Pride and Prejudice 1995 vs 2005 Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- [Subtitulada en español] Let's compare Pride and Prejudice 1995 staring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle with Pride and Prejudice 2005 with Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen. Let's dive into a comparison of everything from the 1995 BBC's famous pond scene to how close these adaptations are to Jane Austen's beloved classic book.
💕
INSTAGRAM @elliedashie ➝ / elliedashie
WEBSITE ➝ elliedashwood.com
🕰 Watching Guide
00:00 Pride and Prejudice 1995 vs 2005 Comparison [Intro]
00:31 Visuals: Aesthetic, Cinematography
02:30 Costumes: Regency Empire or Georgian Natural Waisted?
04:02 Sets: Chatsworth versus Lyme Park as Pemberley
05:04 Storyline and Characters [Intro]
05:55 Storyline
07:22 1995's Darcy Diving Into the Pond Scene
08:32 Characterization
10:12 Was Mr Darcy socially awkward and shy?
13:33 2005 Where everyone is Awkward
14:05 Mr Bennet, Charlotte Lucas and More
16:00 Should classic books be modernized?
Links may be affiliate links which means I'll receive a small commission from your purchase at no extra cost to you. Thank you for supporting my channel.
📚 Books & Movies mentioned in this video:
🎧 Try Audible: amzn.to/45Uzoqb
Some of My Favorite Audible Selections
Pride and Prejudice: amzn.to/3J9U5Vt
The Scarlet Pimpernel: amzn.to/3P4IXgh
Northanger Abbey Audible Audiobook: amzn.to/43SXwrs
Emma: amzn.to/3J4ZdtW
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Novel go.magik.ly/ml/1u43m/
1940 Movie: amzn.to/43uQwBy
1995 Miniseries (Colin Firth Version): amzn.to/42zFoSm
2005 Movie (Kiera Knightly Version): amzn.to/3qCNVqE
Audiobook read by Rosamund Pike: amzn.to/3MTE1Iy
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
#prideandprejudice2005 #prideandprejudice1995 #janeausten #mrdarcy #colinfirth #keira knightley #jenniferehle #regencyera #perioddrama #elizabethbennet #prideandprejudice
2005- a movie about a book
1995- a book given visual format
I feel like that distinction plays a huge role in differences between the two
Agree! Part of the reason i like the 2005 version is because it reimagines P&P to make the story work as a feature film ror the general moviegoing audiences of 2005, not the Jane Austen fandom... Audience absolutely matters i think!
(And i dont expect films to faithfully represent a book in full because it's a whole different medium. I WANT something different.) Part of the reason i don't like the 1995 as much is... to me, it gives me nothing more than the book does, so... why don't i just re read the book? (Also, i dont find colin firth partic attractive so that likely feeds in.)
Tho i have to agree, moody-orlando-bloom-knockoff wickham from 2005 makes me wonder that lizzy is friendly with him at all.
The good thing is, we all can enjoy what we enjoy. Nobody's life depends on everyone agreeing on this incredibly minor point of which P&P film is "best" 😉
@@alara7777 you and I are in the same wavelength completely. It’s boring when a movie sticks 100% to the books narrative- at that point it’s like “why should I even care about the book when the movie will tell me everything anyway.” Plus, because of that reason, it brings in more revenue when ppl watch the movie and want to buy the book bc they know the stories are going to be at least a little different.
If done right the book and movie could easily co-exist as the same exact story just through different outsiders’ POV.
By this I mean that two different ppl might know the same person but would inherently have different stories to tell about that same person simply for the fact that the story tellers themselves are two different ppl and would have lived separate lives and interacted with other’s differently.
I hope I explained that well 😅
Exactly, one had what - 6-8 hours and the other 2 hours to tell the story.
So well said now I don't need to write it
1995 version totally different than the book, although I watch Colin Firth watching paint dry, Matthew Macfadyen is great but too young for me😂 he was a soft vision of Darcy
I love the humor on the 1995 version. The people are very prim and proper, but the humor makes them human. " Shelves in the closet? Happy thought indeed."
I used that line when my husband put shelves in our closet. My friends cracked up!
Mr Collins proposal always gets me in stitches. Apparently the actor said the trick he used was to play it as straight as possible, like he knew he was the greatest bachelor in England and any girl should be so lucky.
Yes! One of the reasons I'm not a fan of adaptations trying to modernize classics, is that the sentiment and cleverness of the original work is lost in translation. If we remove the social context of what was written, it don't make sense anymore, and so things are removed and replaced with modern equivalents you could find anywhere else.
I think the prim and properness is what lacks in the 2005 version, and it is clearly part of the book and the social circles portrayed. I love that the newest Emma adaptation, while definitely stylized and simplified, chose to use that sugary properness and snootiness (which is even more obvious in the novel) and actually amplified it to a campy level. It is so much better to embrace it in an adaptation, especially with comedic value. the visual style of the 2005 adaptation would have fit a less proper, more harsh realistic source material like a Tom Hardy novel.
Her ladyship is fond of a good blaze then.
I prefer the tone of the 1995 version. It captures the humor and sass of Jane Austen, while the 2005 plays like a straight romance. The thing that I like about Pride & Prejudice is that it's not just a love story, but a story about social class and how that impacts a love story. The gossip, the snide takedowns, the embarrassment at parties- those things set the tone of the book. The 1995 version is much happier to indulge in these details so it captures the spirit of the novel better.
😳Thank you for your comment. They made the book 😰 'learn about us' not us learing from the author contemporary experience...😄
The 1995 version was a series. It had a lot more screen time to be faithful to the book..
I 💯% agree with you wholeheartedly. 😊
Wasn't _Pride and Prejudice_ originally titled (or subtitled), _First Impressions_ when first written? To me, the book is a fantastic study of people's different characters, and some of them do fall in love (or temporary lust) with each other.
Well said!
I finally watched the 1995 miniseries because of your channel, me and my husband both absolutely loved it! Sweaty, chaotic Mr. Collins made us laugh so hard! It's our favorite version now.
David Bamber as Mr. Collins was a gas, wasn't he? A master class in acting, Mr. Bamber.
Yay! It's the version I grew up with, I was a teenager when it aired and it was my first introduction to P&P, which is one of my mum's favourite books. It was so cool following along each week with the story and then reading the book which was such a faithful adaptation. The 2005 version leaves me a bit cold, much prefer the 1995 one! (Also Colin Firth is way hotter than Matthew Macfadyen sorry to him but its true)
He was so perfect as Mr. Collins that I can't imagine any other actor playing him. He played such a perfect synchophant.
@@joeypotter6051Honestly, it was the first P&P version I'd ever seen and I grew up with it as well. 1995 is so accurate to the book. It's just perfect to me.
Him constantly placing his fingers against his lips so as not to speak over Lady Catherine was SO funny!
THANK YOU!! I hate when people say “oh but Darcy was just a shy, socially awkward smol bean :(“ like no, he’s rude, proud, and literally insults her family to her face. Yes, he’s a good person, but don’t reduce his many faults to simply being a minor issue of poor social skills
We have to remember that Darcy was just reflecting his society. By his society's standards, he WAS better than the Bennetts. He's not intentionally trying to be an ass. He was rich, they were poor.
@4Freedom4All well, he'd know that elizabeth would keep him in check with her wit 😉
@4Freedom4All Not as described in Austen's novel. Elizabeth's rejection of his proposal was a paradigm shift for Darcy. He was able to set her straight on Wickham but found her comments on his own behavior were balls on accurate. He did not like what she described about himself and he resolved to change his tune.
@@thefarmhouseinthefield4576
It was not just a matter of discrepancy in wealth. He had wealth enough to accept a bride with no dowry. It was more about duty. Darcy is master of a prominent estate, responsible for its prosperity and that of all his employees and their well being. Even his library is the work of several generations. The woman he chooses must measure up to his obligations. He learns more about Elizabeth's virtues as the story progresses. At first he was only drawn to her looks and personality. He later sees her in contrast to her sister Lydia, Miss Bingley, and his own aunt.
@4Freedom4All , and that’s one of the main points of the book. His pride, which he learned from and changed as a result. The Mr Darcy at the beginning of the book is not someone many of us would like to deal with, but by the end, he has become our Mr Darcy.
Visually, the worst part of the 2005 movie was how messy everyone's hair was. It drove me crazy because we all know that, in Regency times, men and women covered their hair whenever they were outdoors (and married women often did so indoors as well). All these people running around outside with limp, messy hair drove me crazy. Give me 1995s bonnets and beaver hats anytime.
I couldn't agree more. The hair matched with some of the costumes made Lizzy looked slovenly. Not at all like a gentleman's daughter.
Yes, Lizzy never had her head covered!
100% The costumes and hair ruined the film for me.
Agree
I agree. The Bennets were gentry, and they did not live in a farmhouse.
I definitely prefer the 1995 version. Jennifer Ehle was amazing as Elizabeth Bennett, captured her humour whereas I feel like Keira Knightly was far too pouty and moody
Agree. She is my favourite Elizabeth Bennett!
Couldn't agree more 👏🏻
Yes, I totally agree with you about the 1995 version. It’s true to the book. I love the casting as well. When I reread the book, I see the characters of the 1995 version.
Does Keira have any actual emotional acting range? She does: pouty, clompy, & stompy. That's about it. Imho she's not a very good actress, but for a while there she was THEE girl of choice for ANYthing remotely "historical."
Praise be someone with sense
Everytime I came back reading the book, I always picture them with the characters and faces in the 1995 version.
jennifer ehle's twinkle & mischievous eyes, her very headstrong personality yet still keep her poise.
The hidden desires of mr darcy towards lizzie every time he stares lovingly at her. That last sentence he said to Lizzie, "my dearest loveliest Elizabeth.." still make me weak to my knees..
oh godd.. much better than porn 🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂👍👍👍
Oh I always sigh happily when he said "My dearest, loveliest Elizabeth." I can just 'feel' how happy Lizzie must be feeling then.
I feel all of that! The loving look Darcy gives to Elisabeth while she's playing piano and then after she helps Georgiana with turning the pages just makes me swoon. 😅
@@kaylynnanson6231 yeah me too 😍
Yes.
I think my mom perfectly described the difference between the two movies. For the context, we don't live in an English-speaking country and my mom never read the book. She didn't know which movie was more accurate. In fact, she prefers romantic films over historically accurate ones and preferred 2005's version. But she also said: "The one thing I never understood in the first film (2005 one) was it's title. It's such a sweet romantic story about enemies becoming lovers, so why is it "Pride and Prejudice?". But in this one (1995), at first I didn't like how prejudiced and stubborn was the girl was, and how the male lead was too stuck-up and unlikeable. Now, however, I understand that it was more than a love story." And I think that says a lot.
