Nothing could take the place of the Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice, and while I don't mind Kiera Knightly I am not really a fan, so I was not looking forward to the latest iteration of one of the greatest novels of one of the best writers ever to pick up a pen. Great, just what we need - another one. Talk about done to death.
However, the reviews have been wonderful. Everyone from EW to The New Yorker approves, and it sounds great. It's fast, and shorter, and it's not definitive, but it sounds like a fabulous retelling. The nice part about a hundred remakes is that not every one of them needs to be exhaustive.
From The New Yorker's review:
quote:And whence this knocking at the door after dark, which brings the nightshirted Bennets downstairs with quivering candles? It is Lady Catherine, come to bawl and bark at Lizzie in a surprising reënactment of the drill-sergeant routine from “Full Metal Jacket.”
Oh my stars. I can't wait to see this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh*
quote:Hero and heroine bare their feelings to each other; every misunderstanding dissolves in the dawn. In a last, despairing gesture to Georgian England, they do not kiss. Oddly, however, they do rub noses, like well-bred Eskimos, while the rising sun gleams between the tips. Elsewhere in the meadow, the world’s leading Richard Clayderman impersonator is pounding away at the keys.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I have to read that one at some point, don't I? Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Corwin, if you don't, you're really missing out. It's a wonderful book.
Kat, I've been looking foward to it for some time, but don't have very high expectations. Like you said, how can it beat the miniseries? No possible way. And I have a hard time with Keira Knightly as Lizzy (too thin, though I know that makes absolutely no sense), though she is closer to the right age than Jennifer Erhl was.
And no one could possibly replace Colin Firth. *sigh*
But I still can hardly wait to see it. Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
oooh! I loved that book...
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I just reread the book last week because I was seeing reviews for the movie. I wanted to be prepared. I'm going to see it too, but I'm not a fan of Knightley either....and I am fiercely loyal to Colin Firth as Darcy. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeah, well, I've grown from fairytales to swords and spades and then to SF. Never passed through the "classics", but I'm trying to correct that these past few years. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I've never read it, never watched it. Now I feel deprived.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You should; it's wonderful. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I found it to be so much more romantic this time through the book. My heart was all a-flutter and I decided that Darcy was definitely my type. *sigh*
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Heh, I remember my mom finally banned my dad from being in the same room while she was watching the movie; he kept commenting that Mr. Darcy doesn't behave like any real human male he'd ever met and referred to the whole thing as a "Victorian soap opera." I've never seen it, because now my mother and sister only watch it when all us boys aren't home. I probably ought to read the book just for culture's sake.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I probably ought to read the book just for culture's sake.
Don't do it for that. Do it for the girls.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Chatsworth's pretty .
(S'where they filmed Pemberly)
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
There should be a Stone Cold Jane Austen drinking game. You could take a drink every time:
--someone swoons --someone faints --someone has tea --a woman makes a seemingly flip but, if you really "get" it, wonderfully funny comment --a man is brutish --anyone mentions "marriage" --anyone talks about money --there is a house with a name ("Heatherlodge Bough," "Greenton Mires," "Ol' Smokey," etc.) --there is some sort of circumlocution about illegitimacy --a woman is clever --a man is dour --someone says something in French --a girl bursts into tears
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Oh, it's so much more than just a "Victorian soap opera." It has some of the most enjoyable dialogue that is witty, funny, sharp, and insightful. It has unforgettable characters with powerful emotions and relationships that captivate the imagination. And oh yeah, there's a little bit of romance.
Oh and Dante, that's pretty funny. Posted by R. Ann Dryden (Member # 8186) on :
Plus, every woman I know thinks it is *so* sexy when a man likes Pride and Prejudice. It was one of the reasons I fell in love with my hubbie. He was man enough to admit to enjoying my favorite chick flicks.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
I've been looking forward to the new Pride and Prejudice for quite some time. I have attempted to watch the mini-series once before, but other circumstances made it difficult to stay awake through. So I'm not overly attached to the mini-series. That being said, this is only the second feature film version of the book. The first had Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson in 1940. For those of you who haven't read the book you can download it at Project Gutenberg for free. The movie site also has a lot of cool stuff including some short scenes you can watch. I can hardly wait til it's in theaters here.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Plus, every woman I know thinks it is *so* sexy when a man likes Pride and Prejudice.
quote:Don't do it for that. Do it for the girls.
See, for me it's the opposite; I'm attracted to women who have enough taste to admit that Jane Austen is vastly overrated and her books are soporifically dull.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Audeo, there are quite a few modern interpretations of the story, though. Bridget Jones Diary comes to mind immediately, as does Bride and Prejudice.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Jane Austen is vastly overrated and her books are soporifically dull.
If only Jane Austen had made it a pop-up book instead...
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
Certainly, but I would argue that the love story, while compelling, is not the best part of the novel. My favorite part is Victorian England, complete with the unfair inheritance laws, class distinctions, and the outright inanity that made up the social customs of the time. The modern versions can't have that, simply because the world has moved on. I wouldn't want to have lived in Victorian England, but I really enjoy reading about it, and watching it's well done.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
I can't speak to Pride and Prejudice (like I said, I've not seen or read it; my father was the one who made the "Victorian soap opera" comment) but I've noticed something about "guy movies" and "chick flicks". The men in most romantic comedies tend to act about as much like real-life men as the women in James Bond movies act like real-life women. Both genres seem to be exercises in wishful-thinking in which each gender's (admittedly stereotypical, but we're talking about Hollywood here) fantasy man or woman is on display. The women who seem to jump into James Bond's bed at the first (often chauvenistic) clever line; the men who seem able to read the woman's every mood and desire and somehow understand every nuance of the female code-language that has so frustratingly mystified men and boys since Adam. There are variations on this theme, but rarely do you meet anyone who acts like a real, flesh-and-blood man.
