Pride and Prejudice 1940 is primarily a wartime comedy, seeped in 1940s glamour and star quality, and only secondarily an adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel. Having written the dystopian novel Brave New World, screenwriter and novelist Aldous Huxley showed that he’s nothing if not versatile with this movie, billed at the time as ‘the gayest comedy of the year.’ The script is so light in tone, and so light on its resemblance to the novel’s storyline and characters, that purists will find it wholly insufferable. Those with a sense of humor or affection for this era of Hollywood, will very quickly fall in love with it.

The movie stars Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson as Mr Darcy and Elizabeth. Olivier is far too soft and likeable from the start, but his screen presence is just magnetic beyond all reason. Huxley even gives him some of Bingley’s lines, which he delivers so sweetly that it’s incomprehensible that Elizabeth doesn’t just leap on him at Netherfield and have done with it! His first proposal to Lizzy is also only very mildly offensive – nothing compared to the insults implicit in the 1980, 1995 and 2005 adaptations.

Most impressively, Greer Garson is equal to Olivier’s legendary presence. While Jane Bennet (Maureen O’Sullivan) is very beautiful, Garson is so stunning that it’s difficult to imagine her being second in beauty to anyone. By the standards of the movie, she is actually quite a faithful Elizabeth. She certainly has all the ‘sweetness’ and ‘archness’ that Jane Austen envisaged, and is wonderfully spirited.

The costumes are completely wrong for Jane Austen, with the movie given an 1840 setting, and the contrived accents are loveable but mildly distracting.* Darcy is pronounced ‘Darsay’ and ‘marry’ has become ‘melly’ for some reason, but you will still cheer when Darsay and Elizabeth finally agree to melly at the end.

Likewise, the wartime dialog and mannerisms make it difficult to suspend your disbelief and immerse yourself fully in the story, but there is still so much to enjoy. Had the 1980 adaptation involved yuppie gentlemen with filofaxea in their hands, discussing their investment portfolios and comparing business cards before all saying ‘ciao,’ it still wouldn’t have dated the piece as obviously. This makes it a kind of period period-drama, which – depending on your point of view – can even add to the fun.

To be clear, though, some of the plot changes are quite shocking, particularly those that involve Lady Catherine de Bourgh. I won’t go over them again here to avoid spoiling the surprise, but you can find the relevant Lady Catherine clip here. When watching the 1940 Pride and Prejudice movie, you may find yourself asking ‘Is nothing sacred?’ a few times, but if you enjoyed ‘Lost in Austen’ or don’t mind a little artistic license then you shouldn’t find anything too unpalatable here.

Your glamorous friend,

Lizzy

The Script

Despite the intervention of the cliffs, the rain and the elements, there is a genuine attempt to keep the storyline close to that of the novel. Adapting the book into a feature film, the task of screenwriter and novelist Deborah Moggach, must be hugely challenging. Pride and Prejudice is such a concise and complete novel that, as Virginia Woolf said, ‘you cannot break off a scene or even a sentence without bleeding it of some of its life.’ Moggach does a commendable job, however; the first twenty minutes rush through the story at break-neck speed, the Hursts are cut and Mr. Wickham’s role is cut down to an absolute minimum – but all these choices seem defensible.

The dialog is generally excellent, although less faithful to the original than the 1980 and 1995 BBC series. There are a few clumsy moments, such as when Charlotte says to Elizabeth ‘Don’t judge me, Lizzy. Don’t you dare judge me!’ in a manner more suited to a rerun of the Ricki Lake show than the Regency era. However, there are thankfully only a few of these moments and they shouldn’t detract from your enjoyment of the movie. Other passages, such as Darcy’s proposal in the now famous rain scene, are written and delivered beautifully.

The Direction

The movie is undoubtedly the handsomest adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, or indeed any Jane Austen novel. Joe Wright comes from a social realist tradition, and focuses on the little details that bring the Regency period to life. He said: ‘I wanted to treat it as a piece of British realism rather than going with the picturesque tradition, which tends to depict an idealized version of English heritage as some kind of heaven on earth… I think that the detail is in the small things, like crumbs on a table or flowers in a vase.’

