Saturday, April 21, 2012
Pride and Prejudice
Write a blog post in reaction to one of the aspects you brainstormed about after finishing the novel and the film: comment on the three different endings (compare and contrast; how would you end the film?); comment on the casting (imagine you were the casting director!); comment on the changes made and their effects in order to adapt the story to a two-hour film; comment on the continuing popularity of Jane Austen's novel. Feel free to react to other blog posts, and don't forget to sign your name! **Let's try not to exceed 500 words per blog post - less is more on the
Internet, as you all know!! And less than that is perfectly fine - work
on writing succinctly and focusing on and developing one or two ideas. If the others don't have the time to read all of your blog posts, then we're defeating the purpose of exchanging ideas on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We recently watched the adaptation of the novel Pride and Prejudice by Joe Wright, and two alternative endings which were shot, one for Joe Wright’s movie and the other one for a BBC series.
ReplyDeleteThe first ending displays the two main couples, formed by Jane and Mr Bingley and Elizabeth and Mr Darcy getting married in the same church, beaming and surrounded by their cheerful families. While the priest’s sermon is progressing, we can successively and briefly see all the mismatched couples, such as Lydia and Wickham, what illustrates what the couples should avoid. Yet, the happy music and seeing them all steadfastly smiling makes us understand their love is too strong for them to be a mismatched couple or to be disturbed by the impudence of their family circle, even by Mrs Bennet, bursting out of tears at the sight of her “three daughters married”. Although it is faithful to the society of the time and its conventions by insisting on the importance of reasonable marriage, which theme is very present in the book, I cannot help finding such an ending too traditionnal. Besides, the book in itself does not depict the characters’ wedding and lets the reader imagine the story, yet he is guided by what he knows, what means by the fact the two couples are well-matched so they cannot but be happy. It is right that ending with a marriage when the whole strory is about finding a husband seems to be closing a circle, nevertheless I cannot help thinking that in the original story, the circle is already ended as soon as the characters are engaged.
The last ending we watched was an alternative ending for Joe Wright’s movie and showed Elizabeth and Mr Darcy sitting together at twilight in a wonderful landscape. Music and sunset light add to the romanticism of that scene. We don’t know if they are already married or just engaged but we can suppose they are simply engaged as they are talking of how they should call each other in the future. It is the first scene in which they show each other sexual attraction. We cannot deny that this scene is more attractive for the spectators because it is extremely romantic, nevertheless, it seems obvious that the two characters are showing their love in a way that does not fit the conventions of the society ; we must not forget anybody could see them and they are only supposed to be engaged. To put it in a nutshell, that ending is really too modern and Hollywoodian.
The second ending we watched was chosen for the movie. In this version, after proposing to Elizabeth a second time, Mr Darcy goes back to Longbourn with her in order to announce the new. Elizabeth enters her father’s office and explains him the situation, he is skeptical at first as he thought his daughter did not like her pretendant in the least. Elizabeth is upset and tries to explain him she “was wrong, [she] was entirely wrong about him”. In the same while, Darcy is still outside of the house, waiting in company of chickens ; behind him, we can see Mrs Bennets and the rest of her daughters watching him through a window, judging and chatting, excited, trying to understand what’s happening as Elizabeth “did not like him”. Nevertheless, Elizabeth explains her father why she was wrong, crying and gains his approval as he hugs her, crying as well. She finally cheerfully walks out the room while her father laughs. That ending really shows what is around the two characters, that is why I found it was the most relevant. Indeed, the novel’s most important theme is “rationnal marriage” as “the foundation of the society”, and this ending does not only display a happy couple, but also the happyness and stability they bring about and how exterior events influenced their own decisions. It really fits the society of the time and respects its code, yet it is still attractive for twentieth century spectators as it is still romantic and cheerful. I think it is really in the continuity of the rest of the movie as it is supposed to narrate a nineteenth century story to twentieth century spectators so it had to keep a balance.
Great job... but who are you?!
ReplyDeleteI have to make several blogposts because what I wrote is a little too long, sorry for the inconvenience (the previous blogpost is from me, but I did not have the space to sign)
ReplyDeleteAs we watched two different adaptations and so on two different versions of the story, we cannot help wondering which one was the most faithful to the story, and for this, lets focus on the casting.
As far as the mini-series is concerned, I don’t really agree with the whole casting. Indeed, although Jane physically corresponded to the idea I had of her character – except maybe she seemed a little too stained for what was supposed to be beautiful during the nineteenth century - I cannot help thinking she did not look either naïve or beaming enough. As to Elizabeth, I was not so struck by her apparitions, whereas she is supposed to have striking eyes, if not striking features. Yet, it seems obvious that, as we only saw the ending, I cannot really judge the casting, although I found perhaps she did not look witty enough. Nevertheless, I would like to insist on one point, as far as the Bennet sisters as concerned : as a matter of fatc, most twentieth century historical movies star actresses who do not correspond to the beauty criterias of the story’s time but to the present one in order to make profits, yet the movie often lose its relevance or even turn out to be absurd because of these too skinny actresses. Then, although I really admire Colin Firth, I think he does not look as haughty or elegant as the idea I had of Mr Darcy, though I cannot judge the way he played in that series as we only watched a few scenes. Anyway, I think his friend, Mr Bingley really looked like what I had first pictured as he is pretty elegant but seems extremely kindhearted and generous. In one word, I found most characters quite realistic but sometimes not so close to what I had imagined, except maybe from Mrs. Bennet who, though not really overplayed seems to caricatural, especially through her cloth and makeup.
Margot
The movie’s choice of casting is very different from the series’. As a matter of fact, even if Keira Knightley is a great actress and really pictured Elizabeth’s liveliness and wit, one cannot deny she does not physically correspond to her character as she is far too skinny. Yet, Jane really looks kindhearted and cheerful as she keeps smiling. Moreover, physically, she does correspond to the idea I had of her, except maybe she is a little too slim for her time’s beauty criterias. I also thought the actor playing Mr Darcy was often far too sullen and so not elegant and proud enough. I was agreeably surprised by the actor playing Mr Bingley, in fact I found he looked incrediblely honest, sincere, kindhearted and naïve. I also liked his sister who really fitted in the role of the conceited aristocratic woman. She was really elegant but could not but inspire loath in the way she was played, just like when she told Elizabeth she was “happy to see [her]” with the meanest and coldest expression. Let’s now speak of Mrs Bennet : she really corresponded to what I thought of her, as well physically as the way she was played. Indeed, she was caricatural as she is supposed to be in the story, but only in her actions and not in her looks, what would have been too much and made her character less funny because there would not have been such a decalage between her behaviour and her society – as she would already have been put out of that society by these looks – Yet, I did not like her husband so much. In fact, if I did not picture him as an elegant aristocrate, I pictured him as someone educated because he spends his time in his office, whereas in the movie he did not look so intelligent but rather neglected. Let’s now focus on Lady Catherine de Bourgh : what a nice surprise ! I found her character really refreshing. Indeed, I thought Judi Dench really rendered her so funny through her pretentiousness, yet she added to that superiority a certain impudence which was still increased by the indecently wealthy décor of her house. What resulted was a great contrast between the importance of that character and whch she gave to herself speaking of how to be an accomplished woman and her sometimes rude behaviour supposed to be justified by he superiority. No her too wealthy outfits and hairstyle also added to that impression. As to the other Bennets’ sisters, I found they were quite faithful to their characters – especially Lydia who really looks malicious and heedless – but I was really happy of one thing, it is that older actresses were not chosen to play their characters, as it is the case in several movies. Besides, I really liked the couple formed by Charlotte and Mr Collins. Indeed, Mr Collins is already funny in the story, but no doubt being played by quite a short actor added to that side of his character. As to his wife, seeing her totally normal and serious – and much taller than her husband - next to such a riddiculous character added to his own funny side.
ReplyDeleteMargot
Did you mean mischievous for Lydia? Or malicious? You're right, Mr Collins being played by a short actor does add to the humour.
DeleteHere is the third part...
ReplyDeleteAfter being released in 2005, Joe Wright’s movie Pride and Prejudice was accused of being too short. Indeed, many people thought that a two hours long movie was too short for adapting a four hundred and a few pages book such as Pride and Prejudice.
Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that movies and books are not the same, do not have the same audience and cannot use the same narrative techniques.
First of all, it seems important to say that a five hours long movie would have been too long and borring for most spectators and so would not have been fruitful. That’s why, the film director had to find a way to cut it shorter, without betraying the story.
He did not cut off so many scenes, but made some shorter or faster. Let me explain : the special dynamique brought by music, sound, colors and pictures to scenes enabled some scenes to be almost accelerated. It is the case of the scene of the ball, which is very rich and in which the changing focuses enable the scene to look extremely rich, as it seems that everybody is living something important in the same while as we can see a first focus on Darcy refusing to dance with Elizabeth, immediately followed by one of Jane cheerfully dancing with Mr Bingley, and then one on Lydia, etc… Of course, such techniques cannot be used for crucial scenes with little characters and actions, but in such crowded scenes, it enhances the ever seething and likned actions of that society, and increases the characters’ own excitation. As well, if the film director accelerated some scenes, he also mixed up some other ones. It seems obvious that a scene in which a character would just be reading a letter would be borring and would seem to render an account of the character’s own boredom – like it is the case when Mr Darcy writes the letter to his sister with Mrs Bingley incessantly turning around and trying to catch his attention – whereas so many of these letter-reading scenes are supposed to be full of emotions – like when Elizabeth reads Mr Darcy’s letter – to depict these emotions on the screen, the film director often showed the character’s reactions after reading the letter while it was being read. I said previously that movies’ and novels’ techniques are not always the same, I meant that a movie can appeal to different senses in the same while : as a matter of fact, one can see the actors’ reactions, while hearing their thoughts or feelings thanks to the music and the cause of all this fuss thanks to the letter. That is what was done – and successfully done - for most letter reading or letter writing scenes.
