The hair on Mr. Bingley in P&P (1995)...

...is so incredibly curly...

...I almost thought I was watching a Simply Red video.


This song's for you, Crispin.

Pride and Prejudice: this time it's Old Hollywood

It's been a whole month and a half since the last time I watched and reviewed a Pride and Prejudice adaptation, so obviously it's time for another one. This time it's the 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, and heavens is it delightful. Pushing the time period up several decades to allow the costumes to have cinched in waists, elaborate bonnets, and full-length trousers, this version does a surprisingly good job of adapting Austen's novel.

Mr. Darcy (Olivier) staring at an ignorant Elizabeth (Garson). How elaborate are these costumes?

The time period allows for some loosening up of the manners and language and changing some of the settings (the balls require tickets, and the Netherfield ball is now a garden party). Overall, it makes things a little less claustrophobic from the constant scrutiny of chaperones. The screenwriters also cut out a lot of plot points, which only benefits the story altogether. Without trying to make everything verbatim to the classic novel, this Pride and Prejudice is a well-paced two hour version that captures the relationships and humor of the source.

One of the biggest changes is that Wickham is introduced first, but like I mentioned in my review of the Mormon version, this easily makes Wickham Elizabeth's preference and efficiently develops a strong bond. Plus, Wickham and Elizabeth's snappy conversation during the ball at the Assembly Hall makes Wickham seem rather charming. By the time Darcy insults her at the same ball, her mind is made up.

Mr. Wickham (Edward Ashley) has a fine mustache in this version.

However, many of the scenes remain mostly intact in their original form. The dialogue is changed around to be easier to understand, and some scenes offer extra information original found in other scenes not found in this adaptation. The wit may not be as dry and the satire downplayed, but Elizabeth is still outspoken and Darcy is still a bit stuck up. However, much more is said by Darcy's body language than anything. Mr. Olivier is certainly the master of the I'm-attracted-to-you-lean. It's both telling of how he feels about Elizabeth and his inablility to really express it. And this is really the core of his character relayed to the audience without words.

He's totally leaning.

One of my favorite scenes that is unique to this version is when Darcy saves Elizabeth from Mr. Collins at the Netherfield garden party and gives her a lesson in archery. It gives an easily readable scene where we see Elizabeth not afraid to surpass Darcy's skill (her sassy side coming out) and see a little bit of sexual attraction in the way Darcy gingerly sets Elizabeth up to shoot arrows. This economically shows us Darcy's obvious attraction to Elizabeth, and gives Elizabeth a chance to see that Darcy isn't all snobbery. We didn't even have to go to Pemberly for this to get across.

Mr. Darcy kindly turning Elizabeth's pages at Lady Catherine's house.

This film's ability to give us the proper emotional journey with each character is why this adaptation succeeds. I felt like each character, even if they were put in altered scenes, were presented the way they were originally written. Some of the relationships were simplified, and some minor characters removed, but this allows for the main story between Elizabeth and Darcy to shine through. The biggest change was the ending with the amelioration of Lady Catherine, but I was so delighted I didn't even care.

I caution those looking for a faithful adaptation, because this certainly is not one. But I also felt like the tone of the novel was kept intact and effectively told in an easy to understand two hours. And that's all you need for a good adaption. Even better if it's told with old Hollywood charm.

Here's the trailer:



Why yes, this version is a little bit Gone With the Wind.

Lost in Austen: Pride and Prejudice once again

Recommended for it's ridiculous value by faithful reader Emmy, tonight I viewed the television miniseries Lost in Austen (2008). A young woman, Amanda, who loves Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice mostly for the perfect romance between Elizabeth and Darcy finds herself in the setting of that very book sans Elizabeth (they switched times, obvs). She disturbs the path that everyone should have been on to love, and takes turn making things worse and making things fit the Pride and Prejudice plot line. Many meta-hijinx ensue.

The best way I can express how I feel about Lost in Austen is that it's basically Kate & Leopold but longer and about 9234877 times worse because it uses the beloved characters of Jane Austen. Almost every character turns out to be worse and/or the exact opposite of the ones that you find in the book. Why, you may ask? I have no idea, but it never failed to make my roommate and I scream in delight and/or terror at every reveal.