She really put it perfectly! And it totally aligns with what Ellie said about the new version changing the core messages of the original story. Jane Austen really meant for us to see these faults in each of the characters, and how they change over time, rather than just witness a romantic story. Personally, I much prefer the 1995 version because of this.
That's exactly right. '95 goes beyond simply romance. I was moved to tears in the engagement scene when Darcy & Elizabeth finally speak directly to each other and reflect on their mistakes and how each contributed to their misunderstanding. It's a very noble moment and you appreciate just how much they had grown as people. The fact that it happened to win them marriage to the love of their lives is a bonus.
One thing that wasn't mentioned is that Pride and Prejudice, the book, is a comedy with lots of exaggerated, farcical characters, especially Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, Mary, Lydia, the Bingley sisters and brother-in-law , and Lady Catherine. A little more subtle are the never-ending goodness and malleability of Jane and Bingley. In the 1995 television series, the actors really bring out these farcical elements.
Elizabeth and Darcy's fairy story plays out in front of all this comedy. In the book, we see Mr. Darcy largely through Elizabeth's eyes, so we too see him as a self-inflated egotist, until she reads his letter, hears him praised by his housekeeper, and then sees him being considerate and respectful to herself, the Gardiners, and his sister. This creates difficulties for an actor playing the role of Darcy: if he plays the role as comically pompous and obnoxious, the way that Elizabeth thinks he is, then it's hard for us to believe that he's not really that way. The 2005 movie, which for me was entirely forgettable, apparently solves the problem by making Darcy clumsily introverted. Colin Firth tries for something more subtle: he says all the pompous things that Jane Austen wrote for him, but he looks uncomfortable and troubled most of the time and seems to be fascinated by Elizabeth.
I suppose that the swimming scene was added, not only to show that Darcy needed to cool his fevered emotions, but also to cleanse our image of supercilious Darcy and see him as attentive, dripping-wet Darcy. More important, Elizabeth sees him without the shell of propriety and pretense and begins to understand that he's not part of the joke.
@@deborahgreitzer7393 She also sees how he REACTS in that situation - one a gentleman should of course never find himself in. And he didn’t act at all the way she presumed he would, but DID act as a gentleman should. That’s a big deal for her, because her major reason for rejecting him is that he is NOT a gentleman. And in this absolutely absurd situation, he behaves exactly as a gentleman should: embarrassed about his state of clothing, not her presence, and rushing to make amends and make sure she and her companions are well taken care of.
I've only seen snippets of the recent version on-line. It didn't seem to follow the book as closely as the Ely/Firth version...which was sooo good. I read, quite some time ago that Collin Firth and his wife thought the Diving in the Pond scene was dopey (my word) that 's how I felt; everything else fit so well. P.S. I enjoy watching your clips, keep 'em coming.
I always just hated how dirty everything is in the 2005 version. I know it was to make it more 'realistic,' but the Bennets are only poor compared to the very wealthy Bingleys and Darcy. They were still rich, but the film makes it look like they're only a step above peasants in dirt floor huts.
Preach! The Bennets' situation would only be "realistic" if they were significantly poorer than they were. Can you imagine the Bennets receiving callers at the 2005 Longbourn? "Sorry the yard is a mud puddle. And don't mind the pig rooting through the tea things."
I agree. That movie made it seem like the Bennets were a little bit above peasants to make it look like a Cinderella story.
I think by showing how worn the furniture and home is demonstrates that the Bennets can’t keep up with other genteel families in the area. They gave up hope of a son to pass the estate on to, so why should they make it nice for this random cousin who will come and take their livelihood away? I think it also shows why wealthier people look down their noses at them. They don’t have the means to entertain and their home has become less of a manor house on an estate and more of a working farm.
@@joydawg Which totally makes sense as internal logic for the 2005 movie, but which would not be accurate to the book, which makes clear that the Bennets are fairly wealthy--likely among the wealthier families in the neighborhood. (Darcy and Miss Bingley look down on them for their behavior and their relations in trade, not for their level of wealth.) I also feel like Mrs. Bennet's vanity wouldn't allow her to live in such a run-down house. :D
@@Ken-ee2rh Yes, especially when you consider that a farm laborer or a servant at that time might make as little as 20 pounds in an entire year. So yeah, 2,000 a year is really quite a lot of a money. Now, that much money can quickly vanish when you're trying to maintain a certain lifestyle, but the point is, the Bennets *would* have been paying to maintain that certain lifestyle, because it's expected of their class and because they have the money. They would not have lived in near-squalor, like they are in the 2005 movie.
1995 easily. I love all of the actors and to me the inside of Lyme Park matches up very well with the description of Pemberly, being very elegant but not ostentatious. My main problem with the 2005 version is Elizabeth’s character. Where the Elizabeth in the book is described as having a sweetness about her that prevents her witty comments from giving offense, Elizabeth in 2005 is almost insulting at times when she shouldn’t be or at least not be perceived to be. Her impertinence in 2005 is more like her father’s in the book. Much more sharp.
That's the way I felt about the 1995, there seemed to be a lot of spiteful people. Elizabeth didn't like Mr Darcy, but boy in the 1995 they made her resentful. I thought the 1980's was better.
Elizabeth in the 2005 version made it clear that she didn't like Mr. Darcy. I wondered why he didn't pick up on that and why he'd propose to her.
@@ThanksHermione The 2005 version of Elizabeth is a great deal flirtier than the 1995 version though. (Also I love your username lol I can hear it so clearly in my head "Thanks Hermione!" hehe)
I definitely prefer the 1995 version. I'm very much a purist, (aside from Mansfield Park. The actual book just killed me. Fanny was a plank of wood and it made me so sad!) so the fact that the '95 version got almost every detail right was big for me. Plus, the actors were just SO GOOD at playing the characters. Something I appreciated about the 2005 version was how cinematically (and costume wise) beautiful it was, the fact that Lizzy shared with her father what Darcy had done for them (because that was in the book,) and how the ladies playing the Bennet sisters were all very pretty. That was unfortunately all I liked about it. It felt too rushed, it felt too modernized, and certain characters were either just erased (I'm looking at you Bingley's other sister and her husband) or not explored well enough. Again, I know it's because of the time constraints, but come on...Wickham's entire personality became a brown paper bag, Georgiana was suddenly bubbly and outgoing, and there just wasn't enough time to explore how truly obnoxious Lydia, Mrs. Bennet, and Mr. Collins really were. Plus, the proposal scenes made no sense. Walking alone in the early morning hours, no one around to monitor them? Just wandering in pajamas...absolutely not. Lizzy doesn't get to be upset about Lydia if she's acting like that.
1995 wasn't perfect...but it was the best book to movie/series adaptation I've ever seen and the cast was phenomenal.
"it felt too modernized,"
This. 1000%. Keira Knightley was so annoying to watch. She completely destroyed my favorite Jane Austen character. I despise the 2005 film. The 1995 version is the gold standard to go by for Pride and Prejudice adaptations.
@@sanitized4protection I like Keira but I've to agree, I wasn't sold on that P&P adaptation either, I've preferred her in other period dramas.
Moreover I really couldn't see that actor as Mr Darcy: probably it'll be an unpopular opinion (since many also love that more updated version), no offense but it was the wrong cast choice for me...like Heathcliff in fact Darcy is just iconic, hence a bolder choice was required.
I'd like to see a new film adaptation by the way; after watching the latest Emma, Sanditon, plus the trailer for the Netflix's version of Persuasion, I bet that it'd be even more "modernized" period drama compared to the original book, we'll see what's next then.😋📚🎬🎩👒💜🌸
Having read that, while Fanny is my least favourite heroine and the same goes for Edmund, I do still like the book itself and the comments it makes. And I disliked the Frances O'Connor version because, like with the 2005 P&P, they rewrote Fanny's character completely- along with changing some of the plot to make it more but unrealistically "progressive"
@@MsJubjubbird it’s weird I used to also not like Fanny Price at all either(and I still dislike Edmund, he’s up there with Edward and Colonial Brandon from S&S as my least favorite Austen heroes). Idk what happened but something clicked for me with Fanny only in like the past year and I like her now. She’s got a backbone of steel and would’ve never been taken in by Wickham like Lizzie initially was. That being said, Elizabeth Bennet and Anne Elliot are still my favorite Austen heroines:)
@@jessica_jam4386 oh I think she's very strong in sticking to her morals and she's very measured. i just don't like her or Edmond because they don't help themselves. They just spend a lot of time in a state of self pity instead. The other heroines are more proactive. I like Brandon though. Bingley is the one I like the least after Edmund- I mean he's a really nice and fun guy but he's so easily led astray.
The 1995 version is superior in my eyes, absolutely spot on in casting, story and design it’s like it’s from the book directly. I didn’t like how the 2005 portrayed the Bennets as if they were almost peasants with pigs running around and messy hair flowing everywhere, that was never in the book. They were poorer than the likes of Bingley and Darcy but Mr Bennet was still a gentleman, thus gentry standards were upheld.
I think the film was designed specifically for the American market. That’s where the money is. The director thought (wrongly) that his target audience didn’t understand the English class-system so he made the Bennetts poor. Also the pigs and the raucous Assembly dancing were there for a cheap laugh He underestimated his audience and misrepresented an almost flawless work of art.
I'm with you on the superior telling, because 2005 throws the original story out. But I would say there are some cringe moments in 1995 where they, especially Kitty and Lydia but also Mrs Bennett, don't come close to the time period actions either. I mean it goes beyond how the book has them behaving badly.
@@belindamay8063 Very good observation!
I think you are absolutely on point. The version 1995 = The Book
One obvious & definite flaw in the 2005 version was in the character of Charles Bingley. He behaved like an incompetent throughout, almost akin to some kind of childlike imbecile, entirely incapable of making a proper decision without the help of someone like D'arcy, whose interest in this sad creature could only have been developed out of a tremendous pity for the man.
Also Jennifer Ehle's 'silent cues' are brilliant.
Agreed! She is such an amazing actress and so underutilized by the industry
Agree!
Agree. 1995 was the better movie in all categories.
Have you seen the UA-cam video where Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth is being iconic for X minutes straight? It's so on point and hilarious! I highly recommend it!
