This adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, still available on DVD, was produced and shown on the BBC in 1980 and aired on PBS Masterpiece Theater the following year. Directed by Cyril Coke, it remains a favorite of Jane Austen purists even now – 29 years after its production. This Pride and prejudice dramatization certainly shows its age, but also has much to recommend it and does fill some gaps left in later adaptations. In this review, I’ll focus mainly on the interpretation of the characters as there are some bold and interesting choices. The script, written by the novelist Fay Weldon is also considered in detail.
The Production
Firstly, the series looks like a typical BBC costume drama from the time; it has a studio-bound feel betrayed by – amongst other things – strong shadows from the TV lighting that are sometimes difficult to ignore. You can also see the actors sweating under the lights which is something that younger viewers won’t be accustomed to. The costumes also look like costumes, and there are a few ‘80s perms that also distract from the show’s immersion. However, all of this is to be expected since the show came long before the global Jane Austen revival; this was therefore not a series which pushed the envelope in terms of its production – in budgetary terms it was ‘just another’ costume drama. It does not look poor by the standards of the day, yet it inevitably suffers next to the plushness of the 1995 and 2005 productions.
The Script
The 1980 Pride and Prejudice dramatization has a reputation for faithfulness to the text that it partially deserves. There are a few wholly new scenes – including a few frankly embarrassing attempts at slapstick humour featuring Mr. Collins, and some extra scenes involving Charlotte Lucas – but these are thankfully few. The script, written by novelist Fay Weldon, uses the original dialog well and, with varying success, attempts to weave some of Austen’s direct authorial comment into lines of dialog. Occasionally, these moments come across as patronizing, particularly in the characters’ internal monologs. It sometimes appears that the director lacks some confidence in his actors’ abilities to convey emotion non-verbally, and so regularly resorts to voice-overs. Overall, however, there is little in the script to complain about for purists, which perhaps explains the popularity of this dramatization with devoted readers of the book.
One exception is in the extra scenes between Elizabeth and Charlotte, in which the pair make fun of Mr. Collins, Charlotte’s new husband, and are gently mocking of Lady Catherine de Bourgh. This, I think, is a pity, since Charlotte’s staunch loyalty – and Elizabeth’s reaction – are incredibly interesting, both in the novel and as a possibility for dramatic expansion. This is the point of the series at which there are also some truly terrible attempts at comedy. Lady Catherine insists that Mr. Collins wears a hat with an air pocket in the top when he is near the river – in case he falls in. The joke wasn’t funny in the first scene it’s mentioned, and coupled with the cringe-making “comedy” tuba (or is it a clarinet?) music, it’s even less funny when the hat is demonstrated for us later.
The Cast and Performances
Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet
Elizabeth Garvie’s Elizabeth Bennet is the highlight of this Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Jane Austen wrote her character with, in her own words, ‘a mixture of sweetness and archness in her manner which made it difficult for her to affront anybody,’ and this would certainly describe Garvie’s interpretation. She delivers her confrontational lines with Mr. Darcy with unfailing charm and a hint of vulnerability. She never appears aggressive with her wit; she is simply capable of holding her own against Darcy, Caroline Bingley, Mrs. Hurst and even Lady Catherine – her supposed superiors. Later, while chatting and walking with Mr. Wickham, her new ‘brother,’ she remains calm and seemingly unvengeful. It is instructive to compare her delivery of Elizabeth’s line over the piano to Darcy, ‘You mean to frighten me, Mr. Darcy…?’ with Jennifer Ehle’s in the 1995 dramatization. Ehle is direct; her delivery suggests she seeks to embarrass or expose him. Garvie instead draws sympathy from the viewer and also Mr. Darcy himself, compelling him through his conscience to answer in the negative.
