Pride and Prejudice

And Saffy was in it.

Colin Firth version for me but damn the BBC screwed up with Jane Bennet. She's supposed to be the most beautiful, desirable girl in the room. She looks and acts like a lazy cow here. It almost wrecks the plot.

McFadden was more dreamy.

I can't remember much about the film, only that Keira Knightley spoke her lines so quickly. I saw it at the cinema but can remember very little else about it. Looking at the cast list I have no recollection of Brenda Blethyn or Donald Sutherland. I remember Rosamund Pike was in it with her gay boyfriend.

The 6 hour version allows the BBC to spread out the plot and developments. The ham on display from Alison Steadman made me need to lie down.

Saffy has quite big tits and I can see why Wickham wanted a tumble. The girls in the movie were quite fugly. The one who played Mary was more attractive than all of them even though she's supposed to be the plainest of all.

My quibbles with the movie:

McFayden’s Darcy is so obviously sensitive from the jump that you never get the sense that he runs the risk of turning into a Lady Catherine 2.0 - a fate that loving and being loved by Elizabeth saves him from.

Speaking of Lady Catherine, the movie leaves no room for any of the humor that makes the character a hoot - she’s sort of a combination of Princess Margaret, Hyacinth Bucket and Countess Luann from the Real Housewives. Judi Dench is just fundamentally miscast - she can be very funny in roles that allow for twinkly mischief, but the part needs a Maggie Smith-type. The movie also really jettisoned the unctuous nastiness that makes Mr. Collins a fun love-to-hate secondary antagonist.

Neither adaptation has the guts to shine a mirror on the ugly heart of the Bennetts marriage - which is that Mr. Bennett loathes his wife for being exactly the person she always when he married her just no longer fuckable and that he is a snide asshole who refuses to take the future seriously as he would rather indulge in defeatist ironical posturing (just as you can see Darcy running the risk of becoming a Lady Catherine, you see Elizabeth running the risk of becoming a Mr. Bennett), and that as silly and tiresome as she is, Mrs. Bennett is understandably at the end of her rope trying to play the few cards she has in order to ensure her daughters don’t fall out of their class.

I vote for the MacFadyen version, not necessarily because it's better, but it's so beautifully shot with a dreamy quality to it. I also like Donald Sutherland's Mr. Bennett, so exasperated with living in a house full of women.

I've read the novel several times and never got the impression that Mr. Bennett loathed his wife.

The movie version. Knightley and MacFayden have real chemistry and the hurt, loathing, shock and attraction between their characters is palpable. What MacFayden's Darcy does with his hand, really worked for me. I love the loathsome Lady Catherine (Dench) and ridiculous short (Hollander). Also Wickham is the incredibly hot Rupert Friend.

I never found either Firth or Ehle attractive in that mini series and Ehle's Lizzie didn't have much spunk. Yawn. They didn't have chemistry IMO.

There used to be the funniest threads at IMDb where the Maiden Aunt Austen fanatics would be incensed at posters asking repeatedly, “Why is there a pig in the Bennets’ house?”

It was asked so many times it became trolling.

Which is funny R9 because Firth and Ehle had a fling while on set. I like her Lizzie better. To me, Knightley was too giggly and almost all the girls, and Bingley, were not attractive at all. That bouffant he sported was ridiculous.

[quote]Also Wickham is the incredibly hot Rupert Friend.

Keira Knightley went from dating Jamie Dornan to dating Rupert Friend after P&P.

I believe the term is "lucky bitch".

[quote]Neither adaptation has the guts to shine a mirror on the ugly heart of the Bennetts marriage

Neither did the novel because there was no ugly heart at the center of their marriage. It was a union that began in passion and descended into resignation, a familiar, unremarkable pattern. There is a moment when Lizzie realizes just how much her father with his satirical detachment has harmed the family, but this is due to his lack of parental supervision for which he is profoundly remorseful.

Not trying to start a feud. I totally agree with your other points. No versions have captured Lady Catherine's hilarious, delusional snobbery, and Macfadyen was a little too soft. He's great in Succession though!

I like the miniseries best just because the two leads (Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth) are so superlatively cast. My least favorite thing about it are the performances of Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennett (more like soemthing out of Dickens than something out of Austen) and Julie Sawlha as Lydia Bennett (busy, amateurish, insincere).

The movie's worst handicaps are Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett (only a mediocre actress, and far too beautiful to fit the role) and Judi Dench, incredibly unfunny and dull as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Its best assets are Matthew Macfadyen as a hunky, perplexed Mr. Darcy and Donald Sutherland as a funny but poignant Mr. Bennett.

In the movie there is a scene, as seen through a window, of Mr and Mrs Bennet having a sweet, private moment in their bedroom.

I LOATHE the version with Knightly and McFadden! Whoever made that mess didn't understand Regency society, not in the slightest. He showed Mr. Bennet as a farmer who herded his own pigs, which would have killed any chance for for Lizzie to look Lady Catherine in the eye and say "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter", and to claim (theoretical) social equality and her right to marry the man of her dreams. The film also, at a crucial moment, had Lizzie sprint away from an uncomfortable meeting with Darcy, which gave the film a bit of drama and moving camera work, but which would have been considered a huge faux pas in Regency society, where people placed a high value on poise and... courage. For even a woman to show cowardice in the face of social awkwardness would have meant social death or being sent back to the nursery, or at least have Mr. Right immediately lose interest.

The Firth/Ehle show, on the other hand, was superb! Best adaptation ever, got everything right from the casting to the underwear. And the introductory shot of Firth as Darcy, looking at the country dance with a peculiar mixture of snobbery and shyness... that's what the best actors do, show you the whole person without speaking a word.

I prefer the miniseries. Not that I’m a fan of anyone in it but the leads in the film act so affected I can’t watch them. It doesn’t come across as a movie set in the Regency era to me.

[quote] He showed Mr. Bennet as a farmer who herded his own pigs, which would have killed any chance for for Lizzie to look Lady Catherine in the eye and say "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter", and to claim (theoretical) social equality and her right to marry the man of her dreams.

That's not true if he just kept pigs as a hobby as many of the gentry who lived in the country did).

The Duchess of Devonshire famously used to feed her own chickens (from a silver pail).

I once watched part of the Knightly/McFadden movie with the sound off, and if you do that... it looks like Lizzie Bennet is being played by a 14-year-old boy in drag.

Regency dresses don't flatter skinny, flat-chested women, and as the gowns hid her hips and showed her broad shoulders and flat chest to maximum advantage, Knightley really did look like a boy in them! Plus her jaw, and she had short hair at the time... and you could see it sticking out from under her wig.

Susannah Harker has quite a limited emotional range but she was well used in House Of Cards, Chancer and Adam Beds, opposite husband Iain Glen who was possibly abusive.

She made a very bland Jane but then Jane was always the least interesting of the five sisters.

