Comments on: BBC Pride and Prejudice 1995; A Review

By: Mo

Mo — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:28:05 +0000

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.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:24:53 +0000

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.

By: Jim McGuire

Jim McGuire — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:41:21 +0000

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.

By: Mo

Mo — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:43:54 +0000

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.

By: Ryan Sherwin

Ryan Sherwin — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:37:22 +0000

I am at QMUL and looking at P&P.

How far would you say that the addaptation is merely an exercise in nostalgia?

By: Mo

Mo — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:35:56 +0000

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.

By: Carol

Carol — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:00:45 +0000

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.

By: Carol

Carol — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:51:28 +0000

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.

By: Lizzy

Lizzy — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:40:58 +0000

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!

By: kelly

kelly — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:36:25 +0000

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.