![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockOkay. I know I said I was going to wait until I watched the entire miniseries before responding, but I had to write down my thoughts as they came. I've been editing and updating the following notes for the past week or so, as I watched parts 1-4 out of 6.
I thought I should post them now, and then I'll make a second post after I've seen the last two episodes. Spoilers abound after the cut.
Table of Contents
-Visuals
-Pacing
-Story
-Acting & Directing of characters
>>Mr. Darcy
>>Elizabeth
>>Mr. & Mrs. Bennet
-Other Random Thoughts & Observations
Visuals:
In this regard, the miniseries gets its ass handed to it. But then, it's hardly fair to expect a miniseries on TV to have the budget that a film has. Still, the film's beauty wasn't just there in the pretty things, but equally present in the rough edges-- all the stuff that reminds you these people live at the turn of the 19th century. In a way, it reminded me of Master & Commander: Far Side of the World, by giving you a tangible, visceral idea of the lifestyle at the time. The Bennet home was a particularly lush set in this regard.
In comparison the Bennet home in the miniseries feels drab, boring. But, as I said, budget is everything. And the miniseries did have very nice costumes.
[[---AND HERE IS WHERE LIVEJOURNAL MADE ME LOSE A WHOLE PARAGRAPH WHEREIN I DISCUSSED HOW MUCH I LIKED THE WAY THE FILM USED VISUAL METAPHORS TO SHOW THE CHARACTER'S EMOTIONAL STATES AS COMPENSATION FOR HAVING LESS DIALOGUE/SCREEN TIME. STUPID LIVEJOURNAL. ANYWAY, MY FAVORITE EXAMPLE IS THE SHOT AT THE BALL WHERE DARCY CROSSES BEHIND AND TURNS TO SEE ELIZABETH, WHO DOESN'T SEE HIM AS SHE WALKS TOWARD THE CAMERA. VERY QUICK SHOT, BUT CONVEYED A LOT ABOUT HOW THEY'RE ALWAYS JUST MISSING EACH OTHER IN INTENT AND PURPOSE. I'll stop talking in caps now.---]]
Pacing:
Both versions excelled and suffered, depending on how you take your book-to-screen adaptations. The miniseries suffered from being rather boring in pace, whereas the film was briskly paced and never boring. The downside to that is that, even at 2 hours and twenty minutes I could have happily had another hour. The miniseries satisfies the need for more, but it's dawdling pace made the whole thing feel more...dull. It was too much, too slow. It wasn't horrible, but part of me wonders if I'd be able to sit through all of it if I hadn't seen the big-screen version first. As it is, I ended up mostly waiting for my favorite scenes, and spent the rest of my time (especially when a scene felt like it had already lasted forever) analyzing possible differences and letting my eyes explore things like eyes, ears, window panes, etc. Usually if I can take time to analyze it THAT much, which is more than the considerable amount of analysis I give almost everything anyway, then you know my mind was bored. I'm leaning toward the the feeling that if I really want more, then I should read it, not watch 6 hours on screen.
Story:
Here is where the miniseries does succeed. With longer running time we get more dialogue, more plot. But again I can't help but wish that all that stuff came in the form presented in the movie, not here. I want to see those actors and that beautiful set and that music and that directorial style stretched out for hours, not this one.
Acting and Direction of Characters:
Y'all are gonna hate me for this. Brace yourselves.
Mr. Darcy: Because I know you wanted to talk about him first. Well, let me start by saying that Colin Firth is handsome. No one can dispute the fact that he is very "agreeable". I first saw him in Bridget Jones's Diary, and I definitely would appreciate him coming over and helping me make blue soup for my birthday. And he is a good actor. I count myself in the Colin Firth fanclub and agree that he's the sort of looks where you either really like him or don't at all. I do. Okay, got that disclaimer out of the way. All that being said, given the choice between McFayden and Firth's Darcy characters, I'd marry McFayden's version without a second thought, despite the interesting temptations of swimming!Firth!Darcy and fencing!Firth!Darcy. McFayden's Darcy just... I dunno... appeals to me a little more viscerally and a little more emotionally.
