected world-view) doesn’t feel like something that is reflected either in her work (she writes a bunch of bad fathers and, indeed, bad clergymen) or her letters.
It’s very much a matter of interpretation but my sense from the book (and, again, I could be way off base here) is that Lizzie’s positive relationship with her father is independent of his quality as a father and a man, and not just because she’s she’s incapable of viewing him (and his faults) with a rational eye. That is, she can love/like her father, but still think he’s bad father and a bad man. And I think Austen portrays him as ambiguous at best, something that isn’t always reflected in the way he’s portrayed on screen.
Your thoughts about Mr Bennet are really interesting to me. It was clear to me from the book (I think it was Mr Darcy mentioning her dad in the Disaster Proposal) that Mr Bennet is clearly not behaving well, but I couldn’t figure out what he was doing, but it never really clicked before that as long as he’s alive the family is fine, so when the family isn’t fine he’s not going to be there, so it follows that he doesn’t have to care about the future the way the rest of the family does.
I was thinking the problem was mostly that he… sort of invites his children to disrespect their mother? not sure if I put that quite right, but he’s more interested in being witty than being respectful of her, and he’s by far the most interested in having quiet time with his books.
I love the 1940s version, a lot because of Mary, and how Greer Garson twinkles, and the amazingly themed music (they introduce character themes in the opening credits and it gives me warm nostalgia somehow), though it took me a second or third viewing to focus on the movie over the clanging racket of how loud those costumes are.
OMG! This is the best idea ever, Mr. Hall!!! I’ve read the Austen novels a bunch of times, read far too many Austen fanfic novels, and watched most of those adaptations (although you’ve managed to unearth some true rarities I’m eager to find). To get to read your takes on all of it is the best treat ever.
Loved your review of the 1940 version. I agree with you on just about all of it, and really like your read of Mr. Bennett and gender dynamics. I believe Jane’s father, the Reverend Austen was similarly impractical and didn’t see to the welfare of his wife and daughters after his death, so it’s home concerns.
Can’t wait for your next!
And I love adorkable Mary Bennett, too. She’s the most delightful part of this adaptation. Thank you for going down the rabbit hole of the actress’s history, what a great story. Reminds me of the podcast “You Must Remember This” which are deep dives into Hollywood history, mostly from the 1930s through the 1970s.
I’ve got a box set of the 1970s-1980s adaptations. I admit that I’ve only watched about half of them years and years ago, then I just couldn’t take the dated style anymore and watched the 1995 P&P for the 30th time. But for you, I’ll drag them back out!
Yes, I’m not an expert on the life and times of Austen or anything but the theme of socially vulnerable women feels … uh … pretty personal?
Oh, and thank you for the podcast … well not quite rec. But I’m hopeless at finding podcasts and that sounds amazing.
I’m halfway through 1970s S&S right now and … wow. It’s like filmed theatre. Badly filmed bad theatre.
http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/front
Definitely a recommendation! She does incredibly well researched and fascinating histories. She did one about Charles Manson and his connections to Hollywood that was terrifying and compelling. She did a long series about MGM and all of the starlets and star producing culture. Gossip Girls about Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons. The Many Loves of Howard Hughes. A series on Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff “Bela and Boris”. “Jean and Jane” about Jean Seberg and Jane Fonda. Basically you could spend years listening to all of this and be spellbound. Great production values–she uses lots of music and sometimes hires actors to read out dialogue/conversations of the people she’s discussing. She has an in-depth bibliography in her show notes. Everything anyone even moderately interested in Hollywood history, deep gossip, celebrity lifestyle, film, feminism, racism, homophobia, etc. could ever wish for.
Holy cow, this sounds completely up my alley. Thank you for the suggestion!
OK, out of curiosity I counted, and I’ve seen 30 of those adaptations, and haven’t seen 13–mostly the early BBC and the sillier of the modern ones (although I have seen the Mormon 2003 P&P…and P&P and Zombies so I don’t know what I’m calling silly!) It’s slightly embarassing just how much of my life I’ve spent with Austen, but you like what you like, ya know?
I’m going to adore this series, however long it takes. 🙂
Personally, I will die on the hill of Emma Thompson & Alan Rickman in ‘Sense & Sensibility.’ Will never love an Austen movie more.
That said, ‘Bride and Prejudice’ was a lot of fun.
Your rating system promises considerable amusement.