Jennifer Ehle’s career feels like a disappointment despite the two Tonys. She showed real promise in the 90s and Paradise Road looked like an award contender with Glenn Close and Frances McDormand (3 Oscars between them!) both doing European accents but some unknown Aussie called Cate Blanchett got all the attention. Aside from P&P Ehle’s best known role is possibly Dakota Fanning’a mother in the 50 shades movies.

I watched the BBC version when it first aired in the 90s. It was one of the the most anticipated television events of the year. All of us Austen nerds including our brilliant English professor agreed it would have been perfect if not for Lizzie being MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN JANE WHO WAS A LUMP. It flips the entire dynamic. When Darcy tells Bingham he found the only decent partner it made him look like an idiot. How hard could it be to find a hot babe when that was the whole point?

Other than that it was very well done.

I disagree with OP: a gentleman farmer would be more closely involved with his dealings but his children would not be picking crops like the 2005 movie had Elizabeth doing. His daughter would still be as indoor educated as any royal daughter. The 2005 movie went too far with their homely quality compared to others such as air. Darcy. The 90s version is much better but I've yet to see any adaptation give Mrs. Bennett's anxiety a fair shake: her daughters would really been FUCKED if they didn't make good marriages because they were WOMEN. She might have been a pretty idiot as a debutante, but she knew what is what when it comes to marriage contracts. Mr. Bennett may have been level headed in general, but he was actually a careless POS in term of his family's welfare after his death because everything was going to Mr. Collins by LAW, no matter matter what anyone thought. Truly HE was the villain of P&P because he figured he'd have a son, and when he didn't, he still valued is feelings over practicality. Without the luck of Jane and Lizzie bagging that era's version of millionaires, his family would have been competing ruined.

Thank you, R22, and that's another area where the damn 2005 film went wrong, by making the girls farmer's daughters who did housework and farmwork, it failed to establish how completely fucked they were if they didn't marry well! By making the girls farmer's daughters with a few useful skills, it made it possible for them to marry within the middle class or working class, and to avoid utter financial ruin when they were disinherited. But the girls weren't written as farmer's daughters with home skills, they were written as gentlewomen who couldn't do anything except sew and keep the household accounts, which made them truly and deeply fucked if they didn't marry well. They couldn't marry beneath them, as men who had to work needed their wives to be able to keep house and raise children without an army of servants, and they'd have a hell of a time marrying up or across, as the vast majority of men in their class wouldn't marry a girl who had no dowry.

The 1995 "Sense and Sensibility" movie did a much better job of establishing the absolute economic necessity of marrying well, the lurking disaster is kept in the background in the 1995 "P&P", but it's put front and center in "S&S"... and the idiot who wrote the 2005 adaptation didn't know it existed.

R22 is R23 sounds like the same person and needs to calm down.

Do we even dare mention Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson in the 1940 MGM extravaganza in which Resident Costume Designer Gilbert Adrian dared to move the period to the 1830s?

Re: 2005. It was deliberate.

Wright and Moggach set the film in an earlier period and avoided depicting a "perfectly clean Regency world", presenting instead a "muddy hem version" of the time.

The 2005 film is not set in an earlier period than the date of the novel's writing 1813. The costume designer and director simply chose to add more color (and mud) than is usually associated with that decade, which we only know from idealized paintings, portraits and fashion plates done at the time. The silhouette of the clothes is true to the period.

[quote] McFadden was more dreamy.

Yes he had sleepy eyes. But he's getting fat now.

The period of the 1940 film was moved to the 1830s/early 1840s solely because costume designer Adrian had always wanted to design for the mutton leg sleeve period and neither director Robert Z. Leonard nor the producers objected. Voila and it was done.

Even though so many things about the 1941 movie are all wrong, I still prefer it over the 1995/2005 versions and I’ll watch it any time it’s on TCM.

[quote] What MacFayden's Darcy does with his hand, really worked for me.

What did he do, R9?

....

Give me Emma Thomason’s ugly cry in Sense and Sensibility over Pride & Prejudice.

I like both for different reasons.

However, the Firth version has more actors/characters as I envisioned them. The only character who is better in MacFadyen's version is Rosamund Pike's Jane.

Well, also remember the Firth version was a mini series and was able to expand the actions and motivations over episodes and didn't have to wrap everything up tout suite.

If you want a less sympathetic Mrs. Bennet then the 1980 version is for you. Here is Lady Catherine played by Judy Parfitt.

"Wright and Moggach set the film in an earlier period and avoided depicting a "perfectly clean Regency world", presenting instead a "muddy hem version" of the time."

There were still class distinctions in the late 1700s, that would have kept a farmer's daughter from ever marrying a gentleman with ten thousand a year and a glorious old manor house! Once any member of the family had contact with pigs, it made marriage to a Mr. Darcy impossible... and in the 2005 film Mr. Bennett was shown as being out of the library and herding pigs. Feh!

Mr. Bennett's idleness is crucial to the story, he's enough of a bitch to be entertaining, but the fact is that he's the reason his wife and daughters are facing a financial abyss, and his wife is terrified of the future and on the edge of a breakdown. In the book, he admits to Lizzie that he never bothered to save enough money to provide the girls with dowries, thereby making it nearly impossible for them to marry well, and he also never bothered to educate the girls and barely bothered to socialize the younger ones. He's neglected the children he had because he kept expecting a son to come along, and absolutely none of that showed up in the 2005 film. In that movie, he was just this nice farmer guy, and all the complexity of Bennett family relationships were lost.

GREER AND LARRY, PLEASE.

Larry was devoon!

The 80s BBC was better than the firth one. That one took preposterous liberties with the period. For instance the end when they drive off in an open carriage and make out.

In the early 19th century? She might as well have simply gobbled his penis and been done with it — that would have been no more offensive to public decency.

Andrew Davies wrote the Firth/Ehle adaptation and is widely regarded as the best screenwriter in Britain when it comes to adapting novels.

Before Pride and Prejudice he adapted Middlemarch and House Of Cards, which saw Susannah Harker reach great heights. I still get creeped out at "I want to call you Daddy".

As a rule of thumb, if Andrew Davies has adapted it, it's going to be good.

[quote]For instance the end when they drive off in an open carriage and make out.

"No. But she was ruined just the same."

My vote is for the Indian version called Bride and Prejudice.

R41. there was a scene in the excellent 1995 "Sense and Sensibility" of Marianne and Willoughby out in an open carriage together, not making out, but shrieking with laughter and not caring how many peasants they run down.

People looked at them in horror, an unmarried couple being out without a chaperone, I guess that was the Regency equivalent of twerking in church or something.

A lot of comments seem to come from people who have never read the book. Try it, it’s still one my favourites. The film was shit. Mr. Bennet is a gentleman with a private, inherited, limited income. Not wealthy enough to have an estate full of tenant farmers who would have done all the work (including the pigs) . He has no skills. Georgian gentlemen didn’t DO anything. They rode, hunt, did the London Season if they had a house in town then retired to their country house for the summer until ‘the season’ began again in September and they returned to London.. The Bennett’s only lived in the country but they were still Gentry. This is why the Binghly women despised and mocked Jane for having relatives who’s money came from trade and lived in Cheapside. Even though their Uncle had been elevated to the peerage (making him a gentleman). As for Alison Steadmans over the top portrayal. Read the book. You may change your mind. The mother IS silly and irritating. Mr. Bennett is a disillusioned man. He married a beautiful young woman only to find when the looks quickly faded he was left with a shallow, empty, stupid, woman he had nothing in common with. No heir. Not enough money. The girls only hope was to marry as well as they could. There’s a lot in the book that still resonates today. Try it.