Both men did a good job of making Mr. Darcy look stiff-backed, cold, and imperious. Both men made him arrogant and socially inept. Both men managed at various points to convince me that they had chemistry with the lead actress. But... I felt like we were given the chance to empathize with McFayden!Darcy more from the beginning. Even when he was being arrogant and insufferable, I felt like the act was for the other characters, but we the audience were allowed in to see the cracks in the shell-- the moment where he first sees Lizzy, the shots of his hand after touching Elizabeth's hand, the minute there-and-gone expressions of emotion that we the audience could see even though the other characters couldn't as they were always looking away at that moment or simply out of frame. There was a subtle separation between the audience's view and the characters's views, and this division allowed us to sympathize with him a little more. Whether this ability to [slightly] sympathize with Mr. Darcy before Elizabeth herself finds reasons to sympathize with him is out of character or untrue to the book... I don't really care. I think the fact that we were able to see a more three-dimensional version throughout just made the later confrontations that much more dramatic, because we weren't just rooting for Elizabeth, we had also reserved a corner of our hearts for Darcy, even as he was being an ass. His jackass behavior was already established, but knowing that there was more underneath made his awkwardness funnier and his declaration of love ring truer. I'd rather have him be someone I can, if not really like, at least finding interesting from the beginning than have him portrayed as a jerk and then only revealed to be good after the fact when revelations come to light. The latter may be more dramatic (and vaguely Dickens-y) with it's "But you didn't KNOW he was really a great guy when you turned him down, did you?! BWAAHAHAA!" tone, but since these two characters are supposed to be falling in love over the course of the film, I rather like the more humanized version better. It's clear that even when she doesn't like him Elizabeth's interest is still focused on Darcy, and by giving us a faintest suggest of a glimpse of a woobie under the shell we the audience can see easily what Elizabeth only subconsciously senses in him.
I felt like, with Firth!Darcy, we the audience were subjected to the same view of the character as everyone else, meaning mostly Elizabeth's view. Colin's Darcy was a little too hard to read through the first half of the miniseries. Even when he professed to Caroline that he supposedly liked Elizabeth's eyes, I wasn't quite sure I believed him. He could have been talking about painting a fence in the same tone. And his constant staring at her was, yes, cold and mean. It was only at the end of his bungled proposal that I felt like we finally got an expression of genuine emotion out of him. Compared to the film... that scene in the film I was already rooting for Darcy, even though he HAD separated her sister and Bingley and even though he did deserve to be told off, at the same time my heart was breaking for him just a little all the way through.
When I describe it like that above, I'm worried you're going to think that the movie version of Mr. Darcy wasn't the curmudgeony, stiff, unsociable character he is intended to be. Let me assure you, he was all those things in the film. I could easily see why Elizabeth was led to think the worst of him, especially when he listed her faults even as he tried to propose. But at the same time I did sympathize with him, and it meant that I was a great deal more swept up in the moment. My friend started clutching me in the middle of the scene, literally crying (though she does cry easily in movies, I admit), and then when he stormed off she cry-whispered, "No! Bring him back! Make him turn around!" And I was right there with her-- not crying of course, but my lip was trembling and I was rooting in my head "No! Turn around! Go back! Go back and kiss her and admit everything and forgive each other!" If you could have seen our expressions you probably would have thought Phil Collins's 'Against All Odds' was playing in the background. [icon!]
Not to mention that scene was so much more hot in the film. In the miniseries it was a mixture of awkwardness and Lizzy's simmering anger. In the film it wasn't as awkward, but it was three times as painful because he seemed so earnest, but she was so angry about Jane and Bingley, and all of that came out between them and there was this moment when you think, even as they're yelling at each other, that OMG THEY'RE GOING TO KISS! and then they don't because she hates him and his heart is broken and he storms off and we the audience are left whimpering "Come back! Don't end it like this!" Because even though Elizabeth is so angry you can see how attracted to each other they are.
And now I've totally gone off topic. Um... oh right. Comparisons. Anyway, this scene in the film was quite a bit more emotionally charged than the version in the miniseries. Was the scene that dramatic in the book? I've got no idea. But I liked the elevated sense of drama because any movie scene that leaves me in that desperate "No no no don't end it there!" state means it's working as a romantic film. I'm feeling it baby! And none of that emotion takes away from the sense of repressed Britishness, either. If they weren't so goddamn repressed they would have made out right there in the rain.
