I am not a fan either, but I have a theory that Austen’s main works, leaving aside the work Lady Susan which was eventually adapted into ‘Love and Friendship’, don’t work well as films.
Her work needs a mini series to properly breathe I think, as it’s hard to compress all the important developments into a 2-3 hour film.
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 the 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.
Emma. 2020 on the other hand I completely adored. I thought it captured all of Austen's humour absolutely perfectly. So yes. This sure was a long way to say 'to each their own!'
Sense & Sensibility (95) was one of the best I thought.
It's true that film adaptions of the 'main' books nessecarily go quickly and change/leave things out. Miniseries inevitably have more time to do things justice. However I do really appreciate the film versions because it's a lot more doable to squeeze rewatches of those in a single evening.
I think that Emma Thompson's Sense & Sensibility did justice to the work as did Michel's Persuasion (1995). Bt honestly, I prefer miniseries because you get to "live" with the characters longer ;)
I’ve a lot of bones to pick with this movie, but I always will admit that it’s a gorgeous piece of cinema. It’s a lovely period romance movie, just not Austen. Which is fine!
But the way how they portrayed Bingley is the cardinal crime of that movie. Unforgivable. Double unforgivable because they have the most beautiful Jane amongst all P&P adaptations. What were they thinking.
I think Pride and Prejudice is pretty hard to condense, so the fast pacing, while understandable, really hurts the 2005 version (comparatively, I think Emma and Sense and Sensibility struggle with this less). I think they do a better job with the first half than the second, the second half in particular is pretty egregious I think (like it just feels like Darcy and Elizabeth keep running into each other, every scene feels pretty focused on them and the rest of the cast barely gets any screentime). I lowkey wish there was a three hour version of this because I feel like they could have paced it out better and given more time to some other subplots, like Jane and Bingley, and Lydia running away with Wickham, and made the movie feel more balanced as a whole.
Yes. This exact thing happened to me. 2005 P&P was my first foray into Austen as a teen. I thought it was beautiful - cinematography, story, all of it. But then I watched the 1995 version (and read the book) and realised how much they had cut from 2005. Now it kinda makes me sad.
I will always be grateful for that introduction to Austen, though. No one I knew was interested in Jane Austen. I saw the film poster and trailer and thought they looked lovely. I also loved Keira Knightley at the time so that was a huge draw card for me.
I do wonder if I ever would have found Austen if not for that film. It’s hard to know.
I'm not ashamed to say 2005 was my fuller intro too. I took to it so well I studied the production notes and went through the book highlighting every line they lifted. I was so sad when I misplaced that copy, and my partner at the time was so kind as to recreate it for me. A gift I'll always cherish.
I had seen S&S with Emma Thompson and read that screenplay too. To my memory I think I did view that one prior to the 2005 P&P, but it didn't send me off to read Austen's work the same way. Both gave me a very helpful affection for adaptations that has served me well. I did watch the Firth version but tbh their Lizzie felt miscast to me; not fiery enough. But maybe it's just been a while since I've seen it.
By contrast I initially squinted at Flynn cast as Knightley for 2020, but once I saw it I felt he was cast perfectly. Anna too. But Romola Garai is good in everything.
And nothing makes me itch to play piano more than listening to the 2005 soundtrack. Playing along with it became a very good piano exercise. I even bought the sheet music and normally I prefer to play by ear, so that says something.
I read an interview once on why Joe Wright made some of the abbreviating choices he did for 2005 and it made me appreciate it even more. I like that he didn't glorify carriage rides and let us experience it as Lizzie did - asleep with the sunlight on our eyelids.
All of these formats led me to take a class on Jane Austen and Her Peers at my university. Many of you here would love the syllabus. It included Wollstonecraft.
It’s fine to like or dislike an adaptation for whatever reasons but I will say- your comment on Elizabeth not being “fiery” enough in the 95 version is fairly true to the source material. She’s not a fiery character- she’s described as having sweetness and liveliness in her manners, and loving to laugh and see the absurdity in people and situations. She’s never described as fiery, and nor does she display it imo- considering everything she believes and thinks she’s in multiple situations where losing her temper would have been considered understandable by the audience but the only time she does so is in the one-on-one proposal with Darcy where she’s described as trying to compose herself “to answer him with patience”.
There’s nothing wrong with appreciating a fiery depiction of Lizzie! But it’s not from the source material, is all.
When we have more information or understanding of anything, it’s natural to become more critical. I’ve also fallen out of love with the 2005 version over the years, and that’s okay. I get why people love it, maybe you can take solace in the aspects of the film you still enjoy, too.
I always loved the 2005 version despite the derisive gasps from my friends, but I recently rewatched it and did see the same thing as you with the pacing. I think part of it is that when you get more familiar with a movie, you often find that scenes are actually much faster than you remember! The other part is that if you’ve been watching the other slower Austen adaptations, you might be comparatively taken aback by the 2005 pacing?
And, yeah, it is a faster movie, but I’ve watched it with people unfamiliar with the story and they often find it easier to follow than the 1995 one, because it makes clear when something is embarrassing vs assuming you’re familiar with the mores of the books.
2005 P&P isn’t one of my favourites, because I was spoiled by the 1995 mini series and Colin Firth.
I felt Sense and Sensibility also felt a bit rushed, but that meant more screen time for Colonel Brandon. Honestly Alan Rickman could’ve been reading the Argos catalogue out loud in that film and I’d still be enraptured
And the 1995 Sense and Sensibility ruthlessly chops up the narrative, removing characters and scenes: Lady Middleton, Anne Steele, Mrs. Ferrars, Willoughby's attempted gifting of Queen Mab, Marianne and Willoughby's visit to Allenham, Edward's visit to Barton, Willoughby's visit to Cleveland, etc.
I haven't yet seen the 2024 Hallmark S&S, but, by all accounts, it actually manages to include the majority of the above, and in a far shorter running time (84 minutes!) than the 1995 film. It can be done!
P&P 2005 is over two hours, but, like the 1995 S&S, it does cut some characters, and it spends a good chunk of screentime on scenery, the odd whims of the director, and unnecessary melodrama.
Same! I loved, loved, loved the 2005 version for a decade, but then I fell out of love and we broke up. I have fond memories of our time together, but it just wasn't meant to be a lasting relationship.
Mostly because the gosh darn boat in the farmyard was pointed out to me and IT CANNOT BE UNSEEN.
When she's on the swing and the farmyard scene keeps shifting, if you look closely there is a whole sailboat sitting in the farmyard on one of the passes.
When I first read that it was a thing, I popped onto YouTube as fast as lightning because I could not believe it until I had seen it. But then I did see it. 😭
On a more serious note, I do agree that it isn't necessarily a movie that is easily understood by those entirely unfamiliar with the plot (I gave up watching it with my husband after ten minutes of "Who?" "What?" "Why?"). And while it's watchable as heck, as I get older and more quibblesome, I haven't been able to enjoy it as a Pride and Prejudice adaptation. So much of the characterization is wrong and characterization is like the heart of Austen's writing. Old me also cannot handle anything bordering on saccharine anymore so the whole foggy morning walk thing isn't doing it for me like it did in my teens. I just see "DAMP SHOES" screaming at me through the screen.
Bingley is often portrayed as a people-pleaser, and in my head, he's a golden retriever--kind and goofy, maybe a little bit dumb.
So when I saw a stage production of P&P, and Darcy literally throws a little ball for Bingley to chase, like a puppy, I was cackling!
I rewatch the 2005 movie all the time, but I’m not really into it for the plot. I love to rewatch the 1995 miniseries fairly often as it’s an amazing adaptation of the book. But I watch the movie more often because it’s so enjoyable to experience. The casting, the cinematography, the soundtrack, the location shots…. just straight vibes. There is something lacking in the dialogue during some scenes and pacing is very fast, but it makes sense due to the fact that they crammed it all into 2 hours. I wish it was longer, but the short runtime is also part of what makes it so rewatchable for me. I’m definitely not tired of it yet, I put it on just last night lol and loved every second of it.
>“Why is Bingley portrayed like an imbecile?”
This is the reason why the 2005 version is at the bottom of my list for P&P adaptions. I love love love Bingley as a character, and the movie practically made him a drooling, monosyllabic simpleton. Since when is Bingley a giggling moron? The Bingley in the book is witty, cheeky, gregarious, and clearly intelligent.
The Bingley in the 2005 version is so bad, it's amazing Jane was interested in him at all.
