By Tracy M
A week or two ago, when I mentioned on my personal blog that I was usurping the top spots in my Netflix queue with all chick flicks, Heather and the Wiz almost came to blows over which film version of Pride and Prejudice was superior. I had no idea this was such a weighty subject, having never *gasp!* read the book nor seen either film.
Both the 2005 Keira Knightly movie, and the 1995 A&E miniseries arrived in my mailbox the same day; I sat myself down, took advantage of David being laid-off, and endured 429 combined minutes of Pride and Prejudice.
First: Great story. I love the subtlety and nuances of their society. I want dresses like theirs, and I wish we still had ballroom dances. I also wish men still wore strapping knee-high boots, flowing wool coats and marched over the moors to woo me, but that’s really about other things.
Hands down, I preferred the 2005 Keira Knightly version. And I’m no fan of Ms. Knightly- but the movie on a whole was simply lovely. The cinematography, the costumes, the set designs, the expressions, the casting- was all superior in this version. The lighting, oh the lighting- it was spectacular- if you know anything about romanticism in painting, you would have noticed many scenes that were lit precisely like old paintings. It was lovely.
Now, I do know the KK version strayed from the true pen of Ms. Austen, and if you’re a purist, maybe the A&E version is more for you. I however, was simply looking to be entertained.
The A&E version was too long. It was also too clean and sanitized. The costumes were clean and neat and new looking, not at all like linens and cottons that had been hand washed and line dried for years. It was rather like watching Mary Poppins- everything clean and bright and neat. In a day and age when so much was handmade and hands-on, and neither flat nor curling irons were yet the rage, how could one always be so neatly coiffed? The casting was a stretch, and I firmly believe both Elizabeth and Jane were miscast. Jane was too plain, Elizabeth too old.
This version, while loooong, did stay away from the few modern snippets I caught dropped in the KK film- but then, what do I know about how a young Regency woman would speak?
Overall, unless you, too, want to spend 429 minutes watching and comparing, just opt for the Cliff’s Notes KK version and enjoy your popcorn.
*let the comment wars begin*




I enjoy both movies very much. But I have lots of good memories of watching the A&E version with my friends back in college days. So I have a particular fondness for the longer version.
Comment #1 by apple pieMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:10 amSorry, but for me, it’s the A&E version, hands down. Colin Firth *is* Mr. Darcy, and will always be in my mind.
I will concede, however, that I always thought Jane was a bit plain for all of the fuss made over her.
I don’t think that the Kiera Knightly version is bad per se, but it’s just not the “original.” As far as the length is concerned, that’s one of the things that I have always loved about it!
Comment #2 by DanielleMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:52 amTracy-
I’m completely on your team about the artistic beauty of the 2005 version. If you’re a real geek like me, you might enjoy watching the film with the director’s comments. He is truly an artist and the passion he shows for the most minute details is inspiring.
That being said, the older and longer version is still my favorite. I love Jane Austen as a writer and feel that the shorter version does not remain true to the style and feeling of her work. In this respect, the longer version wins.
I reluctantly conceed that in the longer version of the film, Jane is too plain. Even unattractive. I feel like such a Judas saying so. But, to say that Elizabeth is too old? Never.
BTW- Did you know that the Jane in the newer version used to date the Mr Bingley in real life? It ended poorly. There is real life drama that comes through on screen. I love it.
I’m stopping myself now. Sadly, I could go on forever.
Comment #3 by RebeccaMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:09 amOh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah! (picture me doing a little boogie dance at my computer) I second everything you said, although I will concede that Colin Firth is hot. But we’ve been watching MI-5 at our house, which is the British version of Alias, and Matthew McFadden is the main guy in that, and again, I say swoon swoon. I mean, you just can’t beat that scene where he comes walking through the mist towards Elizabeth, in the early morning, coat ‘a swingin’. Hmm, I might have to go watch it right now!
Comment #4 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 4:12 amOh, and more gossip–Keira Knieghtly used to date Mr. Wyckham in real life, which certainly helps with THEIR chemistry, too.
Comment #5 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 4:14 amI think I can safely say that for 95% of people who read the book first, the A&E version is superior. Jane was very well cast. No, she is not that beautiful by today’s standards, but back then the epitome of handsome was the actress who played Jane. A long neck, strong jaw lines, close set eyes and straight nose.
I do love the cinematography in the new version and most of the actors portrayals, though slightly different from the A&E cast, also work well, though Mr. Darcy is far too likeable early on in the film.
Comment #6 by SummerMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:27 amhmmm, I’ve set to record the 2005 version tomorrow, so I’ll watch it again and see. Though there is no replacing Colin as Mr. Darcy. I even loved him in Nanny McPhee.
Comment #7 by moddyMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:33 amLet me just say that I watch the KK version EVERY SUNDAY AFTERNOON. And I second that emotion about McFayden striding through the moor, stuttering the “I luf, I luf, I luf you…”
After that, Colin Firth just made me gag.
Given the majority of watchers loving the A&E version, I decided to give it another try… it arrives in the red envelope tomorrow.
Comment #8 by SallyGirlMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:59 amjust wondering if Summer did a survey to come up with 95%?
i read the book first, second, last, and I like both versions (mostly for colin firth, and jennifer ehle on the first), but the 2005 is my favorite — and mostly because it humanizes the characters.
mrs. bennett and mr. bennett are still annoying, and of course mr. collins (and mary and caroline, and lady catherine etc, etc), but they’re all a bit more human, less like caricatures and more nuanced, and imho, more realistic.
favorite scenes that illustrate this:
mrs. bennett telling lizzie she should have 5 daughters herself and then she can talk to her about how marriage should not be “all she thinks about.”
mr. bennett going up to stop mary’s piano recital and then -comforting- (hugging?) her.
mr. collins in his awkward proposal and mannerisms all around just seems more human. he’s awkward, but comprehensible, less completely write-off-able.
these aspects may not be supported by the actual dialogue/action in the book, but i believe they are a better reflection of Jane Austen’s characterization. they’re better formed, more well-rounded characters — and that’s accomplished in much less time! i think Jane would like to see her characters interpreted with this kind of sensitivity and scope.
any thoughts on the Becoming Jane movie? (i have many thoughts on that myself, but this comment is already too long).
