Pride and Prejudice
As requested by Kelly, I am posting, FINALLY, my own review of this movie. I'll tell you up front that I am feeling bad right from the get-go because I am going to disagree with Kelly on virtually every point. At least 75% of them. Sorry. But here it is:
When I walked into the theatre, I sat down with the full intention to watch the movie as I do the Harry Potter films: as though I'd never heard of these characters before, as though I'd never read the books. It's the only fair way. This, admittedly, is very hard to do, but I feel it is the only way to approach something like this, especially my beloved Jane Austen. So I tried. I took an open mind.
But it was difficult to contain my anger. Most of my complaints stem from the fact that the movie is impossibly short for the story. We never see the hilariuously sycophantic Mr. Collins in his full glory. The Lydia/Wickham story line is glossed over and resolved so quickly that to the uninitiated, this unfortunate alliance would appear nothing more than an inconvenience, easily rectified. In actuality, it is a major family tragedy with the potential to ruin many lives. All of the humor sucked out until it was dry as a bone. So is the social commentary, which is one of the most important aspects of any Jane Austen work. Unlike Kelly, I did not think that Darcy became likeable too soon. I thought he barely became likeable at all. This is truly sad because I thought that Matthew McFadyen was very very right for the part. I liked him a great deal, when they gave me a chance. They used Judi Dench like a bit player, and stole away all of Lady Catherine's juciest stuff. I thought Brenda Blethyn played Mrs. Bennet WAY too sane, and therefore, boring. I'm ambivalent about Donald Sutherland. I was disgusted by this casting, but then thought he was acceptable. They certainly made him look cool, but more on that later. I was really digging the guy who played Mr. Bingley and thought he was a standout. I also thought that Rosamund Pike was a reasonably good Jane Bennet. I'm certain they both would have been much better had the direction not been so self-serving.
Most emphatically, I must say that I thought that Kiera Knightley was real, real bad. I thought that she stole her whole demeanor from Jennifer Ehle and then pumped it up until it was completely unbelieveable. I felt nothing. Nothing. For me, there was barely a hint of feeling between Elizabeth and Darcy. If she wins an Oscar for this movie, I will eat glass while Jane Austen rolls in her grave. In fact, I will immediately fly to England and lay flowers of apology at the feet of Jane Austen.
Finally, the blatant emotional manipulation of the director was too much to bear. The haunting sunrise, the swelling music, the morning mist. I was sure I had been transplanted to a Harlequin or a commercial for womens' deodorant. Ever have that not-so-fresh feeling?
Now, here's the shocker: I truly recommend that everyone see this movie. Why? Because for real, the cinematography, art direction, locations, and general "look" of the movie were outstanding. No, not just outstanding, absolutely freakin' brilliant. Of all adaptations of all Jane Austen novels ever, this one is the earthiest, realest, and most gorgeous. Every scene, especially the exteriors, was a visual feast. It made me want to sit under the tree and eat an apple, and smell the moss and the dirt and even the sheep. And believe it or not, I may suffer through the script one more time just to SEE this film on the big screen one more time. A-MAZING.
And so there you have it.
Yours &c.
Kristine
When I walked into the theatre, I sat down with the full intention to watch the movie as I do the Harry Potter films: as though I'd never heard of these characters before, as though I'd never read the books. It's the only fair way. This, admittedly, is very hard to do, but I feel it is the only way to approach something like this, especially my beloved Jane Austen. So I tried. I took an open mind.
But it was difficult to contain my anger. Most of my complaints stem from the fact that the movie is impossibly short for the story. We never see the hilariuously sycophantic Mr. Collins in his full glory. The Lydia/Wickham story line is glossed over and resolved so quickly that to the uninitiated, this unfortunate alliance would appear nothing more than an inconvenience, easily rectified. In actuality, it is a major family tragedy with the potential to ruin many lives. All of the humor sucked out until it was dry as a bone. So is the social commentary, which is one of the most important aspects of any Jane Austen work. Unlike Kelly, I did not think that Darcy became likeable too soon. I thought he barely became likeable at all. This is truly sad because I thought that Matthew McFadyen was very very right for the part. I liked him a great deal, when they gave me a chance. They used Judi Dench like a bit player, and stole away all of Lady Catherine's juciest stuff. I thought Brenda Blethyn played Mrs. Bennet WAY too sane, and therefore, boring. I'm ambivalent about Donald Sutherland. I was disgusted by this casting, but then thought he was acceptable. They certainly made him look cool, but more on that later. I was really digging the guy who played Mr. Bingley and thought he was a standout. I also thought that Rosamund Pike was a reasonably good Jane Bennet. I'm certain they both would have been much better had the direction not been so self-serving.
