I seem to be on an Austen kick lately. First I watched Emma (the Paltrow version) again, read the book again, watched Pride and Prejudice (the movie with Keira Knightley), watched Pride and Prejudice (the miniseries with Colin Firth) and am on the verge of watching the earlier version of P&P from way back in 1980. I can’t seem to get enough of it, it seems. (It helps that I’m working with two other authors on an idea for a very non-traditional Austen-inspired anthology, which I hope we’ll get going sometime in March.)

I should say at the outset that I’m no Austen scholar. My interest in the Regency began when I first started reading Austen and other, modern "Regency" writers in the 80's, but I’ve never pretended to be any kind of expert.

Nevertheless, I’m a big fan of the period, and when there are movie or miniseries I usually jump at watching them. While I’ve been disappointed in the most recent television incarnations of Mansfield Park, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion (I’ve yet to see Sense and Sensibility), I seem to be able to watch Emma and P&P over and over again.

I began to think about how the three P&P versions (not including the 40's version starring Laurence Olivier) stack up against one another. I venture to say that the majority of viewers would count the 90's miniseries as the best, if only for the presence of Colin Firth. But having seen all three, I have to admit that I find virtues in each of them. As Elizabeth Bennet said, "There is but such a quantity of merit between them, just enough to make one good sort of man; and lately it has been shifting about pretty much." That would be my attitude in a nutshell. I think, if you put elements of these three productions together, you’d come up with a perfect P&P.

Point by point:

Setting: 

Again, I have to beg off being a Regency scholar, so I’m open to any sort of correction or commentary here.

The two miniseries have virtually the same setting and costumes to my ill-trained eye. The feel is genteel, the houses neat and tidy, the design firmly cast in the early 19^th century mode. The Bennets, though hardly wealthy, are firmly established as living true to their stations in life. This is a world of manners and respectability, in which even Eliza Bennet will only venture a slight distance from convention. The grounds of Longbourn are well-tended by servants, with no sign of a home farm in sight. Overall, the feeling is probably one most of us associate with the majority of Austen’s tales.

Contrast this with the setting of the recent film. It’s far more gritty, dare I say "realistic," in that it shows late eighteenth century daily life in a much less glamorous light. The slightly earlier setting gives the dresses lower waists, even among most of the younger set; the eldest wear the snug-waisted, full skirts of an earlier era, and Mr. Bennet still has his queue. Longbourn is badly in need of a paint job, and huge hogs waddle through the mud in the farm directly next door to the house itself. Everything is at sixes and sevens, bearing little resemblance to the world of the miniseries. 
 

Of the 2005 film, Director Joe Wright said: "I wanted to treat it as a piece of British realism rather than going with the picturesque tradition, which tends to present an idealised version of English heritage as some kind of heaven on earth. I wanted to make it real and gritty and to be as honest as possible."

In that, Mr. Wright succeeded admirably. We really feel a part of his 1797 England, and it does seem as if people really do get dirty, perspire and generally live in the real world. It may not be romantic, but it works.

 Costume:  

 

While the costumes in both miniseries are very similar in cut and design, the movie shows a far wider variety as befits a period in transition. 

 

For this reason, I most enjoy the movie costumes, though they are not what we usually associate with the story’s setting. At times the garments become blowsy and ill-kempt, and there are not many choices for the Bennet girls, who are resigned to wearing the same dresses many times over. This goes hand in hand with the obvious paucity of funds with which the Bennets must struggle, something that is only given lip-service in the miniseries.

 Scenery:

Nothing can beat the movie. But nothing. Lizzie standing on the edge of the cliff in the Peak District ... stunning.

Story:

Of the three, the "old" 1980 version seems the most faithful to Austen in terms of dialogue and the presentation of Darcy as a more distant figure into whose mind we never venture. This made it in some way a less satisfying depiction, because we all love Darcy! On the other hand, it was probably a version of which Jane herself would have approved.



The "middle" version seems to present the compromise between "faithful" and allowing the viewer to get more deeply into Darcy’s perspective while, at the same time, keeping much of the original dialogue intact. One of the quarrels I have with this version is the "Quite the opposite" final line Elizabeth speaks to Darcy as they walk along the path and finally reconcile. While it’s more "naturalistic," it strikes me as very unsatisfying.

Ditto Lizzie’s final line in the 2005 movie: "Well, then," in answer to Darcy’s final proposal and declaration of love. 



Neither of these lines seems a suitable ending to the courtship (though both 90's series and movie go on to show the aftermath ... controversial itself in the case of the movie, though I personally loved the intimate, romantic touch.) The more faithful 80's version uses something closer to the original dialogue, which seems stilted to us now, but certainly no worse than the modern versions.

Being a shorter form, the movie has to cut out quite a bit of the story, including characters such as Mrs. and Mr. Hurst, and also somewhat downplays the role of Mr. Collins and Lydia’s elopement. For the most part, this works fairly well as the essentials of the story are preserved, but one does miss some of the other elements.

Characters:

This is where, when I first saw the 90's version, that I decided the best P&P would be one that used actors from both miniseries in one grand concoction. The film added yet another roster of actors and interpretations, some of which make it very hard to choose between them. The film, again by its very nature, couldn’t present every member of the Bennet family as strong individuals; they were mostly sketches, and so can’t be considered on quite the same level. 

Elizabeth Bennet:

This is by far the hardest character for me choose the ideal actress. Elizabeth Garvie, the "original" Lizzie, is charming. Her eyes sparkle, as does her smile (much rarer than that tongue-in-cheek expression favored by Jennifer Ehle in the 90's version). She is a more serious Lizzie in many ways, but seems quite faithful. 



