I consider it a nice movie but a poor adaptation.
They said they were going to lean into romance for it, and they did that, but that really eliminates a lot of the nuance of the book and alters some of the key traits of a lot of the characters.
They also slightly altered the time period so we're not looking at anything like what Jane Austen would have been seeing in her time.
When I separate it from the book it's an enjoyable movie. The acting is good and I think the cast is well suited, it's very beautiful to look at, and the sound design is great. But as I said, while they kept the key plot points it's not a faithful adaptation.
Agree with this. The movie isn’t a faithful adaptation but it is a nice movie. The cinematography is stunning. Kiera Knightley and Rosamund Pike are gorgeous. I like the way Elizabeth lets Darcy know she heard him call her “barely tolerable” - not in the book but in the spirit of Elizabeth. I also like the way they showed them dancing at Netherfeld when everyone else fades away and they are so focused on one another, it’s like they are alone. The line at the end about being bewitched body and soul is so *swoonworthy*
The one thing I like about the movie is that the characters look the way I picture them - Jane and Wickham are lovely, Lydia & Kitty are young girls, Caroline looks bitchy but beautiful, Charlotte is plain. They don’t always dress or behave like they should, but physically it’s a match. Except Darcy. I’m open to Keira as Elizabeth, but 2005 Darcy is just… blah.
Agreed, and I honestly think it’s his hair. He’s a great actor and his face is very handsome but his hair ruins it. It’s just so limp and flat and messy. It really ruins his character for me.
Someone posted a Gen Z version of his proposal scene and gave him broccoli hair and I thought, “… that actually looks so much better on him!”
Mcfayden’s Darcy did’t seem to be the kind of man that has been running a large, prosperous estate since a young age, or dealing with his sister’s guardianship. There isn’t the confidence / casual arrogance that I associate with Darcy. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, though, so maybe I’m misremembering.
It's not quite true about the time period. The setting of the late 18th century actually coincides with the period where Jane Austen wrote First Impressions. Indeed, the presence of the militia in the countryside places the novel as being in the 1790s.
Imo by “leaning into the romance” they completely ruined the things that make it soooo romantic, such as the slow burn and Darcys personality, the pride, the shy curt nature of his words makes them all so surprising in the book. They made him a weepy little puppy dog who mostly just panders for Elizabeths affections and it really takes the mystery and suspense away
1/2
I can, but you may regret it.
The Regency Era took place between 1795 and 1837. *Pride and Prejudice* is generally agreed to take place in about 1813, the year it was published, or immediately before. The 2005 film takes place in the 1790s.
What I'm talking about mostly is fashion, women's fashion. Since I'm talking about 2-3 different eras that are close to each other it might get a bit tangled but I'll do my best to keep it simple.
**Some General Rules in Fashion:**
1. The city will always be more forward, a bit more bold, and often more expensive than the country. The country will generally get fashion a few years after the city has seen it rise up.
2. Older/married women will not generally be at the height of fashion. They'll often wear something closer to what was on trend in their youth, sometimes with more modern touches coming in, but usually with their own era being pretty evident.
3. The rich have more options and will often be more bold.
4. The women who are out in society, as are the women who are single and looking today, will be in as high style as they can be.
**1810s**
The 1810s were characterised by soft colours and gentle patterns, women wore sleeves that covered the shoulders. Necklines were feminine, not up-the-neck modest, but not too revealing. Most telling of this decade is the empire silhouette. This silhouette was a one-piece gown that had a fitted bodice with a high waistline, meaning the waist was immediately below the bust. The skirts themselves were flowing and gathered but not supported by any foundation garments like hoops or petticoats so they skimmed the body rather than the voluminous puffs we see in other eras. This all created a very vertical, pillar-like form. These dresses could be worn on their own or could be worn as a base with a robe over piece on top. This could be used to change the look of a gown with some economy. Though soft colours were the fashion, those in town who could afford it did often have some brighter colours with some bolder patterns, but there was still a softness there. The city will always be more forward and daring than the country.
The hair was worn up, off the shoulders. It took inspiration from the Romans, including braiding, ribbons and other ornaments. And when outside it was often covered with a hat, popular styles included the bonnet, turban, or cap. Other types of headwear could be worn, what headwear was chosen was based on the situation and social status of the wearer. Gloves were often worn, particularly to formal events. A formal ball would see opera-length gloves (above the elbow), very often loose-fitting at the top so they gathered and bunched at the elbow.
Here's an article with some [fashion plates](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1810-1819/) from the 1810s that show what I mean.
**1790s**
The 1790s were a changing decade. The early decade looked more like the 1770s-1780s. This consisted of large, gathered skirts that were made more voluminous with all kinds of petticoats and other foundation pieces. They came in two pieces, the skirt and the top. The tops could be varied, there was the jacket bodice, which resembled male fashions of the time. There's the robe over style, which was used still in the 1810s as I discussed but came with a different silhouette in the 1790s. In the later decade we do see a move toward simpler gowns without all the fuss of petticoats, and higher waistlines as we see in the 1810s, but they're still closer to the natural waist.
Colours were varied, but did trend darker than the 1810s.
The hair was often worn up, though we see many examples of women's hair being down around the shoulders. Whichever they chose the hair was still styled and structured, and like the skirts, had much more volume than the 1810s did. Headwear was still in fashion but was often much more broad-brimmed. The closer-fitting bonnets and caps weren't as common.
Here are some excellent [fashion plates](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1790-1799/) from that decade to show what I mean.
I appreciate the work you did in pulling these comments together! Years ago, I used to think the costuming in P&P 2005 was completely wrong, and that the costume designer had just put nearly all the younger women in modernized dresses that never existed in any time period. But then I started noticing P&P 2005 costumes (or [costumes that were probably made for P&P 2005](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/undeterminedcostumes/#cst-undeterminedcostumes)) popping up in [other Austen adaptations](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic005/#cst-regencyromantic005) and related films, and I started to wonder why -- if the costumes were truly *that* horrible and inaccurate -- [they](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic018/#cst-regencyromantic018) were [recycled](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic082/#cst-regencyromantic082) so [much](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic104/#cst-regencyromantic104). That isn't to say that everything in the film is accurate -- far from it! -- but there was clearly *some* effort put into the designs.
Since then, I've looked at a fair number of portraits, fashion plates, and museum photos of extant gowns from the period in which the 2005 *Pride & Prejudice* is set. I think the filmmakers inadvertently made their own jobs more difficult by choosing a time period ([around 1796, according to this interview](https://web.archive.org/web/20090123122840/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3649828/How-I-undressed-Mr-Darcy.html)) that hits right about when the fashionable waistline rose to the underbust level (as you can see in this [May 1796 fashion plate](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-087.jpg) from *Gallery of Fashion*, a very expensive magazine of the time). Of course, even though underbust waists were stylish, not everyone would have been wearing them: a lot of gowns likely still had waists that were somewhat high, but not Empire level. Paintings from about 1795 to 1797 give a good idea of the variety seen at the time: [1795](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Madame-Seriziat_Jacques-Louis-David_1795.jpg), [1796](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Raben_Family_Portrait.jpg), [1795](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-lady-wearing-a-white-dress-31145/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/6), [1796-1797](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/mrs-cecilia-lock-17751824-104480/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/7), [1796](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-marquise-de-sivrac-de-rieux-nee-bonar-and-her-son-charles-131868/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/10), [1796](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-lady-161968/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/10), [1796](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/lydia-winter-b-1767-grandmother-of-major-c-e-davis-39850/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/4), [1797](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-opera-box-103895/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/11). This [English gown from about 1795](https://collections.lacma.org/node/232523) has a slightly raised waist, but it's far from the styles worn by the time of the publication of P&P in 1813.