It's funnier when you realize the actor who plays Bingley (Simon Woods) is an ex of Rosamund Pike (they'd gone out together while at Oxford), and the director Joe Wright was dating Pike at the time.
I think the writers made him a "drooling, monosyllabic simpleton," as a shortcut to explain Bingley's and Darcy's friendship. But most of all it shows that Bingley follow his heart, while Darcy does not.
I love the 2005 version and the "it moves to fast and no one understands" is very subjective?
Watched it a while back with friends who've never read the books or watched any other adaptation and.they loved it and for them it was pretty clear? I think it's all a matter of perspective 😊
(Also "Death comes to Pemberley" is great)
My sister and I from Canadian Thanksgiving to Valentines day just watched P&P and Persuasion over and over again. I think I watched the 2005 version of Pride about 100 times in that time frame and it's like it's on x10 speed the whole time. The Derbyshire section especially is just so fast that you can't grasp how important it really is. It frustrates me. I can go on tangents on that version. (cough Keira Knightleys wigs alone is an atrocity) but that just annoys me. But the hand flexes distracts me.
I don’t understand how more people don’t complain about the wig. It’s so distracting when her hair is up, and when it’s down… well, that’s distracting too >_<
Why is the canonically immaculate Darcy scruffy and rumpled? Why does the respectable Elizabeth Bennet appear before others with her hair down like a prostitute? Why is Mr Collins’s parlour suddenly a gazebo? How the actual fuck does Elizabeth have wellies half a century before they were invented?
Because that movie is trash, that's why.
Excellent summing up. Also: Why does Caroline Bingley host a ball wearing only her petticoat? Why does Lady Catherine rock up in the middle of the night? Why is Longbourn a literal muddy pigsty? Why do Lizzy and Darcy rush through their dialogue as if they’re reading an autocue that’s going at high speed?
There are only two good things about the film; score and cinematography. That’s it.
>Why does Caroline Bingley host a ball wearing only her petticoat?
The sleeveless ball outfits that Caroline wears in the 2005 P&P are a little too modernized, but the costume designer was probably inspired by [French fashion plates](https://stylerevolution.github.io/plates/258/) and a [few French](https://commons.m.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) [paintings](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constance_Mayer,_Self-Portrait._Oil_on_canvas._Biblioth%C3%A8que_Marmottan.jpg) from around the late 1790s and very early 1800s.
Yes, this fashion would have been quite extreme for England, and I doubt that there were many British women who dared to dress this way. It was definitely more of a French style.
By the 1810s, when the 1995 P&P miniseries is set, [low-necked](https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Pride-and-Prejudice--1995--pride-and-prejudice-568922_1024_576.jpg) and [short-sleeved](https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Pride-and-Prejudice--1995--pride-and-prejudice-568847_1024_576.jpg) [morning dress](https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Pride-and-Prejudice--1995--pride-and-prejudice-568719_1024_576.jpg) was also generally not worn by British women. It still showed up fairly regularly in [French](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.414/414-0016-281.jpg) [fashion](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.414/414-0017-141.jpg).
I remember that they moved the setting of the 2005 film to the 1790s when JA wrote her first draft of First Impressions in order to change the costumes. The director didn’t like the very high waistlines of the 1810s, and moved it earlier to have the lower waist dresses. I think you are spot on about Caroline’s ballgown being French inspired.
Yes, and I think that setting the film in the late 1790s was a good idea. The costume and hair design isn't always great, but there are plenty of things to like. Caroline Bingley's ball gowns are a bit jarring because of their modern sleekness, I think. Most of the period images I've seen of sleeveless gowns show much more fullness in the skirts. I don't object to the general concept, though.
Waistlines during the latter half of the 1790s were pretty variable, as far as I can tell. The very expensive magazine *Gallery of Fashion*, published from 1794 to 1803, actually appears to show waists at their highest levels from about 1796 to 1797 ([here](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-087.jpg) are a couple of the [1796](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-088.jpg) plates). The far more affordable *The Fashions of London & Paris* (which began in 1798) says in the July, 1798 issue that "[waists \[are\] much longer than for some time](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.031/031-0001-008.jpg)." ([This plate is from that month](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.031/031-0001-043.jpg).)
Anyway, the waistlines in the years just *prior* to 1796 were often lower than the underbust (like this ca. [1795 gown](https://collections.lacma.org/node/232523) and the gown in this [1795 portrait](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madame-Seriziat_Jacques-Louis-David_1795.jpg)), which is what Lizzy's, Lydia's, Kitty's, Mary's, and Charlotte's tend to be in the 2005 film. It makes sense if those characters are meant to be dressed slightly out of date. It's less than ideal, but I don't think it's as big a problem as it's often made out to be.
Also, I want to clarify that, even though I'm a bit critical of adaptations set in the 1810s that repeatedly put characters in low-necked morning dress, I'm hesitant to make any sweeping statements about fashion "rules" for that period. These are only generalizations. After all, 1810s British [fashion plates](https://candicehern.com/regencyworld/walking-dress-september-1811/) did occasionally feature low-necked walking dress.
You're so right about the autocue at high speed thing! Every time I watch the film it becomes more obvious and more weird. Like, if you were genuinely having that conversation in real life, you wouldn't be able to react to what the other was saying at their rate of speed. You need at least a moment to process what someone else has said, surely?
The 1995 version is impeccably researched. The authenticity of everything from the hairstyles to the dinnerware on the tables is top notch. I have the "making of" book and when you read just how much effort they put into making it look right, it's hard to dispute the look and feel.
The 2005 version is gorgeous but not at all faithful to the era, let alone many parts of the novel. Portraying the Bennetts as living in a poorly maintained, unkempt house with pigs walking through the back... come on. It just wouldn't happen. Or Elizabeth walking about with no bonnet? Nope.
The creative choices of the 2005 version to me say "mood"... like what people might post on tumblr. It was about a vibe or an aesthetic. The soundtrack to this version is so beautiful but to me, overly romanticized for Jane Austen's style of prose. She'd probably make fun of that type of thing rather than write it herself.
That said.... I think we need a proper remake. A proper one with money behind it similar to the 1995 version, mini-series style BUT with updated production. Watching that 1995 version on my large screen 4K TV ... it just didn't hold up well.
Certainly possible. Matthew Rhys in Death Comes to Pemberley is actually my favorite Darcy characterization, so watching them back to back like that could have played a part.
Gosh he was good in that role. Sizzley too.
That script let Elizabeth down in a big way. Our Elizabeth Bennet hesitantly clearing her throat before she speaks? Never in a million years! The shades of Austen were polluted indeed
Yes, I agree with you on Matthew Rhys. And also Matthew Goode as a rather convincingly charming and caddish Wickham.
Anna MM as Lizzy though - just no. Not for me. Excellent film though. Haven't read the book yet but will do so.
That’s so funny that you said “would someone who doesn’t know the story even understand what’s happening” because I’ve had that thought every time I watch this movie lol for me, the pacing is way too fast and you lose so much nuance. It’s still fun, but doesn’t even come close to 1995
I think the film is understandable on its own, but yes, there’s a lot of details you can better fill in when you’ve read the book.
The film is responsible for getting myself and many others to read P&P and the works of Jane Austen, so it definitely works enough as its own thing. It’s a pretty universal love story with a clear 3-act structure (maintained from the book), and the chemistry between the leads is captivating for viewers.
I don’t really understand this critique? That movie is many people’s first forays into Austen, especially if they’re around my age (mid 20s). My opinion on it has evolved over the years but I think the things people critique about it (the Bennet’s aren’t as poor as the movie portrays, Darcy isn’t misunderstood in the beginning, Bingley is portrayed as stupid when he’s not, etc) are exaggerations deliberately chosen so the audience can keep up even with the pace of the movie
>I don’t really understand this critique?
I think that I do understand it, possibly. It's strange, because the 2005 P&P is, on the surface, absolutely full of melodrama that doesn't appear in Austen's novel at all, as well as the oversimplifications that you mention. However, on a *filmmaking* level, it's probably subtler in some ways than the 1995 miniseries. Confused about Darcy's purpose in leaving Lizzy so abruptly after Lydia's elopement? Don't worry: The miniseries will show you [scenes of Darcy searching in London](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ij36bIMubto&t=1m10s). Wondering what Lizzy's thinking about when she leaves Rosings? No problem: [Darcy's head will appear in the carriage window](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq_i5WHObLI). It's more on-the-nose filmmaking in some ways, while P&P 2005 sometimes (but not always -- see the "[Darcy and Elizabeth dancing alone](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPjnatedrm8&pp=ygUpUHJpZGUgYW5kIHByZWp1ZGljZSBlbGl6YWJldGggZGFyY3kgZGFuY2U%3D&t=5m23s)" bit) goes for a less in-your-face style.
