That's how much I do not like the movie version of Pride and Prejudice starring Kiera Knightley. Let me just start off with her. Kiera Knightley does not have a lick of gravity or sparkle, and she is completely unbelievable as Elizabeth Bennet. Her mouth hangs open showing her whole bottom row of teeth for half of the movie. I don't know what her costumer and hairdresser were thinking. Her clothes make it seem like her family is poor, when they are moderately wealthy. Her hair is almost always messy and plain. Keira Knightley is a very pretty woman, and it seems like they uglied her up on purpose for the movie.
Now, on to the screenplay. They took nearly every line of the book and changed it just a little bit to make it sound awkward and trite. I understand that the screenplay cannot be a copy of the book, but Pride and Prejudice is a success for a reason. Why not use as much of the original language as is possible while adjusting for the understanding of the modern audience and the length of the movie?
Lizzy's character is completely strange in the movie, for more reasons than just Keira Knightley's acting inability. Since when does she swing in a cattleyard in her bare feet? When would she ever wander around Mr. Collins's house in her pajamas? When would she actually show up at Netherfield with her hair down around her shoulders? It was ridiculous.
The other characters are no better. Could anyone imagine Mr. Darcy bursting into rooms without announcing himself, especially to deliver letters to half-dressed ladies? Would Georgiana run to a complete stranger giggling without being introduced? Would the Gardners eat in the public rooms of a loud inn? Would Lady Catherine arrive at Longborne in the middle of the night and talk with Elizabeth while she in her pajamas? With the way Lizzy wanders about alone with men (especially the last scene), it's hard to understand how they could have all been so shocked when Lydia ran off with Wickham.
The use of the scenery is weird as well. Most of the views of the Bennett's estate seem to be dirty. They weren't a family of farmers; they were landed gentry. Why would there be a pig in the house? And I thought it was extremely weird that the camera should focus in on its testicles. What is that supposed to mean? P&P has the least amount of testosterone of any book in the English language; why would it have testicles in it?
The only bright spot in this movie is Judi Dench. Her portrayal of Lady Catherine de Burgh was marvelous, as is every role I have ever seen her in. I only wish the screenplay had included more scenes with her in them. Mr. Bennet is not too bad, either.
The movie was not at all elegant, not at all refined, not witty and bright like a Jane Austen novel. Mr. Darcy is a milk sop, and I don't believe him capable of feeling passion. Lizzy is dull and ordinary and constantly appears in her nightgown. Caroline Bingley wears sleeveless dresses to a ball. Wickham is about 16 years old and not capable enough to pull off a seduction. It is just all ridiculous.
The movie has such a trashy feeling, I half expected Mr. Darcy and Lizzy to end up with a shotgun wedding and chug some Budweiser at the reception. Book adaptation FAIL. Go see the A&E version with Colin Firth, or even the BBC version.
Now, on to the screenplay. They took nearly every line of the book and changed it just a little bit to make it sound awkward and trite. I understand that the screenplay cannot be a copy of the book, but Pride and Prejudice is a success for a reason. Why not use as much of the original language as is possible while adjusting for the understanding of the modern audience and the length of the movie?
Lizzy's character is completely strange in the movie, for more reasons than just Keira Knightley's acting inability. Since when does she swing in a cattleyard in her bare feet? When would she ever wander around Mr. Collins's house in her pajamas? When would she actually show up at Netherfield with her hair down around her shoulders? It was ridiculous.
The other characters are no better. Could anyone imagine Mr. Darcy bursting into rooms without announcing himself, especially to deliver letters to half-dressed ladies? Would Georgiana run to a complete stranger giggling without being introduced? Would the Gardners eat in the public rooms of a loud inn? Would Lady Catherine arrive at Longborne in the middle of the night and talk with Elizabeth while she in her pajamas? With the way Lizzy wanders about alone with men (especially the last scene), it's hard to understand how they could have all been so shocked when Lydia ran off with Wickham.
The use of the scenery is weird as well. Most of the views of the Bennett's estate seem to be dirty. They weren't a family of farmers; they were landed gentry. Why would there be a pig in the house? And I thought it was extremely weird that the camera should focus in on its testicles. What is that supposed to mean? P&P has the least amount of testosterone of any book in the English language; why would it have testicles in it?
The only bright spot in this movie is Judi Dench. Her portrayal of Lady Catherine de Burgh was marvelous, as is every role I have ever seen her in. I only wish the screenplay had included more scenes with her in them. Mr. Bennet is not too bad, either.
The movie was not at all elegant, not at all refined, not witty and bright like a Jane Austen novel. Mr. Darcy is a milk sop, and I don't believe him capable of feeling passion. Lizzy is dull and ordinary and constantly appears in her nightgown. Caroline Bingley wears sleeveless dresses to a ball. Wickham is about 16 years old and not capable enough to pull off a seduction. It is just all ridiculous.