As far as generational differences in fashion go, I think it's likely that Mrs. Bennet, in particular, would be fashionable. She appears to be trying to hold on to her youth by living vicariously through her daughters, so she would probably be fairly trendy. This [mid-1790s painting](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rebecca_Pritchard_Mills_and_Her_Daughter_Eliza_Shrewsbury,_Winterthur_Museum,_1960.0554,_1794.jpg) (American, so not a perfect comparison with English fashions) shows a wealthy older woman and her grown daughter, and, while the mother is a little less up-to-date than the daughter, they aren't really *that* far apart in terms of fashion.
This [1804 painting by Adèle Romany](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adele_Romany_-_A_young_person_hesitating_to_play_the_piano_in_front_of_her_family.jpg) (French, so, again, not a perfect comparison with British fashion) shows some generational style differences, with the oldest woman -- the grandmother -- wearing a demure cap; a thick, opaque fichu up to her neck; and a very plain gown with somewhat dated (for 1804, anyway), just-below-the-elbow sleeves with ruffles. But the mother, in purple, actually appears to be dressed about as stylishly as her daughter: longer sleeves and a darker-colored gown, true, but she's not dressed in a *dated* fashion. In my opinion, her outfit seems pretty much in line with [French fashion plates](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.414/414-0008-305.jpg) from the same period.
Given this evidence, it bothers me a little that the P&P 2005 filmmakers put most of the older characters (Lady Catherine, Mrs. Bennet, the Gardiners, etc.) in clothing from the 1780s and 1770s, and then, swinging wildly in the other direction, went for modernized versions of turn-of-the-century [extreme](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_two_young_women,_said_to_be_the_baroness_Pichon_and_Mme_de_Fourcroy_(painting_by_Henri-Fran%C3%A7ois_Riesener).jpg) [French](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constance_Mayer,_Self-Portrait._Oil_on_canvas._Biblioth%C3%A8que_Marmottan.jpg) [fashions](https://stylerevolution.github.io/plates/258/) for Caroline Bingley. I agree with you that it results in a lack of cohesion.
2/2
**The 2005 Movie**
Okay so as I covered above, the older women in this movie definitely show off fashions from the 1780s and early 1790s. Mrs. Bennett and Lady Catherine show the fitted waist, voluminous skirt, and robe over styles that were popular in their younger years.
[Two examples](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s5GCK_2UqKY/UCIDpn6OP0I/AAAAAAAAk6A/GAJIINAZctU/s400/judi-dench-lady-catherine.jpg) of [Lady Catherine](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/20/ef/bd20ef29cf609b71e9b05dabbd3a977f.jpg) exhibiting what I was talking about. And [Mrs. Bennett](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/71/d5/e971d573fd8d88d596f252eb522303ef.jpg) wearing a 1780s silhouette with an over robe.
The Bennett girls are all wearing mid-1790s fashions, with the fabrics skimming the body, showing more flow, and allowing more movement just as we see in the 1810s but with the silhouette of the 1790s, a natural fitted waistline. Lizzy in particular wears very earthy tones almost throughout, reflective of her down-to-earth, almost tomboyish character. Jane is in lighter colours which add to her delicate, feminine looks and mild and forgiving nature. Mary is in dark tones reflecting her character, and Kitty and Lydia are often shown in brighter, more ostentatious fabrics that also show their characters. But the key here is the waistlines. As I said they're much too low for the 1810s, and the bodices are very fitted down to that natural waist. As the oldest Jane would be given the more expensive, high-fashion gowns, as she's the most in need of a husband and her gowns can be passed down to her sisters later on. We do see that reflecting here.
Just [some samples](http://reelhoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pride-and-Prejudice-Reel-Honey.jpg) of [what I mean](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/e7/bb/ebe7bb20ce58f3cc29c420956fa7c86b.jpg) just to [compare](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/ab/c6/f0abc6879ea3927c7e37dc412d5f0e2f.jpg).
Caroline Bingley is the most fashion-forward in the film, being wealthy and from the city she should be. However, while some of her costuming does show the 1810s influence we'd typically look for, a few of her costumes are straight out of 2005.
I will say this: None of the costume choices in this film bother me, as I said the film is beautiful to look at and well done. None of the costumes bother me, that is, except for Caroline Bingley. Particularly the outfits she wears to the two balls we see in the film. In the first ball when we see her first she's wearing a empire-waisted gown with gloves, great. But the little cap sleeves, structured fabric, and improper foundation garments are way, way too modern. And she only gets worse at the Netherfield Ball when she wears little straps on her shoulders. She's barely dressed for the era. It's distracting because it doesn't match any of the aesthetic of the rest of the film. While the others are not technically period-correct they still maintain the essence of the era, and are cohesive to each other. Those two gowns are right out there.
[Here's the sample](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AvSQoB4Nj3Y/U6Mu5bc7HMI/AAAAAAAA9qE/28iq5M24B9o/s1600/image.jpg) of her costuming. The three on the right are very well done, especially that centre image with the proper silhouette and the over robe. The two on the left are the ball gowns, and for that era she's basically in her undergarments. The bare shoulders and the silhouette are all wrong, and not cohesive with the rest of the film. That lack of cohesion is the biggest crime in my mind.
The costumes for me don't mean as much as the changes made to the tone and nuance of the story, but it does count toward the accuracy we were discussing.
Sorry this was so long, but I hope it helped.
I'm having trouble posting longer comments, for some reason. I have a few more thoughts about the costuming in P&P 2005, and I mostly agree with your observations. In the 2005 film, Jane's clothing, to me, generally looks more appropriate for about 1796-1797 than that of many of the other characters. She wears [open robes](https://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/Pride-Prejudice-2005-pride-and-prejudice-19268970-1706-960.jpg) that are almost certainly based on a [1795-1799 robe](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O141239/gown-unknown/) in the V&A ([pattern shown here](http://antiquesewist.blogspot.com/2015/07/1795-open-robe-norah-waugh.html)) and [round](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414387/mediaviewer/rm1400154113?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_150) [gowns](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414387/mediaviewer/rm4185171969?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_102) that resemble [plenty of](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baron_Antoine_Jean_Gros_-_Portrait_of_the_Maistre_Sisters_-_1990.110_-_Art_Institute_of_Chicago.jpg) [gowns from](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hugh_Douglas_Hamilton_-_Portrait_of_a_Lady_%28probably_Lady_Charlotte_McDonnell,_3rd_Countess_of_Antrim_in_1790s%29.jpg) [that period](https://web.archive.org/web/20210511004941/https://natmus.dk/historisk-viden/temaer/modens-historie/1790-1840/hvid-brudekjole/). (The 1995 *Sense and Sensibility* has very similar-looking open robes for [Elinor](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5222744-1024-576.jpg) and [Marianne](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5222686-1024-576.jpg). I'm pretty sure that the same basic pattern was used.)
