Pride and Prejudice 1995: Jane Austen Revisited

A couple of weeks ago, I watched the 2005 movie version of Jane Austen's classic love story, Pride and Prejudice. While I liked the movie a lot, I nevertheless was forced to concede that this version, the 1995 mini-series first aired on the BBC, is the definitive one. Some discussions ensued with various Austen fans, and I decided to go back and re-watch the 1995 version. Thanks to my local library system, I got the series DVD this week, and watched its almost six hour length over the last two evenings. I though that, while they were both so fresh in my mind, I would spend some time comparing them.

Jane Austen's classic love story was published in 1811, although most of it was written over a decade earlier, when she was very close to the age of the lead characters. The story, as many will know, concerns the Bennet family, a less-affluent country family with five unwed daughters of marriageable age. As was common at the time, the Bennet Estate is deed restricted so that it will pass to the closes male heir regardless of the father's wishes in this regard. Upon the father's death the women will be left penniless, so finding the brood suitable mates is a high priority. Add to this the strictures of a class-based society, the follies of human nature, and Miss Austen's considerable wit, and you have one of the best novels written in the English language, and certainly one of the most popular.

Of course, Ms. Austen wrote about a topic that she new much about. She was herself born and raised in a Rectory in Hampshire, in a village very like Highbury, the setting for this novel. She too came from a large family, having a sister and several brothers. She never married, and was herself forced to live on the charity of her male relatives, the very fate that threatens the Bennet sisters. In fact, if it were not for her brother Henry footing the bill, this novel would never have been published, and what a loss that would be.

I believe that there is a lot of Jane Austen herself in this story. The eldest sister, Jane (22) is beautiful and serene, perhaps the way Ms Austen wished to be. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Bennet at 19, almost the same age as Austen when she began this novel, is perhaps how she saw herself, less pretty perhaps, but witty and wise. Mary (18), religious and bookish, is perhaps how others looked upon young Austen, the somewhat-plain, parson's daughter. The casting director's must think so, for both the actresses cast as Mary bear a resemblance to known portraits of Austen. But what of the silly sisters, Kitty (17) and Lydia (15)? Does some part of Austen's persona also carry over to them? Also, since Austen was the daughter of a Rector, and two of her brothers became Parsons too, one has to wonder at her characterization of Collins.

The story, as well as being an accurate and witty commentary of the class structure and social order of Georgian England, is a story about the relationships of the Bennet sisters and takes place in about 18 months of their lives. It centers round the apparently star-crossed relationship between the Jane, and the wealthy Mr. Charles Bingley, and the almost instant antipathy between her sister Lizzie, and Bingley's unbelievably wealthy best friend, Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy. The story is well written, witty and, at times, laugh-out-loud funny.

Now while I have spent some time discussing the novel, I have been discussing the mini-series too, for this version, originally aired in six almost 60-minute episodes, is by far the truest version to the book yet presented. The casting, setting, costumes, scenery and dramatization were all done with great care and attention to detail. The acting is uniformly well done. The filming was careful and of the highest quality. The direction is subtle, as it should be with an established classic. This is an exceptionally fine production, and it should please both hard core Austen fans, and those who were unaware there even was a book.

This is such a high quality and enjoyable performance, that I would that I could have watched it straight through. Alas, while my desire for marathon viewings may not have paled since my youth, a time when I once watched the three original Star Wars movies at a single sitting, my ability to do so has long-since waned, and the need for sleep forced me to pause after episode three. This is thoroughly entertaining and eminently re-watchable. Five fabulous stars.

I must also say that watching the two versions in no way diminished my enjoyment of the story. Knowing what is going to happen does not in any way inhibit the pleasure when it does. In fact, it rather enhances the experience when you know a particular confrontation is at hand. And, while I concede that the mini-series is better then the movie, I still think it is quite acceptable to watch both. In fact, I would recommend it. My only constraint is that you should watch the movie first, for there is much in the mini-series that could not be shown in a 2-hour movie, and to watch them in the opposite order would likely be frustrating.

And now for the comparisons:

Here I am comparing the almost 6-hour 1995 mini-series with the 2-hour 2005 movie version. Other versions are pale efforts, and out of the scope of this discussion. Since it is my policy not to reveal significant plot details even for a 200 year-old novel, the relevance of some of my comments, while obvious to those familiar with the storyline, may seem obscure to folks that are not. I hope you will excuse this, but I do not wish to take even the slightest joy of discovery away from anyone lucky enough to be able to view this for the first time.


Costumes, Locations and Sets:

While not being an expert on matters Georgian, although both were exceedingly well done, I believe that the mini-series is more historically accurate. However, the costumes, particularly the ladies costumes, are prettier and more interesting in the movie. Less accurate - looks great. Now there is a source for debate.

For some reason, the movie portrays the Bennet family as being much poorer than the series. This is probably to highlight the social distinction quickly, since there is little time for subtlety. The story does not suffer greatly for the change.

In the movies limited duration, there is little feel for the passage of time. The mini-series makes a much better effort at showing real-time as the story progresses. However, this is inadvertently funny. Several significant scenes occur in the depths of winter. However, one as used to gardens and gardening as I, cannot help but notice that despite the quite realistic looking snow, deciduous trees and shrubs in the background still have all their leaves.


Dramatization:

Obviously, there can be no comparison between a six hour and a two hour version for completeness. The movie version skipped most of the Wickham plot, and reduced Collins to a caricature. Most of this was unavoidable. However, the movie saw fit to create several scenes, perhaps hoping to convey the mood of some plot point they were forced to omit. These scenes mostly did not work, particularly the ones at the beginning and at the totally inappropriate scene at the very end.

However, perhaps because of Emma Thompson's involvement in the dialog, the two key confrontations are slightly more biting in the movie. The series version is nevertheless, very satisfying.


Direction:

No contest. The mini-series direction is invisible. It simply tells the story. The movie tries to show the director's style, and therefore falls short of perfection. Jane Austen had already supplied all the style the story needed.


The Family:

Both Benjamin Whitrow (series) and Donald Sutherland (movie) make excellent jobs of playing the father, Mr. Bennet. However, Whitrow has a much larger and more significant role.

Alison Steadman makes a wonderful job of the odious Mrs. Bennet in the series. Brenda Blethyn's movie version manages only to be annoying.

Both Susannah Harker (series) and Rosamund Pike (movie) are excellent as Jane Bennet. Harker gets by far the better role, but Pike is perhaps more believable as the drop-dead-gorgeous sister.

Jennifer Ehle and Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) both play the spirited Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Bennet well. Ehle has by far the better role, but she does not convey the full range of emotions quite as clearly, and looks smug a bit too often. Knightely made the most of her part and looks fabulous when angry. Despite the weaker script, I will give her a slight edge.

Both Lucy Briers and Talulah Riley do a fine job as Mary Bennet.

Polly Maberly does a good job of Kitty Bennet in the series as does Julia Sawalha (Absolutely Fabulous) as her younger sister Lydia. In the movie version, Lydia's role in the second half of the movie is mostly off-camera, so Carey Mulligan and Jena Malone are pretty much indistinguishable as the silly sisters. I only know who played who from the credits.


The "Friends":

Mr. Charles Bingley and his sister Caroline were played by Crispin Bonham-Carter and Anna Chancellor in the series and Simon Woods and Kelly Reilly in the movie. Both the roles and the actors were extremely good, but if I have to choose, I think Chancellor's Caroline had a slight edge. She pouts really well.

Colin Firth (series) and Matthew Macfadyen (movie) play Mr. Darcy. Macfadyen, I think, looks the part better, but his performance is a little stiff and wooden, particularly later in the story. Colin Firth really grabs this role, and portrays the difficult character development extremely well. I suspect he will be the definitive Darcy for a very long time.

Tom Hollander makes a decent attempt at Mr. Collins in the movie, but the part is too curtailed to give him any help. In the series, David Bamber owns the role. Outstanding!

Lady Catherine de Bourgh is played by Barbara Leigh-Hunt in the series and Judi Dench in the movie. I had thought that Dench's part was curtailed in the movie, but now that I re-watch it, I realized that Lady Catherine de Bourgh has little screen time in the series too. Surprisingly, I will give the nod to Barbara Leigh-Hunt. For whatever reason, Dench, normally a stellar actress, simply overpowered her role.

Adrian Lukis (series) and Rupert Friend (movie) are both sincere and charming as Mr. George Wickham. However, most of Wickham's role in the second half of the movie is lost in translation. If the time wasted on the added scenes had been spent putting two of Wickham's scenes back in, the movie would have benefited greatly. This is really the movies big weakness, and why, I think, the Austen elite were so disappointed. Maybe they were right.

Both Lucy Scott (series) and Claudie Blakley (movie) make a good job of Charlotte Lucas. However, in a total switch from prior comments, Blakely got the better role. Here, perhaps because Charlotte's on-screen appearances are less frequent, the movie added a scene to better explain her marriage. This added scene actually worked, and I was disappointed when it was not in the series.

Joanna David as Mrs. Gardiner is outstanding in the latter half of the series. This role was so insignificant in the movie that in my review, I did not even include Penelope Wilton as part of the main cast.

* * *

DVD:

This DVD is presented at a two DVD set. The six episodes are spilt with three on each disk. The transfer is good and the color and sound are excellent.

In a rare piece of DVD-specific formatting, each disk has only one set of opening and closing credits, with the three episodes between appearing as if it was a single 3 hour presentation, with only a momentary frozen frame to show where the original divisions occurred. This was a nice change from the 3 sets of credits and the obligatory story-so-far openings we usually have to endure.

There is a short how-we-made-it segment that follows automatically after the final credits. While common on movies, the BBC normally don't bother. The cast filmography is the normal text-only minimum-added-value BBC fare.

Rent this or borrow it from your library. Since its "intellectual" many libraries have it. However, don't be surprised if you end up buying your own copy. This presentation will stand up to many viewings I am sure.

* * *

Pride and Prejudice (1995) (mini-series)
Director: Simon Langton
Novel by Jane Austen
Dramatization by Andrew Davies
Release Date: 14 January 1996 (USA)

Cast:

Benjamin Whitrow - Mr. Bennet
Alison Steadman - Mrs. Bennet
Susannah Harker - Miss Jane Bennet
Jennifer Ehle - Miss Elizabeth Bennet
Lucy Briers - Mary Bennet
Polly Maberly - Kitty Bennet
Julia Sawalha - Lydia Bennet

Colin Firth - Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy
David Bamber - Mr. Collins
Crispin Bonham-Carter - Mr. Charles Bingley
Anna Chancellor - Miss Caroline Bingley
Barbara Leigh-Hunt - Lady Catherine de Bourgh
Adrian Lukis - Mr. George Wickham
Joanna David - Mrs. Gardiner
Lucy Scott - Charlotte Lucas

* * *

Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie

Directed by Joe Wright

Novel by Jane Austen
Screenplay by Deborah Moggach
Additional dialogue by Emma Thompson

Cast:
Keira Knightley - Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Bennet
Talulah Riley - Mary Bennet
Rosamund Pike - Jane Bennet
Jena Malone - Lydia Bennet
Carey Mulligan - Kitty Bennet

Donald Sutherland - Mr. Bennet
Brenda Blethyn - Mrs. Bennet

Matthew Macfadyen - Mr. Darcy
Tom Hollander - Mr. Collins
Simon Woods - Mr. Bingley
Kelly Reilly - Caroline Bingley
Judi Dench - Lady Catherine de Bourg
Rupert Friend - Mr. Wickham
Penelope Wilton - Mrs. Gardiner
Claudie Blakley - Charlotte Lucas

* * *