pride and prejudice movie review essay

Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation Essay (Movie Review)

If you’re trying to conduct a Pride and Prejudice film analysis, you’re better to check some interpretations. Below, you will see one of them.

Pride and Prejudice , directed by Joe Wright, is a 2005 movie adapted from Jane Austen’s classic novel bearing the same name. The movie rated PG for some mild thematic elements, was produced by a British film production company called Working Title Films and written by Deborah Moggach. It has a running time of one hundred and twenty-eight minutes. This essay will provide a Pride and Prejudice movie review essay with a summary and examination.

The romantic film was released in September 2005 in the United Kingdom and two months later in the United States. Some of the main characters in the movie include Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Bennet), Mathew Macfadyen (Mr. Darcy), Talulah Riley (Mary Bennet), and Brenda Blethyn (Mrs. Bennet). Although the film version is short, it is persuasive, witty, powerful, and entertaining, making it far superior to the novel.

The movie illustrates the lives of the Bennet sisters. They consist of five young women who are looking for suitable husbands. Their overbearing mother aids them in this process. However, the father seems to be unaware of the unfolding drama. Elizabeth, the second of the five sisters, prevails in the movie. The story’s main plot depicts the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, the affluent owner of the pompous family estate of Pemberley in Derbyshire (Austen, 2009).

As the movie begins, they seem not to be attracted to one another. However, as the story continues, circumstances compel them to scrutinize their hearts and notions about one another to dig out the truth about their lives. In addition, there is also a parallel love story between Elizabeth’s older sister, Jane (Rosamund Pike), and the amiable Mr. Charles Bingley (Simon Woods).

The story also follows the rejection of the marriage proposal made to Elizabeth by a detestable emotional clergyman, Mr. William Collins (Tom Hollander). The underground illicit activities of the open and bighearted Mr. George Wickham (Rupert Friend) are also revealed.

The Bennets are anticipating the coming of Mr. Bingley, an affluent bachelor who recently moved to a house in their neighborhood. Mrs. Bennett is busy strategizing how to let one of her daughters marry this rich neighbor without his knowledge. Jane and Mr. Bingley seem to be attracted to each other.

However, Elizabeth immediately dislikes Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley’s reserved friend. Mr. Darcy is the kind of person who does not like to relate to people who are not of his status in society. And since the Bennets were not very rich, Darcy coldly rebuffed Jane’s attempts to talk to him. After that, Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy unexpectedly return to London, leaving the Bennet family astonished at what happened to the love between Bingley and Jane (Moler, 1989).

Since Mr. Bennet does not have a son, Mr. Collins, the cousin of the five sisters, is the probable heir to the family’s estate because of his close kinship to the family. When Elizabeth refuses her proposal, her father welcomes the idea, but her mother does not.

Collins ends up marrying Charlotte Lucas (Claudie Blakley), a good friend to Elizabeth. Charlotte married him to gain financial security. In the midst of the journeys between London and Derbyshire, the viewers are introduced to the influence of Mr. Wickham, an old friend of Darcy from childhood.

Superficially charming, he convincingly talked to Elizabeth concerning several distorted tales about Darcy. From here on, things start to take a drastic turn. Viewers witness the fall and rise of Mr. Darcy. The fall of the Bennet family is also depicted when Lydia Bennet (Jena Malone), the youngest in the family, elopes with Mr. Wickham. However, it seems that this marriage is not founded on love. As the story ends, Jane and Mr. Bingley are engaged despite the difficulties. In addition, Elizabeth accepts Darcy’s second proposal.

Many changes are often made to literary works when they are adapted into a movie (Geraghty, 2008). Pride & Prejudice is no exception, as a number of notable changes from the original novel are evident throughout the film. The movie was compressed into one hundred and twenty-eight minutes, significantly reducing the time for several major sequences. For example, Elizabeth’s visits to several places, such as Rosings Park and Pemberley, were not adequately covered.

The filmmakers also did not include several supporting characters. Some of them are Louisa Hurst, Mr. and Mrs. Phillips, and several friends of the Bennett family. Numerous sections whereby the characters talk about experiences, which had already taken place, are also emitted in the film version. For instance, the chapter describing Elizabeth’s change of perspective after receiving the love letter from Darcy. This may be the only weakness in the movie.

Any person who has read Austen knows that possibly her greatest strength rests in her use of supporting characters and detailed explanations of events. Abbreviating some sections fails to convey this richness in her writing. In as much as there is a lot of sacrifice in adapting the book into a two-hour film, the pacing issue in the film makes some scenes suddenly rush forward and fail to depict Austen’s intentions in writing the novel.

Wright and his screenwriter, Moggach, modified numerous scenes to create a more loving environment than the ones in the novel. For example, in the movie, Darcy first gives his proposal outside in a rainstorm near a beautiful lake, while in the novel, this scene occurs inside a church house.

In the movie, in another attempt to engage Elizabeth, Darcy proposes to her on the misty moors in the early morning, while in the novel, the scene takes place when both of them are strolling down a country lane during the day. In the United States version of the movie, the last scene depicts the newly married Darcys having a good time outside their home in Pemberley. However, this additional final scene is absent in the book.

This romantic ending received a hostile reception in the United Kingdom; therefore, it was secluded for the country and international audience. The UK film version culminates with Mr. Bennet giving Elizabeth and Darcy his blessings on their relationship. This circumvents the last chapter of the book. The book ends by summing up the lives of the main characters in the story over the next numerous years.

The tone of the movie differs from that of the novel. As the movie starts, the director and the screenwriter fail to include the author’s well-known, cunningly satirical, aphoristic opening line. This instant shift in tone continues throughout the whole movie. The filmmakers placed more emphasis on romance. However, the novel’s author intended to portray the morals and the mores of a marriage relationship.

As pointed out above, several important scenes are shifted from the drawing room to the countryside. This complements and strengthens the teeming passions of the characters. Perhaps, the secret weapon for the movie’s success lies in its romantic aspect. On the other hand, Austen did not portray this in the novel. The cinematographer, Roman Osin, also captured the film’s skillfully designed surface well. The old saying ‘beauty is only skin deep’ depicts the outstanding cinematography in the film.

As the director made full use of the spectacular scenery of England’s countryside, the cinematographer did his best to bring the correct mood to every shot, whether it was warm, broad daylight, chill, or spring morning. The filmmakers used attractive scenes to allow the moviegoer to lose themselves engaging with the film’s captivating performers. The making of such an elegant and captivating world is likely to charm many viewers.

Credit goes to the film director for casting performers closer in age than the ones in the novel. However, there are some weaknesses in the characters in the film. Although the actors are handsome and talented, they fall short of hooking up with the audience in some places.

Austen’s classic novel has an emotional pull that the movie fails to portray to the audience. Some parts are too cold and distant. It is as if the characters were deriving their cue from the brooding personality of Darcy. The movie’s older generation of actors achieved a higher caliber of performance.

Donald Sutherland, Dame Judi Dench, and Brenda Blethyn headlined these veteran actors in providing the film’s best moments. Brenda Blethyn understands the significance of the quandary facing his family, but simultaneously he only wants his children to get the best husbands. The hen-pecked, world-weary Sutherland prevails in every scene he is in with his laconic dry sense of humor. This contrasts Blethyn’s restless, one-track-minded display of character.

On the hand, the younger group did not portray an engaging performance as did their more senior counterparts. For example, Austen portrays Darcy as unapproachable; however, in the film, Macfadyen treats him so unfriendly that he fails to give an engaging performance.

Darcy is less engaged in the activities, so Elizabeth’s attraction to him is difficult to explain. The Bennet sisters are not convincing as siblings since none of them looks similar to the other, and their interactions with one another fail to sell the bond of sisterhood. Elizabeth seems to be the only one who is full of life.

The supposed relationship between Jane and Bingley seems to exist in the films to maintain the same running joke. The relationship is underplayed, and it lacks chemistry. It is difficult for someone to believe that the two are in love, except by closely scrutinizing the characters as the story develops.

The incarnation of Pride and Prejudice makes it to be occasional anachronistic. For example, there are moments when the performers portray very modern habits that differ from when it is set. A number of the women characters are especially liable to instances of defiance and vivacity. This is a more common behavior of women in our age than people in the early nineteenth century.

However, the filmmakers intended to make the performers more approachable to viewers of this age with these mannerisms. Besides the weaknesses that exist in the film, it is very intriguing. In addition to its great story outline, the five-star characters did an excellent job. The soundtrack and the costumes used portray the setting of the 1813 classic by Austen. The film is best suited for persons aged sixteen and above, especially those who adore stories concerning love, disloyalty, guilt, and desire.

The adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is a demonstrative confirmation against any protests to the perpetual significance of Austen’s beloved classic of behavior, relationship, and riches. The movie opens up and unfurls Austen’s tightly drawn work of literature. In this manner, the actors are able to breathe and move about. This could not have been possible in a slavish version. One feels alive in the movie as there is a pulsating vitality, which is usually so distinct that it diverts from the story.

However, this diversion is not detrimental to the story. Yes, it is evident that several changes have been made to the original text. Some subplots have been grouped, significant exchanges taken to unusual locales, new scenes incorporated, and others taken away completely. The filmmakers also changed the overall thematic emphasis of the story. However, the movie is persuasive, witty, powerful, and entertaining, making it far superior to the novel.

Austen, J., 2009. Pride and prejudice . New York : Feather Trail Press.

Geraghty, C., 2008. Now a major motion picture : film adaptations of literature and drama. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Moler, K. L., 1989. Pride and prejudice : a study in artistic economy. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

• Why Do We Watch Horror Films?
• Twilight Saga: Book Series and Movies and Its Competitors
• Letters in “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen
• "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen: Characters Analysis
• “Pride and Prejudice” by Austen: Chapter 43
• Movie Babel by Alejandro Gonzalez Innarritu
• Impact of Modern Digital Technologies on Film Industry
• Fall From Power in ”The Last Emperor” Movie
• Pu Yi: The Last Emperor
• Star System in the Silent Cinema
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 7). Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pride-and-prejudice-film-critical-analysis/

"Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation." IvyPanda , 7 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/pride-and-prejudice-film-critical-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation'. 7 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pride-and-prejudice-film-critical-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pride-and-prejudice-film-critical-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Pride and Prejudice: Film Interpretation." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pride-and-prejudice-film-critical-analysis/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Miss Knightley meets Mr. Darcy

Keira Knightley is Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew MacFadyen is Mr. Darcy in "Pride Prejudice."

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. Everybody knows the first sentence of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. But the chapter ends with a truth equally acknowledged about Mrs. Bennet, who has five daughters in want of husbands: “The business of her life was to get her daughters married.”

Romance seems so urgent and delightful in Austen because marriage is a business, and her characters cannot help treating it as a pleasure. Pride and Prejudice is the best of her novels because its romance involves two people who were born to be in love, and care not about business, pleasure, or each other. It is frustrating enough when one person refuses to fall in love, but when both refuse, we cannot rest until they kiss.

Of course all depends on who the people are. When Dorothea marries the Rev. Casaubon in Eliot’s Middlemarch, it is a tragedy. She marries out of consideration and respect, which is all wrong; she should have married for money, always remembering that where money is, love often follows, since there is so much time for it. The crucial information about Mr. Bingley, the new neighbor of the Bennet family, is that he “has” an income of four or five thousand pounds a year. One never earns an income in these stories, one has it, and Mrs. Bennet ( Brenda Blethyn ) has her sights on it.

Her candidate for Mr. Bingley’s hand is her eldest daughter, Jane; it is orderly to marry the girls off in sequence, avoiding the impression that an older one has been passed over. There is a dance, to which Bingley brings his friend Darcy. Jane and Bingley immediately fall in love, to get them out of the way of Darcy and Elizabeth, who is the second Bennet daughter. These two immediately dislike each other. Darcy is overheard telling his friend Bingley that Elizabeth is “tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me.” The person who overhears him is Elizabeth, who decides she will “loathe him for all eternity.” She is advised within the family circle to count her blessings: “If he liked you, you’d have to talk to him.”

These are the opening moves in Joe Wright’s new film “Pride & Prejudice,” one of the most delightful and heartwarming adaptations made from Austen or anybody else. Much of the delight and most of the heart comes from Keira Knightley , who plays Elizabeth as a girl glowing in the first light of perfection. She is beautiful, she has opinions, she is kind but can be unforgiving. “They are all silly and ignorant like other girls,” says her father in the novel, “but Lizzie has something more of quickness than her sisters.”

Knightley’s performance is so light and yet fierce that she makes the story almost realistic; this is not a well-mannered “Masterpiece Theatre” but a film where strong-willed young people enter life with their minds at war with their hearts. The movie is more robust than most period romances; it is set earlier than usual, in the late 1700s, a period more down to earth than the early Victorian years. The young ladies don’t look quite so much like illustrations for Vanity Fair, and there is mud around their hems when they come back from a walk. It is a time of rural realities: When Mrs. Bennet sends a daughter to visit Netherfield Park, the country residence of Mr. Bingley, she sends her on horseback, knowing it will rain, and she will have to spend the night.

The plot by this point has grown complicated. It is a truth universally acknowledged by novelists that before two people can fall in love with each other, they must first seem determined to make the wrong marriage with someone else. It goes without saying that Lizzie fell in love with young Darcy ( Matthew MacFadyen ) the moment she saw him, but her pride has been wounded. She tells Jane: “I might more easily forgive his vanity had he not wounded mine.”

The stakes grow higher. She is told by the dashing officer Wickham ( Rupert Friend ) that Darcy, his childhood friend, cheated him of a living that he deserved. And she believes that Darcy is responsible for having spirited Bingley off to London to keep him out of the hands of her sister Jane. Lizzie even begins to think she may be in love with Wickham. Certainly she is not in love with the Rev. Collins ( Tom Hollander ), who has a handsome living and would be Mrs. Bennet’s choice for a match. When Collins proposes, the mother is in ecstasy, but Lizzie declines, and is supported by her father ( Donald Sutherland ), a man whose love for his girls outweighs his wife’s financial planning.

All of these characters meet and circle each other at a ball in the village Assembly Hall, and the camera circles them. The sequence feels like one unbroken shot, and has the same elegance as Visconti’s long single take as he follows the prince through the ballrooms in “ The Leopard .” We see the characters interacting, we see Lizzie avoiding Collins and enticing Darcy, we understand the politics of these romances, and we are swept up in the intoxication of the dance. In a later scene as Lizzie and Darcy dance together everyone else somehow vanishes (in their eyes, certainly), and they are left alone within the love they feel.

But a lot must happen before the happy ending, and I particularly admired a scene in the rain where Darcy and Lizzie have an angry argument. This argument serves two purposes: It clears up misunderstandings, and it allows both characters to see each other as the true and brave people they really are. It is not enough for them to love each other; they must also love the goodness in each other, and that is where the story’s true emotion lies.

The movie is well cast from top to bottom; like many British films, it benefits from the genius of its supporting players. Judi Dench brings merciless truth-telling to her role as a society arbiter; Sutherland is deeply amusing as a man who lives surrounded by women and considers it a blessing and a fate, and as his wife Blethyn finds a balance between her character’s mercenary and loving sides. She may seem unforgivably obsessed with money, but better to be obsessed with money now than with poverty hereafter.

When Lizzie and Darcy finally accept each other in “Pride & Prejudice,” I felt an almost unreasonable happiness. Why was that? I am impervious to romance in most films, seeing it as a manifestation of box office requirements. Here is it different, because Darcy and Elizabeth are good and decent people who would rather do the right thing than convenience themselves. Anyone who will sacrifice their own happiness for higher considerations deserves to be happy. When they realize that about each other their hearts leap, and, reader, so did mine.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Pride and Prejudice

• Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy
• Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet
• Judi Dench as Lady Catherine
• Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet
• Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet
• Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet
• Tom Hollander as William Collins
• Simon Woods as Charles Bingley
• Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet
• Rupert Friend as Lt. Wickham
• Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet
• Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet
• Deborah Moggach

Based on the novel by

• Jane Austen

Directed by

Leave a comment, now playing.

Terrifier 3

Falling Stars

Lonely Planet

We Live in Time

Piece by Piece

Saturday Night

The Apprentice

The Last of the Sea Women

Latest articles.

30 Minutes On: Talk Radio

Netflix’s “Tomb Raider: The Legend of Lara Croft” Gives Life to Iconic Character

Phenomenal Remake Reminds Gamers of the Influence of “Silent Hill 2”

Peacock’s Frustrating “Teacup” Feels Only Half-Full

The best movie reviews, in your inbox.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Pride and Prejudice — Critical Analysis Of The Film Adaptation Of Pride And Prejudice

Critical Analysis of The Film Adaptation of Pride and Prejudice

• Categories: Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice

About this sample

Words: 869 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 869 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1824 words

4 pages / 1708 words

4 pages / 1738 words

2.5 pages / 1208 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Pride and Prejudice

The need to reconsider first impressions runs throughout Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Both Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy judge one another harshly based on first impressions, while Elizabeth also forms judgments of Mr. [...]