Most emphatically, I must say that I thought that Kiera Knightley was real, real bad. I thought that she stole her whole demeanor from Jennifer Ehle and then pumped it up until it was completely unbelieveable. I felt nothing. Nothing. For me, there was barely a hint of feeling between Elizabeth and Darcy. If she wins an Oscar for this movie, I will eat glass while Jane Austen rolls in her grave. In fact, I will immediately fly to England and lay flowers of apology at the feet of Jane Austen.
Finally, the blatant emotional manipulation of the director was too much to bear. The haunting sunrise, the swelling music, the morning mist. I was sure I had been transplanted to a Harlequin or a commercial for womens' deodorant. Ever have that not-so-fresh feeling?
Now, here's the shocker: I truly recommend that everyone see this movie. Why? Because for real, the cinematography, art direction, locations, and general "look" of the movie were outstanding. No, not just outstanding, absolutely freakin' brilliant. Of all adaptations of all Jane Austen novels ever, this one is the earthiest, realest, and most gorgeous. Every scene, especially the exteriors, was a visual feast. It made me want to sit under the tree and eat an apple, and smell the moss and the dirt and even the sheep. And believe it or not, I may suffer through the script one more time just to SEE this film on the big screen one more time. A-MAZING.
And so there you have it.
Yours &c.
Kristine
posted by Kristine at 12:01 PM
3 Comments:
Fantastic review Kristine. I'm so glad you're writing again. Your stuff is always fun to read.
I guess we're just destined to disagree on the things we review ... first the Zero bar, now this. :-)
I saw it again last night and completely agree with you about it being too short and this being a great detriment. However, I found that most of the actors did as good a job with the time they had, if not better, as those in the 1996 Pride and Prejudice. I also thought that all the key moments that were in this movie were superior to the 1996 version. We also have very different ideas of the proper Elizabeth, as I thought Jennifer Ehle was good in some parts, and just acceptable in most of the others.
We are in agreement on the fact that Keira Knightley should not get an Oscar for this. I greatly enjoyed her performance but, after the second viewing, feel this is more due to the screen writers than the actors. While I don't agree with what the screen writers decided to leave out (most of the Wickham plot, like you said) I think they did a masterful job translating as much of the story as they could into the way too short 2 hours. Although, maybe the screenwriters did leave more Wickham in, and the fault lies with editing ... ? I don't know enough about the movie making process to say who's at fault . I know I'm not a fan of the directing, as I said in my review.
Ha! I thought the mist scene was too much too, and my mom commented on how it was like a Harlequin romance. But I didn't like Colin Firth in his wet shirt scene either. Thank goodness for the fast-forward button.
Long live the 1980 adaptation!
This is a fantastic, well-thought-out review with which I have to disagree almost entirely. It's been a couple of weeks since I saw the movie, and I still yearn to walk somewhere in that real rain, and chase a pig through the kitchen garden.
Of course, Keira Knightley does not deserve an Oscar for this, but she does deserve respect for however she achieved that sassy sympathetic sizzlling-below-the-surface performance. And I found Donald Sutherland just right---a cravenly caring papa. I wish it could have been longer, and that my favourite bits fairly treated, but I tried to forget what I knew going in, and it still seemed to work.
I would see this movie again just to watch the dancing, realizing that in Jane A's world, some of the sexiest exchanges between men and women happened on those jostling floors with dandies and flirts thrilling to the touch of glove on waist.
And I forget how the Zero bar fell out in the earlier interchange, but a dark Zero bar, chilled is the perfect companion to a bag of hot popcorn. Which would go well with P & P, 2005
Kelly, I can't believe you brought up the Zero Bar Debacle. I thought we had put it behind us. ha ha
Lorna, I completely agree about the dancing. I just felt nothing of the smoldering from Keira Knightley. Nothing.
But so far, I'm losing, 2-1. I am, however, anxiously awaiting a review from an acquaintance who is a PhD Jane Austen scholar, and professor of same. I hope this one goes in my favor. I'll feel better. I'll let you know!
Post a Comment
<< Home