David Rintoul’s Mr. Darcy
Rintoul’s Darcy lacks the magnetism of Colin Firth’s and the broodiness of Matthew Macfayden’s, yet plays the role with a greater consistency, and through this perhaps enhances the plausibility of his character. In his first appearance in the town ball his manner is poker-faced and cold rather than angrily contemptuous of the society in which he finds himself. Later, when meeting Lizzy and the Gardiners at Pemberley, he retains a stiffness in his posture and slightly awkward manner. We are left to reinterpret his mannerisms in light of the housekeeper’s account of his character – as well as his own kind words and generous offers to the Gardiners – rather than faced with an obvious external transformation in the style of Firth or Macfayden. Reducing the contrast, however, may add plausibility but certainly reduces the emotional impact of this scene.
Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (Moray Watson and Priscilla Morgan)
Oddly for an adaptation famed for its proximity to the book, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet’s characters have been radically reinterpreted. Watson’s Mr. Bennet’s ‘quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice’ are coupled with a raging temper and manner which borders on the despotic. In the little scene from the book in which Kitty’s ill-timed coughs are discussed, Mr. Bennet interrogates and embarrasses Mary with a casual meanness, which difficult to draw from character in the source text. Without the anything-for-a-quiet-life attitude that we associate with Mr. Bennet, his decision to allow Lydia to visit Brighton to escape her whining and complaining seems rather unlikely. Mr. Bennet is also deprived of his emotional and redemptive final scene with Lizzy, which is given such prominence in the 1995 TV and 2005 movie adaptations.
Mrs. Bennet, played by Priscilla Morgan, is interpreted very sympathetically in comparison. She instills into the role an intelligence that Austen certainly didn’t intend for her (she is, remember of a ‘mean understanding’ and ‘illiberal mind’) but the interpretation is still provocative and interesting. When Mrs. Bennet expresses that she hopes that Jane dies of a broken heart in order to teach Mr. Bingley a lesson, she delivers the line with a knowing smile, shared by her sister. In other adaptations, this comment comes across as idiotic and wholly inappropriate. Her manner in general is far from caricature; she has little of the shrillness that renders her so ridiculous in later adaptations.
Also of note are Malcolm Rennie as Mr. Collins and Tessa Peake-Jones as Mary. While obviously nothing close to ‘five and twenty’ years old, Rennie’s Mr. Collins is physically a ‘tall, heavy-looking young man,’ which is closer to Jane Austen’s design than in either the 1995 or 2005 adaptations. He does a fantastic job of conveying Collins’ social incompetence and physical awkwardness. It’s a pity that in many of his scenes, BBC stock music is used to inform viewers when there’s something funny happening. It should be obvious, but unfortunately it often isn’t. However, the blame cannot be laid at Rennie’s door; his Mr. Collins is spot-on. Mary is a much more important character in this version, with Tessa Peake-Jones (now famous in the UK as Raquel in Only Fools and Horses) playing her with such sweetness that she steals many of her scenes – such as stint on the piano at the Netherfield ball.
In conclusion, with only minor deviations from the original story it is not difficult to see why Pride and Prejudice (1980) is a favorite of Austen purists. It’s studio-bound stiffness gives it the feel of a televised stage play, which also contributes to its charm for those looking for a more genteel, slow-paced interpretation. For this very reason, however, it suffers from a lack of those powerful moments that made the 1995 series such a hit; there are no smoldering looks over the piano, no breathtaking shots of Pemberley and no real fire to any of the central relationships. Garvie is a wonderful Elizabeth Bennet and remains this adaptations greatest asset.
I hope you found this review useful. Please feel free to agree most ardently or differ most fervently below!
myprideandprejudice.com
Haven’t seen this yet but really want to after reading your review.
Great website by the way…but more pictures of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy PLEASE!
This is my favorite adaptation of P and P of all time, because it catches the verbal comedy of manners within the novel most successfully. The characters are plausibly Regency, not Victorian. The actresses don’t schlump around like modern girls (a flaw in the Keira Knightly version); they sit, stand and walk as well-bred girls would have at that time (excepting Lydia, of course).
