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.

(500) Days of Summer/Two for the Road

I know I've mentioned this a few times on this blog, but I love Two for the Road (1967). It's a decade-long story of a couple told in vacation flashbacks. It splits time between several flashbacks, showing us the happy beginning, the middling middle, and the awful present. We know that the marriage is having trouble from the start of the film, and every look back in the relationship tells us why.

(500) Days of Summer does much the same thing. We know from the start that the couple in question isn't going to end up together. The film goes mostly chronologically with two starting points: the giddy beginning of the relationship and the post-break-up losses. The two storylines are intercut together to create the sort of perspective that only a bigger picture can give.

While Two For the Road, I feel, gives us a better look from the romantically-minded female perspective on the relationship, (500) Days of Summer gives us the romantically-minded male perspective. Joanna and Tom both fall in love quickly and fully invest themselves into their respective relationships. Maybe they should get together so neither of them will be let down by their less invested counterparts.

Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Joanna (Audrey Hepburn) enjoying their road trip together as their car starts to catch fire.

Incredibly, the two films end on hopeful notes. Two for the Road ends with Joanna (Audrey Hepburn) and Mark (Albert Finney) accepting that they're a permanent fixture and complement each other well (exchanging the magical "Bitch" and "Bastard"of affection). (500) Days of Summer shows us Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finding peace with Summer (Zooey Deschanel) marrying another guy and starting over again (giving us a fun 4th wall-breaking look to the camera).

With humor and retrospective wisdom, these two films give a larger picture of what a relationship is like--not just an anticiption of one--and even tell us it's worth it. Now if only real life would allow me to dance to Hall and Oates in the middle of the park.

Late nights and Netflix instant play: Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing & Charm School

This is the entertainment I seek when I can't sleep and it's 1:30am:



Everyone ever is in this movie. I didn't think there would be big stars in this obviously independently made film, but you recognize every one in this. It gets more ridiculous as the movie goes on. Highlight: Donnie Wahlberg with a handlebar mustache and Latin dance pants.

Somehow, Donnie manages to make his role not as obnoxious a caricature as it could have been. He may be my favorite Wahlberg.

The movie itself? Imagine combining Shall We Dance, A Christmas Story, Return to Me, and a Lifetime movie about abuse. It's kind of an awkward combination. It's Hallmark Channel worthy entertainment. It's innocuous, but not the worst thing that's ever happened. I fell asleep shortly thereafter.

The English Patient, briefly

The English Patient (1996) won about 9835 awards, meaning it was epic with a requisite heavy dose of historical context.

1. It's almost 3 hours long. And while I don't feel like there are any completely extraneous scenes, Willem Dafoe's subplot doesn't really need to be in the film. At least he's less creepy than usual in this movie.

2. For the first half I care about Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas' story. In the second half I care about Juliette Binoche and Naveen Andrews' story.

I'm sorry I'm only mildly curious at this point of your story. This must have sucked.

3. Props to Ralph for bringing some charm from behind his burn victim make-up. Seriously. I've never seen him so charming. This is most likely because I associate this Fiennes brother with being either an evil Nazi, an unloving Duke, or Lord Voldemort. Also, he's not half-bad when he's healthy and loosens up with Katharine.

Still socially awkward in this film, but I'll take this Joseph Fiennes over my other options any day.

4. NAVEEN ANDREWS IS IN THIS MOVIE. This was obviously a highlight for me. Basically, he's Sayid, but Indian and in the 1940s. He's some sort of bomb specialist for the British. But the real highlight comes when you see him sans turban:

Who knew Mr. Andrews was capable of even more luscious manlocks than he currently sports on Lost? Lovely. (screen shot via)

5. But really the best is Juliette Binoche. I'm not sure having the framing device be more interesting than the meaty story of the English patient was a success, but I'll go with it. Ms. Binoche is so full of life after the over-the-top beginning sequence (everyone she loves dies. Maybe she should build a shrine). I enjoyed spending time with this character and was loathe to leave her for flashbacks.

Isn't she just radiant?

Medley of the Day: Quirky love edition

1. "Ana Ng" by They Might Be Giants -- I find this song completely endearing and lovely. I really hope they find each other some day.

2. "Seven Days" by Sting -- Leave it to Sting to write yet another pathetic sort of love song. At least he's honest?

3. "Cynical Girl" by Marshall Crenshaw -- Sorry, I like TV. We'll never be together, Marshall.

4. "Little Moments" by Brad Paisley -- This is when Mr. Paisley's funny lyrics are kind of sexy.

The Audacity of Rock: Part 20

Boys and girls together.

It's too bad there aren't more bands that have guys and girls together because I love the combination of male and female voices (one million points for country music). Unfortunately, they don't have the best track record.

"The Chain" by Fleetwood Mac (1977)

This band had it's share of issues, letting a girlfriend into the band. But you can't tell me the beginning of this song isn't magic thanks to some mixed-sex harmonies.

Feel free to sing along in Japanese.



"I Know What I Am" by Band of Skulls (2009)

I like that Russell Marsden and Emma Richardson take turns singing the verses. They have similar delivery, but there's still a difference in timbre that makes the song much more interesting than just one singer. Also, got to love a low range in a lady.

Band of Skulls |MTV Music

Questions to ponder:

1. Are guy/girl bands always a bad idea?

2. Is it okay to love Fleetwood Mac?