Can I just say what a joy it is to read all these comments? I have a couple of videos on this channel that focus on genre IP (Star Trek in one, and big-bad villains in another where I dared to say something not completely negative about Amazon Prime's Rings of Power), and the overall tone in those comments sections is so divisive. Some comments are great, but man do people like to argue on the internet! It's like a breath of fresh air here. Even where there is disagreement everyone is being respectful and delightful. I guess I need to make more Jane Austen-focused videos! Thanks, everyone!
You made a great video but didn't go far enough IMHO. 2005 did many things wrong. And over all 1995 had better casting all around (with the exception of Jane , IMHO) Even Judy Dench failed to reflect a character who was spoilt and conceited yet burdened with a useless daughter and knows it. 1995 Countess was a better fit And Keira Knightley's acting has always been weird with weird mouth movements. Meh. But I think that Mr Darcy was the worst casting, no comparison. 2005 was a complete drip. Clearly that film was made to pander to entitled female audiences Special shout out to Alison Steadman as Mrs Bennet. She was hilarious and nailed the character. I know I am rambling. But a core position of this book was how Mr Bennet married beneath him and ended up not in love but with an awful wife he could not stand. Hence all his time spent in the library. To hide from the wife and her daughter clones. Where this really shows up is how Wickham falls into the exact same trap, but unlike Mr Bennet, completely deservedly. In the 2005 remake this dichotomy is absent.
@@TheBelrick🙌 yes, yes, yes! One of my biggest criticisms of the 2005 version is that they made the Bennetts a loving couple. 🤦♀️ talk about not understanding the point of the book. I just can't with the 2005 version. I was at law school when I saw it and I went by myself to a completely packed theater. I just remember standing up in shock at the end and thinking, "Jane Austen is rolling over in her grave right now."
@brookeashton6169 also, in 2005, Wickham is not an important enough character. Maybe it's not possible to do justice to the book in 2 hours. The 1940 version was even worse.
@@TheBelrickI just HATED Keira Knightley as Elizabeth.. And I hated how the movie cut out almost all the really good dialogues between Darcy and Lizzy that actually show how Darcy is slowly getting head over heels over her, Lizzy's wit and intelligence all gone.. Instead they inserted that stupid almost kiss.. But I likes Mcfayden.. I am sure if there was more time given to the character he would have shone brighter.
@@alinaperez8006 I disagree. The best of all the adaptations was one I haven't seen mentioned so far: the 1980 5-hr British miniseries. I think it was a BBC production; it was shown on Masterpiece Theatre. David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennett. The 1995 version was a fairly close remake of the 1980 one (apart from adding things like Colin Firth in a bathtub and then swimming in a pond...)
I went to college a few years after the Firth version came out, and he was still being talked about at that time, as was the entire adaptation. Sooo good.
The 1995 miniseries is, by far, the best adaptation of the book. The way they modified from the book Elizabeth's 'rescue' of Georgiana Darcy at the piano was a stroke of genius. It shows her incredible empathy and caring nature. IMO, it is this moment that cements his feelings for Elizabeth. Jane Austen would have approved.
As Elizabeth moves to turn the page for Georgianna, watch the slowly, barely smiling animation in Darcy's face as he knows, at that very moment, she's the one.
Finally, someone else who knows the almost-kiss in the 2005 version is wrong!! At that point in the story Elizabeth would rather have cut her own head off than to even consider doing anything like that or even thinking about Darcy in any kind of romantic way; she would NOT have considered kissing him esp after he told her that she was poor and ugly and her family was trash 😭😭 though that's another thing the 2005 version got wrong, it cut down on Darcy's rudeness in that scene (and also portrayed him as a social dork which, as I've unfortunately seen proof of, made people seem to think Darcy never had any real problems as a character beyond being shy 🫠 like no he was a jerk but the 2005 version did not portray him that way :,) anyway CAPITAL!! as Sir Lucas would say
Exactly. I know 2005 Darcy is seen as someone who makes paralytically awkward people feel seen and like maybe they too deserve love, and that’s great, and I think it really is a good film in most respects, but yeah, it’s not Darcy from the book.
The almost kiss takes Mr. Collins' misguided view of Lizzie, from the novel, and makes it Lizzie's actual real character and behavior. She doesn't really mean what she says when she rejects Darcy, she's just denying her true feelings. It's a total hatchet job on Lizzie's character, and extremely regressive.
I actually felt different about the almost kiss. The whole movie was already ruined and I didn’t feel this was Lizzy anyway, so this scene was at least interesting and calmed down my annoyance a tiny bit. It portrays physical attraction and maybe even falling in love despite one’s own better judgement. (But no it doesn’t fit without the original story I agree)
@@valgardener7656tbh that’s how I perceived it for years because I had only seen the movie and not read the book as a teenager. I think it’s okay for a director to play with it though, because what we say is only on the surface and he probably wondered if her motives and feelings deep inside were contrasting her actions… or maybe he just got it wrong. It still makes for an interesting relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth.
I couldn't agree more....right on every point. Also loved the dialogue delivery in the BBC series a lot more.... especially the interaction between Lizzie and Mr. Darcey the first time he proposed ...a masterpiece!
@@thebuttermilkyway687 Yes, you are so right. The BBC version is true to the beautifully written novel, and the lines are delivered perfectly by Elizabeth Garvey. I hate Keira in her gunny sack costumes and her heavy breathing response to the first proposal. So bizarre.
@@debgok And Matthew Mcfayden played Darcy wrong to me too. He was too anxious and awkward in public. He is supposed to be arrogant and prideful in the beginning.
The 2005 version made Jane Austen accessible to people who didn't know her before but love a romance story that focuses on a couple and its misunderstandings. The mini-series was made for people who know Pride and Prejudice by heart and rejoice in finding their favourite little touches brought alive by superb actors, against a rich background of social context and interactions. I watched the 2005 version once and never had the desire to repeat the experience. And our whole family knows the 1995 version by heart because we have watched it countless times and can't wait for the next round. I guess I'm not exactly on the fence about this one ;-)
@s.h.741 but the pigs in the house? Nope! They could have done without it. And once in a while Lizzie could have looked presentable. A gentlewoman of her day would not have looked that sloppy! We didn't need to throw out some of these convensions to make it more accessible. The Bennets estate pulled in 2K a year, and in Sense and Sensibility that was Col. Brandon's income which was seen as good. Enough for hunting horses. so the Bennetts could have afforded maids to do the laundry and the house wouldn't be dirty , and no pigs in the house. Also Lady Catherine would not have been caught dead showing up at that late hour. We also didn't need the almost kiss... she hated Darcy still, at that point. Come on...
Thank you so much for this video. For almost twenty years now, my main objection to the 2005 adaptation has been precisely this scene (and well, "goddess divine" too). I could have forgiven the use of the open doors scene, the rain, and even the way Knightley rushes Elizabeth's greatest arguments . . . all but not that "I-want-to-kiss-you" gesture. It goes totally against the anger, unpleasant surprise, and indignation that both characters are feeling at this moment. Thank you for explaining it in such a cogent and balanced manner.
@@elainehartley9070 I just don't enjoy her acting and the way she constantly juts her chin out and makes the duck face at the same time. I saw this and was bored throughout. Even the Bollywood version was way more fun than this. 1995 was wonderful and I thoroughly enjoyed it
The Bennets are landed gentry. The father is a gentleman. They have servants and an estate. What’s with the pigs running through the house? What’s with the daughters hanging up the laundry? Mr. Bennet practically lives in his library in the book. He doesn’t do physical labor. This aspect of the film was such a dissonance from the book and the time period that I would never watch this movie again.
I mean, I don't disagree with any of these complaints and everyone is entitled to like or not like something for any subjective reason they like, but this sort of complaint sounds to me a lot like when science nerds dismiss an otherwise good sci-fi movie (with a good story, characters that are 3D and motivated by relatable circumstances, and dramatic stakes that are clear, etc.) because there's sound in space and that's not actually the way gravity around a black hole would work, etc. Sure, those technical details are "wrong," but the movie is still good fun, you know? Again, not everyone has to like something -- there's no right or wrong answer -- but for me those are edge details and don't really affect my enjoyment all that much. I used to have a housemate who got totally taken out of every movie set in NYC because she knew lots of bird calls and all the SFX libraries were built in California so scenes in Central Park always had west coast bird songs in the mix and it drove her CRAZY. I get it, but I also don't get it, you know?
@@think_thing you’re right. To each their own. My intent in writing the comment was simply my opinion, given my love for the book and Austen, and should not derail your enjoyment of the film
@@think_thing Honestly, I have the same complaint as OP but I'd argue that it genuinely does go deeper than simple inaccuracy. The changes to the Bennets' circumstances made for the 2005 version turn the whole narrative into MUCH more of a 'cinderella story'; in the confrontation with Lady Catherine we lose "he is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter, so far, we are equal," and it feels a lot more like the story actually *buys in* to the idea that Lizzie is the scrappy, not-really-posh underdog standing up to the toffs, which is like... it's an okay story, but recontextualising an element like that does kinda beg the question, for me, of why bother adapting Pride and Prejudice, specifically, then? And doing a 'straight' adaptation, if there's core aspects of the original that apparently can't be made peace with? Because I think the end result is a film that feels like it'd rather hold its origins at arms' length, than admit that the entire major cast in the original is a bunch of poshos. Just take the story that remains when the protagonist's background is shifted significantly on its axis, innovate a narrative which reflects the values you want P&P to have - as opposed to the ones it actually has, when you put such large chunks of it wholsale into your film - and make a movie about that, instead. Like, it's not just about surface-level details. I think there's a deep, underlying and uncomfortable tension between the story that the filmmakers wanted to tell, and the story that Pride and Prejudice actually /is/, which comes off as having been squashed into a shape that is fundamentally at odds with itself on some level. Another example of where this flares up for me would be that they keep the Lydia plot more or less intact, but add that scene where Bingley visits Jane whilst she's in bed, in her nightgown, at Netherfield. And putting both of those things in the same movie creates a huge hole in the story's *internal* logic - nothing to do with 'oh but that was improper by the standards of the time,' they wrote in a subplot whose entire concept hinges on the era's standards of propriety, then acted elsewhere like the factors which drove said entire plot didn't exist. In that film, surface-level inaccuracies are the bubbly wallpaper that hides flawed, contradictory storytelling at the core.
@@think_thing I think the material point is that movies rely on immersion, and everyone has a different point where their immersion breaks, so if I were a filmmaker I'd try to avoid things that could take a sizeable minority of my audience out of the movie. This is especially important in adaptations, sequels, remakes etc where you have a built in audience; that gives you free publicity/ticket sales, but it also means that part of your audience will have higher demands on the movie's "realism".
I prefer the 1995 version because they let Elizabeth be funny. In the books she is witty and a bit sarcastic, but she’s also down for a good time. She likes going to balls and dances and she is funny!
In my opinion Kiera Knightley was a poor choice for Elizabeth Bennet. She just doesn’t quite get the character right. She tries but it just doesn’t feel quite like Elizabeth. Jennifer Ehle, on the other hand, nails it.
Finally, someone who sees the truth! The 1995 version was so much more “authentic/true” to Ms. Austen’s novel, as well as the actual actions of people in that time period.
Given that Jane Austen was a proto feminist, today she might very well wish to be addressed and referred to as "Ms". But in her day, she would definitely wish to be known as "Miss".
While STILL managing to be its own entity as an adaptation, through the addition of the male perspectives we don’t get in the novel, but never so much that it removes the focus from Austen’s original intent
Firth's Darcy is also an introvert. He's just not of the shrivel up and die type. Which matches book Darcy. If you ever get into MBTI, Mr. Darcy is generally thought to be an INTJ.
@@drusimon915 lol, wut? 1995 is VERY clearly the most true to text adaptation, with some additions of the men's perspective in a small handful of scenes.
I have never understood the popularity of the 2005 adaptation. It is pretty to look at and more romantic (in an overblown way that is not true to the novel or time period at all), but unfaithful to both the tone and spirit of Jane Austen. 1995's version, on the other hand, is perfection.
Agreed. The 2005 version was moving too far in the direction of a bodice-ripper. 1995 was more faithful and really made the details of the book come alive.
It’s fresh and interesting and charming. Adaptation is a word that denotes flexibility. Why make another version of 1995 - which was another version of the 80s BBC version? It’s a wonderful, engaging film that has its own merit.
I have never ever commented on anything on UA-cam before, but I felt compelled to on this occasion because I absolutely 100% agree with you. I saw the 2005 film at the cinema and have never watched it again because it was just wrong, whereas the 1995 version I have watched countless times because it was brilliant. The best adaptation ever!
When the aunt arrived in the middle of the night in the 2005 version, I was done. A lady of her station would NEVER go to someone in the middle of the night!! It was like Dumbledor yelling at Harry about putting his name in the Goblet of Fire.
Perfect comparison! Both the kind of scenes that make you go, "Who are these people? Because they are certainly not the characters they are named for!"
@@marycochran3821 Um. No. No it is not true to the book - sad because the casting was great. Please re-read. Lady KdB arrives in the day. They walk in the park around the house. The exchange ensues, and Elizabeth tells her she'd been insulted in every way yadda yadda...and insists on returning to the house.... all during the day. Proper calling hours.
Sometimes I eat frozen pizza.... sometimes I eat Pizza Hut and sometimes I eat the more authentic brick oven pizza from the pizzaria down the street. I can enjoy them all.... for different times and different reasons. These two movies are the same.... it just depends on my mood, how much time I have.
Yes, but people in the Recency period had sexy thoughts about each other. I don't like characterizations of Darcy and Elizabeth that don't have a frisson of sex between them. That makes them sterile. Even Austen showed that they had a deep passion for each other through their constant verbal battles. Along with that, Darcy follows her around in a way that is more puzzling to Elizabeth than creepy. That is a show of sexual interest, and, I argue, Elizabeth is swayed somewhat by that attention. (I admire her for keeping herself grounded by discussing him with Jane and Charlotte.) Then, in addition to her "fine eyes", Austen said that he found her figure to be "light and pleasing." Elizabeth sublimates her passion with anger, which is a common trope. The sexiness is there. You just have to look for it.
I almost forgot. Austen allows Darcy and Elizabeth some humorous moments. I don't know about anyone else, but humour is one of my turn-ons, and it allows for flirtation (and more) to be expressed without being explicit.
I guess I’m in the minority because I absolutely adore the 2005 version. I do also like the 1995 one too, but something about McFadden’s shy, introverted take on Darcy spoke to me. I’m an introvert, so I completely identified with him.
There are plenty of people in these very comments who are with you and its reviews are many and consistently high. Even this video does not 'hate' on the movie. He merely points out some things that put him off it. I like that you were able to articulate why you liked it. I think that is what I have enjoyed reading in the comments. Why someone has liked what they have.
I began to watch the series cause everybody talked about it. I stopped at ep 1. The protagonist constant fake smirk is insufferable, Firth is flat, the other characters revolting. 2005 movie is a piece of art.
McFayden's Darcy is one of the best rendition of a character from the classics. I think actor and director really did an impressive job. Another one is Liv Tayler's Tatiana in Onegin. Also Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara..
I equally love the two so I get it. 2005 makes the characters much more realistic and relatable, kind of in a way a modern take of the story (can we say 2005 is modern still ...please). 1995 feels more like a period piece where the characters are of a different time. 2005 is actually how remakes/adaptations should work where the filmmaker looks at the story from a new angle. I think this is why I like both equally, they're different but both are still successful at telling the same story.
Mr Darcy is entirely wrong in the '95 version. In the book he was witty, good humoured and charismatic; always happy to have an intelligent debate. Can't reconcile Firth's portrayal with the book version at all.
@@davidsarahmccolm Always happy to have an intelligent debate with his closest friends, you mean. The book tells us that he's constantly giving offense wherever he goes. We also don't see him at his best, even among friends; he's been dragged along to an assembly where he knows only four people, only one of whom he actually likes, and we see him interacting with them for a minute or so after said ball. How much wit and good humour do you expect Colin Firth to portray at that moment? Firth's Darcy does show a more good humoured side, it's just quite subtle. He and Bingley share a moment while Bingley is dancing with Jane, where he beams over at Darcy, and Darcy rolls his eyes at him and smiles indulgently. The interaction with Elizabeth when she arrives on foot at Netherfield is quite good humoured, and while observing her playing with a dog he seems to enjoy the sight. His comment about enjoying the view of the ladies' figures as they walk is quite a risque bit of wit for an Austen novel, something you'd expect out of Wickham or Willoughby, and he certainly looks like he enjoys debating with Elizabeth about character flaws, only getting miffed when Miss Bingley is singing his praises rather than honestly engaging in the debate. If Firth's Darcy is entirely wrong, there aren't words to convey how wrong McFadden's Darcy is!