Margot
Here is the fourth part (it is almost the last one)
ReplyDeleteLet’s focus more on the way the movie displays the complicated society of the nineteenth century. Showing a society of which anybody would be an impirtant and stock piece, interfering in others’ affairs could have been a real challenge for many film directors. Indeed, Jane Austen greatly used changes of focus in order to show the global society, but also what each character thought, did and interfered with. The film director took up the idea, adaptatingb it to the movie : many scenes start with a general focus, showing all the characters in presence, before focusing on only one or a few, while letting the other ones speak, so that we can see the actions of some and the reactions of the others. The focus was also sometimes from a character’s own point of view – usually Elizabeth like when she entered the ball - in this case, it shows each character is judging the other ones and what a character thinks or does not thinks of something – for instance, during the dinner with Mr Collins, Elizabeth’s gaze was posed upon an object, but almost never upon Mr Collins, what shows she did not really care what he had been saying and felt bored. Yet, in some other scenes - like the second proposal of Mr Darcy to Elizabeth – the focus was more general, what made the scne sometimes slowler and insisted on its emotionnal importance, but not on its importance in the development of the plot, because there was no point showing what characters thought of the other’s behaviour as it had already been showed – even if sometimes subtly – in the previous scenes, so these scenes were rather a culmination.
I also would like to insist on the importance of music, colors and light or symbols along the plot. In fact, all these elements appeal to senses and not to comprehension, so are often understood faster. They enable the reader to feel and to understand better the complexity of a scene and so some scenes can be richer without being overwhelming.
Overall, I would say that novel was not badly adaptated but it was just adaptated to the time it was release, its audience and its needs, by the witty use of all the movies’ techniques.
Margot
Here is the very last part.
ReplyDeletePride and Prejudice was first published during the nineteenth century, in 1813. That novel deals with a little part of the nineteenth century’s soicitey, coutryside gentry so we can wonder why this is still so widely successful across the world today.
Indeed, it deals with an old, restrained and codified society and values which are not so important today. The main themes are founding a stable family by a reasonable and often arranged marriage in order to hold one’s place in the society, for oneself, but mainly for others and one’s image. We can wonder why so many people around the world enjoy reading a story so far from what they are and live.
There are many hypothesis in order to explain this. The first one is that one cannot forget Pride and Prejudice is a concentrated of two incrediblely romantic love stories, what make it very modern as love was not often the reason for marriage during the nieneteenth century, whereas it is now the basis of most stories.
Yet, being a love story is not everything as one can find hundreds of love stories in a library ; nevertheless Jane Austen’s books are unique in the fact her writing style is great and these are the first books fully developping characterization and characters’ psychology. Along the book, characters evolve and so look very human and so even close to the reader. That book is modern in the fact that it is not just a moralistic book, it is a novel you can read for pleasure.
Then, the title itself claims it “Pride and Prejudice”, the novel deals with two important themes which are omnipresent in every society as everybody wants to have a better life and for this tends to step on others, full of pride as pride is a way to keep safe, not to accept you can commit errors. As to prejudice, it is indeniablely linked to pride as one often judges others in order to feel superior and so more secure. Pride and prejudice appear to be the two important features of human nature which can only be fought by reason and thinking, so everybody can recognize himself in characters and their fight and so feel empathy for them if not admire them.
I said previously it depicted an old-fashioned society, nevertheless, if that society has disappeared, some of its aspects are still very present today. First of all, it speaks of a society and how that society controls, at least a little, our lives. If today’s society is not so complicated, one cannot deny that we still depend on others’ or interfere in others’ lives as constituing a socitey means being linked. Then, the importance of what others think of you is very present in that novel as it can have huge consequences on one’s life, and it is well-known that we live in a society in which look and image is very important. Besides, trying to have a stable life is still an important subject in our societies. Finally, if this story deals with a codified society, it seems important to notice that most characters do not measure up to these standards and are often more free or in search of freedom, what is quite modern. Indeed, looking for one’s won freedom and one’s own happiness is quite individualistic and modern, so it is opposed to that image of a society in which each one has his place from which he cannot move.
Overall, if Pride and Prejudice depicts an old society, it is done in a modern way through modern characters and with a-temporal themes, so we can see human nature being the same, different societies are not so far from others.
Margot
Margot - thank you for your thorough and insightful posts. You only had to make one blog post, though... so for the rest of the students, choose just one aspect to comment on (endings, casting, changes, continuing popularity), otherwise the other students will never be able to read all of the posts!
ReplyDeletehi Margot, since Mrs Chavel wants us to respond to each others' blogposts, I'd like to comment upon yours (the one concerning the casting of the mini-series.) I watched all of them and I believe they are the most relevant and trustful adaptation in comparison with the film we watched in class last friday. To my mind, I think the director who shot the BBC adaptation wanted to find the actors whose personnalities'd fit the best with what Austen wrote about them. And he managed it for the actors overall behaved like in the book, thinking and acting the same even if their global appearance discribed in the novel were unrespected in the movie. Each passage in the book is transcripted word after word: this film is the best ever to watch if you want to remind you of one or two details you did not understand while reading the novel :) here's the point I wanted to make, but it's really fun to confront our thoughts conveyed by what we wrote :)
ReplyDeleteVictoria
I am going to comment on the casting of the two different Pride and Prejudice versions, the first a BBC adaptation for television made in 1995 and the second a Hollywood film version from 2005.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I thought Jennifer Ehle was a very good choice for the BBC adaptation of the novel : she studied Dramatic Arts, and improved her English accent in order to be as ready as could be for the film. Her performance in the series was rewarded by a BAFTA for best actress. Indeed, she exhibited sharpness and intelligence, and held true to the actual Elizabeth Bennet of the book. Yet she was older than the Miss Bennet of the book, which was quite noticeable. Plus she wasn’t as fierce as I thought she ought to be, less charismatic too, or simply too pleasant, which made us forget that the "real" Miss Bennet had a much more powerful disposition and really stood out from the rest of the household.
As for Keira Knightley, in the '05 production, she gave a totally different image of Elizabeth Bennet. She had a great experience in acting since she had starred in many more films than Jennifer Ehle, and because of her international celebrity. Moreover she is a very attractive actress who embodied a stunning Elizabeth Bennet and who was for the first time the same age as the heroin of the book. She is also a very lively and funny young girl which made the film more agreeable to watch. However, I thought she didn't make much effort in her acting, and failed to show emotion, keeping the same expression over and over, eyes wide open and subtly open mouth. Plus, in certain scenes, she was a bit too silly and flirty, which made her acting slightly coquettish and differed from the Elizabeth Bennet of the book : wasn't she supposed to be calm and poised? In the book, she was thoughtful and reflective whereas in the film, she was too impulsive which didn't make her necessarily a bad actress, merely a bad imitation of Elizabeth Bennet. It didn't seem to me that she was the most sensible girl of the household, which she was normally supposed to be.
If I had been the casting director, I would have given a chance to Naomi Watts : her father was English and her mother was Welsh, but she also lived in Australia for a while, which enabled her to pick up any accent for different films. Like Keira Knightley she is also more of a Hollywood actress, which would have made her a perfect '05 Elizabeth Bennet. She is a beautiful actress with great acting skills, quite noticeable in her '01 film "Mulholland Drive" by David Lynch. She would have been great in all the emotional scenes of the film.
Interesting choice Carys. ps I think you meant "heroine", not "heroin"!
DeleteAs for the character of Mr Darcy, I thought Colin Firth was mesmerizing in his Mr Darcy role in the BBC version, though at first he almost refused because he felt he wasn't sexy enough and doubted his ability to bring the character to life. Indeed, Jane Austen had made the Pride and Prejudice story mostly Elizabeth's story but the BBC version of the book made it very much Darcy's as well. I thought Colin Firth was realistic and loyal to the novel in the way he embodied Mr Darcy : a bit proud, uncertain, not knowing what to do with his feelings for Elizabeth. He has great body language, a distinctive walk, and an incredible voice. In all, I think he did give an impressive performance in the 1995 version. However I can't help but feel that he could have been slightly more expressive, since he didn't change the look on his face often, just seemed as if he was always somewhat lost. Plus, he rarely shows marks of affection towards Miss Bennet and remains unfriendly until the end which makes it all quite frustrating.
ReplyDeleteAs for Matthew MacFyden, I thought he was very good-looking and agreeable to listen to. He also delivered a stunning performance and was perfect in both scenes in the rain for the first proposal and in the fields where he meets Miss Bennet early in the morning. Unfortunately, MacFyden was also a bit too feminine. Plus, the look he gives to Miss Bennet during the first ball at the beginning of the film makes it way too obvious to the audience that he has got interest in her, and in a way, spoils the rest of the film. Unlike Colin Firth I found he was too open and obvious in his manners and the way he glanced at Elizabeth. Yet, he also delivered a great performance.
Again, if I had been the casting director I would have chosen another British actor, Kenneth Brannagh (a few years earlier perhaps) because I think he is a brilliant actor with an enjoyable accent. Like both Mr Darcys he is very able to do the cold glances and the proud attitude without looking ridiculous.
As for the other family members, I prefered the 2005 ones, even though Lydia and Kitty are way too loud and annoying. In the 1995 version I thought Jane looked too much like a man whereas she was beautiful in the film, as she was portrayed in the book.
Jane Austen wrote many novels during her short life. In 1797, she ended First Impressions, but never published it. A few years later, in 1811, she rewrote it, changing some details and creating a much deeper characterization. Finally, in 1813, she published it anonymously, calling it Pride & Prejudice. Did her particular way of writing or her perfect comprehension of the world really help her novel to become a bestseller since the very beginning? Thanks to which stratagems did her novel –which will turn 200 years old next year – stay famous throughout centuries?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Jane Austen’s novel is still very popular nowadays, mostly because of her unique way of writing. Indeed, she is able to retain her reader thanks to her ironical humor and her characters’ descriptions.
