Quick poll on Pride and Prejudice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The overwrought melodrama of the Keira Knightley version is more suitable for a Charlotte Brontë novel than Pride and Prejudice. She was more measured. More genteel. Like the 1995 BBC version.

Lizzie in the Firth version was cold, flat, boring, and unlikeable. Zero passion.

Firth was uncharacteristically flat, too.

Have you actually read the book?

Yes.

#privateschool

Listen: books are open to interpretation—particularly when adapted to the screen.

I’m baffled by everyone commenting that the bbc one is better because it’s essentially a bland reading of the book.

Did you read the book? Were you looking for any hint of passion? Most people want to see human emotion and passion. The Firth version seems very transactional. Heck, Ehle says she fell in love once she saw his estate.

.

You do know that line about falling in love after seeing Netherfield is in the book? If you want to pretend it’s just a romantic story— with that kiss at the end— that’s fine, but don’t pretend that ignoring the societal constraints on women makes it a better representation of the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also—for Austen heads, I strongly recommend the Anya Taylor Joy Emma.

I hated that movie precisely because it did such a good job at revealing how awful Emma's behavior was. Gosh I hated her and I couldn't get behind the redemption.

I think in the book Austen reveals a lot of inner conscience pangs Emma is feeling all along but just has to learn to listen to. Like she feels as if she's betraying the womanly solidarity she's supposed to feel for Jane Fairfax by maligning her, but she puts it out of her mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a 36 year old English major who has read and reread Austen. I prefer the 2005 version—one of my favorites that I just adore. I can see the authenticity complaints, but I don’t “feel” them. I appreciate but do not love the BBC version. I think Jennifer Ehle is too old. And though I understand and find somewhat persuasive claim that Lizzie is SUPPOSED to be judgmental, I don’t think she’s supposed to actually be older than 21. I think Keira Knightley conveys the judgmental nature of youth well. I’m not at all persuaded that the 995 Jane is a beauty according to Edwardian standards, and even if she is I don’t think it makes it a better movie. I prefer MM’s awkward, ardent Darcy.

Jane wasn’t a beauty according to Edwardian standards because she would have died a century before that era. But she would have been a beauty by Georgian standards, even Regency.

It is my experience that most English majors especially from lower tier schools are quite mediocre. I, a STEM major, am a better reader and writer than most of them!

How embarrassing to have “read and reread” Jane Austen yet not know she lived in the Regency era, and that she pictured Jane Bennett as the subject of this painting:

https://www.themorgan.org/collection/drawings/144074

[Anonymous]

Macfayden

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

1995 > 2005
Jennifer Ehle - she was a perfect balance of lizzys humor and grace and intelligence

Colin Firth - but first half of the story. He was the perfect amount of haughty with a dash of charm.

Caroline bingley - the actress made her a jerk, but one we could laugh at.

Mr. Wickham - smarmy and charming

Overall loyalty to the book and accuracy to the time period. It captured the Austen humor.


2005 > 1995
That soundtrack!

Matthew McFayden - but the second half of the story. He captured the love and anguish better.

Mrs. Bingley - I liked that they didn’t make her totally ridiculous. She was foolish but they humanized her.

Keira Knightleys laugh when she saw Pemberley. I think she did a fine job overall but I appreciated that one moment.

“What excellent boiled potatoes” - I don’t know why but I just loved that line and his delivery.

Mr. Bingley - I liked his goofy goodness

Overall it had a dreamy romantic feeling. It even captured the mundaneness of their lives in a way that many Austen period pieces done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1995 > 2005
Jennifer Ehle - she was a perfect balance of lizzys humor and grace and intelligence

Colin Firth - but first half of the story. He was the perfect amount of haughty with a dash of charm.

Caroline bingley - the actress made her a jerk, but one we could laugh at.

Mr. Wickham - smarmy and charming

Overall loyalty to the book and accuracy to the time period. It captured the Austen humor.


2005 > 1995
That soundtrack!

Matthew McFayden - but the second half of the story. He captured the love and anguish better.

Mrs. Bingley - I liked that they didn’t make her totally ridiculous. She was foolish but they humanized her.

Keira Knightleys laugh when she saw Pemberley. I think she did a fine job overall but I appreciated that one moment.

“What excellent boiled potatoes” - I don’t know why but I just loved that line and his delivery.

Mr. Bingley - I liked his goofy goodness

Overall it had a dreamy romantic feeling. It even captured the mundaneness of their lives in a way that many Austen period pieces done.

Do you mean Bennett for all those people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1995 > 2005
Jennifer Ehle - she was a perfect balance of lizzys humor and grace and intelligence

Colin Firth - but first half of the story. He was the perfect amount of haughty with a dash of charm.

Caroline bingley - the actress made her a jerk, but one we could laugh at.

Mr. Wickham - smarmy and charming

Overall loyalty to the book and accuracy to the time period. It captured the Austen humor.


2005 > 1995
That soundtrack!

