Quick poll on Pride and Prejudice

[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.

Excellent assessment. I totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

[Anonymous]

I'm 40. I very much like both but I prefer the 1995 version because it goes deeper into
Austen's social commentary. And the slower pace makes Darcy's character development more believable. But again, I think both are great.

I always skip the scenes with Mr. Collins because I can't do secondhand embarrassment so it's fun to read what people think of those scenes.

[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.

Your failure is that you refuse (stubbornly) to realize that the upper classes of the late 18th into 19th century were governed by very strict rules regarding mannerism and behavior. People who violated them were severely punished, socially - which we see in Pride & Prejudice and Lydia Bennet.

Haven't you ever heard of the stiff upper lip, emotionally repressed English? Where did you think that came from? Good lord!

It is not to imply people couldn't feel emotions and passions, but they carried them out quite differently and under different constraints in order to maintain that social respectability that was so important to their world.

Look, half the the entire story of Pride and Prejudice is all about confusions over emotions because people are so emotionally repressed. Jane Bennett and Mr. Bingley. Darcy with Elizabeth Bennet. The theme repeats itself over and over again.

But you wanted lovey-dovey emotional teenagers running around carelessly and shrieking and ranting and pouring out all their hot, heavy emotions? Well, you have the 2005 fantasy to make you happy, but it sure ain't anything like P&P as Austen wrote it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

[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.

Your failure is that you refuse (stubbornly) to realize that the upper classes of the late 18th into 19th century were governed by very strict rules regarding mannerism and behavior. People who violated them were severely punished, socially - which we see in Pride & Prejudice and Lydia Bennet.

Haven't you ever heard of the stiff upper lip, emotionally repressed English? Where did you think that came from? Good lord!

It is not to imply people couldn't feel emotions and passions, but they carried them out quite differently and under different constraints in order to maintain that social respectability that was so important to their world.

Look, half the the entire story of Pride and Prejudice is all about confusions over emotions because people are so emotionally repressed. Jane Bennett and Mr. Bingley. Darcy with Elizabeth Bennet. The theme repeats itself over and over again.

But you wanted lovey-dovey emotional teenagers running around carelessly and shrieking and ranting and pouring out all their hot, heavy emotions? Well, you have the 2005 fantasy to make you happy, but it sure ain't anything like P&P as Austen wrote it.

I think we all wish you were slightly more repressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

[Anonymous]

Upon my word, those who prefer the 2005 version have quite an air of self-importance.

I'm 51 and my good opinion, once lost is lost forever. 1995/BBC is the one true version. For you to say otherwise is quite vexing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

I’m not the PP but I also felt like the 2005 version rushed everything. Of course it had to, because it couldn’t fit as much into 2 hours as 6, but it did feel rushed. In contrast, the 2 hour version of sense and sensibility with Emma Watson and Kate winslet didn’t feel rushed at all to me.

[Anonymous]

1995 pride and prejudice, but Ang Lee (1995? 1997?) sense and sensibility. BBC sense and sensibility didn’t capture the restrained, pained existence of Elinor as well and also, Brandon was too attractive in it. Why wouldn’t Marianna have chosen him to start with, he was just as handsome. I thought he was supposed to be sort of old and plain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upon my word, those who prefer the 2005 version have quite an air of self-importance.

I'm 51 and my good opinion, once lost is lost forever. 1995/BBC is the one true version. For you to say otherwise is quite vexing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1995 BBC

1980 BBC




2005 Knightley/Macfadyen

Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul all the way, baby!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1995 BBC

1980 BBC




2005 Knightley/Macfadyen

Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul all the way, baby!

That was my first P&P!! I was in love with David Rintoul, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upon my word, those who prefer the 2005 version have quite an air of self-importance.

I'm 51 and my good opinion, once lost is lost forever. 1995/BBC is the one true version. For you to say otherwise is quite vexing.

LOL