I have always loved the Sense and Sensibility film (although it’s interesting to trace some of its characterisation beats to the 1970s version I’m watching now, particularly Edward Ferrars’ social awkwardness), but I am a late-blooming fan of the 2005 P&P.
Hi there strangers,
my husband passed this to me as he knows I am an Austen fan, and P+P is definately in my Top Ten books. Mostly I can never be bothered with internet/social media stuff, but you may have me hooked. All your thoughts about the Olivier/Greer adaptation echo my own (although I had no idea about the “Mary” actress still being around, amazing). I first saw it in the 1970’s and remember being outraged at the changes at the end, especially the de Burgh turnaround.
I shall pre-empt things, and say my favourite TV adaptation remains the 1980 P+P with David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie (so much better than Jennifer Ehle in the 1995, I couldn’t understand why people raved about it).
Anyway, thanks for this. So much work! I have done several bookathons of author works over Covid, but never thought about film/TV. Glad you have included Lost in Austen, which I watched at the time (with much scepticism) and surprisingly enjoyed.
Hello stranger … what an odd way to find me but you’re very welcome. I can remember that version of P&P from my childhood: I think the library had a video (oh my god I’m old) box set of it? Unfortunately I can remember literally nothing else about it, so I’m looking forward to re-discovering it–assuming I can get a copy, it seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, eclipsed I suppose by the 1995 version?
I think I might have seen Lost in Austen too: but embarrassingly I can’t remember anything about it EITHER. In any case, this is going to be QUITE the adventure.
I watched that version when it was new, on an old black and white television with issues. The only thing I remember was that Darcy appeared to be about three feet tall with a five-foot tall top hat. It tended to undercut the swoony factor.
Oh, this is gonna be so fun!
I love the Macfayden Darcy because, yum, but the 1995 series was formative. Our local PBS station wasn’t running it for some reason, so my college roomie and I had my mom tape it and send the tapes (plural) from DC to California so that we could watch it. And watch it. And watch it. Obviously skipping all the boring parts *cough Mr. Collins cough* and going straight to the good stuff. Mr Darcy’s face when Elizabeth plays the piano (very badly)! And yes, the whole “Darcy fencing then riding then diving into the lake then emerging from the lake dripping” is rightfully celebrated. But perhaps the best moment of the series, in terms of sheer bizarre iconitude, is the floating Darcy head. Oh yes. The floating Darcy head. The floating, TALKING Darcy head. God I love that series so much.
Best movie adaption is the 1995 Persuasion where all the characters are actually incredibly ordinary looking and yet the FEELS are so extra, but in a super understated way (“extra but understated feels” is perhaps my favorite mood). Sorry, but you will never convince me otherwise. Or maybe you will?? Consider that a challenge!
There will indeed be a second season of Sanditon, but Theo James will NOT be coming back. Which kind of defeats the purpose, really. And since I do not wish to use your comment space to blatantly objectify someone, I will refrain from posting a relevant gif and will merely note that if one googles “gif theo james sanditon water,” one will probably not be sad about it. There is v-cut, is all I’m saying.
Austen has some fucked up things going on with parents and guardians, but I’m too covid-ed to reflect on it now (hence the Theo James gif, sometimes basic’s gonna basic). The whole age gap thing is another dimension of Austen that I think we all tend to just accept because that’s how it was back then, but – Darcy is 37-ish and Elizabeth is 20? And same for the other books as well, most feature a significant age gap and/ or cousin marriage (or both!). This is something that tends to be underplayed in the films and series, probably because the potential squick factor is high for a lot of people. But definitely, if we were reviewing her on GR today, all the reviews would be start like, “This is an age-gap, power-gap, slow burn, second-chance romance that …”
Looking forward to following this project!
Oh my God, I remember Mr Darcy Piano Face: I think it was even more compelling for me, than, like, the bit where it jumps in the lake? Not that the lake jumping isn’t, y’know, great. But he looks so genuinely SMITTEN in the piano watching scene. I think it’s up there for me with Macfayden’s twitching love hand – err, that sounds wrong. I just mean his hand twitches when Elizabeth touches him, not that there’s a cut wanking scene from the 2005 film.
I have forgotten the floating talking Darcy head but I am now very excited to discover it.
Is that the 95 Persuasion the one with Ciaran Hinds? Because that is one of my all-time favourite adaptions. I hope it lives up to a re-watch.