Edit: found it! ua-cam.com/video/Zz767NyTX30/v-deo.html
@@pinstripesuitandheels A great watch anytime I need to 😂 laugh
1995 is the best. From the costumes, the scenery, and the casting. Plus in 1995 both Darcy and Elizabeth do a lot of acting with their eyes and their faces in scenes where they have no lines. Best Mr Collins hands down and best Mr Bennet.
1995 all the way for me! When my girls were little I was watching the series with my eldest who was around 5 at the time. We were talking about it and she said her favorite scene was the pond scene which surprised me given why most women like that scene. When I asked why she said the horse was just hanging out in the background not wandering away while he was swimming and it was funny to her because she thought the horse would have left him. Naturally all of the moms in our homeschooling group found this hilarious.
I bet now she likes the scene on different reasoning :)
out of the mouths of babes! I love her response!
I'm not even a big fan of period dramas but the 1995 version was definitely the best- so funny! And makes waaaaay more sense
It definitely had a very British sense of humour!
YES! The witty, funny element is so important in the story and the 2005 is absolutly not funny... to me, they ruin it. Period.
Well they had 4 almost 5 hours longer to do it
It’s so hilarious and captures the wit of Austen perfectly
The book clearly ridicules several of it's characters and some social norms of the time. It is absolutely fitting that the actors ham it up and paint the picture as ridiculous.
The other thing I feel is that the actors seem more happy to be there. 2005 is full of emo angsty teenager types. It's exhausting. P&P is a light hearted book, poking fun at the foibles of humans. "For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn". 2005 takes itself waaay too seriously. And everything is flippin brown.
1995 is amazing. It's stood the test of time, and is by far the truest to Jane Austen. 2005 upsets me, because not only is so much left out, but so much has changed, and I feel like it's given a younger generation the wrong understanding of the story.
I would agree, but I still like 2005 for what it is, an excellent flick.
Absolutely older version is my favourite. 1995 is amazing, it is closer to the time those people lived. Jeniffer is looking more feminine in all details of a woman.
Her contender's femininity is in beautiful face and black big eyes other details disappear somewhere.
Both Lizzies seem tall and slander. However Lizzy of 2005 is more slander, even a bit too much.
Then, I prefer Jeniffer's way of speech, which is more calm and elegant. Though it is quite possible that the way Lizzy is speaking in 2005 movie is for some viewers more accurate.
Imo the main issue with the 2005 version is the pacing. I can understand them having to condense scenes (although it takes you by surprise if you know the story well) but they needed time cards or something to show how much time is passing between scenes. When Darcy asks her if her feelings are the same as last April, the first proposal had only happened ~15 minutes before and it felt like, in-story, it had only happened a week or two ago!
Ill always cherish the 1995 version!
They speak so fast in the 2005 version and one character will start talking before the other is done. For me it ruins the moments because the character's reactions to what is said don't seem genuine because they somehow know what the other will say before it's said. Reactions are just as important as the words said. That really bothered me.
@@Frogface91 I completely agree ! There’s just Not enough time in an hour and a half-2 hours to tell the whole story. That’s why all P+P movies don’t really work, you Need the ~5hr series and even then they cut some scenes
The Mister Collins in the 1995 version is absolute perfection. He should’ve played the role in 2005 too.
I considered him to be a creep, and a lackey to Darcy's aunt. Couldn't understand why anyone would have married him, I found him that distasteful.
He was way too creepy and slimy. Book Collins is just overbearing and boring.
He's supposed to be very young (he's like 25 in the book), not in his 40s
Though I can't imagine him being 25 years old either
Being a professional writer with an interest in history, I prefer the 1995 version because it is truest to the original book and impressively historically correct. I can see why film student might prefer the 2005 version-- it's a very pretty movie-- but for me personally accurately portraying the novel, characters, and historical period is more important.
I will write this again: the 1995 version was a series and had a lot of time to develop the scenes and characters. The 2005 version is what? - a 2-hr. movie. Big difference there.
@@mayloo2137 Even so, they should’ve not changed the Bennet’s family status like they looked poorer and the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, in my opinion changing those really change the core of the story.
They could’ve portrayed their disharmony marital in the background visually without dialogues and made the Bennet’s estate to be more proper to live. There’s no way any men would look at the Bennet daughters if the house looked shabby.
With me, in this case, it's all about the actors. For me the 1995 version is my favorite. Especially the actress portraying Elizabeth Bennett. The subtlety of her facial expressions, for example, make her "Lizzie" to me.
@4Freedom4All Which is what Elizabeth is all about... she's supposed to be pretty, but not in a way that immediately hits you in the face. I do think Rosamund Pike in 2005 is the perfect Jane, though. She's incredibly gorgeous in a way that I think Jane is supposed to be. I would take some of the actors in 2005 and transplant them into 1995 if I could. I like Jane, the Bingleys and a few actors more in 2005, but more based on aesthetics honestly.
You're so right, my perfect version would be 1995 with 2005's Jane.
@@NickaLah yes! agreed on 2005 Jane. Though I prefer 1995 puppy-dog Bingley 😂 And I never understood why 2005 gave him only one sister!
The only problem I see in the 1995 version is the main actors are a bit too old… especially Mr Wickham! Totally mis-cast 🙄
Also, Jane is nowhere near pretty enough
I've always loved the book but when I watched the series for the first time I felt like it comes directly from my mind. That is what Austen told us and what I saw in front of me when i was doing the reading
great point about mr bennet, i feel like people often ignore the criticism austen is clearly trying to make of him, his failures as a father and husband, and his social failings, because they're a little more subtle than those of the other characters
So true! I think it's so easy to like Mr. Bennet and overlook his faults, because we see so much of the book through Lizzy's eyes, and she likes Mr. Bennet and overlooks his faults (for the most part). The older I get, the more I see of the world, and the more I think about Pride and Prejudice, the more I dislike Mr. Bennet and sympathize with Mrs. Bennet (although she also, obviously, has quite a few flaws).
@@ahumanmerelybeing Same here. It's interesting how we see characters and stories differently as we grow.
I think that's true...But I also think that, in less than 3 hrs, it's VERY hard to make audience's care about the plight the Bennet girls could be in because of their father's entailed estate, etc., if you also don't like Mr. Bennet. So I think it's the smarter choice to make him a bit warmer.
@@malexander4094 But by changing Mr. Bennet’s character, it also changes one of Lizzy’s motivations in the story to not end up in a marriage where one doesn’t respect the partner like her parents.
I think that they should have portrayed that kind of relationship in the background or visually if they hadn’t had much time to develop in the movie, instead of changing the characters.
@@feynevan Hm. It is clear enough to me in the 2005 adaptation Lizzie does not want a marriage like her parents.
I suppose I also feel Mr. & Mrs. Bennet are very flat characters in the novel. (Esp. the latter.) That is fine, as the story is not about them really; but a film would inevitably have to make them more multidimensional because they happen to also be important supporting characters.
Hence: another adaptive choice I like is that Mr. Bennet does not seem to completely disrespect his wife, while his wife does not seem so static & one-note ("nagging/annoying").
I am not saying 1 thing is better than the other. I just feel, as adaptive choices, far more satisfied with these than the strict fidelity in the BBC version.
If I understand you: it is, in my opinion, a difficult ask of a film, & particular of actors...to make a motivation compelling for a general audience by telling it "background or visually" instead of direct character behaviors & dynamics. It may be a visual medium, but there is acting. And no matter what was scripted, the actors will change the characters all on their own.
Absolutely impossible to choose a favorite. I love both. They're both so different to me. One thing that I can say with certainty is THIS CHANNEL ROCKS!!!
I’m certainly in the 1995 camp. In watching behind the scenes 15 years later put out by the BBC, they go into what they were trying to accomplish with the series. It was to be faithful to the book. They talk about choosing Collin Firth to play Mr. Darcy as he already had a regal air about him. It was absolutely fascinating, and made me love the 1995 version all the more. I must add the I remember watching it on PBS sometime after it came out on the BBC (I believe it was late 1995 or 1996) and so loved it then.
1995! Hands down the winner. I found Elizabeth in 2005 was flippant. Rushed. And too 21st century to be believable in the role. And gawky Darcy was just embarrassing.
Very true! Elizabeth was so moody and rude the whole time. And they really distanced her from Jane, their relationship was not a close.
And Charlotte was kind of silly like Lydia in the 2005 version.
I love the music though, it is beautiful. But I think the better film is the 1995.
Exactly my feeling. I adore Kiera Knightly but that wasn’t Elizabeth Bennet. Lizzy is outspoken for a genteel lady of her time but she very much stays in her place up until the moment Lady Catherine turns up at her home.
@@nerdyempress6745 Charlotte wasn’t silly. She was Lizzy’s best friend. She was very serious in 1995. I don’t know where you got that idea.
@@debshaw680 I said, “In the 2005 version” read the whole post.
Re: being smelly coming out of the pond - I think we all tend to forget how smelly life would have been in that time period due mainly to the lack of indoor plumbing - infrequent bathing, very infrequent washing of clothes, close contact with smelly animals and then staying in the same clothes, men always having to be fully dressed (with coats and cravats and everything) even when it was hot or you were doing something physically exerting, chamber pots . . . Most writers didn’t talk about it because it was simply the way things were and everyone knew. Think of a person who doesn’t have animals going to a house with dogs or cats, or a non-smoker going to a place where people smoke indoors - they notice the smells while the inhabitants don’t, because they’re used to them and tune them out.
In the 1995 version before Darcy goes for his swim he has been riding his horse for hours and sweat has soaked his hair and is dripping down his face. I’d want to rinse off too.
The standards for what water to swim in and even drink were very different. I’ve swum in lakes that were far sketchier than that pond when I was camping, because there weren’t showers and besides, it was hot.
And I like the visual representation of how much more at ease Darcy is when he’s at home than when he’s in other places. I think it’s much less egregious than most of the changes and additions to the 2005, and makes the surprise encounter with Elizabeth so much more embarrassing for her 😉
Those are all great points!!!
Not to mention the fact that he had been traveling by horseback in the hot summer sun and lack modern anti-perspirants. The stinky pond smell was probably an improvement.
@4Freedom4All it is iconc because no-one did anything like that in costume drama up till then, and be honest Colin Firth is hot as hell. 😁
However although iconic I do not think that one is the only scene everybory remembers by. 🤔
For me at least I love the scenes where the bicker especially at Rosings, or when they lock gazes in Pemberley and of course both proposals.😁
@4Freedom4All It always seemed a bit out of place to me.