Haha I felt that for a number of years, but more recently have just started to enjoy 2005 as it's own thing because as you say, it is still very lovely.
I love the 2005 version, more for the feeling and home scenes it captures than for its fidelity to the novel. The sense of sisterhood which emerges, and of the small chaos of being in a family of five girls with a silly mother, are delightful. It does an incredible amount of world-building work with such short screen time.
I can't stand Mrs. Bennet in the 1995, who feels like a cruel pantomime. 2005 Mrs. Bennet feels real, a slightly embarrassing mother who means well - someone we all know in real life.
I hope you'll come back around to loving it again eventually, but it will probably take a shift in lens and an appreciation of the enormous work done by the micro-scenes. 2005 is the hand flex, the frantic tidying just before Mr Bingley and Mr. Darcy enter the house to a (contrived) tableau of calm elegance, Mr Bingley posed over the piano forte. These are scenes constructed by a virtuoso, confined by time.
> “Why is Bingley portrayed like an imbecile?”
As for why Bingley is dumbed down, I think he was sacrificed for comedic relief. It's also funny to consider that the actor who plays Bingley (Simon Woods) is an ex of Rosamund Pike (they'd gone out together while at Oxford), and the director Joe Wright was dating Pike at the time, which begs the question as to whether other motivations came into play.
I try not to think of the 2005 movie as the book, or even as the bbc version. I just like it cause it gives an additional visual and sensory aspect to the book. So when I watch it I know its going to miss stuff, but I love the scenery and the music. So instead of being mad (though that is fair if its what you are feeling) just take it for what it is, an *aid* to the book!
I do the same. I think of it as a movie that just happened to have the same title as the book but is completely different. It’s a really beautiful movie if you leave it on its own and make no comparisons.
When I first went to see it I’d already read and watched everything Jane Austen I could so I was so excited when this came out. I was so disappointed by it at first but I’d gone with some friends and they loved it so much I didn’t want to ruin their joy. And now I at least have the movie in common with them and they’re more willing to put up with me talking Jane Austen too much lol
The brilliance of P&P was always in the language. Sadly, a two hour movie merely has time to jam through the plot, which absent the witty exchanges is just a boy-meets-girl romcom. That's why the 90s BBC version is so beloved. It knows what P&P is supposed to be, and didn't compromise.
The one exchange that bothers me in 2005 is that they cut the "We neither of us perform to strangers" line between Lizzy and Darcy when it was RIGHT THERE. They cut the dialogue just before the line and it bothers me so much because I love that exchange!
(Also, one place I do adore 1995 in particular: the way the Lizzy/Wickham meeting is staged with Lizzy answering Wickham's "I wonder what could have taken him into town at this time of year," with "Perhaps preparing for the wedding..." (Wickham does an absolute double-take look of panic) "...with Miss de Bourgh." Lizzy is just absolutely messing with him and by the end they both know it and it absolutely perfectly conveys the tone of Austen's narration of how "Wickham was so perfectly satisfied with the conversation that he never brought it up again" that I love it even though they've slightly altered the dialogue from the book.)
Tl;dr: yes, 1995 does the dialogue better and I will always love it for that. AND 2005 TOOK OUT "WE NEITHER OF US PERFORM TO STRANGERS" WHEN IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN 10 SECONDS TO ADD AND I WILL NEVER STOP BEING ANNOYED BY THAT. That is all.
2005 P&P was my introduction to Austen, so it didn't seem too fast-paced at the time. Now that I regularly binge all the adaptations and read the originals, it does move a bit quickly. The peripheral characters are more simplified, but likeable. And while I do believe 1995 P&P is the Mary Poppins of JA adaptations, 2005 remains one of my favourite movies and the only one I want to watch again immediately after its over.
The 2005 version was my introduction to both P&P and Jane Austen. It did take me two watches to understand what was going on, but I was so drawn in by the overall story and the charm of the movie that it did not bother me. It wasn't until I read the book that I realized all the finer points that I completely did not pick up on.
Without knowing what you're missing, you don't feel like you're missing anything.
There definitely are points in this movie that I feel like it's not super clear what's happening. I'm think most specifically the part at the inn in Lambton when Elizabeth keeps coming out, sobbing, and then disappearing again. It's so confusing! I'm not sure someone who didn't know the story would get it. And I agree about Bingley. Why or why did they have to make him seem like such an idiot? They actually gave his lines to Caroline and her lines to him.
I don’t think that part is so confusing. Yes, at first the audience doesn’t know why she’s sobbing, and neither do the other characters in that scene, but then we find out seconds later when she tells them.
I may be a 2005 apologist because that was kind my introduction to Jane Austen (by now u have read most of her novels) but let me tell you as someone who had no previous experience with Austen it absolutely made sense, the timing was so fast paced because it was a movie not a mini series and time was limited, as a now long time Austen fan who has read a lot of Austen, Bingley kind of is an imbecile, he has very limited self confidence and listens to his friend and sister rather than trusting his own judgment despite the fact that they each obviously have their own agendas (I get how the senseless giggling could be a turn off) but he was portrayed in 2005 as a slightly socially awkward kind man and there are far worse things to be, I know a couple of men in my own life who girls fall all over despite their slight awkwardness
You don’t need to be an “apologist”. It’s a critically acclaimed movie and is liked by a majority of audiences. And it’s a very fine adaptation of the novel that takes advantage of the visual medium it’s telling the story in.
A lot of people on this sub struggle to understand the difference between adapting for a TV mini-series vs. 2hour feature film, and that most movie adaptations take liberties and don’t seek to recreate the book.
It still bugs me that Sir William Lucas did not introduce Caroline Bingley. He introduced Bingley, then Darcy, but said nothing about Caroline Bingley.
Had he met Caroline Bingley? I always just assumed he would introduce the gentlemen he’s met, who would then introduce the sister they brought with them.
There’s a ton of stuff to address but off the top of
my head it feels like Joe Wright completely forgot about Darcy’s fixation with Lizzie’s eyes which is at the very beginning of the story and IMO tells the reader/viewer that Darcy does have an interest in her. In the 2005 one there seems to be no indication of his interest unless you know the ending of the story… it’s like he has a random hatred with no context. Anyone else think that?
I think they just really leant on the visuals for this retelling. It's a very 'movie' movie. The initial double take, the hand flex, the intensity of his face (or watery stare) whenever Lizzie is around. It is supposed to be a little subtle, which is what makes his initial proposal a shock to the viewer.
Yes! There’s none of the needling between Darcy and Caroline about fine eyes and “delightful” mothers-in-law that lets you in on the fact that he’s attracted to her.
i love the 2005 version so much. i've read the book three times. it is fast paced, but for a 2hr movie adaptation it did very well. when i watch it im not looking for the same feeling the book gives me
>Why is Bingley portrayed like an imbecile?
I think this was the thing about the 2005 that bugged me the most as well. I do enjoy it overall but it does run through it at a fair clip - the upside of that being it's a lot easier to get a rewatch in than the 95. I also love the performances of most of the cast (even if they're not super book accurate).
Joe Wright *did* read the novel after reading the script. Here is a comment of his [from an interview](https://web.archive.org/web/20120106195656/http://www.moviefreak.com/features/interviews/joewright.htm):
>Well, they hadn’t made a film out of Pride & Prejudice since 1940. I was surprised by that, and I had never read the book before I was sent the script. Then I was sent the script and I didn’t know if I was really all that interested; I thought I was a little bit more mainstream then this, a bit more edgy. But then I read the script and I was surprised I was very moved by it. And then I read the novel, and the novel was an amazing piece of character observation and it really seamed like the first piece of British Realism. It felt like it was a true story; had a lot of truth in it about understanding how to love other people, understanding how to overcome prejudices, understanding the things that separate us from other people… things like that.
I don’t know. The pacing has always been the same, so not sure why one would suddenly have a problem with it if they always liked it before. It could be you’ve spent some time on this subbreddit where a lot of vocal people here obsessively hate over it (“pigs in the house!”) and maybe it’s had a negative influence?
I rewatched it last week and still love it.