An excellent review. It expands my view of the 1980 version which has always been my favourite. I could not agree more that Elizabeth Garvie’s interpretation of Elizabeth Bennett is far and away the best of those mentioned. In fairness to Jennifer Ehle, I suspect she would have done a better job with direction and a script more consistent with Jane Austen’s novel. The more I see the 1995 production (one a year on average) the more critical I am of it. If one can criticise the 1980 production for poor production standards and its studio/costume drama appearance, one can criticise the 1995 production as 1990s manners and attitudes in costume. As for the Keira Knightley production, it is for me a pared down beautifully filmed romance. It leaves out all that is admirable in Jane Austen’s writing: wit, irony, satire etc
no. 1 – 1980 It has the awkwardness, wit and manners and atmosphere of the book. Ignore the lighting and wigs…sad that the craft skills were not v important. Yup, I’m a bit of a purist and arch fan
No.2 – Well, I confess I thought Firth was a hunk. Not so sure about Elizabeth. Loved Mrs B.
A great piece and at least it lasted for 6 or more hours.
No 3. – The first black and white late 30’s early 40’s where they wore Victorian costume
No 4. – Keira Knightley. For me the most recent and most disappointing…and still is. Really boring…Too arch ..too..plastic…wooden. Even though the costumes and wigs were great. Sorry not my P&P.
The 1995 version was wonderful,especially Colin Firth”s interpretation of the role of Darcy but the 1985 series was more true to the book. It has held up wonderfully well despite the passage of the years and lacks the stiffness of other Austen productions from the eighties.Elizabeth Garvie is her namesake come to life. David Rintoul is a credible Darcy and shows wonderful warmth in the final scene with Lizzy, though I confess to being disappointed with the departure from the book in the enactment of that penultimate scene.
I liked this version very much when I saw it in the ‘eighties. As I remember it, Elizabeth Garvie was wonderful in her part. Of course I enjoyed the 1995 production, and who cares if the director used artistic license (Darcy in the tub, Darcy in the wet shirt…ha!) and Firth , Ehle and don’t forget Julie Sawalha as Lydia were just terrific. I did not care for the 2005 production as the clothes were all wrong and K. Knightley, while beautiful, is entirely too contemporary looking. Elizabeth would not have worn a man’s shirt and a vest? jumper? with her hair hanging down her back when she went into the village. I also thought the pigs in the Bennet house were quite unnecessary. M. Macfadeyn (sp?) was an excellent smolderer as Darcy, though.
Strange that no one mentions the music used in the 1980 P & P. It lends a wonderfully relaxed, pastoral tone to the drama, indicating the leisurely pace of life of that time and place. But I can’t seem to recall the theme music without confusing it with Gabriel Faure’s “Pavane”.
I broadly agree with your comments concerning Elizabeth, Mr and Mrs Bennet and Mr Collins.
However I do not find David Rintoul plausible at all (except maybe in Pemberley, or in the final scene). His face is much too expressionless, not even haughty, but lifeless. How could any sensible girl fall in love with such a man?
It is much less of a comedy than later adaptations, Mrs Bennet being almost a realistic character (quite in keeping with what she writes in her book “Letters to Alice on 1st reading Jane Austen, I feel that Fay Weldon sympathizes with her, as a typical early 19th century woman). It is also the only recent adaptation where Mrs Gardiner is indeed a charming young woman who can be a valuable friend to Jane and Elizabeth.
It is said that this adaptation was much valued by JA’s fans. Some scenes shed an interesting light indeed to my understanding of the novel, as for example, on Mr Collins’ visit, where the family talks over a cup of tea after dinner, while that discussion is shown taking place during the meal in other adaptations. Yet in ch 14 JA says that “during dinner Mr Bennet scarcely spoke at all”. I also enjoyed a welcome addition to the novel when Mr Gardiner is overheard by Darcy commenting about the architecture of the house, thus showing his literacy (and his equality in sense to Mr Darcy, which will help both men solving together Lydia’s plight).