At the very beginning of her book, she starts by a now very well-known sentence, which says that “it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”. This philosophical reflection is an ironic statement about a particular group obsessed with matchmaking, a group to which she belongs. Thanks to this, she is able to bring, since the very beginning of her novel, two things: the main theme and her ironical humor that will follow throughout the book. Indeed, we can see at different moments that she didn’t write for political or economic reasons, but just for passing her time and because she found pleasure in it. And this is reflected in her novels, mostly with this particularity of showing her point of view with humor and free indirect narration that is supposed to show Elizabeth Bennet’s thoughts, but might in fact be Austen’s impressions about life, people and customs. All these ingredients help the reader to be attracted to the story and keep reading her novel.
The other way that she uses to keep her reader engrossed in her book, two hundreds year ago as well as nowadays, is her way of describing her characters. Indeed, she builds into them a very deep personality and ambiance thanks to her way of organizing descriptions. They are often more showing than telling, or else they are the supposed reflection of one of her hero’s thoughts. In Pride & Prejudice, we can observe that an important character, like Fitzwilliam Darcy for instance, is described by many different methods. We firstly have a telling description, when he “drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features […].” Some pages afterwards, we can observe a description of him thanks to a dialogue in which he doesn’t take part, a dialogue that opposes Mary Bennet and Lady Lucas, in which both of them expose their definition of pride. Between the two descriptions, the reader also gets an idea of him by his negative response to a dance proposal by Elizabeth. Finally, the character evolves at almost each moment of the story. This creates proximity between the public and the characters, and the reader feels himself involved in the story and keeps on reading it.
Secondly, the author of Pride & Prejudice is able to keep her book very popular at different periods because she explores deeply the preoccupations of all humankind and is able to insufflate hope to her reader.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Jane Austen talked about a world that she knew by living in it. This helped her story (stories) to be more realistic thanks to her own experiences, and her faculty to observe people and behaviors helped a lot. In Pride & Prejudice, she explored the three themes on which a man’s life is based: power (by relating the life of English aristocracy and gentries), money (the Bennet sisters had to get married, or else they would have to work and live in poverty) and love (Elizabeth as well as Jane were looking for a lover to get married). These three ideas still are the basis of people’s interests nowadays, and because all humans are identic in this way, whatever century they live in, the scenario of this novel is, even today, considered as relevant and is able to attract readers.
How does this book insufflates hope into people’s mind? I would tend to think that it occupies the function of a fairy tale. Indeed, as in these medieval stories, Pride & Prejudice more or less shows the stereotypes: two young women, one beautiful and the other very intelligent, finally find their charming princes and are saved from the horror of working and misery. The “bad” people, such as Lydia or Lady de Bourgh, are punished. The first one, unable to toe the line, is forced to marry Wickham, and she would pay the consequences of her inadvertence in a few years. The second one, because she pushes too much on her luck, will finally have to face the situation of having a daughter unmarried. The story here has a role of moral and religious (Christianity) education, where the good people are rewarded and will “get married and live happily ever after” whereas the bad ones will have to face the impact of their conduct for the rest of their life.
Therefore, Jane Austen’s novel Pride & Prejudice is a major work in English literature, because of her particular but fantastic style of writing, and also thanks to her deep understanding of people in general. Indeed, this story is still relevant today, to a certain extent, and we can see that in many different societies film directors are still adapting it to screens, the XXIst century way of narrating stories. That’s how the occidental world got Joe Wright’s version, named in accordance with the novel, when Bollywood shot Bride & Prejudice, by Gurinder Chadha. Americans also made Pride & Prejudice: A latter day comedy, in modern America, or even A modern Pride & Prejudice (respectfully by Andrew Black in 2004 and by Bonny Mae in 2011).
Pride and Prejudice certainly resembles a fairy tale in many ways, as does Persuasion, which you'll read this summer if you haven't already.
DeleteWe saw three different endings for the film Pride and Prejudice, and I will give my opinion for each of them.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I really liked the adaptation with Keira Knightley, because I think it was livelier and more natural. Actually I enjoyed watching it because according to me it brought another vision of the book, it was shorter, so less boring, and it was also more modern than the BBC version. In fact there were only the most important parts of the book which were kept, so there was more action, and fewer dialogues than in the adaptation of the BBC. The effect on the spectator was more efficient, because he was really attracted and interested by what was going on. In my opinion, the end of the BBC version was funny and joyful, but when reading the book I felt that it was more intense and full of emotions, which we can’t really feel in that version. On the contrary, the most recent version -with the alternate ending- was more riveting because we were really waiting for the kiss. So that’s why I think the film which has an end without the kiss is non-ended, because it is the climax of the film, the moment that everybody is waiting for.
The main changes that occurred to shorten the film were the elopement of Lydia with Wickham, and the stay of Jane in London. Actually the disappearance of Lydia is not very important in the film, the most important is the action of Darcy in forcing Wickham to marry Elizabeth’s sister, which helps the reader to understand the feelings of Darcy towards Elizabeth, and which is a reason for her change of mind. The moment when Jane is in London is also put in the background, since it just shows the jealousy of Bingley’s sister, and the disapproval of their marriage. Nevertheless I thought the general mood of the film was preserved.
As far as the cast is concerned, I preferred Colin Firth playing the role of Mr. Darcy, he was very close to the character I had imagined when reading the book. However, I thought that Keira Knightley was not always close to her character, Elizabeth -even if she won a prize for her performance in 2005; according to me we could notice from the beginning of the film that she was attracted by Mr. Darcy, and we couldn’t really feel her angriness towards him, neither was her change of mind an evidence, it was better showed in the BBC version - but this is also due to the fact that the film was longer and really close to the book. Anyway I preferred the actresses of the 2005 film, particularly Rosamund Pike, who portrayed Jane, she was beautiful and fully in her role.
To conclude, I think that if Pride and Prejudice is still so popular today, it is mainly due to the fact that the themes tackled will be topical at any time: love, marriage and wealth are subjects with which we will always have to deal with in our societies.
Let me comment the different endings of Pride and Prejudice, from the BBC’s release to Joe Wright’s ones.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the mini-series realized by the BBC is the most faithful version to the novel. It respects the spirit of the original story, the rules of that time society and the very exact dialogues from the novel. The scheme of the scene is also perfectly like the novel’s one: the moment, although being the climatic one, goes very fast, and makes us feel quite frustrated. As a consolation for this frustration, we can enjoy Colin Firth’s and Jenifer Ehle’s intelligent play, which reflects the waves of feelings surging into both Elizabeth and Darcy. As a result, this ending is as touching as it is supposed to be, and makes us indeed exult behind our screens!
Then, let us analyze Joe Wright’s release, which is the only one without any kiss, like in the novel... Yet this release is moving away from Jane Austen’s original work: instead of respecting the conventions, Elizabeth and Darcy are meeting alone, early in the morning in the mists of the dawn (which is a highly romantic atmosphere, nonetheless quite unrealistic). Tanks to this no-kiss-ending, the director might have wanted us to feel even more shaken by the end of the story: instead of showing everything, he preferred leaving us frustrated, but so moved and into Darcy and Elizabeth’s story that we would rush on the original work… Moreover, the fact that there is no kiss is scoring, and distinguishes this movie from over Hollywood productions.
Eventually, Joe Wright directed actually two different endings of his movie: the second one includes a kiss. In my opinion, the way it is realized is quite weird: Elizabeth and Darcy, outdoor in the night, in front of Pemberley, not even entirely dressed, are talking about their nicknames… Where the no-kiss-ending seemed purely romantic, this one looks a bit too improbable, or even ridiculous. To my mind, this ending is seeking too apparently for our emotion, for our happiness for their perfect couple, which cancels the rich shades of the original story. As a matter of fact, the complex relationship they had during the entire movie is spoiled by two short ludicrous and simplistic minutes.
As a conclusion, I would say my favorite endings are the BBC’s and Joe Wright’s first release ones, respectively for the actors and for the romantic atmosphere, underlined by the dramatic music.
This past week we watched three different endings of Pride and Prejudice, I will comment on each one.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the BBC version is "the most faithful version to the novel" (Iseut). The ending respects every word written by Jane Austen in her book. The description the author gave of this last scene also seems quite similar to the one put to screens. To my mind, this series is to be watched by those who have not read the book and who will never read it. That is because, first, it is much better to read the book and to be able to imagine our own caracters and background; Then, there is no actual purpose in watching a five hour serie that sticks exactly to a book we have aleady read.
Joe Wright’s film adaptation was in my opinion a bit to short. I thought he missed out on a few essential details such as the kiss between the two main caracters : Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. This choice made by the film director might of been an invation to read the book as to find out what Jane Austen's chose to end her book... Concurning the cast; although Keira knightley responds well to the description the author gave, Mr. Darcy is a bit "too" romantic in this movie seening he is descriped as a cold man.
Lastly, this ending could have been the perfect ending if we did not put into consideration the fact that Elizabeth and Darcy are not the perfect couple and if there was another sequence the caracters would have faced problems with their respectful families. Therefore this last ending seems quite unrealistic. Even though, it is conforting to have both endings in order to see the kiss between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.
In all, I agree with Mathilde to say that the film adapation with Keira Knightley is much more attractive then the BBC version.
"Then, there is no actual purpose in watching a five hour series that sticks exactly to a book we have aleady read."- I'm afraid I disagree; I enjoyed every minute!
DeleteWe previously watched three different movie adaptations of the world-known novel Pride & Prejudice, written by J. Austen in 1814. Let's compare the three endings.
