Catching up on DVD reviews has provided me with the most pleasantly providential pretext for plumping up the cushions and parking on the sofa – to delight once more in the wonderful 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice TV serialization. While the DVD version lacks the color and crispness that modern audiences have come to expect, in every other way it retains its splendor and charm. (The Blu-ray edition, which looks and sounds incredible, will be the subject of a separate post.)
Realising Jane Austen’s Vision
This was a revolutionary production for the BBC; it has nothing of the studio-bound feel that characterized the corporation’s earlier costume dramas and, thanks in large part to Andrew Davies’ script, thunders along at a pace closer to a typical blockbuster movie. Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was famously light on sensual language. Descriptions of houses and their grounds, the countryside and the costumes, and even the physical appearance of some characters are given sparingly, leaving much to the reader’s imagination. Impressive, however, is the imagination that can conjure a more majestic Pemberley, a more intimidating Rosings or even a more magnetic Mr. Darcy, than those presented to us in this glorious BBC Pride and Prejudice adaptation.
The BBC Cast
There is nothing of the self-consciousness of the genre that previously held sway in BBC costume dramas. The actors inhabit their suits, dresses and worlds naturally. The moral universe in which they reside is made abundantly clear to us not through clunky exposition, but often through non-verbal expression. They are given the freedom and space to “do some acting,” as they say in Team America. For example, when Colin Firth’s Darcy proposes to Elizabeth, it really does appear that – to Darcy – his conflicting feelings over her suitability are indeed ‘natural and just.’ Whereas Fay Weldon’s 1980 BBC Pride and Prejudice script inserted Austen’s authorial comment directly into the dialog, this adaptation has the vision (and the budget) to let the actors show us how they feel.
Criticisms of the BBC’s 1995 Adaptation
Indeed, this BBC dramatization of Pride and Prejudice has been criticized for its ‘dumbing down’ of the source text in order to produce a thrill-ride for modern audiences. It is true that the performances and direction are far more dynamic and physical than usual for a dramatization of a classic novel. Many of the characters in the BBC’s 1995 Pride and Prejudice are caricatures. Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, Jane, Lydia, Mary, Caroline Bingley, the Hursts, and Lady Catherine de Bourgh are all very one-dimensional. However, this is precisely where Davies and (the director) get Pride and Prejudice right. Austen herself devotes tiny passages of description to these characters, and her conclusions are definite and clear. There are so few cracks of ambiguity in these characters to explore. Re-imagining them for the screen as complex, living, breathing creatures, as in the BBC 1980 adaptation, is by far the more radical choice.
In fact, in Pride and Prejudice the novel and this BBC adaptation, our understanding of Elizabeth’s character is refined for us through her contrasts with the simpler personalities around her. Much of the comedy arises when the more rounded characters come face to face with the caricatures, for example when Mr. Collins comes to stay at Longbourne or when Elizabeth is humiliated by her family’s behavior at the town ball. Likewise, tragedy threatens when Elizabeth is pressured to marry the ridiculous Collins, and strikes when Charlotte sees no other option than to accept his proposal. This adaptation does not seek to “problematize” the minor characters, and in my view should be commended for this.
Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy
In the BBCs 1995 Pride and Prejudice, the one character that has been expanded significantly is Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy. In the book there are only a few scenes that do not involve Elizabeth directly, so the fleshing out of Darcy’s character is particularly notable. There are, of course, moments in the book when Darcy discusses Elizabeth with the Bingleys and Hursts, but almost always we learn of events and character developments at the same pace that Elizabeth does. In this adaptation, we are given greater insight into Mr. Darcy’s private struggles. His longing for Elizabeth, shown through his lingering looks (and also his seemingly intense private exercise program!) is brought to us so forcefully that, for many, Colin Firth’s interpretation has become THE Darcy. While much has been added to his character, it does not follow that Darcy has been ‘re-imagined.’ Darcy’s transformation is clear from the book, yet we are left to imagine the details of how it took place. This adaptation seeks to fill in the gaps and does so very plausibly. Following the book’s structure more closely would have produced something closer to a televised stage play, which we already have in the form of the 1980 BBC Pride and Prejudice.