That is a good point. Darcy's swim was not in Austen's novel. But a damp Darcy does help explain and justify Elizabeth's acute embarrassment in the 1995 version. A gentleman did not appear before ladies without his coat in just his shirtsleeves. That was tantamount to nudity and a wet shirt all the more so. We get all the excrutiating detail of her thoughts and feelings in the book but there is no time to convey all that in the miniseries. Darcy's dip was the short version and also insinuates he felt the need to cool the heat of his desire. The woman he had chosen for himself had refused him and that was torture.
I love them both, but the 2005 version is a comfort watch for me. I understand the criticisms against it, but the cinematography and score are fantastic.
I liked the movie so much, I bought it. The cinematography and music were so beautiful. Lots of memorable scenes: the introduction, Lizzie's walk across the fields to visit her sister, the first proposal, the morning scene with Darcy walking the fields to Lizzie etc. I found it worth watching because I hadn't read the book, and only vaguely remember watching the 1995 series.
The 1995 version was long enough to capture much of Austen’s dialogue. Casting was superb. It has stood the test of time.
Tried to watch it again. It's showing its age.
Agreed. 1995 was actually a 6-episode TV mini-series (in other words not really comparable to a film - a fact not discussed much in these comments). As such it gave so much more time and space for the characters and their dialogue + a lot less was cut from the book whilst allowing the pacing to be (IMO) pretty much perfect. Same for the the casting, the costumes, the locations, the screenplay... It's hard to think how it could be beaten, though one never knows!
@@mayloo2137Really? I watched it very recently and it was fine to me. I liked it👍🏻
@@SN-bk5xjstill shows its age. Happens all the time. Watching the 1996 miniseries is like watching the really old version of P & P with Laurence Olivier.
@@mayloo2137ell I don’t agree, but it’s your opinion. 1940 is a really long time ago and I don’t think you can compare it to a show from 95, I still enjoy a lot movies from that year. Of course you notice it’s not produced today, but it was nothing that bothered me or took away from the experience. All the actors still did a really good job in my opinion! Maybe we will have to agree to disagree😂
My main problem with the 2005 version is the relationship between Lizzy’s parents. In the movie the mom is much less annoying and the parents are show to love and respect each other, but one of the major motivations for Lizzy is to not end up in a marriage like her parents. It is also explicitly said by Mr. Bennet to Lizzy, “I don’t want to see you in a relationship where you cannot respect your partner”. If the parents are happily married then Lizzy would be less hesitant in finding a partner.
Right?!?! Exactly. Changing the parents relationship changes so much.
@@EllieDashwood Yes, Mrs. Bennet is also shown as mush less of a snob/airhead. She is devoid of self-insight and knowledge in both the books and the BBC 1995 version. The secondhand embarrassment you get when reading the book have left me soul-crippled for days. It is so very relatable for anyone who has been a teenager - parents, Uhhh! Lizzy scrambling to deflect attention or smooth hurt feelings, but not in the 2005 version.
@4Freedom4All I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I do think the Bennets are objectively bad parents. They did have a love match--well, he thought she was pretty, and that's almost the same thing--but once they were married, her father realized he "had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind" quickly "put an end to all real affection for her. Respect, esteem, and confidence had vanished for ever; and all his views of domestic happiness were overthrown." And after that, things just got worse. :D I think both parents have serious flaws: Mr. Bennet finds himself married to a woman he finds vapid and unintelligent, but instead of trying to make the best of his situation, he retreats into his study and just pops out to insult his wife occasionally, and refuses to do anything to raise his children well or to lift a finger to do something about their financial situation. Mrs. Bennet finds herself faced with the possibility of being left with little money and five daughters to support when her husband dies, so her worry is understandable, but she's not a great mother--she spoils her pretty daughters (to the point that Kitty and Lydia are both kind of disasters) and insults her less-attractive daughters--and she often displays farly poor manners in social situations and her refusal to practice economy in their expenditures is only exacerbating the very financial situation she's so frightened of. So . . . they're both not great parents?
I take the other view. The 1995 Mrs Bennet was too over the top. 2005 Mrs Bennet was a more believable person.
The Mr Bennetts are both defensible, but I think Donald Sutherland Dina really good job of portraying a man defeated by life, or more exactly, not having a son. Everything he has done is going to go to that idiot Collins, and Mr Bennet has sort of given up.
And he wasn't all that ambitious in the first place.
@@mikespangler98 But Darcy mentions the impropriety of Lizzy’s mother (and sisters) as one of arguments against marrying her, but the 2005 mother is so bland and boring that she could never have caused that much scorn or infamy.
Also the book is witty, funny and paints some characters as ridiculous- especially Lizzy’s mum, Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine De Burgh, but notably not Mr Bingley. The movie just doesn’t have the same wit as the book.
I watched 2005 first but fell in love with 1995 more.
I haven't read the book but the reason why I fucking love the 1995 version was the dialogue. Perfect delivery, perfect emotion, perfect savagery. Pierce right through the heart and the old English vocabulary was chef kiss. It made me appreciate the old English more and felt like this should have made a comeback.
Besides, the costumes, the characters faces and hairstyle was in point in what I see in paintings during eaely 1800s. despite it being too old for modern taste, I love love the 1995 version to death. It actually pushes me to read the novel than what 2005 did.
If you loved the 95 version, you’re gonna be obsessed with the actual book.
Buy an annotated edition of the book. When I read it, there were a lot of old words I wanted to look up and things I wanted to learn more about. I didn't have the annotations, though. I bought a new copy (annotated this time) and plan to read it again.
I highly recommend Persuasion. It's shorter and easier to read. It was the last novel she completed, so maybe her writing became more concise over the years?
I agree with you wholeheartedly! Just an FYI, when you talk about "old English" people will think you are referring to Old English, which is the earliest recorded form of English, spoken in the early Middle Ages. Otherwise known as Anglo-Saxon.
@@pinstripesuitandheels Good point.
Same here, though I read the book between watching 2005 and 1995 and when I finally watched 1995 my mind was BLOWN! I highly recommend giving it a read -- or even a listen!
The 1995 version will always be my favorite, and (in my opinion) the most accurate portrayal of life in those times. The cinematography and music in the 2005 version were truly breathtaking, but I personally did not like Keira Knightley’s interpretation of Lizzie or the way they modernized the story. The 1995 version took the time to tell the full story without shortcuts and you really feel as though you are in the world! It gives me the most joy when I watch it!!
I adore both movies! :) 2005 is my go-to for aesthetic, for comfort and for nice music. It's so pleasant to watch because it's just so well made, and like you said, every still frame is a masterpiece. 1995 is perfect, too, with the way it characterizes everyone, the costumes are far more to my liking and the old series goes so hand in hand with the book.
Thank you for this comparison video! :)
I watch the 1995 version when I want the full realistic and charming story.
I watch the 2005 version when I want the quick and romantic story.
I love them both equally.
When you don't have time for 1995 P&P, watch 1995 Persuasion. It's under 2 hours and still satisfying. (Persuasion is a much shorter book - my second favorite).
I agree. I have 4 different versions of this story and I enjoy them all for different reasons. I love that a story can be interpreted and expressed in many ways to portray different a focus.
Same!!!
Yes, they give me different things
Exactly!
I watch the long version about once a year, but view the 2005 movie in between for a "quick fix". Yes, the long version is truer to the book, but I do love the lively movie with all the beautiful music; and Matthew McF. is a wonderful Mr. Darcy!
Love the 1995 BBC version. Jennifer Ehle's expressions are so vivid! I feel like she says a million things in just a glance or smile.
It was explained in the book the difference between vanity and pride. And Mr. Darcy is indeed prideful. I love how you pointed out that he's not 'awkward' because he's scared, he just thinks highly of himself that he finds no one in the room, aside from Bingley and other former acquaintances, tolerable. :D Also, in the 2005 movie (as far as I remember), Lady Catherine just interacted with Elizabeth near the end, but in the book, they did have a lot interactions. She even mocked Elizabeth's family for not having a governess when they were young HAHAHAHA.
For the record, Lady Catherine in P&P05 did mock Elizabeth's family for not having a governess.
the 2005 one is basically a romantic movie based off the book whereas the 95 version way more accurate to the book, like a retelling. if you want to watch a great romantic period drama the 2005 version is probably a better option because it is a great movie on its own without regards to the book and it's focus is more on the relationship between darcy and lizzy and focuses less on everything else.
I didn't love awkward Darcy. I like reserved, stoic and proud Darcy. He was more complex, and it just made more sense within the context of the novel and made more of an enjoyable character development.
Totally agree. In the 1995 version, he has to confront his own faults and learn and grow. In the 2005 version, he kind of just waits around for Lizzy to realize he's a really nice guy who's just bad at talking to people.
Exactly. Darcy being awkward misses the whole point of the book, including its title.
I like him. But I also agree that it changes the character and his personal arc.
@@TheEvertw you do realize that Darcy in the books was in fact very socially awkward and shy and everyone just thought he was proud and rude right? That’s kinda the whole point of the books lol
@@roseprimviolet5852 You sure you read the book? I see someone who chooses to neglect his social skills, not someone who is shy by nature.
Totally agree! I saw the 2005 movie when I was in high school and before ever reading the book and it was my favorite! I loved the awkward Darcy. THEN I read the book and fell in love with it more than the movie and once I saw the 1995 version, it became my favorite overall. The 2005 one is beautiful and the music is calming, but the 1995 version tops my list. Changing the characters changes the messages.
See, I'm so glad the 2005 movie was there to hook you in to the rest of Austen awesomeness! 😃
It was exactly like that for me too!! But I thank the 2005 version for introducing me to Jane Austen ☺️
I studied the book in 1996 at school and they showed us the 1995 version at the same time because it was so close to the books. Plus it was an all girls school in Aus and a bunch of 15/16 yr old girls Definitely appreciated the wet shirt Darcy! If it makes you feel better Ellie, no one dived into that particular lake Colin Firth kind of half dived, then they switched to a tank (pretty sure). Also Empire waists we’re invented because one of the royal weddings was a little late and the bride was already pregnant, so it’s fitting that the actress was pregnant. Needless to say which one is my favourite
the thing is that the "modernization" of the characters didn't make any sense. You are not Jane Austen, guys. Her brilliancy is just that she could show the small psychological details that are interesting and meaningfull even now. The best thing the 2005 movie's creators could present - is your regular Hollywood-movie, nothing more
Omg, are you me? XD I could have written this. This was my exact experience. If the 2005 version was just a standalone movie not based on a book, it would be a great romance movie. But after reading the book and seeing the 1995 version, it's really hard to watch the 2005 one again.