".....if Andrew Davies has adapted it, it's going to be good."

r42, clearly, you have not been watching SANDITON on Masterpiece Theatre.

Though, generally, I agree with you. Davies' adaptation of LITTLE DORRIT is my absolute favorite of his.

[quote]My vote is for the Indian version called Bride and Prejudice.

Martin Henderson was gorgeous in that movie.

R37 - I was just going to mention that version until I saw your post . . .

Good post R46, though I thought Austen let the father off the hook & blamed the family's problems on how silly & stupid Mrs. Bennett was and that the older girls married well in spite of her, not because of her.

All that aside, all of Austen's books chronicle how precarious life was for women, even those of elevated rank, when circumstances left them without $$

The Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version is head and shoulders above all other adaptations, flawed only by the miscasting of Jane Bennet. It also has the added delight of numerous scenes of plenteous VPL bulge by Firth and the delicious Bingley, played by Crispin Bonham-Carter.

Costumes in movie are not right for the era. The good part of film is Mrs Bennett - brenda blythen (sp?) - instead of a complete joke they showed the real fear of having almost old maid daughters. (The poverty of unmarried women)

I also recommend reading the book. If you think the point of a movie is to take liberties with its source material then most versions will please you, the novel has that much substance and relevance still. The same with Sense and Sensibility. When the excellent Emma Thompson adaptation was released I was at a small gathering where literally everyone was gushing over the movie and not a single person had read the novel. I was surprised, not in a snobby way-- Austen isn't everyone's cup of tea-- but because they seemed to respond so enthusiastically to the themes I assumed familiarity with the book.

Having said that I cringe when the adaptations alter or add to the plot or characters. Often the nuance and of Austen is lost. Mrs. Bennet is ridiculous and embarrassing, her prattle and vulgar maneuverings to marry off her daughters having the opposite effect. It's clear what Austen wants us to think about her, and it's not sympathy, although we do feel some toward the end when the consequences of Mr. Bennet's indolence and apathy are fully understood. That's the nuance.

Everyone makes mistakes of pride and prejudice in the novel. Austen was dealing with the world as it was with subtle satire and gentle irony, not railing against unfair traditions like entail and primogeniture, although we know what she feels about them.

[quote]plenteous VPL bulge by Firth and the delicious Bingley, played by Crispin Bonham-Carter.

It's vaguely amusing that Bonham Carter joined Firth in Bridget Jones' Diary, although not as a friend of Darcy.

He stopped acting about 15 ago and trained as a teacher in a state school. A nice man.

[quote] As a rule of thumb, if Andrew Davies has adapted it, it's going to be good.

For a long time that was true, but then he did absolutely shitty adaptations of "A Room with a View" (for television) and "Brideshead revisited" (for film). Both of them had been done so beautifully in the 1980s there was no need for remakes, and his new versions were terrible.

The 40s version was ridiculous as both leads were far too old.

A Room With A View got some poor reviews because of the newly imagined ending but I enjoyed it. It was never going compare to the Merchant Ivory movie but I enjoyed it, especially Sophie Thompson and Rafe Spall. Kenneth Lonergan's TV adaptation of Howards End was also very good.

Brideshead the movie suffered from everything being cramped into a movie just over 2 hours. I always thought Davies was hired because there were issues with Jeremy Brock's script. That was the production where Harvey Weinstein is alleged to described Hayley Atwell a fat pig and Emma Thompson threatened to quit over it.

And I've not seen Sanditon so can't comment.

Davies has adapted P&P, S&S, Emma (Kate Beckinsale) and Northanger Abbey (Felicity Jones & Carey Mulligan)

Mansfield Park (Billie Piper) and Persuasion (Sally Hawkins) were last adapted in 2007. Maybe Davies will have one last attempt.

Amazing to think that there there have been 5 adaptations of Emma since Colin and Jennifer got hot and steamy.

I'm glad to see that someone posted about the 1980 version - on the plus side it has the best Lady Catherine ever in Judy Parfitt (she manages to make her both imperious and slightly ridiculous) and the best Mrs. Bennett. Unfortunately, the guy playing D'Arcy - David Rintoul - is repellent for the most part and so the romance between him and Elizabeth just isn't credible. Also, much of the acting has that 70's/80's BBC elocution recital quality about it.

I also prefer the 1995 version to the 2005 film. Jennifer Ehle is the best of the Elizabeths IMO. Knightly's performance in the film is more appropriate for Lydia than Elizabeth. McFadyen is OK, but Firth is better (McFadyen was better in the BBC LITTLE DORRIT). Unfortunately, the 1995 mini-series has Alison Steadman's crass overacting as Mrs. Bennett, carrying on like someone in a sketch comedy. I can't believe the director didn't get her to tone it down. Even the generally annoying Mary Boland is better in the 1940 film.

I'm another one who is mystified that Jennifer Ehle's career never took off. I've never seen her give a bad performance. I remember her in ZERO DARK THIRTY and wishing the film had been more about her character, which was more interesting and engaging than the cold fish played by Jessica Chastain.

Regarding Andrew Davies, he's past his prime and at this point is not much better than Julian Fellowes - I tried watching SANDITON and gave up after one episode. But when he was good, he was very good, even though he did take a number of liberties with the source material.

The ROOM WITH A VIEW remake was lame, with a leading actress who was even less interesting than the not-quite-a good-actress-yet Helena Bonham Carter was in the film. The only thing the series did better was Rafe Spall as George. He might not be as "dreamy" as Julian Sands, but he was much better in the part.

It's amazing how many adaptations of EMMA there are, and most of them aren't very good. It's a sad comment that the version with Gwyneth Paltrow is better than most of the others (though it does have Jeremy Northam at his hottest - God was he gorgeous!). The one with Romola Garai is hurt by her overly smug, charmless performance. The recent movie with Anya Taylor-Joy is so cleverly self-aware, and ATJ is almost cartoonish in the role.

If you want to see a good version of PERSUASION, see the 1995 film with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. Even with cuts to the plot, this is as strong an adaptation as you'll see.

[quote]If you want to see a good version of PERSUASION, see the 1995 film with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. Even with cuts to the plot, this is as strong an adaptation as you'll see.

Yes! I watch this every other year and it never suffers from repetition. It's tonally perfect if not completely faithful to the source material, adding more dialogue since much of the novel is Anne's thoughts. Absolutely love it.

I barely remember the BBC version. I loved the movie version.

[quote]I'm another one who is mystified that Jennifer Ehle's career never took off. I've never seen her give a bad performance. I remember her in ZERO DARK THIRTY and wishing the film had been more about her character, which was more interesting and engaging than the cold fish played by Jessica Chastain.