The Cast

The lead roles of Elizabeth and Darcy are played by Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. In 2005 both of these actors were close to the ages intended for them by Jane Austen, and they have obvious chemistry together. Knightley’s Elizabeth is bright, feisty and inquisitive, while Macfadyen plays Darcy with an obvious vulnerability from the start. This makes his character transformation, which of course has to take place within a two hour film – rather than the course of a novel or television series – much easier to believe.

Donald Sutherland is a rather frail, downbeat, yet sentimental Mr. Bennet. This makes for some touching scenes, particularly at the end of the movie. Brenda Blethyn’s Mrs. Bennet is excellent, only slightly less shrill than Alison Steadman’s but played along very similar lines. The highlight of the cast for me is Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins. He is so perfectly inept socially, so nervy yet so contrived in his manners. It’s also nice to see a Mr. Collins of roughly the right age, although Hollander is certainly not the ‘a tall, heavy-set man’ that Jane Austen envisaged. Nevertheless, he injects so much humor into the role and embodies the absurdity of the character so fully that such pedantry is unwarranted.

Pride and Prejudice 2005 is an admirably ambitious reworking of Jane Austen’s classic story. Its successes are many and, faced with the task of adapting such a labyrinthine work, Deborah Moggach and Joe Wright can only be commended for their efforts. Blessed with a fine cast and visionary direction, it is certainly a must-see for fans of the book. Those who haven’t read the novel, which included Wright himself before he agreed to make the film, should also enjoy its sumptuous cinematography and sweeping score – not to mention the delightful performances from Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. It’s such a romantic and rustic adaptation that even Charlotte Bronte would have approved!

Your warm and fuzzy friend,
Lizzy

Before declaring my ardent love for the Blu-ray release of the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice from the rooftops of Pemberley, I should say that the standard DVD edition remains a must-own for those without HD. See our review of BBC Pride and Prejudice 1995 if you are unfamiliar with the series, but suffice to say it is filmed beautifully and cast so brilliantly you will struggle to keep Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle from replacing the Darcy and Lizzy of your imagination. There was some disappointment after the BBC’s release of the Pride and Prejudice 1995 DVD, however, because of the quality of the picture and sound. It is true that the colors are a little washed out and the picture a little blurred, especially in the final scene of each episode. It doesn’t reduce the immersion of the experience or detract from the wonderful storyline and script, but did feel like something of a missed opportunity to get it right on DVD.

Hooray for Blu-ray; Lizzy and Darcy in HD

The Blu-ray edition of the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice 1995 series is, on the other hand, truly the handsomest television show of my acquaintance. The Blu-ray picture has been improved over the DVD version by a new technology known, a little immodestly, as the “Fabtech” system. The system, as Vincent Narduzzo explains on a special feature documentaries, allowed the makers to return to the original “A/B negative” (I won’t pretend to know what that means!), rather than transferring from a print. In other words, for the Pride and Prejudice Blu-ray edition, they could copy the original instead of having to copy another copy. Naduzzo shows us the before and after shots and the transformation from the DVD is very impressive, even if the explanation is a little dry…

DVD Screehshot - He looks even better in Blu-ray!

It’s not just the crispness of the images that breathe new life into the BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice series. From the individual blades of glass to the bristles of the beards, it is excessively diverting to let your eyes wander around the screen as the story progresses, but it’s the colors on the Blu-ray edition that really demand attention. Compared to the slightly muted shades of the DVD, the brightness and depth of the colors in the Blu-ray edition mean it rivals even the psychedelic Bride and Prejudice in its visual splendor. The red of the officers’ regimentals, the assortment of skin tones and the greens of the English countryside are the perfect advertisement for investment in the Blu-ray format. You can see and hear the fires crackling, and observe facial expressions that were obscured in the DVD version.

