Quick poll on Pride and Prejudice

[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.

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.

PP made me laugh, and she's also correct.

[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.

They are both fantasy. Glad you enjoyed the BBC version more. You are entitled to your opinion without denigrating the opinions and preferences of other posters.

[Anonymous]

I’m 47 and I much prefer the Colin Firth version. Kiera is unwatchable for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Thank you yes! I thought I was the only person who couldn’t get into the 90s BBC Sense and Sensibility! Too much endorsement of Marianne’s POV, I felt, and nowhere near enough Elinor appreciation.

Oh and while we’re veering off into other Austen, I loved the Billie Piper Mansfield Park. The plot went a little haywire, but I felt like the way she played Fanny actually worked which is rare.

And yes, 1995 P&P.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m 47 and I much prefer the Colin Firth version. Kiera is unwatchable for me.

Keira. Keira. Keira.

[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.

Did anyone else picture Lady Catherine de Bourgh while reading this? Try it. Makes the pretentious scolding almost tolerable.

[Anonymous]

Firth/Ehle by a mile

[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.

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.

Did anyone else picture Lady Catherine de Bourgh while reading this? Try it. Makes the pretentious scolding almost tolerable.

DP. Oh come off it, there can be different views here and that’s ok.

[Anonymous]

This is reminding me I'm due for a re-watch of the BBC P and P. Where can I stream it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is reminding me I'm due for a re-watch of the BBC P and P. Where can I stream it?

Amazon prime

[Anonymous]

Spinoff... which is a better Emma? Haven't watched either Gwenyth or the BBC one all the way through before and don't fully know the story, so I want the best one to watch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spinoff... which is a better Emma? Haven't watched either Gwenyth or the BBC one all the way through before and don't fully know the story, so I want the best one to watch

I thought the one with Romula Garai as Emma was really good, but the recent one with Anya Taylor Joy was a lot of fun, too.

The Gwyneth one I liked less, but I still liked it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is reminding me I'm due for a re-watch of the BBC P and P. Where can I stream it?

Amazon prime

With ads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spinoff... which is a better Emma? Haven't watched either Gwenyth or the BBC one all the way through before and don't fully know the story, so I want the best one to watch

I thought the one with Romula Garai as Emma was really good, but the recent one with Anya Taylor Joy was a lot of fun, too.

The Gwyneth one I liked less, but I still liked it.

This is in line with my taste too. I really enjoyed Gwyneth herself but the entire movie isn’t quite as good as the more recent ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Did anyone else picture Lady Catherine de Bourgh while reading this? Try it. Makes the pretentious scolding almost tolerable.

DP. Oh come off it, there can be different views here and that’s ok.

Yes, there can be. Lady Catherine PP doesn’t seem to agree with you.