She worked consistently through the 90s and then took a break for most of the early 2000s, only making 1 movie (Possession) and appearing in one play (Design For Living). When she returned in 2005 she was working with Kevin Spacey.

She had some big name projects but was in tiny roles. I vaguely remember her from Contagion but mainly because her clips were shared online during the early days of Covid. Have no memory of her as George Clooney's wife in The Ides Of March or in A Little Chaos. She was Geoffrey Rush's wife in The King's Speech.

She was in a series with Patrick Wilson where she played his dead wife which I watched because I had crush on him and one of the Streep daughters was in it briefly but that's about it.

I'm sure she's very content but she's the same age as Renee, Cate, Zeta, Melissa Mc and Natascha McElhone. Unlike Natascha she isn't a tragic widow who had to raise 3 kids by herself.

Re: Susannah Harker, she was perfectly cast, I thought. She actually looks very much like the beauty ideals of the time the series was set. I'm pretty sure they mention this particularly on the book on the series. I really love they did that. All historical adaptations carry the time they are made into them; I think it was an interesting choice to try and miinimise that here. I think there's a number of reasons tis adaptation is so beloved, and the attention to detail is a big one.

Also, that the story is just allowed to be. The 2005 movie has to put "Hollywood-ish" moments into it (Mr and Mrs Bennett really do love each other! Oh here's an upset Mary - who is actually beautiful - and her father is comforting her! I'm surprised they didn't have Miss Bingley tell Lizzie: "I guess deep down I was just jealous of you. Friends?"). It was beautifully shot though.

I feel like Ehle would have made a terrific Queen Elizabeth in the last two series of the Crown - not only does she look like Claire Foy, but she also has that reserve and interiority that I associate with Queen Elizabeth. Olivia Coleman is brilliant and her incredible emotional forthrightness as a performer serves her so well in so many parts, but it was, to me, an uneasy fit for Liz.

The 1940 version has the Bennetts in quite a grand house.

"Good post [R46], though I thought Austen let the father off the hook & blamed the family's problems on how silly & stupid Mrs. Bennett was and that the older girls married well in spite of her, not because of her."

In the book, Lizzie comes to realize that her father has wasted his life and neglected his children, and that most of his daughters' problems are the result of his failure to educate, fund, and properly socialize them... but Lizzie still loves him more than her mother. Sure, the mother is right about the fix the girls are in, but she's annoying, self-centered, embarassing, and demanding, and the father is witty and good company. At the end, Lizzie is pleased to be getting away with her mother, and pleased to see her father coming out of the library and taking an interest in real life, and making a friend of Mr. Darcy.

It's sort of a case of "the father is forgiven everything, the mother nothing", but it's more complex than that. Lizzie and her father are close because they share a common intelligence and sense of humor lacking in the rest of the family, and they love each other... while being totally aware of the other's faults. They're really very well written in the book and the 1995 miniseries, and all that was chucked out of the dreadful 2005 film.

The film version was fine, but not great. Matthew MacFadyen was far too mopey and dour as Darcy. Colin Firth beautifully captured the pent-up heat he had brimming under the surface. Keira Knightley was way too bratty as Elizabeth--her Elizabeth would not have had the stellar individual reputation and respectability that Austen made clear Elizabeth had despite her "connections." Jennifer Ehle conveyed Elizabeth's smartass tendencies while still being so amiable you can see why people like and thought highly of her.

The miniseries has the worst Mrs. Bennett, though. Alison Steadman was just too cartoonish. The film has the worst Charlotte Lucas. That added line "And I'm frightened!" as she explains to Elizabeth why she is marrying Mr. Collins altered the character from the book from a sharp practical woman who understands her situation in life perfectly and makes the best of it, to a desperate and sad one.

As mentioned upthread, the Sense and Sensibility film did a better job than either version in conveying the precarious situation the Bennetts were in. Emma Thompson absolutely deserved that screenplay Oscar.

As far as performances in Austen adaptations, for me the far and away best was Sophie Thompson as Miss Bates in the 1996 Emma. She just nails that character so perfectly--the perfect mix of sweet, pitiable, but slightly annoying. And her reaction this scene always breaks my heart:

Diverting to Emma, briefly: I saw the recent adaptation and loved it. Have seen Clueless and the Gwyneth version above and bits of the others. It's interesting that they all soften the story somewhat. In the book it's made clear that Emma and Harriet are no longer friends by the end of the book because their stations in life mean they just wouldn't be appropriate friends anymore, and Emma and Mr Knightly instead become good friends with Frank Churchill and Jane. All due to position rather than real friendship. That is kinda sad, I thought.

Ang Lee's and Emma Thompson's SENSE AND SENSIBILITY has the best production and costume design of any Austen adaptation.

So there!

The movie was a tedious joke. McFadden was wet, Knightly can’t act ro save herself, and Dench phoned in her performance. The most ridiculous aspect was having the family living and acting like Irish peasants! They were gentry for fucks sake. It made the whole farce even more ridiculous: as if Lady Catherine de Burgh would have associated herself with the likes of them. The BBC production has its flaws, but it’s far and away the best adaption to date, and light years better than the abortion of a movie.

Andrew Davies is going downhill (just like Stephen Fry).

1. He said he'd rather have his actors belch, fart, leer and exchange glances instead of all that endless 19th century verbiage.

2. His last few shows have been made ridiculous by miscasting to comply to the BBC Woke Quotas. The painfully-drawn out 'Sanditon' starred a vacuous proto-Vicky-Pollard with bee-stung-lips.

I’d read somewhere that the director of the 2005 P&P had never read the book. It seemed to me that he was trying to make it relatable to 20-somethings who’d never read it either and who would be bored by the restraint of that era and wanted a bodice-ripper with two hot stars instead. So it’s entertaining but not authentic.

R66, that scene always gets me.

Emma was the first JA I read when I was in my early 20s. I didn’t “get it” at all partly because in my head I envisioned Mr Knightley to look and be like Frank Kennedy, Scarlett’s fussy second husband in GWTW, mutton chop whiskers and all. So young Emma marrying him sounded revolting. I didn’t reread it until after the GP movie and then I could appreciate it.

[quote]I’d read somewhere that the director of the 2005 P&P had never read the book.

Wouldn't surprise me. What I'd read was that he moved the story back in time because he hated the fashions of the actual times.

[quote]The most ridiculous aspect was having the family living and acting like Irish peasants! They were gentry for fucks sake.

In S&S, the Emma Thompson character is actually only 18, but the story needed to age her up, otherwise, a modern audience would be confused as to why an 18 year old would be considered a spinster. Possibly the slovenly way the Bennets are portrayed in the 2005 is meant to make a class distinction with Darcy & Bingley that most viewers would miss.

For whatever it's worth, I remember hearing some interview on NPR that Austen scholars were livid about the 2005 movie, portraying the Bennet girls with elbows on the table & generally being gauche.