Comment #9 by What About Mom?March 5th, 2008 at 5:15 amI have only seen the A&E one. Maybe I should see the other one!
Comment #10 by JSMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:22 amHated the KK version. A&E all the way Baby!
Comment #11 by HugeMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:25 amTracy - You are my hero! Every time I tell people that I like the KK version better, I run into smack down city. I am made to feel like an inferior moron because I don’t like the “classic” version as well. I do like it, but not as much as the 2005 version. I love the casting of the characters in the new one. I think they fit better. And the other one is too long… it made me want to scream, “I get it! Elizabeth likes to walk EVERYWHERE!! MOVE ON!” And I agree with you on the look and feel - it was all too clean and new. And I liked the relationship between the sisters better in the new one. The A&E one almost makes them seem like formal acquaintances rather than sisters…
Comment #12 by MelissaMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:36 amOkay… I feel better now
A&E. Closer to the book, the era (imho), and frankly Mr. Bennet kills. I love his subtlety and wry humour. I love the development of the characters that could only be accomplished over the hours of (what I think it) lovely cinematography. I don’t care if they looked crisp and fresh in every scene, I blame the maids. ; >
The acting of the *main* characters was more real to me, less over acting -as I find pretty much everything KK does *is* over acted and doe eyed. She is beautiful to be sure, but pu-leeze! Close your bee stung lips once in a while, not everything is so awe inspiring. And I can never get over her being KK, she never becomes a character for me, just a different version of herself; a fault I find in MANY actor/actresses.
o.k. A&E, I’m done!
Comment #13 by s'meeMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:40 amI’ve never seen either.
In fact the only P&P I’ve ever seen is the cheesy lds modern version.
Maybe I’ll have to rent it sometime… I don’t know. It just looks - - LONG.
Comment #14 by JustRandiMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:41 amKK version!!! I haven’t seen the A and E, and I really don’t even want to. (you can start throwing rocks now) I have read the book many times, and I adore the book–that’s why I would rather watch the KK version. If I wanted to watch a near exact replica of the book, why wouldn’t I just go read the book?
Heather–
Comment #15 by mellocelloMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:43 amMy friend has a refrigerator magnet of Matthew MacFayden walking across the field from the KK version. I keep teasing my DH that I’m gonna make on for myself one of these days. I think whichever version you see first might be the one that you see “Mr. Darcy” as. I literally had to wipe away some drool off of my chin the frist time I watched Mr. Darcy walk across that field. I Lurve him! And ITA with the other posters, even though I haven’t seen the A and E version–the characters in the KK versioon are very human, and although it’s a bit unlike the book in some aspects (including it’s casual-ness at times) (sorry-casual-ness is probably not a real word, huh?) it is still a great one to watch and get lost in…just like the book!
JR- save the A&E for a weekend when you have all the time in the world for a SERIOUS movie fest. Make popcorn, unplug the phone, bring in your best friends so you can comment on the nuances of the whole of it, order delivered Chinese, and make it a day.
Comment #16 by s'meeMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:43 amann addendum–
Comment #17 by mellocelloMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:45 ams’mee,
I do have to agree a bit with you about KK–
I thought she laughed and giggled too much in the movie–it made Elizabeth seem like a little school girl all excited and giddy over everything, and she is really not like that in the book (but Mathew MacFayden makes up for it, so it’s okay). Okay, now *I* sound like a goddy school girl. Sigh. I’m going to go watch PandP now.
What about mom–
Becoming Jane is a charming little movie, as long as you don’t expect too much from it. I likened it to Shakespeare in love, only instead of writing Romeo and Juliet, she’s writing Pride and Prejudice. Anne Hathaway is no Elizabeth Bennet, but she’s pleasant enough in this film, as is her beau. Not a lot happens, but then again, not a lot happens in most of Jane Austen’s stuff, so it’s a good fit.
Comment #18 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 5:46 amI have no problem with the KK version…unless you count how irritating KK is!
Comment #19 by mo mommyMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:52 amAnd I have to say, I watched the A&E version with our book group years ago. We made a night of it, a sleep over even, and even then I thought, ‘What is the big deal?’ Jennifer Ehle is an excellent actress, and I think she did a good job, but she’s just too old. But I loved the Kk version the first time I say it. Plus, the KK version does an excellent job of showing that the Bennetts were, above all, a family. I love the scene where Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy show up unexpectedly, and the Bennetts are just hanging out, doing nothing much, but then have to get all fussy when Mr. Bingley shows up. Ok, it’s not in the book, but it’s nice to see real people portrayed. The A&E version makes you think that all women did was sit around and embroider all day. How boring.
Comment #20 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 5:52 amBut you should consider watching the Jane Austen Book Club, it was interesting and the stories and characters are not so subtley inspired by Jane Austen stories and characters
Comment #21 by mo mommyMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:53 amOK all you people who love Mr. Darcy walking through the mist — that DOESN’T HAPPEN in the book!!! And I know a lot of you simply don’t care, but I am a purist, and that bugs me. A lot.
It’s like they’re trying to take one of the greatest love stories ever and make it more romantic to the modern eye. Ick.
The A&E version is long. The Jane is unattractive by our standards. I will concede this.
