(Note: this is an ambitious project that will bring me either worldwide fame or eternal shame and a multitude of skin tags. No undertaking of mine has presented so much risk or reward since I swam the Danube covered in whip cream. This review may enhance or disturb relations between the two genders, or at least between myself and the female gender. Obviously, I am 100% correct in my opinions about the Pride and Prejudice franchise but unreasonable people may disagree. I have received no compensation from either the 1995 or 2005 franchise for my commentary and have no conflicts of interest in reporting this information. I do not own any private company stock that involves Colin Firth, for example.)
So the idea here is to compare and contrast the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice, one of the greatest films of all time (***SPOILER ALERT***) starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, against the 2005 version starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfayden, AKA movie review of both movies based on the Jane Austen novel. If you disagree with my impressions or want to raise new categories of comparison, please write your concerns (with a SASE) to Henry, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, care of Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Please include your favorite salami scent in your envelope. You can simply comment on this webpage if you like, although for some reason no one seems to want to do that anymore, since the Russians and their bots invaded our politics years ago.
Jennifer Ehle (95) v Keira Knightley (2005) as Elizabeth Bennett. This is the most important character in the movie, of course. Jane Austen's narrators/protagonists are wickedly smart and determined women who somehow find a way in a male-dominated society to act with dignity and independence (like Ms. Austen herself). These women are confined largely to parlor games, reading, letter writing, long walks in meadows, and gossip, but they make the most of it. I just realized today that the reason they wrote so many letters in olden times was because it was the only thing you could do after dinner, you know, with a nice candle to light your way. Trade all the time you spend watching TV or surfing the internet for writing letters and you would have a massive library of letters!
I laugh to myself now to think of Elizabeth Bennett living in modern times during a Trump presidency. How does she maintain her dignity? What is her take on reality TV? Does she watch the Bachelor? What about Golden Bachelor? What is her favorite musical artist? Is she friends with Taylor Swift? Does she do yoga or pilates or is walking still her primary form of exercise? What is her take on oat milk?
Jennifer Ehle has a glow in her eyes throughout the entire film. I don't know how she did that, or how the director did that, perhaps with a bottle of Murine and a squirt-squirt of drops from time to time. Her eyes shine. It creates the sense sometimes of tears, sometimes of mystery, sometimes of a sense of vision. It works for both happiness and disappointment. It makes her sparkle, it makes her more pretty than she already is. Her bodily figure, the shape and size of the dresses, the heavy material in the dresses, the round shape of her face, the way her hair is typically pulled up and draped around her face, the way she walks, the way she carries herself, utter perfection. Is she twenty, is she twenty-five, is she twenty-eight, we don't know. She walks and moves with a daintiness that is appropriate for a person who lives a well-to-do life -- most of her life is spent writing letters, drying herbs and flowers, defending herself against insolent dates, entertaining guests, dancing, handling leather books, going on walks -- and she has a certain lightness of foot consistent with such a person. At the same time, she is not an aristocrat, she's not a sickly weakling (like Catherine's daughter), she can easily walk three miles if she needs to, to visit Jane in bed for example after Jane has intentionally caught cold in the rain so that she will be forced to stay at Bingley's place. Lizzy is perfectly at ease walking in a cold rain with mud building up on her skirts. She can no doubt milk a cow if needed, she can certainly gather flowers and herbs, pluck fruit from a tree in season, jump onto the bed with her sister to celebrate Bingley's love. At times in her scenes with Colin Firth, her body is a perfect counterpart to his presence in the scenes - she has an appropriate gravitas and comportment that makes him take her seriously, makes him fear her disapproval.
