Second Impressions and 2005’s Pride & Prejudice, by Jack Caldwell
Greetings, everyone. Jack Caldwell here.
Back in 2005—a year that will live in infamy (Hurricane Katrina, anyone?)—I took my wife to a screening of Joe Wright’s Pride & Prejudice (also known as P&P‘05 and P&P3). My reaction to the film? Let’s just say my first impression was not good, and below are some of the reasons:
- Pigs in Longbourn.
- Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet.
- A really short Mr. Collins.
- Elizabeth’s (apparent) allergy to bonnets.
- The almost-kiss.
- The letter scene.
- Lady Cat’s visit at night.
- Did I mention the almost-kiss?
As we walked out into the night after the movie, my dear wife quietly suffered as I proclaimed what I considered problematic with Wright’s film. (Heck–my Barbara is far more of an angel than Jane Bennet!)
About a year later, the beautiful Barbara encouraged me to buy the video of the thing, and so I watched it again. I admit I was stuck again by the same things I originally liked about the movie:
- A hot Jane (Rosamund Pike).
A hot Caroline (Kelly Reilly).- Fantastic music by Dario Marianelli.
- My favorite Mary (Talulah Riley).
- The “dueling dance” at Netherfield.
- The shot of Elizabeth gazing over Derbyshire.
- Darcy and Bingley working out how to approach Jane.
- Did I mention a hot Caroline? What an ice queen!
Then, I started to give the film a second chance with me, and what do you know? It has become my favorite movie version of Pride and Prejudice (the 1980 and 1995 versions were TV mini-series). How did that happen?
It seems director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach had something up their sleeves. They had only a little over two hours to present a beloved classic that earlier versions took four to five-and-a-half hours to tell the same story. That is not enough time to do the entire book, so instead the production team decided to give us a sense, a taste of Miss Austen’s best-loved novel. Wright and Moggach made three key decisions.
The first decision was to make Elizabeth Bennet young. Keira Knightley gives a superb performance as a slightly immature, caustically witty Elizabeth (who seems allergic to bonnets). It is no doubt that it is Elizabeth who is both proud and prejudiced. Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr. Darcy is aloof at first, but the audience is ahead of Elizabeth in realizing he is actually painfully reserved and uncomfortable with people. His quiet yet bumbling maturity is a great counterpoint against Elizabeth’s fiery inexperience.
The second decision was to get the audience to fall in love with Elizabeth, despite her flaws. The great cinematography is responsible for a great deal of that, especially the focus on Knightley’s mesmerizing eyes. They also built a true, loving family around the Bennets. Who can doubt that the flighty Mrs. Bennet (Brenda Blethyn) loves all her girls? Who cannot smile every time the Bennet sisters are out together? Though I still think Sutherland was miscast, he portrays a loving, if detached, father. And while P&P3 is not as funny as P&P1, there is more humor in it than in P&P2.
The third decision was to have the viewers feel Elizabeth’s pain after Hunsford. It is a secret pain, one that Elizabeth does not wish to share, which is true to the book. The film shows this in many little ways. This is why she tells Jane very little of what happened in Kent. That and the tear in bed is very effective.
This pain is set up with the “almost-kiss” proposal scene. Wright is telling the viewer that Elizabeth is lying to herself, for deep inside, she is sincerely attracted to Darcy. She only understands this “when all hope is gone.” I now get it.
The film is not perfect. I hated the dirt and mud. As much as I loved Mary, I disliked how they treated Kitty (a waste of the lovely actress Carey Mulligan). While I enjoyed Tom Hollander’s sympathetic turn as Elizabeth’s ridiculous cousin, I just cannot abide a short Mr. Collins. They got Wickham (Rupert Friend) totally wrong. The Gardiners were too old. The statuary in Pemberley was too clever by half. The way Elizabeth was gazing at the bust of Darcy, I expected her to start French kissing the thing. There was no way Elizabeth could run/walk all the way from Pemberley to Lambton.
But the unforgivable crime of this adaptation was the complete miscasting of the great Dame Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. What were Wright and Moggach thinking? Had they been reading too much JAFF? Judi Dench’s tone, look, and complete absence of comic absurdity were nothing like Miss Austen’s farcical creation. Dench was terrible. Her performance proves even the best actor or actress can screw up a part.
As bad as the nighttime battle between Lizzy and Lady Cat was, I needed something to remove it from my mind. That’s why I forgive Darcy walking out of the morning mist like some hero from a bodice-ripping romance. At least Darcy and Elizabeth didn’t suck face.
Thank goodness for second impressions. It has given me the opportunity of discovering what many moviegoers saw in 2005—Pride & Prejudice is not only a very fine film, but it is also a great adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel. One cannot do better in only two hours.
Now, if only they’d put a bonnet on Keira Knightley.
Until next time, this has been the Cajun Cheesehead Chronicles.