And I will agree that if you’re not a fan of the book, and are just looking to be entertained, go for KK. But just know that many plain and precious truths have been removed, and you are missing out on the greatest Mr. Darcy EVER. Swoon city, baby.
The A&E version is truer to the book, right down to the Collins and Mrs. Bennett being caricatures. And although Mrs. Bennet’s voice is whiny, the Mr. Bennet ROCKS, and it bugs me how in the KK version, they tried to make it look like they had a good marriage, when clearly, it had deteriorated long ago.
Comment #22 by The WizMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:03 amWhoah! How Dare I Comment So Late!
Having not read the comments (to stay true to my convictions), here’s my take:
Tracy-
Are you admitting to have never read the book? If that’s the case, then I think you should have preferred the KK one. Of course, you should! It’s a fab movie with a fab passion and sexual tension. The characters are awesome and the rain just makes me want to hop a plane to England right now!
But, having read the book (many times), I can only stand to see the KK one so often. They didn’t just “stray” from the book; they practically re-wrote it! Okay, okay, not really. Most points were spot-on. I have to give them props.
But the A&E version basically took the book and wrote a script. They used dialogue straight from the book –yes, the KK used dialogue fromt he book, too, but they had OTHER characters saying the quotes. And they turned Collins into a pervert. That bugged. BAD.
So, yes, as a Jane Austen freakzoid fan, I have to call it like I see it:
KK version is out to make money and they did a fabulous job of it.
A&E version is out to make Austen purists happy, and they did a fabulous job of it.
Nice to know that all people are satisfied now, eh?
Golly, now I should read the other comments…
Comment #23 by cherylMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:06 amI love both…but they’re for different times. If the hubby is out of town, I bring out the A&E version and drown my sorries. If I need a quick fix in the afternoon, I grab Keira’s version and some M&M’s and call it a day!
I have to say, though…the final love scene, on the field? That was PURELY miraculous - they didn’t plan to have the sun break over the horizon EXACTLY between the lovers at EXACTLY the moment they kissed…but it happened that way! Great, yeah?
Comment #24 by Aunt LoLoMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:09 amHaving read the comments:
Yep, I’m a genius and I stand by what I said.
Wiz, dang! You and I think alike. I don’t think I realized what an Austen Purist you were! How delightful…
Comment #25 by cherylMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:12 amA&E version, all the way!!! I think the difference for me is that the A&E was my introduction to Pride and Prejudice, so it’s how I fell in love with it. After watching then, the KK version is just WAY too quick! They leave out SO many hilarious parts!
That said, the book is on my list of books I NEED to read, so I can’t really say how true either is to the book, but I MUCH prefer the A&E version!!
Comment #26 by LaurieMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:13 amHeather O.
I didn’t think Becoming Jane was very charming. It really frustrated me. I felt like the screenplay writers (or director, or whoever’s responsible for a movie) didn’t really “get” Jane Austen. The hero was modeled on all of the bad boys in Austen’s books instead of the heros.
You could say that they imagined that if she’d had some disappointment with a worthwhile hero who -happened- to be poor, then she would of course write rich men as her heroes so things could work out.
But I don’t think Austen would equate wealth with honor. With “nobility” sure, but not honor.
Of course the BJ hero turns out to be all noble and supporting his family and suffering, but I guess I couldn’t get past the consorting with prostitutes at the beginning.
Perhaps that was the way of the times, and perhaps Austen is dishonest in showing her heroes to be so noble when they probably weren’t as virginal as her heroines, but that was certainly her ideal.
And I hate a gratuitously tragic ending. Too much effort to not be sappy. Give me sap!
Much preferred the Renee Zellwegger (sp?) Beatrix Potter movie.
Comment #27 by What About Mom?March 5th, 2008 at 6:16 amThe Wiz
I don’t think the Bennett marriage in the KK version looked “good.” It looked resigned, and about what you’d expect from people who’d married for superficial reasons and had regrets but were humane enough to get along as well as they could for the sake of the kids. maybe that is a too modern take.
I find it nearly impossible to ignore what I know of the story when I watch either movie. It would be much more objective if one could somehow read/watch/watch each FIRST, without prior knowledge/expectations/story in your head.
Comment #28 by What About Mom?March 5th, 2008 at 6:22 amWhat About Mom-
Well, then how do explain the giggling in the same bed at the end of the movie, then? That doesn’t look like a resigned marriage to me…
I can make lists of what was wrong with both versions (I mean, the A&E version, although far superior, did get some things wrong, too). Perhaps I will do a post of my own with these lists…hmmm…
Comment #29 by cherylMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:28 amI love both versions and am so glad that I have a choice now whenever I have a P&P craving. If I want a real chick-fest, I watch A&E (though I often only fast forward to my favorite parts anyway) and if I just want a fast 2-hour fix, I pull out Keira Knightley’s. I’ve read the book and I still love them both for the reasons many of you stated.
But, I do think the Jane in A&E looks like a man. And as much as I love Matthew MacFayden as Mr. Darcy, they made him a little too emo for me. I will always love Colin Firth’s Darcy the best. If you did a character showdown, I could definitely tell you which I prefer and it would be a good mix from each movie (i.e. Mr. Collins from KK, Jane from KK, Charlotte from KK, Lydia from A&E, etc…)
And another piece of fun gossip to add that I didn’t know until very recently: imdb reports that Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle dated after the movie finished. Thought that was kinda fun.
Comment #30 by StarababaMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:29 amAnd as far as the movie “Becoming Jane” goes, don’t go in with high expectations. I was mostly disappointed in that I was looking for a real heartbraking love story (which it is) but I could never find someone to root for in the movie! I didn’t want Jane to end up with either guy, and that bugs when there isn’t someone I’m really cheering on. I still enjoyed it, though, I guess.