Side note: I always felt bad for family nerd Mary Bennet. She got a bad rap

[quote] The painfully-drawn out 'Sanditon' starred a vacuous proto-Vicky-Pollard with bee-stung-lips.

Actually I am liking the second season better than the first. And that actress is gorgeous and a good actor.

[quote]Side note: I always felt bad for family nerd Mary Bennet. She got a bad rap

When the miniseries came out I was a kid and I remember thinking the same. But on reading the book you realise how unpleasant she is and she does bring a lot of it on herself. She's not really a nerd in the sense of someone who likes to read and learn and gets bullied because of it, she really uses knowledge as a way of being supercilious, and she's not really as clever as she thinks she is.

SPOILERS for the book, but in the end it's Kitty who shows the most promise out of the remaining girls. Mary is the one left at home with her parents, and she does improve somewhat due to having to be more social as the remaining girl.

In the 1940 MGM P&P, Mary, played by Marsha Hunt (who is still with us at 100+ years!), is the only character styled with an authentic Regency hairdo (all those sausage curls at the temples) because it was thought to be so unflattering to contemporary audiences.

Sausage Curls made me the beauty that I am.

My Sausage Curls

Technically, the 1995 mini was the most efficiently made adaptation of P&P, but as far as interpretive reading goes, it was an atrocious depiction of what Jane Austen is all about. The Joe Wright's version is an adolescent girl's attempt in rewriting P&P as a Bronte fable. Pauline Kael was actually right when she said that the 1940 movie was more Dickens than Austen. The Andrew Davis take was an uncomfortable attempt at drugging poor Jane into William Thackeray's territory. (Unfortunately, Jennifer Ehle – a fine actress - was playing Elizabeth Bennet as Amelia instead of Becky Sharp, while sour faced Firth was forecasting the later film by playing Darcy as a poor man Mr. Rochester).

There is something elusive in Austen's writing which is best served, dramatically wise, by such unattractive characteristics as subtle humor, restraint, distance, even a touch of alienation. This kind of slightly somber approach doesn't make for a crowd-pleasing candy, but when taken, the results are much better, as was indeed the case of the 1995 version of Persuasion. And the same year Emma Thompson and Ang Lee successfully managed to mask the basic gloominess and subversiveness of their take on S&S in a very sly way.

My favorite filmed version of P&P is still the 1980 mini. Slightly static, heavy going and too studio bound at times, marred by some wooden acting, it is the most intelligent and perceptive reading of the novel (by writer feminist Fay Walden, author of She Devil, whose "Letters to Alice, on first reading Jane Austen" is very illuminating too). It is also the best cast version physically. From Elizabeth Garvie relatively small frame body and huge eyes, perfect for Elizabeth Bennet as written to the striking resemblance between David Rintoul's Darcy and Judy Parfitt's Lady Catherine which demonstrate the fact that she is what he was about to become with age if he hadn't met Elizabeth. And she got the politics and history of the Bennets’ marriage just right – and exactly the opposite way from Andrew Davis' misogynistic take – in hers, Mr. Bennet, who should have known better, is the villain while Mrs. Bennet is doing her best with the limited cards she was dealt. (And while we're at it – it was a match based on physical attraction alone, hence the five children born in six years, an attraction which, on his side, completely succumbed to some kind of a seventh year itch he was having, which she was totally unaware of).

[quote]My favorite filmed version of P&P is still the 1980 mini. Slightly static,

Slightly static? Jesus. It's unwatchable for starters by the appalling performance of whomever is actress who plays Elizabeth. It's an achingly tedious elocution exercise on the level of a wet Saturday matinee in Bumfuckleville.

[quote] tedious elocution exercise

Englishwomen speak differently than American women.

I noticed in the movie version Mary liked, or at least would’ve been open to, Mr. Collins. It was subtle, but it was there.

I didn't get past the first ep of the 1980 version. Looked like cheap production and it was so dull.

In the 1995 miniseries - if you pay attention, Lucy Briers’ (bang-on) Mary is flooding her basement for Mr. Collins throughout.

I hit peak Frau when I watch McFadyen walk across that meadow in the dawn fog and say “I luff-I luff-I luff you.” I also liked Judi as Lady Catherine - she looked like a old lioness covered in makeup. But I love the Firth version as well.

[quote] There is something elusive in Austen's writing which is best served, dramatically wise, by such unattractive characteristics as subtle humor, restraint, distance, even a touch of alienation.

Dramatically wise?

Judi Dench looked like an "old lioness covered in makeup"?? Really?

Funny, my memory is that she looked like she was wearing absolutely NO makeup as Lady Catherine.

Ironic that now Colin and Mathew are in a film together

What’s “makeup?”

Is "makeup" worn on "weekends"?

R88, how is that "ironic?"

R91 It's not. The word seems to mean "funny" or "coincidentally" these days, just as "literally" now means figuratively.

"I noticed in the movie version Mary liked, or at least would’ve been open to, Mr. Collins. It was subtle, but it was there."

Not only was Mary in no position to be picky, if she'd snagged Mr. Collins, she'd have been in a position to save her mother and unmarried sisters from ruin, when her father passed away! So yes, she was keen in the miniseries.

And incidentally, one of the things I like about the 1995 miniseries was that the sisters who were thought of as attractive were all busty and a bit full-figured, while Mary was skinny and flat-chested. Fashions in female beauty change, and in the Regency era a fuller figure was in fashion... and the bod-con dresses of the era were designed to show off every curve.

“In Soviet Russia, cocks gobble YOU!”

Oh sorry about that, wrong thread. ^^^

The Matthew MacFadyen was forgettable, but I guess a good movie for those who like romcoms and don't like books.

BBC miniseries is great, but the mother goes too far and makes repeat viewing almost unbearable. As for Jane, I quite like that she's so odd looking. Beauty standards obviously change; she didn't need to look like Kylie Minogue stuck in a regency dress. The old bat who plays Lady Catherine de B. is very funny. The weak link for me is Colin Firth. Darcy should be handsome, and potato face doesn't do it for me.

I also like the 1980 BBC version and don't mind that it's stagey (makes me nostalgic for Masterpiece Theater). The casting is right in that Elizabeth is a bit mousy and David Rintoul is handsome and supercilious, as Darcy's written.

[quote] I always felt bad for family nerd Mary Bennet. She got a bad rap

I saw a stage version, conceived as a weird farce, in which Mary was played by a man. With many mean (but funny) jokes about her homeliness.

When watching all these versions of P&P I can't get over how old the parents are. Mrs Bennett should probably only be about 40 and yet she's cast as though shes in her 50's/60's.

BBC version with Colin Firth. I still have it on DVD, double disc, and used to watch it once a month many years ago. I still get the urge every once in a while, but I feel the six hours more now. I think it’s on Hulu or HBOMax now so it’s easy to just pause and watch over a few days instead of binging on a Sunday afternoon. I wish The Gilded Age could get the old BBC treatment instead of what we have now.

Well, they always cast daughters who are in their late 20s or 30s!

