Pride and Prejudice discussion

This is valid for any other book that has more than one adaptation.

We all have seen them - the BBC one´s, the Hollywood ones, on the most varied of books.

Which do you prefer - the one´s that stick truthfully are as close as they can to the book or the ones that are a bit more on the "creative" side?

Do you have a favourite one? Which and why?

I enjoy both just the way they are. The BBC's 95 adaptation is something I'd watch when I need a long-lasting enjoyment effect of Austenism, while the 2005 movie version is for a quick pick-me-up. The 2005 music is very tasteful, very soothing to listen to after a stressful day.

There's something that disappoints/irks me in each, though.

1995: The part where Lizzy confessed that her feelings to Mr. Darcy had changed and that they were quite the opposite, feels a bit flat to me. And Mr. Darcy's controlled reaction; he should have shown more enthusiasm! Hey, this is the same lady who once rejected your offer of marriage, okay?

2005: The pig scene. What the heck?! And the final proposal. Seriously, “Your hands are cold”? That was just insipid, after such a heart-felt proposal by Mr. Darcy (which really moved me).

In the 95 version, the controlled reaction of darcy is consistent with his personallity, thougupout the bookand serie. And remember the way that she rejected his first proposal - he must have been in awe when she said that her feelings had changed: he must have been over the moon and at lost for words.

The 2005 version didn´t catch my eye one bit, starting on wardrobe end ending on the acting of Keyra, that played a very bland Lizzie.

I usually like adaptations that stick to the book. Pride and Prejudice (1995) is my favorite adaptation because it is so faithful to the book. Frankly, I couldn't stand the 2005 adaptation. So many things were changed that it upset me. It all felt like a group of people were playing dress up. It was too much like a typical "chick-flick"; scenes in the rain, yelling at one another, running around the meadows in nightclothes and insipid (good word, Maria) dialogue that was only a reflection of Jane Austen's prose.

Quite frankly i think that the whole 2005 version of P&P doesn´t stand a chance with the Emma played by Gwyneth Paltrow, which could be a close comparison. But Emma is sooo much better! At least the wardrobe fitted the time and rank. And her Emma was as spirited as the one in the book. Although, again, my fave is the series which star Romola Garai. I think i will always favour the series because they have time to develop the characters and show the cenarios and not so crunched like the movies.

While 2005 can never replace 1995, it still has its good points. I get it that the reason that most people don't like it is because it didn't stay true to the novel. But did you know that when making this film, the director did not want to mimic the 1995 adaptation at all? The film team didn't want to be accused of making a copy; they wanted their own work. Hence they bumped the time period forward, and they opted for a more muddy tone so that it would be different from the clean 1995 version.

Sure, the sets, costumes, etc., aren't historically accurate because it's in a different time period. It was supposed to be set in 1813, but the producers changed it to the late 18th century, during which the costumes would be more accurate.

I enjoy the subtle emotion shown by Colin Firth's Darcy: when he stares lovingly at Lizzy while Lizzy was standing beside Georgiana (who's playing a score at the piano), and when he comforts Lizzy at the inn parlour after Lizzy discovered the dreadful news delivered by Jane through the letters. But if the 95 version is meant to stick as closely as it could to the book, to my mind the 2nd proposal part is different from what I imagine. I'd like to quote the corresponding part from the novel itself.

The happiness which this reply produced, was such as he had probably never felt before; and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do.

That's where I wished Colin's Darcy had shown a little bit more emotion despite the way he always was.

Juliana Es wrote: "The happiness which this reply produced, was such as he had probably never felt before; and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do.

That's where I wished Colin's Darcy had shown a little bit more emotion despite the way he always was..."

I think that it could be an interpretation from the director, on reading the words - i mean, in Jane austen´s time, a "man violently in love" would not express himself the same way as we are used to see. I will take it as the director´s take on Austen´s words nad it fits the personality of Darcy - he is a river that runs deep: he is steady and stabel, although very emotional.

Juliana Es wrote: "While 2005 can never replace 1995, it still has its good points. I get it that the reason that most people don't like it is because it didn't stay true to the novel. But did you know that when maki..."