Comment #31 by StarababaMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:31 amAs someone who’s read the book way too many times to count, I have to say the A&E version is and always will be my favorite. I don’t love Jane (the light straight hair is what bugs me the most — not at all how I pictured Jane when I read the book), but I love Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. I’m not sure how a 26yo actress is too old to play Elizabeth Bennett. She was a little younger than that in the books, but as far as actors/actresses ages in relation to their characters, that’s not bad at all. And it just stays so true to the book, which I love
On the other hand, I enjoyed the KK version as well. If I had to recommend one to someone who hasn’t read the book, I’d recommend the KK version. It definitely has some beautiful cinematography.
Comment #32 by VadaMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:44 amOh, I forgot to even say the part of the KK version that I loved the most (other than the incredible cinemotography): the MUSIC! The part where she’s standing on the edge of the cliff…makes me want to cry the music is so amazing! I have the soundtrack and listen to it all the time. Gorgeous.
Comment #33 by StarababaMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:51 amI love them both. Love is too weak a word, I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE them both. Colin Firth will always be Mr. Darcy to me, although I thought Matthew was wonderful as well. Both movies bring something special and different. The 2005 movie was more blatantly romantic and emotional, but the A&E version is closer to the original and more subtle. I really love both versions. It’s just easier to fit in 80 minutes to watch the 2005 version ;>
Comment #34 by SueMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:53 amWhat about Mom-
Your points about Becoming Jane are well taken. You don’t really care about the characters at all, and, like you said, it is hard to find somebody to root for. But I wasn’t frustrated with it, because I had no expectations at all, and watched it while I had the flu. In my fevered state, it had just the right amount of nothing, so I enjoyed it. It’s not necessarily one I would recommend, but I didn’t think it sucked, either. How’s that for high praise
?
Comment #35 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 7:01 amAs a young person living in England, we lived in the cottage right next to the pond where Darcy jumps in, shirtless, in the A&E version (the actual house in that version is Chatsworth and in a different county). Every local made sure to tell us this every chance they had. As much as I love Colin Firth, Matthew McFaydon is a good new age Colin Firth. I LOVE MI5
I personally love them both. I read the book about 15 times while on my mission in England (don’t panic, it was approved). I think that the actress that plays Jane in the A&E version looks too “horsey” for me, but my English friends all told me that she is the epitome of an “english rose” and looked very aristocratic…. go figure. I think that Rosamond Pike is a better portrayal of what Americans think she would look like.
THey both have their good points, but I think they are both worth seeing….
Comment #36 by bekMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:02 amI love them all. The over-the-top longing and love in the KK version makes my heart swell and my eyes water. (And the scenery and beauty of the actors and the chickens–profoundly beautiful, all)
But the slower, more Austin-true version is also touching. I find the super-long versions of Austin’s works to be more like reading than watching a film. Time to get a feel for the characters, a chance to those listen to those delightful accents and the clever conversations. What a delight!
It’s like choosing which kind of ice cream I like best. Impossible.
Comment #37 by JamiMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:11 amI really love them both as well. I would have to call the A&E version the definitive version based on its faithfulness to the book. And I love Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy.
I was prepared to not like the KK version because I fancy myself a P&P purist, but it bewitched me body and soul! It was just so beautifully shot and the music and the chemistry between the characters… It’s definitely a sexier P&P.
I like them each individually on their own merits.
Comment #38 by bythelbsMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:12 amOut of the two versions you list I definitely favor the KK one just because it is always time well spent looking at KK.
Comment #39 by TStevensMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:16 amMy absolute favourite adaptation of the book is Bride & Prejudice. Very funny and very entertaining, especially the musical numbers.
I screwed up the link, but here it is:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0361411/
Comment #40 by TStevensMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:17 amI guess I need to pull out my book. For the life of me, I can’t remember the part where Mr. Darcy jumped into a pond, clothed or not.
maybe the A&E followed the letter better, and the KK the spirit? how’s that for a bad religious metaphor?
and speaking of colin firth — just heard about his new movie with uma thurman (who doesn’t do much for me). CF has been in so many disappointing movies (hope springs, the last legion (barf), that one with wm h macy, etc). I love him. why can’t he find more good roles?
Comment #41 by What About Mom?March 5th, 2008 at 7:18 amKeira Knightley is hideous. The A&E version is hands-down better, assuming you want to watch either version of this vile chick-flick material.
Comment #42 by Steve EvansMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:50 amI’m no Keira fan- not at all, but I appreciated the cinematic beauty of the KK version far more than the sanitized AE version.
In the AE version, I think the actress who played Elizabeth was actually TOO pretty, along with a smidge too old, and again, Jane was just to plain to be Jane.
To quote Susan M, Pfffft!
Comment #43 by Tracy MMarch 5th, 2008 at 8:07 amThe version I think I prefer is the old, old one with Lawrence Olivier and Greer Garson. It’s in black and white but is the funniest version. I think this screen play is hilarious and the actors do a terrific job. The Keira Knightly version is beautifully done and the A&E version tells the version most like the book, but this one is really worth watching if you can find a copy. It was on Turner Classic Movies not too long ago.
Comment #44 by AmandaMarch 5th, 2008 at 8:28 amWomen like the Collin Firth version; men like the Keira Knightly version. Wow, how shocking!
I’ll watch whichever one my wife wants to watch, since I care more about her reaction to it than the movie itself.
Comment #45 by RayMarch 5th, 2008 at 9:05 amWhat about mom-
You are right. The pond scene is not in the book. Nor are the Gardner children Jane’s “neices and nephews.” Dang, now I’m really going to have to do a comparison post. Thanks a lot, Tracy! Now I’ll be thinking P&P all weekend, and I don’t have time for this indulgence!