BBC Pride and Prejudice Blu-ray Special Features

The only negative aspect is that greater effort could have been made to include more special features for the Blu-ray release. There are two documentaries for the Blu-ray: one is a retrospective talking-heads documentary called ‘Pride and Prejudice; A Turning Point for Period Drama,’ and the other is Vincent Narduzzo’s explanation of the high definition rendering process for the Blu-ray release. The first documentary is interesting enough, with contributions from screenwriter Andrew Davies; drama publicist, Alan Ayres; TV critic, Baz Bamingboye, and costume designer, Dinah Collin. They all have interesting insights but it would have been nice to hear from a few of the other big-hitters for the Blu-ray release, such as Producer Sue Birtwistle or Director Simon Langton or even some cast members. There is also no audio commentary, but it’s admirable that they have included an audio explanation track for the visually impaired. (It’s also worth a listen for the visually unimpaired, since it is read by a woman with a comically sexy voice that would be perfect for those husky chocolate commercials!) In all seriousness, the lack of new special features is only a small quibble next to the Blu-ray edition’s beautiful re-rendering of the pictures and sound.

The Story of Lost in Austen

The show follows Amanda Price, an Austen-obsessed 20-something living in present-day London. She is lonely and undervalued – both at work and by her mother and boyfriend. Through her dog-eared Penguin paperback of Pride and Prejudice, she escapes into ‘the manners, and the language, and the courtesy’ of Jane Austen’s world. Amanda’s drunken, cheating and belching boyfriend proposes to her from the sofa and then falls asleep, while her mother encourages her daughter to take anyone she can get. ‘You have standards, pet,’ she says. ‘Let’s see if they help you on with your coat when your 70.’ ‘It is a truth, generally acknowledged,’ says Amanda Price, ‘that we are all longing to escape.’

The night that Miss Price listens to her boyfriend’s horribly unromantic proposal, she hears an intruder in her bathroom and goes to investigate. The source of the commotion is Pride and Prejudice’s Elizabeth Bennet, Amanda’s personal heroine. It transpires that Lizzy entered 21st century Hammersmith through a curious door at the top of the servants’ staircase at Longbourn. Lizzy and Amanda eventually switch places, with Amanda entering the Bennet residence just at the beginning of the Pride and Prejudice story.

Amanda’s presence at Longbourn – and Elizabeth’s disappearance – threaten to spoil the story of Amanda’s favorite book. Her revealing 21st century clothes and exotic demeanor draw the eye of Mr. Bingley towards her and (shock, horror!) away from Jane. Pride and Prejudice is further threatened when Mr. Collins and Jane become engaged to be married, leaving Caroline Lucas with no option but to head to Africa as a missionary. ‘Do you hear that?’ asks Amanda towards the end of the series. ‘That’s Jane Austen spinning in her grave like a cat in a tumble dryer.’ There are a great many twists and turns, some comic and some surprisingly touching, before Pride and Prejudice is put (to a degree!) back on track.

Amanda in Pride and Prejudice

Lost in Austen starts a little heavy on the fromage but quickly finds its stride. Screenwriter Guy Andrews has written some great dialog which, despite the massive plot deviations from the original Pride and Prejudice, usually blends in well and provides lots of laughs. The grace of early 19th Century language next to Amanda’s contemporary slang is an endless source of humor. Amanda only wants the story to finish according to Jane Austen’s intentions, so purists should be willing to forgive the irreverence of the show’s premise. ‘This is so off-piste it’s insane’ she says at one point, almost as if she’s apologizing for the program!

To add further complexity, Amanda’s obsession is not only with the book but also the BBC’s 1995 Pride and Prejudice adaptation. After she first meets Mr. Darcy she tells Jane, quite cryptically: ‘Well, he’s not Colin Firth, but then, Colin Firth’s not really Colin Firth. They had to change the shape of his head with make-up.’ Later, she asks her Mr. Darcy climb into a fountain at Pemberley, in order to recreate the famous BBC Pride and Prejudice lake scene with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. You can check out the picture below to decide how Elliot Cowan measures up!

The Cast

In Lost in Austen, the actors all ‘fill their britches pretty well’ as Amanda Price would put it. Alex Kingston’s Mrs Bennet has a meaner, yet subtler and manipulative edge than I’ve seen before, and has toned down the shrillness. Hugh Bonneville’s Mr. Bennet is world-weary and witty, with just a little more spring in his step than he is commonly given in Pride and Prejudice adaptations. Gemma Arterton turned a lot of heads as Elizabeth Bennet, going on to play Agent Fields in the Bond movie Quantum of Solace (and set also to star in Wuthering Heights next year) but she doesn’t have much to do in Lost in Austen. Elliot Cowan is a very good Darcy and – lest I forget – Amanda Price herself is excellent.

