A word of warning to all you who really love Joe Wright's 2005 movie, this one might not be for you. We hate it. With every fibre of our being. And that is no exaggeration. It's not a judgement though, so relax. We have wanted to do an entry on Pride & Prejudice since before we had a blog. We realised that we couldn't compare the "new" film to the miniseries as that would be unfair. Also, why compare anything to perfection? (Insert a wistful sigh here) We might do a comparison to the book one day though. Instead we decided to go with 1940 versus 2005, as they are the only legitimate film adaptations around. Before you ask, we'll never touch the Bollywood, LDS or zombie ones. Because these two are already a far cry from Austen. We think that it would be better for you too as our puritanism would certainly take over us even more so than now. Both of these movies make the same essential mistake: they've changed the whole idea of the original story. Mr. Darcy is supposed to be a total asshole the first half, but because of Lizzy's lecture he realises that and admits it to himself and stops being such a massive jerk. It's in essence a transformation story for both parties. In these films they've turned it into a misunderstanding from Lizzy's side. Unfortunately, only in one of these versions does it work.
1940 Pros
Lizzy is what ultimately saves this version. She's witty but not impertinent. "If you want to be truly refined, you must be dead. There's nothing more dignified than a mummy." Its humour and minor characters are also quite faithful to Austen's spirit. The minor characters are exaggerated and it works, because the atmosphere is light. Plus Mr. Bingley isn't a complete doofus. He's sociable, polite and rather affable (which is more than we can say about the new one), although he's not on screen much . The bookish dialogue suits the theatrical settings of the film. The makers were aware that they had changed the essence of the book and that's what makes it at least an enjoyable experience. In addition, the relationship between Lizzy and Mr. Darcy, while occasionally stiff, is quite believable as they actually interact with each other in a sensible manner.
Cons
It's based on a play which is based on the book, so no wonder the story got lost in between. Whereas the theatrical elements fit the movie, they do not work in regards with the original story. Furthermore, there are much better theatrical movies around (eg. The Shop Around the Corner). This version has all the same cosmetic mistakes as the 2005 one (lack of etiquette, costumes etc). There's some pretty deep rooted sexism here as well (especially the whole "you must learn to dream about men" scene). Though looking at the time it was made, that's nothing out of the ordinary. Ah, the time when women could only be homemakers. The dialogue isn't always smooth and it can be a bit wooden at times. It deviates a lot from the source material, which isn't exactly a bad thing though. It's a con only in the sense that we'd love to see an adaptation of Pride & Prejudice on the big screen done right.
All in all, if you're looking for a butchered version of the book that doesn't make you gag, pick this one. Unless you really can't stand "old" movies. But then there's something very wrong with you.
This is going to be a short list. Some casting choices were good, eg. Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Charlotte. The music sounds good. Some scenes where you see Lizzy separate from others are nice. There are two moments and one scene that wouldn't make Austen turn in her grave (when Mr. Collins gives Lizzy the flower, when Bingley leaves the room and Mr. Darcy says "excuse me" awkwardly and them practising proposing after that moment). In connection with those, the cinematography can be quite stunning. We're paraphrasing our oldest sister: When you're watching the movie and the characters are silent and it looks good, you start thinking "hey, maybe it's not that bad after all". But then they open their mouths and you simply go "no, god!! Please, just make it stop!!" The film does look very pretty, we admit.
Cons
There are too many to count, it would have to be a separate post. Believe it or not, this is the concise version of our distaste. Our main problem is with the script. For us it's not even a good movie. Forget that they completely assassinated the source material and turned Austen's masterpiece into overly dramatic unrecognisable fluff, but they took away the subtle, smart and witty content that is the heart of the story and left us with a fucking poster picture. A good example of ruining Austen's delicate social commentary is when Charlotte tells Lizzy about her marrying Mr. Collins. The Chris Nolan effect strikes again. Because viewers couldn't possibly understand what's going on unless a character verbally conveys every little detail. The cosmetic mistakes wouldn't bother us in the least, if only the film was any good.
The serious tone of the movie ruins the main characters and is a major hindrance in their interaction. There's literally only a few seconds of credible and good dialogue between the two. Obviously some humour is needed, but the exaggerations don't work because of the tone and also they seemed to have focused on the wrong character. Poor Mr. Bingley, what a ridiculous buffoon they made you. Because now it's totally plausible that you'd be Mr. Darcy's best friend.
When we went to see this in the cinema, the scene that completely turned us against the film was the first proposal scene. It's an atrocious travesty. It's pretty much the epitome of everything that's wrong with this movie. Imagine every possible romantic cliche and insert them here and you're not too far off. "It's raining". Check. "Our love guided us here/serendipity". Check. "I really hate you, but still, come closer". Check. In addition, Joe Wright insists on using language from the book that doesn't work on screen (eg. "prevailed upon to marry"). The actors have to deliver their lines way too fast and that in turn makes the dialogue even more unnatural. Wright clearly wanted to make a distinction from the '95 series, but instead of giving the old story a new spin, he ended up creating a totally different story, and not even a very good one at that.