ReplyDeleteI'll begin with the very first ending we watched which corresponds to the ninety minutes three double episodes adaptation released in 1995 on BBC One; it has been made by Andrew Davies, who chose Jennifer Ehle to play Lizzy and Colin First as Darcy. Firstly, there is overall no orignality from the director concerning the plot, for the dialogues in the novel are unchanged in the movie. However, the film nevertheless ends with both Lizzy and Jane's weeding, thus giving us a picture of marriages of that times. Also, the church is crowded with different placid couples who might not be glad with their wife/husband anymore: nonetheless, they swim in the happiness of the four main protagonists. Such ending may emphasize a last time how much it is important to choose well our mate if we want our life to be cheerful. Moreover, the director also focuses on the characters who have been totally left apart, namely Lady de Bourgh who broods over her failure to marry her daughter with Darcy. We cannot forget lonely Lydia and her husband in their bedroom, who do not mind being absent for the wedding. This two short moments showing these characters may highlight the fact that some ungorgettable events are for some other people dreadful disapointments or unimportant matters. Last but not least, the four main protagonists sit in a four wheeled-carriage which is moving them away from the church. Darcy and Lizzy seem walking on cloud nine but to add some romance to their lovely marriage, Darcy bends just a enough to kiss his wife. Such kiss, which can easily be classified as “improper”, is aimed at appealing the audience til the very end.
Concerning the second ending, it belongs to a movie shot by Joe Wright where Eliza is embodied by Keira Knightley and Darcy is portrayed by Mathwey Macfadyen. First of all, there is no image of the potential marriage between Darcy and Lizzy, although we see them spending the sunup together in a meadow. This scene seems very romantic for sure but there're some questions we may wonder: why does Lizzy, though unable to sleep, run away in the middle of the night without any clothe but her nightdress? Such attitude'd have been certainly banned at that times since it does confront the usual demeanor young women were compelled to follow. Plus, we can be suprised to see how lucky is Eliza when she meets nose to nose with Darcy. Wright conceals such prohibited attitudes behind Darcy’s will to confess to Eliza he learnt about his aunt’s visit. Blinded by the feelings which grew up days after days in her heart, Lizzy forgives him much more easily as she would have previously done. By asking Eliza, a so well-brought and laudable girl though sometimes sullen, to act so, we may assume the director wished to give to the viewer the romantic proposal Davies never made in his first adaptation in 1995. Despite her flightly behavior and instead of eloping like a sister, Eliza has a discussion with her father after Darcy begged her hand. Lizzy discloses the fact that Darcy helped secretly the Bennet family a lot concerning Lydia’s marriage, yet without asking any compensation. Thereby astounded, Mr Bennet agrees to marry her favourite daughter after making sure she does love him and he does disserve her. The movie ends as Lizzy reveals her affection while Darcy walks feverishly outside. Such conclusion may emphasise the tough challenge and the important efforts a father who loves her daughter has to make to please her, but also the satisfaction of a loving dad gazing her daughter’s happiness.
(part 2)
ReplyDeleteRegarding the third ending, it has been shot by Wright as well, but only shown in the American version mainly because the director played to much with the viewers' hearts, adding such a romantic passage. Firstly, the presence of the two main characters surronded by the lake belonging to Pimberley estate remembers the viewer Eliza fell in love with this mansion when she visited it for the first time. Pimberley has always been the place Lizzy longed to live in and her vow is granted now. After all the distresses and the sorrows she experienced throughout the movie, the director may have wanted to end with Lizzy’s satisfaction, choosing Pimberley as well for this lovely landscapes: none could have ever imagined a better place for the lovers, two characters the viewers are deeply attached to.
Furthermore, the director decides purposely to add some amourous dialogues between the two main protagonists. Asking her husband to call her “Mrs Darcy” when he would be enterily pleased, the mullish Lizzy dramatically changes attitude. However, the viewer has not enough time to wonder why Eliza’s heart is melting so quickly, for Darcy responds “Mrs Darcy”: the frosty Fitzwilliam turns out to be the ever-wanted prince charming, therefore moving any sensible audience to tears. Waiting for the final kiss to come, any viewer's attention is caught til the last moment. Movelessly, we watch Darcy kissing Lizzy everywhere on her face before putting his lips on hers. Concluding the movie this way, we can guess the director’s goal is to make the perfect Hollywood ending to charm all-ages audience, thus making the world rediscovering unforgottable Austen’s masterpiece.
In my point of view, each and every ending has its place amoung the readaptations of this famous novel. Yet my choice is made and I prefer the second ending, which satisfies me enough but lets me make up my own mind about the marriage between Darcy and Lizzy. I deeply believe movie adaptations are the best way to remind people of great litterary works they might not have the opportunity to read. I’m glad we watched some of them, for there have been, to my mind, a valuable help to understand and recreate the atmosphere of Austen’s society.
Victoria
Sorry for disturbing, but could we please have the new planning for the book reviews ?
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot,
Amélie.
Check the 2des page on my website, it's all there!
DeleteI am going to compare the three Pride and Prejudice endings.
ReplyDeleteThe first ending is from the 1995 TV series directed by Simon Langton, starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. We get to see the second proposal, almost entirely as Jane Austen wrote it – which must have been quite a challenge, since she didn’t entirely write it herself ; she did leave Elizabeth deal with indirect speech. Then, there is also the conversation with Jane, and the one with Elizabeth’s father and, finally, the wedding. The writing is respected if you add the kiss the episode ends with.
Then again, I thought the characters all seemed embarassed around each other, which is strange in an ending that’s obviously not meant to be awkward. It made the kiss … tasteless. I also found that some of the 2005’s version neat presentation – lighting, atmosphere and, in a surprising way, colours – was missed in the series. It is, I think, too bright and too happy to depict a story that’s all about – as the producer Sue Birtwistle once said – sex and money.
The second ending is from the 2005’s movie directed by Joe Wright, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. You find pretty much the same elements we saw in the series. The proposal is one the obvious differences. Elizabeth, getting up early in the morning to go for a walk in the surrounding meadow, is rapidly spotted by Mr Darcy who couldn’t sleep either. After the proposal written by Jane Austen we get to hear a whole new line : it introduces an « I love you ». Elizabeth’s only answer is to come closer, kiss his left hand and make a quick commentary (« Well then, your hands are cold ») before they join their foreheads together and stay still, as the sun is rising up in the background. This is one significant constrast with the original proposal taking place in the middle of the afternoon, where they end up talking for long minutes while walking side by side. I personally don’t mind ; I think the « American dawn version » seems less long – although it lasts the same amount of time, around three minutes each –, and not as mildly boring.
Another change is that the movie’s last seconds are Elizabeth walking out of her father’s office. It has its upsides : we already know that they are getting married, plus we’ve also had our romantic time. The wedding itself is not important, and it is a good thing they wouldn’t shoot it. I just think it is a pity that the wedding is considered a Happily Ever After. I was glad to hear about what was next in the novel, who is moving where and whose marriage is a disaster. I would have enjoyed a brief moment just for this in the very end.
The third one was surprising. Elizabeth and a half naked Mr. Darcy, sitting nearby Pemberley at night, kissing and talking about their favourite nicknames. It is said that this version was cut out in the UK because of an arguement with the JASNA – Jane Austen Society of North America – probably because this scene was completly made up. Another reason that could explain this cut would be, I think, that the story had to move really fast to meet all the important events, and that this final scene is extremely slow – plus it adds no essential information concerning the story ; it was obviously included to seduce a romantic audience. My point is : perhaps watching the whole sped up story and finishing those two hours with this scene suddenly breaks a high speed rhythm that you couldn’t quite feel until then. Besides, the situation we get to see is very unlikely to take place indeed, although it would have been a delightful ending for any other movie.
At the end of the day, I prefer the second ending for its performance in making this novel look so modern, keeping the story alive and the audience awake. I don’t see the modifications in the story as a sacrifice so much as a welcome short cut through the story.
Firstly I'll discuss the 3 different endings of Pride & Prejudice.
ReplyDeleteThe first one is the BBC version, which sticks exactly to the book as Iseut said « it respects the spirit of the original story ». Then we have two endings from Joe Wright's version : the first shows as a last scene Elizabeth with her father, they are smiling and they are happy . The second is quite different because it shows Elizabeth in Mr Darcy's arms, she is also smiling & happy. To my mind it's more a hollywoodian ending, romantic (too much?) and a bit commercial.
I understand that we can prefer the 1st or the last ending but as for me the 2nd was the best (Joe Wright's first ending). I've thought it was a good idea not to show too much to the viewer, it lets the viewer imagine the 'perfect couple' of Elizabeth & Mr Darcy. Moreover I've loved the fact that Elizabeth appears with her father at the last scene : indeed it's thanks to him that she is happy because it's thanks to him that she could marry Mr Darcy. Indeed her mother wanted her to marry Mr Collins.
Lastly I've thought it was the best ending because it's the less traditional, the most original and it shows well the important place that Mr Bennet has in this story and the place he has in Elizabeth's heart.
Then I'll comment on the casting.
Firstly for the BBC's version I'd prefer a more beautiful woman to play Jane because she's described as a wonderful & lovely girl and I think Susannah Harker isn't really sticks to the character of Jane. Maybe Nicole Kidman would be more appropriate to play a such role.
Then I would choose Hugues Brant to play Mr Darcy, for me he has the perfect physique and attitude to be Mr Darcy. Moreover Elizabeth is described as being irresistible and really nice even if she's not as much lovely as her sister Jane, that's why I think Natalie Portman would perform this role marvelously.
That's for the most important protagonists but if I really had to remake the casting I would take Meryl Streep to play Mrs Bennet and Brad Pitt to interpret Bingley because I think he has the charm expected to play a such role.
*I think Susannah Harker doesn't really sticks to the character of Jane.
DeleteI'm assuming you mean Hugh Grant? He actually played the character inspired by Wickham in the film adaptation of Bridget Jones's Diary, a book based on the novel we read. (Colin Firth took on the role of Darcy once again, Mark Darcy this time!) Have you seen it?
