Comments on: 1980 Pride and Prejudice; A DVD review of the BBC TV adaptation

By: Carol

Carol — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:42:10 +0000

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.

By: Rosie

Rosie — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:18:39 +0000

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.

By: Vanessa

Vanessa — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:09:55 +0000

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!

By: Benedicte

Benedicte — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:52:08 +0000

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)

By: Oscar Dillon

Oscar Dillon — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:43:52 +0000

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”.

By: Cindy Claymore

Cindy Claymore — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:54:16 +0000

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.

By: sile morgan

sile morgan — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:22:05 +0000

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.

By: jules

jules — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:46:17 +0000

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.

By: Gerard Wilson

Gerard Wilson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:01:30 +0000

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

By: NJ Sue

NJ Sue — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:40:45 +0000

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).