Now, most of that is in reference to the first half of the miniseries. From the points after the botched proposal we're given a much more sympathetic view of Firth!Darcy. I particularly liked Firth in the scene at Pemberly. I got the feeling he had "practiced" sociallizing so as to make himself less disdainful of class, and thus more appealing to Miss Bennet.
Firth!Darcy seems to have consciously changed for the better for knowing/desiring Elizabeth, while McFayden!Darcy appears for the most part to have been alright all along, just completely socially inept at expressing himself without offending people (or for that matter particularly concerned if he does). I didn't get the transformational sense as much from the film. I guess whether that's good or bad depends on one's interpretation of the novel. Both appear to be equally interesting but different takes on the same character.
Which leads me to the next point of discussion:
Elizabeth Bennet - All throughout the film I was feeling for Lizzy's character. I was sympathizing because I know I'm more like her than I am like Jane; I like to banter and I like to push in conversation and I like sarcastic comebacks and I like wit and if the man can't hold his own in conversation I've no desire to keep talking to him. Nothing kills my interest faster than someone who backs down in conversation. The point of witty banter is not to win, it's to draw more witty banter out of your conversation partner and have them draw more witty banter out of you. Mr. Darcy was very dour, and dourness usually puts me off, but with the dourness there was a touch of acidic intelligence and, oh baby, all I would need is a hint of that acidic wit and my interest would be piqued.
But I didn't realize how much I had identified with Keira Knightly's version until I saw the miniseries version. The version in the miniseries seems a bit older and a bit more refined... she's forthright and stubborn with her opinions, but... she lacks the sass that Keira Knightly had. And I think that it was the sass I identified with. Even though Keira's portrayal did remind me a little of her character in Pirates of the Caribbean, I'm now thinking that Elizabeth Swan was just drawn to be a "lite" version of Elizabeth Benet anyway.
It was like... Keira Knightly is Elizabeth at 20 and Jennifer Ehle is Elizabeth at 26. I think the younger, sassier portrayal works better.
Some people have commented in movie reveiws that Keira Knightly is too pretty to be Elizabeth Benet, the "less handsome" sister. And heck, they're probably right, if that's what the book says. But in comparison to the miniseries... well, Jennifer Ehle is too pretty to be Elizabeth Bennet too. The odd thing is that even though Keira Knightly is a little prettier than Jennifer Ehle, Jennifer Ehle is a lot prettier than the girl who played Jane in the miniseries, so it *still* doesn't work for her to be brushed off as not as handsome as her sisters.
Mr. & Mrs. Bennet - I definitely liked Mrs. Bennet better in the movie; she was just as annoying as the tv series version, but with that annoyance came an endearing quality. Yes, she ran her family crazy and she obsessed comically over her daughters' love lives. But there was an aspect of genuine affection in it that humanized her from being just a face with a fishwife wail.
Mr. Bennet I liked in both versions. Sutherland's absent-minded, half-asleep Santa-like Mr. Bennet was amusing, especially when he said something witty that reminded you he was still there and not actually asleep. The patient, professor-like version of the miniseries was also good, however. Not as amusing, but the genuine love for his family was still there. Both were good.
Overall:
The largest difference between the two versions, I think, is that the film just seemed so much more emotional. I connected to Lizzy and sympathized with her more. I connected to Darcy and sympathized with him much earlier in the story timeline. I wanted so badly for them to stop dancing around each other and realize what they have.
At the end when they finally do admit their love... well, Roger Ebert's review captured my feelings of that moment exactly: "I felt an almost unreasonable happiness."
Other random thoughts:
-McFayden did a good job of making the role physical-- suddenly standing awkwardly instead of gracefully, bumping into things, rushing forward then stopping abruptly and nearly stumbling. It was adorable and funny, but never over the top. Just enough awkwardness to show he has a crush on Elizabeth, not enough to cheapen the moment. In contrast, Firth didn't stumble at all, merely looked like he was constantly restraining his movements out of frustration and a need to control his very immediate physical environment. McFayden!Darcy looked like he didn't know what to do with himself around Elizabeth; Firth!Darcy looked like he was constantly holding himself back from doing something. Neither of these is better or worse, though McFayden's awkwardness did provide some very light comedy. Still, I think it did add to the overall impression I got that the film version of Darcy felt younger than the miniseries version.
