(no subject)
Mar. 12th, 2006 02:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenOkay, in the interest of not spouting off where I haven't evidence to support my opinion, I watched Pride & Prejudice at home this weekend (see, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
feiran, I told you my parents would have bought it almost as soon as it came out).
Where to begin? What wasn't wrong on so many levels? Let's do this bulletin style in hopes I'll be brief (I won't).
Pacing: I spent the entire bloody movie gasping and out of breath. The thing ran. It didn't stop for the niceties of subtlety or depth of character. If there were no moments wasted, perhaps it wouldn't have been so bad, but there's this marathon pace through all the introductions that need to be made to keep the basic story in there, and then....a long pause to admire Keira Knightly randomly standing on the edge of a cliff of no consequence. You can feel the film being warped by the presence of Judi Dench, too. When Lady Catherine is introduced, there is a long pan around her head to reveal Dame Judy, giving her slight, one-noted character (in this adaptation; she is one-note rather, but she has more to say than she's allowed here) undue attention because of the actress.
Oh, the plot points lost to this crazy mad-dash...Can you tell the difference between Lydia or Kitty other than the former is played by a poorly-accented Jena Malone? Blink and you'll miss Lizzy flirting with Wickham. Were the Gardners ever introduced as the Bennet's uncle and aunt before Darcy met them at Pemberly or did we just assume the audience was okay with not knowing until then?
Not only was the pacing relentlessly marathon-esque, the shortcuts they took to make the movie a little less rushed tended to utterly violate the social conventions of the time. Lizzy hiding under the steps with Charlotte? ::groan:: Mrs. Bennet whirling about the place as a drunkard? Lady Catherine paying a call to take Elizabeth to task over her lack of propriety IN THE MIDDLE OF THE F-ING NIGHT!?! Darcy walking around all night and coming to see Elizabeth in the morning when neither of them were dressed? Good God...
Setting and Costumes: For the ignorant, the Bennets are on the poorer side of the gentry. But don't let us forget that they are still members of the gentry. That means they rent out land to tenets. Mr. Bennet has no profession other than landlord. He is not a suburban small farmer. He would not have pigs running about his lawn and geese flying at his guests. Up through the first five minutes of the film, I could almost buy the setting of the Bennet's house, which did a good job of showing a credibly old home that might have fallen into disrepair as a result of relative poverty. The Bennets' dresses being coarser did well to set them apart from the richer dress of Miss Bingley (Miss Darcy wasn't in it enough to use her for comparison, ditto Miss de Bourgh), but the film went too far establishing them as shabby with Elizabeth and stopped there. Jane's dresses, while less rich, were light and airy enough to escape notice (and also were filled out better in, ahem, female areas).
Supporting Cast: Universally poorer than the BBC version. Otherwise, they fell in a range of fair to occasionally awful. Mr. Bennet was probably one of the worst. Donald Sutherland swallowed every line Mr. Bennet had, and he has some genius lines. He remains a crotchety bastard with almost no affection for anyone, Lizzy included (despite the scenes meant to shove her and him together as pals, which felt forced as a result of his inability to emote). Mr. Bingley was probably equally bad. I did like him being shy and stuttering over his words--it's an interesting take on the character to make him verbally trip up on himself, even if it's not supported textually--but he was turned into a fop. Bingley is a sweet character of sincere intention; it's cruel to turn him into a flat, giddy 'gentleman'--why would Jane be so attached to him were he so shallow? She's not Lydia or Kitty...
Miss Bingley was better. Her cattiness was evil and biting, though a bit hammy in parts. Wickham seeming to be sincere in his regret about his past behavior flies in the face of the textual reading to make him more sympathetic. It didn't really matter, though, as he barely had any role at all to play save being a villain to contrast against the dutiful Darcy. Mr. Collins was deplorable, which was a fair read, though less mind-numbingly sycophantic than he's built to be. Lady Catherine was fair, Mrs. Bennet about the same, and I've no objections at all to Miss Darcy.
But Charlotte Lucas!!! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO YOU MY DEAR? The actress was not at all to fault--for the part she was given, she did an accurate read. It's how they cut her character for this novel. They made her hideous, fine. They mutilated her rational side? Less fine. Charlotte is an important character to have as a counter-point to the rest of the women around her. She is not mercenary like Miss Bingley or Mrs. Bennet; she is not romantic like Jane or Lizzy; she is not boy-crazy as Lydia and Kitty are. She is a realist. She sees marriage as an institution for exactly what it was in that era. It was often unhappy, built around alliances and need for money. Charlotte accepts Mr. Collins' proposal because he has a comfortable living with an inheritance to come from the Bennets' holdings, a secure position in his profession, and, despite his behavior, is accepted in society. These considerations offset his toadying up to Lady Catherine, his self-important sermonizing, and his lack of physical attraction. End of story. There is no guilt or personal insecurity in Charlotte accepting him, only that she is aware of the unliklihood of receiving a better offer of marriage under the conventions of the time. Making her insecure about her appearance as the base of her accepting Collins? As the source of her friction with the "beautiful" Lizzy? RIDONKULOUS.
Romantic Chemistry: Are you kidding? Jane was fetching enough, and dazzled by Bingley credibly. But Darcy and Elizabeth? Where they weren't being awkward around each other to a painfully unromantic degree, they were spouting off such trite, sappy dialogue about loving each other it made me cringe. Have you ever seen one of those old movies that managed to take a leading lady who was fully clothed seem more sexy than a Playboy pin-up by the way she enunciated, cast significant looks, or even just moved? That's how I feel the 1995 Pride and Prejudice Elizabeth and Darcy compare in their romance to Pride & Prejudice's Keira and Darcy. Elizabeth and Darcy hardly even touched in the BBC version, and yet you could feel the tension radiate off them. Keira has to fawn all over Darcy, and he has to move forward and threaten her personal space to carry across his feeling. And the ends aren't even close to a competition. Elizabeth and Darcy putting aside their now-friendly animosity and challenge to one another for that first kiss we see in the BBC version versus Keira pawing Darcy's bare leg and then trying to banter some more? Gag me.
Elizabeth Bennet: When you nominate her for an Oscar, she becomes a category all on her own for critique. I cannot for the life of me figure out how they deemed her deserving. She plays Lizzy as a flighty girl, when the character is well beloved in literary history for her forthright steadiness (the challenge to which is the source of much tension in the story and most of it between her and Darcy). Every time Keira Knightly attempts to be angry, she juts out her lower jaw like some weight-challenged pug dog. She spits out lines like one, too--you can almost follow the rar-rar-rar-rar-rar along with the short yipping of an angry puppy of no stature at all with the way she delivers lines.
Yet allow me to surprise everyone and confess there was something I enjoyed about Pride & Prejudice: Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy. I sincerely loved the vulnerability of his Darcy. It's against the grain of Elizabeth's impression, but it's a fair reading of the character who is, by his own admission, a shy sort in unfamiliar company. He shows effectively how Elizabeth unnerves him. And his opener adoration and dotage on Georgiana is touching, if a tad out of period. When he proposes to Elizabeth the first time and she rebuffs him, his disappointment bordering on despair and desolation is tangible enough to move me to pity. And that's not a small feat given all that came before that point. Bravo to him. He's still not handsome enough to be Darcy, nor are his line readings where Darcy is supposed to be arrogant proud enough, but he is a sympathetic cut of the character, and a new take that might have worked when buoyed with a stronger edit of the story and a better lady opposite him.
Otherwise, this movie would do best as a coaster. Or as pollution in a swamp--as in that's where the DVDs should end up.
feiran, I told you my parents would have bought it almost as soon as it came out).Where to begin? What wasn't wrong on so many levels? Let's do this bulletin style in hopes I'll be brief (I won't).