Matthew McFayden - but the second half of the story. He captured the love and anguish better.

Mrs. Bingley - I liked that they didn’t make her totally ridiculous. She was foolish but they humanized her.

Keira Knightleys laugh when she saw Pemberley. I think she did a fine job overall but I appreciated that one moment.

“What excellent boiled potatoes” - I don’t know why but I just loved that line and his delivery.

Mr. Bingley - I liked his goofy goodness

Overall it had a dreamy romantic feeling. It even captured the mundaneness of their lives in a way that many Austen period pieces done.

Do you mean Bennett for all those people?

Whoops! I meant I liked the Mrs Bennett interpretation in the 2005 version!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

Sigh.

Yes, I understand the humor in the writing.

I’m criticizing the delivery by the actors in the bbc version. It’s sooooo bbc: bland boring corny. The acting is stiff and stilted. There’s very little emotion or joy or humor.

My 8th grade class did a better job reading it aloud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

Sigh.

Yes, I understand the humor in the writing.

I’m criticizing the delivery by the actors in the bbc version. It’s sooooo bbc: bland boring corny. The acting is stiff and stilted. There’s very little emotion or joy or humor.

My 8th grade class did a better job reading it aloud.

You think 1995 Lydia was bland and boring?? I couldn’t even keep track of which girl was Lydia vs Kitty in 2005.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a 36 year old English major who has read and reread Austen. I prefer the 2005 version—one of my favorites that I just adore. I can see the authenticity complaints, but I don’t “feel” them. I appreciate but do not love the BBC version. I think Jennifer Ehle is too old. And though I understand and find somewhat persuasive claim that Lizzie is SUPPOSED to be judgmental, I don’t think she’s supposed to actually be older than 21. I think Keira Knightley conveys the judgmental nature of youth well. I’m not at all persuaded that the 995 Jane is a beauty according to Edwardian standards, and even if she is I don’t think it makes it a better movie. I prefer MM’s awkward, ardent Darcy.

Jane wasn’t a beauty according to Edwardian standards because she would have died a century before that era. But she would have been a beauty by Georgian standards, even Regency.

It is my experience that most English majors especially from lower tier schools are quite mediocre. I, a STEM major, am a better reader and writer than most of them!

How embarrassing to have “read and reread” Jane Austen yet not know she lived in the Regency era, and that she pictured Jane Bennett as the subject of this painting:

https://www.themorgan.org/collection/drawings/144074

There you go again...yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1995 > 2005
Jennifer Ehle - she was a perfect balance of lizzys humor and grace and intelligence

Colin Firth - but first half of the story. He was the perfect amount of haughty with a dash of charm.

Caroline bingley - the actress made her a jerk, but one we could laugh at.

Mr. Wickham - smarmy and charming

Overall loyalty to the book and accuracy to the time period. It captured the Austen humor.


2005 > 1995
That soundtrack!

Matthew McFayden - but the second half of the story. He captured the love and anguish better.

Mrs. Bingley - I liked that they didn’t make her totally ridiculous. She was foolish but they humanized her.

Keira Knightleys laugh when she saw Pemberley. I think she did a fine job overall but I appreciated that one moment.

“What excellent boiled potatoes” - I don’t know why but I just loved that line and his delivery.

Mr. Bingley - I liked his goofy goodness

Overall it had a dreamy romantic feeling. It even captured the mundaneness of their lives in a way that many Austen period pieces done.

Do you mean Bennett for all those people?

Whoops! I meant I liked the Mrs Bennett interpretation in the 2005 version!

I have to agree that 1995 Mrs Bennett was too much of a caricature for me. It would have been good on the stage but for film, it was over acted. Lydia was similarly a caricature in 1995 but I thought that fit much better and actually loved the performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

Sigh.

Yes, I understand the humor in the writing.

I’m criticizing the delivery by the actors in the bbc version. It’s sooooo bbc: bland boring corny. The acting is stiff and stilted. There’s very little emotion or joy or humor.

My 8th grade class did a better job reading it aloud.

You think 1995 Lydia was bland and boring?? I couldn’t even keep track of which girl was Lydia vs Kitty in 2005.

Are you serious? Maybe you should rewatch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

Sigh.

Yes, I understand the humor in the writing.

I’m criticizing the delivery by the actors in the bbc version. It’s sooooo bbc: bland boring corny. The acting is stiff and stilted. There’s very little emotion or joy or humor.

My 8th grade class did a better job reading it aloud.

You think 1995 Lydia was bland and boring?? I couldn’t even keep track of which girl was Lydia vs Kitty in 2005.

Are you serious? Maybe you should rewatch it.

I was exaggerating because I know the actress, but, Lydia is supposed to be over the top and kitty is supposed to be sort of bland, following and copying Lydia lamely. The 2005 version ignored that dynamic IMO

[Anonymous]

NP. I couldn't get past Kiera playing cute Kiera, she just didn't disappear into the role.