-![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
scarlettfish said that the dance scene was hotter in the miniseries than in the film. I thought about this a long time. I have to half-agree, half-disagree. In one sense, it was hotter in the miniseries because the scene really played up how sexy and suggestive the casual brushing of each other's shoulders can be. There was tension there that made it hot, because even though they don't like each other they're dancing and, well, antagonism is always hot on screen. On the other hand, I liked the film rendition of that scene just as much. It had the hot tension, but the dialogue for the scene was better and flowed more smoothly in the moment. And, ultimately, it may not be as full of tension, but what it was is romantic. The shot where the other dancers disappear and it's just them, for a moment? Subtle, almost so subtlely integrated into the dancing that if I'd been eating a hot dog I might have looked down and missed it. But it was there and it was romantic. Pardon me for borrowing from Joss Whedon here, but even when they were still antagonizing each other, they were all each other was thinking about. That's what the dance scene did in the movie, and it worked well.
- the dialogue was delivered very differently in the film than in the tv series, but I find it difficult to describe exactly how. It's like... there was a stage-like formality to the dialogue in the miniseries that wasn't in the movie. The words were the same or similar, but one version really emphasized the reserved and formal tones even in heated conversations, and the other version let them play with the words a bit more. The dialogue in the film was also a lot more integrated into action/behavior: my favorite example being Elizabeth dancing with Collins and Jane and talking to both at the sam time. It was very...integrated.
- there was a definite comedic element to the film that I didn't really get from the miniseries, and that also ties back to the way the director had them deliver their lines I think. But there's more to it than that-- I felt like there was a distinct effort to make the film amusing that was absent in the miniseries, though again this might come back to pacing too. While the humor in the miniseries might be subtler and due to the irony of situations or the cleverness of a phrase (like a book, I imagine), the film went for more direct humor. Which appealed to me more because, well, I wasn't born in the century where I'm familiar enough with the context to fully realize that Sentence A of the dialogue is funny and ironic because of Circumstances C and D. That isn't an exclusive statement, cause I do pick up some of the textual/situational comedy when I know where to look for it, but even if I get that it's supposed to be funny, knowing it ought to be funny if I lived in 1800 and actually finding it so aren't the same.
Okay then. Now it's onto parts 5 and 6 of the miniseries. Discuss discuss discuss!
I thought I should post them now, and then I'll make a second post after I've seen the last two episodes. Spoilers abound after the cut.
Table of Contents
-Visuals
-Pacing
-Story
-Acting & Directing of characters
>>Mr. Darcy
>>Elizabeth
>>Mr. & Mrs. Bennet
-Other Random Thoughts & Observations
Pride And Prejudice: 1996 miniseries vs. 2005 film
Visuals:
In this regard, the miniseries gets its ass handed to it. But then, it's hardly fair to expect a miniseries on TV to have the budget that a film has. Still, the film's beauty wasn't just there in the pretty things, but equally present in the rough edges-- all the stuff that reminds you these people live at the turn of the 19th century. In a way, it reminded me of Master & Commander: Far Side of the World, by giving you a tangible, visceral idea of the lifestyle at the time. The Bennet home was a particularly lush set in this regard.
In comparison the Bennet home in the miniseries feels drab, boring. But, as I said, budget is everything. And the miniseries did have very nice costumes.