But I think my biggest problem with this miniseries is that it can't decide what it's about. Is it about discovering that what we fantasize about isn't as great as it we dream it to be? Is it about discovering that what you have is good enough? Is it about helping others find their destiny? Or is it about falling in love with ideas and those ideas coming true? And why is there a secret door between a modern London flat and the Pride & Prejudice Longbourn attic? There are too many mixed messages for Lost in Austen to be taken as even a decent made for TV movie. So basically He's Just Not that Into You. At the end of Lost in Austen, it's completely unsatisfying and you end up wondering why you spent the last 3 hours staying up way too late watching it.

But that's not to say my night was completely wasted. I got some good roommate bonding in, mostly in the form of mutual yelling at the TV and writhing in pain. There were also some ridiculous moments that perhaps made me sympathize more with the lead character more than I would like. Case in point (spoiler warning, if you care to watch this), compare this past post to this scene:



I like to pretend I love the dip in the lake scene of the BBC adaptation because it in no way resembles the book and the awkwardness is so palpable, but let's be honest, wet-shirted Darcy = awesome.

Although, what makes Pride and Prejudice so satisfying in the first place is the slow building relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy. It's satisfying and organic. This was just a mess where I didn't know who to root for and who was supposed to be good or bad. For what it's worth, I would have taken this rendition's Wickham. He turns out to be the Rhett Butler of the whole affair (that is to say, very self aware and honest about his own faults and those of others).

Hey, look! It's Mr. Wickham, and he's both adorable and awesome, so stop glaring, Amanda. (via)

So, if you have few hours to spare and don't mind great literature being perverted for mediocre purposed, give Lost in Austen a watch. I would just recommend watching it with Jane Austen loving friends. You don't want to watch this alone; that would just be depressing and as pathetic as the leading lady.

Another Pride & Prejudice

I admit that I kind of love the Mormon adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (2003). In no other modern culture would Jane Austen's society of marriage obsessed young men and women make sense but in the bizarro world of a Utah Valley singles ward*. While this film, like many during the early 00s influx of Mormon culture movies, is full of cheese and "it's funny cuz it's true" sort of moments, it's endlessly amusing.

Elizabeth in this adaptation is a 26-year-old living in Provo/Orem, Utah (believe me when I say most of the outdoor locales looked familiar). She's (I'm assuming) a master's student studying English and a budding novelist who works in a bookstore. But most importantly, she's not married. To give you some context, I'm 22 and have lived in Provo for four years without getting married. However, by the end of this summer, 6 of my former roommates will have married. It's weird here**. Anyway, Elizabeth doesn't have the best of luck with guys. Her current situation with men is her sanctimonious stalker William Collins and the inactive Mormon friend Jack Wickham who clearly has the hots for her.

It was a genius move to have Collins and Jack already part of the story for a two hour film. Like I've mentioned before, trying to introduce and develop a relationship with Wickham in other adaptations is difficult because two hours is not enough time. The Mr. Collins character will always be odious and easy to establish and dismiss, but if Wickham is supposed to be an actual contender for Elizabeth, a brief meeting or two is not enough.

The sister roles are played out as roommates. Jane is Elizabeth's Brazilian best friend and roommate and is probably my favorite character. Kitty and Lydia are boycrazy and severe adherents to the new bestselling book about how to get a guy, The Pink Bible (probably the cheesiest of all the plot devices). Mary is a socially awkward young lady who's trying to be the epitome of a good Mormon girl. Mostly she's an embarrassment.

Another device in the film is the use of title cards which are kind of charming. Quotes from the novel Pride and Prejudice are placed in between scenes once in a while that are usually out of context for the storyline, but add some of Austen's wit and commentary into the film without awkwardly having the characters have to spew off regency-era dialogue.

Then of course you have Will Darcy and Charles Bingley. Darcy is appropriately pompous at first and then just a dork.His initial asking out Elizabeth scene (analogous to the first proposal) is wonderfully awkward when he tells Elizabeth she's "strangely attractive". Bingley is kind of just dumb in this adaptation***. He's rich for selling high pitched versions of classical music for dog, but whatever. He's adorable, which I guess is all you need.

But there's really just one scene that wins me over every time I end up watching this movie.It's after Elizabeth has had a bad meeting with a book publisher (of course it's Darcy) and Jane's just been email dumped by Bingley (who's going out of town). You see them both encrusted on a couch, covered in blankets and crumbs, with greasy hair and empty ice cream cartons and pizza boxes around them. To figure out if it's morning, Elizabeth picks up a nearby stick and moves open the curtains a smidgen and quickly hides her face from the bright morning light. And when their roommates drag them to the store, they just go for tampons and large vats of ice cream. I honor any film willing to make the women all-out ugly if only for a scene.