I'm oversimplifying, of course, and there are romances and action flicks that defy this pattern (although James Bond movies certainly never do) but there's often a good deal of truth to it. It's one of the reasons so many men find chick flicks intolerable to watch or (this is never said in mixed company) actually somewhat offensive in their portrayal of men, just as women so often find James Bond movies (this is OFTEN said in mixed company) so offensive. And, actually, I personally find the whole Bond Girl thing both ludicrous and distasteful.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that men don't want to have to live up to the impossible standard of the romantic-comedy fantasy-men, and are frankly terrified of the expectation that they be expected to pick up on what for them is a bewildering mass of hidden meaning in everything a woman says, just as women hate the implicit expectation that they have a body like one of the Bond girls and be willing to jump into bed without any real affection or commitment involved.
Dave Barry once wrote a funny, and painfully true, column about the differences in communication for both men and women; I wish I could find it to link it. At one point in the narrative he commmented. "We're not talking about different wavelengths here. We're talking about different PLANETS in entirely diffent SOLAR SYSTEMS.
While it's entirely possible that I'm just projecting my own communication problems here, every guy I've ever known at all well has at some point expressed the exact same frustration. There *is* a common language fairly well understood by both genders used for business, academia, and public discourse (although there are plenty of breakdowns here at times) but when it comes to close personal relationships both sexes have a tendency, especially at very emotional moments, to revert to the language they grew up speaking in the male or female community. This makes for a lot of misunderstandings at the worst possible times.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Which is exactly the point of Pride and Prejudice.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Dante, we've heard your opinion on Austen before. Thanks for restating it. Again.
Having read most of what she's written, I can say that no one would get very drunk with your drinking game. The marriage one would have the most hits.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: See, for me it's the opposite; I'm attracted to women who have enough taste to admit that Jane Austen is vastly overrated and her books are soporifically dull.
Ok, not quite. I'd rather like to see the movie. But I tried to read three different Austen novels (pretty sure P&P was one of them), and never made it past about page 50 or so. And I like historicals!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Rivka, did you like Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Dante, I thought your drinking game was in jest, I didn't know you were purposely being critical. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Rivka, did you like Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell?
When the library has it in on a day that I am there, I'll be able to answer that question. Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Dante, we've heard your opinion on Austen before. Thanks for restating it. Again.
Having read most of what she's written, I can say that no one would get very drunk with your drinking game. The marriage one would have the most hits.
Sorry, Narnia, I didn't realize that there was a limited number of times one could comment on a topic. Or is that only for opinions you don't like?
quote:I thought your drinking game was in jest, I didn't know you were purposely being critical.
Are those mutually exclusive?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Are those mutually exclusive?
You can joke about something you like without trying to be critical of it.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:You can joke about something you like without trying to be critical of it.
I don't know that you can, really, but in any case it doesn't actually answer my question.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Mmm - I'm going to get in trouble for this, but it's accurate: Not liking Jane Austen is a bit like not liking Shakespeare. You probably just don't get it. And that is not intended in a demeaning way at all; I am sure that there are inumerable things that I don't understand which people who don't appreciate Austen or Wills are quite adept at. But Pride and Prejudice, and Jane Austen in general, is some of the sharpest and funniest writing we have. I suggest climbing back down the well and giving it another go, if you feel up to it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't know that you can, really, but in any case it doesn't actually answer my question.
The difference is in the tone and intention. When you jest, you're not really serious. When you mock something out of contempt, you are usually quite serious and the intention is not playful bantering, but rather harsh criticism. If you don't see the difference, well, then I guess there's nothing more I can say.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:I'm attracted to women who have enough taste to admit that Jane Austen is vastly overrated and her books are soporifically dull.
That seems unnecessarily cruel to the women posting in this thread.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Sorry, Narnia, I didn't realize that there was a limited number of times one could comment on a topic. Or is that only for opinions you don't like?
Nope. Just opinions that are insulting to people who are trying to have a discussion. See Theaca's post above.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
I'm looking foreward to it
I'm going with my stepmom and nanny- they both like P&P as well. (I suppose I could try to talk my boyfriend into going, but why would I go with someone who most likely won't enjoy it when there are people to go with that most likely will?)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: There should be a Stone Cold Jane Austen drinking game. You could take a drink every time:
--someone swoons --someone faints --someone has tea --a woman makes a seemingly flip but, if you really "get" it, wonderfully funny comment --a man is brutish --anyone mentions "marriage" --anyone talks about money --there is a house with a name ("Heatherlodge Bough," "Greenton Mires," "Ol' Smokey," etc.) --there is some sort of circumlocution about illegitimacy --a woman is clever --a man is dour --someone says something in French --a girl bursts into tears
I can remember four of these ever happening in a Jane Austen novel. Could it be that you haven't actually read them?
To clarify, those would be: anyone mentions "marriage" anyone talks about money there is a house with a name a woman is clever
Somehow I don't find any of those particularly inexcusable, as they are historical romances set in a time when aristocratic houses had names and romance was inextricably intertwined with money.
Narnia, I hadn't heard Dante's opinions on Austen before and I'm more disappointed than hurt. I'm glad I'm dating someone who can acknowledge we have different tastes without thinking that makes either one of us a lesser person.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Just as an aside from the "I cant believe anyone can read -fill in the blank-" debate, I think that Darcy as played by Firth, when taken in historical context, is definitely an example of the way "real men" behave.
Although I have yet to read the book, I think Darcy is a complex and interesting character in the A&E series. It's worth watching just for the verbal boxing matches between MEB and Darcy. I think you're excluding yourself from a fantastic production if you haven't seen the A&E series.
Dante, I do admit the genre is not for everyone, however it seems pointless to ridicule somthing somone holds dear in such an endless and what seems to me senseless fashion. No there isn't a limit to the number of posts you can make about Austen, however there is probably a limit to the number of posts you can tastefully make about the topic.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I love the book (it's one of my favorites), and I adore the A&E production. I also pretty much despise Keira Knightley and will put up with her only when there's someone worthy to offset her (see Pirates of the Caribbean). So...I'm probably not going to see this. I just don't think she can do it justice.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:--there is a house with a name ("Heatherlodge Bough," "Greenton Mires," "Ol' Smokey," etc.)