Can enough be said about Jennifer Ehle's facial expressions, her smiles, her eyes. So much is communicated there, laughter/humor at her cousin Mr. Collins. Her eyes and smile mock Mr. Collins, without a word. She appreciates her father and is aligned with him, all communicated with nuanced facial expressions. She loves her mother but knows her mother needs to be managed, all communicated in a twitch or glance. The joy and intimacy she shares with Jane, all written on the face. She is taken aback by Mr. Darcy, her face shows the reaction -- she never utterly disposes of him, but her face and her bodily comportment show a distrust of him, an uncertainty, and this wall is eventually mollified later in the film as she begins to respect and trust him.
Importantly, she is capable of multiple emotions at once. When she is friendly with Wickham, she still holds something in reserve, a sense that she is still studying him. When she is doubtful of Darcy, she still holds something in reserve, the possibility that he might change. Only with her father and her sister Jane is she really completely trusting and open, with others she is as open as she can be while still protecting herself.
The way Ehle delivers the Jane Austen lines should be a forced study for every actor undertaking a Jane Austen role and should be a forced labor for such terrible speakers as Kevin Costner and Keanu Reeves as well as Matt Damon and Julia Roberts who should be collectively caused (by a decree of state!) to listen to Ehle's speech patterns for twelve hours per day, for a lifetime sentence. The words drip off her tongue without any trouble, as if they are her own words. She doesn't seem to be reciting artificially wicked poetry or anything, the words don't seem forced coming from her. She adjusts her modulation, her intonation sufficiently like a real person would in talking. She sometimes pauses as if she is gathering her thoughts, not simply reciting lines given her. In short, she is remarkable, an A+, in the pantheon of the most important acting roles of all time, especially for period dramas.
I must say here further that there's a fine line between restraint and projection. We can see Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy thinking, planning, programming. She is not shy, she is not afraid, but she also doesn't reveal everything she is thinking. She is capable of restraint, patience, and strategy. Part of her intelligence and wit involves not revealing all of her cards. Her mother and her younger sister Lydia are guilty of inability to use restraint, and her sister Jane holds back too much, whereas Ehle's Lizzy is the perfect middle.
Keira Knightley, for her part, does also very well, and is the center of her own film. Without her, for example, the Macfadyen portrayal of Mr. Darcy is so comically bad it's hard to imagine this film not turning into a bad community play without the dignity and charm of Knightley to carry the film. Unfortunately for Ms. Knightley, the standard she is held against (Ehle) is so high that Knightley cannot do anything but come short in the comparison. At least she tries valiantly.
A colleague if mine notes that Knightley may be more appropriate for the role of Emma (floating around like a butterfly) rather than of Elizabeth Bennett, and this seems right. Elizabeth Bennett has more depth and wisdom than Knightley is entirely capable of, particularly in the requirement that the character show some restraint.
For some reason the director of the 2005 film elected to have tiny thin women in Knightley and Pike in the primary female roles. This seems to be a mistake in casting and obviously not a correct assumption of what beauty would have looked like in Austen's time (and not necessarily how beauty may have looked in any time, including 2005). Although Knightley portrays very well a well-to-do woman who still has to help with the pigs and the cows -- she doesn't seem uncomfortable for example with a dirty dress or walking through mud -- she seems a bit frail for someone who lives on a small rural farm, she doesn't seem potentially strong enough to walk alone three miles in the rain, as compared to Ehle's character. She's too weak-looking to go tete-a-tete with Darcy in the way Ehle can do. When she talks to Darcy she doesn't have as much of a physical presence, and the words have to do all the work, whereas with Ehle's version of Lizzy she conveys disapproval in her body as well as her words. The clothing and hair given Knightley is excellent, she seems playful and serious at the same time, she acts more comfortably around her family and more restrained against others, but the main limitation with the Knightley character in my opinion is that she gives her lines too confidently. She is obviously in her own right a brilliant and accomplished actress, and doesn't have to fake an English accent (like Kevin Costner did in Robin Hood), but she seems to give her lines at times in an overconfident manner. For example during her argument with Lady Catherine de Bourgh towards the end of the movie (when Catherine tries to dissuade her from marrying Darcy), there is not really a hesitation or a fear of being overcome by the older, wealthier woman, she charges out with her lines without allowing sufficient time, in my opinion, to contemplate the impact of Lady Catherine's words. She sort of winds up her response while the other person is still delivering her lines (contrast with Jennifer Ehle, who seems hurt and offended by Lady Catherine, but then gathers herself for a response). In addition, as noted above, Knightley's Ms. Bennett reveals too much, we have the sense she has played all her verbal cards, whereas Ehle's character holds something in reserve, which is a sign of intelligence.