Oh gosh, I hadn’t quite cottoned onto how major the age-gaps were: I think I’d noticed in Emma and S&S because it’s kind of a plot point, but I kind of hadn’t realised Darcy is flannel waistcoat wearing Colonel Brandon’s age.
Never fear, the 5 second sequence in which 2005 Darcy helps Elizabeth into the carriage, then strides away while clenching and releasing his fist in a repressed-but-sexy way is burned into my brain. Though “twitching love hand” is a much catchier description.
The floating Darcy head is also a 5-second diversion in a series of 8 million hours. Its incredibleness comes mostly from context: that series was super-committed to being faithful to the text, and out of nowhere – floating Darcy head! That was one of those moments where we screamed then immediately rewound. And thanks for the duckface reminder. A legend.
Yes, the 1995 Persuasion is Ciaran Hinds at his most scrumptious.
I could be wrong about Darcy’s exact age – there is a reference in the text to it, but it’s only one line. But power dynamics in general are something Austen does well. And agree re Elizabeth’s father – in the book she does recognize his many failings as both husband and father, much more so than comes through in most adaptations.
Mr. Darcy is “eight and twenty”. He talks about it at the very end when he’s telling Elizabeth that he’d gotten to be as old as he is without considering the feelings of others (until she smacked him around and he took a look at himself). So, it’s only an 8 year difference.
Not like Mr. Knightley who is 37 about 16 years older than Emma. Which….is a bit skeevy in my opinion–he’d watched her grow up as a close friend and neighbor’s daughter, then waited until she was of age….seems a bit like grooming to me, although the excellent Mr. Knightley is of course, the soul of discretion and it’s hard to hate….
Yes, he talks about dandling her as a baby. Ew ew ew ew ew!
This is amusing the heck out of me because 28 is the age you go to when you’re writing a romance, you secretly want to make the characters older, but you’re afraid the audience won’t like it if you do 😉
Yes, Anne Marie, you’re absolutely right – I actually went back and checked after I left my comment because I was suddenly unsure, and it is “from eight to eight and twenty”. It’s amusing to me that I’ve gone all this time thinking there was such an age gap between Darcy and Elizabeth. I guess since I first read P&P when I was 11, 28 might as well have been 38 might as well have been 48: either way, Darcy was Very Old. And that idea of Darcy as Very Old remained fixed in my head, immune to uncountable re-readings and, not least, the fact that I myself have long surpassed Very Old and am now well into Really, Alarmingly Decrepit territory. Gosh. Darcy is only 28. That barely skirts age gap. Huh.
It’s also amusing to get confirmation that aging characters at 28 is, in fact, a Thing authors do and not just a massive coincidence. I have suspected this all along! 😉
28 being “romance old” is hilarious–and the idea that Mr. Darcy and Luc O’Donnell are the same age is giving me such cognitive dissonance!
IIRC Knightley doesn’t develop feelings for Emma until the events of the book. It’s roughly the same age gap as Jane and Rochester.
“It’s roughly the same age gap as Jane and Rochester.” Which, also, ew.
I think it was completely normalized for middle-aged dudes to both want and feel entitled to 19-year-olds, who haven’t “lost their bloom” (ie still have adolescent beauty instead of adult beauty) and have zero life experience.
Sorry, I’m not trying to ruin the Austenathon. I just don’t think about these things too hard when I read Austen.
What a great idea! Thank you for your research and very entertaining interpretation of the 1940′ Pride and Prejudice adaptation. I really had fun reading your post and looking forward to the next one on the list.
I love 2009 Emma, but my favorite of your list is Becoming Jane – the story is very real, emotional and full of disappointment and bitterness as such is life itself. Beautiful in its reality.
Oh gawd. Not a big fan of bitterness 😉
I love happy endings and sweet, warm feelings, but unfortunately in real life there is a lot of heart breaks when love is involved. I know it’s probably weird, but I always preferred “Little Mermaid” (the original Andersen version where Ariel sacrificed her life) over “Cinderella”. The first is more possible in a real life when we put our loved one’s well being above ours even when the person is weak and not worthy that sacrifice. I am not a masochist and love to read good romance with happy ending, but I also find a beauty in painful and heart breaking endings.
I’ve had the privilege of being in the front row of a small but fabulous production of Pride & Prejudice: The Musical. Absolutely the most entertained I’ve been in a theatre, loved it. Best Kitty I’ve seen so far!
