Pride and Prejudice: the movie
by Zia ~ November 16th, 2005. Filed under: Ephemera.Elizabeth and I went to a 10 o’clock show last night, which of course meant that I wasn’t home until 1 and consequently overslept this morning. And the sad thing was that it wasn’t worth it. P&P, the latest blockbuster movie, was not just bad, but terrible.
To be fair, P&P is hard to cram into 2 hours without losing a lot of its essence. And there were a couple of good scenes. Elizabeth and Darcy crackled in that one scene in which they are dancing and she takes him to task for not talking. Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh was fabulous. However, the rest of the movie was pretty bad — not because of the quality of acting, but because of the execrable script.
First of all, the screenwriter obviously had no knowledge of the historical period he or she was writing about; there were glaring errors in every single scene. Clothing, manners, speech — none were immune to his/her ignorance. Among other things, Elizabeth apparently liked to loll about and wander the moors in her nightrail and dressing gown.
And then there were the dialogue changes. “I have no money and no prospects. I’m frightened, Lizzie. Don’t you dare judge me!” cries Charlotte on informing Elizabeth that she is to wed Mr. Collins.
Seriously, who smoked some crack and came up with THAT?
It’s too bad the script was so bad because it was obviously a lavish production that recalled the last BBC production (the one with the delectable Colin Firth as Darcy). But if you need to watch P&P, rent that one instead.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
i am impressed you went to see P&P at all; i was so angry that anyone dared try to up the BBC production. Hollywood should really give it a rest with its Jane Austen knock-offs.
To anyone who has not seen the BBC production: Do not be daunted by its length, 6 hours. This is a fantastic rainy day experience.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I’m not completely sure but I don’t think that the sets and costumes are the fault of the screenwriter. They generally are not too involved in those decisions. It’s usually the set designer, director, art director and costumer designer. There was an interview with the director on NPR and he actually explained his reasons for changing the costumes.The dresses of the earlier time period were more shapely and flattering to the female (and males, of course) form. Call it artistic license. We art people do it all of the time. It’s our get out of jail free card.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
One more thought. The whole film process is such a collaborative process and much of it motivated by the bottom line rather than artistic integrity which doesn’t always make for a good marriage in adapting a piece with such a loyal and purist following. Sad but true. Sorry for the run-on sentence. I need a good editor.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
While I’m all about artistic license (to some degree), I have to confess that I AM a purist. As for who is to blame: they’re all to blame. Art directors, set desginers, directors (perhaps most of all), screenwriter. This is the thing: if you’re going to plead the artistic license card, do a reinterpretation. Otherwise, it’s just dumbing it down. And dumbed down it was. The movie was a vacuous shell of the story.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:52 am
[…] I’m sure this novel, told from the viewpoint of the inestimable Mr. Darcy, is a fine one. I’m just tired of the whole darn thing. I flipped through the pages to see where I gave up. It was the first page. I don’t even know why I bought it, though my suspicions are aimed at one of those nefarious little Borders schemes to “buy two get one free.” Perhaps this will get another go in a couple years, but for now, it’s going back to the bookshelf. […]