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.

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

Like Rebecca, the romantic comedy Bridget Jones’s Diary is an adaptation of an adaptation. Specifically, this film directed by Sharon Maguire is based on Helen Fielding’s “chick lit” novel of the same name. Fielding has always been open about her inspiration from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Even further, Fielding admitted inspiration specifically from the 1995 BBC miniseries with its ironic Mr. Darcy played by Colin Firth. Like Joan Fontaine in both Rebecca and Jane Eyre, Colin Firth’s casting in Bridget Jones’s Diary emphasizes the similarities between the modern adaptation and the original novel. Fielding herself wrote the film’s screenplay with help from Richard Curtis and also Andrew Davies, the award-winning scribe from the BBC miniseries itself.

The story’s plot focuses on the Darcy/Lizzie/Wickham love triangle. Renee Zellweger in her Oscar-nominated leading role is the loose equivalent of Elizabeth Bennett, but she feels less like the specific character and more like a modern Everywoman who frets about her weight, listens to sappy pop music during certain moods, and dreads becoming a spinster – unlike Lizzie, who is less concerned about what others think and who initially says she will never marry. It is interesting to note that female protagonists in modern re-imaginings of literature tend to be less strong and confident than the originals. It is counterintuitive, but generally true: Elizabeth is a much stronger character than Bridget Jones, Jane Eyre is more confident than the second Mrs. DeWinter in Rebecca, and Elizabeth is again much more active than Bella Swan in Twilight.

One thing she does have in common with Elizabeth, however, is her verbal wit and tendency to make unfounded assumptions about people – good or bad. Set up by their parents at a New Year’s gathering, Bridget and the lawyer Mark Darcy reluctantly meet. Bridget immediately judges Mark Darcy by his ugly reindeer sweater. While Mr. Darcy does not call the protagonist “tolerable” this time around, he does call her “a verbally incontinent spinster who smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish, and dresses like her mother.” His character is considerably different from the other Mr. Darcy, however. Instead of the easily handsome original, his character takes on the role of the less obviously attractive “nice guy” who does not have the same way with women as his rival.

Bridget further lowers her opinion of Mr. Darcy upon hearing Daniel Cleaver’s story about their past friendship, without hearing Darcy’s side which is, of course, the true side. She knows theoretically that he is everything that can go wrong in a relationship, but she falls for him anyway. Pride and Prejudice adaptations have tended to cast Mr. Wickham as an afterthought; Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingly seem to get the most attention with Wickham as a side plot. Here, however, Hugh Grant brings out all this character’s charisma and seductive personality. Like Colin Firth, he contributes a familiarity to Austen material: he played Samuel Faulker in the 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility.

With emphasis on these three characters, Bridget/Lizzie’s siblings are noticeably missing. Family relationships are important in the original Pride and Prejudice, but Bridget Jones’s Diary reflects more modern times where families are smaller and more separated. Bridget is an only child who lives alone. She has several close friends, but it is not the same, and at times she finds herself belting along with the radio about being “all by myself.”

However, in many ways, Bridget’s mum (Gemma Jones) takes on the roles of Mrs. Bennett and Lydia Bennett. Besides trying to set up her daughter with suitors, she herself runs off with a lover – an infomercial salesman – and causes a scandal for her poor taste if not for her obvious betrayal of marital vows. This conglomeration is not simply an expedient way to touch on two different characters, but a method of interpretation connecting the novel’s Mrs. Bennett and Lydia Bennett. In Austen’s book, the mother is just as ditzy as the daughter. Mrs. Bennett was probably like Lydia as a child, and Lydia will probably grow up to be like Mrs. Bennett. When Bridget’s mum comes home, her husband admits he should have been more attentive to her – highlighting Mr. Bennett’s similar weakness from the novel.

A few other supporting characters touch on loose similarities with the characters. Mary Bennett is reflected in one of Bridget’s friends, a gay ‘80s one-hit wonder pop singer who thinks he is more famous than he really is. Bridget has a creepy coworker Mr. Fitzbergert who flirts and makes passes at her, somewhat like Elizabeth Bennett’s repulsive cousin Mr. Collins.

In terms of tone and atmosphere, Bridget Jones’s Diary picks up on some of Jane Austen’s sarcastic style with the voiceovers. While having lots of narration is usually a very basic screenwriting no-no, Bridget’s thoughts add wit and personality to the BAFTA-nominated script. They also serve to satirize the social rules.

The 21^st Century does not have the same repressive mores lampooned in Jane Austen’s time period, but it does have “The Rules,” contemporary conventional wisdom and double standards for women’s dating behavior. Rather than breaking them from the outset, as Lizzie Bennett would, Bridget Jones initially plays by these rules. She worries about her weight, even though she is not fat. She lures Daniel Cleaver by pretending she to ignore him, trying not to come across as “too available.” She pretends she wants to go home in order to get sex with him. She agonizes over which underwear to put on. Meanwhile, Mr. Darcy finds himself falling for Bridget’s supposed awkwardness; like Elizabeth Bennett, Bridget has a playful disposition which is much more interesting and fun than that of his boring professional girlfriend Natasha.

Needless to say, The Rules do not work for Bridget – Daniel still does not stay with her. From then on, Bridget tries to be more confident. She throws away a book called What Men Want and replaces it with another self-help book, How To Get What You Want. Of course, the self-help books and increased exercise are still part of the film’s gentle satire of therapeutic, self-improvement society. Bridget ultimately gets beyond these things as well and learns to accept herself. Instead of ignoring Mr. Darcy, she unabashedly runs outside in her underwear – finally able to let go and embrace a sort of autonomy that is not so easily embarrassed.

Bridget Jones’s Diary is primarily a loose Chick Lit adaptation instead of an educational film to be analyzed. It is all good fun – but familiarity with its inspiration, the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, is needed to fully appreciate this movie’s context and humor.