Does she cough, though? 😉
This question made me maybe fake remember that happening… I guess we’ll never know. I do remember her getting waifishly elated about the prospect of a scone, however.
I’m very late to this party, but finally watched, so excuse me while I dump all of my thoughts here. First and foremost of which is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbihoQRDjTY&ab_channel=CartoonBeepus
(except kind of in the opposite way to which everyone is using that sound on TikTok…)
From the dresses to the chaos of the last scene, I am a bit in shock/shook and not sure what I just watched.
I will just say, even though I had a lot of fun watching this I’m about to be very critical of it. I’m not trying to be explicitly negative, but I worry my thoughts may read as that sooo….sorry??
On a positive note, I am definitely hopping on the Adorkable Mary Train, and I would happily read an extended fic about her and Dorky Flute Guy. Though in some ways she isn’t Mary at all?? She’s just too…fun for Mary haha. Where’s the pontificating and false wisdom and inflated sense of her own morality/piano skillz etc.? Doesn’t book!Mary basically agree with Mr. Collins that it would be better if Lydia had died? I loved this giggly, fun Mary, but she didn’t ring very true for me.
That’s kind of my overall beef with this adaptation. It was funny and charming and I enjoyed it, but very few of the characters felt like themselves to me.
Olivier was charming, but didn’t really feel like Darcy? Choices like not having him immediately go looking for Lydia when he learned of her disappearance change his character quite a bit. The progression you noted is not only hilarious, but really apt. Without referring to it, I probably couldn’t actually track Darcy’s character myself, since it’s so…all over the place??
Jane was another prime culprit of being kind of unrecognizable as Jane, though excellent point that for once she was actually (classically) prettier than Lizzie, which I appreciated. Still, when in her sick bed Jane almost blithely says that her mother will be delighted that she is stuck at Netherfield, it just felt so OOC to me. Then again, I don’t even really like the 2005 Jane. I think Susannah Harker in the 1995 BBC adaptation is almost exactly how I picture Jane(‘s character/behavior…not really her looks, but anyway I won’t get into that) because to me her reserved nature is key to her character and the fact that Bingley is unsure of her affections. If one doesn’t know book!Jane well, they are unlikely to understand her or her emotions.
This sort of blitheness in Jane seemed present in Elizabeth, too, and maybe contributes to what you aptly referred to as a bit of a “chilly” portrayal of her, almost as though nothing fully touches her (even down to her very fake tears over Jane’s broken heart during Darcy’s Proposal Number One). It feels like the film’s tone was trying for a sort of His Girl Friday type of banter that was never quite achieved. Like, they’re going for a very 1940s/old Hollywood kind of wit, but mixing it with Austen and not really getting all the way there with either approach? If that makes sense. It seems like the focus was on trying to get this sort of witty banter in there, or fitting in these sort of romantic archetypes, like Darcy finding Elizabeth crying (on the balcony at the garden party due to some cutting words from Caroline). This sort of lightness of tone, that, in combination with the pacing and changing of the order of events (Wickham being there from the beginning???), kind of undercut the depth of the characters for me and I just never fully felt/believed in their relationships/connections. I felt like…kept a bit at arm’s length from what should be the emotional heart of the film??
Also I guess some of that was just because it was so cut for time? Like everything that makes Charlotte herself and her relationship with Lizzie meaningful was cut, as were a lot of private Lizzie/Jane conversations…….(which really highlights the importance of these foils for Lizzie in the text and how much depth they add to the book/characters and their relationships – in the movie the social criticisms and moral quandaries they present are minimized or not present at all). What I’m a bit confused about is what we got in place of this?? Like, when the beginning was so compressed, it seemed like they were making time/room for something else..but then everything raced along at such a pace that even with generous cuts (Pemberley! T_T) it didn’t feel like time had been made for that something else to be slowed down and given the film’s full attention.