This is almost impossible to avoid in that era and that level of society. You don't live at a numbered house when you own the whole road, the surrounding cottages (all of which also have names because there's not enough of them to have numbers) and it's pretty clear which house is yours!
quote:--someone has tea
Although this probably often happens it's never a big deal- it's just a fact of life. You might as well drink everytime someone has a drink that isn't with dinner. Tea was/is a british staple.
quote:I'm attracted to women who have enough taste to admit that Jane Austen is vastly overrated and her books are soporifically dull.
You're saying this to a bunch of women who not only like Jane Austen but also really like Science Fiction. Rather a lot. Exactly what is your point?!
There are no swordfights in Jane Austen (or, rather, few). The people are not saving the world or the country or anything huge. Her books are about people going about their everyday lives. The fact that Austen's books happen to mostly about women makes there quite a limited sphere of saving-the-world-ness possible. As it goes, they are very well written, funny (sometimes hilariously) and very interesting. I can perfectly understand how many men my find them boring but just because many men don't find them interesting doesn't mean that the women who like them are somehow deluded.
It's just like those people who claim everyone who likes Shakespeare or Dickens or anyone like that likes it only because they want to appear smart. It's hogwash! People like Austen, Dickens and Shakespeare because they like it and it's good, not because they're trying to fit in with some "norm". The people who cannot see reveal their own confusedness when they make comments like that.
It's perfectly acceptable to not like something. This doesn't mean that everyone who does is stupid or worse, pretending to like it.
[ November 12, 2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Word
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I think the reason Pride and Prejudice is one of her most popular books is because of Elizabeth (well duh!). While women were more and more becoming the subjects of good literature (Jane Eyre, Vanity Fair etc.), so few of them a) were average looking, b) had a sense of humor, and c) had a streak of smart a$$ in them. There are plenty of female characters with one of these qualities, but few who possessed all three. This is why the average looking, funny, smart a$$ normal girls love this story. (I would be one of those.)
I guess that's why I'm still wary of Keira Knightley...she's too pretty, too delicate and breakable looking. But she does have the snark I suppose. I'm willing to give it a shot. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Jane sees people so well, and portrays them both accurately and affectionately. I think that's what I find most endearing about her. She can tease and poke fun of my foibles, but not in a way that suggests that she feels contempt for me or for them. Another thing about her I love is that after a harrowing, soul-rending time spent reading Dostoyevsky or James Baldwin, Turgenev or Tolstoy, I can read Jane and know that no horrible moral dilemmas will confront me, no children starving or orphans pressed into prostitution. The only ugliness of war I'll be shown will be perhaps some officer who acts in an ungentlemanly way, earning the unmixed disapprobation of all concerned. I love Jane because, although she speaks the truth, she does so from some cocoon of safety from the harsh realities of life. Sometimes it's nice to dwell there with her for a while.
My favorite by far is Northanger Abbey. I like Catherine the best of the Jane Austen heroines, and Henry Tilney is my favorite Jane Austen boyfriend. Other than a somewhat-overdone joke about Catherine expecting things to be all gothic-novel-like when they're actually ordinary commensense happenings, everything about this book is delightful, including gems like this:
quote:The advantages of natural folly in a beautiful girl have been already set forth by the capital pen of a sister author; -- and to her treatment of this subject I will only add in justice to men, that though to the larger and more trifling part of the sex, imbecility in females is a great enhancement of their personal charms, there is a portion of them too reasonable and too well informed themselves to desire any thing more in woman than ignorance.
Jane sees people so clearly, and she's so witty and goodhearted, that it's a joy to read her books.
Pride and Prejudice is my second favorite. It's the funniest of them all, but really <risks being pelted with overripe produce> Mr. Darcy is such a stuffed shirt! Do you guys really like him? He's a good guy and all but wow, he's so full of himself! I bet Elizabeth's teasing stops being funny to him and he begins to be embarrassed about what a lowborn person he married before five years are up. Henry Tilney is way cooler than Mr. Darcy any year of the century.
I didn't like Mansfield Park at all because Fanny was such a wimpy doormat of a girl. I'll be as critical of that one as even Dante could wish. The other five all are great, though, especially the too-often-overlooked Northanger Abbey.
I'm speaking as a girl who doesn't usually like "girl" books, and prefers a good action movie to a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. I like Walter Scott, Anthony Hope, Alexander Dumas, and all those guy-book authors, and I'd far rather build a fort or climb trees than go to a baby shower. So in far more than a limited girl-book-way, I think Jane Austen is awesome.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I love Mr. Darcy, but that's probably because it's been forever since I've seen him as anything but Colin Firth.
I also like that he eventually adjusts his worldview because of Elizabeth, and admits it.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Great analysis Tatiana. I have to admit that Mansfield Park really is my favorite of all of her books. You're right about Fanny being a doormat, but I think what I loved was watching what happened around her. I loved watching how people were changed by her even though she was so mousy and shy. I think the formulaic 'scandal' in this book was the best out of all of them. (Running away with an engaged woman after you'd proclaimed your love to the main character!) Jane actually had me convinced for a small minute that the guy really did like Fanny. But I should have known that Fanny would get the guy that SHE wanted. That's the way it always happens.
Northanger Abbey (don't thwap me) was probably the hardest for me to get through. I thought Catherine was the flakiest of Jane's heriones (besides Emma, I suppose). You're right about it being overlooked often. Wasn't it published posthumously? (Now that you mention it, I really did like Henry. I remember thinking "Wow. A Jane Austen boyfriend who is neither brooding and inscrutable nor kind and clueless!" )
Megan: That's why I love Darcy. I thought he was a terrible stuffed shirt when I read it the first time, but this time through, I could see his gradual change. I could see him fall in love with Elizabeth's vivacity and intellect and I admire him for that. Yeah, it pained him to admit that he loved someone of a 'low' station, but you can tell that he got over that. I think he even became slightly good-natured by the end after having to endure being around her mother (horrific woman!) so much. I could almost see him laughing inwardly, which is a terribly un-Darcylike thing to do.