Loved both versions equally. For the earlier versions love the character development but that scene were they kiss can be explained that she likes him but also dislikes him. When her sister asked about If she had seen Mr. Bingley, Elizabeth cried. This shows some kind of attraction. In both movies, he didn’t want to dance with her but he was attracted to her right away.
I couldn’t agree with you more - the 1995 mini series is my comfort watch. The newer one suffers too, from simply not having all the characters - Bingley’s sisters and brother in law. There a whole narrative missing which gives us a deeper understanding of Jane in her interactions with Caroline Bingley and an appreciation for Charles Bingley as the provider for his sisters. We don’t get to appreciate the solemn mortification of Mary alongside her sisters or Mrs Bennett’s sister and the type of country society, with all its excitement and intrigue of the soldiers coming. Like you said - they didn’t have time for this world building in the movie, it I feel like it makes the plot a little threadbare.
I know what you mean in essence, but I can't stop watching it!! 😂😂 I reread the book too as neither of the adaptations can capture the humour in her writing.
Plus all the characters personalities were off in the 2005 version. Lizzy was too defiant, Charles Bingly was a silly puppy dog of a man, Mr. Bennet was too kind to his wife (in the book and the 1995 miniseries he is a horrible husband and not a great father except to Lizzy and Jane) and Mr Darcy is not arrogant and prideful- instead he was socialy awkward and shy- which he is not.
All points are totally valid. I’m a person that adores both. I agree 1995 is the better adaptation. I think 2005 is a more romantic experience and is intended as such, and therefore uses modern romantic devices and caters to modern taste. As wrong as the kiss is from an adaptation standpoint, Knightley and MacFadyen’s chemistry is OFF THE CHART in that scene and with the rain, they just HAD to take advantage of that romantic tension.
@@ksrt2654 I think the problem is with the word "adaptation". Are you making an adaptation of P&P or are you making a Regency era rom-com with characters who happen to be named Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy? Supposedly the director didn't read P&P or watch any previous versions. I get that he wanted a fresh vision, but of what? It's fine to modernize P&P but I doubt Austen would appreciate having her independent, spirited heroine eager to behave with integrity turned into one of many, many rom-com characters who are in a love-hate relationship that is simmering with sexual tension. It just leaves out all the nuances.
2005 was an okay movie/romcom, but it was not JA's P&P. The Bennets, although not as wealthy as Mr Darcy, were not poor, they didnt work on their farm and most certainly did NOT "dig their own damn potatoes!" 🙄 The hair/costumes were not completely period appropriate. I will say the cinematography was excellent, but thats not enough for me. Thank you for mentioning the lack of humor. The 1995 miniseries will always have my heart. I also love yhe 1996 adaptation of Persuasion.
True, but it wasn't uncommon during that time for middle-class farm families to do some of the work on their own farm if they couldn't afford the help. But you're right, the Bennets were never in that position.
I felt the same way about the fashion in the 2005 version for a long time until I learned that the director hated Regency fashion and moved the story up by about 20 years into the late 18th century. Not my favorite still but it makes more sense. Although they were by no means poor, I could see the girls tending a vegetable patch. I think that Maria kept her own gardens when she moved in with Collins in the book, probably flower gardens but probably some veggies too. This might lead me into a rabbit hole to verify!!!!
@@ElfInTheFlowers But Caroline and Maria Lucas are a step down on the class ladder from the Bennetts. Sir William Lucas was originally in Trade, and gained pretentions about being gentry once he was knighted, but is not actually a Gentleman.
While the 1995 also had some small inaccuracies when it comes to hair/costume, the 2005 one just took me out of the immersion immediately in the first scene with the modern hair and main character wardrobe of 'barely period adjacent'. I wish filmmakers would dare to shock us with period accurate hair a bit more, but they'll do everything for relatability.
Oh, i 100percent agree! The 1995 version has been my comfort movie for many years, its my go to when I can't sleep. The looks between the actors tell you exactly what they are feeling and its so much more on point than the other version.
1995 is brilliant and definitely a comfort watch for me too! 1995's 1st proposal scene is also way more shudder inducing... The sort of thing that keeps you up at night questioning everything...With your brain going remember when you said X,Y or Z !
I’m a 24-year-old female - the exact demographic that typically fawns over the 2005 film - but I 1000% agree with you. For me, my main discrepancy is that they tried to make the 2005 version “relatable” for modern audiences. In 1995 and in the book, Lizzie is both aware of the silliness of some of the etiquette and culture of her time, and she still lives in them and accepts them gracefully, and moves through them and not around them, as a smart woman would at that time. In 2005, Lizzie feels more like a “quirky girl” feminist who refuses corsets and wears her hair completely down and loose because she feels like it, and she thinks the etiquette of the time is silly. It’s so distracting and frustrating! A girl of her age at that time in her social class would never be seen out with her hair completely down and no proper undergarments; she might as well well be walking around in her actual underwear. She would be considered a social pariah and a “loose woman“. And don’t get me started on Darcy; I totally agree with your thoughts there. In the book and 1995, he’s standoffish because he’s proud, not because he’s socially anxious. He’s mature, CONFIDENT, and put together - just a little too proud. But in 2005, they decided to make him have social anxiety instead, to be “relatable”, and I hate it. Firth’s version is one of the most attractive male fictional characters I can think of, and the 2005 version is completely unattractive to me. But he’s attractive to a lot of Gen Z girls my age, because they have social anxiety like no generation ever before them. Just… Thank you for voicing my thoughts. It’s so frustrating that most of the young female Jane Austen fandom thinks the 2005 version is the greatest Jane Austen movie there is.
Yes to all of this. I actually like the 2005 film quite a bit, despite it being a fundamental misread of the text. In fact, there's so much right with it that it's extra annoying they got the main characters and central conflict so wrong! :)
@@think_thing - I'm curious what about your line "there's so much right with it". Maybe it's just been a while since I read the book, but I am struggling to think of anything right with it. It's a pretty film, but it feels to me like a high school play of P&P where the teens want to add a "modern twist" because it's not relatable. But if a story from that far back in time is relatable in almost any way to modern feminist women, I don't think it's done right. All I can see is that the costuming isn't done right, the hair isn't done right, the attitudes of the girls aren't done right, the male characters aren't done right... But I DO want to understand what you like about it! :)
@@milo_thatch_incarnate Well, taken as a work that's separate from the novel, the film is well acted, beautifully shot, the cast is amazing, and these characters are compelling -- just not in exactly the same ways Austen's protagonists were. I mentioned this in the video too, but there's also a really interesting pathos in the performances of the absurd characters -- Mrs. Bennet especially. Again, I think it misses some of the punch of the comedy, but it's a perfectly cromulent choice in a story like this to make Mrs. Bennet more of a tragicomic character, and I do think it works, narratively, it just misses the mark in terms of adapting Austen. Also Mr. Bennet is far too likeable (in 1995 too, I think), but I actually kind of love that change. Again, I vastly prefer 1995 in most respects and it's the one I'll keep watching forever, but I do credit 2005 with being a good movie, just not a good adaptation.
I hate the “will they won’t they”scene of the 2005 version with a burning passion. While I enjoy its atmosphere better than the 1995 version, it’s a truth universally acknowledged that the 1995 version is the definitive P&P adaptation.
Ugh. 2005. That's like they totally missed the entire point of the book. He's not "shy" or whatever… He's literally an ass. Full of pride, full of himself, arrogant etc. He has this huge big long speech at the end of the book where he explains all of this, which they conveniently cut for a "walking through the fields in their underwear" scene. Was an absolute travesty. The score was lovely, the cinematography was very well done. But they absolutely shat all over pride and prejudice. They didn't even bother to try to get the costumes right, or the hair. Or the entire point of the book…
@@TPaine76He manages it, haha. He actually says in the book that he doesn’t have the talent for conversing easily with strangers. But he’s prideful in his upbringing and what he considers better breeding etc.
@@NsTheName Thanks. I agree with all this. I guess my issue is with the word “shy”. I tend to think of a “shy person” as being modest and reserved. If they’re uncomfortable in social settings, it’s usually because they lack self confidence. At the beginning of the novel, Darcy is, *by his own admission* someone who is unabashedly prideful. He thinks he is better than other people because of his wealth and breeding and he doesn’t bother “pretending” that he isn’t. I think this is the main reason he’s uncomfortable in social situations. He “abhors pretense” and to Darcy, things like small talk or dancing with someone you don’t want to, or, you know, NOT mentioning all the reasons you almost didn’t propose to someone *while* you’re proposing to them seems somehow dishonest rather than common sense politeness. It’s true that he doesn’t quite know how to behave around people. But it’s equally true that he thinks learning or “practicing “ these social skills would be dumb and pointless. I feel like a shy person, on the other hand, might just not understand social etiquette or might not be good at it, but they wouldn’t scorn the very idea of social etiquette as “beneath them”. Matthew McFadden’s Darcy might be considered shy. Colin Firth’s Darcy certainly wouldn’t. I think this is why I prefer the 1995 version. It seems closer to the character depicted in the novel. I think that the 2005 version tries to make Darcy more appealing by attributing his social ineptitude to being shy and awkward rather than a result of his arrogance. But by doing that, it also makes Elizabeth’s ability to change him much less dramatic. Sorry for the essay length answer. Your comment really forced me to really think about why I didn’t like the newer version. I appreciate that.
I actually caught the Keira Knightly version on TV the other afternoon and thought EXACTLY what you have just said about that scene in the rain. It jars in every way possible. As for the sublime 1995 TV adaptation, I have watched it many, many times, own it on DVD and really believe it cannot be bettered. Lovely to catch your video. Thank you for posting.
2005 has beautiful cinematography and actors. But it's too "romantic" in the old fashioned sense, something Austen enjoyed but also regularly lampooned. It feels like the film Marianne Dashwood would have seen loved and overly identified with before her character growth. It reads to me more like a Bronte adaption than Austen. Austen's earlier novels very much find humour and pathos in the difference between the excess of gothic sensibilities and how people and society actually operate. A lesson in separation of fantasy from realism. See also Northanger Abbey and the very very funny juvenilia 'Love and Friendship'
Thank you for an intelligent, nuanced, and thoroughly Austen-centric review of the 2005 movie. Many of the other opinions in the comments seem to forget that each adaptation is, in fact, and adaptation. And, as such, the screenwriter and director are free to give their interpretation of the story and characters, regardless of how they are represented in the original work. Perhaps Austen would not have approved of the 2005 production and would have preferred the earlier mini-series versions. I, however, think the somewhat modernized, more romanticized Knightly/MacFadyen version was as close to perfect as one can get with a movie adaptation. However, my very, very favorite movie adaptation of an Austen work is the 2020 adaptation of Emma with Anya Taylor-Joy as the titular character. Utterly sumptuous in set design and costuming, beautifully rendered love story, and the humor is off the charts.
"It feels like the film Marianne Dashwood would have seen loved and overly identified with before her character growth" holy crap this is the perfect description of this movie 👏🏼😅
I hated that proposal scene too, and thought K.K. said her lines so fast and without feeling, like she wanted to get it said in case she forgot something, whereas J.E. said hers quickly and with excellent diction, but with contempt and anger... perfectly, in other words! I LOVED the cast of 1995, especially Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennett. I've also watched this enough to recite it, and never saw the 2005 again. It actually irritated me. Thanks for your video!
Yes. I could not agree more. I’ve watched 1995 soooo many times and only watched 2005 once. Only want to watch it once. Now that you mentioned it I think I’ll watch 1995 again.
Yes! I felt like she did that constantly throughout the movie. She was shoving out her lines without depth or warmth as quickly as she could. I kept thinking, "Is this their method for trying to fit as much as possible in their tiny allotted time frame for this film?" And then the supposedly near-end scene where she just says some line about her hands being cold. What on earth?!
@@tee323 The bits and pieces I've seen of the 2005 version turned me off completely, have never seen it in its entirety. In my opinion, totally miscast, and after the 1995 version, should never have been redone. What's the matter with Keira Knightley's mouth? And Mathew McFayden looks uncomfortable in every scene, where as Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth ARE Elizabeth and Darcy.
Finally! Pride and Prejudice is my favorite among Jane Austen's books. Elizabeth Bennet seemed to be a precious character to Jane when I read the book. So bright and vivacious when compared to the more sedate women of those times. One of the worst scenes for me was watching Kiera mope in the drab weather. "It was not in her nature, however, to increase her vexations by dwelling on them." was such an important insight into Elizabeth's character. While the 1995 version did take liberties, they seemed to be changes that Ms. Austen herself could have considered. I keep seeing so many reviews on how wonderful the 2005 version is. I remember watching the 1995 version over and over AND reading the book again to get the 2005 one out of my system. Thank you for this video.....🥰🥰🥰
The depth of character and nuance conveyed in 1995 is astonishing. The succinct artistic approach of the 2005 is also a wonder to behold. I deeply agree with all your points... especially pertaining to Darcy. Although I will say, unfaithful as that rain scene is to the book, I can't fully bring myselg to loathe it... just purely from a cinematic perspective. So I will still happily rewatch either version.
Every Christmas evening after the festivities are done and for the next week until New Years my wife and I put the 1995 in the blue ray and watch it on repeat. It is truly great and the measuring stick by which I judge any attempt at adaptation. Thank you for the great review and comparison.
It lost me earlier than that. I stopped watching when Lizzie overheard Darcy saying he didn't want to dance with her and she crawled off into a corner to have a cry about it instead of finding it hilarious like she did in the book. I turned the movie off, gave the DVD to the thrift store, and haven't watched it since. This video confirms that was the right call.
Exactly. On one hand, I get how Charlotte is making a deliberate choice and the intent of the filmmakers to make her look like a strong, modern woman. At the same time, just wait until Charlotte wants to express a thought of her own or be her own woman in any way. Mr. Collins is mean, petty, and spiteful. I'd certainly worry about her. Charlotte isn't wrong to be worried about stability and how she'll support herself. But Lizzie isn't wrong that being a partner to a nasty individual is no recipe for long-term happiness or a stable or happy home for any children, and Charlotte won't always be able to persuade Mr. Collins to go play where she doesn't have to deal with him.
While agree with this and love the 1995 version, I think the actor playing Charlotte was better in the 2005 version. 1995 Charlotte was too wooden. I couldn't see her as Elizabeth's best friend. They had no chemistry in the 1995 version. Even so, 1995 P&P is the gold standard.
I can't stand to watch the 2005 version. Went to the theater to watch it, and when it was over I popped my 1995 version into the DVD player to cleanse my brain.