Comment #46 by cherylMarch 5th, 2008 at 9:48 amI like them both, but I prefer A&E.
What, no one’s going to vote for the Mormon version, set in a nameless university obviously meant to be BYU?
Comment #47 by Kevin BarneyMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:06 amThe Mormon version was painful to watch. *shudder* Of course, I somehow managed to get through it. It was kind of like a train wreck–horrifying, but I just couldn’t look away.
Comment #48 by bythelbsMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:13 amHow about the Lawrence Olivier/Greer Garson black-and-white version… I love them all. Mr. Darcy is Mr. Darcy.
Anyone read Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife?
Comment #49 by jbnMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:15 amThe BBC version (ahem) is by far more accurate and more in the spirit of the novel. I can see that if one had not read the novel, it’s a toss-up.
For the record, my last three sets of grade 10 students agree, and openly scorn P&P 2005 and all its works.
Comment #50 by NorbertMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:19 amI hate Keira Knightly. I think she played Elizabeth Bennett like a teenager acting the part. She tosses her lines about as if she were in the hallways of a high school.
I did love the music of the KK version and thought the filming was lovely. That said, I felt like the whole KK version was like Jane Austen with a Emily Bronte twist. There was more maudlin drama and I really disliked the way the KK version portrayed the Bennett family. There is absolutely no indication that the family lived in poverty. They had a nice home, servants, had a nice table (meaning they ate well). Mr. Collins was muh better in the A&E version–more greasy and slimy.
Also, I thought that the wit that Austen is so good at was completely lost in the KK version.
Comment #51 by TiffanyMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:36 amI’ve read the book, watched tha A&E one 100 times (and agree with Tracy’s analyisis). While they didn’t exactly stick to the book, I liked the 2005 one. How can you beat the striding through the moors scene that stole the hearts of many a woman? Although, the first time I watched it I couldn’t get used to KK as Elizabeth. It was something about her giggles in the beginning that were so very unconvincing. I think the parents in the new one were fabulous, but liked both portrayals of the younger sisters.
Comment #52 by mmilesMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:39 amAs far as Becoming Jane–so may things wrong with that movie! Ann Hathaway was the same character as in Ella Enchanted, which worked in Ella, but not in this. And what was up with the stupid library scene and a real push for lame innuendos? Saddest of all, people watch it and do not doubt its historicity. I had high hopes for that movie and was dissappointed.
Has anyone seen the the Bollywood version? Bride and Prejudice? You’ve got to see it! The culture in the book tranfers so well to Indian culture!
Sorry that Greer Garson B/W version was worse than three day old fish….ACK! We laughed all the way through and not because it was meant to be funny. Devastatingly over acted (as were most of the films in that era, still…). It was just horrid!
Comment #53 by s'meeMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:42 amI love the BBC version the most — it’s the one I’ve been watching for years. The Keira Knightly version is great, too, but for me the BBC version is the first one I think of when I think of watching Pride and Prejudice. It’s one of my comfort movies.
Comment #54 by JillMarch 5th, 2008 at 10:51 amI have read the book and watched both movies multiple times and like both for some of the same reasons mentioned. KK doesn’t do much for me, she giggles and opens her mouth too much, she is also way too skinny for regency England, but the film is gorgeous and the music amazing. I also like the “grittiness” of the newer version (like that isn’t a cliche term to describe a movie.)
A&E is long but true to the nuances of the book and CF IS Mr. Darcy, hands down. His wet shirt pond scene is on par with the McFayden mist walk, to be sure. I guess I still like watching both, for difference reasons.
I have read Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife and liked it– it didn’t rock my socks but it was fun, they are definitely amarous in the book, so if that isn’t your thing to read, I wouldn’t recommend it. I also love Bride and Prejudice and let me tell you…if you haven’t seen Sayid dance in a Bollywood wedding number…you are missing out and need that red envelope.
Comment #55 by BrittanyMarch 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am“I love both…but they’re for different times. If the hubby is out of town, I bring out the A&E version and drown my sorries. If I need a quick fix in the afternoon, I grab Keira’s version and some M&M’s and call it a day!”
This is me, as well. It depends on whether I need a quick or long fix. And I love the cinematography on the 2005 version.
But I have a confession to make. Okay, this will only confirm that I am shallow shallow at heart, but the thing that bugged me most about the 2005 version (even more than the numerous differences from the book) was that everyone (yes, men included) was in desperate need of make-up in general and concealer in particular. They all looked tired. I’m sure that concealer was not invented back then, but not using it in the movie was distracting to my superficial, modern-day eye.
Also–their house in the 2005 version was so dirty/poorly maintained and the Bennets were rather ill-mannered–was this historical realism or modern-day assumptions about historical realism? I will concede that the A & E version is a little too well-scrubbed and their actresses have maybe too much make-up on, but as someone else wrote, the Bennets weren’t as poor as they seemed to be portrayed in the 2005 version–they were going to be poor as soon as their dad died
.
Now I am in the mood for P & P. I guess dishes will have to wait…
Comment #56 by ErinMarch 5th, 2008 at 11:35 amAbout the Jane in the A&E–she is classically atractive, but her problems is that her shoulders are too broad. They should have put her in an empire-waist dress before they gave her the part and seen that she looked like a man from the back because of those broad shoulders. Yes, I’ve analyzed this WAAAAAY too much
.
Comment #57 by ErinMarch 5th, 2008 at 11:38 amI read the book and have seen both movies (and the horrible mormon one) and I prefer the 2005 version. It is a gorgeous film and a treat to watch. I like the Colin Firth version but I just don’t have time for such a long movie and I wasn’t crazy about the casting for all the other parts. I think that if you have fit it into 2 hours the 2005 version did a good job.