At the end of the day, this adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is on the level of a made for TV movie, but it's so innocuous and fun that it's completely entertaining. Non-Mormons might be confused in some spots since the setting is assumed without a lot of explanation (which I think works in its favor), but it's always fun to see how people adapt favorite novels. For me, this version is far more enjoyable that the 2005 version, if only because it effectively establishes characters, makes the plot work for the time constraints, and keeps the the mocking, but accepting of society tone of the book. In the end, the film basically becomes a standard romantic-comedy, but you could do a lot worse than Jane Austen source material.


*Well, also apparently India.
**and I'm leaving Utah for grad school in the fall. Victory!
***Poor character always gets the short stick.

I don't cough for my own amusement

Somehow I've managed to not wake up my roommate with my constant coughing tonight--I swear she would sleep through a bombing blitz without even moving. Anyway, I've only slept a few hours and can't breathe very well and wanted to find that clip from Pride and Prejudice where Mrs. Bennett is yelling at Kitty for coughing, but I couldn't, but I found the clip where Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth meet after Mr. Darcy has taken a dip in his lake (BBC version). Anyway, it made life a little better. In fact, I'm just going to watch the whole thing right now. It's not like I'm doing anything else with my time today...

Enjoy

Jane Austen done easy!

First of all, I'd like to say that each of the 3 times I've seen the 2005 Pride & Prejudice, I really want to like it. And each time, with the first 10 minutes I'm fooled into enjoying it, and then it just lets me down. I rewatched it this Thanksgiving break followed up by a reviewing of Sense & Sensibility(1995) which only made the flaws of P&P more obvious. Admittedly, P&P is one of my favorite books of all time, so any big changes to it makes me a little antsy. Which is why I adore the 5 hour BBC version from 1995--it contains most every scene and develops every storyline. So chopping up this novel into a ~2 hour cinematic piece is like killing my own baby. Well, it's cringe worthy at least. S&S, on the other hand, manages to develop characters and create an accessible story despite it's length.

Anyway, I'd like to point out some of the contrast between these two films:

Tone
P&P: Artsy and maudlin. The cinematography is gorgeous, which isn't a bad thing. The long takes through complicated scenes are to be admired, but unfortunately, it takes precedence over acting and character development. Instead of having characters have scenes together that build emotion and character arcs, odd and overt film metaphors are made: at the Netherfield ball, Elizabeth and Darcy literally end up dancing as if they were the only couple in the room; when Elizabeth is pondering Darcy's first proposal, she stares into a mirror all day, reflecting on her life; when Elizabeth tours Pemberly for the first time, the camera dwells on nude statues, apparently showing her growing sexual attraction to Darcy. Literally.

Not to mention the completely out-of-nowhere and corny 2nd proposal where Mr. Darcy walks through the morning dew toward a sleepless Lizzie on a walk. And then stating that she has "bewitched [him] body and soul." WTF? And don't even get me started on the "Mrs. Darcy" crap at the end. Mostly, the film avoids showing true character development and spends all its time on monologues of drivel and trite film metaphor, apparently making it accessible to modern audiences.

S&S: Simple and humorous. Ang Lee's direction is seamless and unnoticable throughout the film which allows the characters to shine and develop, which I think is truer to Austen's story telling. Her novels aren't about being pretty, but pointing out peculiararities within society. To do so, she focuses on people's words and actions, not asinine metaphor. The humor is also intact in this adaptation. The adapted lines don't stick out like they do in P&P, and blend into Austen's brand of biting observation. And even changes like the youngest sister being a wannabe pirate and Mr. Ferrars actually having a personality makes the story more interesting to a modern audience instead of just dumbing down the discourse.