It takes a real man to write historical romance, so let me tell you a story…
21 comments
Skip to comment form
Hey, Jack. I’m glad you joined those of us who love the 2005. It’s not perfect, but none of the versions are. Hollywood and the BBC just take too many liberties. This will probably continue to be my favorite even after viewing the others, but I think I will like all of them for different reasons. All are good in their own ways. 🙂
Author
We’ll see what you say about the 1940 version (P&P 0). Hehehe.
Sorry, Jack. I missed your comment. I like the 1940 version in spite of its flaws. I loved Greer Garson especially in ‘Random Harvest.’ But in this version of P&P, I loved the archery scene and her discomposing Mr. Darcy. (Too bad it wasn’t in the book. :)) And Sir Lawrence Oliver was not bad either. Again Hollywood took liberties. They always do, but I still enjoyed it.
I love your humor, Jack! Thanks for this great movie review.
Like you, I love and hate the 2005 movie. Some of the reasons are the same (pigs, dirt, too short to tell the story at length), but I also like it. The music is fantastic, some of the shots are all the same – just art at its purest form. I loved that the Bennets were a loving family and the camaraderie of the girls – one can easily see what drew Darcy to them and waht made Lizzy blind to their faults, they are testin one’s neves, but also very adorable. And yes, for the first time one could see why Jane was reputed to be the prettiest girl of the neighbourhood (not that the actress of Jane 2005 was not beutiful – the make-up-artist just made her very homely for her role). I also liked the beautiful, refined Caroline Bingley. She had very little comic to her, but one could understand why (almost) everyone was afraid that Darcy could choose her as MIsstress of Pemberley. She was flawless – apart from her character… Judie Dench’s Lady Catherine was much like her performance in the Bond movies, I think.
I loved the liveliness of Lizzy Bennet, and I agree with you – Darcy fell in love with a girl, but she came to him (in the misty morning) as a woman. In other adaptations you see more of Darcy’s journey, here it is E’s growth in character the viewer gets to see.
May I mention that I loved Charlotte in this movie? More so than in the 2005 version. Her cleverness and her closeness to Lissy shines through more.
What I didn’t like, though, was that Lydia and Kitty looked so much alike…In most of the shots and scenes it was hard for me to tell them apart…
I’m absolutely unsure about Georgiana though… I like the closeness and liveliness we see of her in this short snippet we see of her (one can easily imagine how this girl was impulsive enough to decide to run away with Wickham), on the other hand one must only guess how shy she is around other people…
Did you know that the end, where Darcy and Elizabeth sit on the balcony of Pemberley and finaly kiss was specifically made of the US-audience? In other countries the movie ended with Donald Sutherland being happy in his study, declaring that he was in a mood to give away his daughters to any siutor that may come the way…
On the weekend, I say a BBC documentation for the 10th anniversary of the 2005-version… some of the actors and Sue bIrdswhistle and David Wright were interviewed about their roles in the film… and the cator who played Mr. Bennet (sorry, forgot his name) said, that his view on Mr. Bennet was that he was the most like Jane Austen herself. None of her heroines was like herself, she was not part of the events herself, she was more of a quiet, sarcastic observer from the outside. I never saw it that way, but I think it is a clever approach and a new perspective on Mr. Bennet`s character…
Have a wonderful day, Jack!
Author
“I loved the liveliness of Lizzy Bennet, and I agree with you – Darcy fell in love with a girl, but she came to him (in the misty morning) as a woman. In other adaptations you see more of Darcy’s journey, here it is E’s growth in character the viewer gets to see.”
It has long been my argument that P&P is all about Elizabeth’s growth, not Darcy’s. Almost the entire book is from Elizabeth’s POV. She is the one who is both proud and prejudiced. She is the one who changes, while Darcy remains, in essentials, much of what he was.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
The two versions of P&P that I love are the 1995 series and this film. I do agree that personally I wouldn’t like to have pigs in the house (or a boat in the courtyard for that matter!)
I also thought that Mr Collins was ‘slightly’ miscast! I found him totally creepy. Thank goodness Elizabeth wasn’t forced to marry him.
I loved the casting of Keira and Matthew, and the almost kiss – wow!
I watch this regularly and my only real complaint is that the British version doesn’t include the ending at Pemberley! Why? I have no idea!
Thank you for this entertaining post Jack.
Author
The British version ends the film just as JA ended the novel. Americans, however, demand a kiss! We run the world, so we get what we want. 🙂
I agree heartily on some of your comments and disagree fiercely on others…
It is my favourite adaptation because I feel that Wright got the essence of PnP, PnP stripped naked in a sense. I loved the depth and thoughtfulness in the movie, compared to other versions. And because the characters feel real as opposed to caricatured. Especially Lady Catherine and Mrs Bennet who felt so overdone in the 1995 version. I agree with you that Wickham does not feel right, I would have preferred him a little more loathsome but I liked that he was given so little screen time. Loved the music, it makes the movie in many ways. I thought the cast, apart from Wickham, was genius. I particularly like the scene of the reunion at Pemberley, where you can clearly see the embarrassment of Elizabeth, being caught on Pemberley grounds. Both Keira and Matthew are very adapt in portraying feelings through expressions.
