Pride and Prejudice (2005)

After the phenomenal success of the iconic 1995 BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice, several modern versions of Jane Austen’s story emerged: Bridget Jones’s Diary in 2001, Pride and Prejudice the Latter-Day Comedy in 2003, and Bride and Prejudice in 2004. After ten years, studios decided it was about time for another straightforward adaptation. Actually, taking into account that most Pride and Prejudice adaptations have been serials or made-for-TV movies, it had been 65 years. The Pride and Prejudice film made in 2005 and its predecessor, the 1940 Laurence Olivier version, share the distinction as being the only two surviving, straightforward theatrical adaptations of the beloved novel.

Keira Knightley, in her Oscar-nominated performance, plays a softspoken, observant Elizabeth Bennett. Possibly taking a cue from Jennider Ehle of 1995 fame, her eyes follow everything that happens around her, trying to gauge other people’s thoughts and intentions. A running gag throughout the film involves the Bennett sisters and mother eavesdropping whenever something important or at least gossip-worthy is being said. But Elizabeth, not content to remain behind cracked doors, looks other people in the eye. She reads, but is secure enough in herself to not brag about it and label herself as an “accomplished” woman.

The camera itself seems to be an extension of Elizabeth Bennett’s personality. Characters are blocked and framed strategically from scene to scene, presented in different angles. And with the exquisite Oscar-nominated art direction and costume design, there is a lot for the camera to see.

With only 127 minutes to cram the content of a five-part book into a faithful adaptation, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice cannot focus on the supporting characters with the same intensity as the 1995 six-hour BBC miniseries. Jane Bennett (Rosamund Pike) is understated, nice and pretty but a little clueless, and a perfect match for the wholesome, cheerful Bingly (Simon Woods) whose hair looks like he is going to break out singing “Never Gonna Give You Up” at any point in the movie. His best friend and foil, Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyan), is unimpressed by society and alternately stuck up or socially awkward. His sister Caroline Bingley (Kelly Reilly) is not the overtly snobby primadonna from previous versions – she is the passive-aggressive “friend” who just might stab you in the back. And she does.

With little time to establish character through dialogue and interactions, Joe Wright and company do their best with quick but effective visual impressions. In one scene, the Bennett women line up on the couch with Mrs. Bennett, Kitty, and Lydia smiling in bright pastels in contrast to Mary, who wears gray and frowns and rolls her eyes. Interestingly, this is the only adaptation that touches on Kitty’s change at the end of the book. After Lydia is married and Kitty is effectively grounded, the latter sulks and pouts and begins to act more like Mary.

One of my favorite aspects of director Joe Wright and writer Deborah Moggach’s interpretation was Lizzie Bennett’s connection to nature. In the opening scene, she is walking by herself, reading a book. Most of her important scenes happen outdoors by the pond or at the tranquil tree trunk. Mr. Collins proposes to her inside the house, but Mr. Darcy proposes (twice) outdoors. This unspoken aspect of her character is very important to her motives regarding Pemberley – she does not want Mr. Darcy for his money, per se. She admires Mr. Darcy’s land and his taste in art; Pemberley is a personality match rather than a financial match. As they admit to each other toward the end, they both have faults; they are similar and stubborn. Their personalities and tastes have much in common.

As I was watching this film, I really wanted to like it. Wright and Moggach took on an ambitious project in adapting the five-part novel into a theatrical feature film – the only one besides the looser 1940 version. They did a great job of cramming all the major plot points and characters into the limited time. The actors were good, the production design was beautiful, and the cinematography was beautiful – by all counts a high production value. Something was missing though… and that something was humor. Aside from a bit of comic relief from Mrs. Bennett and the youngest sisters, this is a very serious and dramatic interpretation of Pride and Prejudice.

Lady Catherine de Bourg is a prime example of the noticeable change in tone. In the 1940 version, she is a loud, quirky spinster. In the 1995 miniseries, she is an angry and petty aristocrat who has no idea how pathetic she is. In the 2005 movie, Lady Catherine is flat out villainous. The unflattering lighting on the confrontation scene presents her as a real threat to Elizabeth, psychologically if not practically. Most famous for her role as “M” in the last several James Bond films, Judi Dench effectively brings her commanding presence (and a monster wig) to Lizzie’s antagonist.

Even Mr. Collins, who is typically played for over-the-top comedy, is serious in this film. He delivers his lines flatly, even “the violence of my affections.” He advertises his lack of originality not only by name-dropping Lady Catherine, but by reading hours of Fordyce’s Sermons instead of writing his own.

Unlike other adaptations, which satirize the lives of upper-middle-class country gentry who rely on marriage for money and make drama of their lives of leisure, the Bennetts are shown to actually work for a living. Longborne is a working farm as well as a house. The film also highlights the class differences between the dances. The first dance, held out in the country, has a rustic atmosphere where the participants part for Bingly, Caroline, and Darcy like the Red Sea. Another dance takes place in an ornate ballroom. The odds of Elizabeth getting together with the wealthy Mr. Darcy are visually staggering. The “rags to riches” narrative works well here, but it tends to overpower the primary satire.

The latest Pride and Prejudice is beautiful to watch. It is refreshing to see a literary adaptation that dares to experiment with different camera techniques and designs rather than being merely safe and educational, and it does a good job bringing out characters with so little screen time. Like so many adaptations, it is a good film by itself, but it fails to capture much of the feeling and essence of the source material.