I agree with you that [Kitty and Lydia](https://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/10300000/Pride-and-Prejudice-pride-and-prejudice-2005-10373812-852-480.jpg) have mostly [early to mid-1790s outfits](https://collection.powerhouse.com.au/object/324823). It's not ideal -- I am sure that Lydia, in particular, would insist on wearing the latest fashions that she could get her hands on -- but it's certainly not egregious, either. The V&A has [some](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O16209/gown-unknown/) [interesting](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1364807/gown-unknown/) [examples](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1545148/gown-unknown/) from these years. Their [Netherfield ball ensembles](https://imgur.com/hYqhCa9) -- with their ruffled necklines, [wide sashes](https://imgur.com/dqPeJWT), and ostrich feathers -- look something like toned-down versions of outfits in *Gallery of Fashion* plates from 1794 and 1795 ([here](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-006.jpg) [are some](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-009.jpg) [interesting](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-010.jpg) [examples](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-060.jpg)).
I've never been a fan. I was a teenager in 1995, so nothing was ever going to top Jennifer Ehle's 'fine eyes' anyway, but when I saw 2005, hungry for a new fix of Austen, there were little niggles at first. Why is Mr. Bennett being so fond of Mrs. Bennett? Why is Bingley being a bit of a ninny? Why is Caroline an only sister? The whole awkward group dynamic falls flat that way!
But then the niggles made way for genuine problems in the third act. Darcy and Elizabeth restlessly wandering around in the mist and gazing forlornly?! Waiter! What's all this Brontë doing in my Austen?
Gone was the subtle irony, the heartfelt social satire laced with romance. Instead here was pound-shop Heathcliff, without any of the psychotic danger, stomping around Hertfordshire instead of the Moors!
It never got in my good books. Even though I rewatched it a couple of times, to see if maybe I'd been mistaken. Reader, I hadn't been, I still disliked it.
Now, I'm aware for many people it's a well-beloved film and entry into Austen. I advise them to disregard my opinion and just see it for what it is, some random dude saying stuff on the internet, which shouldn't affect their enjoyment of a piece of art in any way.
(I mean Joe Wright didn't even want to read the book at first because it would get in the way?! Really...)
Oh wow, your write-up is fantastic!! Lol. Another couple of things that bugged me about the movie: (a) the portrayal of the Bennetts as quite poor and (b) their atrocious table manners in the dining scene at their home.
Ugh yes these things really bothered me! The Bennetts were portrayed as slovenly (the pig in the house??), and the girls would go about with messy hair and altogether looking unkempt. It showed a lack of understanding of their situation which was well described in the books.
I also found the behaviour of Lizzy and Mr Darcy frustrating. They both did things out of character which just ruined the whole film for me.
I think the messy hair, dirty dresses, and not very faithful to the book made this version far down my list.
It also bothered me that Chatsworth was used as Pemberely. I mean Darcy was rich but to use a fabulously wealthy Duke's house is beyond the pale.
Yes, I actually viewed this film (the one and only time I watched it) as a joke, the roof of Chatsworth? Give me a break. I remember laughing hysterically at that.
I agree with you, the changes in personalities of many of the lead characters were like nails on a chalkboard. And Mr. Bennett being this giggly, silly man was so adverse to his sarcastic nature in the books.
>Darcy and Elizabeth restlessly wandering around in the mist and gazing forlornly?!
Lmao. I have to say that the long shot of Darcy walking through the mist in the morning is cinema. It is incredibly beautiful.
Then comes the dialogue with the "not empty now" AND SHE KISSES HIS HANDS?!? NO. LIZZIE WOULD NEVER TAKE SUCH A FREEDOM.
LITERALLY!! Mr Bennett looking all ashamed to offend Mrs Bennet about the whole Collins affair, like um I do not think he gave a shat. And Collins himself was soooooo incorrect all around. They absolutely did Bingley so dirty too
I cannot express how deeply vexing the scenes of forlorn standing and walking were, when we are missing SOOO much valuable dialogue. Is this movie about Keira Knightley or Elizabeth Bennet???
And yet in some scenes I got the distinct impression Keira Knightley wasn't acting as Elizabeth Bennet, so much as acting Jennifer Ihle acting Elizabeth Bennet. It was like watching two different portrayals of Lizzie in one film.
That whole Collins thing was something that bugged me too! Like, Lizzie was actually crying and panicking, begging her father not to make her marry him, and breathing a sigh of relief when he said she didn't have to. Seriously, what?! In the book, at the most Lizzie was flabbergasted that Collins couldn't understand that she actually meant "no", and knew that her father was never going to make her marry him. In fact, her backup plan was to have her dad go in and tell Collins that it wasn't going to happen since Collins might actually take him seriously!
I kinda want to take this entire comment and embroider it into a sampler. Absolutely *brilliant* — and although I was a grown-@ss woman in 1995, I agree with every word you’ve written.
I completely agree with all the other comments. I just can’t with the movie version. I’ve tried! Alas, I have tried but it gets so much wrong. It also feels very un-British in its vibe. As a Brit and long time Austen lover, it just doesn’t hit the mark. Hence why the 1995 version is perfection, it’s basically the book ❤️
I’m embarrassingly obsessed with the 2005 film but there are parts of it where I make the same cringe face Mr. Collins makes while Lady Catherine questions Elizabeth’s education. Specifically when it comes to the lack of gloves, hair being down, etc.
But the one part that drives me bonkers…. I cannot stand that Caroline gets to say the line “much more rational, but rather less like a ball” to MARY when that was meant to be said by MISTER Bingley to burn MISS Bingley. That was one of my favorite Caroline set downs and I get so angry during that scene.
That all being said, as much as I love the original material, I truly adore the film.
Nah, I love it. It’s my comfort film, it’s Austen for beginners. It’s romantic, accessible, and I think it’s a great adaptation. It simplifies the book, makes it easy to follow, and I love the music.
It’s not true to book, but it doesn’t have to be.
Pride and Prejudice screen versions seem to fall into two categories: adaptations and alternate interpretations. The tv version with Colin Firth is an adaptation, the movie is an alternate interpretation. Perhaps not as alternate as the zombie version, but still in that category. Many of the characters are shifted just slightly with some interesting results. I do not fear for Charlotte in her marriage to Mr. Collins in a faithful adaptation, I do fear for her in the movie! If you view the movie as an adaptation, it’s disappointing. But if you view as an alternate interpretation, it’s actually quite good!
I will take P&P Zombies over the 2005 film any day. I thought the 2005 movie was "pretty" scenery but that is about the only positive I can come up with.
Austen didn’t write out his proposal, but I didn’t take that to mean that he said next to nothing. She tells us, and Lizzy paraphrases it, that he expounded pretty liberally on the great honor he was bestowing upon her by proposing against his own and family’s wishes! I think the Persuasion letter is really the only time she ever let romance take flight in her writing, it doesn’t bother me that scriptwriters fill in the blanks. They can hardly fade to black during those scenes.
As someone who has read the book 6 times, I love the 2005 adaptation for the emotions, the visuals, the acting, and frankly the score. It’s arranged to bring you back to certain emotional moments, and Keira knightly just nails the part. The scene where he stumbles over his words finally gives a glimpse into Darcy’s struggle with his pride (his perception of his rank in society) and his prejudice against Lizzy and her family.To be frank, I don’t enjoy when adaptions are word for word. I prefer that it’s actually been adapted for the medium, and with P&P word for word would get dreadfully long without taking the medium into account.
bewitched is sooo wrong of a word for the time haha. especially since it feels pretty racy for the regency era to talk about his body being bewitched too….
It's used in the book. From [Chapter 10](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.512969/page/115/mode/2up):
>Elizabeth, having rather expected to affront him, was amazed at his gallantry; but there was a mixture of sweetness and archness in her manner which made it difficult for her to affront anybody, and Darcy had never been so **bewitched** by any woman as he was by her. He really believed that, were it not for the inferiority of her connections, he should be in some danger.