Pride and Prejudice, written by Jane Austen, is a timeless classic that explores themes of love, society, and personal growth. While much of the discussion around this novel focuses on its characters and themes, the role of [...]

When Jane Austen published Pride and Prejudice in 1813, England was a society heavily divided by social class, where marriage was viewed as the ultimate goal for women, and where prejudiced opinions were rampant. Through her [...]

Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice is a classic portrayal of the societal norms and expectations surrounding marriage in the early 19th century. The novel explores the themes of love, marriage, and social status, and [...]

“If marriage be such a blessed state, how comes it, may you say, that there are so few happy marriages?” (Astell 2421). Marriage is one of the main themes of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, a key motivator for many of its [...]

In the society described in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, money was as much a social currency as it was a means of exchange for goods and services. Money was often commensurate with social rank, yet there was a feeling [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Lydia in Pride and Prejudice: Character Analysis Words: 1876
• Character Analysis in the Mean Girls Movie Words: 848
• “Sense and Sensibility” and “Pride and Prejudice” Films Words: 1799
• Going to the Movies Words: 838
• Analysis of “Pride and Prejudice” Main Character Words: 291
• An Analysis of ”Robinson Crusoe” and ”Pride and Prejudice” Words: 620
• “Pride and Prejudice” a Novel by Jane Austen Words: 1977
• “Mean Girls” by Mark Walters Movie Analysis Words: 5592
• The Role of Letters in Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” Words: 1393
• The Paradise Now Movie Analysis Words: 881
• “Rear Window” Movie Analysis Words: 1186
• Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen Words: 2199
• Why Movies Are Popular All Over the World Words: 858
• Letters in “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen Words: 1097
• Horror Movie Analysis and Its Approaches Words: 835
• “Pride and Prejudice” as Austen’s Book’s Title Words: 402

Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis

Introduction, reference list.

The character of the move that has been chosen for this analysis of personality is Keira Knightley’s character of Elizabeth Bennet, the main female character of the movie “Pride and prejudice” (2005) directed by Joe Wright. Though this paper is aimed not at the creation of movie review, we feel the necessity of explaining the choice of the move that will help to compose more complete impression about our analysis. The choice of the move and the character is determined by the following factors: the move is based on the classical literary work by Jane Austin that has proved the quality of the plot and characters, in comparison with, for instance, modern action move that are focused not on the images of characters, but on external factors like shooting, violence, etc. Thus, the character of Elizabeth Bennet is considered to be suitable for the psychological analysis.

Elizabeth Bennet, a twenty-year-old young woman, is the second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. On the whole, the family has five unmarried daughter and is characterized by rather meager income and absence of dowry, which is the cause of the mother’s anxiety and father’s estrangement. Among this continuing fuss and financial and communicational problems, the main character, Elizabeth, is presented as a person who is alien to this hypocritical and shallow society that is focused on profit and good bargains even if it involves human lives and feelings. It seems that Elizabeth belongs neither to her family nor to society of that time, because she has nothing in common with other female characters of the movie. The chief trait of her character is intelligence and quick-wittedness combined with extreme honesty, resoluteness, optimism. She is in the habit of analyzing the actions of other characters; she likes to reflect on her past experience during her long lonely walks. Elizabeth is unselfish and will never do anything against her feelings in order to get benefit. This is why she rejects two marriage proposals: one from Mr. Collins whom she had never considered a match, the second from Mr. Darcy, her soul mate, who had produced wrong impression on the heroine. However, Elizabeth’s character is not ideal. She is given to making a judgment about a person on the basis of the first impression; this is why her conclusions are often wrong and incomplete. Besides, she is very emotional and her emotions stymie the objective evidence for judgments.

First of all, let us present the analysis of Elizabeth Bennet’s character on the basis of Eric Erikson’s theory. This theory is called “post-Freudian theory”, because it is the extended variant of Freud’s classification of infantile developmental stages that includes the period of the whole life. According to Eric Erikson, a person comes through eight stages during his/her life, and the transition from one stage to another is determined by the person’s ability or inability to resolve the main conflict of the stage. As for the place of Elizabeth Bennet in the classification, let us assume she belongs to the sixth stage, which is called “early adulthood” and is marked by the conflict between “intimacy and isolation” (Weiten et al., 2008, p. 341). According to the classification, the girl’s first consideration should be the search for a perfect match for her to live happily till death separates them. In fact, the girl’s refusal to marry both candidates, Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy, may prejudice her belonging to this stage. Still, the refusals may be justified by the process of active search and the girl’s discretion, her reluctance to agree to marry the first man that comes across and it may be considered the evidence for the girl’s desire “to form close and lasting relationship” (Weiten et al., 2008, p. 341). This reasonableness is the sign of maturity, characteristic of adults.

However, the conduct of the heroine of Keira Knightley is determined not by the desire to find a true love and husband. Though this desire is present, it is not the one that is prevalent. Her actions are motivated by the offence of her feelings connected with Mr. Bingley’s departure and betrayal of Elizabeth’s sister, Jane’s, feelings. Elizabeth’s conclusions and judgments often lack thorough analysis and reflection. This is strong evidence of her immaturity (at least in the first part of the movie). J.J. Arnett (2000) states:

Erikson has distinguished – without naming – a period that is in some ways adolescence and in some way young adulthood yet not strictly either one, a period in which adult commitments and responsibilities are delayed while the role experimentations that began in adolescence continues and in fact intensifies (p. 470).

This is why the personality of Elizabeth Bennet may be defined according to Erikson’s theory as occupying the place on the boundary between the fifth and the sixth stage, because Elizabeth is not yet an adult, but not an adolescent already, because of her intelligence and strong moral qualities, which are already formed. However, as the action unfolds, the character becomes more and more mature and it may be stated that in the final scene she passes to the sixth stage completely.

For the second analysis the Holistic-Dynamic theory of Abraham Maslow has been chosen. As the psychologist stated himself, he had called it like that “to express [his] conviction about its major roots” (Cooper and Pervin, 1998, p. 189). Thus, the theory is based on the study of human motivation that is based on the hierarchy of needs, which is usually presented in the shape of a pyramid. “The pyramidal structure includes physiological safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization” (Garrison, 2008, p. 53). As self-actualization or the “realization of potential” is the highest possible motive of a person, it can be stated that Elizabeth Bennet was driven by this motive, that may be proven by her active life position, love of reading and acquiring new knowledge, her commutability, and desire to improve and develop her personality (Weiten et al., 2008, p. 53). According to Maslow’s theory, Elizabeth may be considered a “healthy personality”, because of her “commitment to continual personal growth” ( Weiten et al., 2008, p. 54). Maslow’s words “What a man can be, he must be” might well be considered Elizabeth’s motto (Weiten et al., 2008, p. 53). Many of the traits of character that the psychologist ascribed to “healthy personality” could be found in the character of Elizabeth: she was open and sincere, she was sensitive to the needs of the people who surrounded her (her sister Jane). However, she did not try to please other people if she knew that their demands were unjust, like her revolt against the mother’s desire to force her into marriage. Consequently, the girl is not “dependent on others for approval” (Weiten et al., 2008, p. 54). The characteristic of detachment and need for privacy, mentioned by Maslow, may be found in the girl’s solitary walks she liked. The girl’s friendship with her elder sister and one “ugly duckling”, Betsy, fulfills the demand of having strong friendly relationship limited in number. Finally, Maslow’s statement that healthy personalities “strike a balance between many polarities in personality” accounts for Elizabeth’s tendency to be childlike and mature at the same time (Weiten et al., 2008, p. 54).

On analyzing the character of Elizabeth Bennet, it is possible to define which theory was more useful for the analysis. Maslow’s theory suggested the scheme that reflected his vision of “healthy personality”, with definite criteria for the analysis. The character of Elizabeth met almost all the requirements set by the scientist; this is why the characterization of the girl’s personality has proved to be complete and precise. As for the theory of Erikson, it may be stated that it was useful for the analysis as well, but it was difficult to find a separate stage of development for this concrete character this suggests the idea that the theory lacks intermediate stages. However, the application of both theories has enabled us to make the analysis successfully.

In conclusion let us say that the application of the theories of personality of Maslow and Erikson on the basis of the analysis of a movie character has opened the perspectives of the application of these theories with real people. Elizabeth Bennet may be defined as “healthy personality” that is in her active search for self-actualization and a person that is moving from adolescence to early adulthood. On the whole, the analysis of personality may be useful in many fields of applied psychology. Every theory has its advantages and weak points; this justifies the choice of the combination of several theories of personality. The application of other theories, such as dispositional theories, learning theories, etc. may be used in the future research.