They do that with every adaptation of Austen or her contemporaries, t hf ey age th d characters to *our* ideas of marriage lessons age, oe being past marriage lessons age. In "Sense and Sensibility" Elsinore is 19 as the book opens, a borderline Old Maid.. she was played by a 35-year-old in the movie.

I AM sorry, I shouldn't even try to post from my phone, on sites with no "edit" button.

The ‘Hand Scene’ that was referenced up thread.

While I appreciate the talent of the miniseries, Mrs. Bennet gives me a headache, and I can never see it to the end. I love the 2005 adaptation, and love Bride & Prejudice too. Yes, I own and have read the book.

The "intellectual" thing is to say the miniseries is better because it is much more faithful to the book. While I thoroughly enjoy it, I enjoy the film a tad more at least as far as a romantic film. The miniseries is good as far as getting to know the characters more and to get more of a "novel"experience. The film is good if you feel like watching an hour and a half love story. Plus the film has beautiful cinematography and music. I would personally watch both if you like the story.

R96 you can like rom coms AND books.

R102 I would dislike the film so much more if the little things they added to give more depth and romance to a much shorter story hadn't been so on point and great. That little moment of their hands touching, the writing in some scenes ("I'm quite fond of walking/Yes, yes I know") and that scene at dawn with them finally getting together are all beautiful. The almost kiss in the proposal/rejection scene and them talking to close to each other during the dance were a bit much though and completely unrealistic.

The movie was awful. The director gave an interview saying Mrs Bennett was the warm beating heart of the family. Utter tosh! I send no regards to him, he deserves no such attention.

[quote]Ironic that now Colin and Mathew are in a film together

NO, it's not "ironic" in any way, shape, or form.

It may be "coincidental," but there is nothing ironic about it.

Clearly, r88 has spent too much time listening to Alanis Morissette.

I rewatch the mini-series every so often along with Persuasion with Ciaran Hinds and the SandS with the chick from Titanic.

I've never read the books but in the SandS movie the old man and lady who give the girls a cottage seem like a married couple but in the BBC series the old guy has a very strange young wife and a ton of kids plus instead of just Lucy she has a sister.

Love Persuasion and the Anne's awful sisters. Ciaran Hinds was so sexy in it.

What was the deal with her sisters? They all dump on her. One is a pretentious snob and the other a hypochondriac and was their cousin Mr. Elliott fucking the companion to get to Anne when the bitch sister would have been more than amenable?

[quote] Clearly, [R88] has spent too much time listening to Alanis Morissette.

Alanis at least captured some semblance of irony in many of her examples—R88 is describing a (perhaps) interesting coincidence.

[quote] Olivia Coleman is brilliant and her incredible emotional forthrightness as a performer serves her so well in so many parts, but it was, to me, an uneasy fit for Liz.

I agree both with your idea Ehle would have made a great Elizabeth II in middle age and that Colman's emotionalism made it very difficult for her to play the Queen in Ehle's place. Her best scenes by far were the ones where she let her mask slip, either to covertly display her exasperation with Margaret Thatcher or her disgust with Charles's selfishness. I do give Colman props for working hard at covering her emotions at other points, such as the episode where she has lunch with all her children and secretly feels alarm at Edward's spitefulness and Andrew's creepy lust for Koo Stark.

I'm curious to see how Imelda Staunton will manage the part. iIthink she'll be better at conveying the queen's crustiness in her later years.

R110, Mr. Elliott takes Mrs. Clay, the companion, as his mistress to keep her from maneuvering Sir Walter into marriage - as she could give Sir Walter a son that would then inherit the estate instead of him.

I just watched the season finale of Sanditon—season 3 is confirmed—and it had more plot in one episode than the entire season. So many storylines wrapped up and characters dispatched never to be seen again. Andrew Davies head must be spinning.

Sanditon was on in the background just now as I was reading my favorite DL posts., especially those over at the Theatre Gossip Thread about the Funny Girl opening tonight. Anyway....I wasn't paying a lot of attention and hadn't seen any Sanditon episodes from this season, didn't much acre for Season 1.....but this episode seemed intriguing. Maybe I need to go back and watch the entire Season 2?

One thing I loved about the 1995 Persuasion was how earthy and realistic all the settings were but in a way that enhanced the story. The leads were older than in the book but it helps to convey the theme more efficiently.

Simon Russell Beale, who played Mary's husband, is gay, and I found the little details of his performance interesting, such as his bromance with Wentworth and his frustration with his self-absorbed wife. I like how they conveyed the marriage of Wentworth's sister and brother-in-law and how it was a kind of template for Wentworth and Anne, with the implication that there wouldn't be children for them either.

R108, Sir John lives with his mother-in-law. In the book he also had a wife and children but Emma Thompson cut them out and made him a widower.

I tried watching a BBC adaptation of Persuasion from the 1970s but Anne had a bouffant hairstyle and it just took me out of it.

[quote] Andrew Davies head must be spinning.

Yes, his head is spinning into senility. He's over-praised and over 85 years OLD.

He's a decrepit geriatric like Dame Maggie.

[quote] Anne had a bouffant hairstyle and it just took me out of it.

Bouffants are as anachronistic in Austen as Dangling Tendrils are anachronistic in anything prior to 1990.

"[R108], Sir John lives with his mother-in-law. In the book he also had a wife and children but Emma Thompson cut them out and made him a widower."

Yeah, one of the things that's usually necessary when adapting a book to the screen is to reduce the number of supporting characters. So Sir John was a widower who was great friends with his cheerful mother-in-law. That's usually necessary, as a reader of a 400-page book can just absorb a lot more detail and information than the viewer of a 2-hour movie.

I'm just glad that they kept Mrs. Jennings and hired someone really wonderful to play her, she was a kind of woman who was hugely important to the young ladies of Regency society, but who's vanished from the modern world, the cheerfully matchmaking busybody who knew everything about everyone, and who really did facilitate the all-important marriages which determined people's economic futures. And marriage was SO much about money then, even more than nowadays, because these people didn't work, they either married money or they inherited it, they couldn't earn it... so the vast majority of them were out to marry for money. The Mrs. Jennings of that world got it done, they not only knew who had feelings whom and who'd done what to their known mistress, they knew exactly how much money every eligible person had at their disposal... and they'd tell the parents! That kind of economic-focused matchmaking has vanished from the world, and just as well, but it was still nice to see it included in a historical film. Because that's how things were back then.

[quote] That kind of economic-focused matchmaking has vanished from the world, and just as well, but it was still nice to see it included in a historical film.

Is it true that dowries were banned in the US in the 1880s?

Elizabeth Spriggs played Mrs. Jennings, she was also in the first Harry Potter movie as the lady in the painting leading to the Gryffindor rooms, but my favorite is her role as Sairy Gamp in Martin Chuzzlewit. She shows up about 2 minutes in.

Elizabeth Spriggs played in almost everything for almost a century. She could have done Eleanor Rooseveldt.

[quote] Maybe I need to go back and watch the entire Season 2?