If the proposal scene was where this movie jumped the shark for us, the ending truly cemented the film as unsalvageable. The mystical elements that they're trying to push on the viewer are too sappy and a sacrilege even to the name of Jane Austen. If the movie was better those elements might actually be interesting and romantic in the true sense of the word. Like some fairytale films or Brontë. We have to wonder why they wanted to adapt Austen who is a very unromantic author and make a film that has nothing more than the appearance of romance.
Suggestion: if you feel like watching the attempted storyline better done, watch BBC's North & South, which they basically ripped off for this movie anyway.
1940 Pros
Lizzy is what ultimately saves this version. She's witty but not impertinent. "If you want to be truly refined, you must be dead. There's nothing more dignified than a mummy." Its humour and minor characters are also quite faithful to Austen's spirit. The minor characters are exaggerated and it works, because the atmosphere is light. Plus Mr. Bingley isn't a complete doofus. He's sociable, polite and rather affable (which is more than we can say about the new one), although he's not on screen much . The bookish dialogue suits the theatrical settings of the film. The makers were aware that they had changed the essence of the book and that's what makes it at least an enjoyable experience. In addition, the relationship between Lizzy and Mr. Darcy, while occasionally stiff, is quite believable as they actually interact with each other in a sensible manner.
Cons
It's based on a play which is based on the book, so no wonder the story got lost in between. Whereas the theatrical elements fit the movie, they do not work in regards with the original story. Furthermore, there are much better theatrical movies around (eg. The Shop Around the Corner). This version has all the same cosmetic mistakes as the 2005 one (lack of etiquette, costumes etc). There's some pretty deep rooted sexism here as well (especially the whole "you must learn to dream about men" scene). Though looking at the time it was made, that's nothing out of the ordinary. Ah, the time when women could only be homemakers. The dialogue isn't always smooth and it can be a bit wooden at times. It deviates a lot from the source material, which isn't exactly a bad thing though. It's a con only in the sense that we'd love to see an adaptation of Pride & Prejudice on the big screen done right.
All in all, if you're looking for a butchered version of the book that doesn't make you gag, pick this one. Unless you really can't stand "old" movies. But then there's something very wrong with you.
2005 Pros
This is going to be a short list. Some casting choices were good, eg. Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Charlotte. The music sounds good. Some scenes where you see Lizzy separate from others are nice. There are two moments and one scene that wouldn't make Austen turn in her grave (when Mr. Collins gives Lizzy the flower, when Bingley leaves the room and Mr. Darcy says "excuse me" awkwardly and them practising proposing after that moment). In connection with those, the cinematography can be quite stunning. We're paraphrasing our oldest sister: When you're watching the movie and the characters are silent and it looks good, you start thinking "hey, maybe it's not that bad after all". But then they open their mouths and you simply go "no, god!! Please, just make it stop!!" The film does look very pretty, we admit.
Cons
There are too many to count, it would have to be a separate post. Believe it or not, this is the concise version of our distaste. Our main problem is with the script. For us it's not even a good movie. Forget that they completely assassinated the source material and turned Austen's masterpiece into overly dramatic unrecognisable fluff, but they took away the subtle, smart and witty content that is the heart of the story and left us with a fucking poster picture. A good example of ruining Austen's delicate social commentary is when Charlotte tells Lizzy about her marrying Mr. Collins. The Chris Nolan effect strikes again. Because viewers couldn't possibly understand what's going on unless a character verbally conveys every little detail. The cosmetic mistakes wouldn't bother us in the least, if only the film was any good.
The serious tone of the movie ruins the main characters and is a major hindrance in their interaction. There's literally only a few seconds of credible and good dialogue between the two. Obviously some humour is needed, but the exaggerations don't work because of the tone and also they seemed to have focused on the wrong character. Poor Mr. Bingley, what a ridiculous buffoon they made you. Because now it's totally plausible that you'd be Mr. Darcy's best friend.
When we went to see this in the cinema, the scene that completely turned us against the film was the first proposal scene. It's an atrocious travesty. It's pretty much the epitome of everything that's wrong with this movie. Imagine every possible romantic cliche and insert them here and you're not too far off. "It's raining". Check. "Our love guided us here/serendipity". Check. "I really hate you, but still, come closer". Check. In addition, Joe Wright insists on using language from the book that doesn't work on screen (eg. "prevailed upon to marry"). The actors have to deliver their lines way too fast and that in turn makes the dialogue even more unnatural. Wright clearly wanted to make a distinction from the '95 series, but instead of giving the old story a new spin, he ended up creating a totally different story, and not even a very good one at that.
If the proposal scene was where this movie jumped the shark for us, the ending truly cemented the film as unsalvageable. The mystical elements that they're trying to push on the viewer are too sappy and a sacrilege even to the name of Jane Austen. If the movie was better those elements might actually be interesting and romantic in the true sense of the word. Like some fairytale films or Brontë. We have to wonder why they wanted to adapt Austen who is a very unromantic author and make a film that has nothing more than the appearance of romance.
Suggestion: if you feel like watching the attempted storyline better done, watch BBC's North & South, which they basically ripped off for this movie anyway.
In conclusion, if you want to find a good version of the original storyline in film form, we'd recommend Disney's Beauty & the Beast.
No comments:
Post a Comment