Never Scene Before
In general, however, deviations from the plot are small. The series begins with Messrs. Darcy and Bingley galloping through the fields to observe Netherfield, at which point Bingley decides to rent it. Of course this scene does not appear in the book, but since it looks great on TV and approximates what must have happened shortly before the first chapter begins, we can forgive it happily. Likewise, after news of Lydia’s elopement reaches Mr. Collins, he visits Longbourne directly rather than writing a letter. Again, the writing and reading of letters on TV – with their obligatory echoing voice-overs – can become tiresome when overused, so this does not seem unnecessary. Most of the extra scenes are like this; they flow from an obvious mastery of the crafts of television writing, production and direction rather than an arrogant disregard for the novel. And, yes, cynical reader, I do consider Colin Firth’s lake scene to fall into this category!
Jennifer Ehle’s Elizabeth Bennet
Elizabeth’s harder edge is brought out in Jennifer Ehle’s BAFTA-winning performance. Ehle’s Elizabeth is sublimely intelligent, critical and yet socially graceful. She can be sunny and sweet, especially when with her sister Jane, yet plays Elizabeth at her most assertive and forthright, and appears especially so in comparison with Elizabeth Garvie’s interpretation. She delivers her refusal of Mr. Darcy’s proposal of marriage directly and with absolute moral conviction, making Firth’s reaction – a mixture of shock, despair and contempt – appear entirely natural. The chemistry between the two leads is legendary, and for many it’s impossible to divorce the characters in the book with their interpretations by these fine actors. This is perhaps the greatest achievement of the BBC’s 1995 Pride and Prejudice series, which, as I’m sure you’ve gathered, comes with the highest recommendation imaginable.
Thanks for this review – its terrific – was watching the series again yesterday – how many times have I watched it? – ‘your ladyship can hardly expect me to own it.’ It is my favourite of the adaptations too and to me, noone plays Elizabeth (my heroine) better the Jennifer Ehle. I haven’t reviewed this series yet but I have a baby book blog that is slowly growing and have a couple of reviews up on Pride and Prejudice http://torchundertheblanketbooks.com/2009/07/28/pride-and-prejudice/
Really loving reading your site. Keep it up the great work.
Great review. My favorite scene in the whole movie is one that was dramatically changed from the book–the meeting of Miss Bennett and Mr. Darcy at Pemberly. When you do a review of the 2005 movie I would be interested in learning how you felt it handled the Pemberly meeting–Miss Bennett getting separated from Mr. & Mrs. Gardner and then sort of spying on the Darcys.
That scene is one of my favorites too
. We will be posting a review of the 2005 movie soon. About the 2005 Pemberley scene, you referred to, what do you think?
“She can be sunny and sweet, especially when with her sister Jane, yet plays Elizabeth at her most assertive and forthright, and appears especially so in comparison with Elizabeth Garvie’s interpretation.”
I believe you have put in words my problem with Garvie’s portrayal! I’ve liked Garvie’s work – what I’ve seen of it – but her portrayal of Elizabeth didn’t quite hit the mark with me. I believe it’s this – too much of the sunny and sweet. I remember feeling like Jane and Elizabeth had switched places.
wow..you’ve summed it up brillliantly for me. You just about echoed my thoughts! <3
Like your article about BBC version P&P~~~If you know where is Pemberley,that will be so great,caz I am planning to visit it.
Hi Kelly
Sure, we have written a post on the various houses used in the BBC show. It’s at: http://www.myprideandprejudice.com/2009/08/bbc-pride-and-prejudice-houses/
I hope you enjoy your visit!
From the start, let me admit that I am a Jane Austen purist. I first read P&P in the 60s and have been rereading it almost yearly. It’s an old friend and so I’m always interested to see just how the newest video production interprets Austen’s masterpiece.