Arnett, J. J. (2000, May). “Emerging Adulthood. A Theory of Development From the Late Teens Through the Twenties”. American Psychologist . 55(5), 469-480.

Cooper, C.L., & Pervin L.A. (1998). Personality: Critical Concepts of Psychology . London: Routledge.

Garrison, C. (2008). “You Are Never Too Old. One Woman’s Journey to Self-Actualization”. Journal of Gerontological Nursing . 34(2), 53-56.

Weiten, W., Lloyd, M.A., Dunn, D.S., and Hammer E. (2008). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century . NY: Cengage Learning.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 7). Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis. https://studycorgi.com/pride-and-prejudice-2005-movie-analysis/

"Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis." StudyCorgi , 7 Nov. 2021, studycorgi.com/pride-and-prejudice-2005-movie-analysis/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis'. 7 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis." November 7, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/pride-and-prejudice-2005-movie-analysis/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis." November 7, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/pride-and-prejudice-2005-movie-analysis/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis." November 7, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/pride-and-prejudice-2005-movie-analysis/.

This paper, “Pride and Prejudice (2005): Movie Analysis”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 8, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Austenprose

Your online source for Jane Austen and her legacy

Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie – A Review

I vividly remember sitting in the theatre in 2005 waiting for the curtain to rise on the new Pride & Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfayden. I was excited that one of my favorite Jane Austen novels was being trotted out as a major motion picture. It had been 65 years since MGM released its theatrical version of Pride and Prejudice and I was looking forward to two hours of sumptuous costumes and eye-popping settings that were not set in the Victorian era!

A New Mr. Darcy  

I had been reading about the Focus Features production for months on the Internet, especially at Austenblog, where the editrix Mags had been following the media promotional machine very closely. I had no idea who the British actor slated to portray the iconic romantic hero Mr. Darcy was. My sympathy for him was already acute. How could he possibly fill those big, black, shiny Hessian boots that Colin Firth’s strode about in so effortlessly in 1995? Queue fanfare music and red velvet curtain rising at the theater.

Overcoming Pride and Prejudice, Again

Since this movie was released eight years ago and has been available on DVD since February 2006, is there Janeite left in the world who has not seen it? Just in case you don’t know what it is about here is the blurb from the production notes:

Sparks fly when spirited Elizabeth Bennet meets single, rich, and proud Mr. Darcy. But Mr. Darcy reluctantly finds himself falling in love with a woman beneath his class. Can each overcome their own pride and prejudice?

An Entirely New Interpretation of Austen’s Story 

Adapted from Jane Austen’s classic novel by Deborah Moggach, with a spit polish on the dialogue by Emma Thompson (uncredited), director Joe Wright had a definite vision of what his movie version of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice would be—and it is entirely different from what we had seen on screen or television before. Even though he assembled a fine cast of British actors, and a talented production team to relay his concept, my first impressions were ill-favored. However, the movie is appreciated by many and received four Academy Award nominations, including best actress for Knightley. Some Austen fans absolutely adored it—others not so much. I remained in the grey zone. Even after many years and several viewings, I am ambivalent, and that is the problem. The good stuff seemed to cancel out the bad stuff and left me in Switzerland.

Television Mini-Series VS. Movie Version 

Comparing it to its predecessors is unfair, but it is inevitable. This movie is only two hours and nine minutes long, versus the five hours plus 1995 BBC/A&E miniseries. For those who enjoyed the Colin Firth version, which attentively followed much of Austen’s plot and included many lines of her dialogue, the transition to a shorter length will seem truncated—and rightly so. Wright’s version is set in the late eighteenth century and not in the prettified early nineteenth century of the 1995 miniseries. Honestly, the fashions in the late eighteenth century are not as striking as the Regency era. Are we swayed by pretty things? Heck yes!

Deeper Social Chasm 

The most disturbing difference in the two versions is in the social chasm between the two adaptations Bennet families. The 2005 version’s clothing, furnishing, attitudes, and manners are decidedly lower in station, bordering upon peasant class. This stark contrast makes the social class difference between the heroine Elizabeth Bennet’s lower-class landed gentry upbringing and the very wealthy and refined upper-class Mr. Darcy very wide indeed, and all the more amazing that he chooses her as his bride. Love truly wins the day.

What Would Austen Say?

In the 2005 adaptation, Austen still has the final say on many social issues she was chiding in her novel, but the Byronic depths that screenwriter Moggach and director Wright use to achieve their vision of the story were disappointing. Of note: Austen would have cringed during the first proposal scene with Elizabeth and Darcy. Her hero was never meant to be a wet, sad-eyed puppy, nor her heroine tempted to kiss him.

The Good Stuff

At the risk of sounding like sour grapes, I will say that there were changes and interpretations that I did like. The family dynamics were interesting to watch in both the Bennet and the Bingley household. The Bennet sisters seemed more in tune with each other and concerned about each other’s welfare. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are more affectionate and logical. While this seemed more agreeable over-all, it made the dynamics rather bland and canceled out what Austen achieved in her characterizations. There were a few performances that held the dictum. Simon Woods as Charles Bingley really gave the standout performance of the film adding an empty-headed and open-hearted suitor that was truly endearing. Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins was hysterical. Will we ever think about potatoes in the same way again? Judi Dench is by far the most imposing and imperious Lady Catherine de Bourgh to date. Her hot laser stare sent chills up the back of my neck during the scene at Longbourn when she asks Elizabeth to deny an engagement to her nephew, Mr. Darcy.

The Not So Good Stuff

Matthew Macfadyen as the proud hero had a fabulous speaking voice which was really a plus, but what the director made his character do really canceled out his finer qualities. Keira Knightley as the decidedly impertinent Lizzy Bennet did have her moments of spark and fire, but an Oscar nomination? Hardly. I understand the “you have bewitched me body and soul” ending was added for the benefit of American audiences. One assumes by this addition that we did not like how Austen had written it? We were not amused. The music by Dario Marianelli saved the entire film for me. Happily, it is the last thing we hear as the credits roll.

A Pig in the Kitchen?

This review would not be complete if I did not mention the pig in the kitchen scene. Honestly, it was a low point in the movie for me. Why it was added I shall never understand. May I speak for Austen fans everywhere and say we are appalled? Now the tomato throwing may commence.

A Great Introduction for the Uninitiated 

In the end this film version of Pride and Prejudice was beautifully produced, visually stunning, and quite humorous. The English manor houses (including Chatsworth where some claim that Austen got her inspiration for Pemberley from) were a welcome visit. The comedy was a highlight as were the ensemble of British actors. I recommend this version to the uninitiated as an introduction to Austen on film to teens and those adults who skipped the 1995 mini-series because of the five hour running time. The 2005 Pride and Prejudice is total eye candy to those who love period dramas, and for those who need a short respite in England with Jane Austen.  

4 out of 5 Stars

MOVIE INFORMATION

• Pride & Prejudice (2005)
• Studio: Focus Features
• Director: Joe Wright
• Screenplay: Deborah Moggach based on the novel by Jane Austen
• Length: (129) minutes
• Genre: Period Drama, Romantic Drama
• Mr. Bennet — Donald Sutherland
• Mrs. Bennet — Brenda Blethyn
• Jane Bennet — Rosamund Pike
• Elizabeth Bennet — Keira Knightley
• Mary Bennet — Talulah Riley
• Kitty Bennet — Carey Mulligan
• Lydia Bennet — Jena Malone
• Sir William Lucas — Sylvester Morand
• Charlotte Lucas — Claudie Blakley
• Mr. Bingley — Simon Woods
• Caroline Bingley — Kelly Reilly
• Mr. Darcy — Matthew Macfadyen
• Mr. Wickham — Rupert Friend
• Mr. Collins — Tom Hollander
• Lady Catherine de Bourg — Judi Dench
• Colonel Fitzwilliam — Cornelius Booth
• Mrs. Gardiner — Penelope Wilton
• Mr. Gardiner — Peter Wight
• Georgiana Darcy — Tamzin Merchant

ADDITIONAL INFO | ADD TO IMDb

We purchased a copy of the movie for our own enjoyment. Images courtesy of Focus Features © 2005. Austenprose is an Amazon affiliate. text Laurel Ann Nattress © 2013, austenprose.com. Updated 3 April 2022. 