But in many ways I felt the adaptation was not very faithful to the spirit of the novel: eg at the Netherfield ball where the Bennet family does not disgrace itself quite as much as in the book, or in Derbyshire where Elizabeth runs into Mr Darcy’s room and tells him about Lydia’s elopement… I see it as quite out of character (in the novel it is Darcy who chances to arrive at the inn when she is so distracted by Jane’s letter that she blurts it all out). The interactions within the Bennet family are also much more dramatic than in the novel, and Mr B is depicted as a rather aggresive husband and sometimes father largely responsible for the misbehaviour of wife and younger daughters… On the other hand it helps us better understand the strong ties between Lizzie and her sisters.
As a whole, I still prefer the 1995 series (the 2005 movie falling miles behind those IMO)
The 1980 version was the worst!
There’s just too much to list..but I will anyways! lol
- The costumes were cheap and tacky.
- The hair .. OMG it was so 80’s!
- The cinematography.
- Some characters were out of character, especially Mr Bennett.
- Darcy was a bit wooden at times. I know Darcy was a but haughty and arrogant but I doubt he stood like an iron board all the time.
I know it’s an early 80’s production and probably didn’t have a big enough budget, it’s a shame because it could have been better!
I just started watching this version again for the first time in years. It used to be my favorite version of “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”. It’s not anymore, but I still found it enjoyable.
I admit to being a Jane Austen purist. I first read Pride & Prejudice in the 60s when I was in high school. I loved it then and I still do. P&P is one of my all time favorite books and I read it nearly every year – sort of like visiting an old friend.
That being said, the 1980 version is to me the all time best production. Elizabeth Garvie IS Elizabeth Bennet. She’s got her exactly. David Rintoul’s Darcy is also well done. Darcy was a proud and cold man and it would have been beneath his dignity to show too much emotion in public. It took Elizabeth to soften him. The other characterizations are appropriately supportive to E & D. Jane and Mrs Gardner are particularly good.
As for the 2005 version, I’ve only seen it twice, so my observations may miss the mark at times. My least favorite character was Mrs. Bennet. I found her unnecessarily vulgar and rude, almost determinedly so, definitely overplayed. In the book her vulgarity comes from ignorance, not from malice. Elizabeth and Darcy were ok but not as true in spirit to Austen’s characters. Elizabeth, particularly, was more of a lady than Erhle played her. The superiority of mind and character of Elizabeth and Jane over the other sisters was not so obvious in this production. And as for Darcy in the bath and in the wet open shirt from swimming, it appeared that they were trying to turn P&P into a “bodice-ripper” romance a la Barbara Cartland.
I’ve only seen the K.Knightly production once. As I recall, it was a nice romantic movie but had very little of Jane Austen in it other than the bare bones plot outline. It lacked authenticity in every way. However, as a romantic movie rather than a P&P adaptation, it was enjoyable. You just needed to suspend any notion that Jane Austen had anything to do with it.
I haven’t seen this version in years. It’s still entertaining, but rather slow-paced. And the performances seemed a bit theatrical. I think that the 1995 version is still my favorite.
Elizabeth, particularly, was more of a lady than Erhle played her.
Yeah. Whatever. I enjoyed Garvie’s performance, but I saw nothing wrong with Jennifer Ehle’s portrayal of Elizabeth. In fact, her portrayal is still my favorite.
I watched the ‘80 version when it was originally shown on PBS way back when and fell in love with Elizabeth Garvie. Today when I look at my DVD of this version it is still because of her. Is there a prettier woman on the face of the Earth? I didn’t think so until I met my own Elizabeth five months ago. So I want to thank the parents of Elizabeth Garvie for creating such a vision of lovelieness and giving me a lifelong ideal to pursue. It has turned out to be worth the wait. And, oh yeah, I still enjoy watching the 1980 version for the show itself. Thank you BBC!