[[---AND HERE IS WHERE LIVEJOURNAL MADE ME LOSE A WHOLE PARAGRAPH WHEREIN I DISCUSSED HOW MUCH I LIKED THE WAY THE FILM USED VISUAL METAPHORS TO SHOW THE CHARACTER'S EMOTIONAL STATES AS COMPENSATION FOR HAVING LESS DIALOGUE/SCREEN TIME. STUPID LIVEJOURNAL. ANYWAY, MY FAVORITE EXAMPLE IS THE SHOT AT THE BALL WHERE DARCY CROSSES BEHIND AND TURNS TO SEE ELIZABETH, WHO DOESN'T SEE HIM AS SHE WALKS TOWARD THE CAMERA. VERY QUICK SHOT, BUT CONVEYED A LOT ABOUT HOW THEY'RE ALWAYS JUST MISSING EACH OTHER IN INTENT AND PURPOSE. I'll stop talking in caps now.---]]
Pacing:
Both versions excelled and suffered, depending on how you take your book-to-screen adaptations. The miniseries suffered from being rather boring in pace, whereas the film was briskly paced and never boring. The downside to that is that, even at 2 hours and twenty minutes I could have happily had another hour. The miniseries satisfies the need for more, but it's dawdling pace made the whole thing feel more...dull. It was too much, too slow. It wasn't horrible, but part of me wonders if I'd be able to sit through all of it if I hadn't seen the big-screen version first. As it is, I ended up mostly waiting for my favorite scenes, and spent the rest of my time (especially when a scene felt like it had already lasted forever) analyzing possible differences and letting my eyes explore things like eyes, ears, window panes, etc. Usually if I can take time to analyze it THAT much, which is more than the considerable amount of analysis I give almost everything anyway, then you know my mind was bored. I'm leaning toward the the feeling that if I really want more, then I should read it, not watch 6 hours on screen.
Story:
Here is where the miniseries does succeed. With longer running time we get more dialogue, more plot. But again I can't help but wish that all that stuff came in the form presented in the movie, not here. I want to see those actors and that beautiful set and that music and that directorial style stretched out for hours, not this one.
Acting and Direction of Characters:
Y'all are gonna hate me for this. Brace yourselves.
Mr. Darcy: Because I know you wanted to talk about him first. Well, let me start by saying that Colin Firth is handsome. No one can dispute the fact that he is very "agreeable". I first saw him in Bridget Jones's Diary, and I definitely would appreciate him coming over and helping me make blue soup for my birthday. And he is a good actor. I count myself in the Colin Firth fanclub and agree that he's the sort of looks where you either really like him or don't at all. I do. Okay, got that disclaimer out of the way. All that being said, given the choice between McFayden and Firth's Darcy characters, I'd marry McFayden's version without a second thought, despite the interesting temptations of swimming!Firth!Darcy and fencing!Firth!Darcy. McFayden's Darcy just... I dunno... appeals to me a little more viscerally and a little more emotionally.
Both men did a good job of making Mr. Darcy look stiff-backed, cold, and imperious. Both men made him arrogant and socially inept. Both men managed at various points to convince me that they had chemistry with the lead actress. But... I felt like we were given the chance to empathize with McFayden!Darcy more from the beginning. Even when he was being arrogant and insufferable, I felt like the act was for the other characters, but we the audience were allowed in to see the cracks in the shell-- the moment where he first sees Lizzy, the shots of his hand after touching Elizabeth's hand, the minute there-and-gone expressions of emotion that we the audience could see even though the other characters couldn't as they were always looking away at that moment or simply out of frame. There was a subtle separation between the audience's view and the characters's views, and this division allowed us to sympathize with him a little more. Whether this ability to [slightly] sympathize with Mr. Darcy before Elizabeth herself finds reasons to sympathize with him is out of character or untrue to the book... I don't really care. I think the fact that we were able to see a more three-dimensional version throughout just made the later confrontations that much more dramatic, because we weren't just rooting for Elizabeth, we had also reserved a corner of our hearts for Darcy, even as he was being an ass. His jackass behavior was already established, but knowing that there was more underneath made his awkwardness funnier and his declaration of love ring truer. I'd rather have him be someone I can, if not really like, at least finding interesting from the beginning than have him portrayed as a jerk and then only revealed to be good after the fact when revelations come to light. The latter may be more dramatic (and vaguely Dickens-y) with it's "But you didn't KNOW he was really a great guy when you turned him down, did you?! BWAAHAHAA!" tone, but since these two characters are supposed to be falling in love over the course of the film, I rather like the more humanized version better. It's clear that even when she doesn't like him Elizabeth's interest is still focused on Darcy, and by giving us a faintest suggest of a glimpse of a woobie under the shell we the audience can see easily what Elizabeth only subconsciously senses in him.