Comment #58 by MarieMarch 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pmI really agree with you Marie! I really like the way the that they fit all of the important and amazingly romantic parts packed into a beautifully done film. Plus, I’m totally crazy for the screenplay.
Comment #59 by joegrace22March 5th, 2008 at 12:09 pmI love the long version. When my dishes are piled up, I watch it on DH’s laptop while I wash. It takes longer to get the dishes done, but I’m way more motivated.
There’s a great film out there called North and South, about a family who leaves the greener south part of England and go to the industrial north. It’s a wonderful movie, too.
Comment #60 by Mrs. MMarch 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pmMy problem with the Keira Knightly version (kinda silly to call it that; all she did was act in it; she had nothing to do with the script or its interpretation of the original) is that it totally white-washes Mr. Darcy. Suddenly he’s gone from “flawed but redeemable” to just plain old “misunderstood.” The movie’s all about Elizabeth’s pride and how she ought to just try to Understand Her Man. Blah.
Hm. I may be mixing in too much of “Bride and Prejudice” but that’s the way I remember it.
Comment #61 by Proud Daughter of EveMarch 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pmNorth and South is based on a John Jakes novel of the same name, about the Main family and Hazzard family, and was made into a movie starring Patrick Swayze and Kirstey Alley- I read the book first on that one!
Comment #62 by Tracy MMarch 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pmMrs. M–
I KNOW!! I just discovered the dvd, then the book last year and thought “where has Elizabeth Gaskell been all my life?” My husband thinks it is a cheap imitation of P & P, but I think his sour grapes may be in part because I just love watching Mr. Thornton in the movie a little too much (he aslo has been known to say that Colin Firth looks like a muppet
). I have to admit to watching the train station kiss in North and South (sorry if I’m spoiling it for anyone) over and over again. Whew. Great romance and interesting social history.
Comment #63 by ErinMarch 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pmOkay, I don’t have time to read all these comments… but let’s talk about Mr. Darcy. Colin Firth is SO hot. If he were a president he would be Baberaham Lincoln (thanks Mr. Meyers!
I didn’t like the short version when I first saw it, but it grew on me, and now i love it!
Comment #64 by GingerMarch 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pmI dunno, Colin Firth reminds me of that curly haired guy on Star Trek The Next Generation- am I the only one??
Comment #65 by Tracy MMarch 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pmTracy M,
I haven’t seen the Patrick Swayze North and South, so I can’t cast dispersions on it, but the BBC North and South is different–set in England and very well-done. Plus, it doesn’t have Kirstie Alley, who scares me for some reason. If you like period dramas, you will likely love North and South.
Erin
Comment #66 by ErinMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:11 pmColin Firth does have the mouth of a muppet! So does Hugh Grant. Maybe its a British thing.
Comment #67 by mmilesMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:11 pmand Really? Matthew McFadden crushes CF in the looks department.
Sorry, I’m an A&E fan through and through on this one. But then I know littel of paintings and a lot about Austen, so I’m a bit biased. I also love being able to see a book made into a movie without having anything cut from it due to time constraints. But the KK version made me laugh a few times. I will admit that him striding across the meadow to tell her of his love was a tad heart thumping but only if it ahdn’t been in an Austen film. However, the scene in A&E where Darcy has just gone swimming and runs into Elizabeth Bennett, makes my heart thump just as much.
Austen is often considered too subtle for someone looking for a good romance, I agree.
Comment #68 by LizzyMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pmLots of comments!
I actually love both versions. The A&E for being so close to the original story and Mr. Firth (though the rest of the casting is hilarious in that one - come on, Jane? Wickam?) I love the KK version for how lovely it is and the gorgeous music throughout. Also, I think they do a much better job making life then look more real and the dance scenes look way more fun.
Comment #69 by MaryMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pmoh, what the heck. my two bits:
i very much liked the realism (dirtiness) and the look of the KK version. but i could not stand KK’s performance and the actor who played Darcy just left me cold.
it’s a story that needs a longer run time, and so for me the A&E/BBC version is the winner. i love Mr. Bennett. i’d marry him.
Comment #70 by colleeeenMarch 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pmI have to point out that there are two *completely different* books/movies named “North and South.” Different authors, different plots: Elizabeth Gaskell (Victorian England), John Jakes (Civil War America).
I enjoyed Gaskell’s book and the movie adaptation, but they are a lot darker than “Pride and Prejudice” — heavier topics, loss, death. Just FYI. =) I have to agree that Mr. Thornton is completely hot.
As for “Pride and Prejudice” (one of my favorite topics!), I saw the KK version: It was my first crush. Then I watched the BBC version: It is my lifelong love.
(Actually, I love both versions! I think I know what I’m going to do tomorrow night … )
Comment #71 by Pam W.March 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pmThey recently re-aired the 1995 version on PBS Masterpiece over three Sundays and though I prefer it, I do think it is probably 30-45 minutes too long overall.
I ended up re-watching the 2005 version on youtube, I was so caught up in the P&P love. *blush*
Comment #72 by WendyPMarch 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pmPam W-
Thanks for the clarification about North and South. While I LOVED the Civil War North and South as a kid, I rented it while on bed rest this past year, and hoo-boy, it’s a little steamy and a lot stupid. Patrick Swayze is a cutie, but that’s about it.
Glad to know there is another North and South that is recommended (recommendable? Is that a word?)
Carry on.
Comment #73 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pmYou all mean to tell me there is ANOTHER version I have to watch??! This BBC one? I don’t think I can stomach another one right now- pushing 7 hours of P&P this week just about does it for me~!~
Comment #74 by Tracy MMarch 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pmNo no, sweetie, the BBC did the one that aired on A&E. At least I think that’s what it is.
Comment #75 by Heather O.March 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pmThe mormon version was excruciating. Awful.