[ November 12, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I guess that's why I'm still wary of Keira Knightley...she's too pretty, too delicate and breakable looking. But she does have the snark I suppose. I'm willing to give it a shot.
I agree with this. Despite most portrayals of her, I think she is capable of this role. Has anyone seen The Jacket? I thought she did a very nice job in that movie with a role that is quite different from her normal parts.
My biggest concern is, how are they possibly going to fit all the good stuff into a two hour movie? I'm afraid a lot of good scenes will have to be cut or condensed because of the time. I guess that's to be expected though.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Actually, now that I think about it, I think this may go along with the idealization of the opposite sex that Yank mentioned. You know...men admitting when they're wrong?
I kid, guys, I kid! Really! Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dante.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The biggest problem I have with the new "Pride and Prejudice" movie is the taglines they have going with it that prove to me that they don't get the book at all. I mean "A woman ahead of her time"??? Not so much. I might go see it if someone else wants to go, but there's so much out right now that I want to see, and so little money that I have that I'm not going to go out of my way to see it.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
I was in 10th grade when P and P was assigned to be read. I plodded through the first chapter, and had a very hard time at that. Usually it takes only a few minutes for me to read a chapter...this took hours! (Please continue reading before pelting me with rotten fruit!) I got into the 2nd chapter and realized: "This is a 'smutty romance novel'...er, without the smutty part!!" Since I am someone who enjoys reading romance novels because they are "mindless entertainment"; I don't have to think to enjoy it or wonder what the hidden meaning the author was trying to get across, etc., I thoroughly enjoyed P and P. It became my favorite book before I even finished reading it the 1st time! I have reread it more than 10 times, and I own a copy of the A&E version with the very yummy Colin Firth. It almost seems that "dearest Jane" had him in mind when she created the character of Darcy. I too am a bit skittish when thinking of Ms. Knightly in the role of Elizabeth Bennett, but I will withhold my judgment of her portrayal until I have seen the film. I also liked Persuasion and find that Jane was quite good when it came to writing everything from witty repartee to scathing diatribes. In short, she had a way with words. I am one who doesn't particularly like fantasy or sci-fi, but I have read the classics (many of which I plodded through dutifully to the end.), hate A Tale of Two Cities, The Return of the Native, War and Peace, and The Great Gatsby, but I don't dismiss those who like them as being snobbish, dull-witted, boring, or anything of the sort.... they can like what they like, and I shall continue to like what I like, not caring what anyone else thinks or says about the books/stories that appeal to me. ( A little like Elizabeth Bennett's [walking to visit her sister when she is sick at Netherfield]...n'est ce pas?)
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I'm kind of looking forward to it. I think they did a good job of dulling Keira Knightley's beauty so that she wasn't too pretty for Elizabeth. I saw the TV miniseries and was very unimpressed with Jennifer Ehle. She's too sweet. Her zingers don't zing. Colin Firth was, of course, the perfect Darcy. However, I saw Matthew McFadyen (sp?) in London, in a production of Henry IV at the National Theatre, playing Prince Hal, and he was superb. So I have high hopes for this movie.
I heart Pride and Prejudice, but I've never been able to get through any of her other books. I know it's because I'm missing things, so I'm going to try again.
Jen
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I liked a Tale of Two Cities because it was the first novel I ever realised how great (although cheesy) symbolism can be.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Emma is also really good, for those of you thinking of dipping a toe a little deeper into Jane Austen's writing. That remake they did of it a while back called Clueless was really funny and faithful to the spirit of the book, if nothing at all like it in the letter. Especially enjoyable for those of us who got the joke.
Sense and Sensibility is not one of my favorites, mainly because I'm much more Marianne-like than Elanorish, and the ending really upset me. Marrying Colonel Brandon? That was so untrue to her character as to be deadly oppressive, and leave me grieving far worse than if she had merely died. I suggest watching Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon instead of reading S&S. The director made the comparison between the two, and it's a good one. He also directed a movie version of S&S, which I haven't seen but probably would like based on how much I love CTHD.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I never read A Tale of Two Cities because I'm constitutionally unable to appreciate Dickens, for some reason. I know Dostoyevsky liked him and lots of other people like him but I just don't. After reading 3 or 4 things by him without any joy, I decided he's not my thing.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
I just recently read Emma for the first time, and I spent the first half of the book being rather annoyed by her. But as you get to konw her a little better Emma grows on you. I guess that's how she ended up with Mr. Knightley, she just grew on him. Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: I'm kind of looking forward to it. I think they did a good job of dulling Keira Knightley's beauty so that she wasn't too pretty for Elizabeth.
I wasn't thrilled at the thought of Keira as Elizabeth because she's so gorgeous (if I could trade bodies with anyone...), but if what you say is true maybe my fears can be asuaged. As long as Jane is inarguably prettier.
Ang Lee's and Emma Thompson's S&S is fabulous. Marrianne marrying Brandon feels like such the right thing only because Marrianne is played by Kate Winslett, and Brandon by Alan Rickman. The are both SO yummy and perfect.
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
Ooo, and I just saw (in Eric Snider's review) that Judi Dench is Lady Catherine. I don't think it's possible for her to be part of a bad movie.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:There should be a Stone Cold Jane Austen drinking game. You could take a drink every time:
--someone swoons --someone faints --someone has tea --a woman makes a seemingly flip but, if you really "get" it, wonderfully funny comment --a man is brutish --anyone mentions "marriage" --anyone talks about money --there is a house with a name ("Heatherlodge Bough," "Greenton Mires," "Ol' Smokey," etc.) --there is some sort of circumlocution about illegitimacy --a woman is clever --a man is dour --someone says something in French --a girl bursts into tears
Oh, Dante. You spoil us.
[ November 13, 2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Woah.
Hi Ralphie. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I figured Dante's usual bitterness was because no one who knew of the wit and graciousness of an Austen character would look for him.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Sense and Sensibility is not one of my favorites, mainly because I'm much more Marianne-like than Elanorish, and the ending really upset me. Marrying Colonel Brandon? That was so untrue to her character as to be deadly oppressive, and leave me grieving far worse than if she had merely died.