The movie has such a trashy feeling, I half expected Mr. Darcy and Lizzy to end up with a shotgun wedding and chug some Budweiser at the reception. Book adaptation FAIL. Go see the A&E version with Colin Firth, or even the BBC version.
13 comments:
Totally agree with and enjoyed this post.
The dialogue went from beautiful to awkward; the characters from honorable and passionate to clumsy and foolish; the view of that world from focused on beautiful estates to pig's testicles.
Naturalism killed the beauty of Austen's prose, her characters and her world--for what? For nothing.
This is ultimately what nihilism means. Pretty, it is not.
This review, Kelly, is spot on (how could it be otherwise from an Austen officionado?!!).
The makers of this film went for low-brow and, yes, the double-wide mentality of many modern audiences -- suggesting that there isn't a sophisticated audience capable of high feeling, high thought, refined sensibilities. One has to wonder why any filmmakers would do such a thing with Austen, the epitome of all of the above. One of the main reasons many of us are avid Austen lovers is because we have little interest in the mundane, the bucoloc, the ugly, the pedestrian, the violent, the unexamined life. Austen gave us high contrasts, high drama, high-mindedness, introspection, and characters of tragic proportions or inspirational insights -- not pig testicles.
It's been a while since I saw this adaptation, but I also remember the gratingly constant smirk/smile on Knightly's face, as if she were privy to something we were not -- and above the fray, which provides little drama because she has little to lose.
The whole production was tinny, as if none of the people involved (excluding the lovely Judy Dench, of course) had a clue as to the full meaning, depth and drama that is Austen.
Oh, I loved your headline, too.
sounds like youre a bit mad its a movie take a chill pill l0l
Ok now on to what you said about the movie...
"Her mouth hangs open showing her whole bottom row of teeth for half of the movie"- I'm assuming you're exaggerating about the "half of the movie part" and pretty sure in the book it never illustrated how she actually laughed.
"it seems like they uglied her up on purpose for the movie" - I'm pretty sure she was not "uglied up" in the film and if that was what they were trying to do then it makes sense doesn't it because she was supposed to be the second prettiest maybe even third of the 5 Bennets...
"They took nearly every line of the book and changed it just a little bit to make it sound awkward and trite" - Name 1 movie where they haven't changed some if not all...
"Keira Knightley's acting inability" - no comment. wish there was a facepalm smiley though.
"When would she ever wander around Mr. Collins's house in her pajamas" - I really don't remember this part wanna show me a screenie of what you classify as pajamas?
"When would she actually show up at Netherfield with her hair down around her shoulders?" - You're speaking as if you know every aspect about her external qualities. Answer this question "When would she NOT show up at Netherfield with her hair down around her shoulders." Such a hasty comment.
"Could anyone imagine Mr. Darcy bursting into rooms without announcing himself, especially to deliver letters to half-dressed ladies?" I honestly think you're just bull shitting now because not once in the movie were there any signs of half-dressed ladies lmfao. It's rated PG
You're throwing a shitload of poorly constructed question in which you don't even answer yourself.
"With the way Lizzy wanders about alone with men (especially the last scene), it's hard to understand how they could have all been so shocked when Lydia ran off with Wickham." - absolutely no idea what you just said there...
"Most of the views of the Bennett's estate seem to be dirty. " Woowwww there they had servants....that's clearly a sign of upper middle class if not higher...
"I thought it was extremely weird that the camera should focus in on its testicles. " - we can't all appreciate humor..
"I only wish the screenplay had included more scenes with her in them." Since you're saying the movie is not a good resemblance of the book why would you make this comment. In the book she was a minor character; in the movie she was a minor character..enough said.
"Mr. Darcy is a milk sop, and I don't believe him capable of feeling passion." - Maybe you should watch the last half of the movie
"Lizzy is dull and ordinary and constantly appears in her nightgown." - Woww "constantly appears in her nightgown" she did that twice as i recall, you seriuosly gotta work on your word choice...
"Wickham is about 16 years old and not capable enough to pull off a seduction." - Once again need a facepalm emote.
With all that said, I'm pretty sure you were in a bad mood while watching this movie and decided to take out your unnecessary anger on this film. Barely any of your criticism is relevant/justified/accurate/etc...
``I might as well enquire,'' replied [Kelly], ``why, with so evident a design of offending and insulting me, you chose to [post on my blog at all?] Was not this some excuse for incivility, if I [am about to be] uncivil? But I have other provocations. You know I have. Had not my own feelings decided against you, had they been indifferent, or had they even been favourable, do you think that any consideration would tempt me to [engage in a reasonable conversation with a person], who [is so ignorant of and arrogant about] a most beloved [novel]?''