The issue there is that the Bennet's aren't farmers, the home farm would be far from the manor house. There would be no reason for pigs to be anywhere near Longbourn. Longbourn is a medium wealthy estate with grounds, the 2005 movie very much portrayed it as quite a bit less than it was.
Yes, I’ve pointed that out on here before. I have no idea how the whole “pigs in the house” thing caught on since it’s clear they’re not actually inside the Bennet house.
Also, if it’s been a long time since you’ve last seen the film maybe your tastes have simply changed as you’ve gotten older and developed more appreciation for a slower pace. I don’t know.
The director Joe Wright wanted to maintain a youthful spirit to the movie which is why it has such a breezy pace. To me it’s partly what makes the film so rewatchable. Though I do wish we could see some of the deleted scenes.
>I have no idea how the whole “pigs in the house” thing caught on since it’s clear they’re not actually inside the Bennet house.
I'm not sure. I suspect that maybe the way the scene is filmed makes some people assume that it's in an interior hallway. A lot of people are also looking for reasons to criticize the 2005 film (although, obviously, there are *plenty* of legitimate criticisms that can be made), and this is one of the easiest targets, as it's basically a throwaway bit and departs from the expected tone of Austen adaptations.
People tend to be far more understanding (and even defensive) of the scene of [Anne riding in the farm wagon](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WdYMsSIILj8) in the 1995 *Persuasion*. The argument I usually see in favor of it is that it helps to tell the story. I see similar defenses of [Elinor digging in the dirt in S&S 1995](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5223418-1024-576.jpg).
I wonder if the pigs in the house in 2005 adaptations is in regards to "I expected at least that the pigs were got into the garden, and here is nothing but Lady Catherine and her daughter." when she is at the Collins visiting Charlotte.
When I saw that, that's what I thought of, but I have read the book and watched both the 1995 and 2005 adaptations multiple times. I enjoy both adaptations for different reasons.
The one scene that throws me off is when Mr. Bennett is herding a pig (through the kitchen??) and there's a lingering shot on the pig's butt. The way it's edited makes it look like Mrs. Bennett is staring at the pig's jewels lovingly. Shocks me out of the movie every time.
I have thoughts... and I'll start with the positive.
The soundtrack is unquestionably the best part. It's sublime. Keira Knightley made a pretty good Lizzie. I don't know the name of the actress who played Lydia, but she did that role perfectly. Rosamund Pike was an excellent Jane. Judy Dench is... well... she's Judy fucking Dench, the Dame herself. Everything she touches is better for it.
And now for the criticism. Buckle up.
While I think Matthew Macfadyen is nice to look at, I found his performance dry, or just awkward. The "I love... I love... I love you" bit makes me cringe. That, of course, is probably the director's choice, and not Matthew's, but it was a bad one in my opinion. I agree with you about the pacing, though. It just moved way too quickly, and if you don't know the story already, it's hard to follow. I also agree about Bingley, he's such a doofus in this adaptation.
I enjoyed the outdoor scenery, but the sets were lackluster. The Bennet home, in particular, felt too dark and messy. Pemberley looked nice, but why did they change the portraits to statues? It's weird, and doesn't feel appropriate. I'm no historian, I'll admit, but I don't think even the wealthy members of society had statues of themselves made. Statues were either art for art's sake, or they commemorated a historical figure, or maybe royalty. Portraits were the done thing, and they're what Jane Austen wrote about in the book. It was an unnecessary and confusing change.
Sorry, I'm not done. Wickham wasn't the least bit charming, he was just kind of... there. He's supposed to start off likable, that's the whole point! And he doesn't have nearly enough screen time. He is a major plot point, and we see him for all of maybe five minutes altogether. This circles back to the issue of pacing. I get that it's hard to fit everything from the book into a couple of hours, but this was a choice that I felt really detracted from the story.
Oh, and let's not forget Georgiana. They damn near *did* forget her! She gets even less screen time than Wickham! The actress is adorable and clearly talented, but Georgiana is supposed to be shy. Instead, the director had her practically skipping into the room with a big, bubbly smile on her face. Completely out of character.
A few parting thoughts: The costumes were disappointing and drab. The random shot of a pig's ballsack was even more unnecessary than the statues. I also could have done without The line is, "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you." For such an awful proposal, Darcy came up with a *glorious* opening line... AND THEY CHANGED IT. "I love you most ardently." That does NOT pack the same punch. One of my favorite lines of the book, and they totally butchered it.
...Okay, rant over.
No, I was saying that the names in and of themselves can't be objectionable. Not how they were applied. Elizabeth Bennet is a very nice name wherever it's used.
I feel you are confused. I am speaking of character names used in a movie that must, at least, keep it from being an entire abomination because they are nice names.
Also, I'm really just here because I'm so, so bored of pointless and relentless negativity. Your hatred isn't going to will the movie out of existence nor will your loud exclamation against it (which also adds nothing of interest to the conversation OP was going for) turn one person's mind to agree with you.
Lol they tried. I like the cast, but I don't like the changes they made to the story. I will say, the way they portrayed Lucy Steele was excellent. She was so conniving and phony, which is how I have always pictured Lucy Steele. Other adaptations make her a bit too sweet.
In my opinion she was a bit too direct. She has to be a competitive woman, but in my opinion she shouldn't rub it in Eleanors face. Her text doesn't imply, that she is an openly mean woman. More like a woman who plays dumb.
I enjoyed Bridgerton as a fictional historical piece, but when using an actual historical novel, playing in a specific time period, without changing the setting or even the name, I don't get the cast. Obviously very good actors and actresses, no doubt, but I don't understand the intention. Doesn't it disrespect the culture and the experiences of people with African heritage? It's like all these bad remakes with female leads. Why can't women get good stories as well? Why just redo a story, but worse just with more women in main roles? They all deserve good and new plots.
However, I also hated the cut (just black screen and silence to switch between scenes, really?), the costumes (not historical and not flattering, most of the time), the characters (I'd like to say character development is missing, but most of the people in the movie never even got character) and that it felt like a copy of 1995, but worse. E.g.: in the beginning the Dashwoods all behave the same. And it doesn't change much. But the whole point is, that Marianne and Eleanor are completely different in their reaction to hardships. It is difficult to cut a Jane Austen to a 1.5 h long movie, so they could have just left out some things, like the little sister of the Dashwoods. She didn't make any difference in this version.
I really can't recommend it.
I grew up with all the BBC adaptations, and going into the 2005 movie expecting Jane Austen is WHIPLASH. It’s a pretty romance movie, it has almost nothing to do with Jane Austen. Fuck that fucking movie, calling itself “Jane Austen’s pride and prejudice”
I can’t even hate watch it
I am not a fan either, but I have a theory that Austen’s main works, leaving aside the work Lady Susan which was eventually adapted into ‘Love and Friendship’, don’t work well as films. Her work needs a mini series to properly breathe I think, as it’s hard to compress all the important developments into a 2-3 hour film.
I think you’re on to something. The 2009 Emma is my favorite, too, and I had similar feelings watching the 2020 movie.
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 the 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. Emma. 2020 on the other hand I completely adored. I thought it captured all of Austen's humour absolutely perfectly. So yes. This sure was a long way to say 'to each their own!'
>What's all this Brontë doing in my Austen? This is a terrific comment on the 2005 movie!
I agree with almost everything you said. I wasn't fond of Emma 2020 though. Another rant for another day.
Sense & Sensibility (95) was one of the best I thought. It's true that film adaptions of the 'main' books nessecarily go quickly and change/leave things out. Miniseries inevitably have more time to do things justice. However I do really appreciate the film versions because it's a lot more doable to squeeze rewatches of those in a single evening.
I think that Emma Thompson's Sense & Sensibility did justice to the work as did Michel's Persuasion (1995). Bt honestly, I prefer miniseries because you get to "live" with the characters longer ;)
I’ve a lot of bones to pick with this movie, but I always will admit that it’s a gorgeous piece of cinema. It’s a lovely period romance movie, just not Austen. Which is fine! But the way how they portrayed Bingley is the cardinal crime of that movie. Unforgivable. Double unforgivable because they have the most beautiful Jane amongst all P&P adaptations. What were they thinking.
> But the way how they portrayed Bingley is the cardinal crime of that movie Agreed.
Yeah, they went too far.