Sources:

Internet Movie Database

PopMatters.com

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

When this BBC miniseries was first released in the mid-90s with strongly positive word of mouth, I was in elementary school and didn’t understand why my mom and her five sisters loved this long, long movie about people walking around wearing bonnets and speaking politely. Years later, when we got the DVD set to give to my mom for her birthday and we all watched it together, I understood. I was a high school junior who didn’t care what the cliques or the fashion magazines thought of me, so I connected with Elizabeth’s subtly defiant underdog moxie and fell in love with the sexy, brooding Mr. Darcy. I hadn’t read the book yet, so, to me, this was Pride and Prejudice. Judging from a variety of online message boards, even people who did read the book first consider this to be the definitive Pride and Prejudice adaptation to the detriment of all others. In fact, these fights – not to mention the viral videos of Mr. Darcy clips – can be so downright silly that Jane Austen must be laughing in her grave.

             Adapted by Andrew Davies (who won the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain Award for the series), directed by Simon Langton, and produced by Sue Birtwistle, this adaptation is widely praised for both its faithfulness to the book and for bringing a fresh interpretation. On one hand, its accuracy is easy to explain – a six-hour miniseries is able to stuff more content than a two-hour film. Pride and Prejudice does more than cover the plot points, however – it captures the novel’s satirical tone, conveys the subtlety of the characters, and nods to the feminist themes.

            All of this is accomplished without high production value. The cinematography, while featuring some gorgeous scenery, is the made-for-TV, point-and-shoot variety. In some ways, this works in the story’s favor to highlight the pettiness and superficiality of characters who make a huge deal out of normal circumstances. The climactic confrontation between Lizzie and Lady Catherine happens not with dramatic lighting or overwhelming music, but with sunny skies and chirping birds. Some of the special effects are on the cheesy side – like Lizzie seeing Darcy in her head, blue-screened onto mirrors or carriage windows. But Dinah Collins’ costume design and Caroline Noble’s makeup and hair received BAFTA nominations and praise for historical accuracy. While period pieces have the tendency to reflect contemporary styles – like Lizzie’s 1940s-style hair in the earlier Pride and Prejudice adaptation and Edward Linton’s David Frost look in the 1970 Wuthering Heights – this particular adaptation is less obviously a product of the 1990s.

            Besides historical accuracy, the production design aids in interpretation itself. While Caroline Bingley and the stuck up society girls wear bright colors and fashions, the Bennetts all wear the white and pastels highlighting their easily maligned bourgeois status. Even the house is a painted a bland shade of cream. Part of the humor of the series is that no one seems really poor (except a couple of London street kids who give Mr. Darcy a “pet the puppy” moment in one scene). The Bennetts are in trouble, of course, but this is not visually emphasized. They talk about their financial woes, but we see a two-story house and servants – they are upper middle class people persecuted by only slightly richer people.

            The series is carried mainly by the strength of its actors. Jennifer Ehle, who won the BAFTA TV Award for her performance, plays Elizabeth Bennett as a happy, free spirit and a fiercely independent rebel in an age where it really doesn’t take a whole lot to be one. The “queen bee” Caroline, who looks down on Lizzie while also being intimidated by her, criticizes the protagonist’s “conceited independence” – when all she did was take a walk alone through in the countryside. She does not fit the mold of the “accomplished woman.” When Lady Catherine confronts her, Lizzie retorts that she is not entitled to her concerns, and she will make her decisions “without reference to you or any other person so wholly unconnected with me.” Declaring herself to be an autonomous individual, she goes against the grain of her time period when women had limited options and were expected to define themselves by their connections.

Lizzie’s flaw, which she overcomes through her interaction with the woefully misunderstood Mr. Darcy, is that she needs to allow others the same kind of autonomy and complexity that she cherishes within herself. This is in her expressions rather than stated directly. She keenly observes people at the dance, but grows visibly uncomfortable when she herself is observed. After nearly losing Mr. Darcy and learning her lesson, she earns the right once again to assert herself without hypocrisy – which she does in the aforementioned verbal battle with Lady Catherine.

            A strong cast of supporting characters maintains the satire. Mr. Collins (David Bamber) is also well-acted as “the stupidest man in all of England” whose hilarious lack of self-awareness clashes with Elizabeth’s strong identity. Davies seems to give him the double entendres (“Such a variety of social intercourse!”) to highlight his role as the awkward “id” character who merrily shocks everybody with his quirks and obnoxious social climbing. Mrs. Bennett (Alison Steadman) wails and rails desperately through the dilemma of living through her daughters.

            Colin Firth’s lead performance as Mr. Darcy made him a sex symbol and basically launched his career. He snubs Elizabeth once, and it haunts him for the rest of the movie. Water is a recurring visual symbol of his surprising new feelings for Elizabeth and the atmosphere of boiling sexual tension. The puppy-eyed aristocrat rises from the bathtub to look at Jane out the window, and later takes off his jacket in frustration and dives into the pond for one of the most erotic scenes in television history.

            These scenes, which purists may point out are not written in the original book, add to it without contradicting it. Jane Austen, not to be mistaken for her more sentimental contemporaries, does not dictate the visual atmosphere of her novel with descriptive, fluffy prose. Her writing style is sharp, satirical, and understated – the literary equivalent of a Don Hertzfelt stick figures cartoon. Thus, in many ways, she leaves the visualization of her story up to imagination.

Any adaptation can get the text – the witty banter and sarcasm – but a visual work like film must try to interpret the subtext. The BBC crew have delightfully constructed a hilarious but also emotionally compelling drama that not only appeals to females of all ages all over the world, but ranks as one of the most successful literary adaptations in television history. 

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)