Personally, THIS is my very most favorite version ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpinWlxCdxE
Awesome.
Comment #76 by SueMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:08 pmThat was awesome. Beats the heck out of 429 minutes.
Comment #77 by Tracy MMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pmOh, my gosh, Sue, I laughed so hard! That was fabulous.
Although, I think they strayed from the book a bit…
Comment #78 by cherylMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pmThis is mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sge5pUSJIRY&feature=related
Comment #79 by RayMarch 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pmHa!
Comment #80 by SueMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pmRay
That was great!
Comment #81 by ErinMarch 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pmPBS had the “Wishbone” version just yesterday. (You know the Jack Russel Terrior) “Wishbone” was cast as Mr. Darcy. He did a pretty good job!
Comment #82 by tamalamaMarch 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pmi think youtube was inspired by God, obviously.
those two videos made my night. thank you sooooo much!
Comment #83 by What About Mom?March 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pmTamalama–
I love Wishbone, and that particular episode is especially good. What I wonder is how those actresses can stay in character when they are pretending to be in love with a dog–an actual dog. I think I would start my line and then dissolve into a fit of gigles. Which is why I shouldn’t quit my day job
.
Comment #84 by ErinMarch 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pmI have read P&P over 50 times and can quote it with ease; however, when it comes to the films, KK is a better movie than the A&E.
KK - love the casting of Mr. Collins and when he says “exemplary vegetable” at the table, love that Wickham is at least lustable (unlike A&E), hate that Mr. Bennett is softened so much rendering him less quirky, hate the anachronisms (Lizzy entering Netherfield with her hair down–puh-lease, Darcy talking about their “relationship”). But the dialogue between Lizzy & Darcy is superior to the actual book which is often criticized for the lack of romantic dialogue in the conclusion. The hands touching by the carriage is also a nice touch. But the final third is a little rushed. We could have spent a little more time in Derbyshire.
A&E - Mrs. Bennett, Charlotte, the Gardiners are all better in this one. Jennifer Ehle is definitely more faithfully rendered as Lizzy, although I like the alternate interpretation in the KK version. Colin Firth is obviously scrummy, but as my husband pointed out, the scene where Georgiana is playing the piano at Pemberley and Darcy’s eyes meet Lizzy’s, Darcy actually looks as though he has just relieved himself. Seriously. Check it out.
1940 - has to be mentioned, surely. No chemistry between Greer Garson & Laurence Olivier, although Olivier looks like Darcy. Costuming is a disaster and totally anachronistic. Mr. Wickham sounds exactly like Jon Lovitz’ Pathological Liar character. And in a twist that sort of works, Lady Catherine is sympathetic at the end. Still–heresy! Skip this and watch That Hamilton Woman.
Becoming Jane - Enjoyable for the most part, although the final third (which deviated from actual history and took the relationship from a boy/girl thing into the realm of undying love) was uncalled for. The point in her writing is that she never married or even got that close, and therefore her grasp of intimate dialogue was weak despite writing the most enduring romances of time.
Mormon P&P - Wickham is insufficiently badass, and his whole story line is stretched implausibly. Readers finally get their wish to see Collins with Mary. Bingley is actually pretty funny and Jane is charming. The scene where Jane and Lizzy become disgusting is pretty good also, and there is some chemistry between the leads. Worth watching one time.
Bride & Prejudice - interesting Bollywood version. Worth a watch. And Sayid (from Lost) is in it.
Comment #85 by hawkgrrrlMarch 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pmActually, there was also a 1980 BBC version with Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth and David Rintoul as Darcy.
Has nobody else seen it?
Guess I’m feeling really old today….
Comment #86 by NaismithMarch 6th, 2008 at 1:30 am429 minutes of Pride and Prejudice? Oi Vey. Kill me. Now.
Comment #87 by D. Golden ShizzleMarch 6th, 2008 at 3:37 amI agree with you on this one Tracy M. The casting in the A & E version is awful and Colin Firth. Ick.
I loved the KK version. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one. It was beautiful, moving and the music is amazing.
Comment #88 by AmandaMarch 6th, 2008 at 8:17 amA & E all the way. You should also read the book-it’s delicious.
Comment #89 by JennyMarch 6th, 2008 at 9:14 amIs anyone else bothered by how many people here commented on the looks of the actresses? “horsey” “manish” “plain” etc. Would it be better if they all had botox lips and anorexia? I think the women in the A&E version were natural beauties which of course makes then very unHollywood, but no less beautiful.
Comment #90 by LizzyMarch 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pmThe ending to the 2005 version was so horrible that it still gives me nightmares! Ick.
The A&E version is superior on all levels. I watch it every time I get sick.
Comment #91 by LindsayMarch 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pmLizzy,
Now I’m feeling bad–having decried the lack of concealer in the 2005 verson AND having made a denigrating remark about the unfeminine width of Jane in the A&E’s shoulders
. I think that most of the comments about actresses’ looks had to do with Jane, didn’t they? In my (and others’ like me) partial defense: One of her defining characteristics in the book is that she is a “beauty”–the prettiest of all her sisters, so for Austen purists the question “Is she pretty enough to play Jane?” is as much about being true to Austen’s vision as it is asthetics per se.
That said, so much of beauty is culturally constructed–and you’re right that the culturally constructed definition coming out of Hollywood these days is a frightening one that gives lip service to beauty diversity while in practice keeping its definition very very narrow. You’d be hard-pressed to say that Hollywood truly celebrates natural beauty–unless natural beauty can somehow be twisted to mean someone who is unnaturally thin with blindingly white teeth, a complicated hairstyle and lots of “work”
done.
Sigh. So maybe I need to give Jane a break, huh?
Comment #92 by ErinMarch 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pmI think the A&E Jane, though not modernly gorgeous, looks a lot like a lovely cameo image. If one can call the Mona Lisa lovely than surely the A&E Jane can be considered “a beauty.”