I would give Knightley an A or an A-, but Ehle gets an A+.
Colin Firth (1995) v Matthew Macfadyen (2005) as lead male role in Pride & Prejudice. The comparison here is comical or tragic if you are a fan of Macfadyen (If Matthew Macfadyen's mother is reading this, you know I am right--you should have stopped your son from acting in this film; you should have put your very body in front of that train, to save us all!). When this film was made we didn't know MM would become Tom in Succession, a role he portrays a million times better than Darcy. The main problem with MM as Darcy is he's not handsome, which is a real flaw for a person who is supposed to be handsome. They might as well have cast Jack Black or David Spade as Darcy, so unfit is MM for this role from a physical standpoint. His haircut is as bad at my 7th grade haircut at SDJH.
One main problem with MM's appearance as Darcy is they give him a horrible wig made either of straw painted black with marker or used spaghetti dyed black with squid ink. The wig they make him wear is truly awful. Somewhere in England a filthy black rug was stolen from a petrol station and used as the wig for this character, or a chimney sweep's broom was stolen and fitted into a scratchy, brutal wig. It's horrible and even disgusting how gross this wig is. It's also evident that the wig has been spray painted black, and not with quality paint. The wig is something you might expect to see in a 4th grade Utah History song-and-dance or something you might have seen in a road show at the North Canyon Stake meeting in Bountiful, Utah, circa 1983. I'm surprised the wig doesn't drip black ink in the rain scenes.
Sure, MM has some of the typical bony facial features we might want from a handsome gentleman from the UK, but his screen presence is weak compared to what Knightley presents. MM seems to try to be handsome or interesting by withdrawing from a scene instead of putting himself into the scene. His acting technique seems to rely on little smiles and smirks that he must have perfected in the trailer before shooting. He doesn't have a lot of range here, when he's mad he doesn't seem frightening, when he's trying to restore justice he doesn't seem imposing. He doesn't seem like anyone that Wickham would be worried about pleasing for instance. He talks mostly in a whisper, it's hard to even hear what he is saying at times. He comes off like a rich kid in 9th grade wearing a Lakers jersey and not as a grown man.
On the other hand, Colin Firth is a perfect Mr. Darcy, and other than Ms. Ehle, he is the second best character among the two films combined. He inhabits naturally the shy and arrogant character of Mr. Darcy. When he's rude he seems actually rude, scary, someone you would want to avoid. His rudeness seems to derive from his class, his lack of practice in needing to be nice, a true disgust with rougher people. He seems deep and profound but also hard to penetrate -- he seems like he has deep thoughts but you have to get through the exterior (whereas MM seems only to be hard to penetrate, but doesn't project any sense of depth). He wears the clothing well -- he has the right height and weight to carry well the clothing of the time, he looks dashing in the hats and ribbons, he looks stately and right on his horse, he looks contemplative when he walks, he looks good walking in a garden, he looks determined when he rides his horse. He looks wealthy and powerful and truly like a dick who is trying to do better. As best I can tell, the actor's hair is also the character's hair -- it was not necessary to shave a rat and blacken the hair with shoe polish in order to make him a wig and sideburns.
How well he wears his tophat! How well he wears his boots! How well he manages his eyes.