I didn´t knew this. If they wanted to make an original take, they took some very strange way to do it.

Sure, the sets, costumes, etc., aren't historically accurate because it's in a different time period. It was supposed to be set in 1813, but the producers changed it to the late 18th century, during which the costumes would be more accurate.

You mean late 19th century, right? Because if it were 18th, Lizzie would have to have a Marie Antoinette style wigg on her head and those frilly dresses with the fake hips.

Maria wrote: "Juliana Es wrote: "The happiness which this reply produced, was such as he had probably never felt before; and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in l..."

Exactly my thinking. People were more reserved. It was looked down upon to be loud and boisterous about your feelings (*cough* LYDIA *cough*).

I will admit that I did not see all of the 2005 version. But then again I didn't want to. My mom watched it (whom I might add is a diehard Colin Firth fan but also a movie geek) and said it was ok, like the readers digest version.

I prefer mini series in general. They have more time to put little nods to the book and stick with accuracy to the original story (which is a really big hullabaloo, i.e. Eragon). I like to sit and exclaim "Hey! They did that in the book!" and I feel kind of accomplished when I make the connection.

For example, the scene in the 1995 P&P when Caroline and Lizzie walk around the room and Mr. Darcy unconsciously closes his book and watches them. Colin Firth did that! I totally yelled at my mom to watch it again and rewound to point it out to her. She thought I was nuts.

Maria wrote: "You mean late 19th century, right? Because if it were 18th, Lizzie would have to have a Marie Antoinette style wigg on her head and those frilly dresses with the fake hips."

Haha! If you say so. Sorry for the misquote of the century. I am not an expert in Regency fashion, and do not particularly care to be, and am somewhat apathetic on the subject.

Megumi wrote: "I will admit that I did not see all of the 2005 version. But then again I didn't want to. My mom watched it (whom I might add is a diehard Colin Firth fan but also a movie geek) and said it was ok,..."

I agree I always sit there yelling if something was or wasn't in the book :)

Juliana Es wrote: "Haha! If you say so. Sorry for the misquote of the century. I am not an expert in Regency fashion, and do not particularly care to be, and am somewhat apathetic on the subject..."

Sorry, i didn´t mean to be so doctoral in my comment.

But if i understood correctly, the 2005 version was set in a different time frame; from what i saw it looked more like the dull fabrics from the late Victorian age - the browns - than the vibrant colours worn that were used in Georgina, Duchess of Devonshire´s time.

I'm quite confused about the time frame myself. I found conflicting statements about the costume and time period. Some said that it was to depict the costume in 19th century, but another source said that it was intended to set the story in late 18th century, when fashion in the slightly earlier Colonial style would have still been common among the lower gentry (whereas Miss Bingley and the elite would have dressed in the more up-to-date Regency fashion).

Juliana Es wrote: "I'm quite confused about the time frame myself. I found conflicting statements about the costume and time period. Some said that it was to depict the costume in 19th century, but another source sai..."


From the very short amount of movie that i saw the thing that stuck out the most was that Lizzie wore dresses that made her look like a kitchen maid, if she was in the 95 production. To me, the late 18th century would have still be influenced by the pre-guillotine fashion, much in the fashion ( don´t know if you´ve seen it) of The Duchess, that also stars Keyra - Restauration fashion.

Anyway, if Lizzie was a daughter of a gentleman, she, above all, would have to be even better dressed or more up to date than Caroline, who was only the daughter of a tradesman.

Yes I have indeed watched The Duchess, which is quite recently.

About the comparison between Caroline and Lizzie, while I cannot comment much on the choice of dress, Caroline, though a daughter of only a tradesman, sort of thinks of herself having a higher status than the Bennet family, and as such, explains the way she carries herself.

But I think even Carolines's dress during the Netherfield ball and as well as the one she wore during the trio first arrival at the public dance, were not appropriate for that period. She was either wearing a sleeveless dress, or had the shortest sleeves of anyone at the party. I don't even know if such a dress would be appropriate in this day.

Yes, the dress that Caroline wore was not at all appropriate for the period in question, or whatever period, for that matter - it was almost a strappy one. The dresses for the period all had sleeves, even in the hight of summer.