Not all the characters are quite as the author intended, however. Guy Henry’s Mr. Collins is a long way from Pride and Prejudice’s comical pastor. His chief characteristic is his appalling perviness – something never even hinted at in Pride and Prejudice. Again, he is also around twice the age of Austen’s Mr. Collins. His brothers are quite hilarious, however, and they’re not even mentioned in the book. Mr. Probity Collins, Dr. Elysium Collins, and Mr. ‘Tinkler’ Cymbal Collins are all introduced to the Bennets as potential husbands. Cymbal is introduced brilliantly by Mr. Bennet as ‘enlivening a dull Tuesday evening with his amusing trousers.’

Mr. Wickham’s character has been completely reworked, but in a legitimate and very interesting way. To avoid spoilers I can’t say too much, but when Lizzy assures Jane in Pride and Prejudice that there is only enough goodness between Darcy and Wickham to make one good man, she may have been mistaken…The other character that stands out a little is Mary – she is just too adorable in Lost in Austen to be the same girl in Pride and Prejudice. She’s also so adorable that you’ll probably forgive her for it!

Throughout the four episodes the writing remains witty, the direction is up-tempo and the actors do a fine job with an ambitious project. Lost in Austen is a wonderfully quirky play on the novel Pride and Prejudice and the mania that currently surrounds Jane Austen. It should also make a great movie in 2011; let’s hope we’ll have some details soon – of course, we’ll post any news as soon as it comes in!

DVD Special Features

The Lost in Austen DVD isn’t packed with special features, but it does come with an excellent 45-minute behind-the-scenes documentary, covering the making of the TV min-series. Interviews with the director, key people from the crew and leading cast members are included. We’re given insights into the lighting and direction, props and costumes, hair and make-up, locations and just about everything else of interest. There’s no audio commentary for any of the episodes, but the series runs for 179 minutes so, with the documentary, there is still plenty to enjoy. A must for all Austen-loving non-purists out there.

Buy Lost in Austen from Amazon.com

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.

In explanations of infinity, it’s often said that 100 monkeys randomly clacking away on typewriters would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. I somehow doubt, however, that they’d need infinity to produce the script for Pride and Prejudice; A Latter Day Comedy. This movie lifts 100% of the title, 60% of the storyline and about 4% of the charm from Jane Austen’s novel. It also strips down its themes to cover in detail only the dangers of making hasty first impressions. The film starts slowly but does pick up and there are some funny moments, yet it contains nothing to elevate it above the DVD bargain bins in which it currently resides.

Set in modern-day Utah (hence the “Latter Day” tagline), this movie follows Elizabeth Bennet, a hardworking student and aspiring novelist. Her romance with Fitzwilliam Darcy, a British publishing executive, provides the backbone to the story, and there is a large role for the dastardly Jack Wickham. Jane is Elizabeth’s best friend and Bingley (a kind of young Chris o’ Donnell in a plastic wig, worn backwards) is an entrepreneur specializing in music for dogs. There is no Mr. or Mrs. Bennet and no Lady Catherine, and some other characters have been amalgamated. Collins does make an appearance and does have most of the best comic moments.

Darcy, played well by Orlando Seale, affronts Elizabeth while the latter is working in a bookstore. Their relationship further sours when he criticizes a book she had submitted to his publishing firm. She begins to warm to Darcy when Elizabeth essentially breaks into his log cabin to escape from a storm. Darcy invites her in to dry off and here she meets Darcy’s younger sister. This could have been a nice scene, but Georgiana’s habit of stringing random vowels together in a kind of low-pitch whale-speak makes it frequently impossible to understand her. (I appreciate that this sounds rather singular, but you’ll have to watch it to understand what I mean.)

In general, the lead actors aren’t bad but they occasionally look embarrassed by the material. Perhaps it’s the effect of standing in neon and pastel sets that look like they’ve been recycled from Clueless. For the men, perhaps their embarrassment stems from the fact that they look like they’re attending a “First Season of Friends” – themed fancy dress party. It might look delightful to pre-teens, who are probably this movie’s target audience, and also perhaps to moths, but for most adult humans – including it seems the actors in this movie – it’s all a little too much.