DeleteOh yes sorry I meant Hugh Grant ! I didn't know that!Actually to my mind Wickham and Darcy have a bit the same behaviour, they are both charming and reserved at the same time even if Darcy is maybe colder. That's why Hugh Grant could interpret very well these 2 different characters. No I didn't seen it but maybe I'll see it :)
DeletePersonally, I am going to comment on the different endings of Pride & Prejudice that we’ve seen in class.
ReplyDeleteThe first one being the ending of the 1995 adaptation from the BBC, which includes the marriages of Jane & M. Bingley and the one of Elizabeth & M. Darcy.
In this version, is presented a scene in which Elizabeth and M. Darcy have a long and pleasant walk on a path, in a meadow located in Meryton, her thanking him for his wondrous behavior towards her family, and agrees in return to marry him. Once at home, she explains her love for M. Darcy to her father, mentioning the wonderful gestures that this one has made for the Bennets. In this ending, the marriages are shown both at the same time, in the same church, and the movie ends when M. & Mrs Darcy’s lips meet.
It actually seems like a natural finishing point, a sort of perfect and touching end. I do agree with Manon on the fact that “this series is to be watched by those who have not read the book and who will never read it”. First of all, because it summarizes very well the novel, with few or more details, and people who would not have the courage to read it would be glad to see this film. I have personally seen it before reading the book, and I’m allowed to say that even though the movie presents the novel thoroughly, it is not as similar as it is in your mind, and never will be. Everyone has its own interpretation, and this film was the one of Andrew Davies but it’s not ours. Second of all, there is indeed “no actual purpose in watching a five hour series that sticks exactly to a book we have already read”.
I mean, what is the point of seeing a movie which resumes in every little detail the book that you already have closely read? And last but not least, it is a considerable way to discover, as Iseut mentioned, “the spirit of the original story, the rules of that time society and the very exact dialogues from the novel”. The movie presents in remarkable way the period in which Jane Austen belonged, in which the characters of Pride & Prejudice are introduced, the way they dressed, behaved, talked … It is indeed fulfilling, even for the Pride & Prejudice’s readers, to have an idea about the general behaviors at that time, at this period in which the characters live in the novel.
The second and third ending that we have seen in class would belong to the 2005 adaptation from Joe Wright. This movie has indeed two different endings, one for the United States and apparently one for everywhere else, because of the American final scene version which was not appreciated by everyone, especially in the UK.
ReplyDeleteThe first ending of this film that we’ve seen is the UKs. In this version, the scene in which M. Darcy and Elizabeth expresses their love for each other does not take place during a nice walk in Meryton, but when Elizabeth awake is standing outside, on the misty grounds of Longbourn at dawn. M. Darcy appears then through the mist and walks towards Elizabeth. They have a long talk, and after declaring his love one more time, she finally agrees to marry him.
Then, is presented the same scene than in the 1995 adaptation, where Elizabeth talks to her father, trying to have his consent into marrying M.Darcy, explaining him everything.
So, the movie ends when Elizabeth finally has the full support of her father, this one being relief that her daughter would find such immense happiness and love in a man.
From my point of view, this ending was sort of unaccomplished and made us want to see more. I personally think that a kiss is necessary in a love story, it is the “thing” that we all have been waiting for since the very beginning in this film, and it is a shame to cut it out. Moreover, the scene when M. Darcy and Elizabeth meets suddenly in the mist together, at the same night is a bit too romantic and maybe not enough realistic, since the odds of it to happen are very poor in the everyday life.
The second ending of this film was the American version that I did actually rather.
It is really similar from the UK’s version but with an extra scene which displays Elizabeth and M. Darcy seating alone in front of Pemberley next to a lake at night. In this version, the two main characters finally kiss at the very end.
I think that this end is accomplished, it is a sort of perfect and emotional end. It was, I think, my favorite.
Before the holidays, we have watched adaptations of the novel Pride and Prejudice, written by Jane Austen and published in 1813. We have seen three different versions, a whole one and the ends of two others. I find interesting to compare them and to give my own point of view and the way I see the end of this novel.
ReplyDeleteThe three endings are really different. As a matter of fact, in each one, we do not have the same vision and the same impressions. We also do not have the same final representation of the main themes of the story. Maybe the different directors wanted to give versions corresponding to their period. The novel is quite old and we can imagine that modern versions and visions are better.
However, I prefer the second ending, the one from the BBC version because it represents by a better way the mentality of the period: love “tactless”, less passionate by the behavior and the gestures with the other (hugs, squeezing…). Moreover, we just see and feel the characters’ emotions by their regards, the expressions on their faces… The scene when they are together (forehead- against-forehead) is very beautiful and full of emotions. Furthermore, a thing which was very important at this period was the agreement of one’s parents who could say if their child can go with that man or not. The fact that the end represents only the father’s agreement is well-chosen from my point of view.
On the contrary, concerning the first ending, I don’t really enjoy it. From my part, it is too “joyful” and the scene when she is marrying Darcy (even more in the same time with Jane and Bingley) do not really show the intense feelings and special love between Darcy and Lizzy, which is not a love for marriage. It is more a real love expressed and felt just by smiles, hand-touched, expressions and words (letters or whatever).
Finally, the third one is a bit more like the second ending but at the end, they kissed. It is the symbol of love in the mentalities. Nevertheless, I still prefer when they do not have any “body contact”.
If I have to choose and realize my own ending, I think I will do quite the same thing that we have seen in the second extract. Maybe after his father’s agreement, I will make a longer moment where Lizzy and Darcy could be alone with sun and dew of the coolness of the morning. They could watch deeply and intensively each other. Maybe they could also speak a bit or say sentences, words full of love. Therefore, the viewer could, by this way, understand that they really love each other and they really want to spend the rest of their life together. But this fact should remain implicit. Finally, it could be magic to make the viewer thinking and dreaming with the use of a picture or a painting full of passion at the very end of the film.
The first part
ReplyDeleteBefore the holidays, we watched three versions of the novel Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. We were taking an interest in the different endings and as I found them more or less effective, I decided to deal with these different endings and compare them.
First of all, I am going to deal with the first ending, which is extracted from the BBC version of 1995. According to me, it is the most faithful to the book even if there are some changes and that it looks a bit older compared to the other versions. Actually, as in the ending of the book, the main characters Darcy and Elizabeth are walking together in a path, they are alone and Darcy asks her again her hand and she accepts. The dialogues are nearly the same than in the book; the events and places too, that means that there is no originality. This is the reason why I preferred this version because no big changes have been made in the story making it a rather good adaption of the book. In addition, I’d add that I was nevertheless a bit disappointed by the marriages because it seems a bit unrealistic that Jane and Bingley, Darcy and Elizabeth get married all together in the same church. But however, as Victoria said, it also permits us to have a rather good representation of the society and the customs about marriages at this time. And moreover, “the placid couples” as Victoria mentioned them, permits us to really make a contrast between them and the happiness of the main protagonists highlighting the fact that at this time, we didn’t get married for joy and happiness but just to have a comfortable situation and secure our future.
And finally, I really enjoyed the fact that in the bitter-end, we see the different other characters and their situation. In fact, it corresponds a bit to the last chapter of the book of Austen. We could see that Lydia is still Lydia: frivolous and inconsistent but however still with Wickham. We understand by the place where they are that they have no money which doesn’t surprise us. And finally, we see that Lady Catherine de Bourgh is alone with her unmarried daughter, reminding us that even if we have a good fortune, we can’t have all we want and we can’t fight against love. (Darcy’s love for Lizzy)
Now, let’s talk about the second ending which is extracted from the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice by Joe Wright. Even if it’s not the point, I would add first that I found the casting quite good, especially for the actors Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen and Jena Malone who respectively play the role of Elizabeth, Darcy and Lydia.
This version wasn’t all the time faithful to the book of Austen with some scenes which have been added and some removed. For instance, when Lady Catherine comes to the Bennet house in order to speak to Elizabeth, it’s not supposed to be at night when all the family is supposed to sleep. Indeed, in the book, Lady Catherine and Lizzy are outside the house and walk together. However, we can notice that in this scene the dialogues are the same even if the setting is different. Moreover, the ending is too different from the book, maybe a bit too histrionic and romantic; but really full of passion and emotions. But this ending leaves the spectator unsatisfied because an essential detail doesn’t occur: the kiss obviously! So, I’d say that it’s maybe the worst point of this adaption. In addition, I liked the bitter-end of the film which is a bit humorous. Finally, I would add that the music of the film had a strong effect on me; I found that it gave more strength to a few scenes such as when Lizzy dances with Darcy at the ball.
Lucie
The second part
ReplyDeleteTo finish with the different endings, let’s deal with the last of them, also extracted from the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice. It’s the one I least enjoyed. In fact, it was really too like a Hollywood film I found, and I think it spoils a bit the story. In addition, it is too far from the original ending. If someone sees this version before reading the book, I think he can be a bit disappointed to see how the ending is different from the book of Austen.
To conclude, I would say that all the endings have some good and negative points even if I had a preference for the first one. As I really enjoyed the book of Austen, this one seems me the best because the most faithful to the story.
Lucie
I understand that nobody has discussed about the changes and their effects in order to adapt Jane Austen's novel to a two hours film yet, so I will try to do it .
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the director had to choose to take off some characters, for instance Mrs Hurst, Bingley's second sister, or Mrs Philips, Mrs Bennet's sister .Also, he had to make some scenes shorter . It is the case for Mr Collins' marriage proposal to Lizzie, and for Mr Darcy's explaination letter reading, which represents more than 6 pages in the novel without including Elizabeth's reactions, and only five minutes in the movie with her reactions .O course, scenes of the book were completely cut, as for a lunch at the Lucas family and another lunch at Mrs Philips's, where Elizabeth speaks for a long time with Mr Whickham .
To conclude, I will comment the effects of these changes . To my mind, the changes were not disturbing, and they avoid boring parts .Indeed, I found the book intersting and the story great, but some passages are really too long and it had to be cut to keep a pace in the movie .