Best video on the 2005 movie I've seen. Great to see you don't completely hate on it either.Really explains the main issues I was never able to articulate - which I can now. So bear with me please! My main gripe with 2005 p&p is that Lizzie feels and looks too modern. And I find myself just really annoyed with Kiera Knightly, which is a personal thing, but I loved her in Pirates so..don't know what happened. Their take of Lizzie just feels too quirky girl as you say. And though a lot of her lines are from the book a lot of them also feel like a "spunky" girl giving out attitude instead of cleverly placed comments. Darcy I don't mind. Although I never could quite put my finger on what was different. He is almost fundementally different here. And while I don't dislkie that, it kinda feels like it's missing the point because his only flaw is shyness. He's not actually overcoming any pride (also it makes him a little soft) Still I think there is so much right about this movie as @think_thing said that it makes me wish I enjoyed it more. I mean it's beautiful. It's light and airy and the shots are gorgeous. I love a lot of the main cast. The sisters are all lovely. This Mrs Bennet was actually charming enough for me to really like her. Mr. Bennet is great. Bingley is probably my favourite with Collins coming at a close second. All characters I feel were done equally well in 1995 (although perhaps Bingley..whose redhead 2005 counterpart I just find too endearing and so prefer). BUT sooo much of the comedy is missed. Collins doesn't get as much time to shine and Lady Catherine although played by a famous actress I think is done a disservice. There are 2 parts where I think the movie falls apart. (I have my gripes with the rain scene, but it's a guilty pleasure). First is the scene right after the rain scene where Lizzie goes home and stares at herself in the mirrof for the entire day. Darcy is shown bringing the letter and she just continues staring. WHY?! I still can't for the life of me understand. She hates him. She has had no new information to suddenly feel guilty. Her prejudice is what is leading her at the moment. If I recall correctly she even feels a but triumohant of her handling of the situation in the book. So what is this scene? Second is the scene in Lady Catherine's house. It's boring, and weird and completely drained of humour. The directing here also boggles my mind. Darcy and his cousin are just standing at one corner of the room the entire time. Why? Perhaps it is visual comedy but it just takes me out of it everytime because it doesn't make sense! Lady Catherine is rich she has plenty of furniture and surely wouldn't have her 2 noble nephews stand while the peasantry sit. All the humour is sucked out of this by Lady C.'s strange acting, the weird directing and the cutting of so many funny lines. If anywhere they should be using exact lines it would be here. Anyway. I've never hated the 2005 movie but I can't fangirl over it like everyone else. And I wish I could! How great would it be to have 2 masterful adaptations of p&p? And it comes so close! I do still rewatch it with my sister,who is a big fan, and jusy love the sets and scenery but always end the movie feeling annoyed. Oh! Also. That "iconic" Darcy line "I love love love you. You have bewitched me body and soul" - hate it. Why did someone think they could rewrite Austen and why did everyone go with it? Again feels too modern and just...falls flat. I cringe everytime he says love 3 times. Darcy would never
"Darcy is shown bringing the letter and she just continues staring. WHY?!" I've always assumed this was a filmic flex -- like it was a dramatic way to show how Lizzie is stunned by her encounter with Darcy and him leaving the letter there is just how she saw it in her mind's eye, not how it would have actually looked from an independent POV in the room. (?)
Really enjoyed this comment. I agree that generalised 'hate' towards the 2005 adaptation is just unnecessary and it is much better to be reasoned. I love how you comment on what you would like to enjoy more and what specific things put you off. It makes your critique clear and understandable. This is the kind of comment that if someone wanted to they could learn from and apply to make a better version in the future. Whereas just I HATE it is not useful.
Love 1995 Pride and Prejudice. For me, Colin Firth is the perfect Mr Darcy. I also love Persuasion with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. It also came out in 1995 and is very true to the book. A great love story ❤❤❤
I just nodded the entire time! I grew up with both the 1995 and the 2005 adaptations and must say that in my family the conclusion is, that the 1995 version is generally better but for „beginners“ 2005 is probably a better start. There are scenes in both versions, that my sister and I love for example: in the 2005 version the ball at netherfield, where the people vanish. This is just an awesome scene. In the 1995 version there are so many beloved bits and pieces, that it would be quite tricky to choose one as an example. Which in itself says a lot. What is also amazing with the 1995 version is that everytime you watch it, you seem to notice a new nuance or detail. Over all I loved the video and I am sorry that my comment got so long ( didn’t intnd for that to happen 😅) nevertheless I agreed with most of what you said and want to thank you for this video 😊 Lots of love ❤
BLESS YOU!!! I absolutely agree that 1995's BBC is the very best adaptation. I am a former actress and a current writer and I have written and directed a stage adaptation of P&P. Thank you for getting it! (The one thing I loved about the 2005 version was the music. That's basically it.)
Lovely to see so much love for the 1995 version from you and in the comments. While there were moments in the 2005 film that I could appreciate, so much of it was not the book. I was not particularly enamoured of either the portrayal of Elizabeth or Darcy, but what I particularly disliked was the film turning Mr Bennet into almost a Yeoman farmer. A shortened time in which to tell the story was no excuse for that decision and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the story.
I have to agree, especially about the tone. I found the 2005 version overwrought and have never wanted to watch it again. The BBC production on the other hand makes full use of Austin's humor and sense of fun that make her novels so well worth re-reading.
Hard agree. And to heck with the six hours length, I know it so well I can have it pla ting in the background like it's an audio book. Plus, that music, such nostalgia. There is a UA-camr I just found who showed how the 1995 Jane Bennett was cast perfectly, the actress fit the beauty standards of the time ... despite me thinking they are all lovely women.
Thanks for this video. I agree with you on the 1995 version being the absolute best - but I am chagrined and dismayed that you didn't mention one of the main reasons for why this is so - Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett. Why does her performance at the center of this production get overlooked!
@@ElaineMaisner I never understood that either, she’s the best Elizabeth Bennett, not just compared to Knightly (who’s great in many other roles) but all the other P & P films too. Tbh I think it’s one of the most accurate portrayals from any book
So right about Jennifer Ehle. She's marvelous. Even Colin Firth (rather miffed) said so in an interview, when they kept asking him about all the changes Darcy goes through,, and he pointed out that SHE has go to through far more changes. Jennifer Ehle is luminous.
Love this! Earned the sub. I 100% agree with your takes, especially that horrible proposal scene. Kiera was FAR too venomous and Darcy too pathetic in that moment. The 1995 version was so much better in part because Darcy's delivery was so awkward and frustrated, which--when combined with the deeper understanding of all the other characters--made Lizzie's disgust that much more understandable. I've seen that version at least ten times. Thanks for this!
Comparing a two-hour movie to a six-hour mini-series is unfair. I like them both but Matthew McFadyen melts my chocolates in a way that Colin Firth never manages.
The 1995 adaptation is my favorite. I love Jennifer Erle. I rarely watch the 2005 version. The ending seems straight out of Hallmark. But I still watch the longer version.
Thank you for your validation of my own prejudice! From the music, to the casting and Andrew Davies' script the 1995 Pride and Prejudice was a tour de force. There are aspects of the film that are amazing, but these reside mainly in the production and the cinematography which reflects the difference in budget. I think part of the problem with the film is that a) Deborah Moggach is a fine author in her own right (and thus inevitably some of her own 'tone' filters through) b) the setting is almost a century later than the BBC version. One of the things that I was surprised about when I was reading about Jane Austen's books is that she was writing about class of people that were the equivalent of modern-day billionaires (maybe a slight exaggeration, but not by much) and this aspect of the privileged classes was not evident in the film - indeed Mr, Bennet was portrayed as a 'country bumpkin', rather than the privileged gentleman that he was. (That said this aspect of the film was particularly sumptuous so I was willing to overlook it!). The anachronisms of the film grate - Lady Catherine de Bourgh's nighttime coach trip to discourage speculation about a match between Elizabeth and Darcy for example - and the dialogue a bit too modern for my taste, compared with the restraint of the BBC adaptation. I'll shut up now, before this comment becomes 'War and Peace'!
I’m so glad the algorithm put you in front of me! Absolutely correct. I call the 2005 the rom-com version of Austen’s precise novel. The first time I tried to watch it, I didn’t get past the ridiculous dress they put on Kelly Reilly. The second time I snapped it off at the scene you assess here. Also, I found it hard to believe that the Bennets had pigs in, or around the house. Did anyone on that project not know how much pigs stink? Wrinkly clothes. Death Comes to Pemberley is equally bad with its "Elizabeth is a hausfrau" style. Dear Jane is wagging her finger at us I'm sure.
I enjoy the 1995 version with Colin Firth so much, even though his character can be quite maddening. I also enjoy the time to develop characters and the length to adequately display everyone’s character in a more meaningful way.
I struggled to watch the 2005 version because I found that Keira Knightley's Lizzy was actually... the perfect Lydia 😵💫 found it very difficult to reconcile with that! It's almost like the movie is "what would Pride and Prejudice be like if Darcy fell for Lydia instead?" 🤦♀️
Oh my goodness that is such a good take on the 2005 version!!!! She makes a great Lydia. I don’t think the three youngest Bennet sisters were well cast, dressed or portrayed in the 2005 version and so the movie lacks the frustrating family dynamics of 1995
I’m surprised I haven’t seen this video before, because, as I write this, it is six months old. But I have to say how delighted I am to find someone else who feels exactly as I do about these two versions of Pride and Prejudice. I’ve never tried to analyze my distaste for the Knightly-McFadden version. These are two of my favourite actors and I just shelved my unshared aversion and disappointment. I’m used to loving Jane Austen in quiet solitude. Thank you so much for sharing.
I think someone described the 2005 Rejection Scene very well by saying Elizabeth doesn't act like a Modern Woman by Regency Era Standards, one who is a bit more outspoken but still very much restrained by the culture she was raised in, but like a Modern Woman as in 21st century woman, raised in our times who got transported back to a different era. and I agree, she's in Darcy's face, and raises her voice and yells. It's something I'd rather expect in a contemporary romance. Where they'd be standing on a street and she then drives off in her car. Or maybe even slaps him before she leaves.
Spot on! Elizabeth is so unladylike in 2005. She’s a gentleman’s daughter for goodness sake! Why do they have KE acting like Elizabeth is a low bred woman? Don’t even get me started with the missing bonnets and loose hair. It’s like they weren’t even trying.
@@whatreallymatters571 You’re right about not every woman acting in the same way. Elizabeth and Jane were ladylike though. Even though Elizabeth is witty and reproaches Mr Darcy for his behavior she still has the respect of the people around her because she is ladylike unlike her sisters Kitty and Lydia. The family loses respect and dignity because of the actions of those two girls. Lydia likely will never change and will always attract unsavory people. Just like today people will judge you by your character and actions.
I don't mind her getting upset in the proposal scene - she starts off being stand-offish but technically polite and as the conversation goes on, her emotions take over, it seems very natural in the circumstances and it plays well with the overall tone of the movie. What really irks me is when, earlier in the movie when Jane gets ill at Bingley's, she says 'perhaps she will die of shame for having such a mother' - now THAT is something Lizzy would never say, it's so unnecessarily mean and cruel, even when we know (and Lizzy knows) that Mrs Bennet is not a very reasonable person. That line really rubbed me in the wrong way.
@@whatreallymatters571 well, there were girls like lydia who didn't act like that back then. Lizzie was particularly branded as someone who acknowledged the ridiculousness of some parts of her time but also cleverly abided by them. back then the consequences for going against the norm would have been digging your own grave and many earlier feminists indeed had very miserable lives. they didn't end up marrying a Mr. Darcy though...........
I watched about 20 minutes of the 2005 adaptation and that's about all I could take. Lizzie was portrayed in a way that felt _very_ Americanized, and although I'm really not a stickler about anachronistic styling, in that particular film, the bangs were just way too distracting. The whole thing looked and felt late 20th century, rather than early 19th.
@@LoreneSauro a good wig wouldn't have looked like a wig. I've seen a few "which character is wearing a wig" shorts and was surprised at how natural a good wig can look.
@EyeLean5280 I'm American (not sure if you are or not) but you are absolutely correct. The 2005 version feels very much like a Hollywood creation where the 1995 feels authentically English.
I’m so glad you called out that scene in the rain. That was the singular moment where I just couldn’t enjoy the film anymore. It felt like it really ruined a very powerful character conflict, which then undermined the mental and physical work that Darcy would have to do later in the story.
Me too! The acid and malicious delivery of her refusal was probably intended to convey sexual tension, but it’s an inaccurate representation of her character, which is one of intelligence and self control
Untrue. When the 1995 was advertised for the tv i was 12 (I'm pretty sure it was the beginning of the year) I got the book out of the library so I côuld read it before the series started.. It is still my favourite. I've owned it on video (vhs) and DVD. And I also have it as an ebook, tree book and speaky book (Rosamund Pike is an excellent narrator)
1995 not comparable with any adaptation. It is TOP-NOTCH and I rewatched it 999 times😂Who ever is Lover of pride prejudice book, they know that 2005 get wrong with Darcy character and personally I don't like Elisabeth interpretation as well. But understand, movie time is limited for development of Character.
David Rintoul is so animatronic that he reminds me of the Disneyland version of the Hall of Presidents exhibit from the early 1980’s. So robotic and void of personality. That production was the most faithful to the book, but so emotionless. But, it’s still better than the 2005 version.
@@lauravranes5230 I think the 1980 version was the most faithful to the book in part because of that performance by David Rintoul -- the ideal or perfect English male aristocrat of that era (and Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy was written to be the very embodiment of that ideal) controlled himself in public to the point that he DID seem almost perfectly emotionless. And I think that is what David Rintoul portrayed. In my view, David Rintoul's Mr. Darcy was a man who was feeling strong emotions but kept them hidden under a heavy surface crust of indifference formed by a lifetime of aristocratic conditioning. But the emotions still peeked out - particularly around Elizabeth Bennett. But it is a point that could be argued either way. Colin Firth has always been one of my favourite modern British actors and I do think his Mr. Darcy was also superb. I thoroughly enjoyed the 1995 miniseries. But the less said about 2005 the better...
After watching the 2005 version a couple of times, and the 1995 version about 25 times, I bought the book and read it cover-to-cover. 1995 all the way!!! In fact, even the 1995 version had to cut a few things that were in the book, particularly at the end. The book is great, but the 1995 version is even more enjoyable because it got the tone and characters correct, but moves at a pace which allows you to be entertained by the acting and ambiance of the sets in addition to the plotline. Love it!
I bought the book after watching the first episode of 1995 version and read the whole of it before the next episode was shown. I just knew after this one episode that this series is something special and liked everything about it, beginning from the opening credits and the music, the costumes, the acting to the story itself. After reading the book, I got hooked on Jane Austen and read all her books, and watched all the available TV and film adaptations. The 1990s were especially amazing as there were so many great ones released, which I still like to rewatch.
The 2005 version feels like P&P run at break-neck speed. If you didn’t know the story at all you would be left behind wondering ‘what’s going on’. Unfortunately the 2005 version is my first experience with P&P and I’m surprised that I didn’t give up on it. A good friend recommended the 1995 miniseries and I’ve never been more in anyone’s debt. My children have grown up with both and will always watch the 1995 over 2005.
Sigh, Ciaran Hinds! That book resonated with me. Younger sister of the "pretty" one; the practical one that is also a dreamer. I thought Jane Austen was writing about me!
The 1985 version will always be my comfort watch but i have a strong affection for the 1980 version. Elizabeth Garvie is my Lizzie Bennet and the Mr Collins is a better fit to the novel. For me, the 2005 film forgets that its supposed to be a conmedy of manners not a romcom. I can forgive the widening of the social gaps and Charlotte's explanation of why she accepts Mr C, some clarity to those not familiar with the Regency social order is necessary. But the ending is just weird and would have had both people locked away on their estates had they acted that way for real
Agree 100%. The 1995 version preserves the spirit of the book much better. It shows the nuanced emotions and is so much more subdued and controlled, with underlying emotions, exactly like Jane Austen’s England. The film is a disservice to the book. The casting, though of high quality, is in many places wrong. Darcy’s actor has a vulnerable look. Elizabeth is much too over the top. And even though Judy Dench is a miraculous actress, she is completely miscast here. Her character is supposed to be ridiculous and even pathetic. The mere presence of Judy Dench commands respect and shrewdness. Not at all fitting. This is another example for how Hollywood takes a piece of expertly written literature and tries to blockbuster it by using miscast stars, heightened action and emotion. Thank god for the 1995 version. So amazing.
I would absolutely binge-watch the 1995 P&P miniseries with you (and try very hard not to quote along). It is the best adaptation of any Jane Austen work to-date.
I'm bing-watching 1995 version every now and then as well but in my mind 1995 Persuasion with Amanda Root and Chiaran Hinds is the best Austin adaptation ever.
To me it's tied with Persuasion (Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds) for best adaptation. And although they're not perfect adaptations I do love the Emma Thompson S&S 2nd, and the Frances O'Connor and Johnny Lee Miller Mansfield Park 3rd (since the first two are tied).
@@Blaize24 '95 S&S and Persuasion are very close seconds to P&P. I guess it isn't totally fair- P&P had 6 hours to expand upon Ms. Austen's excellence.
THANK YOU! I agree with you wholeheartedly! While I admire so many of the actors in the 2005 version, I saw it once and have no desire to see it again. But I've watched the 1995 version easily 20 times over the years. When I'm sick, or grieving a loss, I put it on and settle in with great joy. Superb in every aspect!
I watched the 2005 movie and saw some mistakes, but after reading the book I felt like the movie didn't do it justice. One of the biggest problems is that they focus so much on their romantic relationship that they leave out many things. Darcy seems more shy than proud and Elizabeth is supposed to be cheerful, but in the film she seems to laugh because she has a nervous tic.