It felt like a very 1940s AU P&P to the point that I almost wished they were dressed like it was the ’40s rather than the antebellum South. As an American from the northeast (Massachusetts/New York), I will just say Regency England and the American South are pretty distant from each other (or even opposite) in my cultural imaginings of them….(speaking of rabbit holes..I keep rewriting and deleting a side note here, but I’ll just say I don’t have a lot of positive associations with the South…)
Then again pretty much all of my imaginings of the world/my worldview differ from someone in the ’40s, so who’s to say they weren’t more conflated at the time. To me, it felt like maybe what was happening was that anything ‘old fashioned’/’old timey’ was just labeled as this era of dress that one’s grandparents/great-grandparents could be seen wearing in photographs/portraits? Who knows, but it would certainly be interesting to hear what the costume designer had to say for themself…
In general, the film just feels like it comes from such a 1940s perspective, so what you note about the potential inability to criticize those of rank/in power motivating the RIDICULOUS flip in Lady Catherine’s character is really interesting to consider. Also, that moment when Lady Catherine says she could take away Darcy’s fortune if he marries Lizzie??? But it was a test all along and she loves Elizabeth and traveled there with Darcy??? IDK what to make of this…I’m still reeling from it, not to mention that the family was moving………?! To where??? When the fact Longbourn is entailed away from the girls is such a big deal?? But they can just…leave????????? Just so much of that absurd last scene flips the book on its head and transforms it into this insane almost Shakespearean (in that he likes to get everyone together onstage at the end), 1940s romance. Like, Darcy and Elizabeth finally getting together on the bench felt like it could be lifted from any romantic film of the era – and I love that kind of scene, but it just didn’t feel like I was watching Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. So while I hate to be so negative and really enjoyed this romp, it felt a bit like ’40s Austen fanfiction rather than an actual adaptation of P&P. (Am I once again too focused on fidelity to the original?? IDK, but certainly that ending was wild enough to justify my bemusement?? Especially the huge change to Lady Catherine’s character………and yes the very 12 year old impulse to have someone else ask your crush if they like you before you go up to them – very bizarre coming from Darcy….)
I’m interested in the choice to have the top of Lizzie’s dress often be a bit blazer-ish with a tie. This, paired with the archery scene, seems like maybe there’s a gesture at commentary about gender roles? I was thinking I was going to finally say something a bit more positive, but now I’m concerned this might just be negative again. Because isn’t Lizzie in some ways ‘better’ than her sisters (at least as her father’s favorite/in her placement as the main character) due to her wit and intelligence? Or maybe that’s why we’re supposed to value her as an audience? So while the archery scene appears to be making this sort of feminist gesture about women’s strength and intelligence, the sort of masculine flavor to Lizzie’s wardrobe also points to those qualities – strength, intelligence, wit- as still inherently masculine? Am I too off base here? IDK, it seems like something almost feminist is happening here with Lizzie’s characterization, but the move to dress her differently than her sisters seems to say not that women can be men’s equals, but that Lizzie is more masculine than most women in a way that makes her more worthy. Womp.
I will say, the scene that felt the most P&P-y to me was Darcy’s first proposal. It was almost one of the only times where I saw that tension between them that is, to me, so characteristic of Lizzie and Darcy. Or maybe I’m just looking at it through proposal-tinted glasses because I love that scene too much…haha, who knows.
On a random note: I missed all of the reference’s to Lizzie’s “fine eyes” lol, but at least we learned that Mr. Bennet proposed during a thunderstorm?!😂
Hopping into the conversation above about Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, I will just say that I really appreciate your pointing out the misogyny apparent in how their characters are often perceived. To me, in the book Mr. Bennet’s culpability in what happens to Lydia is clear and indicates…if not how the reader should feel about him, then that his character is pretty flawed. Yes, he is witty, but, despite censuring his daughters, he makes no move to properly supervise, discipline or educate them, preferring to dismiss them and their behavior and stay locked away in his study. Elizabeth begs her father not to allow Lydia to go to Bath, but he doesn’t listen because he doesn’t want to deal with Lydia whining/throwing tantrums from not being allowed to go. It’s this cavalier/selfish attitude towards his daughters that in part causes Lydia’s abduction by Wickham. Also, I think it’s Darcy who refers to Mr. Bennet as also behaving inappropriately (and maybe it’s the ’95 version that then cuts to him telling Mary she’s “delighted us long enough. Let the other young ladies have time to exhibit.”), so while it’s true the blame of the family’s coarseness is often laid fully at Mrs. Bennet’s feet, Mr. Bennet is just as responsible. And as her parent, he should be responsible for Lydia (her safety, her care), so when his neglect leads to her abduction, he is in part responsible for almost ruining all the other daughters’ chances of marriage. (At least in the context of this book/time period?? In 2022, I would say only the man abducting a 15 year old is responsible for the abduction. I don’t want to come off as victim blaming…but I do think parents have a responsibility to their children that Mr. Bennet fails to uphold). So while I do love Mr. Bennet’s biting wit(and at times loving condescension: “Now, Kitty, you may cough as much as you chuse”), he is certainly deserving of scrutiny, and Austen’s portrayal includes a criticism of his behavior (to me anyway). I wonder if the popularity of the 2005 version (and the fact many young people may be more familiar with it than the book) has in some way reshaped how he is viewed???? Or if he has just been long beloved because it has been long acceptable to make fun of ‘silly’ women.