Whenever I see someone say 2005 is their favorite, I assume they never read the book. If you read the book, there is no comparison. 1995 version is spectacular and superior in the cast, costumes and, capturing Austen’s humor and intent.
I am not an Austenite. I liked the 2005 movie. And?
I love the book. I prefer the 2005 version.
This isn't the reason (there are many) but just one note: of all who say the 1995 version is truer to the novel, I have literally NEVER seen anyone remark that Lizzie & Darcy are, in the novel, far younger than they are in the BBC version. For me, this is a crucial element of Austen's characters, and thus something of a fault with the BBC version, but a strength of the 2005 film. But I never see "1995 = book" people ever comment about this!
The part that shocked me the most about the 2005 film was the scene when Lizzie was visiting Jane while she was sick at Bingley's house and Bingley walked into the room. Seems to me a gentleman at the time would NEVER have walked into the bedroom of a lady who was not his wife, and certainly not while she was lying on the bed! And Keira Knightley's wig was the worst. You could see her little short hairs at the nape of her neck. Ugh.
1995 is and always will be one of my favorite works of film. 2005 is a pretty film, but I just cannot get over how condescendingly Elizabeth was portrayed. The film creators were so anxious that she appear strong at all times that they had her do things that simply made no sense - spring from the carriage when she got to Charlotte's house with no sign of stiffness, leave her aunt and uncle at Pemberley without a word and walk off across a field alone when Darcy came home unexpected, etc. It wasn't enough for Lizzie to calmly respond to Lady Catherine's rude questions and stick to her convictions and opinions firmly but quietly, they made her bite her spoon at Lady C as though she were an ill-bred 13-year-old! Rude and stubborn do not equal strong. Strength is seen in dignity, self-respect, politeness, conviction, and the ability to learn from mistakes. Creating a female character who looks strong rather than acts strong is patronizing.
What kills the 2005 version for me is Charlotte Lucas saying “Don’t you dare judge me” to Lizzie. That was not a phrase used in those times and there were so many better ways to relay the message.
YES! THANK you! COMPLETELY destroyed the film for me too. She says this, I think, to sort of explain her decition to a younger audience because the filmmakers think the audience is stupid. I hate being talked down to like that. Same thing with voice-overs during a film, explaining everything to an audience because the filmmakers think the audience is stupid and not able to deduce meaning from the film on their own
I don't even know if we used the phrase "Don't judge me!" in 1995, let alone in the Regency period.
The 2005 film butchered Charlotte Lucas.
Could not agree more with this.
It's not just the language, but the feeling in it. These people are best friends and have known each other for years. It's a bit adversarial.
The 1995 version was vastly better in several respects:-
Better casting
Better acting
Better direction
Better dynamics
Better flow of narrative
Better visuals
Better costumes
Better houses
Better furniture
Better music
All of these were better because 1995 was far more realistic than 2005 which is often deservedly called Grime and Prejudice
Top!
I don't really care what version people prefer, but saying the 95-version has better visuals than the 05 one is simply not true.
@@Soloee_ Sorry, but I totally disagree. There was richness, beauty and depth in the 1995 visuals, whereas 2005 visuals were largely harsh, and frequently totally wrong for the story and the period.
I would add to your list
of reasons 1995 is better
“No Keira Knightley”
@@michelleurf Absolutely! Could not agree more.
I first watched the BBC version when i was about 6 yrs old and I loved it right away! Now I’m 15 and still watch it everytime I ger sick and everytime I watch it I notice something new, and that’s the most facinating part to me. How INCREADABLy clever the script of the 1995 is and the fact that it keeps to suprise me every single rewatch!
Thank you for this video. I've seen many videos comparing the 1995 and 2005 (and sometimes 1980) P&Ps, and they usually get stuck on the cinematography, costumes, sets, and even the actors' looks. But you hit the nail on the head on why, though I think 2005 is an absolutely beautiful film, I just can't love it. It has nothing to do with costumes or the need to condense the story, or even that stupid pig and making the Bennets look like peasants. It's because the very character and motivations of the characters have been changed. The book is called Pride and Prejudice for a reason. It's not called Shy and Rude. It would be as if a Sense and Sensibility adaptation had a painfully shy Eleanor and a slutty Marianne. The actions shown might be the same, but the characters and their motivations would be totally different, which changes the story way more than costumes or sets would.
Yes, Shy and Rude as life problems are apparently better received these days than Pride and Prejudice. 😂😭 And it’s all so true! Did read a modern adaptation of S&S with Marianne sleeping with any guy she came across and was like ?!?!?!?!
Omg I am living for this comment- I can enjoy the 2005 if I think of it as a different story entirely lol
Agreed. They made the Bennet's look poor, when they were not.
"Shy and Rude" is how I will always refer to that version from now on. Thank you. That is brilliant.
Also there was no excuse for a pig in the house. The Bennetts were not so poor as that!
Agreed. My great disapoinment of 2005 version is Mr Collins. In the 1995 film he is soooo unbearable and disgusting, however, he thinks he is gorgeous. In the 2005 film, he is ordinary a bit boring man, and it is unclear why the reasonable Elizabeth refuses his offer and why she fears for the happiness of Charlotte.
I first fell in love with the 2005 movie because of Keira Knightley's beauty, aesthetics and cinematography then I read the book and it was really different from the movie. There is so much emotion and connection on the book. Then I watched the 1995 and wow it came straight out of the book all the scenes, all the balls, and it's not rushed which is understandable because it's a series and 2005 is film which only got 2 hours to squeeze all the scenes in.
Me too. I told someone how I loved the 2005 movie and she kinda offended me telling me it was crap. I read the book and said, oh, I see her point.
I saw the movie first. It was awful. I was wondering why on earth anyone talked about it and why anyone like p&p. Then I watched the show. It was beautiful. I will watch it every single year without fail, it was a perfect representation of social norms, behaviour, and etiquette in the period. Then I read the book. And I understood everything that they both did well, and what they did wrong. I really appreciated Mr. Darcy's thought process, and the little details that the show didn't cover. The show is superior in every sense.
1995. 2005 proposal in the rain had Darcy speaking too fast and the rain noise competing didn't help. Also 2005, lady Catherine arriving at the Bennetts in the middle of the night quite absurd plus poor lighting.
It's nighttime, and the Bennet household is asleep. Bad lighting is expected.
@@mayloo2137 true. That gives weight to the poor decision to change the story to having her arrive in the middle of the night....which is absurd in itself.
Oh yes, the way he gobbles his words. Like nails on a chalk board. So unappealing
The version from 2005 is my favorite. Because it was this movies that made me fall in love with Jane Austen's work and gave me a good boost to explore classic literature in general. So, I have much to thanks the movie for ^^
It took me five or six tries to get all the way through the 2005 version (I always got disgusted with the script and acting and turned it off between 5 and 30 minutes in) and when I did watch it all the way through I regretted the waste of time and the fact that it tainted my enjoyment of the story for a while.
1995 is my media equivalent of comfort food, and I watch it whenever I’m sick or when I’m in a period of extreme depression
I always watch 1995 when I’m sick too!!! And then when Jane is being sick at Netherfield, I feel so connected by circumstances. 😃😂
Aw! Same here. I had to turn it off first time I watched it. Was horrified but powered through until the first proposal scene! I just lost it then and turned the thing off. Next time, many years later, I made and effort to finish it. I was prepared to be dissapointed that time so it felt less difficult.
But gosh, the countless times I've re-warched the 1995-series! 😅😍 My comfort food too. Whenever I need cheering up and hadnt thought about it but yes when I'm sick too! 😅 Also "Bride and Prejudice" - Austen meets Bollywood! Haha now that type of adaptation is fine by me! I think because its true to the books message, mood and characters. The only thing changed is the switch from Regency England to modern day India 😊 Its brilliant! 😅
I love the book very much so I can never watch the 2005 version at all. 1995 version is so soul soothing. I absolutely agree with you.
I am the opposite. 1995 was hard to get through but when I did, I had some appreciation for recreating the book. Do I ever rewatch it? Nah. 2005 though is what I watch when I am sick in bed. It is for me the movie equivalent of chicken soup.
Years ago I needed to have surgery, and watched the 1995 version the night before. Just in case something went wrong, I wanted to watch it one last time. 😉
I like the 1995 version the best because it's more true to the book. I also like Jennifer Ehle's interpretation of Lizzy more than Keira Knightly's. I also think that Colin Firth's Darcy was more believably prideful than MacFadyen' version. I mean, Lizzy and Darcy were probably older than they should have been, but, they were in both versions so I'm not bothered by that.
It's so hard for people to capture youth in casting for some reason!
I think the issue is more illustrated by the casting of Lydia in the 1995 version. Lucy Davis of the Office UK fame auditioned for the role and she ended up playing Charlotte's little sister instead. The reason why? The production team loved Lucy's audition and the fact her script had little notes about Lydia's moods and her euthasism but Lucy did at that stage have much experience in TV and they felt giving a key role to such a young and inexperienced actress in a major big production would be a big risk so they offered the role to a much older and more experienced actress instead. Unless you've got a situation like with the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer were the two female leads were both highly experienced working in the industry as child actors then you aren't going to get someone that dependable who is that young.
Mrs Bennett of the 1995 version is laugh out loud, funny, and wonderfully acted.
I didn't the portrayal of Mrs. Bennet at all in the 1995 version - a loud, obnoxious caricature of a woman who I found exceedingly annoying. I enjoyed Brenda Blethyn's more nuanced portrayal - for example, there were some scenes where Blethyn's Mrs. Bennet expressed her concerns quietly and gently (i.e. 'There's nothing so bad as parting with one's children...one feels so forlorn), and I loved the tender moment when Mr. Bennet leans over her in bed, as they are discussing the engagements of the daughters. Fascinating, how we all have different perceptions and preferences! :)
Wonderful! This completely encapsulates my feelings about both adaptations. I completely prefer 1995. It felt to me like I was reading the book. I also love the intros to each episode in 1995, made me want to crochet or embroider while watching it...
😂 Yes! Those intros are classic and inspire so much craftiness!!! 😂
I feel so strongly on this issue that I have a hard time listening to other people's opinions, lol. I love the 1995 version. I really, really dislike the 2005 version. No hate to anyone that loves it, I just...really don't. I think the acting in the 1995 is truly lovely. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth both have the acting chops to convey the subtle moments very well (and the not subtle moments, too, of course!). I also think their efforts at historical accuracy are some of the most successful I've seen in an Austen adaptation.
Haha, I feel you...I even hesitated starting this video because I knew she was bound to say at least *something* positive about the 2005 version, and I didn't want to hear it :)
Dislike it all you want, but you're flat out lying to say there's "nothing good about it."
And the 1940 one is better than 1995.
@@kartos. Where did I say there was nothing good about it? That's precisely why I knew it would get praise in the video, because she has to be fair, and the 2005 movie IS well-made in several ways. I just personally dislike it, so I joked about not wanting to hear the praise. As you can see, I was really making fun of myself.
The 2005 version was awful. I can understand young people liking it if they had never read the book or seen the 1995 version. Also like you pointed out the characterisation were all wrong, I did not like the award Mr Darcy (I like the actor) Also there is just something about Kiera that just does not sit right with me, she is the same character in all the movies I have seen her in.
The 2005 version is so beautiful, the score is perfect, the scenography is perfect, it is well acted, so I love it. The 1995 version is like being inside the novel, the camera angles are intimate and everything looks more real and less beautiful, I feel like a sixth Bennet sister watching it, so I love it.
THIS
I like them both separately, but I enjoy watching the 1995 version more. As an avid book reader, there are just more story details to sink my teeth into that a mini-series can provide. I also prefer the tone of the 1995 version. More modernized period films don't feel as immersive, as if giving us glimpse at a different era. There is charm in the subtly of courtship, romance, property, social norms, etc that is specific to its time period. When you go to blend in modern social/behavioral norms, you lose something.
While I agree that the film is visually stunning, I thought there were far too many liberties with the book and some bad casting. Watching in the theater, I was very upset that they eliminated Jane and Elizabeth's cousins with a throwaway line "Well, he has no children of his own, why shouldn't he spend it on Lydia?" Awful. Then, they made the Bennetts look like commoners living on a farm. That is just wrong. Finally, MacFadyen is not handsome. Darcy is supposed to be. Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench were way too old for their roles and Darcy walking in his shirt in the rain was not wonderful, but their exchange at the end certainly was. As for Darcy swimming in 1995, the water pond at Pemberley is likely refreshed and cleaner than any amoeba infected water, and Darcy would not have stunk, but would have been cleaner and better smelling than after a long ride on his horse. Sorry, 1995 wins hands down. BTW, Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier do make a handsome couple in 1940 and the very end when Mary and Kitty have suitors warms my heart every time.
Matthew is a million times more handsome than Colin. I’m so sorry but omg Colin is mediocre looking.
I also prefer the 1995 version but I have to disagree on one thing - I find Matthew MacFadyen very attractive. Colin Firth is definitely the best Darcy but MacFadyen was good in his own way as well.
Agree with everything except your comments about Matthew MacFadyen. He's gorgeous.
My two cents on the ponds - the first cases of brain-eating amoeba were reported in the 20th C. and they evolved in the US, so it's highly unlikely that British ponds had the amoeba in that period. Second, country ponds were likely much cleaner in the past than they are today - no pollution or industrial effluents.
I'm with you, I don't find MacFadyen attractive at all. I spend the entire movie wanting him to brush his hair.
1995 all the way. Every time I think I can stomach the 2005 version, I ended up hating myself. While it was very beautifully shot, I cannot forgive the way they butchered the characters. As you say, on the surface, the actions may be the same, but their motives are so different as to be almost unrecogniseable at points. I can't forgive what they did to Mr Bingley, and even Jane. She comes across as a giggling girl, rather than a reserved young woman.
Not to mention 2005 made the Bennetts look poor. They weren't! They were still respected members of their community, but they didn't have quite the wealth that Bingley and Darcy had, and their estate was entailed away because of the male bloodline.
@@kaybrann Yes indeed. Good point.
agree
Yes, 2005 makes poor Bingley so dumb! Sweet, but just incredibly dim.
My reasons for prefering 1995 are pretty simple; I don't see someone with 10,000 pounds a year marrying into the Bennet family portrayed in the 2005 movie. That Bennet family belongs unashamedly to a different social class, not through their clothing and the pig scene but the lack of pretence and the rawness of their behaviour. The Assembly is another example. Assembly's were open to the public and some could be rough but I don't see people with any pretence to gentility attending an Assembly such as the one in the 1995 movie. I just don't see someone with 10,0000 pounds a year attending one, pride would have dictated private dances and balls must be attended. The 1995 Lizzie on the other hand in her response to Lady Catherine de Bourgh where she claims she is the daughter of a gentleman and Darcy to be a gentleman and the two are equal. Nothwithstanding her mother and sister's public behaviour she is right and issimply more believable. I guess my reasons are a straight line to your characterisations.:)
Those are all really interesting points! They definitely portrayed the Bennets so differently in both!
Hi Susan. yes, you are correct. The Bennets are misrepresented in the 2005 film. For instance, in the book Lady Catherine de Bourgh acknowledges that Elizabeth Bennet is "very genteel" and she also accepts that Mr Bennet is a member of the landed gentry. Sadly, in the 2005 film the Bennets are more rustic than refined.
Further to my previous comment, Mr Bennet had an income of £2,000 a year (a point Jane Austen mentions in Volume 1, Chapter 7) which was a very large sum of money when P&P was published. For example, in Sense and Sensibility one of Austen's other fictional country gentleman, Mr John Willoughby, has a small estate in Somerset and an annual income of £600 or £700. Moreover, in 1816 one of Jane Austen’s brothers was earning just under £55 a year as a curate and at that rate of pay he would have had to work for over 36 years to equal the sum Mr Bennet received in a year!
Hum
I haven't seen the 2005 v. The Bennets were landed gentry not 10k yearly rich, but they could afford to keep a cook.
@@firebrandsgirl Mrs Bennet would love you ... she told Mr Collins very exactly the same thing when he congratulated her daughters on their cooking.
I couldn’t make it through the 2005 version . The awkward thing with the characters reminded me too much of a romcom with teenagers. The actors in the 1995 version were just spot on. It was like seeing the characters step off the page. Mr Bennett’s acknowledges his failings and also admits he’ll get over it quickly . Seeing well rounded characters that you can’t help liking even knowing his flaws are dooming his daughters future .
Ok, crazy story. I first watched the 1995 version on TV, at home, and recorded it on VHS, because I already loved the book so much. Turns out it was only aired once (I live in Brazil) and I lost one episode, so I had 5 out of 6 episodes, loved them to death, watched them endlessly and that was it.
Many years later (I'm talking 10, maybe 15 years later) I was reading a Bridget Jones novel and suddenly this pond scene was mentioned. Like, what pond scene???
Yep. The missing episode in my recordings was the one with the pond scene. I had no idea of its existence.
So I bought a decent DVD version of the series (that took me a while, too) and I watched the pond scene. Seriously, I think it was kind of silly. Don' t think Mr. Darcy would be doing anything of the sort. It is the only thing I don't like in that series! Other than that, everything in it is just perfect.
(I have only watched the Keira Knightley abomination once, by the way. I like the actors, but that is not Pride and Prejudice. It made me feel just the same as watching Disney's live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast: it's a fraud.)
I saw an interview with Colin Firth where he says apparently he was supposed to be naked. He said the script had him taking off his clothes and diving in 😅
I agree with most of what you say. However, I do have to take issue with your distaste for Darcy jumping in the pond. To me, the shock of that scene was Darcy letting guard down, feeling comfortable in his own realm and Lizzie catching him in that moment. Also Darcy catching HER in a moment of being uninvited into his world. Not to mention that fact that he basically naked and I love that he immediately reverts back to politeness but understands how naked he is in the middle of his questioning as to the health of her family. He is looking quite healthy indeed, I might add. Then I would ask that you consider the nature of personal hygiene in the early 19th century. However mucky that pond water might be, it is far more fresh than the smell of his cloths after riding all day on the road. The sweat, dirt and indeed his anxiety has all washed off and he is left relaxed and fresh. I do not believe that the medical professions at the time would have even diagnosed a brain eating amoeba, much less be afraid of it. So I feel that your personal distaste for the scene got in the way of really connecting to the historical accuracy of it and how sexy we all found it at the time. we were so embroiled in the story that we understood the pure sexual nature of this scene immediately. And that is why it is one of the most memorable and wonderful scenes in historic cinema. 1995 Lizzie forever. Post 9/11 everyone became dark and moody and I am over it. Give me real joy. Give me my pond jumping Darcy and my sweet smiling Lizzie.
Yes to all of this!
There are no brain-eating amoeba in Europe :-D
1995... I loved the whole movie, but the best part, for me, was after the pond, when Darcy and Lizzie met. Very good actors.❤
Amen sister!!
I completely agree with you. He would have been fresher for that dip than before he took it. But that's beside the point. They might have all been a little ripe due to the washing arrangements back then. We were getting a glimpse of him letting his guard down and the look on Lizzie's face. Caught uninvited at his house. A great film. Much better than 2005
I prefer the 1995 adaptation of the because it is more in tune with the novel. The 2005 version was made to appeal to an under 30's audience.
Yes! So true!
I’m almost 40 and I prefer the 2005 version, and I love the book. 😂
@@fieryhellkitten exactly a movie is never supposed to be the book and what would be the point in copying the 1995 version? the 1995 version is also not the book...if you are that much of a purist, go read the book or make your own film. I liked the 2005 version for its beauty in the filming and for making it seem more relatable.
@@celina3042 it’s not about copying the 1995’s version. There are so many version out there. The 1995 seemed very rushed and too Hollywood for me.
The female lead in the 1995 movie looks like a spinster. Keira Knightly looks pretty hot. An under 30 girl would rather identify with Keira and her husband/boyfriend more likely to go see the movie with her.
You've hit the nail on the head about the complete change in characterization while retaining the specific details of the plot in 2005. But you're much nicer and more accepting of it.
In my opinion if you change the underlying motivations and personalities of all the main characters in a story- it is no longer the same story. If they had made the exact same 2005 movie but gave all the characters different names and didn't call it Pride and Prejudice I would happily accept it as a "period romance". But you have no right to call it Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice! It is a disgusting way to peddle an alternate story about people with different motivations, disguised by the replicated plot and character names. All so that they can exploit the cache Jane Austen's work already has to get people to watch the movie. THAT is what is most infuriating!
Once again you did a fantastic job of pinpointing this crucial difference between the two adaptations.