Passages from the book are intermittently flashed on the screen, deprived of their context and purpose, and the relevance of some quotations rather tenuous. Since most of the enjoyable parts of the movie (e.g. Collins’ angry speech in church) are original additions it might have made more sense to just “borrow” a few plot details, change the title and give up on this being an adaptation. Nevertheless, it might encourage a few younger viewers to pick up Jane Austen’s novel, which can only be a good thing.

To conclude this review, Pride and Prejudice; A Latter Day Comedy isn’t really Pride and Prejudice, isn’t much of a comedy and, given its mid-90s styling doesn’t appear particularly “latter day” either. It veers from being good, to being so bad it’s good, to being so bad that it’s actually bad again. If you can find it cheaply and need another DVD case to level out your table legs then by all means, give it a try. Otherwise, there is not much here for Austen fans, I’m afraid. Anyone looking for a fresh update of Pride and Prejudice would do better to read our DVD review of Bride and Prejudice, and consider that instead.

Yours

Fitzwilliam Darcy

Darcy’s initial arrogance is reflected in his ‘imperialist’ attitude when he arrives in India to accompany Balraj to a wedding and also visit a luxury hotel he is thinking of buying. Lalita, politically sensitive and patriotic, is offended by Darcy’s comments about his host country, and from their spiky conversations love begins to bloom. We still have George Wickham’s character, although here he is Johnny Wickham. Just as an aside, it seems a little odd for a contemporary adaptation to give him a first name that was last seen in movies like the Karate Kid and Dirty Dancing, but never mind – George would apparently have been old-fashioned or something. In any case, Wickham’s character arc is pretty much the same. It does come across quite unlikely when Darcy and Wickham bump into each other on a beach, however. In 19th Century England it’s enough of a coincidence, but an Englishman and an American chancing upon each other in a country of one billion people?

The movie’s energy and color would recommend it, even without the majesty of the source material. It is, without doubt, one of the handsomest movies of my acquaintance. The songs from the excellent soundtrack (reviewed here) are, depending on your point of view, either wonderfully or horribly catchy. The dances too, combined with the gorgeous costumes, also stand out – particularly the first, which occurs at the modern Indian equivalent of the Meryton town ball. Given the crucial role that dances play in Pride and Prejudice, this is where Jane Austen and Bollywood meet most advantageously. The songs vary in memorability and the dances in scale and splendor, but the best are truly loveable and the worst are all agreeable.

Ghada believed that the themes driving Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice remain central to the lives of many Indian women, and her movie does translate these – particularly the need for advantageous marriages – quite effectively. On a few occasions lines of dialog have been lifted directly, for example when Mr. and Mrs. Bakshi argue about whether Lalita should accept Kholi Saab’s proposal. Kholi is the movie’s Mr. Collins. He is an Indian-American expatriate and Los Angeles is his Lady Catherine de Bourgh. He only sees the good in the country that has made him rich, complains about India and Indians during his stay, and will hear nothing against his adopted country. The re-imagining of his character is one of the most interesting aspects of Bride and Prejudice.

It’s not difficult to see the relevance of Jane Austen’s work to contemporary India and it’s links to the US and Britain. The movie is certainly successful in this regard. The fusion of styles, however, is often a little jarring. The mixing of Bollywood and Hollywood would be tough enough, but to do so via classical literature and toe-curling British cringe comedy is probably impossible. Rather than creating a genuine fusion, the movie veers instead from style to style and often leaves you feeling a little confused. Some scenes contain naturalistic satire, some possess lashings of Hollywood cheese and others are pure Bollywood sparkle. It’s hard to be presented with such cynicism and naivety in the same film and know what to make of each. Maya’s snake dance is supposed to be exaggerated and embarrassing, yet when approached with these eyes so was the sisters’ “No Life Without Wife” number. The film engages our cynicism and then demands we suspend it, when a more consistent tone would have perhaps made it an easier watch. Nevertheless, this is a recommended movie for Austen fans and anyone thinking of dipping their toes into Bollywood cinema.

Your toe-tapping friend,

Lizzy

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