It's important to understand why Darcy shows up to the dances and the other events and stands in the corner/rear in a judgmental fashion. Why show up to a dance when you don't want to dance? Colin Firth's Darcy by his physical stature and bearing and the way he uses his eyes interprets Darcy as someone who is so well-to-do and so important to the area that it's important for him to know what's happening, even if he doesn't participate in it. He is watching out for his class, for his family, for his reputation. He is looking out for Bingley, he's also trying in some way potentially to just know what's going on locally. He looks like he's more or less "supervising" the dances he attends. The MM interpretation doesn't make as much sense to me. He seems to be an angry person standing in the corner for no reason. If he has no role there, why not simply leave? Call an Uber, you know?
It's not Colin Firth's fault but one of the few limitations with the 1995 film is the way they use the flashbacks -- they show the giant close-up of the character as if he is a ghost. Like when Ms. Bennett thinks of something Darcy said, she pictures the face of Colin Firth. It's kind of a funny technique that is now dated, 27 years later. That's not Firth's fault of course. I blame it on Terry Bradshaw.
In any event the chemistry between Ehle and Firth is magical, palpable. There's a waiting a tension a real sense of payoff when they finally connect in the final scenes. It's one of the best on-screen romances in all of film history. Even lumberjacks and longshoreman get moist eyes when Darcy and Lizzy finally come together.
In short, A for Colin Firth, C- for Matthew Macfadyen.
Rosamund Pike (2005) v Susannah Harker (1995). This is one of the few characters in the 2005 version who can hold her own against the 1995 counterpart. Although I ultimately prefer Susannah Harker as Jane, Rosamund Pike offers something worth consideration. Harker's Jane is bashful and nice -- the type of person that needs constant protection and supervision from her family. She plays very much the type of person who can be harmed by the arrogance and pride of Darcy. She's pretty and nice and we can see why Bingley likes her, but she seems a bit simple compared to her sister.
On the other hand, Rosamund Pike seems to play a Jane who is shy but not necessarily simple. She seems to have the same fight and intelligence as her sister, but just a more reserved character. The problem I have with Rosamund Pike of course is that now she has been cast as sort of the dark person in several films, and it's hard to unsee that. I keep waiting for her to frame Bingley for murder or to have Bingley declared mentally incompetent and placed in a nursing home. Pike's too famous anymore to just blend in. And as noted above, I think the casting choice of having frail women as both Jane and Liz was a mistake in casting as well as a grievous ethical error and sign of poor intelligence. I also think the on-screen chemistry as sisters between the two women in the 1995 version is better than the on-screen chemistry of the two women in the 2005 version. The 1995 Jane and Lizzy seem like real sisters when they are behind the closed door of their bedroom, the 2005 film looks more like Pike and Knightley pretending to be sisters on a movie set. Anyway. B+ for both Jane and Jane, but slight edge to the 1995 version.
Donald Sutherland (2005) v Benjamin Whitrow (1995) as Mr. Bennett. The decline from the 1995 Mr. Bennett to the 2005 Bennett is almost as tragic as the decline from first Darcy to second. Donald Sutherland is embarrassing when held up to his counterpart. Sutherland is an imposing character in any film, partly because he's famous, partly because he's large and loud and walks with a certain swagger and has giant unnaturally white teeth (oversized gorilla dentures?) and unnaturally long white hair (my wife and I once saw him at a musical, in real life he's quite imposing and noticeable on account of his hair). Sutherland reminds me of someone who has always been famous so he talks to loud and interrupts and has moist rotten breath and no one dares to interrupt him, and unfortunately this is how he presents his characters on film as well. His hair is super long and shaggy and he seems more like a guy who is a mountain man (with dentures) in 1880 Utah rather than a gentleman living in England in Jane Austen times (he may have thought he was trying out for the role of the old man with the stroke from Legends of the Fall). He seems a bit rough for me to be a gentleman even though they try to dress him up and put him in a library. OK, I don't love Sutherland, can you tell? Putting him in a three-cornered hat was the mistake of the century; he looks like a child in a souvenir shop in Yorktown. As noted before, it's a mistake in this type of movie to use someone who is already famous, because they steal the scene from the other person, and not always in a good way. I also don't have a lot of warm fuzzies for the chemistry between Donald Sutherland and Keira Knightley as father-daughter. The whole thing seems phony (we can see Sutherland acting -- it's almost like there's a pause in the film when someone from makeup comes in and puts fake tears in his eyes) whereas the characters in the 1995 version seem to have real warmth and chemistry and a natural wit and rapport. The amount of time Sutherland spends on screen sucking on his dentures is disturbing.