I dont' agree. I think when I was younger, I was much more Mariannish, and now, after having a similar experience to hers with Willoughby, am happily settled in a much more Eleanorish life. That's putting it far more romatically than it was, but I find it harder to watch Sense and Sensibility because of those experiences -- Marianne is too real.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I think most of us start out Marriannish, don't you think? I myself went through similar Willoughby situations and am now very Elinor.
I believe that Colonel Brandon did complete Marianne, even if he wasn't as flashily perfect for her as Willoughby seemed to be. He read, with feeling, and he noticed important things about her. I didn't see her feeling oppressed simply because he was so anxious to please her and because he loved and admired all of the 'free spirit' things about her.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I actually saw this movie more than a month ago, so I've had lots of time to think about it, and then forget what I thought... If that makes any sense. So you know where I'm coming from, I loved the book and the BBC mini-series.
Possible Spoilers (if you haven't read the book!)
What sticks with me is the atmosphere that this movie creates. There are a few moments where you completely forget that this isn't your life. There's one moment, where Darcy walks up behind Elizabeth in a dimly lit room, that was stunningly atmospheric.
Thankfully, Keira Knightly manages not to be too annoying. She's still not the greatest actress, and she's still too pretty for Lizzy, but she doesn't do that weird pouty thing with her lips very often, which is good. To my way of thinking, McFadyen isn't as good as Firth's Darcy, I never found him standoffish enough, but by the end you are rooting for him and Lizzy. The romances of Lizzy's sisters and her parents are very well handled. Although Mr. Bennet is often annoyed by his wife, it is clear that he also adores her, because he understands her so well. Judy Dench is, of course, marvellous. The ending is very well handled, although you'll be disappointed if you were hoping to see them have a makeout session. This is not a kissing book.
It's a beautiful film to watch, and it really does take you into that world. It's flawed, but it was strong enough for these not to destroy my enjoyment of it.
Of course, if you want to watch the perfect Austen adaptation, do as they say above and watch Sense & Sensibility. One of my most favourite films.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Narnia, do you think Marianne loved Coloned Brandon? I don't think I do. I think she settled for a pleasant life with someone she did not love, but whom she expected would be good to her. I don't think it was fair to either her or him, really, that she did that. What's going to happen when she meets the real one she adores? One who suits her as well as Willoughby but without his character flaws? Not all Willoughbys are bounders, you know? I think the ending was a total cheat, and just wrong.
I think Elinors like to think that Mariannes are just immature and somewhat melodramatic versions of themselves, and that they will grow up and get some sense and become little Elinors, but I think they're very mistaken.
I think Elinors and Mariannes are both wonderful in different ways. Different people are just different. The idea that it's right and good and necessary for one to grow up and turn into the other is what I disagree with.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that if Marianne didn't love Colonel Brandon, then you're right.
I also think there is a possibility that she did. I have been many people in my life. I don't mean just Marianne and Elinor (I've never been reckless enough for Marianne or selfless enough for Elinor), but I've been both a flirt and practically a Mormon nun. I've been a good student and I've been a slacker. I've been a great friend and I've been a terror. I've also dated guys that were bad for me, and then later someone who definitely isn't.
I think it's nice that we don't have to be the same person all our lives. Marianne can change without it being a surrender.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Tatiana, I think she did love him, but that's just my interpretation. If she didn't, then you're right. It would be very oppressive for her eventually. But I don't think she lost that spunk and fire, even if it wasn't as noticeable after her illness. I don't think Brandon would have loved her without that spunk and fire and I believe she came to realize that.
It could also be a case of "Willoughby was a jerk, I'm going to marry me the first non-jerk who pays attention to me," but I didn't see it that way. I think she just realized that she could be happy with Brandon, that she did love him. She probably wouldn't have given herself the chance to get to know him if she hadn't needed to be taken care of (while she was ill). To me, it's a case of realizing that you can love more than one type of person. She was convinced that Willoughby was the only type for her, and I'm convinced that he wasn't.
And when I say that I've changed from Marrianne to Elinor, it's not a matter of 'growing up'. It's most definitely a matter of putting up walls of self defense because I've been hurt like Marrianne was. It's not better or more mature, and I wish I could be more Marrianne than I am. It would make getting to know guys a WHOLE lot easier. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Well, getting married for women in those days was a matter of basic survival. If women weren't married they were often destitute. Not to mention pitied and written off as hopeless cases. Being an old maid was something like being mentally handicapped and unemployable would be in our time. Thank goodness things are different now.
So, for women, marriage was all mixed up with economic necessity. I think that ugly fact tended to force Mariannes to become Elinors against their natures. And really, the most objectionable thing about Jane Austen heroines is that they are so single-mindedly pursuing husbands with their whole hearts. I can't think of a single one of the Jane Austen boyfriends who wasn't really well off, either, can you? Do you not get the feeling that a man of humble means, be he ever so intelligent, witty, well-bred and mannerly, etc. would have ben considered no match at all for any of Jane's girls?
Jane seems to be saying "Men, look at more than a girl's family and money. Look at who she is." But her women have no such luxury. Their sights are narrowed to only men who are financially well-off. It's true that they care about character, too, among this group of men. But men without means don't even get a ticket through the door, so to speak. In my opinion, Marianne did not marry Colonel Brandon because she had found her soulmate and other half, but rather, she hired on with him in the same way one takes a job because the benefits are good and it's pleasant work that one can do.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Even nowadays, someone close to me said something jokingly about marrying for money, and I was appalled. In fact, it was a situation something like M and CB, where the guy loved the girl and had for years, for his whole life practically. The girl thought he was okay but her feelings weren't engaged with him at all. He was someone she could always count on for a date to the dance, if she wanted one, but she didn't think of him otherwise. Then when discussing her various professional and school options, she joked that she could always marry that guy, because his family was wealthy and he was pursuing an academic course that meant he would be likely to be wealthy as well. She joked in a way that made it clear she was actually thinking about it.