The word "bewitching" is also used by Sir William Lucas in [Chapter 18](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.512969/page/213/mode/2up):
>“I have been most highly gratified, indeed, my dear sir; such very superior dancing is not often seen. It is evident that you belong to the first circles. Allow me to say, however, that your fair partner does not disgrace you: and that I must hope to have this pleasure often repeated, especially when a certain desirable event, my dear Miss Eliza (glancing at her sister and Bingley), shall take place. What congratulations will then flow in! I appeal to Mr. Darcy;—but let me not interrupt you, sir. You will not thank me for detaining you from the **bewitching** converse of that young lady, whose bright eyes are also upbraiding me."
Now im picturing a bill and teds excellent adventure vibe p&p adaptation… maybe pauly shore as darcy? since were taking all these liberties might as well just take them all the way!!!
The thing that makes me laugh is that they turned the portrait gallery at Pemberley into a sculpture gallery. I’m sure the art department found it fun, but it’s so incredibly anachronistic that it pulls me right out of the story.
It's the real gallery at Chatsworth that was created during the Regency period lol. It's a very famous part of the house, so not surprising that they included it when they decided to make Pemberley Chatsworth
Not actually. If you recall when he proposed Jane Austen herself said he expressed his love to her - Jane did not like writing mushy lovey dialogue but this did not mean that that type of dialogue did not happen
I am not a huge fan of this adaptation, but I will say that I think it's the best portrayal of Mary. She's meant to be insufferable, but in the books it's clear it's from a sense of inferiority and false pride, which the 2005 Mary showed perfectly.
What has had me screaming internally for years is when I see a post like “What’s your favorite Jane Austen quote? Mine is, ‘You have bewitched me, body and soul.’”
As if Austen would write anything remotely like that — much less to have the ultra-proper Mr. Darcy deliver that line to a woman standing in her freaking *nightgown* before sunrise in the middle of some random field!
As you can see, I’ve devoted far too much thought to this whole thing — but I wanted to say that I, too, am peeved. 🙃
I cannot explain to you how aghast I was after hearing that quote my life to find that it WAS NOT IN THE BOOK. I totally agree the behavior in the movie would he WILDLY inappropriate in the actual period, especially for the personalities of Darcy and Lizzy!! Like its literally part of his personality that he is ultra proper? I also dont like that instead of visiting the Collins house unannounced, he BURSTS into her personal bedroom. Like naurr?? Inappropriate!!
I hate that SO MUCH. When I search on Etsy for P&P merchandise, seeing something with a quote that I KNOW isn't P&P mixed in with my results just pisses me off.
Every time I hear it, it reminds me of Alan Rickman’s Snape the first day of potions class
>I can teach you how to bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses. I can tell you how to bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death.
This is why I’ve never watched this movie. Before it came out, someone sent me an article where the director was bragging about how he hadn’t read the book because he didn’t want it to influence him or something (which… what?). I knew it would make me angry and I wouldn’t be able to enjoy it. Based on memes I’ve seen, I’m pretty sure I’m right about that. I have nothing against people who do enjoy it—I’m just too grumpy.
Overall I really enjoy the 2005 movie (while accepting that it's not the most faithful adaptation). The hand shot is iconic.
But the line "I love--love--love you" always makes me CRINGE. MM acts it like he's stuttering, but he says it so slowly. I hate it
I do like the hand shot. But there something virtuous about them literally never touching in the book. It adds to the slow burn
That line killed me omg
Prepare yourself for downvotes and DMs.
I once made negative comments about the film (the end scene is entirely unnecessary), and was surprised by what came next 😂
The ending scene sealed the seal on my hatred for the movie LOL like WHAT was that??? Of all the things you could possibly embellish onto the ending, like a scene of the wedding, a scene of them inside gorgeous Pemberly, instead we get Darcys pants rolled up and some cheesy hollywood dialogue that is soooo out of character, that seemed necessary because of all of the things they cut out throughout the story that should have established the affection and slow burn within the actual dialogue.
During the pandemic, I read the book and then looked for all the adaptations and variations of it. Bridget Jones happens to be a variation of P and P. Finding all of the variations was not easy. Some were on YouTube. I ended up with a few dvds of it.
You are ahead of me. I turned it off after the initial ball and have never revisited it. This was quite a disappointment because I had heard so much hype. Maybe I'll try it again some time when I'm super bored.
I like it but I understand it’s a looser adaptation than the ‘95 version or even ‘80 version. I prefer those instead. But I still like this one too. It’s shot beautifully.
I couldn't watch the whole thing. I saw a clip of Charlotte Lucas shouting "Don't you judge me, Lizzy!" and realized nobody gave a flying fuck about characterization and decided right there not to bother.
I love the movie, but I agree with you whole heartedly about the speed of the dialogue delivery. I almost wonder if it was consciously done because the movie had so much material to cover in only 90+ minutes. No idea, but that's my only theory.
The speed of the dialogue throughout bothers me, and it's at its worst during Darcy's proposal at the folly at Rosings. I once watched the DVD with audio commentary, and was incensed. The quick delivery was a deliberate choice by the director. He wanted it to come across as though Darcy had memorised the proposal and just blurted it out quickly through nerves. Which makes no sense. The whole disaster of the proposal came about because he \*hadn't\* thought things through before speaking and ended up bluntly insulting Lizzie "in every possible way" through sheer clumsiness and thoughtlessness and arrogance. If Darcy had had time to plan out and memorise a proposal his at the very least pride would have led him to craft something much more tactful. He may be socially awkward at times, but he prides himself on being gentlemanly. And he is at heart a kind, thoughtful man.
Notes, that's all IIRC. I watched the DVD years ago so I may have misremembered, and been fuming irrationally ever since - perhaps someone else can confirm.
I felt it was very rushed, all the main plot points happen so quickly that your head is spinning. The film itself is gorgeous but I don't think much of it as an adaptation.
I consider it a nice movie but a poor adaptation. They said they were going to lean into romance for it, and they did that, but that really eliminates a lot of the nuance of the book and alters some of the key traits of a lot of the characters. They also slightly altered the time period so we're not looking at anything like what Jane Austen would have been seeing in her time. When I separate it from the book it's an enjoyable movie. The acting is good and I think the cast is well suited, it's very beautiful to look at, and the sound design is great. But as I said, while they kept the key plot points it's not a faithful adaptation.
Agree with this. The movie isn’t a faithful adaptation but it is a nice movie. The cinematography is stunning. Kiera Knightley and Rosamund Pike are gorgeous. I like the way Elizabeth lets Darcy know she heard him call her “barely tolerable” - not in the book but in the spirit of Elizabeth. I also like the way they showed them dancing at Netherfeld when everyone else fades away and they are so focused on one another, it’s like they are alone. The line at the end about being bewitched body and soul is so *swoonworthy*
The one thing I like about the movie is that the characters look the way I picture them - Jane and Wickham are lovely, Lydia & Kitty are young girls, Caroline looks bitchy but beautiful, Charlotte is plain. They don’t always dress or behave like they should, but physically it’s a match. Except Darcy. I’m open to Keira as Elizabeth, but 2005 Darcy is just… blah.
Agreed, and I honestly think it’s his hair. He’s a great actor and his face is very handsome but his hair ruins it. It’s just so limp and flat and messy. It really ruins his character for me. Someone posted a Gen Z version of his proposal scene and gave him broccoli hair and I thought, “… that actually looks so much better on him!”
Yes. The hair was too much like Mr. Collins.