Pascaline
Compare the three different ending
ReplyDeleteThe three endings are quite different. The first one, from the BBC version of Jane’s Austen novel is completely different while the two others are both taken from Joe WRIGHT’s film. Indeed, the third ending is just the expanded version of the second one.
To begin with, let’s talk about the BBC film ending. I particularly appreciated the casting for the main characters because they stuck to their roles. They were well interpreted, especially Mr Darcy. For instance, when Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet glanced at each other, it emphasised their love, their complicity. Indeed, all the meaning and the intensity of that scene was actually based on that exchange. However, I did not enjoy the attitude of the other characters, I found them dull, unexciting and expressionless. Even during the marriage, no expression of happiness on their face was noticeable. Besides, I did not particularly like to see Elizabeth and Jane’s marriage happening in the mean time. According to me, the public could not focus on each as precisely as they should have to and thus could not appreciate both fully. To conclude, even if the ending stuck to Jane Austen’s, even if the features such as the walk of Mr Darcy and Elizabeth were depicted, I was let down. As far as I’m concerned, the ending was not .. as impressive and effective as I imagined. After all, Mrs Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy’s marriage was THE point of that book. In the one hand I found that this ending did not highlight it enough and in the other one hand I found it quite .. banal and .. disappointing. I expected something more.. magic.
Then, about Joe WRIGHT’s first ending. First of all, there is no question, it is my favourite one. I was delighted by the music, the settings and the way Joe WRIGHT shot his movie. Everything was colourful, exuding joy, happiness, love etc.. Chiefly, the declaration of Mr Bingley to Jane was so effective ! She was shining and seemed more beautiful than ever. Indeed, all the intensity of the emotion were concentrated on her face and attitude. Besides her beauty emphasised their happiness of being finally engaged. Then, the declaration of Mr Darcy to Mrs Elizabeth was nice. Not as impressive as Mr Bingley’s according to me, but agreeable yet. I appreciated the very moment when Mr Darcy and Mrs Elizabeth pressed their forehead against each other. Their faces were lighted up at the same time by their happiness and by the burning sun behind them. So romantic! Indeed the director drew our attention on details and let us time to rejoice of that ending. I think that his choice of ended up without kiss just in order to tease the public was well-thought and relevant !
ReplyDeleteNow, it is the turn of the third ending I judged completely padded out. It was...so namby-pamby! This scene was made for the people frustrated by the original end. However, even the kiss was not so exciting. First, we don’t know how that scene happen ! Furthermore, there is no transition between the moment when Mr Bennet is laughing and that scene. Besides, we don’t see clearly that moment because it is filmed during the night and from afar ! Basically, that ending is a bit shallow and I did not recommend it, even for great fan of romance.
Criticize the casting of the two movie version
ReplyDeleteI will be brief and focus mainly on two actors that distanced themselves from the others.
First, the gifted, handsome and outstanding Colin Firth. I find him very great in his role. He respected all the characteristics of Mr Darcy. Taciturn, placid, smart, reserved but also honest in his feeling, true, and unaffected. I think that he contributed heavily to the success of the BBC film.
On the contrary, I find not so brilliant Keira Knightley. Indeed, despite that I used to admire her in The Duchess for instance, I think that in Pride and Prejudice, sometimes, her acting was unclear. As an example, when she was supposed to hate Mr Darcy in the middle of the plot. We expected to see anger or indifference on her face! However it appeared to me that she was almost rejoiced to see him. I still appreciate her expressions and gesture yet. The second point is that, she was supposed to be the main figure of the story and .. she did not make the best of herself. Despite that, I would not change her with another actress because I love her too much and I used to associate her to that kind of role.
Among the rest, I recognized Carey Mulligan, a young actress I loved in An Education. I found Rosamud Spike (Jane) wonderful and so angelic that she fitted perfectly the role. So did Donald Sutherland (Mr Bennet). Both are my favourite other characters.
I would only change Matthew Macfadyen (Mr Darcy in Joe Wright’s film) and replace him by Collin Firth (if he was younger, in order to fit to the role with Keira Kigntley who is very young compare to him). Indeed I assume that he was not enough charismatic and appeared too shy or not enough masculine.
Why is this story still very fashionable ?
ReplyDeleteAccording to me, Pride and Prejudice is still fashionable nowadays because everyone can feel concerned about pride and prejudice.
Who has never experienced a snap judgement based on a few observation ? Who has never been influenced by prejudices ? Who has never been blind by his own pride to admit the other could be different from what we thought he was ? It is a common place to misjudge people. We are all.. influenced by codes, still nowadays ! We tend to make quick conclusion based on what we heard from other, or what we see at first sight. The most difficult is to see beyond prejudices, and sometimes we have to put our own vanity and pride apart to be impartial. Everyone has, for sure, experienced that. Misjudging someone and then discovering the real person and finally get on well with. Here, Pride and Prejudice depicts this kind of experience and intensifies it. Elizabeth and Mr Darcy went from indifference to hatred and finally to love, real love. It is in that way that this story is wonderful and fashionable (especially with women of course).
There is maybe an other aspect to be focused on. This society, where marriage and courtship were so important, where women and men respected codes and manners, where people were put in cases...is not so different from ours. Indeed, most of the time our friends and close relationships are part of our social sphere, depending on our activities, our level of steady, our interests etc.. and we sometimes neglect and misjudge people from other social belonging. Moreover, our society is structured by codes. A basic example, clothes define who we are at first sight. And first impression are still so important ! Then, the last point is obviously love. Honestly, if marriage is not anymore the major concern, love is. Of course, now, women and men are detached from the “institution” of marriage, but there is still that need to fulfil : love and be loved.
In conclusion, I’d say that if Pride and Prejudice is still fashionable, it is maybe because, over the time, human being, his errors and his major concerns have not change so much.
It's very interesting to see how a same story can be the subject of many visions and adaptations, and thus of various endings.
ReplyDeleteThe first ending we studied was the BBC one. We see Mr Darcy and Elizabeth walking on a path, in the middle of fields; it is very bucolic. Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle are very good, enough to make us realize their feelings and the strength of this moment. According to me, this vision of the story fits very well with Jane Austen novel, because it is very sober, very serious, even if it deals with feelings; I can understand this ending is not what average spectator could expect after five hours.
The second one is Joe Wright's adaptation', starring Keira Knightley. The movie itself is very impressive; actors are good, the soundtrack is absolutely beautiful, and the light effects are of the same quality. Though, according to me, it was quite a disappointing ending: there is no emotion, no strength that comes out from this one; we only see Mr Bennet, laughing alone in his desk.
Finally the third one, which is an alternate ending to Joe Wright's movie, is a more Hollywoodian representation of love; Mr Darcy and Elizabeth, together and happy beneath the stars, with an absolute cliche last sentence; in fact, it's so different from the whole movie, that I'm still asking myself why Joe Wright put this disappointing ending in such a beautiful movie.
You certainly understood, my favorite ending is the first one, because it is the one which fits the most with the atmosphere of Austen novel, according to me. Then, the second one is kind of a middle way, between the BBC one and this disappointing alternate ending.
‘’It is a truth widely acknowledged’’ that two hundred years after the publishing of Jane Austen’s best-loved romance, Pride and Prejudice remains as popular as ever. Whilst we usually relate to classics as uninteresting and irksome, the novel continues to transcend not only time, but also whole generations of women. So what are the reasons for the supreme reign of Austen’s worldwide masterpiece ?
ReplyDeleteIn spite of the colossal dissimilarities between our and the writer’s time period, the principles of society she moralized throughout her novel are still applicable today. Elizabeth Bennet, simple, not nearly as beautiful or perfect as her elder sister Jane, is a set example for women around the world. Her spite, wit, disinterest in money and constant pursuit of love and happiness, makes her a very modern character who all can relate to. We wish only to live the zealous passion of her relationship with Mr Darcy in spite of their very eventful beginnings.
Moreover, Jane Austen paints a very thorough and accurate account of human nature. It would be dishonest to deny that we have all once been blinded by pride and conceit as were Mr Darcy and Elizabeth during their first encounter. Similarly, it is not uncommon to be the victim of prejudices based on first impressions. The multiple defects in the characters’ disposition are in fact a caricature of certain aspects and personalities within our present society : Lady de Bourgh’s haughtiness for example or Mr Bennet’s disregard facing his family in compliance with the arrogance of the richest and the apathy of some.
The sharp, witty and facetious humour which fuels the novel in levity is another great quality of Pride and Prejudice. Mixed with an intense love story of Darcy and Elizabeth and tender romance of naïve Bingley and Jane, the novel is a perfect blend which contributes to the impression of realism given off. Furthermore the variety of comical characters favor a light-hearted criticism of society which allows us to understand with ease a period we are not particularly familiar with. Obsequious and pompous Mr Collins or snobbish Miss Bingley for instance, symbolize the dedainful regard most wealthy inhabitants had upon the poorest whilst the attitude of silly Mrs Bennet humiliates her and her entire family.
Whilst, to my mind, the excellence of this novel which has travelled time, will not apply to the two films we visioned, I believe both were a very successful cinematic adaptations. Throughout the impressive decor and jocular characters, the realistic representation of the nineteenth century and its faults and limits, make both versions very inspiring. I wish only that the popularity of the novel will be evr-lasting and may it exalt following generations as it has done the last two centuries.
The final scenes of Pride and Prejudice are the most difficult to adapt on screen. Whilst novel endings are usually clear and to the point, Jane Austen wrote a long epilogue resuming many years, thereby making the decision on what placing the ending of the movie, increasingly difficult. What differs each three endings we discussed in class?
ReplyDeleteIn the written version, following the multiple weddings, Bingley opted for the purchase of a house near Pemberley which allows both Jane and Elizabeth to visit each other very often. Lydia and Wickham preserve their immature and foolish behaviour and constantly demand money from Darcy, meanwhile frequently visiting the Bingley estate, so much that even the most amiable of them all, Mr Bingley, grew tired of them. Elizabeth becomes very close with her husbands sister, the talented Georgina and eventually begins to interact with snobby Miss Bingley. Lady Catherine, originally disgusted by the relationship of her nephew, agrees to visit him at his home. Furthermore, the couple keeps close contact with the Gardiners, a main aspect of their union in the first place.