By contrast, the scene in the library with Ehle and Whitrow where Lizzy tells her father she wants to marry Darcy is a genius piece of acting, so much warmth and humor at the same time. I very much think that Mr. Bennett should be a light and airy character, a witty and funny character, an intelligent and pointy character. I sort of think of Mr. Bennett as a young Benjamin Franklin, spry, smart, funny, witty, quick in movements, and Whitrow plays that well. Sutherland is more of a Benjamin Franklin at age 80.
There's a real challenge with this character because he is married to such a difficult spouse. The 1995 version particularly is challenging in this regard because Mrs. Bennett is so despicably self-centered and blind about her daughters. There's quite a tension in Mr. Bennett supporting Lizzy and standing up to his wife but also having sufficient harmony in the home so that it can be a place of merriment and peace. Whitrow's light touch and lighter way of speaking threads this needle for me; when he disagrees with his wife he does so directly but his touch is light, and in that way the household is not wrecked. The 2005 version of course is much shorter and to be fair to Donald Sutherland, he was not really presented with as many opportunities to make this difficult balancing act.
I also enjoy Whitrow's interpretation of Mr. Bennett as someone who is optimistic and witty and inherently trusting of Lizzy. We can see where her wit comes from. With Mr. Sutherland, it doesn't make sense to me that Keira Knightley is supposedly his daughter. He appears to be about 140 years old in the movie, and she is eighteen. I do not remember a character Great-Great Grandfather Bennett in the book. Sutherland is the opposite of funny or witty, in fact it's quite impossible to imagine him as a funny or witty person. He would be better as a loner patriot during the war of 1776, giving vacuous speeches about liberty while brushing his long white hair. It's hard to believe he is a splendid father of five energetic girls.
A for Benjamin Withrow. D- for Donald Sutherland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you like this review so far, please consider supporting my author friend Michael Smith. His book Bluebird, a sort of western novel about a power struggle in a small town in Missouri, is available for sale on Amazon at this link:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Blethyn (2005) v Alison Steadman (1995) as Mrs. Bennett. Both women here do really well. Both wear pink dresses and tan hats! Alison Steadman is obviously cast as a comical person, over-the-top even, hysterical, overly dramatic, like Carol Burnett. She is so dramatic that she becomes quite unlikeable by the end of the film. She is crude and arrogant in her own way, focused on her own concern about being the mother of daughters rather than being concerned about her daughters for their own sake. She claims Wickham would make a good partner for Lizzy, then when Wickham runs off with Lydia, she easily changes gears and claims they (Lydia and Wickham) are a good match, but then when she finds out that Wickham is going to wed Lydia without a proper marriage she believes the whole family is ruined, and then when Darcy saves the day she quickly reverts back to thinking Wickham is a good match. She is so over-the-top she is somewhat despicable, and it's hard, given the warmth of Mr. Bennett, to imagine how they ever got married and raised children. At the same time, she is delightfully humorous and it's easy to laugh at her scenes. She is sort of like a stage actor in a movie so large is her presence.
For her part Brenda Blethyn is also a concerned mother interested in appearances, but she plays the role a bit more subtly -- she seems to have actual concern for her daughters and has some warmth towards her husband. We are also bothered by her by the end of her movie but less so than the other one. She also is presented as being a person more on a country farm as opposed to just a large estate surrounded by grass and she carries herself as someone who in fact looks appropriate for such a life. I would not disagree with a person who prefers Brenda Blethyn in this role.