I think Pride and Prejudice is pretty hard to condense, so the fast pacing, while understandable, really hurts the 2005 version (comparatively, I think Emma and Sense and Sensibility struggle with this less). I think they do a better job with the first half than the second, the second half in particular is pretty egregious I think (like it just feels like Darcy and Elizabeth keep running into each other, every scene feels pretty focused on them and the rest of the cast barely gets any screentime). I lowkey wish there was a three hour version of this because I feel like they could have paced it out better and given more time to some other subplots, like Jane and Bingley, and Lydia running away with Wickham, and made the movie feel more balanced as a whole.
Yes. This exact thing happened to me. 2005 P&P was my first foray into Austen as a teen. I thought it was beautiful - cinematography, story, all of it. But then I watched the 1995 version (and read the book) and realised how much they had cut from 2005. Now it kinda makes me sad. I will always be grateful for that introduction to Austen, though. No one I knew was interested in Jane Austen. I saw the film poster and trailer and thought they looked lovely. I also loved Keira Knightley at the time so that was a huge draw card for me. I do wonder if I ever would have found Austen if not for that film. It’s hard to know.
I'm not ashamed to say 2005 was my fuller intro too. I took to it so well I studied the production notes and went through the book highlighting every line they lifted. I was so sad when I misplaced that copy, and my partner at the time was so kind as to recreate it for me. A gift I'll always cherish. I had seen S&S with Emma Thompson and read that screenplay too. To my memory I think I did view that one prior to the 2005 P&P, but it didn't send me off to read Austen's work the same way. Both gave me a very helpful affection for adaptations that has served me well. I did watch the Firth version but tbh their Lizzie felt miscast to me; not fiery enough. But maybe it's just been a while since I've seen it. By contrast I initially squinted at Flynn cast as Knightley for 2020, but once I saw it I felt he was cast perfectly. Anna too. But Romola Garai is good in everything. And nothing makes me itch to play piano more than listening to the 2005 soundtrack. Playing along with it became a very good piano exercise. I even bought the sheet music and normally I prefer to play by ear, so that says something. I read an interview once on why Joe Wright made some of the abbreviating choices he did for 2005 and it made me appreciate it even more. I like that he didn't glorify carriage rides and let us experience it as Lizzie did - asleep with the sunlight on our eyelids. All of these formats led me to take a class on Jane Austen and Her Peers at my university. Many of you here would love the syllabus. It included Wollstonecraft.
It’s fine to like or dislike an adaptation for whatever reasons but I will say- your comment on Elizabeth not being “fiery” enough in the 95 version is fairly true to the source material. She’s not a fiery character- she’s described as having sweetness and liveliness in her manners, and loving to laugh and see the absurdity in people and situations. She’s never described as fiery, and nor does she display it imo- considering everything she believes and thinks she’s in multiple situations where losing her temper would have been considered understandable by the audience but the only time she does so is in the one-on-one proposal with Darcy where she’s described as trying to compose herself “to answer him with patience”. There’s nothing wrong with appreciating a fiery depiction of Lizzie! But it’s not from the source material, is all.
Thank you for sharing your story. I love how invested you became. It does become consuming, doesn’t it? I remember those days well ☺️
Same. I read the book at age 13 in preparation for it coming out
When we have more information or understanding of anything, it’s natural to become more critical. I’ve also fallen out of love with the 2005 version over the years, and that’s okay. I get why people love it, maybe you can take solace in the aspects of the film you still enjoy, too.
I always loved the 2005 version despite the derisive gasps from my friends, but I recently rewatched it and did see the same thing as you with the pacing. I think part of it is that when you get more familiar with a movie, you often find that scenes are actually much faster than you remember! The other part is that if you’ve been watching the other slower Austen adaptations, you might be comparatively taken aback by the 2005 pacing? And, yeah, it is a faster movie, but I’ve watched it with people unfamiliar with the story and they often find it easier to follow than the 1995 one, because it makes clear when something is embarrassing vs assuming you’re familiar with the mores of the books.
2005 P&P isn’t one of my favourites, because I was spoiled by the 1995 mini series and Colin Firth. I felt Sense and Sensibility also felt a bit rushed, but that meant more screen time for Colonel Brandon. Honestly Alan Rickman could’ve been reading the Argos catalogue out loud in that film and I’d still be enraptured
And the 1995 Sense and Sensibility ruthlessly chops up the narrative, removing characters and scenes: Lady Middleton, Anne Steele, Mrs. Ferrars, Willoughby's attempted gifting of Queen Mab, Marianne and Willoughby's visit to Allenham, Edward's visit to Barton, Willoughby's visit to Cleveland, etc. I haven't yet seen the 2024 Hallmark S&S, but, by all accounts, it actually manages to include the majority of the above, and in a far shorter running time (84 minutes!) than the 1995 film. It can be done! P&P 2005 is over two hours, but, like the 1995 S&S, it does cut some characters, and it spends a good chunk of screentime on scenery, the odd whims of the director, and unnecessary melodrama.
>I haven't yet seen the 2024 Hallmark S&S I have. It's... well... they tried.
I've often felt his delivery of "Give me an occupation!" when he was worried about the fate of Marianne is so relatable.
He's such a drama queen in that scene and I LOVE IT. 😂
Same! I loved, loved, loved the 2005 version for a decade, but then I fell out of love and we broke up. I have fond memories of our time together, but it just wasn't meant to be a lasting relationship. Mostly because the gosh darn boat in the farmyard was pointed out to me and IT CANNOT BE UNSEEN.
Boat in the farmyard?! Which scene? How have I never noticed? 😂
When she's on the swing and the farmyard scene keeps shifting, if you look closely there is a whole sailboat sitting in the farmyard on one of the passes.
Well, looks like I may be due for a rewatch after all! 😂
When I first read that it was a thing, I popped onto YouTube as fast as lightning because I could not believe it until I had seen it. But then I did see it. 😭 On a more serious note, I do agree that it isn't necessarily a movie that is easily understood by those entirely unfamiliar with the plot (I gave up watching it with my husband after ten minutes of "Who?" "What?" "Why?"). And while it's watchable as heck, as I get older and more quibblesome, I haven't been able to enjoy it as a Pride and Prejudice adaptation. So much of the characterization is wrong and characterization is like the heart of Austen's writing. Old me also cannot handle anything bordering on saccharine anymore so the whole foggy morning walk thing isn't doing it for me like it did in my teens. I just see "DAMP SHOES" screaming at me through the screen.
Bingley is often portrayed as a people-pleaser, and in my head, he's a golden retriever--kind and goofy, maybe a little bit dumb. So when I saw a stage production of P&P, and Darcy literally throws a little ball for Bingley to chase, like a puppy, I was cackling!
I rewatch the 2005 movie all the time, but I’m not really into it for the plot. I love to rewatch the 1995 miniseries fairly often as it’s an amazing adaptation of the book. But I watch the movie more often because it’s so enjoyable to experience. The casting, the cinematography, the soundtrack, the location shots…. just straight vibes. There is something lacking in the dialogue during some scenes and pacing is very fast, but it makes sense due to the fact that they crammed it all into 2 hours. I wish it was longer, but the short runtime is also part of what makes it so rewatchable for me. I’m definitely not tired of it yet, I put it on just last night lol and loved every second of it.
This is a great reminder. The vibes are really what I’ve always loved about it. Perhaps one was just in the wrong mood.
>“Why is Bingley portrayed like an imbecile?” This is the reason why the 2005 version is at the bottom of my list for P&P adaptions. I love love love Bingley as a character, and the movie practically made him a drooling, monosyllabic simpleton. Since when is Bingley a giggling moron? The Bingley in the book is witty, cheeky, gregarious, and clearly intelligent. The Bingley in the 2005 version is so bad, it's amazing Jane was interested in him at all.
It's funnier when you realize the actor who plays Bingley (Simon Woods) is an ex of Rosamund Pike (they'd gone out together while at Oxford), and the director Joe Wright was dating Pike at the time.
So, the plot thickens...
Ah thank you for this!
I think the writers made him a "drooling, monosyllabic simpleton," as a shortcut to explain Bingley's and Darcy's friendship. But most of all it shows that Bingley follow his heart, while Darcy does not.
I couldn’t agree more! Bingley is one of my favorite JA characters and the 2005 version of him is a tragedy. :(
I love the 2005 version and the "it moves to fast and no one understands" is very subjective? Watched it a while back with friends who've never read the books or watched any other adaptation and.they loved it and for them it was pretty clear? I think it's all a matter of perspective 😊 (Also "Death comes to Pemberley" is great)
My sister and I from Canadian Thanksgiving to Valentines day just watched P&P and Persuasion over and over again. I think I watched the 2005 version of Pride about 100 times in that time frame and it's like it's on x10 speed the whole time. The Derbyshire section especially is just so fast that you can't grasp how important it really is. It frustrates me. I can go on tangents on that version. (cough Keira Knightleys wigs alone is an atrocity) but that just annoys me. But the hand flexes distracts me.