Pacing: I spent the entire bloody movie gasping and out of breath. The thing ran. It didn't stop for the niceties of subtlety or depth of character. If there were no moments wasted, perhaps it wouldn't have been so bad, but there's this marathon pace through all the introductions that need to be made to keep the basic story in there, and then....a long pause to admire Keira Knightly randomly standing on the edge of a cliff of no consequence. You can feel the film being warped by the presence of Judi Dench, too. When Lady Catherine is introduced, there is a long pan around her head to reveal Dame Judy, giving her slight, one-noted character (in this adaptation; she is one-note rather, but she has more to say than she's allowed here) undue attention because of the actress.
Oh, the plot points lost to this crazy mad-dash...Can you tell the difference between Lydia or Kitty other than the former is played by a poorly-accented Jena Malone? Blink and you'll miss Lizzy flirting with Wickham. Were the Gardners ever introduced as the Bennet's uncle and aunt before Darcy met them at Pemberly or did we just assume the audience was okay with not knowing until then?
Not only was the pacing relentlessly marathon-esque, the shortcuts they took to make the movie a little less rushed tended to utterly violate the social conventions of the time. Lizzy hiding under the steps with Charlotte? ::groan:: Mrs. Bennet whirling about the place as a drunkard? Lady Catherine paying a call to take Elizabeth to task over her lack of propriety IN THE MIDDLE OF THE F-ING NIGHT!?! Darcy walking around all night and coming to see Elizabeth in the morning when neither of them were dressed? Good God...
Setting and Costumes: For the ignorant, the Bennets are on the poorer side of the gentry. But don't let us forget that they are still members of the gentry. That means they rent out land to tenets. Mr. Bennet has no profession other than landlord. He is not a suburban small farmer. He would not have pigs running about his lawn and geese flying at his guests. Up through the first five minutes of the film, I could almost buy the setting of the Bennet's house, which did a good job of showing a credibly old home that might have fallen into disrepair as a result of relative poverty. The Bennets' dresses being coarser did well to set them apart from the richer dress of Miss Bingley (Miss Darcy wasn't in it enough to use her for comparison, ditto Miss de Bourgh), but the film went too far establishing them as shabby with Elizabeth and stopped there. Jane's dresses, while less rich, were light and airy enough to escape notice (and also were filled out better in, ahem, female areas).
Supporting Cast: Universally poorer than the BBC version. Otherwise, they fell in a range of fair to occasionally awful. Mr. Bennet was probably one of the worst. Donald Sutherland swallowed every line Mr. Bennet had, and he has some genius lines. He remains a crotchety bastard with almost no affection for anyone, Lizzy included (despite the scenes meant to shove her and him together as pals, which felt forced as a result of his inability to emote). Mr. Bingley was probably equally bad. I did like him being shy and stuttering over his words--it's an interesting take on the character to make him verbally trip up on himself, even if it's not supported textually--but he was turned into a fop. Bingley is a sweet character of sincere intention; it's cruel to turn him into a flat, giddy 'gentleman'--why would Jane be so attached to him were he so shallow? She's not Lydia or Kitty...
Miss Bingley was better. Her cattiness was evil and biting, though a bit hammy in parts. Wickham seeming to be sincere in his regret about his past behavior flies in the face of the textual reading to make him more sympathetic. It didn't really matter, though, as he barely had any role at all to play save being a villain to contrast against the dutiful Darcy. Mr. Collins was deplorable, which was a fair read, though less mind-numbingly sycophantic than he's built to be. Lady Catherine was fair, Mrs. Bennet about the same, and I've no objections at all to Miss Darcy.
