Jane Austen’s cast of characters is huge, but her novel is nothing if not concise. Some minor characters, like Colonel Fitzwilliam and Georgiana Darcy, serve to further important plotlines, while others provide interesting character contrasts with the protagonists. Most do both. The most significant exceptions to this rule are Mr. and Mrs. Hurst. They are the most obvious omissions from the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie, and their roles aren’t expanded or explored further in the BBC 1980 and 1995 adaptations.
Are Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, therefore, expendable? If not, then what is their purpose in Pride and Prejudice? Are they there simply for humor? They certainly lend themselves to comedy in dramatizations, and this is particularly true of the narcoleptic, permanently flushed Mr. Hurst in BBC Pride and Prejudice 1995. 
However, Jane Austen doesn’t make much of the comedy of Mr. Hurst’s character. There is a nice reference to having to wake him for a piano performance, but little else. The pantomime-dame attire of Caroline and Mrs Lucas provides a nice contrast with the Bennet girls’ costumes in the 1995 series, but Austen only says that the former ladies were ‘fine women, with an air of decided fashion.’
Are they there to flesh out the social world from which Darcy and Bingley have emerged? There is certainly some support for this. At the end of the book, Darcy talks of the small, introverted social circle that molded him into a socially narrow-minded, conceited character. Spending your upbringing, youth, and adult life in the company of people like the Hursts would certainly be bad for one’s development! However, Darcy is also close friends with Charles Bingley and Colonel Fitzwilliam, who have nothing of Darcy’s aloofness.
Perhaps the Hursts are deliberately cast as parasites. Their characters perform no significant role in the story, and their omission from the Pride and Prejudice 2005 movie seems to come at little cost. Their snobbishness is vague and unexplored – unlike that of Caroline Bingley whose underlying personal jealousy and fear is made so obvious – and no attempt is made to understand their motivations. They also say or do nothing of particular interest, and perhaps this is the point.
The Hursts are basically useless – both as characters and as representatives of their kind of person in early 19th century England. They appear to contribute nothing to society, just as they contribute practically nothing to the structure of the novel. While all the landed families in the book are essentially living off the toils of those without property, at least Messrs Darcy and Bingley are often involved (somewhat vaguely!) in ‘business’ in London. Mr. Bennet is redeemed by devoting his free time to reading, while Mr. Hurst finds enjoyment in books to be ‘singular.’ He prefers to play cards and of course sleep, while his wife enjoys wearing fashionable dresses, agreeing with her sister, and seemingly little else.
Caroline has nobody to share her snide remarks with in Pride and Prejudice 2005
What do you think about the Hursts? Was Joe Wright justified in giving them the chop, or are their other characters you’d have rather done without? How would you describe their role in the story?
I most eagerly await your comments!
this is something I found very upsetting with the 2005 version. Although I think you are quite right in your depiction of the Hursts as parasite, their presence is quite justified. It sorts of give you an idea of the idleness of “society” of the period. They made the contrast with the Bennetts even more jarring. Also one is unable to discern which one of the 2 sisters are more evil, Caroline is overtly condescending while Luisa is more underhanded about it…she draws out Jane so Caroline’s daggers can hit their marks with more precision….
It seems to me that the purpose of the Hursts is to the reader. They demonstrate that people of high social standing can be as silly as lower ranks of gentlefolk. The Hursts, Mrs. and Mr., are as silly as are Mrs. Bennet and her younger daughters. Darcy despairs of Elizabeths relations in his first proposal, his pride and prejudices blinding him to the equally unsuitable relations who travel with him. And Mrs. Hurst gives Miss Bingley someone to discuss her own prideful prejudices about Elizabeth (what, she engages in this girl talk to her brother and his particular friend?) sometimes, but not always. The poor dear needs a confidant, and lacking a husband, has her sister.
In the 1995 version, Mr Hurst is played to perfection by Rupert Vansittart – the best example of the fact that even the minor characters in this production were realized beautifully. This actor does tend to be first call for roles playing boorish Englishmen (eg. Four Weddings and a Funeral) – and rightly so. I take your point, though – why would the fastidious Darcy want to associate with his friend’s sisters and brother-in-law?
I must admit that the character of Mr. Hurst never did much for me. I liked Rupert Vansittart’s performance, but his character was never really utilized that much.
On the other hand, Louisa Hurst seemed like a perfect companion for the Caroline Bingley character. She was used with great detail in both the 1980 and 1995 versions as a sounding board for Miss Bingley to spout her venomous comments about the Bennets.