Pride & Prejudice

Good adaptation and performances from Knightley and MacFayden.

When I watched this version of the Austen classic prior to packing the DVD away for a move, I assumed ahead of time it would stay nestled behind the Colin Firth version as my second favorite adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Now, however, pending my watching the other version again, this might indeed be my new favorite. Not due to any major differences in acting ability or in the writing, but rather for the way it nails down the little things, the stuff I may not have noticed the first time or two I watched it.

One simple example is of the portrayal of Mary, one of the servants in the Bennet household. She says hardly anything during the course of the movie, but a couple of times we follow her while she is singing as she works, and I found it utterly charming. And I think it illustrates, whether or not it was intended, that this is a pleasant house that servants did not dread to start their work days in.

There is also at one of the balls a long scene of dancing that shows several of the characters who are involved in subplots going on, all within this continuous shot. It is clever, and on one website it is said the camera was left running by accident; a happy accident if you ask me. Also, a few of the scenic moments, such as one time when Elizabeth merely stares lost in thought in the middle of great beauty, are amiable natural breaks in the action.

The acting is very good, of course, with this cast, but also their attitude is perfect. Brenda Blethyn excels in the thankless role of the silly mother, managing not to cross the line into looking outright ridiculous. Sutherland is — well, I will give any movie a try with him in it. Keira Knightly is, for me, astonishingly good. If you had described to me before I watched it the way, when she or her family is insulted, she looks jolted for a moment, but then with a short laugh or smile shakes it off, I would have said “Nope, that won’t work.” But it works. Her wit is sensational. I write fiction myself and always try to to feature witty female characters, and Elizabeth would fit right into my modern novels.

Dame Penelope Wilton is excellent as always, and Claudia Blakey shone as Charlotte. If pressed to find at least one small fault, I could only say that I think the writers and director (and possibly Jane Austen herself) may have underestimated Mary Bennet as a character. I have always thought that more could be done with her, in every version.

I am only sorry now I have to pack the DVD away for the movie, even if only for a few weeks.

Overall, it's a good adaptation, even if it's not free of mistakes and problems.

I believe that “Pride and Prejudice” is one of the most transported English novels to film and television. I've seen more than one adaptation, and each one has its merits and problems (however, it's generally agreed that the 1995 miniseries is the most perfect and canonical). This film is not as good as I would like it to be, it has several problems, but it is quite acceptable and also has positive notes to retain.

Here, the story we already know so well takes place in the final years of the 18th century. From what I saw, the director wanted to do this to avoid the fashion of the Regency period, which he doesn't like, and taking advantage of the fact that Austen wrote the early version of the book around this time. Well, I can say that I share the thoughts of the director, Joe Wright, when it comes to dresses from the Regency/First French Empire period. Aesthetically, they are much less interesting than the “bridal cakes” of the pre-French Revolution period, or the wide dresses that began to be worn in the Romantic period. The idea of these dresses, which greatly emphasize the woman's chest and then fall straight down like a nightgown, is in a way imitating what the Romans and Greeks were thought to wear. Even so, there are several errors in the way the characters were dressed, arranged, combed and characterized: basically, the director ignored everything that didn't suit him. That was a mistake.

The film is reasonably short for the literary work it brings, but I think it couldn't be otherwise. For the rest, the narrative is decently done, and the adaptation made to the source material is quite conscientious and tries not to cut important things. What I didn't like was the way certain characters were developed: Elizabeth became a wild girl and much less contained than would be supposed in the novel, for example. The rest, however, is quite satisfactory.

The film is full of great British actors: in addition to Keira Knightley, who manages well in the role of protagonist, we also have Rosamund Pike, Brenda Blethyn, Talulah Riley, Jena Malone and Judy Dench. Each did a fairly good job in the role assigned to them. We should also appreciate the work of Matthew MacFadyen, Donald Sutherland, Simon Woods and Tom Hollander. On a technical level, the film invests a lot in good sets, convincing and well-selected shooting locations and good props. The cinematography is also good and does an excellent job throughout the film, with enviable camera work and good colors and lighting. The film also has a good soundtrack.