I watched the 2005 Pride and Prejudice again last night, and my opinion has become more favorable.
I had always thought that the setting was particularly good. The roughness of even middle-class British citizens is better revealed. The materials that the Bennett girls wore in the 1995 version are worn only by the Bingleys and their peers. The Bennett's home is more obviously a working farm, complete with mud and pigs. Mr. Bennett (well played by Donald Sutherland) is quite clearly a farmer. The scenery is as good or better than the '95 version.
I have also decided that Macfadyen makes a tolerable Darcy. He is agreeably disagreeable in the first scene. My only complaint is that he begins to look besotted too soon and retains a puppy-like visage for the duration.
Rosamund Pike is a lovely Jane, Wickham is scuzzy yet appealing, Lady Catherine de Bourgh is frightening, and Charlotte Lucas is likeable and plain. I think I actually agree with the more sympathetic portrayal of Mrs. Bennett and Mary. The family is much less dysfunctional than in other interpretations.
The two things that originally turned my stomach yet remain:
Knightley's portrayal of Elizabeth is much different than Jennifer Ehle's. She is less mature, more emotional and transparent. She actually seems to have a lot of strange twitches and grimaces.
Too bad they had to edit so much of the book out of the screenplay, but I thought the dialog they did put in to cover this up was appropriate and blended seamlessly with the original. EXCEPT for the last scene! Ahhh! Keep the cheesy, anachronistic, sentimental fantasies in your own warped, 21st century mind Moggach!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Michaela, I don't think you place enough emphasis on the editing of the dialogue. When I was watching this movie, I felt like I was being dragged along at a break neck speed through Pride and Prejudice's 'greatest hits.'
We were jumping from 'netherfield hall is let' to 'you must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and I love you' in what seemed a matter of seconds.
I realize these types of cuts are necessary to keep the film at a normal length. But ,well, if making a movie requires the sacrifice of so much dialogue- heart and soul of the book-...is it really worth making the movie in the first place?
In fact, what was the point really of making yet ANOTHER Pride and Prejudice (other than to help Keira Knightley get an oscar nomination)? There are so many other fantastic books out there that haven't already been filmed countless times.
Hmmph...well obviously I have chosen the more controversial position, which is what I always strive for :-)
Could someone get my a coffee mug that says "anarcho-feminist, pacifist, baptist, Reformed, grammatically-correct librarian"?
You know how they make ones that say "conservative, christian, republican, heterosexual, yadayada?" It must be depressing to have your complete spectrum of ideas represented by such a great percentage of the population that they have a pre-made coffee mug for you.
yeah, yeah, hide behind your iconoclastism. You're just wrong on this one and you know it!;)
Can I be iconoclastic and mention that Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy annoys me with her remote smugness?
Yes, but Lizzy is supposed to be smug. That's one of her faults. Uncontrolled twitches as displayed by Knightly are not.
But I support your iconoclasm.
Post a Comment