I felt like, with Firth!Darcy, we the audience were subjected to the same view of the character as everyone else, meaning mostly Elizabeth's view. Colin's Darcy was a little too hard to read through the first half of the miniseries. Even when he professed to Caroline that he supposedly liked Elizabeth's eyes, I wasn't quite sure I believed him. He could have been talking about painting a fence in the same tone. And his constant staring at her was, yes, cold and mean. It was only at the end of his bungled proposal that I felt like we finally got an expression of genuine emotion out of him. Compared to the film... that scene in the film I was already rooting for Darcy, even though he HAD separated her sister and Bingley and even though he did deserve to be told off, at the same time my heart was breaking for him just a little all the way through.
When I describe it like that above, I'm worried you're going to think that the movie version of Mr. Darcy wasn't the curmudgeony, stiff, unsociable character he is intended to be. Let me assure you, he was all those things in the film. I could easily see why Elizabeth was led to think the worst of him, especially when he listed her faults even as he tried to propose. But at the same time I did sympathize with him, and it meant that I was a great deal more swept up in the moment. My friend started clutching me in the middle of the scene, literally crying (though she does cry easily in movies, I admit), and then when he stormed off she cry-whispered, "No! Bring him back! Make him turn around!" And I was right there with her-- not crying of course, but my lip was trembling and I was rooting in my head "No! Turn around! Go back! Go back and kiss her and admit everything and forgive each other!" If you could have seen our expressions you probably would have thought Phil Collins's 'Against All Odds' was playing in the background. [icon!]
Not to mention that scene was so much more hot in the film. In the miniseries it was a mixture of awkwardness and Lizzy's simmering anger. In the film it wasn't as awkward, but it was three times as painful because he seemed so earnest, but she was so angry about Jane and Bingley, and all of that came out between them and there was this moment when you think, even as they're yelling at each other, that OMG THEY'RE GOING TO KISS! and then they don't because she hates him and his heart is broken and he storms off and we the audience are left whimpering "Come back! Don't end it like this!" Because even though Elizabeth is so angry you can see how attracted to each other they are.
And now I've totally gone off topic. Um... oh right. Comparisons. Anyway, this scene in the film was quite a bit more emotionally charged than the version in the miniseries. Was the scene that dramatic in the book? I've got no idea. But I liked the elevated sense of drama because any movie scene that leaves me in that desperate "No no no don't end it there!" state means it's working as a romantic film. I'm feeling it baby! And none of that emotion takes away from the sense of repressed Britishness, either. If they weren't so goddamn repressed they would have made out right there in the rain.
Now, most of that is in reference to the first half of the miniseries. From the points after the botched proposal we're given a much more sympathetic view of Firth!Darcy. I particularly liked Firth in the scene at Pemberly. I got the feeling he had "practiced" sociallizing so as to make himself less disdainful of class, and thus more appealing to Miss Bennet.
Firth!Darcy seems to have consciously changed for the better for knowing/desiring Elizabeth, while McFayden!Darcy appears for the most part to have been alright all along, just completely socially inept at expressing himself without offending people (or for that matter particularly concerned if he does). I didn't get the transformational sense as much from the film. I guess whether that's good or bad depends on one's interpretation of the novel. Both appear to be equally interesting but different takes on the same character.
Which leads me to the next point of discussion:
Elizabeth Bennet - All throughout the film I was feeling for Lizzy's character. I was sympathizing because I know I'm more like her than I am like Jane; I like to banter and I like to push in conversation and I like sarcastic comebacks and I like wit and if the man can't hold his own in conversation I've no desire to keep talking to him. Nothing kills my interest faster than someone who backs down in conversation. The point of witty banter is not to win, it's to draw more witty banter out of your conversation partner and have them draw more witty banter out of you. Mr. Darcy was very dour, and dourness usually puts me off, but with the dourness there was a touch of acidic intelligence and, oh baby, all I would need is a hint of that acidic wit and my interest would be piqued.
But I didn't realize how much I had identified with Keira Knightly's version until I saw the miniseries version. The version in the miniseries seems a bit older and a bit more refined... she's forthright and stubborn with her opinions, but... she lacks the sass that Keira Knightly had. And I think that it was the sass I identified with. Even though Keira's portrayal did remind me a little of her character in Pirates of the Caribbean, I'm now thinking that Elizabeth Swan was just drawn to be a "lite" version of Elizabeth Benet anyway.
It was like... Keira Knightly is Elizabeth at 20 and Jennifer Ehle is Elizabeth at 26. I think the younger, sassier portrayal works better.