On this I will award an A to both women but will note that they both do well for different reasons.
Mr. Collins
David Bamber (top video above, unfortunately now restricted by YouTube)(1995) vs Tom Hollander (bottom video)(2005) as Mr. William Collins. David Bamber is a genius, hilarious, the best person to ever play this role in any format. If the world goes on for infinity years, no one will outplay Bamber as Collins. Hollander does fine but he is sort of a Tom Cruise compared to Daniel Day Lewis. Collins in every scene makes my spine crawl -- I don't want to be near him, I imagine his breath smells funny, I imagine he has a bit of dandruff, probably chaffing on his thighs that makes him walk strangely or yelp out at random intervals. He talks too much and it's hard to finish the conversation with him. He gets too much in your personal space, perhaps he sits right next to you when across would do. His hands are clammy. He tips poorly. He's every person you've known well from a neighborhood or workplace but when you see them at the grocer's you hide and avoid him at all costs, even running out of the store without your groceries!
At the same time he looks distinguished as a clergyman, very fine in his robes, he looks wealthy and well-to-do and the type of person that people are forced to respect and admire based on arbitrary authority even if they don't like him personally. He wears his large hat very well. It's a nice hat, an expensive hat, a perfect hat, but also an annoying hat. He creates the perfect tension with his cousins -- he is at once important and to be respected but at the same time he's really annoying to be around. Of course his deference to Lady Catherine is hilarious and the most comical part of the 1995 film. The scene at the dinner table (above) where he announces his ability to make little complements is one of the great comic scenes in movie history. The way he leans his head forward, tilts his head to the side, the way his hair is combed just so, all perfect. He even walks in an annoying manner.
Hollander takes on the role by playing more of a small person who is also officious. He talks more quietly -- his interpretation of the role seems to be that he's more of a nerd that is embarrassing to be around as opposed to someone who is annoying. This doesn't really work for me as the viewer because he doesn't project enough personal power to be intimidating. Part of the tension created with the proposal to Lizzy is that there is some expectation that Lizzy "should" accept the proposal (note how they are seated side by side in the dinner scene, which increases this tension). The version of the character presented by David Bamber is a difficult person to reckon with. She tells him "no" of course but there's real tension -- he's a tall imposing man, he's well-to-do, he's smart, he speaks well, he's tenacious, he even seems potentially to be a bit of a predator. He's a hard person to deny, which is all the more reason we appreciate her denying him. Whereas Tom Hollander as a quiet shrinking nerd character -- Keira Knightley's version of Ms. Bennett disposes of him like he's a fly.
A for Bamber, B for Hollander.
Talulah Riley (2005) v Lucy Briers (1995) as Mary Bennett. This is the only character who to me is superior in the 2005 version to the 1995 version. The 1995 Mary is over-the-top nerd -- her glasses are always falling down and in the way. They dress her like a poor Utah pioneer. They put Vaseline in her bangs and smash them onto her forehead. Her dress is too small. Her face is washed out from the color of her dress. Her colors are always a bit dull or clashing with the others. She's utterly pale, her bonnet looks ancient and poor fitting. They even seem to have made it look like she has acne. She seems like a misfit among her sisters who are otherwise reasonably well received in society.
The Riley version seems more appropriate to me -- she is still reasonably pretty like her sisters but she simply has other interests. She prefers reading to dancing. She appreciates the Bible passages presented by cousin Collins which creates some tension with the family--not all are aligned on despising Collins.
A for Talulah Riley as Mary, B- for Lucy Briers as Mary.