That being said, I DID enjoy watching this production of P&P depite the fact that I think it not as true to the spirit of P&P as the 1980 production. I found Elizabeth Garvie’s portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet exactly what it should be, and I found Ehle’s Elizabeth too volatile. The superiority of mind and character of Elizabeth and Jane over their sisters was not as apparent in the 2005 production.
The 2005 Mrs Bennet I found to be almost enough of an annoyance to stop watching the series altogether. Her scenes were generally painful to watch. Austen’s Mrs Bennet was vulgar from ignorance and lack of common sense, but the 2005 Mrs B seemed almost spitefully intent on being rude and vulgar.
As for Firth, he certainly is easy to look at, but I believe Darcy’s pride and natural reserve would not have allowed him to display so much emotion in public. I preferred the understated portrayal of David Rintoul in the 1980 production. As for Darcy in the bath and in the wet open shirt, I found that a totally unnecessary and gratuitous sop to the modern demand for sexual innuendo or explicity, and certainly nothing Austen would have penned.
But, I DID enjoy this 2005 production and would recommend it along with the 1980. This one certainly was beautifully filmed and they obviously had the budget to make it lovely to watch.
Just re-read my comments and see that I keep referring to the 1995 production as the “2005″ production. Please mentally substitute 1995 each time I use 2005. None of these comments are directed toward the K.Knightly production of P&P done in 2005. Sorry.
Much to my sorrow I have only recently read Pride and Prejudice which I enjoyed thoroughly. I have to-date watched t he 1980 and the 1995 digitally remastered versions of P&P and must say I enjoyed the 1995 version of the two. I found it to be fairly accurate to the book with a few little exceptions which did not detract from the enjoyment of the mini series. I must say the remastered version was superb which showed the glorious scenery to its maximum. I loved Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle as the main characters and thought that all the cast were good. I haven’t watched the 2005 movie version but will as soon as I can get a copy, although what I have read there are many characters and scenes missing that were in the book.
I am at QMUL and looking at P&P.
How far would you say that the addaptation is merely an exercise in nostalgia?
Since my last post I have now watched the 2005 version of P&P and was disappointed that there were so many characters and parts of the books missing. I realise that to fit into a 2 hour movie something’s have to be omitted, however with the missing parts and changes to the actual book I think it was inferior to the 1995 BBC miniseries. The dance scenes were more reminiscent of my old school barn dance than an early 1800’s dance. As a standalone nostalgic romantic period movie it was ok but not a patch on the 1995 BBC series. Although the 1995 BBC version took a couple of liberties with scenes I didn’t think it detracted from the overall production. The 1980 version I feel was a little stiff as the Regency era was a little more liberal than the Victorian era with dark romantic poetry and the rise of writers such as Jane Austen and Charles Dickens. Jane Austen portrays Elizabeth as a strong intelligent woman for her time and more apt to verbally spar with either sex.
Comparing the 2005 movie and the 1995 mini-series is really an exercise in comparing apples and oranges. Each was working with a different budget, a different running time and a different projected audience. Also, comparing either to the novel is a similarly fruitless exercise, involving the approach of entirely different media. Thank god, though, that both were quality efforts. I would hate to see the novel subjected to sub-standard interpretations.
The 1995 version is HANDS DOWN the best one out there. I don’t care what other people say, the 2005 version cut out so much. I know they had to because they only had about 2 hours, but still. They had a lot of scenes in there that did not match up with the book. The 1995 version was closer to the book. I have to admit, the actors and actresses in the 2005 were great too, but I think Mr. Darcy was NOT played right. He didn’t have nearly enough pride as he should. In my own opinion, the 1995 p&p was more accurate and colin firth is the BEST Darcy ever.
Hello again, It is always interesting reading other comments concerning P&P. Since my last post I have of course watched the BBC 1995 version of P&P, re-read the book and again watched the 2005 movie version. As someone else mentioned comparing the 1995 mini series and the 2005 movie is difficult as they are made for different media, TV and the movies. However i agree with Katherine the 1995 Version wins handsdown, it was the closest to the book and I liked the actors in the mini series over the movie.