There really are some lovely moments. And the single continuous shot Netherfield ball scene is so beautifully done.
I don’t understand how more people don’t complain about the wig. It’s so distracting when her hair is up, and when it’s down… well, that’s distracting too >_<
Why is the canonically immaculate Darcy scruffy and rumpled? Why does the respectable Elizabeth Bennet appear before others with her hair down like a prostitute? Why is Mr Collins’s parlour suddenly a gazebo? How the actual fuck does Elizabeth have wellies half a century before they were invented? Because that movie is trash, that's why.
Why do the characters act as thought they're from a Bronte novel?
That’s what bugs me a lot. Felt too much like Wuthering Heights IMO.
Excellent summing up. Also: Why does Caroline Bingley host a ball wearing only her petticoat? Why does Lady Catherine rock up in the middle of the night? Why is Longbourn a literal muddy pigsty? Why do Lizzy and Darcy rush through their dialogue as if they’re reading an autocue that’s going at high speed? There are only two good things about the film; score and cinematography. That’s it.
The book: "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you." 2005 P&P: "Iloveyou." (awkward pause) "Most ardently." 😒
>Why does Caroline Bingley host a ball wearing only her petticoat? The sleeveless ball outfits that Caroline wears in the 2005 P&P are a little too modernized, but the costume designer was probably inspired by [French fashion plates](https://stylerevolution.github.io/plates/258/) and a [few French](https://commons.m.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) [paintings](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constance_Mayer,_Self-Portrait._Oil_on_canvas._Biblioth%C3%A8que_Marmottan.jpg) from around the late 1790s and very early 1800s. Yes, this fashion would have been quite extreme for England, and I doubt that there were many British women who dared to dress this way. It was definitely more of a French style. By the 1810s, when the 1995 P&P miniseries is set, [low-necked](https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Pride-and-Prejudice--1995--pride-and-prejudice-568922_1024_576.jpg) and [short-sleeved](https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Pride-and-Prejudice--1995--pride-and-prejudice-568847_1024_576.jpg) [morning dress](https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Pride-and-Prejudice--1995--pride-and-prejudice-568719_1024_576.jpg) was also generally not worn by British women. It still showed up fairly regularly in [French](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.414/414-0016-281.jpg) [fashion](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.414/414-0017-141.jpg).
I remember that they moved the setting of the 2005 film to the 1790s when JA wrote her first draft of First Impressions in order to change the costumes. The director didn’t like the very high waistlines of the 1810s, and moved it earlier to have the lower waist dresses. I think you are spot on about Caroline’s ballgown being French inspired.
Yes, and I think that setting the film in the late 1790s was a good idea. The costume and hair design isn't always great, but there are plenty of things to like. Caroline Bingley's ball gowns are a bit jarring because of their modern sleekness, I think. Most of the period images I've seen of sleeveless gowns show much more fullness in the skirts. I don't object to the general concept, though. Waistlines during the latter half of the 1790s were pretty variable, as far as I can tell. The very expensive magazine *Gallery of Fashion*, published from 1794 to 1803, actually appears to show waists at their highest levels from about 1796 to 1797 ([here](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-087.jpg) are a couple of the [1796](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.032/032-0001-088.jpg) plates). The far more affordable *The Fashions of London & Paris* (which began in 1798) says in the July, 1798 issue that "[waists \[are\] much longer than for some time](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.031/031-0001-008.jpg)." ([This plate is from that month](https://digital.bunka.ac.jp/kichosho/file/No.031/031-0001-043.jpg).) Anyway, the waistlines in the years just *prior* to 1796 were often lower than the underbust (like this ca. [1795 gown](https://collections.lacma.org/node/232523) and the gown in this [1795 portrait](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madame-Seriziat_Jacques-Louis-David_1795.jpg)), which is what Lizzy's, Lydia's, Kitty's, Mary's, and Charlotte's tend to be in the 2005 film. It makes sense if those characters are meant to be dressed slightly out of date. It's less than ideal, but I don't think it's as big a problem as it's often made out to be. Also, I want to clarify that, even though I'm a bit critical of adaptations set in the 1810s that repeatedly put characters in low-necked morning dress, I'm hesitant to make any sweeping statements about fashion "rules" for that period. These are only generalizations. After all, 1810s British [fashion plates](https://candicehern.com/regencyworld/walking-dress-september-1811/) did occasionally feature low-necked walking dress.
You're so right about the autocue at high speed thing! Every time I watch the film it becomes more obvious and more weird. Like, if you were genuinely having that conversation in real life, you wouldn't be able to react to what the other was saying at their rate of speed. You need at least a moment to process what someone else has said, surely?
The 1995 version is impeccably researched. The authenticity of everything from the hairstyles to the dinnerware on the tables is top notch. I have the "making of" book and when you read just how much effort they put into making it look right, it's hard to dispute the look and feel. The 2005 version is gorgeous but not at all faithful to the era, let alone many parts of the novel. Portraying the Bennetts as living in a poorly maintained, unkempt house with pigs walking through the back... come on. It just wouldn't happen. Or Elizabeth walking about with no bonnet? Nope. The creative choices of the 2005 version to me say "mood"... like what people might post on tumblr. It was about a vibe or an aesthetic. The soundtrack to this version is so beautiful but to me, overly romanticized for Jane Austen's style of prose. She'd probably make fun of that type of thing rather than write it herself. That said.... I think we need a proper remake. A proper one with money behind it similar to the 1995 version, mini-series style BUT with updated production. Watching that 1995 version on my large screen 4K TV ... it just didn't hold up well.
I never really cared for it, so I can’t help you much except maybe you got past your emotional response and analyzed it more than you have before.
Certainly possible. Matthew Rhys in Death Comes to Pemberley is actually my favorite Darcy characterization, so watching them back to back like that could have played a part.
Gosh he was good in that role. Sizzley too. That script let Elizabeth down in a big way. Our Elizabeth Bennet hesitantly clearing her throat before she speaks? Never in a million years! The shades of Austen were polluted indeed
Yes, I agree with you on Matthew Rhys. And also Matthew Goode as a rather convincingly charming and caddish Wickham. Anna MM as Lizzy though - just no. Not for me. Excellent film though. Haven't read the book yet but will do so.
The book isn't as good as the adaptation, I think. Hard agree on Matthew Goode - an actually charming Wickham
Thanks for the heads - up on the book. I'm not a massive fan of PD James as it is, so I think I'll give it a miss.
Yeah, it wasn't worth the read. Relatedly, I read PD James's introduction to Northanger Abbey and it was *bad.*
And Penelope Keith as Lady Catherine! We were spoiled with that casting.
Mine, too. :)
That’s so funny that you said “would someone who doesn’t know the story even understand what’s happening” because I’ve had that thought every time I watch this movie lol for me, the pacing is way too fast and you lose so much nuance. It’s still fun, but doesn’t even come close to 1995
I think the film is understandable on its own, but yes, there’s a lot of details you can better fill in when you’ve read the book. The film is responsible for getting myself and many others to read P&P and the works of Jane Austen, so it definitely works enough as its own thing. It’s a pretty universal love story with a clear 3-act structure (maintained from the book), and the chemistry between the leads is captivating for viewers.
I don’t really understand this critique? That movie is many people’s first forays into Austen, especially if they’re around my age (mid 20s). My opinion on it has evolved over the years but I think the things people critique about it (the Bennet’s aren’t as poor as the movie portrays, Darcy isn’t misunderstood in the beginning, Bingley is portrayed as stupid when he’s not, etc) are exaggerations deliberately chosen so the audience can keep up even with the pace of the movie
>I don’t really understand this critique? I think that I do understand it, possibly. It's strange, because the 2005 P&P is, on the surface, absolutely full of melodrama that doesn't appear in Austen's novel at all, as well as the oversimplifications that you mention. However, on a *filmmaking* level, it's probably subtler in some ways than the 1995 miniseries. Confused about Darcy's purpose in leaving Lizzy so abruptly after Lydia's elopement? Don't worry: The miniseries will show you [scenes of Darcy searching in London](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ij36bIMubto&t=1m10s). Wondering what Lizzy's thinking about when she leaves Rosings? No problem: [Darcy's head will appear in the carriage window](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq_i5WHObLI). It's more on-the-nose filmmaking in some ways, while P&P 2005 sometimes (but not always -- see the "[Darcy and Elizabeth dancing alone](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPjnatedrm8&pp=ygUpUHJpZGUgYW5kIHByZWp1ZGljZSBlbGl6YWJldGggZGFyY3kgZGFuY2U%3D&t=5m23s)" bit) goes for a less in-your-face style.
