In my ongoing project to engage with classics, I have been gathering momentum. I finally feel strong enough to approach the dark heart of hetero culture, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. I read (well, listened to) this book for the first time a little while back, and it was a particularly strange experience. Pride and Prejudice casts a long shadow. Its influence on popular culture has been huge. I knew this, of course, but was not prepared to realize just how central this book is. It is odd to encounter for the first time a thing that has been copied over and over and over again. The book was simultaneously very familiar and completely new. Suddenly, I understood what so many romance novels were aiming for, but seldom achieved.
I quite liked the book. The language is wonderful and the fantasies of ethical, rich, and handsome men – and the power to change these men – are enticing and well crafted. Yet, while the book is a romance, it is also about romances. The narrator is critical – for a good reason! And the book is funny. (Mr. Collins is obviously the best character in the book.) Yet there were also surprises, such as the scene where Miss Bennett goes head-to-head with Lady Catherine de Bourgh; this scene felt like Game of Thrones. It is also obvious that for the tradition of (especially British) romcoms to have outrageous side characters, Pride and Prejudice is a key work.
Of course, once I started on this track, I had to continue with the adaptations. Next, I watched the 1995 BBC television version of the book, which in my circle of friends seems to be very highly regarded (and also gets a shoutout in Barbie). The series, as a whole, is not very good. My daughter opted out after 24 minutes, but I made my way through all six hours of it. Once you get past the slow pace, poor lighting, and mediocre acting – basically the two first episodes — it is quite engaging as Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy is just ridiculously good. Every scene he is in is electric, yet his performance is quite understated. Finally, his career makes sense. Also, the slowness turns into an advantage; there is enough room to revel in the emotions. The series captures the romanticism of the book, but none of its criticism of romantic escapades, since it lacks a narrator.
Of course, this series has also been extremely influential. While watching the show I also understood what all those epoch larper dudes in their formal wear have been aiming for all these years. Unfortunately, I think Mr. Darcy is structurally Aragorn – not as fun to play as to watch.
Next, I continued with the 2005 film version. In many ways the film is superior to the television series. It looks great, the costumes are quite wonderful (the dresses the sisters wear in the television version are hideous), the acting is better, and the director seems to have a vision beyond just providing images to go with the book. Keira Knightly is enchanting as Elizabeth Bennet, bringing in youth and wit and mischievousness and sensitivity in an extraordinary manner. Obviously, Judy Dench as Lady Catherine is perfection. However, even if the film has long shots of looking at the moon or walking in the fields, it feels rushed. The plot is simplified and then also over explained. Even so, the worst part is Mr. Darcy. In this film version all the side characters have been muted and no one is over the top. This means that Mr. Darcy does not stand out as the only sane and sensible character. Furthermore, Matthew Macfadyen – who isn’t bad in the role, just very ho-hum – is dressed all in black and he is presented as if he were Severus Snape.
Anything worth doing is worth over doing, so my next stop was the 1940 Hollywood film version. This one was very different, taking significant liberties with the subject matter. The tale is set in a different time, perhaps in the 1830s based on the gaudy gowns, and the decors and set design are more Hollywood glamour than any British era. Also, if you’ve ever felt that what Pride and Prejudice really needs is a carriage race between Mrs. Bennett and Mrs. Lucas as to who gets home first to tell their husbands to call on the new tenants at Netherfield estate, this is your version. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are pretty much into each other from the beginning and at the end Lady Catherine gives her blessing to them! It is all very outrageous to P&P purists. The acting is quite unremarkable; Lawrence Olivier phones in a Mr. Darcy and Edna May Olivier does her best as Lady Catherine, even if her big confrontation with Miss Bennett is undercut by the slapstick comedy that precedes it, because why not. Ann Rutherford and Bruce Lester have some sparkle between then in the few seconds that they appear together as Jane and Mr. Bingley.