I was actually very surprised but I did enjoy Season 2 better. This love interest for Charlotte seems more suited and not as abusive as the one in S1. To me you can actually see them falling in love rather than some overnight sudden change.

They have already shot S3. I think I read they are still editing it. They did them back to back. I like that they showed a glimpse at the end of S3.

Mick Fleewood's sister in Persuasion, was very good and such a liberal snob. Lady Elliott had such a menacing way of entering a scene.

I really like the 1999 film of Mansfield Park. Lindsay Duncan played a double role very effectively. When Fanny returns home after so many years, you can feel her revulsion at her family’s slovenly ways whereas before she was very young and accepted it.

My absolute favorite scene is when one of the Bertram girls is involved in a scandal, runs off with a soldier? and Mary Crawford calmly lays out a plan to rehabilitate her image while the rest of the family listens aghast.

It was remade in 2007 with Billy Piper. I haven’t seen it but Billy Piper seems a bit too ripe for the role.

R125 I've been meaning to watch that again. There's a delightful exchange in the film "Metropolitan" where the novel is discussed as being Austen's only "bad book". While it's not my favorite, that doesn't mean it's not great.

What I remember about the movie is how they inserted a bit of sensuality, as well as alluding to the deplorable source of the Bertram's fortune. Usually those kinds of additions shoehorned into a classic for modern sensibilities are a mistake, but it worked here imo.

[quote] I haven’t seen it but Billy Piper seems a bit too ripe for the role.

I have, R125, and Billy Piper's buck teeth and anachronistic, messy hair made her too ugly for the role.

[quote] anachronistic, messy hair

Keira Knightley has messy hair littering over her face in an obvious attempt to hide her concave spoon shaped face and ugly jutting jaw.

I'm re-watching the Colin Firth series for the first time in years. Alison Steadman is shrill and horrible.

How many times can an entail be the basis of a series? I can’t remember the last time I was entailed on.

R126, in Metropolitan, are you sure they weren’t talking about Northanger Abbey? That’s the odd man out for Jane Austen’s books, a satire of the Gothic romance/horror novels popular at the time.

The unfinished Sanditon was also an effort by her to move on from the County families milieu by delving into the world of commerce, establishing a seaside spa.

R131 I'm sure. The character Tom Townsend criticizes how the young people in the novel are reproached and upbraided for merely putting on a play. According to Tom it was Lionel Trilling who called it a "bad book".

Mansfield Park is so dreary. The hero is a preachy bore. But then most of Austen’s heroes are… or else they’re spineless.

Oh, okay. I’d forgotten that part of the story. Although “private theatricals” were a common form of entertainment back then and Austen’s family did them as well, it was a risqué play.

I actually enjoyed Mansfield Park a lot. OTOH I couldn't finish Northanger Abbey, the only Austen I didn't finish; it started well, loved the Bath scenes, but fizzled out and I only had about 50 more pages to go. I just stopped caring and wanted to get on to other reading.

I actually kind of like Northanger Abbey because the heroine is not exactly the prettiest, cleverest or wittiest - she's sort of a nerd with an overactive imagination as I recall. Probably by today's standards, it would be considered young adult literature. Not one of her best works, but still kind of clever

^

[quote] I actually kind of like Northanger Abbey … but still kind of clever

I think Jane Austen would use the word 'rather' than 'kind of'.

I like Northanger Abbey, which is silly and fun, and dislike "Mansfield Park", because it's no fun at all.

The movie of "Mansfield Park" improves on the book a bit, because it's shorter and the heroine is less of a whiny drip, and they take out all those scenes where the hero and heroine take long walks together, and criticize the morals of everyone they know. Oh sure, those scenes definitely give you that "They belong together" feeling, but it doesn't make me like them! Two judgmental prigs may be very happy to have found another judgmental prig, but I don't want to spend time in their company, and I sure as hell don't care about the progress of their romance.

R138, it’s funny how many of Austen’s other heroines sort of remind of the secondary female characters in Pride and Prejudice - Anne in Persuasion seems like a more worldly wise Jane; Dutiful and contained Elinor in Sense and Sensibility is a more “romantic” Charlotte Lucas; high-handed Emma could be a nicer Lady Catherine at 21. Fanny in Mansfield Park feels like 400 pages of a girl who is a half-step up from Mary Bennett.

Are you suggesting, R139, that Jane worked best handling those things she knew about?

[quote]R98 I can't get over how old the parents are. Mrs Bennett should probably only be about 40 and yet she's cast as though shes in her 50's/60's.

Back then, 20 was the new 40.

The real Mrs. Bennett could easily gave *under* 40 at the time of "P&P", if she'd married at 16 or 17, as girls of her class co.monly did. If Jane was 22 as the book opened and she'd married at 16, she might be 39 or 38!

But of course they never cast actresses as young as the characters were described as being.

I take no leave of you, Miss Bennet. I send no compliments to your mother. You deserve no such attention. I am most seriously displeased.

Lick my carriage wearied pussy, Miss Bennet. I said, [italic]lick it!

What would happen to a titled gentleman that got into business. Let's say he wanted to get into coal, rail, or shipping. Would he be ostracized from society? Certainly the country set would have to accept him, given his rank, but would people really turn their nose down to a gentleman that's making bank?

R145. At least in the Regency period if you weren't the first born son to inherit everything and consequently make your money off of rents and agriculture, you had 4 options to make a living and still be considered a gentleman. Any kind of trade was not one of them. Supposedly it was the military (you can buy a commission and get richer still from spoils of war), the law, the clergy, or medicine, which was the most lowly occupation.

R32 he does this...

Banking, maybe? Or investing in various schemes?

Banking was considered lowly and middle-class, because it was a field that allowed Jews to participate. No, it was law, church, medicine, or military, those were called "The Professions", and were considered the only acceptable jobs for a man of the gentry who wanted or needed to... work.

What a Gentleman-with-a-capital-G did was to collect the income from his inheritance and rents from the family lands, and occupy himself with politics, science, history, or some other interest, and do it without being paid. Most politicians were gentlemen who spent more than they earned on their profession, and a great deal of research in scientific and academic subjects was done by "amateur" gentlemen, who were quite serious about their research and who were respected in the field, and who looked down on anyone who got paid to work in the field. And BTW that also held true in sports, there were amateur competitions for gentlemen in various sports, and they were complete snobs about professional athletes who needed to be paid for what they did, and that ridiculous attitude carried into the Olympics through the 20th century...

[quote] Banking was considered lowly and middle-class

High up in a bank? Or sitting in a cage totting up things?

Both, R150.

The idle upper classes didn't think well of bankers, IMHO because they wanted any money they lent to be paid back. Asking for money was so declassee, a gentleman expected his creditors to wait politely until he felt like paying, and not be inconveniently demanding!

Great comment, R139. You might enjoy watching this YouTuber who specializes in analyzing Austen characters.

[quote] Asking for money was so declassee, a gentleman expected his creditors to wait politely

^

I wonder how different that man in the video is from Lord Grantham and the lords of his day?