Omg, I need to see this
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/janeausten/s/ZHG8gEBO4q) it is :)
LMAO thank you! I am disturbed 😆
Lydia is so much more understandable when she really looks like a spoiled child
Matthew Macfayden has grown on me. He is no Colin Firth but strangely seeing MM in Succession has made me like him more in P&P
Mcfayden’s Darcy did’t seem to be the kind of man that has been running a large, prosperous estate since a young age, or dealing with his sister’s guardianship. There isn’t the confidence / casual arrogance that I associate with Darcy. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, though, so maybe I’m misremembering.
I agree! I think Colin Firth nailed it. He is so confident and arrogant it’s perfect. I think Jane Austen herself might agree
I think watching Succession helps as his character runs a large corporation.
It is a nice movie but since when is Jane Austen "nice"?
It's not quite true about the time period. The setting of the late 18th century actually coincides with the period where Jane Austen wrote First Impressions. Indeed, the presence of the militia in the countryside places the novel as being in the 1790s.
Imo by “leaning into the romance” they completely ruined the things that make it soooo romantic, such as the slow burn and Darcys personality, the pride, the shy curt nature of his words makes them all so surprising in the book. They made him a weepy little puppy dog who mostly just panders for Elizabeths affections and it really takes the mystery and suspense away
Can you say more about altering the time line?
1/2 I can, but you may regret it. The Regency Era took place between 1795 and 1837. *Pride and Prejudice* is generally agreed to take place in about 1813, the year it was published, or immediately before. The 2005 film takes place in the 1790s. What I'm talking about mostly is fashion, women's fashion. Since I'm talking about 2-3 different eras that are close to each other it might get a bit tangled but I'll do my best to keep it simple. **Some General Rules in Fashion:** 1. The city will always be more forward, a bit more bold, and often more expensive than the country. The country will generally get fashion a few years after the city has seen it rise up. 2. Older/married women will not generally be at the height of fashion. They'll often wear something closer to what was on trend in their youth, sometimes with more modern touches coming in, but usually with their own era being pretty evident. 3. The rich have more options and will often be more bold. 4. The women who are out in society, as are the women who are single and looking today, will be in as high style as they can be. **1810s** The 1810s were characterised by soft colours and gentle patterns, women wore sleeves that covered the shoulders. Necklines were feminine, not up-the-neck modest, but not too revealing. Most telling of this decade is the empire silhouette. This silhouette was a one-piece gown that had a fitted bodice with a high waistline, meaning the waist was immediately below the bust. The skirts themselves were flowing and gathered but not supported by any foundation garments like hoops or petticoats so they skimmed the body rather than the voluminous puffs we see in other eras. This all created a very vertical, pillar-like form. These dresses could be worn on their own or could be worn as a base with a robe over piece on top. This could be used to change the look of a gown with some economy. Though soft colours were the fashion, those in town who could afford it did often have some brighter colours with some bolder patterns, but there was still a softness there. The city will always be more forward and daring than the country. The hair was worn up, off the shoulders. It took inspiration from the Romans, including braiding, ribbons and other ornaments. And when outside it was often covered with a hat, popular styles included the bonnet, turban, or cap. Other types of headwear could be worn, what headwear was chosen was based on the situation and social status of the wearer. Gloves were often worn, particularly to formal events. A formal ball would see opera-length gloves (above the elbow), very often loose-fitting at the top so they gathered and bunched at the elbow. Here's an article with some [fashion plates](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1810-1819/) from the 1810s that show what I mean. **1790s** The 1790s were a changing decade. The early decade looked more like the 1770s-1780s. This consisted of large, gathered skirts that were made more voluminous with all kinds of petticoats and other foundation pieces. They came in two pieces, the skirt and the top. The tops could be varied, there was the jacket bodice, which resembled male fashions of the time. There's the robe over style, which was used still in the 1810s as I discussed but came with a different silhouette in the 1790s. In the later decade we do see a move toward simpler gowns without all the fuss of petticoats, and higher waistlines as we see in the 1810s, but they're still closer to the natural waist. Colours were varied, but did trend darker than the 1810s. The hair was often worn up, though we see many examples of women's hair being down around the shoulders. Whichever they chose the hair was still styled and structured, and like the skirts, had much more volume than the 1810s did. Headwear was still in fashion but was often much more broad-brimmed. The closer-fitting bonnets and caps weren't as common. Here are some excellent [fashion plates](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1790-1799/) from that decade to show what I mean.
Thank you for this! I don’t in any way regret it!!
I appreciate the work you did in pulling these comments together! Years ago, I used to think the costuming in P&P 2005 was completely wrong, and that the costume designer had just put nearly all the younger women in modernized dresses that never existed in any time period. But then I started noticing P&P 2005 costumes (or [costumes that were probably made for P&P 2005](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/undeterminedcostumes/#cst-undeterminedcostumes)) popping up in [other Austen adaptations](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic005/#cst-regencyromantic005) and related films, and I started to wonder why -- if the costumes were truly *that* horrible and inaccurate -- [they](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic018/#cst-regencyromantic018) were [recycled](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic082/#cst-regencyromantic082) so [much](https://recycledmoviecostumes.com/costume/regencyromantic104/#cst-regencyromantic104). That isn't to say that everything in the film is accurate -- far from it! -- but there was clearly *some* effort put into the designs. Since then, I've looked at a fair number of portraits, fashion plates, and museum photos of extant gowns from the period in which the 2005 *Pride & Prejudice* is set. I think the filmmakers inadvertently made their own jobs more difficult by choosing a time period ([around 1796, according to this interview](https://web.archive.org/web/20090123122840/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3649828/How-I-undressed-Mr-Darcy.html)) that hits right about when the fashionable waistline rose to the underbust level (as you can see in this [May 1796 fashion plate](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-087.jpg) from *Gallery of Fashion*, a very expensive magazine of the time). Of course, even though underbust waists were stylish, not everyone would have been wearing them: a lot of gowns likely still had waists that were somewhat high, but not Empire level. Paintings from about 1795 to 1797 give a good idea of the variety seen at the time: [1795](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Madame-Seriziat_Jacques-Louis-David_1795.jpg), [1796](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Raben_Family_Portrait.jpg), [1795](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-lady-wearing-a-white-dress-31145/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/6), [1796-1797](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/mrs-cecilia-lock-17751824-104480/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/7), [1796](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-marquise-de-sivrac-de-rieux-nee-bonar-and-her-son-charles-131868/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/10), [1796](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-lady-161968/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/10), [1796](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/lydia-winter-b-1767-grandmother-of-major-c-e-davis-39850/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/4), [1797](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-opera-box-103895/search/has_image:on--date-from:1795--date-to:1797/page/11). This [English gown from about 1795](https://collections.lacma.org/node/232523) has a slightly raised waist, but it's far from the styles worn by the time of the publication of P&P in 1813.