Some people have commented in movie reveiws that Keira Knightly is too pretty to be Elizabeth Benet, the "less handsome" sister. And heck, they're probably right, if that's what the book says. But in comparison to the miniseries... well, Jennifer Ehle is too pretty to be Elizabeth Bennet too. The odd thing is that even though Keira Knightly is a little prettier than Jennifer Ehle, Jennifer Ehle is a lot prettier than the girl who played Jane in the miniseries, so it *still* doesn't work for her to be brushed off as not as handsome as her sisters.
Mr. & Mrs. Bennet - I definitely liked Mrs. Bennet better in the movie; she was just as annoying as the tv series version, but with that annoyance came an endearing quality. Yes, she ran her family crazy and she obsessed comically over her daughters' love lives. But there was an aspect of genuine affection in it that humanized her from being just a face with a fishwife wail.
Mr. Bennet I liked in both versions. Sutherland's absent-minded, half-asleep Santa-like Mr. Bennet was amusing, especially when he said something witty that reminded you he was still there and not actually asleep. The patient, professor-like version of the miniseries was also good, however. Not as amusing, but the genuine love for his family was still there. Both were good.
Overall:
The largest difference between the two versions, I think, is that the film just seemed so much more emotional. I connected to Lizzy and sympathized with her more. I connected to Darcy and sympathized with him much earlier in the story timeline. I wanted so badly for them to stop dancing around each other and realize what they have.
At the end when they finally do admit their love... well, Roger Ebert's review captured my feelings of that moment exactly: "I felt an almost unreasonable happiness."
Other random thoughts:
-McFayden did a good job of making the role physical-- suddenly standing awkwardly instead of gracefully, bumping into things, rushing forward then stopping abruptly and nearly stumbling. It was adorable and funny, but never over the top. Just enough awkwardness to show he has a crush on Elizabeth, not enough to cheapen the moment. In contrast, Firth didn't stumble at all, merely looked like he was constantly restraining his movements out of frustration and a need to control his very immediate physical environment. McFayden!Darcy looked like he didn't know what to do with himself around Elizabeth; Firth!Darcy looked like he was constantly holding himself back from doing something. Neither of these is better or worse, though McFayden's awkwardness did provide some very light comedy. Still, I think it did add to the overall impression I got that the film version of Darcy felt younger than the miniseries version.
-
scarlettfish said that the dance scene was hotter in the miniseries than in the film. I thought about this a long time. I have to half-agree, half-disagree. In one sense, it was hotter in the miniseries because the scene really played up how sexy and suggestive the casual brushing of each other's shoulders can be. There was tension there that made it hot, because even though they don't like each other they're dancing and, well, antagonism is always hot on screen. On the other hand, I liked the film rendition of that scene just as much. It had the hot tension, but the dialogue for the scene was better and flowed more smoothly in the moment. And, ultimately, it may not be as full of tension, but what it was is romantic. The shot where the other dancers disappear and it's just them, for a moment? Subtle, almost so subtlely integrated into the dancing that if I'd been eating a hot dog I might have looked down and missed it. But it was there and it was romantic. Pardon me for borrowing from Joss Whedon here, but even when they were still antagonizing each other, they were all each other was thinking about. That's what the dance scene did in the movie, and it worked well.- the dialogue was delivered very differently in the film than in the tv series, but I find it difficult to describe exactly how. It's like... there was a stage-like formality to the dialogue in the miniseries that wasn't in the movie. The words were the same or similar, but one version really emphasized the reserved and formal tones even in heated conversations, and the other version let them play with the words a bit more. The dialogue in the film was also a lot more integrated into action/behavior: my favorite example being Elizabeth dancing with Collins and Jane and talking to both at the sam time. It was very...integrated.
- there was a definite comedic element to the film that I didn't really get from the miniseries, and that also ties back to the way the director had them deliver their lines I think. But there's more to it than that-- I felt like there was a distinct effort to make the film amusing that was absent in the miniseries, though again this might come back to pacing too. While the humor in the miniseries might be subtler and due to the irony of situations or the cleverness of a phrase (like a book, I imagine), the film went for more direct humor. Which appealed to me more because, well, I wasn't born in the century where I'm familiar enough with the context to fully realize that Sentence A of the dialogue is funny and ironic because of Circumstances C and D. That isn't an exclusive statement, cause I do pick up some of the textual/situational comedy when I know where to look for it, but even if I get that it's supposed to be funny, knowing it ought to be funny if I lived in 1800 and actually finding it so aren't the same.