P&P 2005 premiered on the day of my friend's birthday. She wanted to see it, so we did. I was fresh after rereading the book and was cringing in certain parts. This proposal scene was bad, but the final nail to the coffin was the scene where in the end Darcy comes to the Bennets' estate in the state of half-undress, Lizzie is in her night gown, kisses his hand... It was so out of place, out of tune, out of left field, out of everything I audibly groaned and hid my face. Neither of them would do that. It was bad. Real bad. There are things I liked, sure. Cinematography was outstanding, so was the music, costumes and sets, some characters were played spot on. But I only rewatched it once, years later to see, if it really was what I remembered or if I was *ekhem* prejudiced, cause it wasn't BBC's adaptation. Dear reader, I was not prejudiced. So for me it's a mediocre adaptation. There are worst ones, of course, but this one just ain't it. I'll stick to Ehle and Firth.
Absolutely agree with you. Also, I felt like Darcy's declaration about "bewitched be body and soul" was coming on too strong and felt out of character for me. I couldn't give this movie a second watch.
Isn't it possible that you are judging the 2005 version so harshly BECAUSE you had seen the 1995 series? It's sort of like watching a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company and then seeing a college production afterward. You would say that the college presentation was no good, even though the students are really trying their best.
It's a good thing for Darcy that Elizabeth just HAPPENED to be standing outside before dawn! Imagine walking all the way over that atmospheric landscape, reaching Longbourn, realizing everyone was still in bed because OF COURSE everyone is still in bed, and then walking moodily home again!
@@aislingrvr Right? There were so meny of those inconsistencies that just chipped away at my enjoyment. I get that they wanted to make it for the modern audience (director said so in an interview), but you either stick to the rules ot the period or you throw them out completely and make family friendly Bridgerton.
As a big fan of the book I agree lol 😂like sure it wasn't the most accurate but that on screen chemistry.. the cinematography.. the drama. I can't not like it
The 1995 version is my favorite and I think the most faithful to the time, context, and book. I will never not want to watch it. The 2005 is pretty to look at, the music is beautiful, and it’s aesthetically pleasing, but the story is completely lost. I’ve watched it once out of curiosity and that was enough.
Finally a view of the 2005 version that I can share in, every sentiment and every nuance. This video led me to subscribe to your channel. I, too, have watch the A&E version far too many times to count. And I never got the motivation to rewatch the 2005 version again, though I can still remember some of the beautiful cinematography to this day. I share in your abhorrence of the marriage proposal scene by Mr. Darcy. It was sorely lacking in accurate interpretation, though it was beautiful in its own right.
I agree completely. I honestly can't remember how many times I've watched the 1995 version, and it never gets old. I have watched the 2005 version, but have no wish to watch again. Some of the scenes in 1995 are so deeply realized that I notice new aspects with each new viewing. The 2005 version is not bad, but there simply isn't time and space to give it that kind of depth.
Other film versions lack the "time and depth" of the miniseries, but still stay true to the themes and characters. The Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version, for example. It doesn't hold a candle to the miniseries, but it is faithful to Lizzie's character and keeps her integrity and sincerity.
I totally agree with your thoughts. I've come to accept 2005 movie is just a cinematic fanfiction. It is unfortunate they didn't go farther in rethinking the story because their Mr. Darcy breaks the original plot. If they wanted to reimagine Mr. Darcy, they had to reimagine everything else too.
Ik ben zo blij dat iemand eindelijk is iemand het verschil tussen de serie en de film duidelijk maakt. De serie is trouw aan het book. Terwijl de film een overdreven dramatisch sausje heeft gekregen. En al mag Judy Dench een fantastische actrice zijn. Haar versie van lady Catherine the Burgh, mist totaal de dwaze zichzelf belangrijk makende versie uit het boek.
I've seen and love both versions equally. That "almost kiss" was done for women; no matter how far it strayed from proper British etiquette for that time period, most female viewers leaned in to that moment! Beautifully crafted and plucking the heartstrings!
The vast majority of commenters here are women who disagree with you. And even though I am a man, I do see the appeal of the scene, I just don't think it's a scene that belongs in Pride and Prejudice.
No, the "almost kiss" was done because it is what the director, who btw never read the original novel, thought women would like. And as a woman, I hate it. If someone who had just purposely ruined the lives of one of my sisters proposed to me, I would be beyond furious, and kissing them would be the farthest thing from my mind.
I’ve grown to love the 2005 version, the scenery alone makes it wonderful but I also really love Jane the best in this one. (And because this version is loved by my daughters I’ve watched it several times.) There’s no question though that the 1995 version is my absolute favorite- I’ve watched it more times than I can keep count of.
Love this comment especially how the fact there are specific other people that you share it with that gives it special added enjoyment. I feel that way about multiple pieces of entertainment and art. There are something that I specially associate with my mother and my elder sister and things I associate with my brother or my wife and my children. Engaging in story or art is not an isolated experience or at least I don't think it should be. Just loved that little snippet from your comment.
Let me just put this to you: me, at 14yo, in Vietnam, was totally in love with hk drama, stumbled upon this show randomly on Vietnamese channel, that was airing at like 8-9am on a Saturday! Without knowing its schedule, and i got hooked after like 30mins or maybe at best 1hr (it’s showing 1 episode at a time), I would wake up early, turn on the tv on Sunday, and every Saturday after just to check for the schedule, and proceed to watch it uninterrupted by preparing my favourite breakfast to have while watching it! And it took me a few times to actually complete the series, because I didn’t know the schedule, but I would check my Saturday now and then, n when it’s on, I have my eyes set on the tv for the next few weeks. That is how good this series is! I have watched it at least 5 times when I was young. Came back and watched it again and again for at least another 7 times after the movie came out. Still loving this series so much. It’s truly the best P&P adaptation, period! On contrary, the first time I watched the movie, it felt like they have a marathon to run. The dialogue is on speed, and makes it laughable. Knowing how big the story is, as an audience, you knew they have a clock to run against, but still, it throws you off so much you can’t enjoy the story, because again, the bullet train needs to make it to the station. And then there is something about the relationship between movie Darcy and Lizzy that just doesn’t work for me. I tried to feel the chemistry, but I couldn’t. The way they represent the dialogues distract their acting, makes the whole thing feel unreal, ingenue.
I put the 2005 into the “for fun” category of remakes like the recent Emma film. It’s an entertaining watch if you don’t mind the changes and it’s overall just really gorgeous. They seemed to really push the angle of Lizzie as Keira Knightly instead of the reverse and therefore they made Darcy a big ol softie to balance out her modern personality and appeal to audiences who want a sweet romantic guy. I argue it results in a less interesting story arc but hey, they have a nice moments like the dancing scene. I enjoy watching the 2005 for the settings, cinematography and the interesting ways they’ve chosen to write each character so that they each get concentrated down and given some very quotable lines such as, “what excellent boiled potatoes”. But the 1995 will always be the standard!
OMG Thank you! I've never been able to understand why I can't stand Kiera Knightly as Elizabeth Bennett. It's not like I think she did a bad job, and I genuinely like Kiera Knightly, so it's not that I can't stand her, so what was my problem? "They seemed to really push the angle of Lizzie as Keira Knightley instead of the reverse" hits the nail on the head!
@@janeldavis905 Lizzie 2005 characterization is the opposite of how Lizzie is supposed to be. When she hears Darcy put her down for the first time, she slinks off to cry instead of laughing. When she rejects Mr. Darcy, she isn't being honest, she's vainly attempting to deny her desire to kiss him. They essentially give us a Lizzie who is exactly like Mr. Collins thought she was.
With respect, the vast majority of commenters here are both "ladies" and in agreement with me. I'm just as capable of enjoying romantic tension as my Austen-fan-sisters and I think that tension is wildly misplaced in this scene.
One of my favorite versions is the 1980 BBC mini-series of Pride and Prejudice. The cast is wonderful and I really enjoy how the actress portrays Elizabeth Bennet. I do also watch and rewatch the 1995 version. I was given a gift set of the mini-series for Christmas one year and it has a lovely book with behind the scenes information. The 2005 version is good for when I don't have the time for a mini-series fix of Pride and Prejudice but I do want a little bit of it. I really enjoyed your video. Thanks for making it!
Agreed, the 1995 version is superior and very re-watchable. It introduces the Bennet family and their world so well that even people who don't know the story can keep up, which can be a problem with period pieces. As far as best adaptations of Jane Austen's novels, Persuasion (the 1995 version) is my personal favorite. ❤
I love the 1995 Pride and Prejudice with Erle, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility, the 1995 Persuasion with Hinds, and Emma with Mark Strong . I am not a Paltrow fan.
Oh yes, this scene made me dislike this adaptation to the point that I did not want to rewatch it. But my reasons for disliking the scene have been for a different reason. Lizzy comes off as way too aggressive and almost hateful. It didn't feel like the real Lizzy to me at all. While 1995 was firm in her rejection, I could always feel her warm, caring, and intelligent character underneath. Keira Knightley's performance is missing Lizzy's charm and warmth throughout the whole movie and the rejection scene to me is the peak that shows it the most.
I love the 2005 film and so I was initially skeptical when you said it didn't match up to the BBC adaptation, but as soon as you started talking you had me. I had the same objections to the 2005 film (especially the under-serving of the Wickham storyline) but attributed it to being the best they could do in a film. I just had actually forgotten all my objections because the movie is so dang beautiful. I also do think Keira Knightley plays an amazing Elizabeth and it's hard for me to imagine better. Similar actually for Darcy but Firth is every bit the actor if not moreso, and I do agree that the approach to the character is truer to the novel. I've never seen the BBC series! But now I will for sure. Thanks for the video!
I saw the 1995 version and loved it. When the movie came out, I waited to see it. I, too, think it seemed rush, and particularly agree about the scene you hate. But, I like the 95 version because I think it displays Elizabeth’s disdain for Darcy the way Elizabeth would, biting, yet she seemingly contained her anger and put it into an eloquent rebuttal of his affection. Yet, he could no doubt see her practical hatred underneath those words.
If you've read the book then you probably don't like the 2005 film. The joy of Austen is her language and whilst they couldn't keep all of it, to rewrite many of the speeches is badly done. Mr Bennet is a man who regrets his marriage and would sooner laugh at his children than play happy families, the changes to his character is the worst thing the film did. Mr Bingley acts like an imbecile, not an affable gentleman. Mrs Bennet employs a cook and yet they're practically living in a farmyard, that's not right. I agree about the proposal scene, it's strange, going more Bronte than Austen, pathetic fallacy etc. I think I'll stick with 1995 or for 'Persuasion' also the 1995 Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root.
I equally love the 1995 and 2005 Persuasion films, but I can't with the 2005 Pride & Prejudice movie. The Pride and Prejudice 1995 series is by far the best version!
The problem with character arcs in movies is that they inherently have to be gentler. If you see someone being a jerk at the 20-minute mark, you're not going to want to root for them an hour later. *Especially* when it's a love story. By contrast, in a book you have 100's of pages to change your mind. In a tv-show you have episode after episode to gently walk to a new conclusion. I think both the decision to make Mr. Darcy nicer AND the decision to make Elizabeth's rejection gentler where deliberate choices to help suit the movie medium. I really think that some stories just do need room to breath, and unfortunately, they don't always get that these days...
i agree with everything you said. I have no desire to see the 2005 version again but have watch the 1995 at least 100 times and hope to watch 100 more.
You are spot on. Well said. Also, 1995 made a point to cast actors whose looks were accurate for the time period, and the way the way that they were described in the novel. The costuming and hairstyles were far more accurate for the time period, as well. The mannerisms of the characters in the 1995 adaptation were more accurate, as were the sets, the dances - everything about it was more accurate not only to the period but to the book and its tone. The makers of the adaptation went to great lengths to create the most accurate Pride and Prejudice version possible, with little titillating modern bits and pieces thrown in that did not deviate from the plot or time period (for example, the famous shot of Darcy swimming in his wet shirt, only to be confronted by an embarrassed Elizabeth while visiting his estate, definitely does not appear in the books lol. They do run into each other as she is visiting his his estate while he is away, and he does arrive home early, much to her great embarrassment, in the books. However, they do not run into each other as he is returning in a dripping wet shirt, having gone for a swim in his private lake as he has arrived home. Jane Austen couldn’t have written such a scene back then because it would have been seen as obscene by the society reading her books - but it was a great addition by the filmmakers of the 1995 version, as it didn’t deviate to the plot, or the time period, but significantly added to both! And it seems like the kind of thing that Austen would have added to her books if she could have gotten away with it at the time).
Can I just say what a joy it is to read all these comments? I have a couple of videos on this channel that focus on genre IP (Star Trek in one, and big-bad villains in another where I dared to say something not completely negative about Amazon Prime's Rings of Power), and the overall tone in those comments sections is so divisive. Some comments are great, but man do people like to argue on the internet! It's like a breath of fresh air here. Even where there is disagreement everyone is being respectful and delightful. I guess I need to make more Jane Austen-focused videos! Thanks, everyone!
You made a great video but didn't go far enough IMHO.
2005 did many things wrong.
And over all 1995 had better casting all around (with the exception of Jane , IMHO)
Even Judy Dench failed to reflect a character who was spoilt and conceited yet burdened with a useless daughter and knows it. 1995 Countess was a better fit
And Keira Knightley's acting has always been weird with weird mouth movements. Meh.
But I think that Mr Darcy was the worst casting, no comparison. 2005 was a complete drip. Clearly that film was made to pander to entitled female audiences
Special shout out to Alison Steadman as Mrs Bennet. She was hilarious and nailed the character.
I know I am rambling. But a core position of this book was how Mr Bennet married beneath him and ended up not in love but with an awful wife he could not stand. Hence all his time spent in the library. To hide from the wife and her daughter clones. Where this really shows up is how Wickham falls into the exact same trap, but unlike Mr Bennet, completely deservedly. In the 2005 remake this dichotomy is absent.
@@TheBelrick🙌 yes, yes, yes! One of my biggest criticisms of the 2005 version is that they made the Bennetts a loving couple. 🤦♀️ talk about not understanding the point of the book. I just can't with the 2005 version. I was at law school when I saw it and I went by myself to a completely packed theater. I just remember standing up in shock at the end and thinking, "Jane Austen is rolling over in her grave right now."
@brookeashton6169 also, in 2005, Wickham is not an important enough character.
Maybe it's not possible to do justice to the book in 2 hours.
The 1940 version was even worse.
@@brookeashton6169 My daughters LOVE miniseries and I love watching it with them. Thank goodness for good productions.
@@TheBelrickI just HATED Keira Knightley as Elizabeth.. And I hated how the movie cut out almost all the really good dialogues between Darcy and Lizzy that actually show how Darcy is slowly getting head over heels over her, Lizzy's wit and intelligence all gone.. Instead they inserted that stupid almost kiss.. But I likes Mcfayden.. I am sure if there was more time given to the character he would have shone brighter.
The 1995 version is simply outstanding.
Except for the second proposal- didnt get it right at all. It fell flat on its face.
@@revathibacsa Yes!
It was really perfect. The actors, the costumes everything was exactly as I read in the book!
100% agreed. The best of all adaptations.
@@alinaperez8006 I disagree. The best of all the adaptations was one I haven't seen mentioned so far: the 1980 5-hr British miniseries. I think it was a BBC production; it was shown on Masterpiece Theatre. David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennett. The 1995 version was a fairly close remake of the 1980 one (apart from adding things like Colin Firth in a bathtub and then swimming in a pond...)
1995 every day of the week and twice on sunday.
Colin is my Darcy and 😅we always want a wet white shirt
That is how I like to live 😎
I went to college a few years after the Firth version came out, and he was still being talked about at that time, as was the entire adaptation. Sooo good.
Based and true
me too❤
1995 is the best version in my opinion.
Absolutely
Closest to the actual book
I agree.
Not an opinion - just a fact ;)
Fact!
The 1995 miniseries is, by far, the best adaptation of the book. The way they modified from the book Elizabeth's 'rescue' of Georgiana Darcy at the piano was a stroke of genius. It shows her incredible empathy and caring nature. IMO, it is this moment that cements his feelings for Elizabeth. Jane Austen would have approved.
I love that scene-with Elizabeth and Darcy exchanging glances showing they are now on the same page.
As Elizabeth moves to turn the page for Georgianna, watch the slowly, barely smiling animation in Darcy's face as he knows, at that very moment, she's the one.
@@susanmackey9619 I know. I literally burst into tears watching this scene the other day. So swoonworthy.
I feel so validated watching this video 😭😭 I've been saying the same thing about that confession scene for years now
The 1995 adaptation is so much closer to the book and I love to watch it again and again, especially during the Christmas vacations.
Except that, whilst lovely, the 1995 version was sexed up to make it more palatable to younger audiences.
Finally, someone else who knows the almost-kiss in the 2005 version is wrong!! At that point in the story Elizabeth would rather have cut her own head off than to even consider doing anything like that or even thinking about Darcy in any kind of romantic way; she would NOT have considered kissing him esp after he told her that she was poor and ugly and her family was trash 😭😭 though that's another thing the 2005 version got wrong, it cut down on Darcy's rudeness in that scene (and also portrayed him as a social dork which, as I've unfortunately seen proof of, made people seem to think Darcy never had any real problems as a character beyond being shy 🫠 like no he was a jerk but the 2005 version did not portray him that way :,) anyway CAPITAL!! as Sir Lucas would say
Exactly. I know 2005 Darcy is seen as someone who makes paralytically awkward people feel seen and like maybe they too deserve love, and that’s great, and I think it really is a good film in most respects, but yeah, it’s not Darcy from the book.
The almost kiss takes Mr. Collins' misguided view of Lizzie, from the novel, and makes it Lizzie's actual real character and behavior. She doesn't really mean what she says when she rejects Darcy, she's just denying her true feelings. It's a total hatchet job on Lizzie's character, and extremely regressive.
I actually felt different about the almost kiss. The whole movie was already ruined and I didn’t feel this was Lizzy anyway, so this scene was at least interesting and calmed down my annoyance a tiny bit. It portrays physical attraction and maybe even falling in love despite one’s own better judgement. (But no it doesn’t fit without the original story I agree)
@@valgardener7656tbh that’s how I perceived it for years because I had only seen the movie and not read the book as a teenager. I think it’s okay for a director to play with it though, because what we say is only on the surface and he probably wondered if her motives and feelings deep inside were contrasting her actions… or maybe he just got it wrong. It still makes for an interesting relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth.
Spot on with this! My feelings exactly.
I couldn't agree more....right on every point. Also loved the dialogue delivery in the BBC series a lot more.... especially the interaction between Lizzie and Mr. Darcey the first time he proposed ...a masterpiece!
Yes all poor Keira Knightley knew how to do was spit her words out defiantly while looking very beautiful
@@thebuttermilkyway687 Yes, you are so right. The BBC version is true to the beautifully written novel, and the lines are delivered perfectly by Elizabeth Garvey. I hate Keira in her gunny sack costumes and her heavy breathing response to the first proposal. So bizarre.
@@debgok And Matthew Mcfayden played Darcy wrong to me too. He was too anxious and awkward in public. He is supposed to be arrogant and prideful in the beginning.
@@debgokJennifer Ehle played Elizabeth Bennet in the BBC production.
@@judynesher5898 Elizabeth Garvie was in the 1980 BBC adaptation. The 1995 version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth was also a BBC production.
The 2005 version made Jane Austen accessible to people who didn't know her before but love a romance story that focuses on a couple and its misunderstandings. The mini-series was made for people who know Pride and Prejudice by heart and rejoice in finding their favourite little touches brought alive by superb actors, against a rich background of social context and interactions.
I watched the 2005 version once and never had the desire to repeat the experience. And our whole family knows the 1995 version by heart because we have watched it countless times and can't wait for the next round.
I guess I'm not exactly on the fence about this one ;-)
@s.h.741 but the pigs in the house? Nope! They could have done without it. And once in a while Lizzie could have looked presentable. A gentlewoman of her day would not have looked that sloppy! We didn't need to throw out some of these convensions to make it more accessible. The Bennets estate pulled in 2K a year, and in Sense and Sensibility that was Col. Brandon's income which was seen as good. Enough for hunting horses. so the Bennetts could have afforded maids to do the laundry and the house wouldn't be dirty , and no pigs in the house. Also Lady Catherine would not have been caught dead showing up at that late hour. We also didn't need the almost kiss... she hated Darcy still, at that point. Come on...
Thank you so much for this video. For almost twenty years now, my main objection to the 2005 adaptation has been precisely this scene (and well, "goddess divine" too). I could have forgiven the use of the open doors scene, the rain, and even the way Knightley rushes Elizabeth's greatest arguments . . . all but not that "I-want-to-kiss-you" gesture. It goes totally against the anger, unpleasant surprise, and indignation that both characters are feeling at this moment. Thank you for explaining it in such a cogent and balanced manner.
Knightly version is the worst adaptation ever! Even worse than the old one with Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier.
@@elainehartley9070 I just don't enjoy her acting and the way she constantly juts her chin out and makes the duck face at the same time. I saw this and was bored throughout. Even the Bollywood version was way more fun than this. 1995 was wonderful and I thoroughly enjoyed it
The Bennets are landed gentry. The father is a gentleman. They have servants and an estate. What’s with the pigs running through the house? What’s with the daughters hanging up the laundry? Mr. Bennet practically lives in his library in the book. He doesn’t do physical labor. This aspect of the film was such a dissonance from the book and the time period that I would never watch this movie again.
I mean, I don't disagree with any of these complaints and everyone is entitled to like or not like something for any subjective reason they like, but this sort of complaint sounds to me a lot like when science nerds dismiss an otherwise good sci-fi movie (with a good story, characters that are 3D and motivated by relatable circumstances, and dramatic stakes that are clear, etc.) because there's sound in space and that's not actually the way gravity around a black hole would work, etc. Sure, those technical details are "wrong," but the movie is still good fun, you know? Again, not everyone has to like something -- there's no right or wrong answer -- but for me those are edge details and don't really affect my enjoyment all that much.
I used to have a housemate who got totally taken out of every movie set in NYC because she knew lots of bird calls and all the SFX libraries were built in California so scenes in Central Park always had west coast bird songs in the mix and it drove her CRAZY. I get it, but I also don't get it, you know?
@@think_thing you’re right. To each their own. My intent in writing the comment was simply my opinion, given my love for the book and Austen, and should not derail your enjoyment of the film
I agree with the OP. it really put me off the movie. Plus, it was so drab!
@@think_thing Honestly, I have the same complaint as OP but I'd argue that it genuinely does go deeper than simple inaccuracy. The changes to the Bennets' circumstances made for the 2005 version turn the whole narrative into MUCH more of a 'cinderella story'; in the confrontation with Lady Catherine we lose "he is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter, so far, we are equal," and it feels a lot more like the story actually *buys in* to the idea that Lizzie is the scrappy, not-really-posh underdog standing up to the toffs, which is like... it's an okay story, but recontextualising an element like that does kinda beg the question, for me, of why bother adapting Pride and Prejudice, specifically, then? And doing a 'straight' adaptation, if there's core aspects of the original that apparently can't be made peace with?
Because I think the end result is a film that feels like it'd rather hold its origins at arms' length, than admit that the entire major cast in the original is a bunch of poshos. Just take the story that remains when the protagonist's background is shifted significantly on its axis, innovate a narrative which reflects the values you want P&P to have - as opposed to the ones it actually has, when you put such large chunks of it wholsale into your film - and make a movie about that, instead.
Like, it's not just about surface-level details. I think there's a deep, underlying and uncomfortable tension between the story that the filmmakers wanted to tell, and the story that Pride and Prejudice actually /is/, which comes off as having been squashed into a shape that is fundamentally at odds with itself on some level. Another example of where this flares up for me would be that they keep the Lydia plot more or less intact, but add that scene where Bingley visits Jane whilst she's in bed, in her nightgown, at Netherfield. And putting both of those things in the same movie creates a huge hole in the story's *internal* logic - nothing to do with 'oh but that was improper by the standards of the time,' they wrote in a subplot whose entire concept hinges on the era's standards of propriety, then acted elsewhere like the factors which drove said entire plot didn't exist. In that film, surface-level inaccuracies are the bubbly wallpaper that hides flawed, contradictory storytelling at the core.
@@think_thing I think the material point is that movies rely on immersion, and everyone has a different point where their immersion breaks, so if I were a filmmaker I'd try to avoid things that could take a sizeable minority of my audience out of the movie. This is especially important in adaptations, sequels, remakes etc where you have a built in audience; that gives you free publicity/ticket sales, but it also means that part of your audience will have higher demands on the movie's "realism".
I prefer the 1995 version because they let Elizabeth be funny. In the books she is witty and a bit sarcastic, but she’s also down for a good time. She likes going to balls and dances and she is funny!
I prefer the 1995 version because Jennifer Ehle > Kiera Knightley, an actress I simply do not like (her role in Love, Actually was also unlikeable).
I feel like she always seems to be squinting.
@@ValkyrieMaiden95 Yes! I think Jane Austen must have been quite like Elizabeth.
In my opinion Kiera Knightley was a poor choice for Elizabeth Bennet. She just doesn’t quite get the character right. She tries but it just doesn’t feel quite like Elizabeth. Jennifer Ehle, on the other hand, nails it.
Finally, someone who sees the truth! The 1995 version was so much more “authentic/true” to Ms. Austen’s novel, as well as the actual actions of people in that time period.
Given that Jane Austen was a proto feminist, today she might very well wish to be addressed and referred to as "Ms". But in her day, she would definitely wish to be known as "Miss".
While STILL managing to be its own entity as an adaptation, through the addition of the male perspectives we don’t get in the novel, but never so much that it removes the focus from Austen’s original intent
Firth's Darcy is also an introvert. He's just not of the shrivel up and die type. Which matches book Darcy. If you ever get into MBTI, Mr. Darcy is generally thought to be an INTJ.
YOU obviously have NEVR read the book!!!!!!!!
@@drusimon915 lol, wut? 1995 is VERY clearly the most true to text adaptation, with some additions of the men's perspective in a small handful of scenes.
I've watched the 2005 adaptation once and the 1995 countless times it is forever my favorite
I'm with you. The Colin Firth version.
I have never understood the popularity of the 2005 adaptation. It is pretty to look at and more romantic (in an overblown way that is not true to the novel or time period at all), but unfaithful to both the tone and spirit of Jane Austen. 1995's version, on the other hand, is perfection.
Agreed. The 2005 version was moving too far in the direction of a bodice-ripper. 1995 was more faithful and really made the details of the book come alive.
100. 2005 is more like some semi-gothic romance or bronte version. They dumb down some of the best lines.
It is physically painful to watch.
It’s fresh and interesting and charming. Adaptation is a word that denotes flexibility. Why make another version of 1995 - which was another version of the 80s BBC version? It’s a wonderful, engaging film that has its own merit.
@@tiiuroots499 that is an absurd comment.
I have never ever commented on anything on UA-cam before, but I felt compelled to on this occasion because I absolutely 100% agree with you. I saw the 2005 film at the cinema and have never watched it again because it was just wrong, whereas the 1995 version I have watched countless times because it was brilliant. The best adaptation ever!
Me too!
Well done, you!
Same! :)
When the aunt arrived in the middle of the night in the 2005 version, I was done. A lady of her station would NEVER go to someone in the middle of the night!! It was like Dumbledor yelling at Harry about putting his name in the Goblet of Fire.
If we ever meet, we will be friends
Perfect comparison! Both the kind of scenes that make you go, "Who are these people? Because they are certainly not the characters they are named for!"
Like it or not, it’s true to the book.
@@marycochran3821 Um. No. No it is not true to the book - sad because the casting was great. Please re-read. Lady KdB arrives in the day. They walk in the park around the house. The exchange ensues, and Elizabeth tells her she'd been insulted in every way yadda yadda...and insists on returning to the house.... all during the day. Proper calling hours.
Judy dench doesn’t even come close to the 1995 version.
Sometimes I eat frozen pizza.... sometimes I eat Pizza Hut and sometimes I eat the more authentic brick oven pizza from the pizzaria down the street. I can enjoy them all.... for different times and different reasons. These two movies are the same.... it just depends on my mood, how much time I have.
Me Too 🍕
This is so accurate hahaha
Guys! If you haven’t seen the 1940’s version with Greer Garson… OMG! She is spectacular, and Laurence Olivier! You guys have GOT to see it!
You are absolutely right about that scene. They went for the popular dynamic of sex over character. 1995 is the best by far.
Yes, but people in the Recency period had sexy thoughts about each other. I don't like characterizations of Darcy and Elizabeth that don't have a frisson of sex between them. That makes them sterile. Even Austen showed that they had a deep passion for each other through their constant verbal battles. Along with that, Darcy follows her around in a way that is more puzzling to Elizabeth than creepy. That is a show of sexual interest, and, I argue, Elizabeth is swayed somewhat by that attention. (I admire her for keeping herself grounded by discussing him with Jane and Charlotte.) Then, in addition to her "fine eyes", Austen said that he found her figure to be "light and pleasing." Elizabeth sublimates her passion with anger, which is a common trope. The sexiness is there. You just have to look for it.
I almost forgot. Austen allows Darcy and Elizabeth some humorous moments. I don't know about anyone else, but humour is one of my turn-ons, and it allows for flirtation (and more) to be expressed without being explicit.
@@AnastaciaInClevelandWow this just totally opened my mind
@@babygirllss Thank you for saying so!
I guess I’m in the minority because I absolutely adore the 2005 version. I do also like the 1995 one too, but something about McFadden’s shy, introverted take on Darcy spoke to me. I’m an introvert, so I completely identified with him.
There are plenty of people in these very comments who are with you and its reviews are many and consistently high. Even this video does not 'hate' on the movie. He merely points out some things that put him off it. I like that you were able to articulate why you liked it. I think that is what I have enjoyed reading in the comments. Why someone has liked what they have.
The 2005 movie as a stand alone film is great. This is referencing the many ways it is neither true to the book nor the social norms of the period.
I began to watch the series cause everybody talked about it. I stopped at ep 1. The protagonist constant fake smirk is insufferable, Firth is flat, the other characters revolting. 2005 movie is a piece of art.
McFayden's Darcy is one of the best rendition of a character from the classics. I think actor and director really did an impressive job.
Another one is Liv Tayler's Tatiana in Onegin. Also Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara..
I equally love the two so I get it. 2005 makes the characters much more realistic and relatable, kind of in a way a modern take of the story (can we say 2005 is modern still ...please). 1995 feels more like a period piece where the characters are of a different time.
2005 is actually how remakes/adaptations should work where the filmmaker looks at the story from a new angle. I think this is why I like both equally, they're different but both are still successful at telling the same story.
If only there was a better word for “perfection” because 95 P&P is absolutely perfect.
Genuinely my favorite screen adaptation of all time!
1995, Absolutely perfect. There is no comparison.
Flawless ☺️
Mr Darcy is entirely wrong in the '95 version. In the book he was witty, good humoured and charismatic; always happy to have an intelligent debate. Can't reconcile Firth's portrayal with the book version at all.
@@davidsarahmccolm Always happy to have an intelligent debate with his closest friends, you mean. The book tells us that he's constantly giving offense wherever he goes. We also don't see him at his best, even among friends; he's been dragged along to an assembly where he knows only four people, only one of whom he actually likes, and we see him interacting with them for a minute or so after said ball. How much wit and good humour do you expect Colin Firth to portray at that moment?
Firth's Darcy does show a more good humoured side, it's just quite subtle. He and Bingley share a moment while Bingley is dancing with Jane, where he beams over at Darcy, and Darcy rolls his eyes at him and smiles indulgently. The interaction with Elizabeth when she arrives on foot at Netherfield is quite good humoured, and while observing her playing with a dog he seems to enjoy the sight. His comment about enjoying the view of the ladies' figures as they walk is quite a risque bit of wit for an Austen novel, something you'd expect out of Wickham or Willoughby, and he certainly looks like he enjoys debating with Elizabeth about character flaws, only getting miffed when Miss Bingley is singing his praises rather than honestly engaging in the debate.
If Firth's Darcy is entirely wrong, there aren't words to convey how wrong McFadden's Darcy is!
5:36 Thank you, I had a huge problem with that scene as it was so cutt off from the realities of those times and how they addressed each other.
Loved both versions equally. For the earlier versions love the character development but that scene were they kiss can be explained that she likes him but also dislikes him. When her sister asked about If she had seen Mr. Bingley, Elizabeth cried. This shows some kind of attraction. In both movies, he didn’t want to dance with her but he was attracted to her right away.
I couldn’t agree with you more - the 1995 mini series is my comfort watch. The newer one suffers too, from simply not having all the characters - Bingley’s sisters and brother in law. There a whole narrative missing which gives us a deeper understanding of Jane in her interactions with Caroline Bingley and an appreciation for Charles Bingley as the provider for his sisters. We don’t get to appreciate the solemn mortification of Mary alongside her sisters or Mrs Bennett’s sister and the type of country society, with all its excitement and intrigue of the soldiers coming. Like you said - they didn’t have time for this world building in the movie, it I feel like it makes the plot a little threadbare.
I know what you mean in essence, but I can't stop watching it!! 😂😂 I reread the book too as neither of the adaptations can capture the humour in her writing.
Plus all the characters personalities were off in the 2005 version. Lizzy was too defiant, Charles Bingly was a silly puppy dog of a man, Mr. Bennet was too kind to his wife (in the book and the 1995 miniseries he is a horrible husband and not a great father except to Lizzy and Jane) and Mr Darcy is not arrogant and prideful- instead he was socialy awkward and shy- which he is not.
I agree. Ultimately just does not work well as a movie - you feel short-changed.
All points are totally valid. I’m a person that adores both. I agree 1995 is the better adaptation. I think 2005 is a more romantic experience and is intended as such, and therefore uses modern romantic devices and caters to modern taste. As wrong as the kiss is from an adaptation standpoint, Knightley and MacFadyen’s chemistry is OFF THE CHART in that scene and with the rain, they just HAD to take advantage of that romantic tension.
@@ksrt2654 I think the problem is with the word "adaptation". Are you making an adaptation of P&P or are you making a Regency era rom-com with characters who happen to be named Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy? Supposedly the director didn't read P&P or watch any previous versions. I get that he wanted a fresh vision, but of what? It's fine to modernize P&P but I doubt Austen would appreciate having her independent, spirited heroine eager to behave with integrity turned into one of many, many rom-com characters who are in a love-hate relationship that is simmering with sexual tension. It just leaves out all the nuances.
1995 all the way. Colin Firth is Mr. DARCY
2005 was an okay movie/romcom, but it was not JA's P&P. The Bennets, although not as wealthy as Mr Darcy, were not poor, they didnt work on their farm and most certainly did NOT "dig their own damn potatoes!" 🙄 The hair/costumes were not completely period appropriate. I will say the cinematography was excellent, but thats not enough for me. Thank you for mentioning the lack of humor. The 1995 miniseries will always have my heart. I also love yhe 1996 adaptation of Persuasion.
True, but it wasn't uncommon during that time for middle-class farm families to do some of the work on their own farm if they couldn't afford the help. But you're right, the Bennets were never in that position.
I felt the same way about the fashion in the 2005 version for a long time until I learned that the director hated Regency fashion and moved the story up by about 20 years into the late 18th century. Not my favorite still but it makes more sense.
Although they were by no means poor, I could see the girls tending a vegetable patch. I think that Maria kept her own gardens when she moved in with Collins in the book, probably flower gardens but probably some veggies too. This might lead me into a rabbit hole to verify!!!!
@@ElfInTheFlowers But Caroline and Maria Lucas are a step down on the class ladder from the Bennetts. Sir William Lucas was originally in Trade, and gained pretentions about being gentry once he was knighted, but is not actually a Gentleman.
While the 1995 also had some small inaccuracies when it comes to hair/costume, the 2005 one just took me out of the immersion immediately in the first scene with the modern hair and main character wardrobe of 'barely period adjacent'. I wish filmmakers would dare to shock us with period accurate hair a bit more, but they'll do everything for relatability.
Love the shout out to Persuasion. I loved it too!
Oh, i 100percent agree! The 1995 version has been my comfort movie for many years, its my go to when I can't sleep. The looks between the actors tell you exactly what they are feeling and its so much more on point than the other version.
1995 is brilliant and definitely a comfort watch for me too!
1995's 1st proposal scene is also way more shudder inducing...
The sort of thing that keeps you up at night questioning everything...With your brain going remember when you said X,Y or Z !
I’m a 24-year-old female - the exact demographic that typically fawns over the 2005 film - but I 1000% agree with you. For me, my main discrepancy is that they tried to make the 2005 version “relatable” for modern audiences.
In 1995 and in the book, Lizzie is both aware of the silliness of some of the etiquette and culture of her time, and she still lives in them and accepts them gracefully, and moves through them and not around them, as a smart woman would at that time.
In 2005, Lizzie feels more like a “quirky girl” feminist who refuses corsets and wears her hair completely down and loose because she feels like it, and she thinks the etiquette of the time is silly. It’s so distracting and frustrating!
A girl of her age at that time in her social class would never be seen out with her hair completely down and no proper undergarments; she might as well well be walking around in her actual underwear. She would be considered a social pariah and a “loose woman“.
And don’t get me started on Darcy; I totally agree with your thoughts there.
In the book and 1995, he’s standoffish because he’s proud, not because he’s socially anxious. He’s mature, CONFIDENT, and put together - just a little too proud.
But in 2005, they decided to make him have social anxiety instead, to be “relatable”, and I hate it. Firth’s version is one of the most attractive male fictional characters I can think of, and the 2005 version is completely unattractive to me.
But he’s attractive to a lot of Gen Z girls my age, because they have social anxiety like no generation ever before them.
Just… Thank you for voicing my thoughts. It’s so frustrating that most of the young female Jane Austen fandom thinks the 2005 version is the greatest Jane Austen movie there is.
Yes to all of this. I actually like the 2005 film quite a bit, despite it being a fundamental misread of the text. In fact, there's so much right with it that it's extra annoying they got the main characters and central conflict so wrong! :)
@@think_thing - I'm curious what about your line "there's so much right with it". Maybe it's just been a while since I read the book, but I am struggling to think of anything right with it.
It's a pretty film, but it feels to me like a high school play of P&P where the teens want to add a "modern twist" because it's not relatable. But if a story from that far back in time is relatable in almost any way to modern feminist women, I don't think it's done right.
All I can see is that the costuming isn't done right, the hair isn't done right, the attitudes of the girls aren't done right, the male characters aren't done right...
But I DO want to understand what you like about it! :)
@@milo_thatch_incarnate Well, taken as a work that's separate from the novel, the film is well acted, beautifully shot, the cast is amazing, and these characters are compelling -- just not in exactly the same ways Austen's protagonists were. I mentioned this in the video too, but there's also a really interesting pathos in the performances of the absurd characters -- Mrs. Bennet especially. Again, I think it misses some of the punch of the comedy, but it's a perfectly cromulent choice in a story like this to make Mrs. Bennet more of a tragicomic character, and I do think it works, narratively, it just misses the mark in terms of adapting Austen. Also Mr. Bennet is far too likeable (in 1995 too, I think), but I actually kind of love that change. Again, I vastly prefer 1995 in most respects and it's the one I'll keep watching forever, but I do credit 2005 with being a good movie, just not a good adaptation.
@@think_thing - That's very fair! Thank you for correcting my pessimism a bit. I'm happy to have my perspective changed :)
You made me think of the 1995 scene, where Mr. Collins is *mortified* to run into Lydia on the staircase in her *gasp* petticoats!
I hate the “will they won’t they”scene of the 2005 version with a burning passion. While I enjoy its atmosphere better than the 1995 version, it’s a truth universally acknowledged that the 1995 version is the definitive P&P adaptation.
They could have shown it as a dream...
😅😅😅
Ugh. 2005. That's like they totally missed the entire point of the book. He's not "shy" or whatever… He's literally an ass. Full of pride, full of himself, arrogant etc. He has this huge big long speech at the end of the book where he explains all of this, which they conveniently cut for a "walking through the fields in their underwear" scene. Was an absolute travesty. The score was lovely, the cinematography was very well done. But they absolutely shat all over pride and prejudice. They didn't even bother to try to get the costumes right, or the hair. Or the entire point of the book…
@@ladyethyme he can be both and all of the above. They are not mutually exclusive.
Absolute
@@eps3154 How can someone be both shy and arrogant?
@@TPaine76He manages it, haha. He actually says in the book that he doesn’t have the talent for conversing easily with strangers. But he’s prideful in his upbringing and what he considers better breeding etc.
@@NsTheName Thanks. I agree with all this. I guess my issue is with the word “shy”.
I tend to think of a “shy person” as being modest and reserved. If they’re uncomfortable in social settings, it’s usually because they lack self confidence.
At the beginning of the novel, Darcy is, *by his own admission* someone who is unabashedly prideful. He thinks he is better than other people because of his wealth and breeding and he doesn’t bother “pretending” that he isn’t.
I think this is the main reason he’s uncomfortable in social situations. He “abhors pretense” and to Darcy, things like small talk or dancing with someone you don’t want to, or, you know, NOT mentioning all the reasons you almost didn’t propose to someone *while* you’re proposing to them seems somehow dishonest rather than common sense politeness.
It’s true that he doesn’t quite know how to behave around people. But it’s equally true that he thinks learning or “practicing “ these social skills would be dumb and pointless. I feel like a shy person, on the other hand, might just not understand social etiquette or might not be good at it, but they wouldn’t scorn the very idea of social etiquette as “beneath them”.
Matthew McFadden’s Darcy might be considered shy. Colin Firth’s Darcy certainly wouldn’t. I think this is why I prefer the 1995 version. It seems closer to the character depicted in the novel. I think that the 2005 version tries to make Darcy more appealing by attributing his social ineptitude to being shy and awkward rather than a result of his arrogance. But by doing that, it also makes Elizabeth’s ability to change him much less dramatic.
Sorry for the essay length answer. Your comment really forced me to really think about why I didn’t like the newer version. I appreciate that.
I actually caught the Keira Knightly version on TV the other afternoon and thought EXACTLY what you have just said about that scene in the rain. It jars in every way possible. As for the sublime 1995 TV adaptation, I have watched it many, many times, own it on DVD and really believe it cannot be bettered. Lovely to catch your video. Thank you for posting.
3:50 "exemplary vegetable" is always SO funny to me
2005 has beautiful cinematography and actors. But it's too "romantic" in the old fashioned sense, something Austen enjoyed but also regularly lampooned. It feels like the film Marianne Dashwood would have seen loved and overly identified with before her character growth. It reads to me more like a Bronte adaption than Austen. Austen's earlier novels very much find humour and pathos in the difference between the excess of gothic sensibilities and how people and society actually operate. A lesson in separation of fantasy from realism. See also Northanger Abbey and the very very funny juvenilia 'Love and Friendship'
Thank you for an intelligent, nuanced, and thoroughly Austen-centric review of the 2005 movie. Many of the other opinions in the comments seem to forget that each adaptation is, in fact, and adaptation. And, as such, the screenwriter and director are free to give their interpretation of the story and characters, regardless of how they are represented in the original work. Perhaps Austen would not have approved of the 2005 production and would have preferred the earlier mini-series versions. I, however, think the somewhat modernized, more romanticized Knightly/MacFadyen version was as close to perfect as one can get with a movie adaptation. However, my very, very favorite movie adaptation of an Austen work is the 2020 adaptation of Emma with Anya Taylor-Joy as the titular character. Utterly sumptuous in set design and costuming, beautifully rendered love story, and the humor is off the charts.
"It feels like the film Marianne Dashwood would have seen loved and overly identified with before her character growth" holy crap this is the perfect description of this movie 👏🏼😅
I hated that proposal scene too, and thought K.K. said her lines so fast and without feeling, like she wanted to get it said in case she forgot something, whereas J.E. said hers quickly and with excellent diction, but with contempt and anger... perfectly, in other words! I LOVED the cast of 1995, especially Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennett. I've also watched this enough to recite it, and never saw the 2005 again. It actually irritated me. Thanks for your video!
Yes. I could not agree more. I’ve watched 1995 soooo many times and only watched 2005 once. Only want to watch it once. Now that you mentioned it I think I’ll watch 1995 again.
Yes! I felt like she did that constantly throughout the movie. She was shoving out her lines without depth or warmth as quickly as she could. I kept thinking, "Is this their method for trying to fit as much as possible in their tiny allotted time frame for this film?" And then the supposedly near-end scene where she just says some line about her hands being cold. What on earth?!
Thank you! I could barely watch it, nothing like the book. And the ending? Oh puhleeze.
I meant the 2005 Keira Knightly version. Yuck.
@@tee323 The bits and pieces I've seen of the 2005 version turned me off completely, have never seen it in its entirety. In my opinion, totally miscast, and after the 1995 version, should never have been redone. What's the matter with Keira Knightley's mouth? And Mathew McFayden looks uncomfortable in every scene, where as Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth ARE Elizabeth and Darcy.
Finally! Pride and Prejudice is my favorite among Jane Austen's books. Elizabeth Bennet seemed to be a precious character to Jane when I read the book. So bright and vivacious when compared to the more sedate women of those times. One of the worst scenes for me was watching Kiera mope in the drab weather. "It was not in her nature, however, to increase her vexations by dwelling on them." was such an important insight into Elizabeth's character. While the 1995 version did take liberties, they seemed to be changes that Ms. Austen herself could have considered. I keep seeing so many reviews on how wonderful the 2005 version is. I remember watching the 1995 version over and over AND reading the book again to get the 2005 one out of my system. Thank you for this video.....🥰🥰🥰
The depth of character and nuance conveyed in 1995 is astonishing. The succinct artistic approach of the 2005 is also a wonder to behold. I deeply agree with all your points... especially pertaining to Darcy.
Although I will say, unfaithful as that rain scene is to the book, I can't fully bring myselg to loathe it... just purely from a cinematic perspective. So I will still happily rewatch either version.
Every Christmas evening after the festivities are done and for the next week until New Years my wife and I put the 1995 in the blue ray and watch it on repeat. It is truly great and the measuring stick by which I judge any attempt at adaptation. Thank you for the great review and comparison.
2005 lost me completely when Charlotte says, "Don't you judge me Lizzy!"
The modernity just oozed out of that scene in all the wrong ways!
Same here! Charlotte was a bit wary of Elizabeth's reaction when she would learn of her engagement but she was never ashamed of herself!
It lost me earlier than that. I stopped watching when Lizzie overheard Darcy saying he didn't want to dance with her and she crawled off into a corner to have a cry about it instead of finding it hilarious like she did in the book. I turned the movie off, gave the DVD to the thrift store, and haven't watched it since. This video confirms that was the right call.
Austen has drama, the 2005 version has melodrama.
Exactly. On one hand, I get how Charlotte is making a deliberate choice and the intent of the filmmakers to make her look like a strong, modern woman. At the same time, just wait until Charlotte wants to express a thought of her own or be her own woman in any way. Mr. Collins is mean, petty, and spiteful. I'd certainly worry about her. Charlotte isn't wrong to be worried about stability and how she'll support herself. But Lizzie isn't wrong that being a partner to a nasty individual is no recipe for long-term happiness or a stable or happy home for any children, and Charlotte won't always be able to persuade Mr. Collins to go play where she doesn't have to deal with him.
While agree with this and love the 1995 version, I think the actor playing Charlotte was better in the 2005 version. 1995 Charlotte was too wooden. I couldn't see her as Elizabeth's best friend. They had no chemistry in the 1995 version. Even so, 1995 P&P is the gold standard.
I can't stand to watch the 2005 version. Went to the theater to watch it, and when it was over I popped my 1995 version into the DVD player to cleanse my brain.
Best video on the 2005 movie I've seen. Great to see you don't completely hate on it either.Really explains the main issues I was never able to articulate - which I can now. So bear with me please! My main gripe with 2005 p&p is that Lizzie feels and looks too modern. And I find myself just really annoyed with Kiera Knightly, which is a personal thing, but I loved her in Pirates so..don't know what happened. Their take of Lizzie just feels too quirky girl as you say. And though a lot of her lines are from the book a lot of them also feel like a "spunky" girl giving out attitude instead of cleverly placed comments.
Darcy I don't mind. Although I never could quite put my finger on what was different. He is almost fundementally different here. And while I don't dislkie that, it kinda feels like it's missing the point because his only flaw is shyness. He's not actually overcoming any pride (also it makes him a little soft)
Still I think there is so much right about this movie as @think_thing said that it makes me wish I enjoyed it more. I mean it's beautiful. It's light and airy and the shots are gorgeous. I love a lot of the main cast. The sisters are all lovely. This Mrs Bennet was actually charming enough for me to really like her. Mr. Bennet is great. Bingley is probably my favourite with Collins coming at a close second. All characters I feel were done equally well in 1995 (although perhaps Bingley..whose redhead 2005 counterpart I just find too endearing and so prefer). BUT sooo much of the comedy is missed. Collins doesn't get as much time to shine and Lady Catherine although played by a famous actress I think is done a disservice.
There are 2 parts where I think the movie falls apart. (I have my gripes with the rain scene, but it's a guilty pleasure). First is the scene right after the rain scene where Lizzie goes home and stares at herself in the mirrof for the entire day. Darcy is shown bringing the letter and she just continues staring. WHY?! I still can't for the life of me understand. She hates him. She has had no new information to suddenly feel guilty. Her prejudice is what is leading her at the moment. If I recall correctly she even feels a but triumohant of her handling of the situation in the book. So what is this scene? Second is the scene in Lady Catherine's house. It's boring, and weird and completely drained of humour. The directing here also boggles my mind. Darcy and his cousin are just standing at one corner of the room the entire time. Why? Perhaps it is visual comedy but it just takes me out of it everytime because it doesn't make sense! Lady Catherine is rich she has plenty of furniture and surely wouldn't have her 2 noble nephews stand while the peasantry sit. All the humour is sucked out of this by Lady C.'s strange acting, the weird directing and the cutting of so many funny lines. If anywhere they should be using exact lines it would be here.
Anyway. I've never hated the 2005 movie but I can't fangirl over it like everyone else. And I wish I could! How great would it be to have 2 masterful adaptations of p&p? And it comes so close! I do still rewatch it with my sister,who is a big fan, and jusy love the sets and scenery but always end the movie feeling annoyed.
Oh! Also. That "iconic" Darcy line "I love love love you. You have bewitched me body and soul" - hate it. Why did someone think they could rewrite Austen and why did everyone go with it? Again feels too modern and just...falls flat. I cringe everytime he says love 3 times. Darcy would never
"Darcy is shown bringing the letter and she just continues staring. WHY?!"
I've always assumed this was a filmic flex -- like it was a dramatic way to show how Lizzie is stunned by her encounter with Darcy and him leaving the letter there is just how she saw it in her mind's eye, not how it would have actually looked from an independent POV in the room. (?)
@@think_thing hmmm...I see. It's still weird. I just don't feel like it conveys the right mood..for me personally anyway.
Really enjoyed this comment. I agree that generalised 'hate' towards the 2005 adaptation is just unnecessary and it is much better to be reasoned. I love how you comment on what you would like to enjoy more and what specific things put you off. It makes your critique clear and understandable. This is the kind of comment that if someone wanted to they could learn from and apply to make a better version in the future. Whereas just I HATE it is not useful.
Love 1995 Pride and Prejudice. For me, Colin Firth is the perfect Mr Darcy. I also love Persuasion with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. It also came out in 1995 and is very true to the book. A great love story
❤❤❤
Agree about the Darcy line. Feels contrived and overdone
I just nodded the entire time!
I grew up with both the 1995 and the 2005 adaptations and must say that in my family the conclusion is, that the 1995 version is generally better but for „beginners“ 2005 is probably a better start.
There are scenes in both versions, that my sister and I love for example: in the 2005 version the ball at netherfield, where the people vanish. This is just an awesome scene.
In the 1995 version there are so many beloved bits and pieces, that it would be quite tricky to choose one as an example. Which in itself says a lot.
What is also amazing with the 1995 version is that everytime you watch it, you seem to notice a new nuance or detail.
Over all I loved the video and I am sorry that my comment got so long ( didn’t intnd for that to happen 😅) nevertheless I agreed with most of what you said and want to thank you for this video 😊
Lots of love ❤
BLESS YOU!!! I absolutely agree that 1995's BBC is the very best adaptation. I am a former actress and a current writer and I have written and directed a stage adaptation of P&P. Thank you for getting it! (The one thing I loved about the 2005 version was the music. That's basically it.)
Lovely to see so much love for the 1995 version from you and in the comments. While there were moments in the 2005 film that I could appreciate, so much of it was not the book. I was not particularly enamoured of either the portrayal of Elizabeth or Darcy, but what I particularly disliked was the film turning Mr Bennet into almost a Yeoman farmer. A shortened time in which to tell the story was no excuse for that decision and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the story.
I have to agree, especially about the tone. I found the 2005 version overwrought and have never wanted to watch it again. The BBC production on the other hand makes full use of Austin's humor and sense of fun that make her novels so well worth re-reading.
Hard agree. And to heck with the six hours length, I know it so well I can have it pla ting in the background like it's an audio book. Plus, that music, such nostalgia. There is a UA-camr I just found who showed how the 1995 Jane Bennett was cast perfectly, the actress fit the beauty standards of the time ... despite me thinking they are all lovely women.
Thanks for this video. I agree with you on the 1995 version being the absolute best - but I am chagrined and dismayed that you didn't mention one of the main reasons for why this is so - Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett. Why does her performance at the center of this production get overlooked!
@@ElaineMaisner I never understood that either, she’s the best Elizabeth Bennett, not just compared to Knightly (who’s great in many other roles) but all the other P & P films too. Tbh I think it’s one of the most accurate portrayals from any book
Absolutely! Her subtle changes in expression are just perfect.
@@Evangeline185 Exactly! Just the raise of an eyebrow, or a barely perceived smile conveys so much in comparison to Kiera's histronics!
The wordless scene where she plays with a dog beautifully shows Lizzie's playfullness
So right about Jennifer Ehle. She's marvelous. Even Colin Firth (rather miffed) said so in an interview, when they kept asking him about all the changes Darcy goes through,, and he pointed out that SHE has go to through far more changes. Jennifer Ehle is luminous.
Love this! Earned the sub. I 100% agree with your takes, especially that horrible proposal scene. Kiera was FAR too venomous and Darcy too pathetic in that moment. The 1995 version was so much better in part because Darcy's delivery was so awkward and frustrated, which--when combined with the deeper understanding of all the other characters--made Lizzie's disgust that much more understandable.
I've seen that version at least ten times. Thanks for this!
Comparing a two-hour movie to a six-hour mini-series is unfair. I like them both but Matthew McFadyen melts my chocolates in a way that Colin Firth never manages.
Truer words were never spoken
The 1995 adaptation is my favorite. I love Jennifer Erle. I rarely watch the 2005 version. The ending seems straight out of Hallmark. But I still watch the longer version.
Thank you for your validation of my own prejudice! From the music, to the casting and Andrew Davies' script the 1995 Pride and Prejudice was a tour de force.
There are aspects of the film that are amazing, but these reside mainly in the production and the cinematography which reflects the difference in budget.
I think part of the problem with the film is that a) Deborah Moggach is a fine author in her own right (and thus inevitably some of her own 'tone' filters through) b) the setting is almost a century later than the BBC version. One of the things that I was surprised about when I was reading about Jane Austen's books is that she was writing about class of people that were the equivalent of modern-day billionaires (maybe a slight exaggeration, but not by much) and this aspect of the privileged classes was not evident in the film - indeed Mr, Bennet was portrayed as a 'country bumpkin', rather than the privileged gentleman that he was. (That said this aspect of the film was particularly sumptuous so I was willing to overlook it!).
The anachronisms of the film grate - Lady Catherine de Bourgh's nighttime coach trip to discourage speculation about a match between Elizabeth and Darcy for example - and the dialogue a bit too modern for my taste, compared with the restraint of the BBC adaptation.
I'll shut up now, before this comment becomes 'War and Peace'!
I’m so glad the algorithm put you in front of me!
Absolutely correct. I call the 2005 the rom-com version of Austen’s precise novel. The first time I tried to watch it, I didn’t get past the ridiculous dress they put on Kelly Reilly. The second time I snapped it off at the scene you assess here. Also, I found it hard to believe that the Bennets had pigs in, or around the house. Did anyone on that project not know how much pigs stink? Wrinkly clothes. Death Comes to Pemberley is equally bad with its "Elizabeth is a hausfrau" style.
Dear Jane is wagging her finger at us I'm sure.
Ah, but then we had to endure the latest SLAUGHTER of Persuasion? How many minutes could you manage? OMG what a travesty!
I enjoy the 1995 version with Colin Firth so much, even though his character can be quite maddening. I also enjoy the time to develop characters and the length to adequately display everyone’s character in a more meaningful way.
I loved the 4 seasons in the series. The pace is leisurely thus so comforting to watch repeatedly whenever I need an old blanket to envelope me😁
I struggled to watch the 2005 version because I found that Keira Knightley's Lizzy was actually... the perfect Lydia 😵💫 found it very difficult to reconcile with that! It's almost like the movie is "what would Pride and Prejudice be like if Darcy fell for Lydia instead?" 🤦♀️
Oh my goodness that is such a good take on the 2005 version!!!! She makes a great Lydia. I don’t think the three youngest Bennet sisters were well cast, dressed or portrayed in the 2005 version and so the movie lacks the frustrating family dynamics of 1995
I’m surprised I haven’t seen this video before, because, as I write this, it is six months old. But I have to say how delighted I am to find someone else who feels exactly as I do about these two versions of Pride and Prejudice. I’ve never tried to analyze my distaste for the Knightly-McFadden version. These are two of my favourite actors and I just shelved my unshared aversion and disappointment. I’m used to loving Jane Austen in quiet solitude. Thank you so much for sharing.
I think someone described the 2005 Rejection Scene very well by saying Elizabeth doesn't act like a Modern Woman by Regency Era Standards, one who is a bit more outspoken but still very much restrained by the culture she was raised in, but like a Modern Woman as in 21st century woman, raised in our times who got transported back to a different era. and I agree, she's in Darcy's face, and raises her voice and yells. It's something I'd rather expect in a contemporary romance. Where they'd be standing on a street and she then drives off in her car. Or maybe even slaps him before she leaves.
Spot on! Elizabeth is so unladylike in 2005. She’s a gentleman’s daughter for goodness sake! Why do they have KE acting like Elizabeth is a low bred woman? Don’t even get me started with the missing bonnets and loose hair. It’s like they weren’t even trying.
I think it's funny that we assume that EVERY woman would have acted the same way back then, if that were true we wouldn't have feminism lol
@@whatreallymatters571 You’re right about not every woman acting in the same way. Elizabeth and Jane were ladylike though. Even though Elizabeth is witty and reproaches Mr Darcy for his behavior she still has the respect of the people around her because she is ladylike unlike her sisters Kitty and Lydia. The family loses respect and dignity because of the actions of those two girls. Lydia likely will never change and will always attract unsavory people. Just like today people will judge you by your character and actions.
I don't mind her getting upset in the proposal scene - she starts off being stand-offish but technically polite and as the conversation goes on, her emotions take over, it seems very natural in the circumstances and it plays well with the overall tone of the movie. What really irks me is when, earlier in the movie when Jane gets ill at Bingley's, she says 'perhaps she will die of shame for having such a mother' - now THAT is something Lizzy would never say, it's so unnecessarily mean and cruel, even when we know (and Lizzy knows) that Mrs Bennet is not a very reasonable person. That line really rubbed me in the wrong way.
@@whatreallymatters571 well, there were girls like lydia who didn't act like that back then. Lizzie was particularly branded as someone who acknowledged the ridiculousness of some parts of her time but also cleverly abided by them. back then the consequences for going against the norm would have been digging your own grave and many earlier feminists indeed had very miserable lives. they didn't end up marrying a Mr. Darcy though...........
I watched about 20 minutes of the 2005 adaptation and that's about all I could take. Lizzie was portrayed in a way that felt _very_ Americanized, and although I'm really not a stickler about anachronistic styling, in that particular film, the bangs were just way too distracting. The whole thing looked and felt late 20th century, rather than early 19th.
Oh yes! And her grinning and messy hair. It was like they'd not read the book.
Sanditon on PBS is equally guilty of these crimes as well.
Kiera Knightly had short hair - the bangs were to hide the fact she was wearing a wig
@@LoreneSauro a good wig wouldn't have looked like a wig. I've seen a few "which character is wearing a wig" shorts and was surprised at how natural a good wig can look.
@EyeLean5280 I'm American (not sure if you are or not) but you are absolutely correct. The 2005 version feels very much like a Hollywood creation where the 1995 feels authentically English.
I’m so glad you called out that scene in the rain. That was the singular moment where I just couldn’t enjoy the film anymore. It felt like it really ruined a very powerful character conflict, which then undermined the mental and physical work that Darcy would have to do later in the story.
For me it was Elizabeth showing up to Netherfield like she'd rolled there.
Me too! The acid and malicious delivery of her refusal was probably intended to convey sexual tension, but it’s an inaccurate representation of her character, which is one of intelligence and self control
It was so wonderful to hear everything I have felt about these 2 films stated by someone else! YES! You nailed all the points! THANK YOU!
Your observations are on point, especially about re-watchability and the 1995 series being a "comfort watch." I've watched it sooo many times.
The key to enjoying a film adaptation of a literary source is to have never read the literary source to begin with.
That can be true
Or accept that they will be different.
Definitely true in the case of the 2005 film
Untrue. When the 1995 was advertised for the tv i was 12 (I'm pretty sure it was the beginning of the year) I got the book out of the library so I côuld read it before the series started..
It is still my favourite. I've owned it on video (vhs) and DVD. And I also have it as an ebook, tree book and speaky book (Rosamund Pike is an excellent narrator)
@@amieparnaby3230 But the 1995 version is rare in that it is an almost perfect adaptation of the book.
1995 not comparable with any adaptation. It is TOP-NOTCH and I rewatched it 999 times😂Who ever is Lover of pride prejudice book, they know that 2005 get wrong with Darcy character and personally I don't like Elisabeth interpretation as well. But understand, movie time is limited for development of Character.
I agree with you 100%. The proposal scene made me so angry.
"and then, there is perfection"
Indeed, Sir, indeed
1995 P&P is the Gold Standard of adaptations.
No, actually the 1980 5-hour BBC miniseries with David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie is the Gold Standard. 1995 is a very very close Silver though...
David Rintoul is so animatronic that he reminds me of the Disneyland version of the Hall of Presidents exhibit from the early 1980’s. So robotic and void of personality. That production was the most faithful to the book, but so emotionless. But, it’s still better than the 2005 version.
@@lauravranes5230 I think the 1980 version was the most faithful to the book in part because of that performance by David Rintoul -- the ideal or perfect English male aristocrat of that era (and Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy was written to be the very embodiment of that ideal) controlled himself in public to the point that he DID seem almost perfectly emotionless. And I think that is what David Rintoul portrayed.
In my view, David Rintoul's Mr. Darcy was a man who was feeling strong emotions but kept them hidden under a heavy surface crust of indifference formed by a lifetime of aristocratic conditioning. But the emotions still peeked out - particularly around Elizabeth Bennett.
But it is a point that could be argued either way. Colin Firth has always been one of my favourite modern British actors and I do think his Mr. Darcy was also superb.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 1995 miniseries. But the less said about 2005 the better...
After watching the 2005 version a couple of times, and the 1995 version about 25 times, I bought the book and read it cover-to-cover. 1995 all the way!!! In fact, even the 1995 version had to cut a few things that were in the book, particularly at the end. The book is great, but the 1995 version is even more enjoyable because it got the tone and characters correct, but moves at a pace which allows you to be entertained by the acting and ambiance of the sets in addition to the plotline. Love it!
I bought the book after watching the first episode of 1995 version and read the whole of it before the next episode was shown. I just knew after this one episode that this series is something special and liked everything about it, beginning from the opening credits and the music, the costumes, the acting to the story itself. After reading the book, I got hooked on Jane Austen and read all her books, and watched all the available TV and film adaptations. The 1990s were especially amazing as there were so many great ones released, which I still like to rewatch.
The 2005 version feels like P&P run at break-neck speed. If you didn’t know the story at all you would be left behind wondering ‘what’s going on’. Unfortunately the 2005 version is my first experience with P&P and I’m surprised that I didn’t give up on it. A good friend recommended the 1995 miniseries and I’ve never been more in anyone’s debt. My children have grown up with both and will always watch the 1995 over 2005.
I love the 1995 version as well, for all the same reasons, but my most favorite Austen adaptation has to be 1995’s PERSUASION.
Sigh, Ciaran Hinds! That book resonated with me. Younger sister of the "pretty" one; the practical one that is also a dreamer. I thought Jane Austen was writing about me!
So good.
@@kkay3784 sheer perfection in every single choice - brilliant!
You are. not alone!
LOVE that movie.
2005 hands down. My daughters and I watch it every year at least once. We love it.