Simon Woods (2005) v Crispin Bonham-Carter (1995) as Mr. Bingley. This comparison to me is similar to how I described Mrs. Bennett. Ultimately I think they compare well but each one brings something different to the role. Simon Woods appears very young, maybe even 17 or 18, he looks basically like how the LDS Church would cast a Joseph Smith in about 1822 to 1824. He has bright red hair -- too red perhaps -- with a prominent nose and forehead. He looks rich, well-groomed, and very bright eyed. He's handsome in his own way. In the 2005 version he is of course accompanied by MM as Darcy. Although MM makes a poor Darcy, the contrast in their ages and their looks helps us understand why Bingley might have been deferential to Darcy. Here he simply looks naive and young and therefore has placed his confidence in Darcy.
Crispin Bonham-Carter as Mr. Bingley seems more natural -- his hair is a natural color, he seems naturally joyous rather than simply joyous because he's boyish. He seems to overflow with a natural enthusiasm. The limitation with this presentation is that it is somewhat hard to understand ultimately why he trusts so much in Darcy. They seem to be more equals in presentation, except that Darcy is more wealthy. They seem to be presented as equals, they come in together, both are handsome, both carry themselves, well, etc. Whereas the Woods' depiction is such that it seems like Bingley comes in behind Darcy with an obvious deference.
A- for both, but for different reasons.
Rupert Friend (2005) v Adrian Lukis (1995) as Mr. Wickham. Based on this appearance Rupert Friend should never act again. Rupert Friend seems like a 14-year-old Disney star who can't sing and can't dance - we are told he is handsome (is it his golden locks that tricked the casting company?) but he doesn't act like someone who is handsome. He is such a horrible actor he makes Orlando Bloom seem interesting. We are told he is confident and dashing but he mumbles his lines and doesn't command our attention. He's sort of like someone who maybe had a charismatic father and we are supposed to believe son is also charismatic like father but we meet son and it's disappointing.
Lukis is genius as Wickham. He's tall and dashing, he comes right into the scene, right up close to the person he's interacting with. He seems like a used car salesman from the start -- he gets right into your space and presents himself. You can't ignore him, you have to take sides for or against. He forces you to immediately take a position -- you cannot remain indifferent. He looks handsome in his red clothing (why are the soldier clothes red in 1995 and blue in 2005??? I don't know).
I don't find Friend to be handsome or compelling at all. I don't understand why any of the sisters would like him, and certainly Lizzy Bennett would not fall for such a dull skateboarder teen character hanging around in the countryside. Epic casting failure.
Incidentally, in the 1700s and 1800s, men dressed as soldiers would not necessarily have looked that dashing. Clothing was not fitted until the 1860s or so, most clothing would have been hand-made and ill fitting, and of poor quality. Boots and shoes likely would have been ill fitting and of poor quality. Likely boots and shoes dirty, many holes, muddy. A shiny red coat with clean white pants and a shiny long sword? Not likely! Of course we don't want accuracy in our movies, no one wants to watch a movie about George Washington with some wooden teeth, or a show about civil war soldiers dying en masse of chronic diarrhea.
A for Lukis and C- for Friend.
Judi Dench (2005) v Barbara Leigh-Hunt (1995) as Lady Catherine De Bourgh. Both are excellent. Judi Dench very stately and rich and imposing and carries herself like an aristocrat and I dare not say anything against her legacy. The swept hair of an eagle! A plain of snow born up by the wind! That hair! She seems like someone we need to fear and respect. Barbara Leigh-Hunt is more quirky, odd, powerful not because of her personality but because of her wealth. The veil on her head - so silly and perfect. She is someone people would prefer to ignore but they can't ignore her because of her money. And daughter all pale and sickly appears to have some kind of genetic disorder or chronic disease, like a Camembert cheese in human form. Making it all the more interesting that the Collins family has to visit so often. A- for both although I prefer Leigh-Hunt because she's more quirky and I love her sickly pale daughter.
Other considerations:
Dancing--the dancing in the 1995 version usually takes place in a home, maybe 30 or 40 people dancing. The dancing in 2005 is rowdy like at a massive castle or something. The 2005 dancing seems more fun but the 1995 dancing is probably more realistic. In the age of COVID, it's hard to watch 200 random people sweatily dancing without getting nervous. Don't be faint -- some day we shall look upon group dancing again without worrying about catching a respiratory illness!