But Charlotte Lucas!!! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO YOU MY DEAR? The actress was not at all to fault--for the part she was given, she did an accurate read. It's how they cut her character for this novel. They made her hideous, fine. They mutilated her rational side? Less fine. Charlotte is an important character to have as a counter-point to the rest of the women around her. She is not mercenary like Miss Bingley or Mrs. Bennet; she is not romantic like Jane or Lizzy; she is not boy-crazy as Lydia and Kitty are. She is a realist. She sees marriage as an institution for exactly what it was in that era. It was often unhappy, built around alliances and need for money. Charlotte accepts Mr. Collins' proposal because he has a comfortable living with an inheritance to come from the Bennets' holdings, a secure position in his profession, and, despite his behavior, is accepted in society. These considerations offset his toadying up to Lady Catherine, his self-important sermonizing, and his lack of physical attraction. End of story. There is no guilt or personal insecurity in Charlotte accepting him, only that she is aware of the unliklihood of receiving a better offer of marriage under the conventions of the time. Making her insecure about her appearance as the base of her accepting Collins? As the source of her friction with the "beautiful" Lizzy? RIDONKULOUS.
Romantic Chemistry: Are you kidding? Jane was fetching enough, and dazzled by Bingley credibly. But Darcy and Elizabeth? Where they weren't being awkward around each other to a painfully unromantic degree, they were spouting off such trite, sappy dialogue about loving each other it made me cringe. Have you ever seen one of those old movies that managed to take a leading lady who was fully clothed seem more sexy than a Playboy pin-up by the way she enunciated, cast significant looks, or even just moved? That's how I feel the 1995 Pride and Prejudice Elizabeth and Darcy compare in their romance to Pride & Prejudice's Keira and Darcy. Elizabeth and Darcy hardly even touched in the BBC version, and yet you could feel the tension radiate off them. Keira has to fawn all over Darcy, and he has to move forward and threaten her personal space to carry across his feeling. And the ends aren't even close to a competition. Elizabeth and Darcy putting aside their now-friendly animosity and challenge to one another for that first kiss we see in the BBC version versus Keira pawing Darcy's bare leg and then trying to banter some more? Gag me.
Elizabeth Bennet: When you nominate her for an Oscar, she becomes a category all on her own for critique. I cannot for the life of me figure out how they deemed her deserving. She plays Lizzy as a flighty girl, when the character is well beloved in literary history for her forthright steadiness (the challenge to which is the source of much tension in the story and most of it between her and Darcy). Every time Keira Knightly attempts to be angry, she juts out her lower jaw like some weight-challenged pug dog. She spits out lines like one, too--you can almost follow the rar-rar-rar-rar-rar along with the short yipping of an angry puppy of no stature at all with the way she delivers lines.
Yet allow me to surprise everyone and confess there was something I enjoyed about Pride & Prejudice: Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy. I sincerely loved the vulnerability of his Darcy. It's against the grain of Elizabeth's impression, but it's a fair reading of the character who is, by his own admission, a shy sort in unfamiliar company. He shows effectively how Elizabeth unnerves him. And his opener adoration and dotage on Georgiana is touching, if a tad out of period. When he proposes to Elizabeth the first time and she rebuffs him, his disappointment bordering on despair and desolation is tangible enough to move me to pity. And that's not a small feat given all that came before that point. Bravo to him. He's still not handsome enough to be Darcy, nor are his line readings where Darcy is supposed to be arrogant proud enough, but he is a sympathetic cut of the character, and a new take that might have worked when buoyed with a stronger edit of the story and a better lady opposite him.
Otherwise, this movie would do best as a coaster. Or as pollution in a swamp--as in that's where the DVDs should end up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 06:16 pm (UTC)You know that part in "When Harry Met Sally..." where Carrie Fisher's character is talking about the wagon-wheel coffee table, and she says, "It's so awful I can't even begin to explain what's so awful about it"? That's exactly how I felt after seeing the new film version of "Pride and Prejudice."
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 07:41 pm (UTC)Why is it we can't cut through the bullshit ever? We sit and roll our eyes at modern romantic comedies that fall prey to these conventions, but we forgive them so long as the story is borrowed from literature and strangled until its corpse resembles a modern story?
Gag me.