I had already decided not to watch Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016), since I have not read – nor do I want to read – the book. But when I realized that the carriage race was my favourite bit in the 1940 version (and since I started thinking about the need for a crossover film called Fast and Furious 1813, as that title is already positively Austenian), I changed my mind. This was, alas, a mistake.
While adding zombies to Pride and Prejudice is a funny idea, the film does not really deliver. It bombed at the box office, and for good reason. While there are a few nice ideas (Does Jane have the flu or has she been bitten by a zombie on her way to Netherfield? Lady Catherine De Burgh as a feared zombie hunter with an eye patch), mostly the film tries to be coherent as an action film when it is painfully obvious that the combination of zombies and Austen is ludicrous. Instead of leaning into the madness, the film tried to be somehow– serious. It is just a mess – but also very telling of what Hollywood perveived as the key aspects of P&P. Mr. Darcy is in full-blown tall, dark, handsome, and super broody mode. There is bodice ripping action (the Bennet girls have been trained in martial arts in China). Class related stuff has been downplayed, probably as not very central (there are no servants). And so on.
This mess is particularly unfortunate, as serious money was spent here and there are a few fun turns. Matt Smith squeezes as much as he can out of Mr. Collins, even if the material is terrible. I was also so looking forward to the Lady Catherine/Liz Bennet faceoff with Lena Headey as the mistress of Rosings Park, but the scene was super short – and again Lady Catherine ends up giving her blessing. Such nonsense. Also, it is ridiculous that Rosings Park seems to get grander in every film! This was very much a miss.
Moving on to the versions where the story has been transported into the present day, I continued with Bride and Prejudice (2004). This is (basically a British film) done in Bollywood musical style, where the Bennetts are now an Indian family Bakshi, Mr. Darcy is a blond American hotel owner, Mr. Bingley is a British-Indian barrister (Naveen Andrews), and Mr. Wickham is an English backpacker. Instead of class we have colonialism. The translation of the plot is done well, the key beats are there, and it does not seem too forced. Interpretations are made, like when Lalita tell Darcy that he is the last man she would marry, that isn’t what she is thinking, she just wants the hurt him. The film is not subtle, everything is underlined. The musical sequences are fun, though. Filmizations of Pride and Prejudice always have dance sequences. In this one the western duded are perplexed by the Indian wedding dances, but the dances in this film are no more alien to me than the Regency era (or other dances pretending to be from the Regency era) dances in the more literal adaptations. However, in a departure from most P&P adaptations, the dancing in this film looks fun! I guess what I’m saying is that this film is quite fine.
To wrap up the project, I decided to re-watch Fire Island (2022), a recent adaptation written by and starring Joel Kim Booster in the Elizabeth Bennett role. Set on the eponymous gay island in New York, we are now navigating not only class, but also race. Key characters are Asian American, the Bennetts are now a chosen family of less-well-off faggot friends, with a lesbian hen mother (Margaret Cho). The adaptation is a bit looser, everything takes place within a week, and Ms. Austen’s chaste characters are replaced with sweaty horny bodies hooking up. The heart of the story is there, however. I quite like this film, and I know this works also without knowledge of P&P since the first time I watched it I was oblivious to that connection (yes, it is shocking, considering that this film starts with the classic opening line of the book). However, with knowledge of P&P the film is even funnier as the scrip finds quite fun ways to bring in elements like Jane’s illness, the accomplishments, and Wickham’s treachery. However, shockingly Lady Catherine was cut!
Fire Island is my fave film adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, but that does feel like cheating since this is not a straight love story. Even so, I tend to like adaptations that take liberties and have a solid point-of-view while sticking to the heart of the story. (The best Austen adaptation I have seen is like so obviously Clueless, even Austen scholars agree, as much as scholars ever agree.) Still, of the more traditional adaptation I have to go with the 1995 television series. I know I called it slow and boring, but watching the other versions I found myself longing for it. It is a very literal adaptation, where there is enough room to breathe. Yet it is done just as Austen adaptations became an industry, meaning that while it is grand, it is not insane and too polished — and the characters are not self-aware of themselves, or parodies of themselves.
Leave a comment