In the first BBC adaptation of the novel in 1980, Elizabeth is not able to express her passionate love for Darcy to her father which is, in my opinion, a great disappointment. In fact, in the novel, following an anti-climatic second proposal from Darcy to Lizzy, the reunion of her and her father was a very interesting and highly scene which allowed the father to uncover a softer side of him. I thought it was also quite a pity that the wedding of the two lovers was not represented at the end.
In Joe Wright’s version, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice carries on a little further than the 1980 BBC series and we assist the actual marriages of Bingley and Jane, and Elizabeth and Darcy, leading onto one of the most famous moments of the entire film: the magical freeze frame of Mr and Mrs Darcy’s kiss. Moreover, the ending includes a wonderful scene in which Elizabeth declares her love of Mr Darcy to her father, at which point he heartily gives his consent.
Lastly, in the 2005 version, the ending is slightly different to the original one. In fact, the outdoor scene in which Lizzy expresses her love for Darcy does not take place on a walk to Meryton as in the novel, but during the night when both lovers are unable to sleep. The scene finishes on a kiss, but unfortunately does not show the wedding and later life of the couple.
The continuing popularity of Jane Austen’s novels
ReplyDeleteJane Austen’s novels, written at the beginning of nineteenth century, are very popular as well in the past, as nowadays. Although they were created about two hundred years ago, their actuality is still a great shock for many readers. It gives evidence of the enormous talent of Austen. The representation of the reality of the world she lived in with a touch of irony is really magnificent and incredible. Especially, if we take into account the fact, that she had been living in the time when the women’s rights practically have not existed. In consequence, the popularity of her novels is still growing and she herself is a symbol of a liberated, courageous woman who was not afraid to express her opinion and criticize the world ruled by men.
By reading her books we can discover the society of Romantic England and understand the complicated relations between different social classes. We can also realize that in the past, the most important purpose of the life was to get married. Women wanted to have a financial support for the future life, while the men wanted to have the respect of a married man. The situation of the females was not really fine. They often could not follow their hearts, while selecting the partner for the rest of their lives but were forced to accept the proposal which was better for their futures.
What is more, a rich diversity of characters presented in the works of Jane Austen permit a reader to identify oneself with a hero or heroine in a novel. I suppose that a lot of girls reading for instance Pride and Prejudice found much in common with one of the Bennet sisters, who represented five completely different types of women, that everyone has to discover the similarities with at least one of them. Correspondingly, I am sure that many young men noticed their close resemblance with Mister Fitzwilliam Darcy or Wickham. Despite their evident disparities, they symbolize the two types of men who attract the most women’s attention.
Furthermore, thanks to the Hollywood producers, such as Simon Langton or Joe Wright who directed the television and movie adaptations of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, the celebration of her literary works is constantly increasing. Moreover, many Hollywood productions such as Bridget Jones's Diary are based on her novels. It makes her works much more popular. Likewise, Gurinder Chadha who made a Bollywood film Bride and Prejudice, helped to propagate the Austen’s novels in the Far East, especially in the Indian society, where they were not known before this production.
In the effect, the greatest English novelist of nineteenth century is famous all over the world. Throughout centuries, numerous enthusiasts for her works were paying the homage to this talented writer. Nowadays her popularity is still continuing and seems to not finish so fast. In my opinion, her novels will be always appreciated by many readers in different countries, because they are up-to-date all the time.
Olga
Why is the story of Pride and Prejudice still popular today?
ReplyDeleteFor me, Pride and Prejudice is a timeless story because its main theme is Love.
This love story is mostly centered on the growing love felt by the protagonist Elisabeth for Mr. Darcy as Mr. Darcy has already fallen for her from the start and it is the pillar of the construction of the novel. Love stories are timeless: Romeo and Juliette is a very old love story but it is still one of the most famous ones, known all around the world. The relation between Darcy and Elisabeth is very interesting because it brings together two characters that initially seem to have totally opposite personalities, and that hate each other. The story shows that first impressions are not always correct and I agree with Julia with the fact that we have all misjudged someone and then discovered his or her real personality and not just once. The novel is then a true love story and a great lesson on how pride and prejudice impact relations. But to keep the reader’s interest, Jane Austen included in the novel many other different couples, each being a perfect example of a good or mismatched couple typically found in the society J. Austen lived in. The novel is a great “study” of the different but mostly upper classes of the society she lived in. Its other themes class and reputation are still very relevant to today's society.
In the novel, the interest is mostly turned to Elisabeth’s thoughts or points of view, something we also notice in the movie we watched in class. Elisabeth is a modern, witty and empowered young woman, and the fact that the narration appears to be really focused on her makes the story more exciting.
Moreover, the tone of the novel is comic, which makes the story pleasant to read. Irony is fully present in Jane Austen’s style of writing or even in some characters’ personalities: Mr. Bennet loves to talk to his wife ironically. Jane Austen also uses ridicule to add some more fun to the reading, with Mr. Collins or Mrs. Bennet.
Also, some of the characters she created can be smart, proud or naïve and they all seem very real. The fact that each character has his own personality is, I think, really interesting, and for my part, I felt really close to each of them because of the way their personalities and actions are described.
Furthermore, the story has an emotional atmosphere and we can feel all along the reading the difficulty of choosing between love and loyalty that is really present and moving (as when Elisabeth refuses to marry Mr. Collins or when Mr. Darcy breaks his engagement with his aunt’s daughter to marry Elisabeth).
Finally, the successes of the two movies that have been made from the novel (especially the more recent one) are evidence that the story is still popular today. For my part, I really liked the movie and the novel; though it seemed a bit long, it made for really interesting and pleasant reading.
Adèle
Sorry the dashes appear like that :
DeleteJust like many of you all, i'll comment on the three different endings we visioned in class.
ReplyDeleteThe first ending, directed by Andrew Davies in 1995 in a series of six episodes, was from my point of view, fairly well adapted, in spite of plot differences. Just like Carys said, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy, both played by Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, appeared far away from the ages attributed by Austen. Plus, I agree with Manon when she says that this adaptation is perfect for those who did not read the book, thanks to the numerous details. Well, a film of 5 hours will have to have numerous details I guess... Personnaly, i didn't watch this adaptation so I can really judged it, but by the simple look of the ending, I don't thing it would have been my cup of tea, even if it looked to fit perfectly with Austen's novel...
Secondly, Joe Wirght's adapation from 2005 is much more modern. A Hollywood production, with lovely Keira Knitghley as Elizabeth Bennet, was to my mind quite well adapted even if a few details sliped away. Such as the kiss between Lizzie and Darcy mentioned in the novel wich was not readapted in the film. Concerning the cast, I thought Keira Knitghley embodied her role really nicely . On the other hand, I was not keen on the actor playing Darcy, but that is only a question of taste.
Lastly, the 3th ending was my favorite. I agree when the others says that it is “too Hollywoodian” and it does not really fit with Austen's original Pride&Prejudice, therefore I thought it was much more enjoyable and agreeable to watch. I thought the kiss between Lizzie and Darcy plus the wonderful exchanged they had on the outdoor scene, put a touch of magic to this serious film. But just like I said before, this is my point of view and I can fully understand those who do not share my opinion.
I would say that the best ending is actually the one of the wedding because as in the book, it shows us all the couples, which are mentioned in the book, and so, it highlights one of the main themes of the novel, which is marriage.
ReplyDeleteAs we can see, the Gardiners are shown happy and together: a marriage in which they go perfectly well together: they are looking at each other. We see Miss Lucas with Collins who are looking straight in front of them, without paying attention to the other one so we can guess it is not a happy marriage but a marriage out of calculation for the two of them. Catherine de Burgh with her daughter are presented as angry and alone, as in the novella. Lydia and Wickham are shown in lust but with no real love from Wickham’s side, as it as always been, Elizabeth and Darcy are shown in love together but in a great dignity while Jane and Bingley are shown looking at each other in quite a naïve way, those are the well matching couples which end with a marriage out of love. Finally, in opposition with their two eldest daughters, the Bennets are shown with their opposite characters: Mrs Bennet happy to have married three daughters and Mr Bennet still seeming not to really care… According to me, this end is the one witch fit the best with the one of the novella.
Louise.
I would just regret that the letters don’t have a bigger place in the movie because they where actually the main way to communicate with people at that time and they are the only way of really knowing the feelings and the personalities of the characters in pride and prejudice as the novella is written by Elizabeth’s perspective, even if the narrator is omniscient.
ReplyDeleteLouise.
I totally agree your point of view about the letters ! I have the same impression.
DeleteHi everyone, I hope you enjoyed your Holidays, I was very busy and I didn't find time to write my post before. Each one made a great job, you talked a lot about the endings but I decided to make my post about the casting. I'll try to react about that, and to tell you my point of view. First I want to react about Mathilde’s post, you said that Clin Firth was well casted, but I was disappointed about the two castings of Mr. Darcy, I expected to find an actor haughtier and who had a more rich appearance. So in my view, Colin Firth and Mattew Mcfedyen were not very well chosen. As I don’t know many actors I cannot tell you some name that correspond more to my description of the “perfect actor”. Now about the Elizabeth’s role, you think that Keira Knigghtley is not very close to Elyzabeth and I disagree, because I think, she is pretty but very simple, which correspond very well with the description of Lizzy by Jane Austen in the book. Last point about Rosamund Pike, I totally agree with you when you say that “she was beautiful and fully in her role”. I’ve finished about the casting, unfortunately and as I said before I cannot tell you which actor I would choose if I was a casting director.