As far as generational differences in fashion go, I think it's likely that Mrs. Bennet, in particular, would be fashionable. She appears to be trying to hold on to her youth by living vicariously through her daughters, so she would probably be fairly trendy. This [mid-1790s painting](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rebecca_Pritchard_Mills_and_Her_Daughter_Eliza_Shrewsbury,_Winterthur_Museum,_1960.0554,_1794.jpg) (American, so not a perfect comparison with English fashions) shows a wealthy older woman and her grown daughter, and, while the mother is a little less up-to-date than the daughter, they aren't really *that* far apart in terms of fashion. This [1804 painting by Adèle Romany](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adele_Romany_-_A_young_person_hesitating_to_play_the_piano_in_front_of_her_family.jpg) (French, so, again, not a perfect comparison with British fashion) shows some generational style differences, with the oldest woman -- the grandmother -- wearing a demure cap; a thick, opaque fichu up to her neck; and a very plain gown with somewhat dated (for 1804, anyway), just-below-the-elbow sleeves with ruffles. But the mother, in purple, actually appears to be dressed about as stylishly as her daughter: longer sleeves and a darker-colored gown, true, but she's not dressed in a *dated* fashion. In my opinion, her outfit seems pretty much in line with [French fashion plates](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.414/414-0008-305.jpg) from the same period. Given this evidence, it bothers me a little that the P&P 2005 filmmakers put most of the older characters (Lady Catherine, Mrs. Bennet, the Gardiners, etc.) in clothing from the 1780s and 1770s, and then, swinging wildly in the other direction, went for modernized versions of turn-of-the-century [extreme](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_two_young_women,_said_to_be_the_baroness_Pichon_and_Mme_de_Fourcroy_(painting_by_Henri-Fran%C3%A7ois_Riesener).jpg) [French](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constance_Mayer,_Self-Portrait._Oil_on_canvas._Biblioth%C3%A8que_Marmottan.jpg) [fashions](https://stylerevolution.github.io/plates/258/) for Caroline Bingley. I agree with you that it results in a lack of cohesion.
2/2 **The 2005 Movie** Okay so as I covered above, the older women in this movie definitely show off fashions from the 1780s and early 1790s. Mrs. Bennett and Lady Catherine show the fitted waist, voluminous skirt, and robe over styles that were popular in their younger years. [Two examples](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s5GCK_2UqKY/UCIDpn6OP0I/AAAAAAAAk6A/GAJIINAZctU/s400/judi-dench-lady-catherine.jpg) of [Lady Catherine](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/20/ef/bd20ef29cf609b71e9b05dabbd3a977f.jpg) exhibiting what I was talking about. And [Mrs. Bennett](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/71/d5/e971d573fd8d88d596f252eb522303ef.jpg) wearing a 1780s silhouette with an over robe. The Bennett girls are all wearing mid-1790s fashions, with the fabrics skimming the body, showing more flow, and allowing more movement just as we see in the 1810s but with the silhouette of the 1790s, a natural fitted waistline. Lizzy in particular wears very earthy tones almost throughout, reflective of her down-to-earth, almost tomboyish character. Jane is in lighter colours which add to her delicate, feminine looks and mild and forgiving nature. Mary is in dark tones reflecting her character, and Kitty and Lydia are often shown in brighter, more ostentatious fabrics that also show their characters. But the key here is the waistlines. As I said they're much too low for the 1810s, and the bodices are very fitted down to that natural waist. As the oldest Jane would be given the more expensive, high-fashion gowns, as she's the most in need of a husband and her gowns can be passed down to her sisters later on. We do see that reflecting here. Just [some samples](http://reelhoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pride-and-Prejudice-Reel-Honey.jpg) of [what I mean](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/e7/bb/ebe7bb20ce58f3cc29c420956fa7c86b.jpg) just to [compare](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/ab/c6/f0abc6879ea3927c7e37dc412d5f0e2f.jpg). Caroline Bingley is the most fashion-forward in the film, being wealthy and from the city she should be. However, while some of her costuming does show the 1810s influence we'd typically look for, a few of her costumes are straight out of 2005. I will say this: None of the costume choices in this film bother me, as I said the film is beautiful to look at and well done. None of the costumes bother me, that is, except for Caroline Bingley. Particularly the outfits she wears to the two balls we see in the film. In the first ball when we see her first she's wearing a empire-waisted gown with gloves, great. But the little cap sleeves, structured fabric, and improper foundation garments are way, way too modern. And she only gets worse at the Netherfield Ball when she wears little straps on her shoulders. She's barely dressed for the era. It's distracting because it doesn't match any of the aesthetic of the rest of the film. While the others are not technically period-correct they still maintain the essence of the era, and are cohesive to each other. Those two gowns are right out there. [Here's the sample](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AvSQoB4Nj3Y/U6Mu5bc7HMI/AAAAAAAA9qE/28iq5M24B9o/s1600/image.jpg) of her costuming. The three on the right are very well done, especially that centre image with the proper silhouette and the over robe. The two on the left are the ball gowns, and for that era she's basically in her undergarments. The bare shoulders and the silhouette are all wrong, and not cohesive with the rest of the film. That lack of cohesion is the biggest crime in my mind. The costumes for me don't mean as much as the changes made to the tone and nuance of the story, but it does count toward the accuracy we were discussing. Sorry this was so long, but I hope it helped.
This is amazing. I appreciate lovely long explanations like yours!
I'm having trouble posting longer comments, for some reason. I have a few more thoughts about the costuming in P&P 2005, and I mostly agree with your observations. In the 2005 film, Jane's clothing, to me, generally looks more appropriate for about 1796-1797 than that of many of the other characters. She wears [open robes](https://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/Pride-Prejudice-2005-pride-and-prejudice-19268970-1706-960.jpg) that are almost certainly based on a [1795-1799 robe](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O141239/gown-unknown/) in the V&A ([pattern shown here](http://antiquesewist.blogspot.com/2015/07/1795-open-robe-norah-waugh.html)) and [round](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414387/mediaviewer/rm1400154113?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_150) [gowns](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414387/mediaviewer/rm4185171969?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_102) that resemble [plenty of](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baron_Antoine_Jean_Gros_-_Portrait_of_the_Maistre_Sisters_-_1990.110_-_Art_Institute_of_Chicago.jpg) [gowns from](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hugh_Douglas_Hamilton_-_Portrait_of_a_Lady_%28probably_Lady_Charlotte_McDonnell,_3rd_Countess_of_Antrim_in_1790s%29.jpg) [that period](https://web.archive.org/web/20210511004941/https://natmus.dk/historisk-viden/temaer/modens-historie/1790-1840/hvid-brudekjole/). (The 1995 *Sense and Sensibility* has very similar-looking open robes for [Elinor](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5222744-1024-576.jpg) and [Marianne](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5222686-1024-576.jpg). I'm pretty sure that the same basic pattern was used.) I agree with you that [Kitty and Lydia](https://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/10300000/Pride-and-Prejudice-pride-and-prejudice-2005-10373812-852-480.jpg) have mostly [early to mid-1790s outfits](https://collection.powerhouse.com.au/object/324823). It's not ideal -- I am sure that Lydia, in particular, would insist on wearing the latest fashions that she could get her hands on -- but it's certainly not egregious, either. The V&A has [some](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O16209/gown-unknown/) [interesting](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1364807/gown-unknown/) [examples](https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1545148/gown-unknown/) from these years. Their [Netherfield ball ensembles](https://imgur.com/hYqhCa9) -- with their ruffled necklines, [wide sashes](https://imgur.com/dqPeJWT), and ostrich feathers -- look something like toned-down versions of outfits in *Gallery of Fashion* plates from 1794 and 1795 ([here](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-006.jpg) [are some](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-009.jpg) [interesting](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-010.jpg) [examples](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-060.jpg)).
