Pride and Prejudice (1940)

            The oldest surviving adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice may well be the most postmodern. By that, I mean it plays on the subjectivity of words, right from the opening scene. The Bennetts are all in a room, talking about the arrival of Mr. Bingly and Mr. Darcy, speculating on what this could mean for them. It does not actually show the men arriving. Whether this is indicative of a low budget or a purposeful breaking of the “show not tell” rule of screenwriting, it is not easy to tell for sure.  However, Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World, is one of the main credited screenwriters – so this was not a screenplay thrown together by amateurs.

Another controversy about Robert Z. Leonard’s film is the costuming – the ridiculously poofy hoop skirts don’t match the original novel’s time period. According to the New York Times, the setting was changed from 1813 to 1835 to fit the costumes. Urban legend has it that, because of budget restrictions, Pride and Prejudice used recycled costumes from other period pieces like Gone With the Wind. It is also possible that the flamboyant and heavy costumes were an intentional aesthetic choice to highlight the extravagance and weight of social class in the story.

Even though the film won an Oscar for Best Black and White Art Direction, it does not play into this type of cinematography as well as Wuthering Heights and Rebecca. One character even mentions Elizabeth’s “blue” dress. It has the atmosphere of a film that perhaps should have been filmed in Technicolor – but again, it is only 1940 and we may be looking at budget restrictions. Far from being a B-movie, however, Pride and Prejudice was generally well-received by critics. While this basically good critical perception continues today, it is far from any Top 100 lists or suggested film school viewing. It is the kind of film where people who automatically love old black and white movies, as well as people who automatically hate old black and white movies, will have their existing prejudices affirmed.

            After playing Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights and Mr. Rochester (sort of) in Rebecca, Laurence Olivier is back as another literary heartthrob: Mr. Darcy. While he has his moments, this is one of his relatively weaker performances. Sometimes he goes a bit far with the stoic and distant role to the point where he seems to be channeling Keanu Reeves from the future.

            Mr. Darcy’s role is somewhat undermined, anyway, since Lizzie’s main conflict is with Caroline Bingley (Frieda Inescort). In contrast to the ditzy Bennetts, Caroline’s persona is that of a low-voiced, stuck-up, stereotypical Old Hollywood siren.

            While Caroline Bingley takes comfort in her social sophistication and being above “the rustics,” Lizzie Bennett (Greer Garson, Mrs. Miniver) is a strong and independent woman. In 1940, this means a prototype of Rosie the Riveter, energetic and able to outscore Mr. Darcy in an archery match. “To be refined you have to be dead,” she tells Caroline as she shoots. “There’s no one more dignified than a mummy.” There is definitely a black dress/white dress morality here – Caroline and Lady Catherine wear dark clothing, while the other ladies wear lighter colors.

            The film has other instances of content that varies from the original book. One reason for this is that the script was based most directly on the stage play for the book more so than the book itself. Part of the content changed also included modifications to fit the Hays Code. Since the Production Code forbade negative portrayals of clergy, Mr. Collins was changed from a preacher to a random “pudding-face” whom the sisters have seen for the first time. Other content is to fit the slapstick humor of Old Hollywood comedies: Kitty and Lydia get drunk on punch, Darcy “saves” Lizzie from being chased by Mr. Collins during outdoor games, and Lady Catherine trips on things before confronting Lizzie. Together with the jaunty, happy music, the content serves to create a very light and comedic interpretation of Pride and Prejudice. Everything is light and happy; one does not get the sense that the Bennett sisters are in any serious financial danger. All the girls get paired up at the end: even Kitty gets her own officer, and Mary lands another music nerd. There is a little bit of satire, but it tends to be on the nose and less interesting.

            Another “old Hollywood” comic scene shows the doctor diagnosing Jane with some intimidating big words. Bingly translates it to Jane in plain English: she has a simple head cold. This serves not only as part of the humor, but to reinforce the theme about the relativity of words. In another exchange, Mr. Darcy tells Elizabeth that honor and dignity should go without saying – contrasting himself with the deceptive Mr. Wickham. It is possible that the “blue” dress remark in the black-and-white film might have been intentional after all.

            The film’s most noticeable variation is its ending and its interpretation of Lady Catherine. A squawking parrot and breaking vases herald her entrance to confront Lizzie Bennett, signaling that she is not to be taken very seriously. After their argument, Lady Catherine steps outside, away from Lizzie’s sight, and cues Mr. Darcy about the exchange and Lizzie’s obvious affection so he can propose to her. “What you need is a woman who will stand up to you,” she says. “I think you have found her.”

            While this take on Lady Catherine is a stretch, it does not actually contradict the book – where Lady Catherine somehow knew about Mr. Darcy’s plans to propose, and where Mr. Darcy somehow showed up soon afterward, apparently confident that Lizzie will receive him. Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is about questioning first impressions based on limited knowledge. Darcy is exonerated from his apparent snobbery directly in the text. The film opens up the possibility that Lady Catherine, traditionally perceived as the villain, is herself unfairly judged by the readers – that she is a behind-the-scenes ally in the story apart from the information directly given in the words of the text.

            The 1940 film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice has some humorous moments and gives the audience some themes to think about, but overall, the execution is nothing exceptional and the tone is very light. By itself, the film is a minor classic. As an adaptation, it wants much of the original’s hard-hitting satire. While today’s readers may perceive Austen’s novel as a polite book for polite people, it was sharp and controversial for its time – something this movie seems to have missed.

 

Sources:

Internet Movie Database

New York Times (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/39130/Pride-and-Prejudice/overview)