Battle of the Bennetts: A Further Film Review
As I promised, I have comments about yet another film that has been out for ages and about which no one cares anymore. I mean the 2005 Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett.
I was prejudiced against this film long before I saw it, long before it came out. My first thought on hearing there was to be a new film adaptation was "Why?" I couldn't understand why someone would make a new version so soon after the 2001 A&E version starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, a version that needs no updating and that is, truth be told, iconic. Colin Firth is Mr. Darcy to every Western woman over fifteen years of age. Yes, even to the non lit-snobs. In the Bridget Jones films, whose plots and characters feature frequent hat tips to P&P, he plays Mark Darcy, a poorly-to-not-at-all-disguised parallel to Mr. Darcy.
I understand that every generation or so makes its own version of the classic stories, updating them to fit the times. But what needs updating about the A&E P&P? Jane Austen would probably be shocked (and, I'll bet, pretty pleased) to see how we have taken her prim and stoic Darcy, whom she features only in very public, usually formal settings (Miss Austen never wrote about a man alone or even outside the company of women, as she had no idea how men behaved in those situations), and made him into an object, often wet and only semiclothed, at whom the women of our day may stare in fascination. It is almost overkill the way Firth as Darcy is repeatedly shown lounging in the bath or, for no apparent reason, diving into his pond for a quick swim. I'm not meaning to drool over Darcy here but to show that this version is not at all dated. Why do we need another?
I can think of only one good reason for a new version, and that is the length of the A&E version. The A&E version's six hours is about four hours more than Hollywood seems to think today's audiences will endure. There was a time when twentieth-century audiences went to films with intermissions, like Gone with the Wind. I don't like to think that our attention span has suffered so greatly in a few decades that we can no longer sit still for over two hours, and it may not be so. The Lord of the Rings films, even the shortened theater versions, were well over two hours each, and they won critical acclaim and massive popular support. However, they are geek culture, and I have wondered how much of the praise they received came from people who didn't so much like the films as wish to appear intellectual and cultured. It seems I have reached no real conclusion on what length is appropriate for a popular movie. I suppose I can understand that six hours may be too long for most.
My second thought on hearing about this new P&P film was "Oh, no! Not Keira Knightley!" Don't get me wrong. I have no personal animosity toward the actress, as I know nothing of her personally. I don't think she's a poor actress, but I do not see her as greatly talented as I would like for a player of Elizabeth Bennett. My real objection, I suppose, is that she is young and popular and, well, too cool and trendy to suit my taste for the player of an Austen heroine, especially the immortal Lizzie. I'm sure this objection reflects far more on me than on Knightly or on the film. It must be my inner high-schooler who doesn't want to let one of the too-cool kids into my nerd realm. Jane Austen is mine, not theirs. They can have their Pirates of the Caribbean and their Dumb and Dumber, but leave nerddom alone!
Another reason I had for not wanting Knightley as Lizzie has nothing to do with lit snobbery. I was annoyed to think that Knightley, with her stick-thin, heroin-addict figure, would replace Jennifer Ehle, a normal-sized woman, as Lizzie in the popular mind. I'm annoyed that anorexic-looking women are featured so prominently in film and made out as the norm for the female figure.
I finally saw the film. It was okay but certainly not great. I couldn't help but notice how the shortened time allowed for so much less character development, how rushed the plot seemed. We meet Wickham once, and the next we see him, he is already married to Lydia. Darcy has no time to fall in love with Lizzie. I know I'm comparing this film to the A&E film and to the book, but what else can one do? The filmmakers knew the popularity of the story and its various forms. They knew they couldn't escape comparison.
Some aspects of the film were pleasant surprises. This is the only film version I've seen in which Jane is truly prettier than Lizzie. Judy Dench finally plays Lady Catherine. (I wondered that she didn't play her for the A&E version.) And there were a couple of really great lines that I didn't see coming but that drew attention to some recent new takes on some of the themes. When Lizzie asks her mother if marriage is "all [she] think[s] about," Mrs. Bennett answers, "When you have five daughters, tell me what you think about." It's interesting to see Mrs. Bennett's gold-digger marriage plots in a new, more sympathetic light. Even better was Charlotte's comment to Lizzie about Charlotte's engagement to Mr. Collins, when she says, "Don't you judge me." Of course, no film could fully explore all possible themes, but it's nice to hear them mentioned.
(As an aside, there was another such line in V for Vendetta, when Evie, talking about The Count of Monte Cristo, mentions that she's sorry for Mercedes because Dantes loves revenge more than Mercedes. Of course, the audience will see the parallel with V's personal vendetta versus his affections for Evie. That theme cannot be fully explored, but at least it is mentioned. It has always bothered me that the female love interest to the hero often gets put aside, that she exists to love him while he exists first to do something else and only then to love her, if he still can.)
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ercasse_ainince) wrote,
content
