Orgueil et préjugés

I'm amazed at how many people think of books as being encompassed by their stories. When that story appears in a film relatively unaltered, purists rejoice.

How silly. Stories are there as frames on which all the meaningful stuff is draped. Or so it would be after Jane Austen invented the novel. The way an idea appears has more effect than the idea itself, and so with images as well. Jane had two great inventions.

The first was in building two parallel narratives: one of individuals bumping into each other and the other of grander forces of life and society. The two interact at times (and much is made of these turning points) but usually the two are layered one on top of the other, shifting dominance as they go.

The other great invention was devising a narrative style that sometimes centered on the people and sometimes on their containing world, using the one to poke sly fun at the other.

So converting Austen to film is a challenge, indeed, but only if you want to capture Austen's magic. Past P&P projects have used the Merchant and Ivory approach which just takes the people alone. There is a context, but it is there only to provide lushness and decoration, not fate. Not what would become known as noir.

The challenge comes in how to handle the layers. We have already many ways of "folding" in films, but they mostly require structure in the story itself. How to introduce this notion of a second flowing layer without changing the story? Why you do it cinematically.

And that's what we have here. I don't know this director, but he is from TeeVee so obviously is inexperienced in these matters. I credit the producers for specifying the technique.

And we have it to glorious excess. Nearly every shot is structured with at least two layers, with things happening both in foreground and background. The opening scene introduces this to us, a wonderful sequence worthy of Welles, as we follow our girl down the road over a bridge behind laundry to the house. Then we leave her and enter the house and noodle around a bit, always still with layers, then wander to a window where we see her passing by behind the house.

Any movie only has a few moments to introduce itself and tell you how the visual world will be constructed and this does it well. This layering is kept up throughout, with a tour de force in the ball, where a seemingly seamless eye goes all over the building, capturing glances at people we know and those we don't.

It isn't that they do it and it is so effective. It is that it goes on so long, layers shifting and receding to be replaced by others in the scores. It is magnificent. The film is worth it for that one scene alone.

Oh, the actors are appealing, as we expect. The story is simplified and softened, also as we expect. The father is made less culpable, minor characters are dropped. The visit to the great house adds a sensuality the book lacked. Incidentally, that house is the same one used in "Draughtsman's Contract" which was specifically about this layering technique.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The book by the wonderful Jane Austen is definitely better than the film, dealing with the consequences of love, and the social differences of the late 18th century. The film is certainly handsome looking, with some truly beautiful locations and costumes, with a nice script and some excellent performances from Keira Knightly as Lizzie and in particular Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. Donald Sutherland (yeah, you saw right) was quite charming as Mr Bennett if you put his awkward accent aside. I liked Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, with his handsome looks and all that, but I will say I do prefer Colin Firth's interpretation from the sublime 1995 mini-series, Firth seemed to adopt a more likable and sympathetic approach to the character. I liked the way the film dealt with the period look and the social differences, and while there was a lot of the pride I would have liked to have seen a little more of the prejudice. If anything, the film could have done with being twenty minutes longer, as I felt there wasn't quite enough content from the book. Then again, it's been a long time since I read it, so I could be wrong. Overall, a beautiful film, not quite as good as the 1995 film Sense and Sensibility with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, but worth watching for the detail that obviously took a lot of effort to get right. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox.

Jane Austen's tale of love and economics reaches us once more with the energy of a thorough novelty. "Pride and Prejudice" has been a favorite novel of mine since I first read it and I've seen Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and now Matthew MacFadyen and Kiera Knightly. Amazingly enough I've never been disappointed. The material seems to be full proof. Colin Firth's Darcy, in many ways, is the Darcy I've always imagined. He's been an actor I've followed feverishly since his glorious Adrian LeDuc in "Apartment Zero", Matthew MacFadyen was totally new to me but he managed to create that sense of longing that makes that final pay off so satisfying. Kiera Knightly is a ravishing revelation. I must confess, I didn't remotely imagined that she was capable of the powerful range she brilliantly shows here. The other big surprise is Joe Wright, the director, in his feature film debut which is more than promising, it's extraordinary. The photography, the art direction and the spectacular supporting cast, in particular Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn, makes this new version of a perennial classic a memorable evening at the movies

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I began my "Pride and Prejudice" attempt with the well regarded 1995 five hour classic with Colin Firth, a BBC mini-series. And it is so poorly filmed (visually) and so utterly about recreating the text (the Austen original), it ends up being awkward and sort of awful. As a movie.

I know that is sacriledge to some. But I switched after an hour to this one, which I had seen before. And in two minutes I was sucked in. I think the biggest first point is this: to be true to Austen, you must find a way to put us there, to make us feel it. It's not about the text, the facts, the truth of the translation to film. It's about the effect and the final "truth" that this movie manages in a short two hours.

So, yes, this is a filmic film. It's gorgeous and thoughtful for how it handles the scenes and the light, the movement of camera and the capturing of space. It's a wonderful film on a physical level. (There are particular scenes, in the middle especially at a party, where the camera follows the action from character to character through several rooms for a glorious long take that just fills the sensation of being there beautifully.)

You might say this is Keira Knightly's movie, since she is Elizabeth. And she's kind of great (I've always had a reservation about her sincerity on screen). The cast around her is terrific--even the somewhat troublesome casting of Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy. I know that Mr Darcy is meant to be unpleasant, but he comes off as somewhat wooden for too long here...as he does in Colin Firth's hands, too, in fact.

But I warm to him by the end, so maybe it's perfect. And the other cast, including stars like Sutherland and Dench, is great.

The director, Joe Wright, is basically unknown to me, though I see he did the more excessive Knightley vehicle, "Atonement." So the tendancy for dramatic ambiance is a given, not to mention Anna Karenina (also starring Knightley). It all works. It's a kind of dramatization that purists probably hate, but for me it makes an original take on a classic that has its own dignity and beauty.

And I'll add that Knightly is just 18 for this filming, and shows amazing depth for a young actress.

Recommended!

Back in 1995, the definitive version of "Pride and Prejudice" was brought out--and everyone I know who saw that one agrees with me that it is simply the best. Much of it is the acting (having Colin Firth as Darcy isn't bad) but the biggest reason to adore the made for TV version is that it's long--very, very long. This allows the story to unfold slowly and is never rushed. Unfortunately, every movie version I've seen is just too rushed--and it's hard to shove this wonderful story into a two-hour time slot. So, no matter how good the 2005 movie is (and it's quite good), it cannot hope to equal the mini-series. It's a shame, actually, as there's so much to like about this Keira Knightly version. The music is great, the locations top-notch and the Bennett girls actually look their proper ages! For example, in the 1940 MGM version, the actual ages of the actresses was their mid-20s to almost 40! And, the Bennetts are supposed to be teenagers (there about)!

My advice is go ahead and watch this 2005 film--it's really very lovely. But then do yourself a favor--find the 1995 version. You'll be thankful, believe me.