This one is my FAVORITE. I love Elizabeth Garvie’s interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, and I also love that David Rintoul stays consistent in his portrayal of Mr. Darcy. It’s the reader (well, the viewer) who has to reinterpret his actions when they learn more about him and what his motivations are.
There are also little touches. When Lizzie leaves Rosings Lady Catherine’s daughter, Anne, who probably is also impressed with her well-mannered frankness, reaches out and just holds her hands before she leaves to go back to Longbourn.
I remember jumping for joy when I found the video set on sale at a Blockbuster bin years ago. That’s long gone now. However, Netflix now has it streaming, and I’ve been streaming it on my iPad. I’ve got my favorite scenes and skipped to those. However, now I’m watching it in complete. I’m just ecstatic because it’s my favorite version. The other ones you have to wait to receive in the mail from Netflix, but that’s okay.
Just watched the 1980 version for the first time. Wanted to correct you on the Mr. Collins’ theme music – that’s a bass clarinet.
I loved Elizabeth Garvie in this one, but did not like Darcy at all. Even though he is a very handsome Darcy, his stiffness was over the top. I love the Colin Firth version, but my favorite, even though much shorter, is the 2005 Keira/Matthew version. It is a little bit too modernized, but is more organic and real-feeling, as well as being beautifully filmed. The characters are warmer; the relationships between the Bennett family are much more realistic and believable. Also, the music is WONDERFUL!
The plot differences in this adaptation of “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” is not that minor. In fact, I would say in regard to faithfulness, it’s at the same level as the 1995 miniseries.
And yet, both miniseries – like the 1940 version – is set in the wrong time period. Austen’s novel is a 1790s novel. Even the mention of the militia in Brighton makes this obvious. It’s odd that the so-called Austen “purists” never realized this.
I just rewatched the 1980’s v. for the 1st time since watching it when it aired on Masterpiece. I loved it then and found it very romantic all over again. I love the personality exuded by Elizabeth and find David Rintoul’s version the best Mr. Darcy so far – I cannot buy Collin Firth as Darcy at all. Rintoul is cold and haughty and physically imposing. He delivers his proposal in the most insulting manner all the while believing it would be any woman’s privilege and shows genuine surprise when refused. Though I dislike the costumes and how some scenes move along and transition, I like this one the best so far.
I just watched this version for the first time since Netflix has it available for instant-watch. I heartily agree with the review given here. This version is charming — especially when the script adheres to Austen’s words — and several actors are delightful. I had trouble getting over all the make-up (Elizabeth and Jane look like they’ve got fevers they wear so much blush!). But the biggest challenge for me was believing there was any real emotion between either Elizabeth and Darcy or Jane and Bingley. I just didn’t believe it. We have to trust what they say more than what they show. The additions to script and action, while probably perfectly acceptable when this first appear, now stand out glaringly, especially to those who know the novel and the other film versions well. I found things like Kitty’s flirtatious crush on Bingley to be distracting — far from adding anything, they take away from the rest of the action.
I saw the BBC 1980s version when it first came out on PBS as an American teenager, and was entranced by my favorite book coming to life so beautifully. This was a production when British Television still had its own identity and was not trying to imitate Hollywood. Look at the movies from the same period form England and from Holywood and you will see the same starkness in production, but still an excellent product. Also, Lizzie’s and Darcy’s eyes were the real communicating device and David Rintoul conveyed his changes with facial and eye expression better than Colin Firth and Matthew McFayden, and Laurence Olivier. Lastly, I think the miniseries should be compared to each other and the 2 hour movies should be compared to each other as they may have the same theme, but are different genres, and the miniseries always come off better as there was more time to explore the story.
I never understood why “purists” viewed this version of “PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” as the most faithful adaptation. Because it is NOT. The Netherfield Ball has been shortened for the sake of pacing. And Elizabeth’s visit to Kent was definitely not faithful to Austen’s novel.
Don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed this miniseries very much. But I’m amused by the claim that this is the most faithful version of Austen’s novel