Bride and Prejudice (2004)

“All mothers think a guy with big bucks must be shopping for a wife.” So says Lalita Bahksi, the Lizzie Bennett of a modernized Pride and Prejudice set in the age of text messages, online matchmaking sites, and international flights where the Bennetts are Indians, Bingly is British, and Darcy is an American.

Even though it is described as such, Bride and Prejudice is not technically a Bollywood film. Even though it takes place in India and had collaboration of Indian actors and crew, the director Gurinder Chadha (Bend It Like Beckham) is a British citizen, most of the movie was filmed in the United Kingdom for contractual reasons, the language is English, and distribution was picked up by the American company Miramax.

Chadha and her co-writer husband Paul Mayeda Berges, however, are no strangers to Indian film and culture, and the movie does have a Bollywood feel. While not a literal adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, it brings a unique joyful and colorful angle to the story with plenty of song, dance, and beautiful dresses – elements within Jane Austen’s original Pride and Prejudice as well.

The Bennett family are the Bakhsis of India – eldest Jaya (Namrata Shirodkar), skeptical Lalita (Aishwarya Rai), nerdy Maya (Meghna Kothari), and boy-crazy Lahki (Peeya Rai Chowdhary). It is easy to guess their equivalent Austen characters (there is no Kitty, however). Mrs. Bakhsi (Nadira Babbar) is eager to get her daughters married, but not out of impending financial circumstances like the novel.

Mr. Balraj (Naveen Andrews), the Mr. Bingly character, is a wealthy Englishman who immediately takes a liking to Jaya. His sister Kiran, on the other hand, is disdainful of India, and his best friend along for the ride – William Darcy, played by Martin Henderson – is the textbook definition of an Ugly American. At least Lalita thinks so. Judging from one or two ignorant offhand remarks, she has him pegged as a colonist who looks down on Indian women as “simple and traditional.”

Later, Lalita meets another Westerner named Johnny Wickham (Daniel Gillies), and they bond over their mutual disdain of Mr. Darcy. Lalita wants to believe he is a good guy, and he does appear to respect Indian culture. As it ultimately turns out, of course, Johnny Wickham is just superficially politically correct in order to get what he wants. He plays with Lalita’s heart, then stops emailing. He has a thing for teenaged girls, attempting to run away with the naïve Lahki after his past when he got Mark Darcy’s sixteen-year-old younger sister pregnant.

Meanwhile, Mr. Darcy – properly chided for his relatively harmless ignorance – turns out to be a good guy. “You’ve got me all wrong,” he says to Lahki, trying consistently to get her attention. He exchanges his first-class seat with Mrs. Bennett (who is thrilled for the opportunity to be among the VIPs), and he is open-minded after all. After having stereotyped him as narrow, Lalita is surprised when their first date in California is at a mariachi restaurant. He even helps Lalita chase Wickham and Lahki through London, culimating in a fistfight at a Bollywood movie theater. The biggest impediment to his getting together with Lahki is his mother, Catherine Darcy (Marsha Mason), a California hotel mogul who believes yoga and Deepak Chopra are all there is to appreciate about India.

Beyond the main Darcy and Elizabeth plot, the hilarious supporting characters steal the show in a couple of scenes. Mr. Kholi (Nitin Ganatra) is the most over-the-top Mr. Collins ever, as a flamoyant Indian-American businessman who has come to the subcontinent from California to find a wife. “Don’t say anything too intelligent,” Lahki’s mother tells her. Mr. Kholi dominates the dinner table with descriptions of his mansion and wealth in the United States – similar to Mr. Collins taking pride in his connection to Lady Catherine. Lahki avoids him like the plague, and she sees him wearing a red American Flag speedo in her dreams. Her best friend Chandra Lamba – Charlotte Lucas – doesn’t mind at all and marries him for his money.

Another scene-stealer is the otherwise reserved Maya. Instead of playing piano, she performs an awesomely bad “cobra dance” until her father tells her that is enough.

The comedy and closeness of Lahki’s family distinguishes Bride and Prejudice from the other modern adaptation, Bridget Jones’s Diary, which is even more loose. While Bridget stays alone in her apartment, occasionally hanging out with her parents, Lahki is always around her family, and the sisters are very close to each other. Mark Darcy notices this, commenting to Lahki that India has close families, unlike America. While setting Pride and Prejudice in a non-Western backdrop may seem like a novelty, it actually works better in some ways because of the importance and closeness of the large family to the story.

The conflict between the Indian characters and the Western or Westernized characters also reflects the conflict between the rural and urban characters in Austen’s world. Like Lahki in the movie, Elizabeth Bennett would have been highly skeptical of city people like Mr. Darcy possibly trying to impose their wealth, culture, fashion, and attitude of superiority on the country people, who were often unfairly regarded as backward.

Like the 1940 Pride and Prejudice, this is a light-hearted adaptation where nothing bad happens and where obvious moralizing replaces wit and satire. And like the Beatles musical tribute Across the Universe, the film is worth seeing for the glamorous visuals and the dance numbers, along with some hilarious moments, if one can forgive its often painfully on-the-nose dialogue. The plot is fairly straightforward, so there are no surprises for people who have read the book and/or seen any other Pride and Prejudice movies. This is a movie definitely driven by its lavish production design and choreography, straightforward fun for popcorn rather than for analysis.