I thought I was going to vomit.
Then someone else agreed that only dating guys with money was certainly smart.
How is that not the same as prostitution? How is that a good thing for either the husband or wife? It's a terrible cheat! How can you forge a true equal partnership with someone who was basically the highest bidder who seemed pleasant enough to be tolerable?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tatiana, considering who you're talking to, I think you're preaching to the choir. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Maybe I'm worried about any Marrianes who might be feeling the confounding lure of that great and spacious building, covering itself in the guise of maturity and good sense.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am comfortably sure (somewhat from experience) that true Mariannes would have a nervous breakdown before they could ever force themselves to do it.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<<<<hugs Katie>>>> If not before, then afterward for sure. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Right. I think the point of Mariannes is that they trust their own minds and opinions more than anyone else's. If they are letting themselves go so completely against themselves, then I question how true Marianney they were.
That's partly why I don't mind that she married Colonol Brandon. She was sick, but she didn't have a lobotomy, and she was in no danger of being turned out on the streets; she had family that would never let that happen. She was also still young and beautiful and charming. She wasn't desperate. Since with all of that she did marry Colonol Brandon, then I think she must have loved him enough that she wanted to. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
"I think the point of Mariannes is that they trust their own minds and opinions more than anyone else's."
Okay, I like that characterization, if you add the proviso that they may have tried over and over from earliest childhood to follow the minds and opinions of trusted authorities, only to have found it to be disasterously wrong in their case.
I think the real Marianne will find the same thing to be true in her marriage, I think she will find that she made a horrible mistake. It was her own choice, even if somewhat coerced by circumstances, so she will learn and grow from that mistake. But what about poor Colonel Brandon? Doesn't he deserve better? Doesn't he deserve someone who really loves him?
To me, this story is about how one true soul can be subverted by adversity, by someone of evil character in whom she put her trust, and by some others who love her and mean well, but have no clue what it's like to be her, and what life choices are right for her. I see the ending and it's horribly tragic.
It's a different book for you, but that's okay. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think for your scenario to be true, Marianne would have to be very dishonest both with herself and Colonol Brandon in order to marry him without loving him. That seems like a disservice to her, to think her capable of it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I've never read Pride and Prejudice.
Although I hear it's the literary version of a chick flick. Is that not true?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The same way Lonesome Dove is a pulp western and Anna Karenina is a soap opera.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
If she loves him then why aren't we shown that story? Why aren't we really even shown who he is, or how she came to fall for him? Why don't we see him through her eyes with all his charms and the unique traits that caused her heart gradually to go out to him and be won over? I think it's Pretty clear that it's because those things never did happen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tatiana, you seem determined to think that she made a horrible mistake.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
You seem determined to think she didn't. I don't think it's necessary that we agree about this, but I do believe in my reading of the story.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think that she necessarily didn't, but I do think it is a possibility, considering how dishonest she would have to be to marry solely for money.
You can expand your reading to include more than one possiblity.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I see it as the eternal archetype of the Elinor (perhaps even Jane's internal Elinor) telling the eternal archetype of the Marianne "just be like me and you'll be happy" only it's a terrible mistake, fallacy, and misunderstanding on the part of the Elinor, as it always is when this story plays out in real life. You see that Jane wanted to tell the story of how a Marianne became an Elinor and was happy, but in the end even she could not make it convincing, and she had to gloss over the ending in a single chapter, a happily-ever-after tying up of loose ends that rings entirely false.
If she really loved him, then surely the real story here is not Willoughby-Marianne, but rather Marianne-Colonel Brandon. The fact that M-CB is almost a postscript at the end tells the truth about what's going on, I think.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
My reading of it is that the point was that Mariane chose the one who treated her well and was devoted to her over pure emotion. How she felt about him is somewhat irrelevant. It is clear, I think, that she at least liked Brandon. And it's clear too, I think, that Brandon understood Mariane and accepted that she would probably never feel for him what she felt for Willoughby. In that way, it could be said they both compromised their highest ideals for marriage, but found something acceptably comfortable. I don't think it could be reasonably assumed that Mariane settled simply for money.
It's pretty clear that Jane Austen did not think highly of marrying purely for better circumstances, as illustrated most starkly by her portrayal of Charlotte Lucas.
So if you're a pure romantic, you could say that Mariane's choice was tragic, but at worst, she at least made a better choice that Charlotte. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I see it as the eternal archetype of the Elinor (perhaps even Jane's internal Elinor) telling the eternal archetype of the Marianne "just be like me and you'll be happy" only it's a terrible mistake, fallacy, and misunderstanding on the part of the Elinor, as it always is when this story plays out in real life.
I think your own experiences are blinding to the other possibilities in the story.
In any life, there is more than one story to be told. Not every love story needs to be about the love of someone's life. I suspect the really exciting love stories often are not. There is not much angst and drama in "they met, made each other happy, and read poems by the lake." A good story needs conflict, but a good relationship doesn't necessarily.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I love this discussion. To me this discussion is one facet of the same central idea that we have talked about in other ways before.
Remember when I was so horrified that you said if you were Mary you'd have wanted your son Jesus to grow up to be a normal carpenter, marry, have kids, and be happy, and that you would not have wanted him to be the Christ? Does that mean Mary would have been denied the blessings of the atonement because she tragically, of all people, refused to accept the truth about who her son was? That she persisted in seeing her son's life as a tragedy instead of an eternal triumph?
A vastly different scale, but the same idea to me. I really think that would make a great book, come to think of it. I wish I were a good enough writer to write it.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
*Bump*
Has this movie been shown in the US yet? I was searching for the Hatracker's opinions, and this was the only thread I found.
I've seen it, and overall I was pleased. I think they did a good job of fitting the story into movie format without cutting anything essential. Keira Knightly WAS prettier than the actress portraying Jane (at least according to modern -- that is, my -- standards; I can well imagine that the opposite would be considered true in the 18th century, and in any case I don't care about that) and her mouth was no more annoying than usual. I did not like the crying scene, though. It felt as if it were played for cheap laughs rather than drama.