Type your email…

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

47 thoughts on “ Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie – A Review ”

I loved that movie. I never got to see the version with Colin Firth, but I can honestly say I didnt find this movie the least bit upsetting. I loved the actors’ performances and the soundtrack was equisite. Its one of myfavorite movies to watch!!

Like Liked by 1 person

I love the book. I loved the Colin Firth miniseries. And I LOVED the 2005 movie. There was nothing about it that I didn’t like. I thought the casting was fabulous. For once, Jane was really beautiful, as she’s supposed to be. The cinematography and music were first-rate. Of course, it’s shorter and had to leave out a few plot elements. That’s true with most book to movie adaptations. But I can sit down and watch it any time I want instead of having to wait for a holiday in order to justify the time commitment of either the miniseries or re-reading the book.

And Matthew Macfadyen? No need to feel sorry for him. He more than held his own. I loved him. He’s everything I pictured Mr. Darcy to be. And I was more breathless watching him walk across the meadow than I ever was watching Colin Firth come out of the water. That felt gratuitous while the meadow literally took my breath away.

I loved this movie (and this Mr. Darcy) so much that I wrote a book that Austenprose reviewed just a few days ago called My Own Mr. Darcy. As you can see, I not only loved this movie, I found it inspiring.

sammiek25, you really do need to see the Colin Firth version! You are missing an adaption that focused on being as true to the book and time period as possible, and is different enough from the 2005 version that you will not find them in competition.

I found the 2005 film a little disappointing (which didn’t stop me from buying it on DVD and rewatching), because it had too strong of a Gothic romance atmosphere, more Bronte than Austen. In itself, it is a fun way to retell the story. The Laurence Olivier/Greer Garson version with the major plot changes and completely the wrong costumes, better captured the sparkling wit of the original. (In spite of it all, Olivier is still my favorite Darcy. Just think what he would have done with a faithful script.)

What is so great about this story is that in another 20 years someone will do another remake, and we will all eagerly see it, too.

I had similar reactions to this one. I both loved certain things, but other things I didn’t like. Pig made me laugh, but yeah, not a high point of the story. I did prefer the more austere Darcys like Rintool and Firth, but its because of how I pictured him after reading the book. At the same time, I really loved that it was on the earlier time line being more Georgian than Regency because that’s when she originally wrote First Impressions and I did enjoy the more familial Bennets of this one more than the others.

Here’s my latest toward the challenge. I enjoyed Alexa Adam’s Holidays at Pemberley for my 18th entry. Good Reads review link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/758063157

I have read the book many times and each time i see this movie, I try to match the events (the important ones from my point of view) with the book. I agree the proposal in the movie didn’t agree as i have always pictured as in the book. I also failed to understand the pig event. But overall the movie was good and for non readers it would be a good regency movie.

Well… At no point in this film is there any pig (or any other live animal) in any kitchen. And the scene in with the word “bewitched” occurs (a word also used by Austen in the novel, btw.) is not the ending in any version of the film either.

I get the feeling this was written a very long time after you saw the film. Maybe you should give it another go.

Thank you! I wrote a whole blog post ( here ) about how the pig is clearly not inside the house.

This version has it’s faults. So does the 1995. For me, the book will always be the best, but I can enjoy both this and the 1995 on their own merits too.

I reviewed this several months ago, and Ialso put it second to the Colin Firth version. My reading for this month was a new book focusing on the period between the engagement and the wedding, Violet Bedford’s Betrothed to Mr. Darcy. See it at http://homecomingbook.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/betrothed-to-mr-darcy-by-violet-bedford-review-ian1/

I completely understand all your reservations, Laurel Ann. I didn’t particularly enjoy the film the first time I saw it, but I went with a friend who completely loved it and begged me to go a second time; on the second viewing, having put aside all my disgruntlement over what I didn’t like, the sheer romance of the story (I am a sucker for P&P in all forms!), the beautiful cinematography and the score pulled me in.

Like you, I found Judi Dench’s Lady Catherine superb and I loved Simon Woods as Bingley. One other thing I did like was that the Bennet sisters seemed more appropriately cast in terms of age. I always felt that in the 95 series some of the girls came across as a little too old, and I think Rosamund Pike was a beautiful Jane.

I made my peace with it long ago over the things that didn’t ring true to the book because I simply love the story. I can watch any of the films, series, plays, in any interpretation and I’ll always find something I love about it somewhere. :)

Thank you for sharing your review; I really enjoyed reading it, and I loved your reference to being ‘in Switzerland’ on it!

I disliked the film totally. I have only managed to see it twice. Macfadyen spoke much too quickly, Bingley was turned into an idiot, and the plot flaws!, and I made the mistake of watching the American ending, oh dear

I love P & P but not this movie version. I honestly have to admit that I could not make it through the entire film. I found Kiera Knightley so annoying and so completely miscast that I couldn’t get past it. Having said all that, I am sure that Laurel Ann’s assessment was spot on!

I too experienced quite a bit of angst with this version. After alot of reflection, I decided that the spirit of the story was there but remained disturbed at the failure of the movie to adequately portray the strength of Elizabeth and Jane’s relationship. This version did seem to resonate more with a less Janeite audience and I am grateful for anything that makes a new generation want to know more about Austen. I do have a DVD which I use when I want a quick fix but dont have time for the 95 version. Having said that I love the reference to Switzerland and I join you there.

I am one of the ones who loved the movie. Maybe it is my love for Matthew Macfadyen or Keira Knightly, or maybe it’s because it can be watched in a fraction of the time of the BBC version. Maybe it’s because the heart of the story remains and that is enough for me. I watch this movie all the time and never tire of it. Yes, the pig in the kitchen scene was pointless and unneeded, but the rest of the movie was perfect. I won’t watch the American version. I hate the last scene with Darcy and Elizabeth deciding what he should call her. I always turn it off for that scene. The rest of it though, I was quite pleased with. Yes, there are differences between it and the book, but it’s foolish to believe that people don’t see books differently and that any movie will be as good as the books we love. Plus, directors need to do something to give them an edge. You don’t want to come across as a copy-cat. Changes happen and you have to roll with them. For everything it was, I enjoyed it.

I went into the theater prepared to hate the film, and I walked out a convert. This is a film that I have watched too many times to count. Yes, it is a departure in tone, costume design from the BBC mini series, but I still love it. Wright sets the scenes up like portraits. He’s now one of my all time fav directors because of this film. I highly recommend watching the director’s cut of the film. He addresses the Elizabeth – Jane relationship. They wanted to show over the course of events the sister moving away from each other.

All that being said, Firth is the quintessential Darcy, for me at least. I did enjoy Macfadyen, esp the sunrise declaration of love. It worked for me.

I really didn’t like that movie. I felt it sanitized Austen’s wit, particularly with Mr. and Mrs Bennet, taking the absurdity away from Collins and Lady Catherine. Longbourn would not have been that shabby – Mr Bennet may not be in Darcy’s league but he certainly could afford to paint his walls. I found Macfadyen and Knightley’s acting atrocious, particularly in the first half of the movie. It totally negated Caroline Bingley’s and the Gardiner’s importance to the story, not to mention eradicating the Hursts altogether. Charles Bingley was reduced a 2 dimensional cardboard cutout shadow of himself — I really had to wonder what Jane Bennet saw in him. The movie was hard to follow even with my familiarity with the books and my friends who were not familiar with the story were confused as all get out what it was about. The one thing I can say about the movie was that it had beautiful cinematography.

I liked this remake and own and watch it regularly. I have also seen the A&E version several times and is actually how I was introduced to Pride & Prejudice. I love Macfayden’s Mr. Darcy, but agree with others; I’d love to have seen him in a more faithful adaptation. I think the biggest appeal of this version is the brevity, which is great if you already know the plot. I made my husband watch this with me and I filled in the details left out of the plot lines. If I hadn’t done that, he would have dismissed the movie altogether as illogical. I also had him watch the A&E version with me (over several nights), which was a real chore for him because of the length and as he put it “the great amount of words.”

As a huge fan of ‘North and South’, both book and BBC film, I can understand the dilemma of trying to love both versions of a favorite story. I forgive all the unrealistic and off-canon twists the movie version of N&S made to make the story come alive in the film medium AND to make the movie appeal to the average modern movie goer. What this movie version of P&P got right was the emotion of the story. Gosh, and it was beautiful to watch! The impact of sights and sounds and the drama of the unfolding story was done well, even if certain liberties were taken that were recognizable to those who know the text very well. It was a beautiful love story, based very closely on Austen’s famous story. Beautiful film. I love it. It was a resounding success as a film piece. Oh and the music…!