``You are mistaken, [Charlies1902], if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in [snubbing] you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.''
I'm not trying to insult you...and why are you speaking as if you're from the 18th century, there's not need for that...All i'm saying is your criticms are poorly constructed just like you're saying the movie is poorly made.
And the question about why I was on your blog. I came on here because I searched pride and prejudice on twitter and decided to read the first one that came up.
While I certainly agree with some of your criticisms (Knightley’s portrayal of Elizabeth was weak, not due to her inability to act, but by her exceedingly odd facial expressions, the historical inaccuracies regarding appropriateness of behavior, the random shot of the pig’s testicles and Mrs. Bennet’s reaction to its passing by her), but I disagree that it is the stuff of trailer park sensibilities and most definitely with the thought that is a paradigm of nihilism.
The six hour A&E presentation remains most true to the book and is unquestionably excellent (and then there’s Colin Firth). But did you not feel a certain sense of dissatisfaction when Darcy and Elizabeth finally kissed in the last frame? It was appallingly platonic! And, no. I don’t need to see them in a full on romantic embrace, but the A&E P&P did not to show their passion in a physical way that satisfied me.
These are movie adaptations; they should use the power of visuals to convey ideas. The 1995 version showcased their passion well, exceeding the mere dramatic reading of the novel.
When I saw Darcy outstretched fingers after he unexpectedly and momentarily held Elizabeth’s hand in helping her into the carriage, I fell in love with this movie. In highlighting Darcy’s single small gesture, the director brilliantly addressed the depth of Darcy’s otherwise inexpressible desire.
The dancing scene in which they exchange unpleasant pleasantries and piqued, meaningful looks while everyone else falls away is simply visually stunning.
And frankly, when the heavy breathing starts at the pavilion in the rain, and the confessions of love are as near to being spoken as their lips are to touching, I’ll admit to my own increased heart rate. If this makes me trailer trash, all I can say is bring on the double wide and a jug of Boone’s Farm Apple wine!
I will concede that the film's naturalistic tendencies detract from my overall enjoyment, but I love it for what it gets right and does so well.
Lynne, I agree that I am sometimes left wanting more physical passion at the end of the other movies. A good hard kiss would add to the A&E version for me. But by the time I got to the end of the 2005 version, I didn't really believe their passion, so the kissing did nothing for me.
After reading my own comments I have two points of clarification: 1) the criticisms to which I have agreed ARE the stuff of trailer parks, but I meant the entire movie is not, and 2) I referenced the 1995 movie, but of course meant the 2005 movie - the subject of your post.
The kissing in the 2005 version isn't too memorable for me, but the her touching of his calf-muscle definitely left an impression.
OMG. How did I ever miss this post?!? I disliked the movie too ... and then I watched the commentary on the DVD, and the director said that they wanted to make a "naturalistic" P&P. That explains everything.
I refused to watch Knightly's P&P.
The previews alone spelled Naturalism. Even the few snippets of dialogue indicated that the actors failed to carry the intellectual values that Lizzie and Darcy each had to work through to discover the other's character.
Knightly's eyes, repeatedly —and this is just in the trailer— displayed flirty-girl sparkle. We saw giddy school girl laughter and body language, not the mature well read Elizabeth Bennett who stood apart from society. Knightly just was not Elizabeth Bennett, any more than Steve Martin was Cyrano de Bergerac (in "Roxanne").
Both Knightly and Macfadyen come across as too immature to carry the full depth of Austen's intention.
Sure, castigate me for forming my opinion from trailers, and for not having seen the movie. Nonetheless, trailers have a purpose, and are a deliberate selection of scenes the director believes will capture the interest of patrons. Despite some marvelous photography and music, the signs were nor encouraging.
I really enjoyed the film! Sure, they may have been differences between the book and the movie and certain scenes that were weird (when lizzy gets the letter and goes in and out of the room and is 'crying', that was annoying and really fake.) I can completely see your reasons for dissatisfaction, but there were a lot of beautiful scenes in the movie that you didn't even mention! lizzy on top of the world, lizzy and darcy meeting in the field at the end, the tire swing indicating the passing of the time, the dance scene with lizzy and darcy when everyone else disappears and it is just them two. I thought it was beautiful and romantic! Not to mention the cinematography. I thought it was beautifully shot and the soundtrack! the soundtrack was beautiful and added to the feeling of the film. Nothing is ever going to be as good as the book, but I thought it was a beautiful effort and I know a lot of people who saw the movie and then read the book who otherwise would have never read the book at all, which is a step in the right direction! People my age (21) and younger need to read the classics more often! :)
Post a Comment