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.