Side note: I could never figure out in Sense & Sensibility why Edward Ferrars got cut off for being engaged to lowly Lucille, but younger brother Robert gets everything & then *HE* marries the cow! As a literary device to get Edward with Elinor, that doesn't make sense.

It doesn’t make sense but then I could never understand Fanny’s attitude towards Eleanor marrying Edward in the first place since she was her own sister in law. But Edward was no prize. He led Eleanor on even though he was engaged to Lucy. So in that sense he was no better than Willoughby who led Marianne on.

R156, Edward was no great prize but Eleanor wasn't getting a great prize, and he really did do his best to do what his society considered to be the honorable thing. He stuck to the bargain he'd make with Lucy even though it meant giving up everything, and it's not like he deiberately courted Eleanor. He went to visit his sister, he found himself hanging around with Eleanor, and when he realized that feelings were developing he backed off because what else could he do.

I thought the 1990s movie did a great job of establishing Edward's relationship with Lucy and Elinor, and making his actions forgivable.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who loves the 1980 P&P. Ithought they got so much of it right. When I first started watching it, I thought David Rintoul as D'Arcy was pretty wooden, but what I realized later was that we were seeing him through Lizzie's eyes, and by the last episode, he had become practically a Romance Novel Hero. I do love much of the 95 miniseries, but Alison Stegman pretty much ruins it for me.

VIPER IN MY BOSOM!!!!!

R155 that confused me too.

"It doesn’t make sense but then I could never understand Fanny’s attitude towards Eleanor marrying Edward in the first place since she was her own sister in law."

Fanny and Edward's mother wanted Edward to marry grandly, to marry someone with the money and connections that would propel him into a political career (which he didn't want). Eleanor was poor and had no grand connections, plus there was undoubtedly a bit of a reaction formation going on with Fanny, she'd injured Eleanor by chucking her out of the house, so she had to regard Eleanor as a bit of an enemy... and when people are in that position they convince themselves that the person they injured is a horrible human being and deserved it.

As for Edward's mother, Mrs. Farrars, her actions are not so much inconsistent as just plain stupid. She disinherits one son for failing to do what she wants, and as she wasn't willing to disinherit the other one, the second son realized he could get away with anything. So, he marries the same girl that got his older brother disinherited, and can you imagine the toxic relationship between Mrs. Farrars and Lucy Ferrars? One of them probably poisoned the other in the end...

I could never really tell if Lucy was a dumb or a conniving bitch. Which one?

Conniving bitch, of course! With adequate looks, no education, no money, no notable intelligence, but a broad streak of ruthlessness. If she'd been nice and good she'd have ended up like Miss Bates in "Emma", so I can't really hate her for clawing her way to a better life. Sure, she did stick a bit of a knife into Eleanor, but she didn't do it out of nastiness, she did it to protect her claim to the one man who might offer her a way out.

There must have been a lot of Lucy Steeles in Regency England, there were so many girls with little or no money competing for the few men with good incomes, that the competition must have been fierce!

I love both version, both Firth and Macfadyen are excellent Darcy ( Macfadyen is so hot)

I'm pretty sure that the next adapation(if they decide to do one) will be an unwatchable woke hell .

[quote] I'm pretty sure that the next adapation(if they decide to do one) will be an unwatchable woke hell .

Yup. There will be no attempt to accurately re-create the era since it was so racist and sexist. Lizzie needs to be out picketing or chaining herself to a fencepost, and so she shall. In other triggering plot lines, the treatment of Lydia is clearly slut-shaming. In the new version she is scolded for marrying a black man but the Bennets eventually realize in a guess-who's-coming-to-dinner moment that they have learned what love really is, and their own marriage improves. Everyone is hopelessly ablest so Darcy will be noticeably bipolar, possibly autistic. Mind you this is not an updating to modern times, since nobody works and everyone talks with plummy accents to show their white privilege. It's still Regency England, just so much better!

R165 I can see something like that, except that Lydia will run away with a gender fluid non binary black person ( = a woman in men clothes) .

Mr Bingley could be with ambiguous racial heritage.

Jane will be ""curvy"".

Not sure about Mary but i would be surprise if she won't be a lesbian.

And Lizzie friend will be black.

R10- The movie version casted TOO pretty people. Keira seemed so full of herself in the movie- as she was in real life. The mini series was THE best version of Pride And Prejudice ever shown . I saw it when it was first broadcast in the USA on A&E in the spring of 1996- when A&E had some excellent shows - before it became a SHIT channel.

One fault I have with P&P is Lady Catherine's daughter who was supposedly promised to Mr Darcy. I wish we knew a bit more about her. She only has one scene and doesn't say much. In one of the series/movies, she's wearing glasses with dark lenses indoors so, weak eyes? There was something wrong with her but even in the book I couldn't make out what the problem was...mentally deficient? chronic illness? just paralyzingly shy? No one seemed to acknowledge it either.

^ She wasn't technically promised to Mr. Darcy. Their mothers supposedly hoped they would marry, but no formal steps were ever taken to make it happen. In the book Lizzy describes her as "sickly and cross" and she doesn't engage in conversation and seems to have no social skills, so she's either ridiculously haughty or painfully shy. Lady Catherine also reveals she basically has no talents because she was too sick to learn to play music, etc.

I think by revealing so little about her Austen sets us up to believe her overbearing arrogant mother has doomed her to a sad even if wealthy life.

Interesting, r169. I wonder if some academic has done a study of chronic illness in JA's novels. Emma's father (mostly hypochondria), the sister in Persuasion, the poor widowed but still cheery! school friend that Emma visits. I think it was in Emma. Austen herself was in poor health. Illness and early death were very common as were unhappily married women with no other recourse to vent.

R20 Iain Glen has a history of being abusive? I always felt a slight malevolent energy from him...

On topic: I adore the miniseries. Every time I finish it, I wish there was more! I never minded how broad Mrs. Bennet is because she's supposed to be annoying and vulgar; perhaps she wasn't quite period, but as an audience member I perfectly understood why her behavior was so offensive to society people and reflected badly on her daughters. On the negative side, I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought Jane was miscast; the actress was pretty enough in contemporary fashion (example House of Cards), but the Regency styling didn't suit her and her big facial features looked cow-like with the pulled back hair and sausage curls. Also she didn't come off as a quiet but warm young lady; she read more as she's quiet because she's completely dim, which made her seem even more like a cow, spaced out in a field.

The 2005 movie is pretty but Keira Knightly's Elizabeth was bratty and ugly, and McFadden's Darcy was a dope. Rosamund Pike also was a miscast Jane; she naturally has a cool energy (which made her perfect in Gone Girl) and she read much older than her sisters that she seemed like a spinster aunt.

R171 I remember susannah harker ( the miscasted Jane) in another role( i don't remember if it was Midsome Murders or something like that) and she was playing a Femme Fatale role and everyone in there commented how beautiful she was and i really couldn't see it at all.

Then i thought it was a british thing to put not actractive actors/Actresses and playing "lets pretend" as in theatre.