Crowds of people in public--the 2005 version often depicts there being large crowds of people everywhere, for example when the soldiers come to town. Although this seems fun it seems also unlikely. The more restrained public scenes of 1995 seem more appropriate.
The Bennett family -- as described above, the 2005 family have a farm with pigs in the house, cows, etc. For some reason the director decides to do a close-up of the pig's testicles. It's hard to comprehend the reason for this except to assume the director is deranged or wasn't paying attention during that scene. This depiction of the family helps us understand Darcy's embarrassment and reluctance to join himself to a family that has a pig with testicles the size of Mars. In the 1995 version, the family seems more wealthy, their home is less crowded, they live more isolated, it's pleasant existence. The daughters mainly gather flowers and herbs. I much prefer the 1995 version although I assume the 2005 version may be closer to the book.
Pemberley. The 1995 version depicts Pemberley as a mystical and magical place that is almost unattainable and heavenly. Indeed when they see it, it seems to break forth from the clouds -- it takes them a very long time to get there and a long time to return home afterwards. The 2005 version is presented more like a super cool rich place that everyone likes to visit and gawk at, more like a celebrity home. Inside the estate, the 2005 version depicts everything as being totally updated and clean, whereas the 1995 version seems more realistic in that the place would be huge but not necessarily always updated or clean, as it would be hard to do a total restoration on such an estate every 3 years.
Ultimately there's not much of a fair comparison between the two films. The 1995 version has 5 hours to work work, plus the talents of Firth and Ehle to build a beautiful tension and chemistry. It's a brilliant, lovely, elegant courtship that seems like it will never happen until it does actually happen. It's not really fair that the 2005 version tries to compete with this in a 2-hour version with Macfadyen holding the film back so much with his horrible wig. In 2005 I found myself wanting the characters to unite more so the movie would end on the right note as opposed to having an unbearable tension building between the two. It actually grosses me out to imagine Macfadyen and Knightley kissing in real life, whereas I imagine rightly or wrongly it would be pleasant if I somehow saw Firth and Ehle kissing at a train station for some reason. The 1995 version stands up well to the test of time -- although it is finally starting to get a bit dated. The 2005 version isn't as dated of course and probably won't be for another 10 or 20 years while Knightley is in her prime but then again it's not half the film the other one is. In short the 1995 version is one of the best films ever made and the 2005 version, while fun, will be forgotten by the generations.
p.s. The 1995 Lydia is better. She's super silly and funny and seems like the fruit of her dramatic and silly mother. Infectious laugh.
p.p.s. Neither Caroline Bingley (what a name!) is that great. The 2005 version (red hair) has no chemistry with her on-screen brother, which is also true of the 1995 version (brown hair). Both do well as arrogant and aristocratic women, but it's hard to see where they fit into the scenes with the nicer Mr. Bingley and the more charismatic Mr. Darcy. Slight preference for the 1995 version, played by Anna Chancellor. Her facial expressions give us something to laugh at.
In any event, both are great films, but one is greater than the other. Enjoy them and let me know what you think of the movies!!
For the three people left reading this, can we say how great the book is itself, the story? The very quest for dignity for a woman, for women, at a time when they could not own property, when their very father's own property would not pass to them, but would pass to some loser male cousin instead of to the very daughters. It obviously makes no sense, nor has the treatment of women by men for 6000 years made a lot of sense. So you come to this place where women are confined to the home, without property ownership, without political power, and what a chore for a writer like Jane Austen to make this life seem charming or glamorous or desirable. What an amazing work of art, to make the interior seem as infinite as the exterior. Remarkable novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you like this review of Pride & Prejudice, please consider supporting my author friend Michael Smith. His book Bluebird, a sort of western novel about a power struggle in a small town in Missouri, is available for sale on Amazon at this link: