Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When he comes to "condole" with the Bennetts over Lydia's elopement, he says that her death would have been preferable to eloping / bringing shame upon the family. The phrase was something like "her death would have been a blessing". He also says who will want to align themselves with such a family.

His views are odious even if they weren't so strange for that time. I think he gets a bad rap because he has no social graces and is such a suck up. I think Lizzy is way too hard on Charlotte though, because the man was the only plan available to women who weren't independently wealthy. Charlotte was getting close to being past the age when women typically married.

My daughter's favorite line is "are the shades of pemberley to be thus polluted," uttered by Lady Catherine from the A&E version. I loved that Lady Catherine - she was so dramatic and bitchy.

er...it's a quote from the BOOK:
http://www.pemberley.com/etext/PandP/chapter56.htm

That's why the A&E version is a superior dramatization to the Keira Knightly crap version. The A&E version stays pretty close to Austen's words.

Uh, they say the exact same line in the Kiera Knightley version.

You people really need to calm the hell down.

It's still a quote from the book. The A&E version still uses more of Austen's words.

It sure as hell didn't include a scene with Lady Catherine bursting in on the Bennetts in the middle of the night. What moron decided to give Judi Dench a riding crop as a prop? Like woman that dumpy could straddle a horse. Plus what idiot would write in dialogue about wanting to talk in the garden? Yes, it's from the book, but when you set a scene at night in the early 1800s--the garden is pitch black.

They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.


I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.

I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?

Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.

I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?

Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.

Those are not emojis. How out of it are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.

I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?

Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.

He did read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)

You seriously seem unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When he comes to "condole" with the Bennetts over Lydia's elopement, he says that her death would have been preferable to eloping / bringing shame upon the family. The phrase was something like "her death would have been a blessing". He also says who will want to align themselves with such a family.

His views are odious even if they weren't so strange for that time. I think he gets a bad rap because he has no social graces and is such a suck up. I think Lizzy is way too hard on Charlotte though, because the man was the only plan available to women who weren't independently wealthy. Charlotte was getting close to being past the age when women typically married.

My daughter's favorite line is "are the shades of pemberley to be thus polluted," uttered by Lady Catherine from the A&E version. I loved that Lady Catherine - she was so dramatic and bitchy.

er...it's a quote from the BOOK:
http://www.pemberley.com/etext/PandP/chapter56.htm

That's why the A&E version is a superior dramatization to the Keira Knightly crap version. The A&E version stays pretty close to Austen's words.

Yeah you need to calm down. I'm the poster to whom you're responding. I know it's from the book. My kid knows it's from the book. We all know it's from the book. We are particularly fond of the Barbara Leigh-Hunt version of Lady Catherine. She is especially expressive with those lines. Dame Judy Dench is a master, of course, but there's something about Leigh-Hunt's rendition that is particularly satisfying.

Is that an adequate explanation for you?

[Anonymous]

Isn't the A&E version a re-airing of the BBC version? I think it's weird to be so dismissive of the 2005 film and then not properly attribute the earlier series.

Beyond that, Mr. Collins is quite contemptible from the perspective of being very status driven. This is something Lizzie is definitely not, though part of her courtship with Darcy involves realizing the ways in which status matters at least at that time. P&P is a difficult book to pin down, because it has so many layers upon which it can be interpreted. I actually appreciated the 2005 film for bringing the economic issues discussed in the book more front and center. It's an unusual focus for screen adaptations of the book, but I think it was well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the A&E version a re-airing of the BBC version? I think it's weird to be so dismissive of the 2005 film and then not properly attribute the earlier series.

Beyond that, Mr. Collins is quite contemptible from the perspective of being very status driven. This is something Lizzie is definitely not, though part of her courtship with Darcy involves realizing the ways in which status matters at least at that time. P&P is a difficult book to pin down, because it has so many layers upon which it can be interpreted. I actually appreciated the 2005 film for bringing the economic issues discussed in the book more front and center. It's an unusual focus for screen adaptations of the book, but I think it was well done.

+1 to all of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op read the book. He is a self important, loquacious bore and a prig with no intellect. He is the antithesis of who would be suitable for Lizzie.

This is it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op read the book. He is a self important, loquacious bore and a prig with no intellect. He is the antithesis of who would be suitable for Lizzie.

This is it.

Exactly. Even Charlotte doesn't like him all that much--she basically arranges her whole life to spend as little time with him as possible. He's not a monster, and we have no reason to think that he will mistreat her, but there's not much that attractive about him other than his financial prospect as the heir of Longbourne. He's a dim bulb, excessively obsequious, self-important, is a wretched conversationalist, and has no common sense or taste. My favorite description of him is "a felicitous blend of complacent self-approval and ceremonious servility."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the 1980 BBC TV version.

Where Elizabeth runs 5 miles from Lambton to Pemberley with Jane's letter in her hand? I find the acting a bit stiff in that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should write a fanfic about him, OP.

I'm serious.

Ten years after Charlotte shines him up

[Anonymous]

Um because he's a pathetic social striver and fool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op read the book. He is a self important, loquacious bore and a prig with no intellect. He is the antithesis of who would be suitable for Lizzie.

This is it.

Exactly. Even Charlotte doesn't like him all that much--she basically arranges her whole life to spend as little time with him as possible. He's not a monster, and we have no reason to think that he will mistreat her, but there's not much that attractive about him other than his financial prospect as the heir of Longbourne. He's a dim bulb, excessively obsequious, self-important, is a wretched conversationalist, and has no common sense or taste. My favorite description of him is "a felicitous blend of complacent self-approval and ceremonious servility."

Right. This part is sad. I don't think I really understood that Charlotte only marries him because he's her literal last chance for independence from her family when I read it the first time in high school. Poor Charlotte. It's actually a fairly brave choice when you think about it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.

I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?

Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.

He did read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)

You seriously seem unhinged.

From what you linked, he apparently read a script, "Screenwriter Deborah Moggach initially attempted to make her script as faithful to the novel as possible, writing from Elizabeth's perspective while preserving much of the original dialogue. Wright, who was directing his first feature film, encouraged greater deviation from the text, including changing the dynamics within the Bennet family..."

Yeah, he wanted "muddy hems." Big deal. It's not apparent that he read the book at all; he definitely didn't understand it if he did. He doesn't even comprehend the title given the dialogue included in the movie. Listen to his director's notes on the DVD as well--absolute navel gazing drivel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the 1980 BBC TV version.

Where Elizabeth runs 5 miles from Lambton to Pemberley with Jane's letter in her hand? I find the acting a bit stiff in that one.

Oh I loved it. And years later I met that "Darcy", completely not knowing it was the same actor (until after) and we had a great conversation. If I'd recognized him at the time I'd have fallen apart!