Yes, Caroline thought herself way above all people, that´s why she was so arrogant - i loved when she went splat on her face with Darcy!

I guess I am alone here in liking the 1980 BBC version best, as closest by far to the book. The dialogue is spot on.

But the interactions between the characters are understated, the emotions displayed with great subtlety, as I believe they would be in Jane Austen's world. So I can completely understand people who don't like David Rintoul's stiffness compared to Colin Firth's romantic, silent smoldering (and dip in the water), but I feel that it's more in character.

My ideal Mr. Darcy, I suppose, would fall somewhere in between.

There are some things about the 1995 version that I like best. The scene where they are dancing together, for instance. And Colin Firth is, to say the least, easy on the eyes.

Teresa, i havent´seen this 80´s version of it, so i can only compare to the 2 versions that i have seen; and i have to say that by far, the 95 version gets the best out of me - to me, it sticks perfectly to the book.

People here complain that Colin is a bit stiff, which i totally disagree - if you say that David Rintoul is even stiffer, i wonder what would be those people opinion on him....

To me, Colin Firth looks stiff in the role in the way that someone who is shy looks stiff. There is a hint of vulnerability that I find appealing. David Rintoul looks haughty ... but also a bit uneasy.

In the book, there is that conversation between Elizabeth, Darcy, and Colonel Fitzwilliam, where Darcy makes it clear that he feels self-conscious in unfamiliar company, so I think that both actors have the right idea there. But since Darcy's manner does not come across as shyness to his contemporaries in the book -- people who are formal and reserved, by our standards, at least among people they don't know well -- then I don't feel that it should appear so to us.

An argument might be made that Firth's Darcy is supposed to appeal to modern viewers in a way that a more accurate portrait of the character would not. But we aren't supposed to be drawn to Darcy at first. (Also, darn it, his clothes should fit better!)

Yes, Firth comes across as a bit stiff, but only because he is not in his familiar surroundings.

But i was drawn to Darcy in the book - he was so haughty that he was bound to have a secret or a soft spot in there somewhere.

1995 is the best hands down!

I think it was able to catch the wit and charm of the book completely. But the 2005 one was not bad either but I didn't like Keira Knightly as Lizzy Bennett. For me It'll always be Jenifer Ehle.

Christina wrote: "1995 is the best hands down!

I think it was able to catch the wit and charm of the book completely. But the 2005 one was not bad either but I didn't like Keira Knightly as Lizzy Bennett. For me I..."

Yes,Jeniffer Ehle was the perfect Lizzie - not concentionaly beautifull - for that we had Jane - and with a sharp tongue and even sharper brain.

But the '95 Jane was not very beautiful, methinks.

Juliana Es wrote: "But the '95 Jane was not very beautiful, methinks."

And that is precisely why she is is so right for the role, you know - reading the book, i always got the feeling that while Jane was the beauty of the family, Lizzie had a sort of unconventional beauty that was compensated by her brain and tongue, that made her stick out for another reason that drop-dead gorgeaus.

Exactly, Maria.

Teresa wrote: "I guess I am alone here in liking the 1980 BBC version best, as closest by far to the book. The dialogue is spot on.

But the interactions between the characters are understated, the emotions di..."

I really liked this one, too, mainly because of a couple of times I remember when they made a point of showing Elizabeth being just a little bit ungracious in her behavior towards servants and with poor Miss de Bourgh. She's such a likable character, but a young one, and a little self-centeredness makes it seem so much more realistic and in keeping with the character. 1995 Elizabeth is too grown-up and sensible. Almost smug, really.

I have much admiration for the 1980's version of P&P. I feel like the actress of "Elizabeth" Bennent portrayed the role very well. She played well opposite David Rintoul (aka "Mr. Darcy). Oh and the music scores are nice!

1995's adaption is my favorite. Colin Firth raised the bar as Mr. Darcy and Jennifer Ehle made a great "Elizabeth." I liked the music and the dialogue. Even more, I appreciated how it seemed to follow the book more closely than the 1980 version.

2005 was a disappointment in comparison. While the cast was talented in their own right, I just cannot give it the same amount of praise as I can the previous two versions.