It think this movie visualised the difference between the the social circles of the Bennetts and Darcy/Bingley more strongly than the mini-series. Especially the first ball came across as a LOT more rustic and farmerish than my (admitedly vague) recollections of the elevated style of the mini-series. I'm not saying they were wrong to do this, but it was a little jarring.
Bingley seemed a little (too) immature, and Mr. Bennett a little slovenly; I liked this Mr. Colin better than the the guy in the mini-series, but Mary was definitely too pretty in the movie. I hesitate to compare Darcys, but Mr. Spooks (that's where I recognise him from) did a good job. The scenery was marvelous and I want Mr. Darcy's house. And if no one will give me that, I'd be content with the humble abode of the Bennetts.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
It has been showing in the US for a while. Considering my love for the miniseries, and the trepidation I felt at the prospect of a poorly made rendition of such a classic, I was pleasantly suprised by the film.
The performance of Firth in the miniseries left me doubting that anyone could play Darcy ever again. However, I completely enjoyed Macfadyen in the role. He, along with all the characters, showed more emotion than I expect many of the time period dared. It could be considered a flaw, but I enjoyed it. Depite being less than suited to my perception of Elizabeth, Knightly held her own. Thankfully this prevented me from having Pirates of the Carribean flashbacks and allowed me to see the film as its own production without judging it by the miniseries too heavily.
It is unfortunate that the length of a feature film is such that it prevents the development of certain characters that enrich the story in the miniseries. But the core story is so strong that the omissions are handled well.
I thought the film was spectacularly romantic. I have always loved the misty countryside and stormy nature of England. I especially enjoyed the bridge scene as the sun rises.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmm...
I thought I had posted in this thread (or maybe another one on the same topic) about this.
We watched P&P as a family at the theatre in December. Absolutely loved it.
quote:I want Mr. Darcy's house
Forget the house, Tristan. I want Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy himself! Matt Macfadyen was wonderful in this role.
FG
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm beginning to think that I'm the only person in the world who hated this movie.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Do you actually hate the movie or did you hate the story?
Also: You may be one of the few people who would hate it who actually went to see it, which is pretty commendable.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I love the story, I just feel that this was a terrible telling that was both acted and directed poorly, with unfortunate decisions made in the rewrites.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Ah, then I forgive you and the horse you rode in on.
I haven't actually seen this movie.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I think it would be hard to make a Jane Austen movie I wouldn't enjoy to some degree. It's all very well to read the books, but seeing the expressions on actors' faces as they deliver the punny or insinuous or loaded lines is just delicious.
I was impressed with a different take on social (read: financial) status in this movie. In the miniseries and the other movie, the Bennets live very comfortably in their grand house, though it might not be as grand as their neighbors'. In this new movie, their house is rustically crumbling (peeling paint in every room) and iirc the girls do some amount of housework (cooking). So that added to the urgency of finding them all well-to-do husbands.
Really the only thing I actively disliked about the movie was the very last scene, on his veranda. ("Mrs Darcy"?!? ugh.) There were other moments when it was clear the director had taken advantage of his (her?) artistic licence, moments that made it a movie "based on the novel by Jane Austen." But none of these really bothered me except that very last sappy scene.
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
Don't throw tomatoes at me, but I think in a way I like the 'new' Mr Darcy better than Colin Firth. But that's probably because I've seen Firth in so many movies that he became too familiar The new one, though, suited this movie brilliantly. As did Keira Knightley (except for a few moments). The important thing is to remember that the movie is so much shorter than the mini series so it simply couldn't be as faithful to the original. So they simply did it their own way. And it did turn out great. The feel of the movie is much more... I don't know: romantic and moody, while at the same time it's still funny. So I treat it more or less like the Lotr movie: it's great, as was the book, but the two are slightly not the same thing
I read one review which put me off: the reviewer was clearly surprised that the movie was funny. Either he hasn't read the book, or he didn't understand it. He completely missed the point that the original story WAS FUNNY as well, and it was MEANT to be.
As for other Austen movies: anyone's seen the dreadful "Mansfield Park" movie? It would've been soooo much better if only the director hadn't thought it would be a good idea to insert some "contemporary issues" <sigh>
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Don't throw tomatoes at me, but I think in a way I like the 'new' Mr Darcy better than Colin Firth.
*throws tomatoes*
Seriously, I haven't actually seen the new one, although I suppose when it comes out on DVD, I'll rent it (so that I'll have the right to mock it, of course).
I've seen Mansfield Park; yeah, it was bad. It's not my favorite of her books, either, but the movie was awful.
Persuasion, however, was marvelous.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Mansfield Park was bad because it was a completely different story that happened to have a character called "Fanny Price" who was nothing like Austen's Fanny Price...and they tried to pass it off as Austen's Mansfield Park. I really love that book and the movie was ridiculous.
The new P&P is delightful. I love both versions (BBC and the new) for many different reasons. The new one has a little more romantic pay off (even without the kissy scene at the end) which is nice, though not especially true to Austen's style. I really liked it. Enough to see it 3 times in the theaters.
Here's a thread I started a while back that more fully gives my opinion on the subject. Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
So did they change the ending of the American version after all? I had heard rumours that they might.
In the British version there is no kiss between Elizabeth and Darcy - they only embrace, and then it ends at the moment she gets permission from her father for them to marry.
Did they add a new sappy ending?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I just watched the entire A&E miniseries yesterday. Awesome. Although Collins and Mrs. Bennett both made me want to hurl objects at the screen every time they were speaking.
And I was reminded that Mr. Bennett is still a personal hero of mine.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Of course! That's the reaction those characters are supposed to inspire! Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Mr. Bennett is your hero? He's a large part of the problem!
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Mrs. Bennett is really terrible in the BBC version. So over the top and melodramatic, I didn't like her at all.