I agree, this version was awful!!! The BEnnett’s had a butler, maids and cook but the 2005 version did make them look like peasants, not country squires. The women never seemed to wear hats which may sound like a trite complaint but hats were a symbol and were worn as status as well as protection. Mr. And Mrs. Bennett did not seem believable to me at all. I only watched it once as that was all i could manage, despite adoring Judi Dench’s work generally. The 1995 version had a few concerns but it remains my favourite for Colin and Jennifer’s performances made it for me with the rest of that wonderful cast and that is when i really started reading Jane A more seriously. Thanks, peace

I am a clear 3/5 on this version myself. Some things I really liked, such as Mrs Bennet, who for me, is just about perfectly portrayed. I also loved Jane and thought that Lydia was much better cast in this version that many others. I thought Mr Darcy’s gorgeous voice and all his impassioned looks were marvellous.

However, I didn’t like the dirt, some of the changes to the story were nice cinematically but didn’t really make sense to me, I didn’t like Bingley’s portrayal as an idiot, and the thing that I find spoils this film for me is how fast the dialogue was delivered, it’s very distracting.

The “you have bewitched me, body and soul” line is gorgeous, but it’s not Austen, as you say, and now it’s quoted as though it is. I seem to recall the quote was Darcy had never been as bewitched by any woman as he was by her, or something along those lines, it’s just before Elizabeth leaves Netherfield.

I think if this is the first version of Pride and Prejudice you’ve seen you’d like it, but it’s not as good if you’ve seen previous versions. Bearing in mind it’s so much shorter it does a pretty good job.

I absolutely love the 2005 film version.

Well I am not afraid to respond in favor of this adaptation. Hopefully my Life Membership with JASNA will not be revoked. As a moody teenager, I was introduced to the sparkling wit and happy endings of JA. I admit I was partial to the hopeless despair in the likes of Thomas Hardy’s Tess & Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. Dare i say i might have been prejudiced against Austen’s happily ever afters. I missed the P&P 1995 hooplah w/ Firth & Ehle. So when my sister recommended I see it, I went not really remembering the synopsis. Anyway sitting in the movie theatre, I was mesmerized by the beautiful Marianelli soundtrack, sweeping cinematography, funny dialog, beautiful characters and overall story. I remember my mother leaning over and asking me if that daybreak scene happened in the book, and I think I said, “shhhhhh… I don’t think like this.” I left the theatre thinking, wow that was awesome, I need to read that book. So I did, and after reading the 6, delved in the online fanfiction, bought the few adaptations available circa 2006, joined JASNA, went to my first AGM — and the rest is history. Since then, under the tutelage of Laurel Ann, countless authors and periodicals, films… I have learned much about the period, dear Miss Austen, etc etc. and recognize the gigantic latitude the director took with Austen’s masterpiece to create this film. The change in period clothing was his nod to Austen’s earlier attempt at P&P as “1st Impressions”, supposedly. And despite the pig scene, the run down Longbourne, D&E’s daybreak meet – her in her bedclothes! He sans cravat! the missed opportunities of authentic Austen dialog, Lizzy sans gloves & often a bonnet, the cutting and pasting of original, etc etc. it still is a favorite. I liken it to the ultimate fanfiction. And when I think of it like that, not a true adaptation of Austen, I forgive all those artistic director interpretations. Besides it was the catalyst to bringing me to Austen. So with that I do. I do forgive Joe Wright. It’s a gorgeous film that I am sentimental about. Now I will duck behind the couch in wait of the tomatoes.

You won’t get any tomatoes from me. You sound like you experienced what my main character in My Own Mr. Darcy experienced. It changed her life, too.

Once again, Laurel Ann, I experienced the greatest delight in reading your review and finding so well articulated many of my own experiences with this version of P&P, which I also saw when it first appeared in the movie theater. I did enjoy the warmth of relationships and the less annoying mother herein depicted, and thought Judi Dench a delightful Lady Catherine, but was unsatisfied with the ending variation from the original! It is romantic and I still watch it on occasion to satisfy an Austen craving, however! :-)

My November choice is “Second Impressions” by A Virginia Farmer… aka Ava Farmer… aka Sandy Lerner. I purchased this book after being enthralled by the chapter in Deborah Yaffe’s “Among the Janeites” in which she tells the amazing story of Sandy Lerner, cofounder of Cisco Systems, an organic farmer, a creator of a small grunge cosmetic company, and a Janeite heroine extraordinaire! She used her wealth to salvage Chawton House and turn it into a Library and source for the study of early English women’s writing, including a vast collection of Jane Austen material and editions of her books! She began her novel when, like so many others, finished reading all that dear Jane had written and feeling bereft and in need of continuing the story. With her very busy life, the novel she began wasn’t finished until 26 years later!

“Second Impressions” takes place 10 years after the conclusion of P&P and depicts our beloved couple at home at Pemberley, in London, and traveling around both England and Europe, with well researched descriptions and commentary on the culture and times of the places visited. It tells a sweet story of Georgiana, and an amazing come-uppance for Lady Catherine! :-) She also brings into the story a relationship of Mr. Darcy with Mr. Knightly, comparing farming practices, and Anne Elliot-Wentworth as a friend of Elizabeth. Since she has so thoroughly researched everything about Austen’s world, from the politics, culture, and words used, it is very faithful to Jane’s writing style even to the humor and self-criticism and growth of the main characters! It was not as light reading as many I’ve been immersed in this year, but well worth the effort!

Hi. I just LOVE that version. I love that Lizzie more than the other one (of the series). And Darcy, well, I love them both (movie and series) Nice choice for the month :)

My review of november: http://meucantinholiterario.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/becoming-elizabeth-darcy-mary-lydon.html

I enjoy, and mostly agree with your review of this version of P&P. Technically and musically it is wonderful, but overall it’s certainly not my favourite. For me it wasn’t the pig, but it was the dirt and disarray that the Bennet’s function in, the complete absence of Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, and Mr. Bingley sticking his head in Jane’s sickroom at Netherfield. I was horrified. Interestingly enough, those last two items were also present in the Laurence Olivier/Greer Garson version.

I saw this movie before I read the book. It’s actually why I read the book. I love the movie and the book so so much. I haven’t completely seen the mini series yet, but I did start it long enough to find that Elizabeth was prettier than Jane, which I didn’t like, and the Mr. Bennet was very cynical versus sarcastic and humorous. I didn’t like him from what I saw in the mini series. I thought the casting for the movie was perfect. While Keira is pretty, Rosamund has an ethereal beauty to her that makes her stand out. Like others have said, Judy Dench was perfect for Lady Catherine. The parts I did have a problem with (after I read the book obviously) was that Mr. Collins wasn’t the same in the movie as he was in the book, physically, but I understand why. And the movie doesn’t really show that Lizzy and Charlotte drifted apart significantly after Charlotte’s marriage. Other than that, I loved the movie and now I feel the need to watch more of the miniseries.

I saw this movie twice; not because I liked it but because I couldn’t believe it could be so off base. The second viewing convinced me that Joe Wright had read the P&P Cliff Notes and decided to embroider on that. There undoubtedly was all that dirt and mess during the period depicted but this a P&P film not God’s Little Acre. Another thing that bothered me a lot was the way Joe Wright filmed Judi Dench as though she was starring in a horror film with every pore and wrinkle highlighted in order to scare the audience. I could say more about Keira Knightley mugging for the camera and Matthew Macfayden looking like a little lost boy and the horribly miscast Donald Sutherland, but I won’t! Nuff said…

Amazing review, Laurel Ann! As I said in my own review some months ago, it is not my favourite adaptation. But anyway, there are some things I would not despise :) I agree with you about the proposal in the rain and the scene with the pig… Wright could have done better! My selection for this month was “Mr. Darcy’s secret” by Jane Odiwe. This is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/600952045

I loved the feel of the 2005 P&P and I thought the dirty Georgian farmhouse take was interesting. My big beef is that Mr. Wickham didn’t seem bad enough. Adorable, yes. Villainous, not so much. Sigh. Here’s my review of Longbourn by Jo Baker: http://www.groggspot.com/pride-prejudice-bicentenary-challenge-2013-november-review/

Thank you for your balanced review Laurel Ann My friend Jill and I went to see the 2005 film together at the cinema and we found we liked Judi Dench but disliked the way poor Mr Bingley was reduced to an idiot. The cannot sleep ending that we watched was not a patch for us on the 1995 Colin Firth version of the ending.