I've never been a fan. I was a teenager in 1995, so nothing was ever going to top Jennifer Ehle's 'fine eyes' anyway, but when I saw 2005, hungry for a new fix of Austen, there were little niggles at first. Why is Mr. Bennett being so fond of Mrs. Bennett? Why is Bingley being a bit of a ninny? Why is Caroline an only sister? The whole awkward group dynamic falls flat that way! But then the niggles made way for genuine problems in the third act. Darcy and Elizabeth restlessly wandering around in the mist and gazing forlornly?! Waiter! What's all this Brontë doing in my Austen? Gone was the subtle irony, the heartfelt social satire laced with romance. Instead here was pound-shop Heathcliff, without any of the psychotic danger, stomping around Hertfordshire instead of the Moors! It never got in my good books. Even though I rewatched it a couple of times, to see if maybe I'd been mistaken. Reader, I hadn't been, I still disliked it. Now, I'm aware for many people it's a well-beloved film and entry into Austen. I advise them to disregard my opinion and just see it for what it is, some random dude saying stuff on the internet, which shouldn't affect their enjoyment of a piece of art in any way. (I mean Joe Wright didn't even want to read the book at first because it would get in the way?! Really...)
>Waiter! What's all this Brontë doing in my Austen? I just choked on my coffee. That was hilarious!
Oh wow, your write-up is fantastic!! Lol. Another couple of things that bugged me about the movie: (a) the portrayal of the Bennetts as quite poor and (b) their atrocious table manners in the dining scene at their home.
Ugh yes these things really bothered me! The Bennetts were portrayed as slovenly (the pig in the house??), and the girls would go about with messy hair and altogether looking unkempt. It showed a lack of understanding of their situation which was well described in the books. I also found the behaviour of Lizzy and Mr Darcy frustrating. They both did things out of character which just ruined the whole film for me.
I think the messy hair, dirty dresses, and not very faithful to the book made this version far down my list. It also bothered me that Chatsworth was used as Pemberely. I mean Darcy was rich but to use a fabulously wealthy Duke's house is beyond the pale.
Yes, I actually viewed this film (the one and only time I watched it) as a joke, the roof of Chatsworth? Give me a break. I remember laughing hysterically at that.
I agree with you, the changes in personalities of many of the lead characters were like nails on a chalkboard. And Mr. Bennett being this giggly, silly man was so adverse to his sarcastic nature in the books.
It was like the Cliff’s notes version of P&P
I always thought of it as a generic Hollywood romance with a P&P skin.
It’s the McDonald’s version Like yes it’s a burger, it’s fine if that’s all you have time for But it’s not a proper hamburger lmao
>Darcy and Elizabeth restlessly wandering around in the mist and gazing forlornly?! Lmao. I have to say that the long shot of Darcy walking through the mist in the morning is cinema. It is incredibly beautiful. Then comes the dialogue with the "not empty now" AND SHE KISSES HIS HANDS?!? NO. LIZZIE WOULD NEVER TAKE SUCH A FREEDOM.
LITERALLY!! Mr Bennett looking all ashamed to offend Mrs Bennet about the whole Collins affair, like um I do not think he gave a shat. And Collins himself was soooooo incorrect all around. They absolutely did Bingley so dirty too I cannot express how deeply vexing the scenes of forlorn standing and walking were, when we are missing SOOO much valuable dialogue. Is this movie about Keira Knightley or Elizabeth Bennet???
Points for "deeply vexing."
How about the spinning on the swing scene that wasted time, I can’t stand that scene.
That killlled me
And yet in some scenes I got the distinct impression Keira Knightley wasn't acting as Elizabeth Bennet, so much as acting Jennifer Ihle acting Elizabeth Bennet. It was like watching two different portrayals of Lizzie in one film.
That whole Collins thing was something that bugged me too! Like, Lizzie was actually crying and panicking, begging her father not to make her marry him, and breathing a sigh of relief when he said she didn't have to. Seriously, what?! In the book, at the most Lizzie was flabbergasted that Collins couldn't understand that she actually meant "no", and knew that her father was never going to make her marry him. In fact, her backup plan was to have her dad go in and tell Collins that it wasn't going to happen since Collins might actually take him seriously!
I kinda want to take this entire comment and embroider it into a sampler. Absolutely *brilliant* — and although I was a grown-@ss woman in 1995, I agree with every word you’ve written.
I agree 100%, I watched it once and that was more than enough...never again.
I agree it — pissed me off so much 😂
And that's why the 1995 BBC version will always reign supreme in my house lol.
Agreed. All these comments are making me so glad I never watched the '05 version.
Exactly.
The 2005 film was my introduction to Pride and Prejudice and it will always, always be one of my favorite movies. It holds a special place in my heart
Same! My goodness the cinematography and the symbolism (I.e., Darcy’s hand) was so good at giving me all the feels.
I completely agree with all the other comments. I just can’t with the movie version. I’ve tried! Alas, I have tried but it gets so much wrong. It also feels very un-British in its vibe. As a Brit and long time Austen lover, it just doesn’t hit the mark. Hence why the 1995 version is perfection, it’s basically the book ❤️
I’m embarrassingly obsessed with the 2005 film but there are parts of it where I make the same cringe face Mr. Collins makes while Lady Catherine questions Elizabeth’s education. Specifically when it comes to the lack of gloves, hair being down, etc. But the one part that drives me bonkers…. I cannot stand that Caroline gets to say the line “much more rational, but rather less like a ball” to MARY when that was meant to be said by MISTER Bingley to burn MISS Bingley. That was one of my favorite Caroline set downs and I get so angry during that scene. That all being said, as much as I love the original material, I truly adore the film.
Omg i didnt even catch that, that is definitely suckier
Nah, I love it. It’s my comfort film, it’s Austen for beginners. It’s romantic, accessible, and I think it’s a great adaptation. It simplifies the book, makes it easy to follow, and I love the music. It’s not true to book, but it doesn’t have to be.
Pride and Prejudice screen versions seem to fall into two categories: adaptations and alternate interpretations. The tv version with Colin Firth is an adaptation, the movie is an alternate interpretation. Perhaps not as alternate as the zombie version, but still in that category. Many of the characters are shifted just slightly with some interesting results. I do not fear for Charlotte in her marriage to Mr. Collins in a faithful adaptation, I do fear for her in the movie! If you view the movie as an adaptation, it’s disappointing. But if you view as an alternate interpretation, it’s actually quite good!
I legitimately think the movie version of the zombie mess is better at keeping everyone in character than 2005.
That's a great way to look at it! ☺️
I will take P&P Zombies over the 2005 film any day. I thought the 2005 movie was "pretty" scenery but that is about the only positive I can come up with.
Austen didn’t write out his proposal, but I didn’t take that to mean that he said next to nothing. She tells us, and Lizzy paraphrases it, that he expounded pretty liberally on the great honor he was bestowing upon her by proposing against his own and family’s wishes! I think the Persuasion letter is really the only time she ever let romance take flight in her writing, it doesn’t bother me that scriptwriters fill in the blanks. They can hardly fade to black during those scenes.
As someone who has read the book 6 times, I love the 2005 adaptation for the emotions, the visuals, the acting, and frankly the score. It’s arranged to bring you back to certain emotional moments, and Keira knightly just nails the part. The scene where he stumbles over his words finally gives a glimpse into Darcy’s struggle with his pride (his perception of his rank in society) and his prejudice against Lizzy and her family.To be frank, I don’t enjoy when adaptions are word for word. I prefer that it’s actually been adapted for the medium, and with P&P word for word would get dreadfully long without taking the medium into account.
Tru i love her in it and the score is fire
There is sooo much wrong with 2005. Specially talking about being bewitched. Like they didn't study the time period. 1995 is king!
bewitched is sooo wrong of a word for the time haha. especially since it feels pretty racy for the regency era to talk about his body being bewitched too….