I totally agree with all your points, glad to know someone else feels the same. And thank you for pointing out the whole 'everyone is awkward except the one person who is supposed to be awkward' point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but so true! Sometimes it is the little things in the 2005 one that bug me Why does Elizabeth walk back from Pemberley? Did her aunt and uncle just leave her there? That kind of thing.
My problem with the 2005 version is that Keira Knightley really only has one character in her repertoire, so she's really not so much like Lizzie Bennett as she is like Keira Knightley wearing a Lizzie Bennett suit.
😂 There seems to be a whole subset of actors who do just play one character and that’s it!
@@EllieDashwood I have the same issue with Billie Piper in Mansfield Park.
"That's not Fannie Price, that's Rose Tyler in a fancy dress. That she got from the wardrobe room in the Tardis! What've they done with Fannie?" Now I come to think of it, that could be kind of a fun silly crossover story...
@@cathipalmer8217 😂😂😂 So true!
She's too brusque in some scenes like the one at the piano in Rosings where Darcy says he didn't ask Lizzy to dance because he's not good around strangers - 1995 Lizzy does the box response I'm not a great piano player (or not the one I'd like or think I should be because she's better than Mary and another thing Wright did not understand interrupting Lizzie as terrible) because it's her fault as she doesn't practice enough to be that good which makes the point through a parallel . Kiera's Lizzy is just rude saying 'you should take your aunt's advice and practice more'. However I think the flaw isn't Keightly's it's Joe Wright's and he only knows how to do something one way.
The problem with Keira Knightly is she can't act.
I definitely side with the 95 version. I found watching the 2005 version of the characters, who were so diluted to make them made more palatable, seriously distracting. The most unsettling was Mr. & Mrs. Bennett, it affects everything. As someone who grew up in a house, where parents are at least a little similar to the originals, that reticence to fully be at ease even when it is just family isn't just a Victorian thing, it's a family dynamic thing. And it has a great deal to do with how Elizabeth sees the world. One of the reasons, she doesn't overly romanize the state of being married, she already knows that happily ever after isn't a given in marriage.
Watching them start in a happy loving environment is weird, it is like someone whitewashed your childhood, and told you it didn't really happen the way you think it did. Jane Austen was about showing peoples flaws and how they affect those around them.
2005 feels like they wanted to make a modern romcom with historical dress. It is beautiful and very romantic, but honestly I really couldn't enjoy it, because of all it was missing.
M
"2005 feels like they wanted to make a modern romcom with historical dress" is the truest thing that has e'er been said about that movie.
Change the characters, and you change the point, the theme, the message of the book. That is what the 2005 version did. Which is why I prefer the 1995 version. By far. The earlier version kept Austen's satire, which was the main reason she was a writer in the first place.
‘95 will always hold my heart, i respect 2005’s cinematography and their beautiful costumes - I hold that they are somewhat historically correct but not truly.
Ehle and Firth are my baes.
“He’s going to get a brain eating amoeba.” Do you want Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? Because thats how you get Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
That's why Darcy in that movie is fighting the zombies! He knows he started the outbreak with his ill-advised swimming! 🤣
I love that movie and it’s the only period film my hubby will watch with me! 😂😂😂😂
Don't be throwing shade on that masterful blending of magic ✨😂
That is my "I'm sick, I need to stay on the couch" movie.
I love that movie!! Never thought I would, but I did!
In the 1995 version when Mr. Darcy is walking to his house and see's Elizabeth, his White Shirt hanging out and stuck to his body and his hair with wet ringlets dripping.....soooooo casually....is known as the "Hot" part of the Movie. Not so much as him jumping into the Pond. I can only think of Colin Firth now as Mr. Darcy.....no one else!!!!
I just hated what they did to Charlotte in the 2005 version, they made her look desperate and kind of pathetic, but in the book and also in the '95 version she was actually very logical in her decision to get involved with Mr. Collins , she was not desperate! But she saw a convenient opportunity and took it.
Not just logical she was the smartest and most manipulative character in the book. Her third eye was invincible. She saw Darcy’s interest in Lizzie well before even the principles, warned Lizzy that Jane needed to be more expressive, swooped in and took Collins when Lizzy passed, and very likely manipulated Lady Catherine into goading Darcy into proposing by using her husband to pass on the rumor of a then non existent engagement knowing full well what would be the reactions of all the people involved. She is basically the Keyser Soze of Pride and Prejudice, the gangster Queen spider and definitely not understood quite enough by either 1995 or 2005 adaptations. 1995 is more faithful to her book character but makes her way too pretty. 2005 version is appropriately plain but they completely butchered her genius.
@@dfchang813 of course! It never occurred to me that Charlotte was behind Lady Catherine finding out about the 'proposal'!
@@dfchang813 I really did not find the 1995 Charlotte pretty. I thought they did a pretty good job of making her look very plain and also like someone firmly "on the shelf."
By the time the 2005 version came out, I had already loved the 1995 mini-series for 10 years. It was hard to be open to the newer version at that time. As time has gone by, the more romantic 2005 has its charms as well. It’s just totally different, and completely “moody.” The original was just so funny, cheerful, and so very charming.
Once again I am in agreement with you. Consider myself much of a purist and I don’t like when they try to modernize period novels. Let the novel speak for itself and the time period it reflects. The novel might not reflect our modern sensibilities but it reflects those of their time.
Exactly! Understanding their time is so important and we lose that when it’s updated. 😞
I don't know...I think there is a place for modernized period classics. First, because it makes them accessible to the general audience. I tried to read the book a long time ago and I just could not understand the flow of the period language, so I gave up. I only returned to the story through the 2005 film. I thought it was beautiful and utterly romantic. I now know that there was a lot more to the story than the romance since I have read the book and researched the historical period in order to understand the culture.
Secondly, it can be important to interrogate historical culture through the modern lens, to help us understand their motivations and ideals. It can be a reminder that they were people too, instead of caricatures of history. That's what I loved most about the 2005 version, was that they felt like people who lived in the world. It can be hard to connect to essentially an entire different culture without that touchstone of common ground.
@@aquiamorgan2416 I think these characters are so relatable today that modernization isn’t needed.
I had the same struggle with the language when reading it for the first time. When you’re young you don’t have the patience. I found each novel became easier to read as I immersed myself in the material.
@Lucy Rane Totally agree. FYI when I recently rewatched the 1995 I noticed there were four actresses named Lucy in the cast! (Charlotte, Mary, Mrs Hurst and I thought there was a fourth but I can't remember...).
The fourth Lucy- Maria Lucas
1995 by far! Manners in Austen's time, at least among the gentry, WERE more formal. Over my lifetime I have seen a great change in manners and manner.
This makes you sound a few hundred years old! 😂 I get it though, I may be only 20, but even I notice a difference in manners now from the early 2000’s
Year on year we are losing touch with our civilised past. Coming generations will have no memory of it - and no understanding. While today we are more aware of the sufferings of others, and are perhaps more generous, we don’t treat each other with respect day-to-day.
I definitely agree about the changes in characterisation but also have to say I really dislike a lot of the costumes and set choices in the 2005 version. While I mostly enjoy the movie, I get so distracted by their imo ugly clothes (especially Lizzie! Why does she always wear peasant-looking clothes??) and especially their hairstyles. Their hair is always so messy and straight when it really should be more elegant and curly. Also the fact that their estate and house is so dirty and they seem so poor annoys me. They're still part of the gentry, they shouldn't live with pigs in their house and mud outside the door. That line where Lizzie tells Lady Catherine that Darcy is a gentleman and she is a gentleman's daughter so they are equal is so important in my opinion and was omitted in the movie because nothing about how they are portrayed makes them seem like gentry.
To me the 1995 series is the best. It’s more accurate to the book, the settings and costumes are better in my opinion. The acting is better and just an all round better portrayal to me.
Of course you would consider it better. It had how many hours to tell the story? The 2005 version had two hours. Do you think you can cram what was in a 6-8 hour series into a 2 hr movie?
thank you. I've been saying this for a long, long time - shy, social awkward darcy does not exist
I’m so happy to find someone who agrees!
@@EllieDashwood have you seen tea with Cassiane’s video on why autistic people relate to Mr Darcy? It’s really good (and I think finding it is the reason the algorithm recommended you)
Her series on mistakes in the dancing in the film adaptations is also really informative.
@@gwendlehasagecko969 I haven’t yet! But that sounds super interesting!
@@EllieDashwood There's an excellent fanfiction with the concept of what might have happened if Mr. Darcy were autistic. It definitely draws more on the characterizations from 2005, but in it he is not shy, but rather is very careful about his words because he is aware of his inability to read people. It's currently on part 2, with part 1 already being the length of a novel by itself, but it is excellently done.
Mr. Darcy is caught completely off guard by Elizabeth's attitude at the Netherfield Ball because he thought they were having very nice conversations with maybe a tad of flirting. Lady Catherine gets a clear motivation behind her vehement demands for him to marry Anne. And Georgiana, with the context of her protective attitude toward her brother in social situations, has greater reason to be as outgoing as she is portrayed as in 2005.
I definitely recommend reading it if you have time and interest. It's an amazing foray into what autism might look like in the regency era.
archiveofourown.org/works/27446335/chapters/67096543
I found my ppl :')
Honestly, I got more of that darker, quasi melodramatic Bronte sisters Victorian vibe from the 2005 version than the unspoken, deep emotions just under the surface vibe of the Jane Austen Regency era that was brought out so well in the 1995 version, but maybe that's just me.....2005 was a well-made film, but it just didn't strike me as having that much to do with Jane Austen.
Yes! I love what you say about modernizing classic literature. I think it does a disservice to not show the culture and world view of people in the context in which it was written. The viewer who doesn't know history will not understand the reason the characters make the choices that they make and how different we are as a culture. Thanks for bringing this up!
Regarding the pond scene, I've got news for ya: people have swum in ponds for centuries. After a hot, dusty ride with all those layers of clothing on, it's reasonable that he'd take a dip in the pond he'd probably swum in since he was a child. Also people didn't have swimming pools back then.
Responding to the notion that he'll get a brain eating amoeba - this is HIS lake. He's probably been bathing in it his whole life. He knows it's generally safe.
I've swum in lakes and rivers on occasion, the locals always know whether or not they're safe. I don't think it's a reasonable criticism of the lake scene.
1995 for sure. So much I don’t like about 2005. Keira just plays herself. And the spirit of Jane Austen’s work is drowned out with love stories.
Here’s my 1995 story. I had read the book. I had watched the Laurence Olivier version (1940). There is no doubt he is the ultimate Mr. Darcy but the rest of film not so much.