Mr. Darcy’s Refuge: A Pride & Prejudice Variation, by Abigail Reynolds – A Review

As I have never read any of Abigail Reynold’s variations I am approaching this book with a degree of trepidation. I have heard that my idea of how Mr Darcy may reveal himself as being a gentleman and how this character develops in this book may be very different but I shall plunge into this book and see how I feel at the end. It could be that 21st century attitudes have been written for a character that I see as very much from the time of Jane Austen. But I am getting ahead of myself and I shall have to wait, be patient and read the text. This variation is going to be my 13th review for this Pride and Prejudice challenge. Challenge is the right word to use for some of my reading of this book. I found it very difficult and uncomfortable to read some of the passages involving Darcy and Elizabeth. It felt as if I was reading scenes where I did not want to be reading. So next time when I am not reviewing the book I can employ my Kindle buttons and skip over them. The rest of the book did feel easy to read. The text flowed enjoyably along despite the fact I could be reading for example about the river in Hunsford being in full flood and the danger to citizens and property.I think this is because Abigail Reynolds writes so vividly. From the opening sentence on I was drawn in The break in the rain seemed like a sign. It meant Darcy could ride to the parsonage and discover what was troubling Elizabeth. What will happen then – Abigail Reynolds writes her variation and nudges at the Jane Austen text and pulls out ideas and sentences from the original novel of Pride and Prejudice and then ricochet markedly away from the original plot. Darcy thinks that Elizabeth is plotting how to ensure that Darcy proposes to her As reader I thought that the story was going to be all about following in the footsteps of Jane Austen and having Elizabeth worried about Darcy separating her sister Jane from Darcy’s friend Bingley and about Wickham being denied his inheritance. The plot however goes off in all sorts of unexpected directions from ones I was expecting and in the end the various couples came together but not in the same way as Jane Austen envisaged and wrote at all. Some of the characters that Jane Austen created have unexpected back stories added on by Abigail Reynolds. Mr Bennet changes in his manner to Elizabeth as a result of his back story and did not seem to me to be such a friend to Elizabeth. In fact at times I quite disliked him. I liked the addition of characters created by Abigail Reynolds from the village of Hunsford, and from the vicarage itself as well as a fearsome uncle for Darcy. Poor Bingley seems to be even wetter in this variation than Jane Austen portrayed him in Pride and Prejudice and I felt sad about that. Overall I did enjoy most of this variation apart from the drawback and challenge as mentioned at the beginning of the review. I think I would read another Abigail Reynolds variation with great caution and being ready to skip bits.

I really like this version – it’s not exactly page-to-screen Austen, but it’s a gorgeous film. I agree with your comment about the music saving it, too.

It’s definitely an adaptation – Wright wanted to make a movie about Elizabeth’s coming of age (especially in terms of sexuality) so there’s a ton of focus on the body, place, setting, etc. It’s not the same as reading the book, of course, but that’s why we can always reread and trust our imaginations!

That said, I don’t understand the pig in the kitchen either. :P

I agree with Laurel Ann – I’m in Switzerland. What I liked was the overall beauty of it (including the music). The casting of all the young parts was all very good and very age-appropriate. I agree with others about Jane’s beauty (excellent) and Bingley’s idiocy (not-so-much). Mr. Collins ought to have been “large” (tall? fat? both?), but at least he was young and introduced an appealing vulnerability to the role.

But then it is all spoiled by the casting of the parents’ generation with actors (fabulous actors all) who are old enough to be the grandparents. Brenda Blethyn was over 60; Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench over 70. Mrs Bennet should be about 40; we don’t know how old Lady Catherine is, but I shouldn’t think any more than 50. Mrs. Gardiner should be about 35! And what happened to the Gardiners’ children?

As for KK – some love her and some hate her – she looked awfully skeletal in this movie.

The pig was comic relief.

I mostly agree with Laurel Ann’s review and won’t add much to the many comments. I will say I may be in the minority in preferring Barbara Lee-Hunt as Lady Catherine in the 1995 mini series to the esteemed Dame Judi Dench. I didn’t dislike Dame Judi (who could?), but thought Miss Lee-Hunt gave a magnificent performance. I much prefer the 1995 version partially for the length but also for the superlative casting. A couple of further comments: I do agree with those who find Rosamund Pike to be a more satisfactory Jane Bennet than any I’ve seen before. As for Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet, I didn’t think she was at all like Jane Austen’s creation, but BB is a hard actress to resist. The film with Keira Knightley was fun to watch but as others have said, the Bennets were portrayed in a much lower class than they should have been. As for Rupert Friend (so fine as Prince Albert in The Young Victoria), his role as Wickham was so whittled down, he never got much chance to show his villainy, but he sure was cute!

Oops! Spelled Barbara Leigh-Hunt’s name, it didn’t look right even as I was writing it.

This isn’t my favorite movie adaptation, but it’s still enjoyable. My daughter loves it, though.

My 13th review for the challenge is The Red Chrysanthemum by Linda Beutler: http://diaryofaneccentric.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/review-the-red-chrysanthemum-by-linda-beutler/

I also read The Pursuit of Mary Bennet for the challenge this month: http://diaryofaneccentric.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/review-the-pursuit-of-mary-bennet-by-pamela-mingle/

I like this version very much, though not for its accuracy. The costumes are very nice, and Mr Darcy quite handsome (yes, sometimes I am shallow). My 6th entry (5th blog post) for the challenge is ‘Mr Darcy takes a wife’, which I enjoyed, but probably will not read again. As I’ve read 2 more books, I expect to review them soon and also put them in a comment below this November review. http://dutchwitch.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/what-happened-after-the-wedding-pp-5/

Just made it! Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen I thought it fitting to read P+P before the year was up. This 5th entry makes my commitment for Disciple complete. As I read I would think of the scenes from the movie or one of the series, which ever one did justice to that particular scene. It’s always enjoyable to dive into Austen.

Just for fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Md2482-oWk&hd=1 first 13 seconds. Love it!

I loved that! It even sparked a short conversation about it with the guys at work.

I love Big Bang Theory but even more now with Sheldon’s comment. LOL! The conversations that Austen books spark up are always fun aren’t they.So are the Big Bang ones.

I have seen the 2005 film only once. I know opinion is much divided on it but to be honest I have no strong feelings either way – I didn’t think it was wonderful but I wasn’t scandalised by the differences between that and the book (or between that and the 1995 BBC version!) I’d love to see an adaptation where Mr Collins isn’t way too old, though. They always make him about 40.

For my November entry I have reviewed the audiobook of Jo Baker’s “Longbourn”, read by Emma Fielding http://wp.me/pUrhc-Ee

You’re feelings on this film are very similar to mine, Laurel Ann, Particular in regards to that pig.

I reviewed three books this month for the challenge: The Darcy’s of Pemberley by Shannon Winslow: http://alexaadams.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-darcys-of-pemberley-by-shannon.html Return to Longbourn byt the same kind lady: http://alexaadams.blogspot.com/2013/11/return-to-longbourn-by-shannon-winslow.html and Project Darcy by Jane Odiwe: http://alexaadams.blogspot.com/2013/11/project-darcy-by-jane-odiwe.html

I’m slightly late but it’s been a long month so I hope I’ll be forgiven.

My book review is for Pride’s Prejudice by Misty Dawn Pulsipher https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/777510661

I also re-watched an old favourite..

Pride and Prejudice 1940

It happened in OLD ENGLAND in the village of Meryton. – Opening Titles of Pride and Prejudice 1940

I approached this review in the same way as my previous ones, by making notes of the good and bad points while I watched the film. I shall try to be objective but I must confess that I love this film and have since I was a child, and I think perhaps in some cases the good and bad points are one and the same.

Now this version has even more scenes and people missing than the 2005 version but as I made the choice not to comment on that for a film then, I will mostly do the same here. A film’s time is limited so what is important, to my way of thinking, is to keep the essence of the story line and characters intact. In this the 1940 version succeeds where the 2005 one fails. Was it a faithful adaption? Of course not. Was it a beautiful story? Most definitely. The style of the film is definitely classic Hollywood and I think there is something magical about films from that era. They were made to make you feel good, to make you smile and to uplift you, even when they were sad. Modern films in some ways might be more realistic but they have lost something.

The most evident ‘mistake’ is the costumes, it’s obviously been set after the regency period but whilst the style is incorrect to the book, their dresses are suitable for young women of their station in life. Likewise their ages, though they are all clearly older than the characters they depict, are in proportion to each other. The conversations are recognisable but the words are not Jane Austen’s. Having said that there is some great banter that doesn’t feel out of place in the film or coming from the characters, whether that is the dialogue itself or the actors’ ability to deliver the lines, is possibly open for debate.