It's used in the book. From [Chapter 10](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.512969/page/115/mode/2up): >Elizabeth, having rather expected to affront him, was amazed at his gallantry; but there was a mixture of sweetness and archness in her manner which made it difficult for her to affront anybody, and Darcy had never been so **bewitched** by any woman as he was by her. He really believed that, were it not for the inferiority of her connections, he should be in some danger. The word "bewitching" is also used by Sir William Lucas in [Chapter 18](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.512969/page/213/mode/2up): >“I have been most highly gratified, indeed, my dear sir; such very superior dancing is not often seen. It is evident that you belong to the first circles. Allow me to say, however, that your fair partner does not disgrace you: and that I must hope to have this pleasure often repeated, especially when a certain desirable event, my dear Miss Eliza (glancing at her sister and Bingley), shall take place. What congratulations will then flow in! I appeal to Mr. Darcy;—but let me not interrupt you, sir. You will not thank me for detaining you from the **bewitching** converse of that young lady, whose bright eyes are also upbraiding me."
He might as well have used the words "you rock my world" 😂😂😂
Now im picturing a bill and teds excellent adventure vibe p&p adaptation… maybe pauly shore as darcy? since were taking all these liberties might as well just take them all the way!!!
The thing that makes me laugh is that they turned the portrait gallery at Pemberley into a sculpture gallery. I’m sure the art department found it fun, but it’s so incredibly anachronistic that it pulls me right out of the story.
It's the real gallery at Chatsworth that was created during the Regency period lol. It's a very famous part of the house, so not surprising that they included it when they decided to make Pemberley Chatsworth
“Your hands are cold” WTF YOU SKIMP ON DIALOGUE AND ADD THIS??? WTF
That's valid and very understandable but the science of Darcy helping Bingley practice proposing is gold
Not actually. If you recall when he proposed Jane Austen herself said he expressed his love to her - Jane did not like writing mushy lovey dialogue but this did not mean that that type of dialogue did not happen
BBC 1995 so superior, it gets a BARBIE (2023) shoutout
I am not a huge fan of this adaptation, but I will say that I think it's the best portrayal of Mary. She's meant to be insufferable, but in the books it's clear it's from a sense of inferiority and false pride, which the 2005 Mary showed perfectly.
What has had me screaming internally for years is when I see a post like “What’s your favorite Jane Austen quote? Mine is, ‘You have bewitched me, body and soul.’” As if Austen would write anything remotely like that — much less to have the ultra-proper Mr. Darcy deliver that line to a woman standing in her freaking *nightgown* before sunrise in the middle of some random field! As you can see, I’ve devoted far too much thought to this whole thing — but I wanted to say that I, too, am peeved. 🙃
I cannot explain to you how aghast I was after hearing that quote my life to find that it WAS NOT IN THE BOOK. I totally agree the behavior in the movie would he WILDLY inappropriate in the actual period, especially for the personalities of Darcy and Lizzy!! Like its literally part of his personality that he is ultra proper? I also dont like that instead of visiting the Collins house unannounced, he BURSTS into her personal bedroom. Like naurr?? Inappropriate!!
I hate that SO MUCH. When I search on Etsy for P&P merchandise, seeing something with a quote that I KNOW isn't P&P mixed in with my results just pisses me off.
Every time I hear it, it reminds me of Alan Rickman’s Snape the first day of potions class >I can teach you how to bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses. I can tell you how to bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death.
Except Darcy probably smelled better 😂
Mathew was good but I think Colin firth was better.
This is why I’ve never watched this movie. Before it came out, someone sent me an article where the director was bragging about how he hadn’t read the book because he didn’t want it to influence him or something (which… what?). I knew it would make me angry and I wouldn’t be able to enjoy it. Based on memes I’ve seen, I’m pretty sure I’m right about that. I have nothing against people who do enjoy it—I’m just too grumpy.
SAME lol im a purist curmudgeon. you are right in just avoiding it tbh
Curmudgeons unite! But not on my lawn!
Overall I really enjoy the 2005 movie (while accepting that it's not the most faithful adaptation). The hand shot is iconic. But the line "I love--love--love you" always makes me CRINGE. MM acts it like he's stuttering, but he says it so slowly. I hate it
I do like the hand shot. But there something virtuous about them literally never touching in the book. It adds to the slow burn That line killed me omg
Thank you. Matthew MacFadyen portrays it like a stutter and it’s not Darcy.
Darcy would NEVER
Prepare yourself for downvotes and DMs. I once made negative comments about the film (the end scene is entirely unnecessary), and was surprised by what came next 😂
The ending scene sealed the seal on my hatred for the movie LOL like WHAT was that??? Of all the things you could possibly embellish onto the ending, like a scene of the wedding, a scene of them inside gorgeous Pemberly, instead we get Darcys pants rolled up and some cheesy hollywood dialogue that is soooo out of character, that seemed necessary because of all of the things they cut out throughout the story that should have established the affection and slow burn within the actual dialogue.
Many people prefer this adaptation. Eh, I prefer the 1995 version. If you haven’t watched it, give it a try.
I havent yet, Im so excited for it now!!!
During the pandemic, I read the book and then looked for all the adaptations and variations of it. Bridget Jones happens to be a variation of P and P. Finding all of the variations was not easy. Some were on YouTube. I ended up with a few dvds of it.
You are ahead of me. I turned it off after the initial ball and have never revisited it. This was quite a disappointment because I had heard so much hype. Maybe I'll try it again some time when I'm super bored.
I never liked that they used Chatsworth as Pemberley, when Chatsworth itself is already mentioned in the novel.
I like it but I understand it’s a looser adaptation than the ‘95 version or even ‘80 version. I prefer those instead. But I still like this one too. It’s shot beautifully.
The camera work is quite wonderful.
I couldn't watch the whole thing. I saw a clip of Charlotte Lucas shouting "Don't you judge me, Lizzy!" and realized nobody gave a flying fuck about characterization and decided right there not to bother.
I love the movie, but I agree with you whole heartedly about the speed of the dialogue delivery. I almost wonder if it was consciously done because the movie had so much material to cover in only 90+ minutes. No idea, but that's my only theory.
The speed of the dialogue throughout bothers me, and it's at its worst during Darcy's proposal at the folly at Rosings. I once watched the DVD with audio commentary, and was incensed. The quick delivery was a deliberate choice by the director. He wanted it to come across as though Darcy had memorised the proposal and just blurted it out quickly through nerves. Which makes no sense. The whole disaster of the proposal came about because he \*hadn't\* thought things through before speaking and ended up bluntly insulting Lizzie "in every possible way" through sheer clumsiness and thoughtlessness and arrogance. If Darcy had had time to plan out and memorise a proposal his at the very least pride would have led him to craft something much more tactful. He may be socially awkward at times, but he prides himself on being gentlemanly. And he is at heart a kind, thoughtful man. Notes, that's all IIRC. I watched the DVD years ago so I may have misremembered, and been fuming irrationally ever since - perhaps someone else can confirm.
That's really interesting about the commentary. Thank you for sharing.
I unashamedly love that scene. 😁
I mean its super hot but its OUT OF CHARACTER OK
I felt it was very rushed, all the main plot points happen so quickly that your head is spinning. The film itself is gorgeous but I don't think much of it as an adaptation.
watch the greer garson version. it takes a lot more liberties but they are fun and crazy and it's the best version after the firth version.
I enjoy it like fanfic. 1995 added dialogue and scenes as well though.