Pride & Prejudice
I finally got to see "Pride & Prejudice" today, and it was a delight. I know Austen purists will perhaps be upset by the liberties that were taken with the novel in order to cut it down to 2 hours, but I think the changes stayed true to the book for the most part. You've probably heard of the extra romantic ending on the the U.S. version, which the British test audiences rejected as being too sweet. I must admit I'm with the Brits on this one, but it didn't bother me enough to affect my overall opinion of the film.
It's interesting to me that each filmed version of the story comes at it with a particular emphasis in mind. The BBC miniseries made in the mid '90s, starring Jennifer Ehle as Lizzie and Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy -- which I also love, by the way -- seemed to approach it as much more of a comedy than this one does. This latest version approaches it as a romantic comedy, to be sure, but the emphasis is clearly on the romance aspect. Of course, the genius of Austen is that she manages to make it romantic and hysterical without sacrificing one or the other.
What is it about American audiences -- or maybe it's just Western Pennsylvania audiences -- that they can't appreciate humor in a period film? Seeing people in period dress speaking with British accents automatically makes them afraid to laugh. Although this version put more emphasis on the romance overall, there were still plenty of very funny scenes, but lots of times I was the only person in the theater laughing.
Keira Knightley was quite good, although at times her beauty was distracting. There were scenes where she was supposed to look disheveled or bad and she just...didn't. It's not her fault she's perfect-looking, though. :) She did a great job with the role, giving us a Lizzie that seemed giddier and younger than the one Jennifer Ehle portrayed in the BBC version.
I also thought Rosamund Pike did a lovely job as Jane, the eldest Bennett daughter. One of the unfortunate effects of having to squeeze the story down into 2 hours is that the relationship between Lizzie and Jane goes largely underdeveloped in the film. It's understandable given the time contraints, but still a loss overall because Pike's quiet and reserved Jane served as a nice counterweight to Knightley's often giddy Lizzie. I would've liked to see more scenes with them together.
Matthew MacFadyen was a fantastic Mr. Darcy. In contrast to Colin Firth's take on the character, whom I thought remained exceeedingly stiff throughout the entire film, MacFadyen let the mask slip now and then and allowed you to see Darcy's softer side, even long before Lizzie does herself. And he's also handsome as heck without being a pretty boy, which I think is key to the role.
All in all, I'd say you'll be cheating yourself if you miss this film. It was the most enjoyable experience I've had at the movies in a long while. And feel free to take the teens and tweens along, too -- there's nothing objectionable in it at all... with the possible exception of Judi Dench's hairdo. :) I was accompanied by my cousins, Darcy (13) who liked the movie a lot and Tyler (16) who pronounced it "cute," which is high praise indeed coming from a teenage guy in reference to the ultimate literary chick flick. :)
posted by LC @ 9:00 PM
3 Comments:
As far as Austen adapts go, though, how does it compare to Sense and Sensibility? that is my metric, even though persuasion was good in an understated kind of way
I personally didn't think it was as good as Sense & Sensibility...but I'm rather biased, given that S&S is my very favorite film. The biggest difference is in the screenwriting, I think. Emma Thompson gets Austen down in her bones, so much so that even the parts that she rewrote or even added herself seemed of a piece with the rest of the dialogue and story. This one doesn't flow as well in that regard. There are a lot of lines in it straight out of the book, but the added or adapted stuff really stood out to me, particularly that last scene. I think the screenwriter could've spent a little more time making sure the dialogue rang true in terms of the style of the language.
On the DVD commentary for S&S, Emma Thompson makes a joke about having to write little "improvised" bits of dialogue for the cast to memorize, since very few of them, with the exception of the woman playing Mrs. Jennings and the guy playing Sir John, were able to extemporize in 18th century English. Emma said some of them thought simply sticking words like "pray" on the sentence would do it, so they'd come out with hysterical things like, "Pray, hand me the stuff." The added dialogue in P&P doesn't stick out to that degree, but it doesn't meld as well as S&S in that sense.
I also think the basic story in S&S is a lot more layered, at least in terms of the film. There's a lot more going on in it. The story in P&P is pretty simple -- the evolution of the two main characters and their relationship -- and the success of any filmed version really hinges on how well the two leads can pull it off. These two pull it off well.
It's gorgeous to look at, too. I refrained from going on about that directly in my post because what I know about cinematography and camerawork would fit in a thimble, but they managed to keep it visually interesting throughout.
You may not have the vocabulary or know intimately the mechanics of film production, but I would take your word for it with respect to teh photography because, well, you DO watch a heck of a lot of tv and movies for a living.
Post a Comment
<< Home