ReplyDeleteI just want to react about what Louise said “would just regret that the letters don’t have a bigger place in the movie” because a totally agree with her point of view, and had the same reaction when I saw the film. You know in the book the letters permit us to know more about characters but in the film as we see the characters, maybe it is useless to adapt the letters’ part, it is my point of view, tell me what you think about that.
And to conclude my post I would like to tell something to Amélie. You have some Indian origins, and this can interest you. I find a film Bride and prejudice, it is a romantic musical film, inspired by Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen but it is a Bollywood-style adaptation in English with some Hindi and Punjabi dialogue. I put the link, it’s a short video on youtube, it’s the preview of the film, go and see it, it’s very funny and very different than our version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ4b5HBFKvY
Bride and Prejudice is a very fun version of Austen's classic - I posted the trailer on the home page of your class blog to make it a little easier. Try and figure out who's who! (Mr. Collins, Mary, etc.)
DeleteThanks Anatole ! In fact, I've already seen this movie a couple of time (my sister loves it, she actually almost spoiled the dvd ...), and I agree with you on the fact that this movie is really different and quite funny too. Mr Collins becomes mr Kholi, Darcy stays Darcy (he is unique !), Lizzy becomes Lalita, and our Mary becomes the girl who does the snake dance, a dance that is usually performed during weddings (that's why everybody feels a bit uncomfortable when she starts dancing !).
DeleteI can lend the movie to you if you want, or to anybody else in this class if somebody is interested. (Mrs Chavel, if you want us to watch it in class, just for fun, but you don't have the dvd, maybe I can bring it :) ). For the moment, it's in Iseut's house I think.
Of the three, the second movie we watched in class was the version closest to the novel, although it is still not exactly right.
ReplyDeleteContrarely to the other two films, Lady Catherine was not a kindly old lady, and was in fact, in my opinion, very well interpreted by Judi Dench. She had the arrogance represented in the novel which I thought was really good. Although I think that Keira Knightly is extremely beautiful, she was not as bad-tempered and proud as expected and her love for Darcy was less explicit than in the novel which I though was a little bit disappointing. Moreover I believe that Darcy was very well played by MacFayden : he was shy and unobstrusive, but still audacious and proud. However the progression of his character was much more rapid than in the novel.
I also thought that Jane was played extremely well by Rosamund Pike who really brung out the naivety and tenderness of her character's personnality. Bingley's character was just as well played for he was kind and calm although he was not very handsome. One of my favourite characters besides Mr Bennet played by Donald Sutherland who really highlighted his character's sarcasm, was Mr Collins who's boastfulness and snobbishness was perfect ! He represented exactly the conceit the richer had upon the poor.
On the whole, I thought that the movie was more focused on the love story between Elizabeth and Darcy rather than the lifestyle of women and more wealthy families at the time. So if you would rather read a novel of manners, read the book and if you prefer romantic movies, watch the film !
I saw that everyone had interesting ideas. I am going to talk about the three different endings of Pride and Prejudice.
ReplyDeleteThe thirst ending we saw, like erwan said, is really well adapted to Jane Austen's novel. I think that this last scene is a really good ending to a good film. The landscape is really nice and there is a blue sky. It is very calm just like the discussion elizabeth and Mr.Darcy are going to have but it is full of different feelings. For me the film, that I saw, was good. It sticked to the book but I didn't believe in these actors. I don't think they were made for this film.
The second ending we saw was also a bit desapointing.I really liked the actors and nearly all the movie. Near the end, there is a wonderful scene ( I guess that's why all the class aplaused ) when elizabeth and Darcy kiss with the sun rising behind them and I think the film should stop at this moment but Joe Wright wanted to continue and I didn't see what I was expecting to see at the end and I didn't really like it.
Finally the other ending which was an other ending of Joe Wright's film was my favourite one. We can see much more love between Elizabeth and Darcy in this ending than in the other ones and that's what the people are asking for when they go and see these kind of films, and because the actors are really good, it is an even bigger success.
That's what i think about these three endings. Hoped you liked it!
I will talk about the main differences between the 2005 film version of pride and prejudice and Jane Austen’s book and the effects that these changes create on the story and the audience.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the 2004 version of pride and prejudice is, to my opinion, the least faithful to the book : it eliminates very important characters, and takes out several scenes or combines them together. It also displays a lack of accuracy considering the time period and the way people behaved at that time.
A few examples of these changes are :
- The fact that Lizzy is depicted rather rude in the movie, and she often yells at her mother, wereas the book shows a rather joyful and spirited Elizabeth who, of course does not accomplish all of her mother’s demands, but still respects her.
- The scene of Darcy’s first proposal, in the rain is, indeed a more romantic American Hollywood version but is completely different from the book’s indoor proposal.
- The two versions of the last scene from the movie : where, in the first one Darcy proposes a second time to Lizzy in a clearing, in the middle of a dark forest and the movie finishes on a close up of their faces in the sunlight. The second one, happens soon after the proposal, and we see the couple kiss.
Of course this movie has had to make a lot of changes to Jane Austen’s novel, but i still think it was a great movie, especially because these changes created a kind of faster pace that grasps your attention and make you understand the story differently.
I've been very impressed how a same story could be adapted in such different points of views and how it impacted on the story understanding itself.
ReplyDeleteThe first ending we saw was the BBC one, which was the most faithful to the novel since the background, the dialogues and the global aspects of the characters were very close to Jane Austen's book. We feel that the producer’s priority was to be the most respectful to Jane Austen's work. It was my favorite one because it was very close to the book and also from the imaginative representation i had, even if i was a bit surprised by the fact the weddings of Jane and Elizabeth took place in the same church at the same time. However, it is still the best representation of the book because anybody who hasn’t read the book can mostly understand it.
The second ending, which is Joe Wright's adaptation, very disappointed me. It seems the story was mixed with several usual Hollywood scenes when we know these are two type of work that can’t really be put together. The result is for me a movie close to Pride and Prejudice, but which doesn’t deserve it as title. As Iseut said, the scene where Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy meet in the morning in the mists of the dawn was creating a highly romantic atmosphere, I can’t deny, but was quite unrealistic. Moreover, the final scene was the father laughing, I found quite inappropriate while we have been following the love story between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy since the beginning.
Finally, the third ending which is an optional ending from Joe Wright’s adaptation had, I think, totally it’s place in the bonus part. It was highly ridiculous I thought, and I didn’t fell any emotions in this one, I just have to admit the background and the sets were beautiful.
I will conclude that, as I said, the first ending was my favorite one and also that, on the contrary of the majority of the class, I didn’t really care about the kiss, and I don’t understand this “ kiss-priority” in love stories.
I meant " points of view " " its place" and " didn't feel".
DeleteSorry.
We watched before the holidays three endings of different adaptations from Jane Austen’s novel of manners, Pride and Prejudice. I’m going to describe and compare them.
ReplyDeleteIn 1995, Simon Langton and Andrew Davies produced a series made of six episodes broadcasted on the BBC. That series ends with Jane and Elizabeth (Jennifer Ehle)’s wedding with Mr Darcy (Colin Firth) and Mr Bingley. Although it was obviously the most faithful adaptation - as Iseut highlighted -, its ending was not the one I enjoyed the most. Indeed, I was a bit disappointed by the actors chosen, who were from my point of view to old, compared to their initial ages in the novel. Furthermore, even if I never watched the whole series, I’m not sure I would enjoy it, because of too many details I guess. Personally, when I’m watching an adaptation from a book, I’m expecting to find some discrepancies. I actually find more interesting to see how someone else than the author is able to show us another perception of the original story by changing a few aspects of it... Unless the changes are too large, of course.
More recently, in 2005, Joe Wright directed a new adaptation from Pride and Prejudice, with notably Keira Knightley (Elizabeth) and Matthew Macfadyen (Mr Darcy). I simply loved this movie! Both funny and moving, it was quite faithful to the book despite some details left out and the casting was very well chosen.
After Mr Darcy’s second proposal, Elizabeth finally accepts, realizing she is in love with him too. The next and last scene takes place at the Bennet’s, where Lizzy’s father has a first discussion with Mr Darcy. Then he has a second discussion with his daughter, in which he gives his acceptance for the wedding. This ending is, in my opinion, the best one. I found the final hug between the father and the daughter very emotional, and I think it’s preferable to close the movie with that picture. A kiss between Elizabeth and Darcy would have been too much. But for the ones who were waiting for a last scene “so romantic”, Joe Wright’s film has a second ending (available in the bonus part if you buy the DVD), much more “Hollywoodian”, with the two main characters showing how they love each other with... a kiss!
Jane Austen was born in 1775 and published her famous " Pride and Prejudice " in 1813. Though it describes very well the courtship and the society of that time, it's hard to understand the reasons that make this novel so popularn still nowadays, with many adaptations of this novel in movies, of the fact that it is still a best-seller.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think that one of the main reasons for this continuing success is the fact that the novels tells a love story. It's well known that for many centuries, women have been fond of love stories, that sell them a dream. Even nowadays, these kind of stories are popular, certainly because love is an universal subject that rings a bell to everyone, regardless of the time they live in or their age.
Secondly, I think that the conflictual relationship between Elizabeth and Mr Darcy is quite realistic. It displays love and relationships as something taht is time-consuming : it takes a lot of time and efforts to build a relationship with smeone, to get to know and appreciate this person.
We live in an era where modern couples have a short life expectancy and I guess that a lot of people and especiallty women are tired of fairy tales that never happen, of Charming Princes who never come to sweep them off their feet. That's the reason why this novel is a real changement. For once, a novel tells the truth and every character has its own deffects and qualities ; nothing is totally good or bad. This novel displays something realistic, on the contrary of usual love stories, even if there is a happy ending at the end of " Pride and Prejudice ".
To conclude with, I guess that the point of the character's psychology is important. Celebrities ( such as Kheira Knightley ), experts or readers say that Austen really explored psychology to give a human dimension to her characters. We can assume that there is an identification process that permits the readers t really identify themselves to the situation.