No worries, I’m just venting. =)
Comment #93 by LizzyMarch 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pmA&E is my favorite. Lizzy and Darcy are great. It is faithful to the book and doesn’t rush the story. They have MONTHS apart! The cons: Wickham is icky! He’s supposed to be handsome and charming. Mrs. Bennett’s voice grates on me.
2005 - I’ve only seen it once, and it was a little too dirty and casual. The dialogue isn’t faithful to the book (and I had heard so beforehand), so I decided I’d just consider it “extra scenes”! Viewing it that way, I thought it was great to get the extra scenes of Pride and Prejudice. I hope to see it again soon because I did enjoy the second time. Even if they do make it a little too romantic with kisses! This is Mr. Darcy we ar etalking about!
Comment #94 by JKSMarch 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pmI’ve never seen the A&E version, but I grew up watching the 1980 BBC miniseries (yea Naismith!) and love it. My Mom played it all the time, so all my sisters and brothers and I practically have the thing memorized.
The thing I like about the 2005 version is that it clearly shows the differences in wealth and circumstance between all the different families and characters (with costume/location/etc.). It is beautiful to watch.
Comment #95 by MichelleMarch 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pmOK, I made my way through all the comments, so I deserve to comment now, even though the topic is old.
First off, I haven’t been able to make my way through ANY of Jane Austen’s books. Gak.
But, I do seem to like some of the movie adaptations.
My fave P&P is the KK version. My two favorite things about it are that they actually start to develop a relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth. (Pardon if I get characters’ names mixed up…I’ve only seen both of them 1 1/2 times.) In the A&E version, they despise each other for 5 hours and 55 minutes, then are madly in love??? The other thing I liked about the KK version (not her!!) is the *lack* of makeup — they looked a bit more like real people. I even commented to my dh about that after I watched it.
Bride & Prejudice: hilarious!! And I’m not a big P&P fan.
Mo version: It’s OK. I do *love* the scene where she throws the hymnal in church during his talk…
Ray: Have you read Glenn Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book”? (I’d never read or heard him ever before reading the book this month for book club.) I was laughing uproariously at his “Bonnets and Lasers Movies” chapter. To top it off, I had *just* watched a Jane Austen movie from one of the recent Masterpiece shows on PBS before opening to that chapter. He talks about that same “bonus” of his wife watching “bonnet” movies!
Comment #96 by StrollerbladerMarch 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pmThe KK version definately wins the best “feel” award. As Tracy said-the lighting, the costumes, the cinematography are all gorgeous! HOWEVER, the AE version hands down gets the best acting award. The actors are perfect for their roles, whereas in the KK version the acting is terrible–it feels like a stake roadshow.
Comment #97 by morganMarch 9th, 2008 at 8:27 amMichelle said: “The thing I like about the 2005 version is that it clearly shows the differences in wealth and circumstance between all the different families and characters (with costume/location/etc.). It is beautiful to watch.”
While I agree the 2005 version is beautiful to look upon, the clear difference in wealth and circumstances was far too delineated. The point of Austen’s satire/wit/whatever you want to call it, on that point, was that Lizzy *was* a gentleman’s daughter. He didn’t manage his money well enough to provide a living for 5 grown daughters, but the best way to describe their class difference is that Darcy was *really rich* and they were middle-class–not lower class. There were visible differences, but I don’t think they would have been so blatant, or they wouldn’t have been receiving invitations so blithely at all.
Still, I liked the 2005 version for certain things, though I could never get past “Keira Knightley playing Eliza Bennett,” couldn’t see her *as* Eliza Bennett. In the 1995 version, the actress (whose name I’ve actually forgotten) *is* Eliza Bennett.
Though I *do* love MI5 and will watch the 2005 version over and over again for his Mr. Darcy!
Comment #98 by stacerMarch 9th, 2008 at 9:18 ami love all three: the book, the A&E and KK (which i happen to like her) version. the book is a masterpiece and i recommend it to all even if you’re not a jane austen fan (which i haven’t made it through all her books).
anyhoo, i agree jane is plain in A&E version and while i do love Matthew MacFayden (yeah, MI5) and i did like his portrayal - i think he just chalked everything up to mr. darcy being shy - which just isn’t the case at all in the book. i like mr. bennett better in the A&E version, but actually felt the portrayal in the KK version was more true to the book - the dad really is aloof in the book. i also thought the KK version did a better job of illustrating the difference in class between mr. darcy and elizabeth. the kk version had too many moments of elizabeth thinking for me though - i would have rather seen the mr. wickham plotline developed more. but all of this is really splitting hairs. bottom line - I LOVE THEM ALL!!
so, will anyone even read this seeing as i’m the 99th comment??!!
Comment #99 by aprilMarch 10th, 2008 at 2:34 amI read it!
Comment #100 by Tracy MMarch 10th, 2008 at 6:19 amOh me too. I read all the comments. Except the “Lost” ones because I don’t watch that show.
Comment #101 by The WizMarch 10th, 2008 at 6:27 amI know I’m way late to this game but I must clarify. The BBC version and the A&E version are NOT the SAME!! Of course the 2005 version would win if you’re comparing it to the BBC version! Yipes!
Comment #102 by randajoyApril 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pmBBC (1980)(Not so great)
A&E (1995)(Nearly perfect)
KK, since that’s what we’re calling it (2005)(Super romantic but so not J.A.’s P&P)
I am such a fan of all the P and P movies and have them all but North and South with Mrs. Thornton is now my favorite. Richard Armitage is so romantic. He wears is heart on his sleeve. What a handsome man. I am looking forward to seeing him in the future.
Comment #103 by CharMarch 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pm