Bella Bee, yes, they did leave the ending in the US version of the film. It shows Elizabeth and Darcy on Darcy's huge front porch at night and there's a cute and romantic albeit pointless kissy scene. I heard that it pissed off British test audiences, so they yanked it from the UK showing.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oh, I loved Mrs. Bennet in the BBC version! I liked the over-the-top-ness and the melodrama, because I thought that reflected how she was in the book. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
But see, you haven't seen the new one yet. I think the 2005 Mrs. Bennett gets the annoying thing across while still not sounding like fingernails on a chalkboard. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Yes...but to see the new one, I'd have to see Keira Knightley as Elizabeth. The very thought of that makes me twitch. That's why I haven't seen it yet.
Once it comes out on DVD, I'll sit down and watch it in the privacy of my own living room, where I can mock the bad parts and enjoy the good parts in peace.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I know what you mean. I will venture a prediction that you'll enjoy it in spite of yourself. Let me know when you get around to seeing it, I'd love to hear what you think of it.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Ok.
(I probably will enjoy it; it's just the one thing that stopped me from seeing it in theaters...but Elizabeth is a biiig thing.)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The movie actually works quite well as a silly romantic comedy, Megan (although not as well as the two versions that set out to be silly romantic comedies). So you might well enjoy it on that level. As a good rendition of the book, not so hot. It's an important distinction that matters more to some people than others Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I disagree Bob. I reread the book about a week before I saw the movie and the script was very....verbatim. Not as verbatim as BBC, but they didn't have 6 hours to work with.
What I loved about this particular version was the realism in their surroundings. A family with a farm estate and no other source of income would NOT have a house that looked like the Bennett's house in the BBC version. They toned it down a bit which made Netherfield, Rosings Park, and Pemberly look like the huge estates they are in comparison. They did the same thing with the clothing, props, and the first town ball. It was much more realistic in my opinion. They did combine several events and shorten others, but that has to happen for a 2 hour movie.
Austen purists get irked at the added romanticism (it's very romantic, even without the kissy ending), but I don't. Having just reread the book, I can totally see Darcy acting like that, even though the way they brought them together in the movie wasn't the same. Darcy does have a 'speech' (which he did have in the book, we just didn't know what he said) and it is such that we are made light-headed. I'm ok with them doing that because I think P&P is the most romantic of Austen's books and should look like that on film.
However, I really love the BBC version also and for completely different reasons. I don't think we can have too many versions if they're all as well done as these two are.
In my opinion of course.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Mrs Bennett, IMO, is supposed to be extremely silly and extremely embarrassing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Narnia, I agree with you completely. I loved the movie, and I wasn't expecting to. There's a place for both versions.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I enjoyed it--and yes, I liked McFayden better than Colin Firth but that's because I don't like Colin Firth in almost anything--but it seemed to me that the film the director really wanted to make was Wuthering Heights. Much rain over English countryside and windy moors.
Jen
P.S. On a tangentially related note, thank you, Tatiana, for recommending Northanger Abbey. I got it from the library today and am about halfway through, and enjoying it immensely. Much better than Emma. I never liked that book.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Persuasion, however, was marvelous.
I second this. Persuasion is my personal favorite Austen book; the movie is also very good.
I have not yet seen the new movie, so I cannot comment. Loved the BBC/A&E miniseries; we have held family reunions specifically to watch this movie. Harking back to some of the comments earlier on the thread (re: men not liking Austen) . . . one of my uncles used to make fun of all of us sitting around watching P&P. Until one day, I don't remember why, he decided to actually watch it. Instant fan. All of his sisters got a copy of the movie for Christmas from him that year, and after that he would join his wife in the TV room during the P&P reunions.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Glad you liked it, Jen! Her writing is not as polished, but I liked the people a lot. And Henry Tilney is quite swoonfully nice. Jane says some very funny things, and overall it's a fun book to read.
The allusion to Catherine playing "base ball" is the first mention of that game that we have. I read that somewhere. <laughs>
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
I thought they did the 'poor family' part a bit over the top (but that may be because I got used to bbc version so much). Also I think the group scenes were brilliant, so full of life and energy it almost felt as if I were there. And I very much liked the new Mr Collins: he was still preposterous without being unbelievable. Great job! Narnia, I agree with your opinion One thing I don't understand, though: why did Mary got to be prettier than Lydia and Kitty?!?!
As for the male audience: I think it's part of Austen genius that (in spite of her books being of a rather girlish type) so many men enjoy hem so much. Because it's not all about romance: there's so much of witty observations!
the Mansfield Park movie: I could accept making Fanny a mixture of the book character and jane Austen herself, but adding all the stuff about slaves and why the older brother was such a mess was just completely out of tune with the meaning of the story. Waste of screen time.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I think I'm just going to resign myself to the fact that I'm the only person who thinks Keira Knightley is a terrible actor. I felt there was no truth in her role, there was no nuance. And as for unnecessary additions, I'm thinking specifically of the ending and the rediculous scene where Madame de Bourgh comes to the Bennet house in the middle of the night. Both of which added nothing to the movie. Not to mention the good 15 minutes of closeups on Keira's face, Keira walking, or Keira spinning. Some people can get away with that, but Keira has no charisma on camera (as far as I'm concerned) and these scenes were boring and, again, added very little to the film.
I just keep coming back to the fact that it's a pretty good movie because the source material is so good. It is not a pretty good movie because it was well performed or directed.
Edit: Or maybe I just have an irrational dislike of Keira Knightley that I can't get past. That could be possible. Everyone has someone.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
No, you're not the only one. Though I haven't seen P&P yet, I haven't liked her in anything else I've seen her in. I've liked things in spite of her, but I agree with you: I don't think she's a good actress.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I found her less annoying in this movie because she wasn't doing that weird thing with her lips as much. But yes, I thought that they could have found someone better for Lizzie.
Still, she's up for an Oscar, so her performance must have been good. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Unfortunately, those two things are not always necessarily linked.
Seriously, sometimes the Oscars really do involve completely inexplicable choices for awards.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The nice part about a hundred remakes is that not every one of them needs to be exhaustive. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Dante.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
It almost seems that "dearest Jane" had him in mind when she created the character of Darcy.