Okay then. Now it's onto parts 5 and 6 of the miniseries. Discuss discuss discuss!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:11 am (UTC)The mini-series was like, a point-by-point visual replay of the book though, so I can see why parts of it seemed lacking. I watched the series first like nine years ago, and when Darcy confessed I was like "Holy crap wut?!"
XD
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:37 am (UTC)What was most suprising was his audacity and outrageous nerve in asking for her hand after all the things he'd "done" to the Bennets and Whickam.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 05:55 am (UTC)Lizzie was completely justified in blowing him off though. He did come out a little insane, with a good dose of foot-in-mouth.
Don't worry, I won't lynch you
Date: 2005-11-19 05:55 am (UTC)Concerning Firth as Darcy...from your description, the movie Darcy was probably better for the movie. I found Firth very believable. He acts very subtly, which works in a miniseries, but not in a movie. My mother and I have watched it so many times that we comment on how he twitches his eyes in this scene and how awesome that is and how he expresses his emotion so well. ....Yah, we're that bad.
So...to sum up, everything I've read here says to me that it was a better movie. I (although I have neither seen it and know myself to be biased) will probably say that the miniseries is a better adaptation. I have never felt that the pacing was poor, and have always been very excited by the Bennet house.
Anyway...I'm glad for your reflections. I'm going to go drool over Firth now.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 07:39 pm (UTC)McFayden is just YUMMY as Darcy, and Firth -- well I think Colin Firth as Darcy looks like David Boreanaz as Liam/Angelus. Not so much I'd ever mix them up, but enough to give me a few moments of, "oh, that is so WRONG." I understand this is blasphemy, but oh well. McFayden!Darcy has such pretty eyes and yes, a MUCH higher woobie factor.
One of the things that impressed me in the movie was that even though it was cramming a LOT of time into 2 hours, it had all these slow, quiet moments that gave you the sense it was taking its time. The 6-hour miniseries has more of the book in it, but not actually all that much more. And the movie was SO beautifully shot.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 10:43 pm (UTC)To be honest, I like Colin Firth in a business suit much better. I don't think the high collar flatters the shape of his face.
well I think Colin Firth as Darcy looks like David Boreanaz as Liam/Angelus. Not so much I'd ever mix them up, but enough to give me a few moments of, "oh, that is so WRONG."
OMG WRONG. ::scrubs out brain:: Well, okay, now I'll never be able to watch the miniseries again. Which is okay, cause I do like McFayden's Darcy so much better. And I suspect I would even if I'd seen the other version first.
One of the things that impressed me in the movie was that even though it was cramming a LOT of time into 2 hours, it had all these slow, quiet moments that gave you the sense it was taking its time. The 6-hour miniseries has more of the book in it, but not actually all that much more.
I know exactly what you mean. I've been trying to figure out how to explain it. I've seen the whole miniseries now, and... I know there *is* more of the book because there's another two and a half hours worth of screentime, but I didn't feel like there was actually that MUCH more there. It's like... like almost all the same scenes, but the scenes were pared down to focus more on Elizabeth and Darcy and less on the families. I can't think of that many scenes (only a few) that were in the miniseries that weren't in some way in the movie. The movie felt long... and yet, it was only just over two hours.
Maybe it's all blurring together in my head.
But a few days after I saw the movie I announced to my housemates: "I'm going to buy the DVD when it comes out." I don't buy DVDs that often, and they know this. It's just... I *loved* the movie! The miniseries was cute and more novel-like but I loved the movie. Because it was sexy and romantic and dammit, any movie that can really and truly get me emotionally invested in the love story to the point of fangirl squealing MID-movie is a movie I'm going to love. The list is pretty short. Off the top of my head, it's just Moulin Rouge and Titanic. And now Pride & Prejudice.
Of course, when it comes to anime the list is longer. But most movies don't have me swooning. The miniseries didn't make me swoon either. But the P&P movie did.