I love this! I could have never surmised exactly why the 1995 version is so much better and much more enjoyable, as well as you have done.
The 1985 version will always be my comfort watch but i have a strong affection for the 1980 version. Elizabeth Garvie is my Lizzie Bennet and the Mr Collins is a better fit to the novel. For me, the 2005 film forgets that its supposed to be a conmedy of manners not a romcom. I can forgive the widening of the social gaps and Charlotte's explanation of why she accepts Mr C, some clarity to those not familiar with the Regency social order is necessary. But the ending is just weird and would have had both people locked away on their estates had they acted that way for real
Agree 100%. The 1995 version preserves the spirit of the book much better. It shows the nuanced emotions and is so much more subdued and controlled, with underlying emotions, exactly like Jane Austen’s England. The film is a disservice to the book. The casting, though of high quality, is in many places wrong. Darcy’s actor has a vulnerable look. Elizabeth is much too over the top. And even though Judy Dench is a miraculous actress, she is completely miscast here. Her character is supposed to be ridiculous and even pathetic. The mere presence of Judy Dench commands respect and shrewdness. Not at all fitting.
This is another example for how Hollywood takes a piece of expertly written literature and tries to blockbuster it by using miscast stars, heightened action and emotion.
Thank god for the 1995 version. So amazing.
I would absolutely binge-watch the 1995 P&P miniseries with you (and try very hard not to quote along). It is the best adaptation of any Jane Austen work to-date.
I'm bing-watching 1995 version every now and then as well but in my mind 1995 Persuasion with Amanda Root and Chiaran Hinds is the best Austin adaptation ever.
To me it's tied with Persuasion (Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds) for best adaptation. And although they're not perfect adaptations I do love the Emma Thompson S&S 2nd, and the Frances O'Connor and Johnny Lee Miller Mansfield Park 3rd (since the first two are tied).
@@agevalgepea7873 That version of Persuasion is second for me (tied with the '95 Sense and Sensibility). Truly, the mid-90s Trifecta of Excellence.
@@Blaize24 '95 S&S and Persuasion are very close seconds to P&P. I guess it isn't totally fair- P&P had 6 hours to expand upon Ms. Austen's excellence.
THANK YOU! I agree with you wholeheartedly! While I admire so many of the actors in the 2005 version, I saw it once and have no desire to see it again. But I've watched the 1995 version easily 20 times over the years. When I'm sick, or grieving a loss, I put it on and settle in with great joy. Superb in every aspect!
I watched the 2005 movie and saw some mistakes, but after reading the book I felt like the movie didn't do it justice. One of the biggest problems is that they focus so much on their romantic relationship that they leave out many things. Darcy seems more shy than proud and Elizabeth is supposed to be cheerful, but in the film she seems to laugh because she has a nervous tic.
P&P 2005 premiered on the day of my friend's birthday. She wanted to see it, so we did. I was fresh after rereading the book and was cringing in certain parts. This proposal scene was bad, but the final nail to the coffin was the scene where in the end Darcy comes to the Bennets' estate in the state of half-undress, Lizzie is in her night gown, kisses his hand... It was so out of place, out of tune, out of left field, out of everything I audibly groaned and hid my face. Neither of them would do that. It was bad. Real bad.
There are things I liked, sure. Cinematography was outstanding, so was the music, costumes and sets, some characters were played spot on. But I only rewatched it once, years later to see, if it really was what I remembered or if I was *ekhem* prejudiced, cause it wasn't BBC's adaptation. Dear reader, I was not prejudiced. So for me it's a mediocre adaptation. There are worst ones, of course, but this one just ain't it. I'll stick to Ehle and Firth.
Absolutely agree with you. Also, I felt like Darcy's declaration about "bewitched be body and soul" was coming on too strong and felt out of character for me. I couldn't give this movie a second watch.
Isn't it possible that you are judging the 2005 version so harshly BECAUSE you had seen the 1995 series? It's sort of like watching a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company and then seeing a college production afterward. You would say that the college presentation was no good, even though the students are really trying their best.
It's a good thing for Darcy that Elizabeth just HAPPENED to be standing outside before dawn! Imagine walking all the way over that atmospheric landscape, reaching Longbourn, realizing everyone was still in bed because OF COURSE everyone is still in bed, and then walking moodily home again!
Totally agree. Also the way the younger Bennett sisters had constantly loose, messy hair. AND Lady Catherine showing up in the middle of the night 🙄
@@aislingrvr Right? There were so meny of those inconsistencies that just chipped away at my enjoyment. I get that they wanted to make it for the modern audience (director said so in an interview), but you either stick to the rules ot the period or you throw them out completely and make family friendly Bridgerton.
1995 version is more accurate but 2005 made me FEEL THINGS
THIS
That scene in the rain!? *swoon* my teenage heart couldn't cope 😍
1995 is the far superior adaptation, but 2005 is a far superior movie.
As a big fan of the book I agree lol 😂like sure it wasn't the most accurate but that on screen chemistry.. the cinematography.. the drama. I can't not like it
I don't understand this statement
@@bollemonsterFormer is more loyal to the source material but the latter created a stronger emotional experience for the commenter
The 1995 version is my favorite and I think the most faithful to the time, context, and book. I will never not want to watch it. The 2005 is pretty to look at, the music is beautiful, and it’s aesthetically pleasing, but the story is completely lost. I’ve watched it once out of curiosity and that was enough.
Finally a view of the 2005 version that I can share in, every sentiment and every nuance. This video led me to subscribe to your channel.
I, too, have watch the A&E version far too many times to count. And I never got the motivation to rewatch the 2005 version again, though I can still remember some of the beautiful cinematography to this day.
I share in your abhorrence of the marriage proposal scene by Mr. Darcy. It was sorely lacking in accurate interpretation, though it was beautiful in its own right.
The 1995 adaptation was sublime and you perfectly described why. Just like you, I could watch it over and over again.
I agree completely. I honestly can't remember how many times I've watched the 1995 version, and it never gets old. I have watched the 2005 version, but have no wish to watch again. Some of the scenes in 1995 are so deeply realized that I notice new aspects with each new viewing. The 2005 version is not bad, but there simply isn't time and space to give it that kind of depth.
Other film versions lack the "time and depth" of the miniseries, but still stay true to the themes and characters. The Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version, for example. It doesn't hold a candle to the miniseries, but it is faithful to Lizzie's character and keeps her integrity and sincerity.
@@valgardener7656 I love Garson's Elizabeth!
I totally agree with your thoughts.
I've come to accept 2005 movie is just a cinematic fanfiction. It is unfortunate they didn't go farther in rethinking the story because their Mr. Darcy breaks the original plot. If they wanted to reimagine Mr. Darcy, they had to reimagine everything else too.
Ik ben zo blij dat iemand eindelijk is iemand het verschil tussen de serie en de film duidelijk maakt.
De serie is trouw aan het book.
Terwijl de film een overdreven dramatisch sausje heeft gekregen. En al mag Judy Dench een fantastische actrice zijn. Haar versie van lady Catherine the Burgh, mist totaal de dwaze zichzelf belangrijk makende versie uit het boek.
I've seen and love both versions equally. That "almost kiss" was done for women; no matter how far it strayed from proper British etiquette for that time period, most female viewers leaned in to that moment! Beautifully crafted and plucking the heartstrings!
The vast majority of commenters here are women who disagree with you. And even though I am a man, I do see the appeal of the scene, I just don't think it's a scene that belongs in Pride and Prejudice.
Most female viewers did NOT "lean into the almost kiss" scene. For many, it is precisely that scene that killed the film for them.
No, the "almost kiss" was done because it is what the director, who btw never read the original novel, thought women would like. And as a woman, I hate it. If someone who had just purposely ruined the lives of one of my sisters proposed to me, I would be beyond furious, and kissing them would be the farthest thing from my mind.
You summed up exactly what I think about the two versions!! The 2005 is never watched and the 1995 is wathced again and again.
I’ve grown to love the 2005 version, the scenery alone makes it wonderful but I also really love Jane the best in this one. (And because this version is loved by my daughters I’ve watched it several times.) There’s no question though that the 1995 version is my absolute favorite- I’ve watched it more times than I can keep count of.
Love this comment especially how the fact there are specific other people that you share it with that gives it special added enjoyment. I feel that way about multiple pieces of entertainment and art. There are something that I specially associate with my mother and my elder sister and things I associate with my brother or my wife and my children. Engaging in story or art is not an isolated experience or at least I don't think it should be. Just loved that little snippet from your comment.
Let me just put this to you: me, at 14yo, in Vietnam, was totally in love with hk drama, stumbled upon this show randomly on Vietnamese channel, that was airing at like 8-9am on a Saturday! Without knowing its schedule, and i got hooked after like 30mins or maybe at best 1hr (it’s showing 1 episode at a time), I would wake up early, turn on the tv on Sunday, and every Saturday after just to check for the schedule, and proceed to watch it uninterrupted by preparing my favourite breakfast to have while watching it! And it took me a few times to actually complete the series, because I didn’t know the schedule, but I would check my Saturday now and then, n when it’s on, I have my eyes set on the tv for the next few weeks. That is how good this series is! I have watched it at least 5 times when I was young. Came back and watched it again and again for at least another 7 times after the movie came out. Still loving this series so much. It’s truly the best P&P adaptation, period!
On contrary, the first time I watched the movie, it felt like they have a marathon to run. The dialogue is on speed, and makes it laughable. Knowing how big the story is, as an audience, you knew they have a clock to run against, but still, it throws you off so much you can’t enjoy the story, because again, the bullet train needs to make it to the station. And then there is something about the relationship between movie Darcy and Lizzy that just doesn’t work for me. I tried to feel the chemistry, but I couldn’t. The way they represent the dialogues distract their acting, makes the whole thing feel unreal, ingenue.
I put the 2005 into the “for fun” category of remakes like the recent Emma film. It’s an entertaining watch if you don’t mind the changes and it’s overall just really gorgeous. They seemed to really push the angle of Lizzie as Keira Knightly instead of the reverse and therefore they made Darcy a big ol softie to balance out her modern personality and appeal to audiences who want a sweet romantic guy. I argue it results in a less interesting story arc but hey, they have a nice moments like the dancing scene. I enjoy watching the 2005 for the settings, cinematography and the interesting ways they’ve chosen to write each character so that they each get concentrated down and given some very quotable lines such as, “what excellent boiled potatoes”. But the 1995 will always be the standard!
OMG Thank you! I've never been able to understand why I can't stand Kiera Knightly as Elizabeth Bennett. It's not like I think she did a bad job, and I genuinely like Kiera Knightly, so it's not that I can't stand her, so what was my problem? "They seemed to really push the angle of Lizzie as Keira Knightley instead of the reverse" hits the nail on the head!
@@janeldavis905 Lizzie 2005 characterization is the opposite of how Lizzie is supposed to be. When she hears Darcy put her down for the first time, she slinks off to cry instead of laughing. When she rejects Mr. Darcy, she isn't being honest, she's vainly attempting to deny her desire to kiss him. They essentially give us a Lizzie who is exactly like Mr. Collins thought she was.
Lol, regarding 6:34, that's there for the ladies sir.
With respect, the vast majority of commenters here are both "ladies" and in agreement with me. I'm just as capable of enjoying romantic tension as my Austen-fan-sisters and I think that tension is wildly misplaced in this scene.
One of my favorite versions is the 1980 BBC mini-series of Pride and Prejudice. The cast is wonderful and I really enjoy how the actress portrays Elizabeth Bennet. I do also watch and rewatch the 1995 version. I was given a gift set of the mini-series for Christmas one year and it has a lovely book with behind the scenes information. The 2005 version is good for when I don't have the time for a mini-series fix of Pride and Prejudice but I do want a little bit of it. I really enjoyed your video. Thanks for making it!
Agreed, the 1995 version is superior and very re-watchable. It introduces the Bennet family and their world so well that even people who don't know the story can keep up, which can be a problem with period pieces. As far as best adaptations of Jane Austen's novels, Persuasion (the 1995 version) is my personal favorite. ❤
Agree completely about 1995 Persuasion. The best Austin adaptation ever.
I love the 1995 Pride and Prejudice with Erle, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility, the 1995 Persuasion with Hinds, and Emma with Mark Strong . I am not a Paltrow fan.
I reviled the 2005 adaptation so much I wrote my first angry review... 1995 is the best, no contest
Oh yes, this scene made me dislike this adaptation to the point that I did not want to rewatch it. But my reasons for disliking the scene have been for a different reason. Lizzy comes off as way too aggressive and almost hateful. It didn't feel like the real Lizzy to me at all. While 1995 was firm in her rejection, I could always feel her warm, caring, and intelligent character underneath. Keira Knightley's performance is missing Lizzy's charm and warmth throughout the whole movie and the rejection scene to me is the peak that shows it the most.
She does look actively angry and aggressive I thought that too.
I love the 2005 film and so I was initially skeptical when you said it didn't match up to the BBC adaptation, but as soon as you started talking you had me. I had the same objections to the 2005 film (especially the under-serving of the Wickham storyline) but attributed it to being the best they could do in a film. I just had actually forgotten all my objections because the movie is so dang beautiful. I also do think Keira Knightley plays an amazing Elizabeth and it's hard for me to imagine better. Similar actually for Darcy but Firth is every bit the actor if not moreso, and I do agree that the approach to the character is truer to the novel. I've never seen the BBC series! But now I will for sure. Thanks for the video!
I saw the 1995 version and loved it. When the movie came out, I waited to see it.
I, too, think it seemed rush, and particularly agree about the scene you hate. But, I like the 95 version because I think it displays Elizabeth’s disdain for Darcy the way Elizabeth would, biting, yet she seemingly contained her anger and put it into an eloquent rebuttal of his affection. Yet, he could no doubt see her practical hatred underneath those words.
If you've read the book then you probably don't like the 2005 film. The joy of Austen is her language and whilst they couldn't keep all of it, to rewrite many of the speeches is badly done. Mr Bennet is a man who regrets his marriage and would sooner laugh at his children than play happy families, the changes to his character is the worst thing the film did. Mr Bingley acts like an imbecile, not an affable gentleman. Mrs Bennet employs a cook and yet they're practically living in a farmyard, that's not right. I agree about the proposal scene, it's strange, going more Bronte than Austen, pathetic fallacy etc. I think I'll stick with 1995 or for 'Persuasion' also the 1995 Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root.
I equally love the 1995 and 2005 Persuasion films, but I can't with the 2005 Pride & Prejudice movie. The Pride and Prejudice 1995 series is by far the best version!
Yes I agree - good to finally find this critique that aligns with my feelings about the two adaptations!
The problem with character arcs in movies is that they inherently have to be gentler. If you see someone being a jerk at the 20-minute mark, you're not going to want to root for them an hour later. *Especially* when it's a love story. By contrast, in a book you have 100's of pages to change your mind. In a tv-show you have episode after episode to gently walk to a new conclusion. I think both the decision to make Mr. Darcy nicer AND the decision to make Elizabeth's rejection gentler where deliberate choices to help suit the movie medium.
I really think that some stories just do need room to breath, and unfortunately, they don't always get that these days...
I think this is a very well thought through and written comment.
i agree with everything you said. I have no desire to see the 2005 version again but have watch the 1995 at least 100 times and hope to watch 100 more.
You are spot on. Well said. Also, 1995 made a point to cast actors whose looks were accurate for the time period, and the way the way that they were described in the novel. The costuming and hairstyles were far more accurate for the time period, as well. The mannerisms of the characters in the 1995 adaptation were more accurate, as were the sets, the dances - everything about it was more accurate not only to the period but to the book and its tone. The makers of the adaptation went to great lengths to create the most accurate Pride and Prejudice version possible, with little titillating modern bits and pieces thrown in that did not deviate from the plot or time period (for example, the famous shot of Darcy swimming in his wet shirt, only to be confronted by an embarrassed Elizabeth while visiting his estate, definitely does not appear in the books lol. They do run into each other as she is visiting his his estate while he is away, and he does arrive home early, much to her great embarrassment, in the books. However, they do not run into each other as he is returning in a dripping wet shirt, having gone for a swim in his private lake as he has arrived home. Jane Austen couldn’t have written such a scene back then because it would have been seen as obscene by the society reading her books - but it was a great addition by the filmmakers of the 1995 version, as it didn’t deviate to the plot, or the time period, but significantly added to both! And it seems like the kind of thing that Austen would have added to her books if she could have gotten away with it at the time).