Ehle is also a very good Lizzie; she truly laughs at the world, perhaps a little too much for my taste, but there’s no doubt that she plays the role beautifully and looks the part as well. 



Keira Knightley, in my view, has the most idiosyncratic interpretation of the character. She projects a modernity and freeness suitable to a more modern girl, and yet she comes off well (in spite of the fact that we can’t help thinking of her as Keira instead of just Lizzie Bennet). She has a little of the first Lizzie’s seriousness combined with that tongue-in-cheek attitude of the second.

  


Mr. Darcy:

The biggest controversy of all! Mostly everyone seems to feel that Colin Firth is THE Mr. Darcy, and at one time I would have agreed. 

   

The 2005 film changed my mind. I enjoyed Mr. Firth, but Matthew Macfadyen seems a revelation with his much more vulnerable, endearing Darcy. 



True to the original tale or not, here is a Darcy who really has suffered hurt and yet refuses to give up what he is determined to have. He’s arrogant yet diffident, strong yet tender-hearted and obviously brimming with love. While Mr. Firth’s eyes often seem flat, Macfadyen’s boil over with emotion. David Rintoul, in the first version, played a perfectly accurate and serviceable Darcy, but our inability to get inside his head made him, inevitably, less sympathetic and interesting.  


Jane Bennet:

Again, a tough choice. Each actress was different but excellent in her own way. Sabina Franklyn in the first P&P was the only dark-haired Jane, and good in a smaller role. I initially thought Susannah Harker from the second version a bit bovine (and not by any means prettier than Lizzi), but she "grew" on me over time, and is the most highly developed (in character!). 



Jane in the movie. Rosamund Pike, is charming, and much more prone to laugh instead of presenting a constantly serene face to the world.

Mary, Kitty, and Lydia:

I much preferred the sober but not sullen Mary from the first P&P to the very unpleasant one in the second miniseries and the too-pretty one in the movie. Kitty was unmemorable (due to lack of time) in the movie, had a much larger role in the 90's series, but was most interesting to me in the original miniseries.





 And Lydia was by far the most developed (in EVERY way) in the 90's series, so far out of control that she lost any sympathy from the viewer. 





Perhaps more effective, but the original 80's version seemed to strike a good compromise. 


Mrs. Bennet:

I found the Mrs. Bennet of the 90's series to be intolerable with her rough and constant shrieking. There was little of humor in her; all she did was grate on me. (If I were her Mr. Bennet, I'd have ended it years ago!) 




Mrs. Bennet in the original series could largely be described as "clueless" at best, often missing Mr. Bennet’s pungent remarks entirely.





The movie's Mrs. Bennet is less whiny and probably closer to the 80's miniseries in character; I’d have to choose between her and the original.  




Mr. Bennet:

I admit it, I have a soft spot for Donald Sutherland. By far the least caustic and gentlest of the Bennet fathers, he really grew on me. His love for Lizzie, and even the other members of his tumultuous family, is obvious throughout. His is a long-suffering, but not defeated, Bennet patriarch.  





Mr. Bingley:

No contest here: my favorite by far was the Bingley from the 90's series: affable, but not a complete pushover. The one in the movie was too goofy and skinny; the one in the original series is more assertive, but unmemorable. 

 


Miss Bingley:

The original Mrs. Bingley I found too insipid, the movie version too sketchy though properly arrogant (even with her ridiculous sleeveless gowns!) As in the Three Bears, the one in the 90's series was Just Right. 





Charlotte Lucas:

Very good in all three versions; hard to choose between them. 


Mr. Collins:

There couldn’t be a much greater difference between the performances and interpretations of the original miniseries to those of the second version and the movie, which were cast along similar lines. The first Mr. Collins is more bumbling and less obsequious; he takes his role very seriously. The other two are simply slimy, to one degree or another. It’s hard to choose between them. Perhaps the most effective is the 90's Mr. Collins, but I found the movie version a little easier to take in spite of his greasy hair.

 

Mr. Wickham:

Appropriately smarmy in the original series, smiled far too much in the 90's series, boring in the movie. I’ll take door #1.  

Mrs. Hurst:

By far the best in the 90's series, absent in the movie. Mr. Hurst, unmemorable. 

Aunt Gardiner:

The actresses were excellent in both the original version (Barbara Shelley) and 90's series, unmemorable in the movie. Aunt Phillips didn’t leave much of an impression on me, either. Ditto Anne de Bourgh, who isn’t supposed to leave an impression anyway. Sir William Lucas and Colonel Fitzwilliam were serviceable, but none seemed more extraordinary than the others.

Georgiana Darcy:

I’d have to say my favorite is Emilia Fox from the movie; gentle and vulnerable, but with her own definite personality. 

Lady Catherine de Bourgh:

Ah. Here the choice of initial elimination is an easy one: the 90's version looks like a spaniel and doesn’t have the snap and elegance necessary in this character, so I can dismiss her easily. It’s a more difficult choice between BBC staple Judy Parfitt and Dame Judy Dench, but in the end no one can beat Judy Dench.  

  


Music:

No contest. The movie has the best, period. I’d call it quasi-Beethoven, which makes it a bit of an anachronism, but it’s so lovely I don’t care. The music in both miniseries was, to my mind, entirely forgettable. 

Looking back over what I’ve written, I realize that, when it comes right down to it, my favorite version (inaccurate or not) is the movie. Keira may not be the ideal Lizzie Bennet, but she does the job, and I just can’t get over Macfadyen as Darcy. And Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, too. 

In a few more years, someone will probably do another P&P in one form or another. It’s a timeless tale that will probably never grow old, even when Keira Knightley is my age. 

Ahem.