posted by catherine / November 12, 2005 /
1 comment /
i saw pride & prejudice last night, and i am here to tell ye olde folks who are worried about it sucking compared to the 1995 a&e six hour version adaptation of the book: ye have nothing to worry about. and this is coming from somebody who is clinically obsessed with the a&e version, and more than clinically obsessed with colin firth. i first saw the a&e one when i was a junior in high school, and in the following nine years or so have probably seen it at least a dozen times (thanks to tommy buying me the dvd as a present early on in our relationship; even back then he know not to get in the way of my tunnel vision colin firth obsession).
anyway, the 2005 movie, directed by somebody named joe wright, i think, is almost like a completely different film. it's much more boisterous and fast-paced and, um, dirty. not like sex dirty, dirty like there are chickens and pigs and sweaty dancing people everywhere in cramped halls and drinking beer and laughing. and it's very, very funny. the a&e version is very prim and proper and slow and restrained in a lovely way - which works for that film because over the course of six freakin' hours, it can afford to do that, to rest on every detail and take the time to let the feelings between darcy and lizzie build.
in the new theater version, of course, you've only got two hours, so it's kind of like, bam bam bam, wickham what? no biggie! yeah, some of the interesting sub plots have been cut down a ton - wickham and mr. collins being two of them - and for those who love the book and the a&e film it kind of sucks. but the rest of the movie almost makes you forget about that because the rest of what it focuses on is so well done. it's shot beautifully, and keira knightley deserves all the praise she's been getting in reviews, as do the rest of the actors. i especially loved this really brief scene with lizzie, when she and her uncle pull up in front of darcy's house in derbyshire during their vacation. in approximately three seconds, knightly shows, hysterically and without saying anything, disbelief, regret and a thorough mental-self-kicking for having rejected darcy's proposal when she could have been mistress of all she is seeing. she really is excellent and very natural.
i was surprised by how much i liked donald sutherland as mr. bennet, and brenda blethyn as mrs. bennet was fantastic and much more sympathetic than the same character in the a&e film. at first, matthew macfayden as darcy seems terrible and stupid. man, he must have been terrified taking on this role, knowing what he had to go up against in colin firth. but by the first proposal scene with lizzie, he had totally won me over. he's got a great voice (think alan rickman's) and he plays darcy more as of a confused, taciturn but essentially good-natured man instead of the total asshole who grows into a kinder, gentler darcy that firth did. he and lizzie also have believable chemistry that develops naturally during the course of the film.
in addition to all the wonderful acting, the film is just really, really beautiful and warm. wright uses lots of long one-take shots, especially during ball scenes, following characters around, and the lighting and set design are beautiful. honestly, it basically felt like a completely different film than the a&e version. i felt like i was watching a totally separate movie, so even though i enjoyed it so much, it didn't feel like i was betraying my obsession with the a&e version. they're different films with different aims and different ways of interpreting the book, and it works for both of them. highly recommended!
