Quick poll on Pride and Prejudice

[Anonymous]

I love the BBC version with Colin Firth. I have a difficult time understanding Kiera Knightley when she speaks - too fast and accent too thick for my American ear. No shade at all toward Kiera - I think she's great in other movies. But for the dialogue in P&P, I just get lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

I watched the Keira version a while back, but I don't remember a tire scene. The whole thing has me wondering, because they didn't have tires in 1820 or thereabouts. They had wood/steel wheels. Rubber wasn't a thing yet. Please somebody help me understand what I'm missing.

[Anonymous]

I was 9 when the 1995 version came out and I LOVED it. I remember hounding my parents to get home in time for us to watch it. It was the most romantic thing I could imagine.
2005 was a pale imitation, anachronistic and too fast-paced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

I watched the Keira version a while back, but I don't remember a tire scene. The whole thing has me wondering, because they didn't have tires in 1820 or thereabouts. They had wood/steel wheels. Rubber wasn't a thing yet. Please somebody help me understand what I'm missing.

Just shows you how inattentive the previous biased posters were to repeat this nonsense. It was regular wooden swing suspended by ropes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a "quick poll", this thread certainly has gone on and on! You'd think it was about the BRF. 🤣

The Darcy and Bennett families are far more interesting than the present-day BRF.

[Anonymous]

Colin/Jennifer one!

I couldn’t get over the fact that Kiera was too skinny to play Elizabeth. That was not considered attractive at that time and she didn’t not have “those fine eyes.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

I watched the Keira version a while back, but I don't remember a tire scene. The whole thing has me wondering, because they didn't have tires in 1820 or thereabouts. They had wood/steel wheels. Rubber wasn't a thing yet. Please somebody help me understand what I'm missing.

Just shows you how inattentive the previous biased posters were to repeat this nonsense. It was regular wooden swing suspended by ropes.

True but my complaint was remarking on someone else using that phrase. It was still a circular swing and there are multiple scenes of it each spanning a long time. It's distracting why they are focusing on these moments that weren't in the book and don't develop the Character in the same way that it is distracting that Jane in the 1995 film doesn't come across overly pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 40, and I never imagined in my wildest dreams anyone would prefer the Tom Wombsgambgendorg version over the Colin Firth one. COME ON!!!

CF/JE all the way.

You mean Matthew MacFayden? He’s done a lot more than Succession. Do better.

Even so he was FANTASTIC in Succession. One of the better reasons to watch that show, which I was not a huge fan of but muddled through 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.

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.

It is an opinion as to which you prefer. But the PPs analysis of the "stiff upper lip" and repressed British emotion, and how they play out in P&P, is really not an opinion. It just WAS and is a fact.

[Anonymous]

What’s weird to me is how I’m attracted to Matthew M as Darcy AND as Tom Wambsgams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colin/Jennifer one!

I couldn’t get over the fact that Kiera was too skinny to play Elizabeth. That was not considered attractive at that time and she didn’t not have “those fine eyes.”

You know who had fine eyes? Elizabeth Garvie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

I watched the Keira version a while back, but I don't remember a tire scene. The whole thing has me wondering, because they didn't have tires in 1820 or thereabouts. They had wood/steel wheels. Rubber wasn't a thing yet. Please somebody help me understand what I'm missing.

It's not a tire. The whole scene is to just show the passage of time and move the story forward a bit. The point is the seasons change while she's on the swing and spinning around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

I watched the Keira version a while back, but I don't remember a tire scene. The whole thing has me wondering, because they didn't have tires in 1820 or thereabouts. They had wood/steel wheels. Rubber wasn't a thing yet. Please somebody help me understand what I'm missing.

It's not a tire. The whole scene is to just show the passage of time and move the story forward a bit. The point is the seasons change while she's on the swing and spinning around.

…like the market scene in Notting Hill or the bedroom desk scene in Twilight New Moon.

[Anonymous]

You take delight in vexing me!

I vote for BBC 1995.

I am transported to that time and place by the dialogue.

[Anonymous]

Keira/McFayden hands down. And I always felt I was in the minority with that.