Anyway, I’ll stop rambling on. I guess I just keep coming back to the word ‘blithe’ for this film, as its blitheness (and pacing) sort of creates this lack of depth. I was definitely entertained, but more in a ‘I can’t believe this film exists and is like this’ kind of way than a ‘wow what a wonderful adaptation of P&P’ kind of way. Is it too shady to wonder if the screenwriter was just sort of…going off of memory and hadn’t read P&P in a while? Because that’s maybe a little bit what it felt like…😅😅😅
I agree book Mary is kind of a pill (you’re right she’s on hashtag TeamDeadLydia) – and I seem to recall the 1995 version portrays her with that kind of self-righteous dourness. But while Adorkable Mary Bennet may be too generous a reflection of her book counterpart, she’s still utterly delightful.
I think … I think the problem with Olivier is that because he’s, like, OLIVIER, one of the most famous actors ever … he always come across as to me as Olivier? Like Olivier being Darcy or Oliver being Crassus or Oliver being Othello (don’t go there, it’s very very unfortunate) which means I have a really hard time actually evaluating what I’m experiencing when he’s on screen. But I think his Darcy suffered more from scripted emotional inconsistency than his performance per se. Maybe?
Isn’t 2005 Rosamund Pike? Unless I’ve made that up? In which case she is perfection, and I will hear no word against her 😉 I actually reacted really strongly AGAINST 1995 Jane when first I saw her because while the performance was excellent, it felt hard to believe (and I don’t mean this as a comment on the actual looks of the actor) she was the “beautiful” sister when compared to Jennifer Ehle. But, I later came to realise that she looks … just like a Regency portrait? With that slightly long-face and deep-set eyes: so I feel Jane was cast to be “conventionally” beautiful according to the standards of the time. Whereas as Lizzie was cast to look attractive by modern standards. I don’t know if that worked in practice though.
I love your point about the witty banter / His Girl Friday Hollywood dynamic: I think you’re right that maybe trying to strike that tone, only bigger dresses, damages the emotional depth of the piece. It’s hard to feel any the setbacks are real or significant whereas, obviously, in the book (and other adaptions) Jane having all her hopes dashed is really devastating, both emotionally and practically. And that’s a good spot on the costuming: I honestly just thought Lizzie looked godawful a lot of the time, but now you’ve mentioned it I can see that touch of … modernity? Masculinisation? Whatever we want to call it.
Err, I don’t want to dig too deeply into the Regency versus the American south because it’s way, way out of my lane. Of course, they are very different, and the South has many problems. I guess what I was hinting at but lacked the courage to say outright was: I know there’s a kind of complicated nostalgia for the South, stoked by things like, well, Gone With the Wind. So part of me wondered whether making Regency England look like that without the, uh, slavery angle was meant to be offering a reduced-guilt alternative for people were liked the big dresses, balls and gallantry angle of GWTW.
In terms of Mr Bennet, I do agree that the book invites us to scrutinise his behaviour, especially in the light of what happens to Lydia. He himself, I think, expresses genuine self-recrimination about it—noting (with perhaps some dark self-knowledge) that his humility will probably pass too quickly. But I think when the Bennets are on screen, because she’s often portrayed as extremely shrill, and he’s the one making us laugh, he comes across problematically cool dad. It’ll be interesting to see how the various other adaptions tackle him.
2005 Jane is, indeed, Rosamund Pike (and 2005 Bingley was her IRL partner at the time) – and she is, in fact, exquisite, even if she (like all the Bennett sisters) suffers from an incurable affliction of overdramatic giggling throughout.
Whoa, looks like there are a lot of Austenites here. Recently came across an unholy mashup of Christmas rom-coms and Jane Austen that I never knew I needed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DOGwVI8PkI
Preview – Pride, Prejudice, and Mistletoe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIwQvo_dkL8
Sense, Sensibility & Snowmen Trailer
One has to wonder what the next one will be. Poinsettia Persuasion? Mansfield Gingerbread House? Have a very Emma-ry Christmas? The mind boggles.