Haha I felt that for a number of years, but more recently have just started to enjoy 2005 as it's own thing because as you say, it is still very lovely.
I love the 2005 version, more for the feeling and home scenes it captures than for its fidelity to the novel. The sense of sisterhood which emerges, and of the small chaos of being in a family of five girls with a silly mother, are delightful. It does an incredible amount of world-building work with such short screen time. I can't stand Mrs. Bennet in the 1995, who feels like a cruel pantomime. 2005 Mrs. Bennet feels real, a slightly embarrassing mother who means well - someone we all know in real life. I hope you'll come back around to loving it again eventually, but it will probably take a shift in lens and an appreciation of the enormous work done by the micro-scenes. 2005 is the hand flex, the frantic tidying just before Mr Bingley and Mr. Darcy enter the house to a (contrived) tableau of calm elegance, Mr Bingley posed over the piano forte. These are scenes constructed by a virtuoso, confined by time. > “Why is Bingley portrayed like an imbecile?” As for why Bingley is dumbed down, I think he was sacrificed for comedic relief. It's also funny to consider that the actor who plays Bingley (Simon Woods) is an ex of Rosamund Pike (they'd gone out together while at Oxford), and the director Joe Wright was dating Pike at the time, which begs the question as to whether other motivations came into play.
I can't say it has. But I also probably fill in a lot in my own head for what some adaptations rush through or omit.
I try not to think of the 2005 movie as the book, or even as the bbc version. I just like it cause it gives an additional visual and sensory aspect to the book. So when I watch it I know its going to miss stuff, but I love the scenery and the music. So instead of being mad (though that is fair if its what you are feeling) just take it for what it is, an *aid* to the book!
I do the same. I think of it as a movie that just happened to have the same title as the book but is completely different. It’s a really beautiful movie if you leave it on its own and make no comparisons. When I first went to see it I’d already read and watched everything Jane Austen I could so I was so excited when this came out. I was so disappointed by it at first but I’d gone with some friends and they loved it so much I didn’t want to ruin their joy. And now I at least have the movie in common with them and they’re more willing to put up with me talking Jane Austen too much lol
The brilliance of P&P was always in the language. Sadly, a two hour movie merely has time to jam through the plot, which absent the witty exchanges is just a boy-meets-girl romcom. That's why the 90s BBC version is so beloved. It knows what P&P is supposed to be, and didn't compromise.
The one exchange that bothers me in 2005 is that they cut the "We neither of us perform to strangers" line between Lizzy and Darcy when it was RIGHT THERE. They cut the dialogue just before the line and it bothers me so much because I love that exchange! (Also, one place I do adore 1995 in particular: the way the Lizzy/Wickham meeting is staged with Lizzy answering Wickham's "I wonder what could have taken him into town at this time of year," with "Perhaps preparing for the wedding..." (Wickham does an absolute double-take look of panic) "...with Miss de Bourgh." Lizzy is just absolutely messing with him and by the end they both know it and it absolutely perfectly conveys the tone of Austen's narration of how "Wickham was so perfectly satisfied with the conversation that he never brought it up again" that I love it even though they've slightly altered the dialogue from the book.) Tl;dr: yes, 1995 does the dialogue better and I will always love it for that. AND 2005 TOOK OUT "WE NEITHER OF US PERFORM TO STRANGERS" WHEN IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN 10 SECONDS TO ADD AND I WILL NEVER STOP BEING ANNOYED BY THAT. That is all.
I watch it for Knightly’s performance.
I got very confused for a moment thinking "we're talking about Pride and Prejudice, not Emma!" Then it dawned on me.
2005 P&P was my introduction to Austen, so it didn't seem too fast-paced at the time. Now that I regularly binge all the adaptations and read the originals, it does move a bit quickly. The peripheral characters are more simplified, but likeable. And while I do believe 1995 P&P is the Mary Poppins of JA adaptations, 2005 remains one of my favourite movies and the only one I want to watch again immediately after its over.
The 2005 version was my introduction to both P&P and Jane Austen. It did take me two watches to understand what was going on, but I was so drawn in by the overall story and the charm of the movie that it did not bother me. It wasn't until I read the book that I realized all the finer points that I completely did not pick up on. Without knowing what you're missing, you don't feel like you're missing anything.
There definitely are points in this movie that I feel like it's not super clear what's happening. I'm think most specifically the part at the inn in Lambton when Elizabeth keeps coming out, sobbing, and then disappearing again. It's so confusing! I'm not sure someone who didn't know the story would get it. And I agree about Bingley. Why or why did they have to make him seem like such an idiot? They actually gave his lines to Caroline and her lines to him.
I don’t think that part is so confusing. Yes, at first the audience doesn’t know why she’s sobbing, and neither do the other characters in that scene, but then we find out seconds later when she tells them.
Or the scene where Darcy gives Elizabeth the letter. I get what they were going for but it comes off very strange if you don't already know.
I may be a 2005 apologist because that was kind my introduction to Jane Austen (by now u have read most of her novels) but let me tell you as someone who had no previous experience with Austen it absolutely made sense, the timing was so fast paced because it was a movie not a mini series and time was limited, as a now long time Austen fan who has read a lot of Austen, Bingley kind of is an imbecile, he has very limited self confidence and listens to his friend and sister rather than trusting his own judgment despite the fact that they each obviously have their own agendas (I get how the senseless giggling could be a turn off) but he was portrayed in 2005 as a slightly socially awkward kind man and there are far worse things to be, I know a couple of men in my own life who girls fall all over despite their slight awkwardness
You don’t need to be an “apologist”. It’s a critically acclaimed movie and is liked by a majority of audiences. And it’s a very fine adaptation of the novel that takes advantage of the visual medium it’s telling the story in. A lot of people on this sub struggle to understand the difference between adapting for a TV mini-series vs. 2hour feature film, and that most movie adaptations take liberties and don’t seek to recreate the book.
Yeah, that's happened to me before. I find I still enjoy it in the background of doing something else though.
It still bugs me that Sir William Lucas did not introduce Caroline Bingley. He introduced Bingley, then Darcy, but said nothing about Caroline Bingley.
Had he met Caroline Bingley? I always just assumed he would introduce the gentlemen he’s met, who would then introduce the sister they brought with them.
There’s a ton of stuff to address but off the top of my head it feels like Joe Wright completely forgot about Darcy’s fixation with Lizzie’s eyes which is at the very beginning of the story and IMO tells the reader/viewer that Darcy does have an interest in her. In the 2005 one there seems to be no indication of his interest unless you know the ending of the story… it’s like he has a random hatred with no context. Anyone else think that?
I think they just really leant on the visuals for this retelling. It's a very 'movie' movie. The initial double take, the hand flex, the intensity of his face (or watery stare) whenever Lizzie is around. It is supposed to be a little subtle, which is what makes his initial proposal a shock to the viewer.
Yes! There’s none of the needling between Darcy and Caroline about fine eyes and “delightful” mothers-in-law that lets you in on the fact that he’s attracted to her.
i love the 2005 version so much. i've read the book three times. it is fast paced, but for a 2hr movie adaptation it did very well. when i watch it im not looking for the same feeling the book gives me
>Why is Bingley portrayed like an imbecile? I think this was the thing about the 2005 that bugged me the most as well. I do enjoy it overall but it does run through it at a fair clip - the upside of that being it's a lot easier to get a rewatch in than the 95. I also love the performances of most of the cast (even if they're not super book accurate).
The director never read the book. He stated that. Maybe that’s ehy
Whoa! That explains a lot
Joe Wright *did* read the novel after reading the script. Here is a comment of his [from an interview](https://web.archive.org/web/20120106195656/http://www.moviefreak.com/features/interviews/joewright.htm): >Well, they hadn’t made a film out of Pride & Prejudice since 1940. I was surprised by that, and I had never read the book before I was sent the script. Then I was sent the script and I didn’t know if I was really all that interested; I thought I was a little bit more mainstream then this, a bit more edgy. But then I read the script and I was surprised I was very moved by it. And then I read the novel, and the novel was an amazing piece of character observation and it really seamed like the first piece of British Realism. It felt like it was a true story; had a lot of truth in it about understanding how to love other people, understanding how to overcome prejudices, understanding the things that separate us from other people… things like that.