Lead roles
P&P: I don't hate Keira Knightly in this role. She's an adequate actress and only gets lost in the old-fashioned language on occasion. She's a spunkier Elizabeth, but does well for this adaptation. Matthew MacFadyen is about as milquetoast as they come. For a spunkier Lizzie, he is an impossible match, not because of his douchey behavior, but for his complete lack of personality. He spits out lines with little to no emotion. This description doesn't do the vapid performance justice, since being very emotionally controlled would be an accurate description of Mr. Darcy. But there's no spark of mild flirtation, only close up shots of his hand whenever he touches Elizabeth, that show his attraction to her. Instead of a fiery argument during the 1st proposal, they almost kiss instead of connecting through words. Maybe the director figured out MacFadyen is boring and had to add in visual indications of personality to replace such a lackluster performance. Call me crazy, but I like my romantic leads to have, you know, chemistry. This is just boring. I honestly don't care if they get together, and I mostly blame that on Darcy.

S&S: This being Emma Thompson's baby, she does a lovely job at forming emotion from Austen's words. Certainly her work doing shakespeare contributes to her ability to take complicated language and convey its meaning and nuances. I can't say enough about just listening to her talk. And her portrayal of a very responsible and, by necessity, closed-off sister/daughter is genuine and believable. Kate Winslet is young and her spunk contributes to the ridiculous character of Marianne who is overly sentimental and dramatic. Winslet always plays this type of role well (see: Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind .) Alan Rickman is always funny, but he does meloncholy well in this film. He even manages to be kind of sexy. Hugh Grant is always a shock to see as Mr. Ferrars, since he's so well known for his floppy-haired modern romcoms, but once the movie settles, so does his character. Grant does well with comedy and being neurotic, so the indecicive Mr. Ferrars suits him well. Overall, a cast well suited for their characters and who speak the language with eloquence and humor.

Costuming/sets/group settings/whatever
P&P: Greasy hair and dirty houses seem to match the artsy tone of the movie. Poverty films well, so I guess they decided to make the Bennet's even poorer than they already were. As far I know, the Bennet's just didn't have a fortune to give their daughters, but they weren't particularly bad off. Which makes dwelling on a pig walking right outside their house an odd choice. Also, Keira Knightly's way too thin for the time period with her dress draping over breastless body [ed. note: I'm not really sure how thin people were in this time period, but Knightly looks too frail to hold up an empire-waist style dress. More of an observation of preference I guess.] But the messier style looked great in ballroom scenes where many people are dancing and having fun. You could actually see why people would have fun with a ball in this film. And that's what it comes down to really: a less cordial, more casual, "modern" style that defines this film.

S&S: Neat, simple and lovely defines this film. Contrast in wealth is shown through an absense in color and fabrics in the homes, which is more subtle than dirt track through the house vs. fancy. But the clothing was well crafted and simple, like the story. Although the wigs are obvious in this film (so curly) and seemed to mismatch eyebrows/coloring a lot. But overall, settings are simple and quiet so when something does happen dramatically, we can focus on the lead characters without being overwhelmed by everything surrounding them.

Music
This is an area where both soundtracks are absolutely gorgeous. Both utilize 19th century musical themes to a film soundtrack, perfect for the time period.

Novel to Screenplay, overall reflection
P&P: Like I stated earlier, this is a brief version of the story. Adapting novels to film always requires cuts to be made, whether in characters or scenes. Unfortunately, P&P is a complex story with subtle, slowly building character development and change. This version just doesn't have the length to give the story a full and deserving treatment. I would submit that they should have cut and rewritten some moments entirely since the strength was in the purely original work. For example, Mr. Wickham, though handsome* has little charm to attract Elizabeth to him so the audience never thinks that he's a real contender for her heart. I would have been fine if they cut him out. In fact, I would have been fine to watch a newly written regency era film with the style. They tacked on enough new stuff at the end that it's practically a new story anyway. So in terms of an adaptation, it fails to capture the tone of the novel and drowns in so many plot points to cover.

S&S: This is a much simpler story. Many of the scenes cut out were those between Elinor and Colonel Brandon and would have only contributed confusion**. But major plot points are intact and changes in character are developed throughout the film. By simplifying an already simple story, the film is able to capture characters since it isn't drowning in plotlines***. Any changes to character, like stated before with Mr. Ferrars, serve to give the audience more of a reason to care about the characters. Added scenes assist in developing a relationship between the characters, which is where the genius of this adaptation lies: character development and observation that is both funny and genuine.

What you should take from this
Go watch Sense & Sensibility--it's humorous and good. And avoid Pride & Prejudice--unless you like trite love stories.


*Kind of like a more mannish version of Orlando Bloom...in other words, Keira Knightly.
**I still think they should end up together, at least in the novel, since they're the least ridiculous characters.
***Seriously.