I have no trouble seeing Elizabeth walk the five miles to Lambton either, it can be done in a couple of hours, even without shortcuts over the fields. I do it regularly and I do not have Elizabeth’s youth nor her light figure 😉
At last, I am very happy you are man enough to write romance. Pemberley Ranch and The Crescent City trilogy being my favourites.
Author
Thanks for the shout-outs on PEMBERLEY RANCH and CRESCENT CITY! You are too kind.
I agree with Glynis with regards to that boat in the courtyard. Was that supposed to represent her feelings of being trapped? A boat out of water sort of? I didn’t get it. Well, with her aversion to a bonnet… what was up with her being barefoot? It is not my favorite movie version. However, the cinematography was amazing. Another miscast was Anne. She certainly was not a tiny sickly little thing. Thanks for this closer look at one of the P&P adaptions.
Author
Y’know, I never saw the boat. How ’bout that. Guess I’ll just have to fire up the ole DVD. Thanks!
This was my first introduction to Pride and Prejudice via my husband. I do love the version and know it has elements that are totally incorrect, but no version is true to the book. All take poetic licence. I do love how both McFadyen and Knightly say so much just through a look.
Author
The leads did very well, but I liked the supporting characters best (except for Sutherland, Friend, and Dench). Thanks!
What about the aged Colonel Fitzwilliam? With all the deaths during the Napoleonic Wars, it must have given young men plenty of opportunities to advance in rank. I couldn’t see the relationship we expect between Darcy and the Colonel with that age discrepancy.
Author
I didn’t have much of an issue with the LMPD (Loud-Mouthed Plot Device) in this version, except for the uniform. Since they set this movie in the late Georgian Period rather than the Regency, I guess Fitzwilliam’s uniform was historically correct. I would have put him in a red infantry coat. It looks too much like a naval uniform.
That said, Fitzwilliam was supposed to be older than Darcy and NOT handsome. Sorry, all you Stud-Muffin fans.
Like you, I thought there were good and bad parts to the movie. No bonnets on Elizabeth drove me crazy and I read where the costume consultant had to put her foot down and insist on bonnets in Church because there was no way any woman would have gone to church bare-headed. The pig can be explained. If you look at plans of the actual building (Groomsbridge Place, I think), there is the house, the farm offices and farm buildings all attached together. The pig is actually going through the passage between the house and the farm offices so is not technically in the house. I loved Rupert Friend as Wickham but thought it was unfortunate that they had him come across as petulant. He could have been very charming and sexy which Wickham was in spades. I loved the messy house and messy hair which I thought was far more realistic than the perfection in P & P 95.
Author
Interesting info about the costume consultant. I guess the director wanted KK’s Lizzy to stand out.
As for the pigs, let’s say the only pigs I’d like to see in Longbourn is bacon. We will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for jumping in!
It always pleases me to read good things about P&P 2005. For me it was a great film, and I never really understood why it is criticized so much. I think maybe because people have this tendency to idolized the 1995 miniseries and anything different is already bad. But as you well put it, Jack, a film is different than a miniseries and trying to tell the same story in less than 2 hours is not easy. I have always been a big fan of Joe Wright’s film. The cast, the cinematography, the music, it was all very beautifully done. Of course it is not perfect, but whenever I am rereading P&P or reading a JAFF I picture them as the cast. They were the right age, their chemistry was wonderful. And you can clearly see the difference in stations between the Bingleys and Darcys and the Bennets, something that the miniseries didn’t portrait correctly. Sometimes I wanted the Bennet girls’ hair to be more beautiful or the dresses more sophisticated and yeah, the lack of bonnet and gloves for Elizabeth bothered me too, hehe, but all in all I thought it was wonderful. I love Keira Knightley as Elizabeth. And Matthew was a great Mr Darcy.
Author
I think you hit all the things I liked about it, too. Thanks.
I’m glad someone else shares my view of Dame Judi as Catherine DeBourgh. I absolutely adore Dame Judi, but I find it painful to watch her in this role. She is a fine comic actress, so I blame the direction she received.
I have liked Matthew McFayden since I watched MI-5, but he is not my ideal Darcy. Why have him standing in the rain like a stupid git? Did they think that Wet Darcy was the key to making the 1995 miniseries a classic?
I agree about the pigs. They made Longbourn look like a tenant’s farm rather than the manor. Maybe that is why Lady C arrived at night- in this version they couldn’t afford the pretty sort of wilderness.
Yes! You’ve validated my favorite P&P movie intelligently and in writing. It is so tiring to sit through 1995’s long shots of Lizzy’s eyes and secret smiles.
Now can you help me? Have you heard of a JAFF story in which Bennet is a General and Fitzwilliam and Richard serve under him?