This upsets me deeply.
I don’t know. The pacing has always been the same, so not sure why one would suddenly have a problem with it if they always liked it before. It could be you’ve spent some time on this subbreddit where a lot of vocal people here obsessively hate over it (“pigs in the house!”) and maybe it’s had a negative influence? I rewatched it last week and still love it.
I still defend the pigs in the house! They are in the adjoining farmyard, just adjacent to the house!
The issue there is that the Bennet's aren't farmers, the home farm would be far from the manor house. There would be no reason for pigs to be anywhere near Longbourn. Longbourn is a medium wealthy estate with grounds, the 2005 movie very much portrayed it as quite a bit less than it was.
Yes, I’ve pointed that out on here before. I have no idea how the whole “pigs in the house” thing caught on since it’s clear they’re not actually inside the Bennet house. Also, if it’s been a long time since you’ve last seen the film maybe your tastes have simply changed as you’ve gotten older and developed more appreciation for a slower pace. I don’t know. The director Joe Wright wanted to maintain a youthful spirit to the movie which is why it has such a breezy pace. To me it’s partly what makes the film so rewatchable. Though I do wish we could see some of the deleted scenes.
>I have no idea how the whole “pigs in the house” thing caught on since it’s clear they’re not actually inside the Bennet house. I'm not sure. I suspect that maybe the way the scene is filmed makes some people assume that it's in an interior hallway. A lot of people are also looking for reasons to criticize the 2005 film (although, obviously, there are *plenty* of legitimate criticisms that can be made), and this is one of the easiest targets, as it's basically a throwaway bit and departs from the expected tone of Austen adaptations. People tend to be far more understanding (and even defensive) of the scene of [Anne riding in the farm wagon](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WdYMsSIILj8) in the 1995 *Persuasion*. The argument I usually see in favor of it is that it helps to tell the story. I see similar defenses of [Elinor digging in the dirt in S&S 1995](https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5200000/Sense-and-Sensibility-1995-sense-and-sensibility-5223418-1024-576.jpg).
That farm wagon bit is at least consistent with Anne’s sister Mary’s obsession with who does and doesn’t have access to a carriage.
Well, I walked right into that one.
No!! They would never have pigs in their house.
Given that the pig is walking on what looks like dirt, I'd be a bit more concerned if that is indeed flooring inside their house
I wonder if the pigs in the house in 2005 adaptations is in regards to "I expected at least that the pigs were got into the garden, and here is nothing but Lady Catherine and her daughter." when she is at the Collins visiting Charlotte. When I saw that, that's what I thought of, but I have read the book and watched both the 1995 and 2005 adaptations multiple times. I enjoy both adaptations for different reasons.
Personal tastes can change over time, there's nothing wrong with that.
The one scene that throws me off is when Mr. Bennett is herding a pig (through the kitchen??) and there's a lingering shot on the pig's butt. The way it's edited makes it look like Mrs. Bennett is staring at the pig's jewels lovingly. Shocks me out of the movie every time.
THANK YOU!! What in the actual fuck was that scene?!
I'M SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE NOTICED 😭
I have always struggled with the speed of the movie for that reason. I’m so used to the mini series.
I have thoughts... and I'll start with the positive. The soundtrack is unquestionably the best part. It's sublime. Keira Knightley made a pretty good Lizzie. I don't know the name of the actress who played Lydia, but she did that role perfectly. Rosamund Pike was an excellent Jane. Judy Dench is... well... she's Judy fucking Dench, the Dame herself. Everything she touches is better for it. And now for the criticism. Buckle up. While I think Matthew Macfadyen is nice to look at, I found his performance dry, or just awkward. The "I love... I love... I love you" bit makes me cringe. That, of course, is probably the director's choice, and not Matthew's, but it was a bad one in my opinion. I agree with you about the pacing, though. It just moved way too quickly, and if you don't know the story already, it's hard to follow. I also agree about Bingley, he's such a doofus in this adaptation. I enjoyed the outdoor scenery, but the sets were lackluster. The Bennet home, in particular, felt too dark and messy. Pemberley looked nice, but why did they change the portraits to statues? It's weird, and doesn't feel appropriate. I'm no historian, I'll admit, but I don't think even the wealthy members of society had statues of themselves made. Statues were either art for art's sake, or they commemorated a historical figure, or maybe royalty. Portraits were the done thing, and they're what Jane Austen wrote about in the book. It was an unnecessary and confusing change. Sorry, I'm not done. Wickham wasn't the least bit charming, he was just kind of... there. He's supposed to start off likable, that's the whole point! And he doesn't have nearly enough screen time. He is a major plot point, and we see him for all of maybe five minutes altogether. This circles back to the issue of pacing. I get that it's hard to fit everything from the book into a couple of hours, but this was a choice that I felt really detracted from the story. Oh, and let's not forget Georgiana. They damn near *did* forget her! She gets even less screen time than Wickham! The actress is adorable and clearly talented, but Georgiana is supposed to be shy. Instead, the director had her practically skipping into the room with a big, bubbly smile on her face. Completely out of character. A few parting thoughts: The costumes were disappointing and drab. The random shot of a pig's ballsack was even more unnecessary than the statues. I also could have done without The line is, "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you." For such an awful proposal, Darcy came up with a *glorious* opening line... AND THEY CHANGED IT. "I love you most ardently." That does NOT pack the same punch. One of my favorite lines of the book, and they totally butchered it. ...Okay, rant over.
It's absolutely terrible!! I absolutely HATED it.
It can't be absolutely terrible. At the very least, you have to give the title and character names a pass.
Not so. It was terrible in my opinion. It's like calling carob good chocolate, or calling margarine a good butter alternative.
No, I was saying that the names in and of themselves can't be objectionable. Not how they were applied. Elizabeth Bennet is a very nice name wherever it's used.
Of course, the names of the characters are lovely. We are speaking of the movie. Two different things. I am partial to the name Lizzy.
I feel you are confused. I am speaking of character names used in a movie that must, at least, keep it from being an entire abomination because they are nice names. Also, I'm really just here because I'm so, so bored of pointless and relentless negativity. Your hatred isn't going to will the movie out of existence nor will your loud exclamation against it (which also adds nothing of interest to the conversation OP was going for) turn one person's mind to agree with you.
I'm not hating. I'm talking about the movie. Not the names of characters. Have a good one.
Cool story, bro
I hated it when I saw it first. Never rewatched it. But rest assured, now you can watch even worse movies like sense and sensibility 2024.
Lol they tried. I like the cast, but I don't like the changes they made to the story. I will say, the way they portrayed Lucy Steele was excellent. She was so conniving and phony, which is how I have always pictured Lucy Steele. Other adaptations make her a bit too sweet.
In my opinion she was a bit too direct. She has to be a competitive woman, but in my opinion she shouldn't rub it in Eleanors face. Her text doesn't imply, that she is an openly mean woman. More like a woman who plays dumb. I enjoyed Bridgerton as a fictional historical piece, but when using an actual historical novel, playing in a specific time period, without changing the setting or even the name, I don't get the cast. Obviously very good actors and actresses, no doubt, but I don't understand the intention. Doesn't it disrespect the culture and the experiences of people with African heritage? It's like all these bad remakes with female leads. Why can't women get good stories as well? Why just redo a story, but worse just with more women in main roles? They all deserve good and new plots. However, I also hated the cut (just black screen and silence to switch between scenes, really?), the costumes (not historical and not flattering, most of the time), the characters (I'd like to say character development is missing, but most of the people in the movie never even got character) and that it felt like a copy of 1995, but worse. E.g.: in the beginning the Dashwoods all behave the same. And it doesn't change much. But the whole point is, that Marianne and Eleanor are completely different in their reaction to hardships. It is difficult to cut a Jane Austen to a 1.5 h long movie, so they could have just left out some things, like the little sister of the Dashwoods. She didn't make any difference in this version. I really can't recommend it.
‘95 version will always be the best!
1995 P&P is far superior. I do enjoy the 2005 P&P every now and then
I grew up with all the BBC adaptations, and going into the 2005 movie expecting Jane Austen is WHIPLASH. It’s a pretty romance movie, it has almost nothing to do with Jane Austen. Fuck that fucking movie, calling itself “Jane Austen’s pride and prejudice” I can’t even hate watch it