Back to 1995. It was serialized for American broadcast. I was very impressed. I decided to record it on VHS tape editing out the commercials. I lent the finished tape to my Mother who was enthralled. With my permission she lent it out to friends.
She sang its praises to a friend. So, one night (after 9pm) her friend & her husband sat down to watch a little before going to bed. They couldn’t stop & watched the entire show in one sitting not going to bed until after 2am.
Several other friends heard how good the mini-series actually was but they did not have cable or didn’t hear about it until it was too late to watch. I had more than 1 VHS machine so I made 4 or 5 copies for friends & family. I was very popular…
This is such a heartwarming story. It just goes to show that Joe Wright had underestimated his audience. Thank you.
Olivier was too old to play Darcy. That is the problem with mid-20th century American movies. Miscasting due to studio dictates instead of the best actor for the role.
@@mayloo2137 Both leads in 1940 were too old for the part. Olivier, to me, captured the essence of the “Regency Buck”.
I think the 1995 Pride and Prejudice is much more historically accurate with the fashion, manners, and hairstyles.
I teach high school gifted English (and History), and have been fortunate to teach Pride and Prejudice for a number of years. I watched the 1995 A&E version before I became a teacher (was travel agent for 20 years) and had never read the book before. I absolutely fell in love with the movie, then read the book and loved it too. When telling them we're reading P&P, a lot of my female students had seen the 2005 movie and say they love it. I always reply, "Oh, just wait!" I feel that the 2005 is too frantic and if you don't already know the story, it is difficult to follow as it leaves too much out. I enjoy watching it, but it pales by comparison to the '95 version. Darcy is personified by Colin Firth, and while I like Keira Knightly, Jennifer Ehle is sublime as Elizabeth. And OMG - Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet in the '95 version is quintessentially Mrs. Bennet. If you don't already know the story, 2005 is fine as a light comedy. If you've read the novel, you have to watch the '95 version.
I've always liked the 1995 pride and prejudice, because the actors really seem to get the nuances in dialogue. Jennifer Ehle being exceptionally good at it.
I LOVE the 1995 version of P&P! It really captures the essence of the book and its characters. Although, 2005 P&P has beautiful cinematography and score, the more I watch the less pleased I am with it. The characters are not really themselves. And, I definitely agree that Darcy in 2005 was too shy. No! Mr. Darcy is a prideful man and so much of his character's arc is lost in the story because we do not see his transformation from proud to humble. Anyway, before I get carried away with this rant. Love this video and you coming forth and giving your opinion :).
Aw! Thank you so much! And 1995 does totally capture the essence of the book. I have to admit that I see SO many posts on Instagram and Pinterest about awkward/shy Mr Darcy being beloved that I felt like I needed to address it but was also like, “None of these people are going to like it.” 😂 It’s true though, it completely changes his story arc and the entire name of the book. It’s becomes almost a movie where Lizzie is rude to a misunderstood shy guy about his awkwardness and then marries him. 😂
@@EllieDashwood It's so true. Prideful Mr. Darcy may not be as likeable, but in the end it's his transformed self that shocks Elizabeth and humbles her as well. They both change and that is what makes the story great :)
@@ginayoung4174 Yes! Totally agree!
Yes, I agree 100%. The 2005 version looked great but it wasn’t really Pride and Prejudice for me. Darcy was definitely not shy and awkward he was proud and a little arrogant and that’s why his character arc matters and is so impactful! Plus the 2005 version, as pretty as it was, had so many hair and costume wrongs in it that it took away my enjoyment.
Our village pond in the 1980s was probably even more murky, but most of us kids and plenty of adults still enjoyed it to cool down in the summer. I don't remember smelling afterwards. Ponds can look like that when they get too many nutrients and the algae takes over. A friend of mine and her husband in the USA actually have a business of building fake islands for ponds and lakes that improve their health by removing the extra nutrients.
I love your analysis on these two movies. I totally agree. I love the 95 version because it is truer to the book. Collin Firth is the hottest Darcey.
My favorite is the 1995 BBC version mini series.
It’s a great one!
It's just the best. I think Jane Austen would approve of it too. 2005 has her spinning in her grave. It's just not Austen
2005 is too "Bronte-sh" for my taste. Austen's work is lighter and more "drawing room" than wildly emotional like the Bronte's and their use of "weather" and "atmosphere."
I was 12 when 2005 version came out and got bored with it after 20 or so minutes. You could say it was because I was too young but for the fact that I had excitedly watched the entire ‘95 version in one day at the age of 10. I distinctively remember thinking “this one’s not fun anymore😕” while watching the 2005.
8:11 omg - “cute horse. Dirty water” had me cracking up 😆
Thanks for the compare and contrast - both are great adaptations in their own rights.
1995 is my favorite because it feels the most authentic for the intention of the narrative and characters. While 2005 is beautiful looking some of the odd changes they made hamper my enjoying it completely. One that really bothers me is the Bennets living in a house that's crumbling around them. This makes them seem more destitute than they were in the book. It felt like the filmmakers didn't trust people to understand there were classes among the rich so they had to make them seem more poor so they didn't have to learn about the Regency time period. The other weird thing with 2005 that I don't like is changing the portraits into statues. I don't understand why so it bugs me.
The art gallery with the absolutely stunning statues was a highlight for me. Why shouldn't a very rich man have one in his mansion? I'm sure other parts of the house had lots of portraits in them.
@@minimaker5600 I don’t mind having several statues in the house, even in the 1980 version it has the armour. The problem is too many statues, the interior of Darcy’s house is described as neither gaudy nor uselessly fine, less of splendour and more real elegance. Having too many statues in one house suits Rosings Park more than Pemberley.
the 1995 version i felt like i was watching people in that era the book i set. The 2005 version i felt like i was watching modern people playing dress up.
I am against putting modern morals and sensibly to people who lived in the past.
Well put!!
YES I completely agree with that. Thats exactly how I felt about Keria Knightleys performance. She's a good actress but that's not how Elizabeth would have conducted herself. I am against that directorial choice as well. I mean, whats the point? Might as well get rid of the costumes since they mean nothing without the character to back them up.
I'm feeling that it's not really that what is the problem. The thing is that we tend to be very predictable, naive and... primitive in our todays judgements and opinions. Look at your regular political correct modern person. Nothing you guys do or say make actually much sense. The ideas that Austen discribed - they are timeless. It's like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, London, Orwell, Balzac or Remark. Things they say to us are STILL! of current interest. Still important. Still new. That's why I believe that we shouldn't get old classics dumbed down, we should grow up in order to understand the old classics...
@@aragorniielessar1894 Arrogance or not, it is still a good comment. I know I am a Rightist, however I do think what a Leftist, who doesn't talk to the left exclusively, or even to BOTH sides (to keep the middle ground free). In our current time, what should Ricky Gervais' or Bill Maher's or any other Leftist who are carefully doubting themselves? Of course, this counts for me too.
@@aragorniielessar1894 maybe my comment was arrogant. It was also correct :) I´m not interested in sweet little lies
Thank you for pinning down exactly why I can't love 2005 as much as 1995! I couldn't quite put my finger on it but there it is.
I really like your point about modernising all the classics. It’s important because there is a reason they became classics to begin with. There are enough modern movies and shows. Let the classics stay the way they are.
1995 version wins hands down for me. I love Donald Sutherland but he didn't capture Mr. Bennett's wit and sarcasm but you do bring up some really good points about Mr. Bennet's character in general. I saw the movie first and then the mini-series after my mom recommended I watch it and now I can't watch the movie without feeling annoyed by it. One thing I really dislike is how they make Darcy and Elizabeth seem as though they are from largely different social standings, when in fact, they aren't. Mr. Bennet is a gentryed man. Elizabeth even notes that she and Mr. Darcy are equal in her confrontation with Lady Catherine saying, "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. So far we are equal." There is also a really good video talking about the financial and social standings in Pride and Prejudice and shows the different levels of social class in Regency England and it's pointed out that the Bennett's really weren't that poor. They just spent their money unwisely over the years. John Green also notes this in his CrashCourse video on the novel. The costumes weren't to my particular liking in the 2005 version, mainly that the older women characters are wearing clothing from several years or decades prior. I realize this is real nitpicky but that wasn't really a thing especially for characters like Lady Catherine who had a large amount of money. Dresses were adapted to fit the fashions and trends of the day. Older pieces were simply converted into a more 'trendy' style quite often. Elizabeth in the 2005 version is a lot more spunky and spirited which I didn't mind but I liked Jennifer Ehle's subtly and the script really played to Elizabeth's playfulness and witty nature. Ehle also does a lot with her body language, like her eyes, which really help make the character for me. I totally agree with you about modernizing classical literature. I would be super interested to know your thoughts on Bridgerton if you haven't already made a video about it! Sorry this was such a long-winded rant xD
Yes, Jennifer Ehle totally captures the spunky nature of Elizabeth. I think it's interesting how Ehle will say a line and make Lizzy seem spirited, while when Keira did it Lizzy just seemed rude. 😂 It's all about tone and body language! And it's very true that the Bennets were not poor. They were in one of the top casts of society at the time. Their dad was just bad at saving for their doweries. I haven't watched Bridgerton because TV-MA isn't my thing. But I've heard very many interesting opinions on it!
1995 for characterization alone. It has the unfair advantage of being five hours long but the characters do suffer for modernizing them. Charlotte Lucas in particular, goes from being an aromantic boss who is willing to play the game to get what she needs, to being a desperate sycophant who seems terrified. Charlotte will eventually be mistress of Longbourne. That’s not nothing for a plain girl who was almost written off as an old maid. She’s clever and doesn’t get enough credit in 2005.
Charlotte Lucas deserves more love than 2005 gives her!
Definitely 1995 version is my favorite. My brothers whom I forced to watch it with me say it's definitely better at portraying the characters especially Darcy and Elizabeth. One of them became a Jane Austen fan as a result. We watched 2005 version but it was just a disappointment for us since we read the book as well.
I have never seen the 2005 film and never had a desire to see it. The simple reason is when Isaw previews all characters looked unkempt, poor and ungenteel. That is not how I imagined gentleman class (even if they were not very well off).
I think I was spoiled with the 1995 tv series as well as the 1979(?) one.
If you can for your amusement watch the BBC mini-series "Lost in Austin". Summary of it is a 21st-century girl and her love for "Pride and Prejudice". Some fantasy is in there as well. I have watched it numerous times and I have never got tired of it.