Another area which I think falls into both the good and bad category is the humour. They ham it up a little in places, for example, Lady Catherine walking into the chaos at Longbourne and accidentally sitting on Kitty’s music box, which again is not out of keeping with the style of the film, and so does not jar you or make you cringe, but you can’t necessarily imagine it in the more tranquil confines of the book.

A few odd things… Charlotte Lucas whilst professing to be as plain as she is in the original work, is anything but, Mr Collins is Lady Catherine’s librarian and not a clergyman, and Caroline Bingley whom at no point appears to be friendly to anyone other than her own party and Jane, is apparently in correspondence with someone residing in Meryton. A production point, that I’ve always rather liked, is the fact that certain characters have their own background music that plays whenever they are centre screen for that scene. A grand and imposing tune for those of the upper classes and something rather more whimsical for Mr Collins… it does add a certain atmosphere but now I know it well enough to notice, it also makes me smile. Another thing that I have always appreciated is the name they give to Colonel Forster’s regiment, where ‘the ___shire’s’ from the book, is literally pronounced as ‘the Blankshire’s’.

Possibly the one thing that I don’t think should have been altered was Lady Catherine’s attitude at the end. It wasn’t really necessary to change her into a loving aunt just looking out for her nephew, but this film has a neatly tied up happy ending for all its characters and I suppose they felt it might spoil it for her to remain opposed to the last.

What I think really makes this film work for me however, are the characters. Despite everything I have listed, the characters themselves remain true to their basic natures. They’re graceful, they have poise, and at first glance can pass for what they are meant to be. They have faults but it’s not in manners. There’s a general affection between the Bennetts that makes them seem like a family even when they’re at odds. The younger Bennett girls are immature but not vulgar or fast or particularly childish. They’re just enjoying themselves and being silly, and they’re also trusting where they shouldn’t be. Bingley is a gentleman and not stupid, Wickham is handsome and gentlemanlike, Caroline Bingley is delightfully snobby, Mrs Bennett is just the right mix of well brought up and dizzy, desperate to marry off her girls because that’s her job and old enough to have become a gossip. Jane is beautiful and sweet whilst Elizabeth played by Greer Garson is the stronger character, protective and caring of all her sisters. Mr Collins wonderfully pompous, Lady Catherine is suitably imposing and Mr Bennett is the perfect mix of dignified gentleman, resigned husband, and affectionate but disinterested/mocking father. And of course Laurence Olivier as Mr Darcy is the strong male lead, stiff at first but learning to bend to please Lizzy as he learns about her and himself.

On the whole it was a beautifully made romantic film and I would highly recommend watching it.

To comment on 1995 movie. I also have reviewed this in July. I love it. I still agree with a comment that was said in an earlier blog (I think you said it Laurel Ann) that the first version you fall in love with stays dear in your heart. I saw this before I read the book for the first time. I then noticed all the changes of course. But somehow it made me feel like this movie was a remake to other movies which would explain many changes. Like a rumor things get changed the more it is told. Anyway the cinematography & music continue to tug at my heart. And even though Colin Firth is the best Darcy, I love MacFadyen wearing his heart on his sleeve. (sorry but I thought Bingley was adorible.)

• Pingback: The Pride and Prejudice Bicentenary Challenge 2013 | Austenprose - A Jane Austen Blog
• Pingback: Pride and Prejudice (2005) – Classic Romance Film Review

Please join in and have your share of the conversation! Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Website Built with WordPress.com .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Katie Bachelder

Writing Towards Compassionate Connection

Pride and Prejudice (2005) Movie Analysis

Pride and Prejudice was published by Jane Austen in late January, 1813, a classic romantic tale involving one of the most tantalizing, tense hate-to-love relationship I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. For those of you who don’t know, I’m reading it for my February Romance Reading Challenge . For my last reading challenge, the Middle Grade Reread Challenge , I read the Tale of Despereaux and decided to do a book-to-movie adaptation analysis ; for the romance reading challenge, I knew I wanted to do the same kind of analysis, but for Pride and Prejudice.

Of course, the big question was which adaptation to watch. Apparently, there have been many, and that does not even include the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (which, despite a strong dislike for horror elements, I am still half-tempted to watch just out of sheer curiosity). The major contestants were between the 1995 television show and the 2005 movie. A gold star goes to anyone who can deduce which one I ended up watching. In the end, it was really a question of timing.

A proper review of the book will be included in the rapid book review post I have planned for March 5th, but I can at least say now that, like Tale of Despereaux, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the book. It had a relatively large cast of characters, but it did not take me long to figure out who was who. Each had their own little story in addition to Elizabeth’s, and they all tied together neatly by the end.

One thing to note, though, is that the book spans well over a year, and a lot happens in that time. With four marriages to set up, and almost two dozen characters to keep track of, I knew it was going to be a lot for one movie to tackle. It might’ve chosen to somehow cut out a few key characters, thus minimizing the set-up of said marriages, or else it would have to rush through the timeline to hit as many events as it could. Thankfully, it did the latter, and we’ll discuss below the efficacy of that choice. But first, a warning: spoilers abound.

The Language of the Classics

Considering the year it was published, the language of Pride and Prejudice is unsurprisingly antiquated, and for the modern reader, it may be difficult to translate. Modern readers may also find it difficult to get attached to any of the characters’ plights now that women are not pressured to marry into a rich family in order to assure their own future, and that it’s no longer considered a scandal to have an intimate relationship with someone you’re not married to.

The point of any adaptation, though, is to reach a broader audience than the book might have. Classics are an even more poignant subject because of the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. Having a visual representation of the events can help people understand the plot even if they found the book hard to read. Of course, as we learned in the Tale of Despereaux analysis, it’s easy for movies to take their source material and create an almost completely different story. Jane Austen’s work is not immune to this, either; there have certainly been very loose adaptations.

The 2005 version, however, is choc-full of dialogue pulled straight from the text. Through a basic understanding of language from the 1800’s and the visual cues offered by the movie, it’s a lot easier to untangle the meaning of some of the more convoluted phrases. It’s a similar thought process to Lord of the Rings , which likewise takes at least some of the dialogue from the books and puts it into the movie. You don’t need to insert dialogue from the text for it to be a good movie adaptation, and, conversely, inserting dialogue doesn’t automatically make it a good adaptation either. But when the lines of dialogue are able to align so closely with the movie’s plot progression, it means you’re doing something right. All of this is to say, even with the antiquated language of the text, the movie can still remain so close to the source material as to borrow actual lines of speech, and still be understood by the audience. It doesn’t necessarily need to be modernized to be understood.

The Perfection of the Cast

It’s one thing for an actor or actress to embody their character, and quite another when it’s clear they’re having fun doing it. It was hilarious to see Mr. Collins visually represented as less than those around him, one of the shortest men on the set (or at least, made to look so.) Mrs. Bennet’s actress embodied the nervous, fluttery gossip to such a point that wave after wave of second-hand embarrassment came through the television. Mr. Bingley was a romantic sop who was so awkward it couldn’t be anything but adorable. They added a scene towards the end where, after a failed first attempt to ask for Jane’s hand, he paced outside and practiced proposing with Mr. Darcy, and it would certainly be in my top five favorite scenes of the film.

A lot of big-name actors and actresses are part of the cast, which is always a good sign, especially if someone like me (who’s terrible with remembering them) knows what they’re from. There’s Keira Knightley from Pirates of the Caribbean, Rosemund Pike who I know will be in Wheel of Time (though I could not get it out of my head that it was Jewel Straite from Firefly), Donald Sutherland from Hunger Games, etc. I didn’t know Mr. Darcy’s actor, Matthew Macfadyen, though he kept giving me Ianto Jones from Torchwood vibes.

This is all to say that they put in a lot of effort to make sure the cast, even small roles like Mrs. Gardiner (who I know from Doctor Who as Harriet Jones, former prime minister), were played by talented and dedicated actors. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, some characters did get cut, most notably Mr. and Mrs. Philips, although they aren’t the only ones, and several others had their roles severely minimized. Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner were two that I understood and wasn’t angry about, though in the books they were meant to show the respectable side of Elizabeth’s family, and the true extent to which Mr. Darcy had pulled away from his snobbish habits. One character, however, did get unjustly cut back, and that is none other than Mr. Wickham.

The Venerable Mr. Wickham

The question of Mr. Wickham’s character was a major point for the novel. To paraphrase Darcy and Elizabeth, (movie version at the very least; I don’t remember for sure if it was in the novel), Mr. Wickham is really good at making friends and less good at keeping them. He uses people without any moral compunction, primarily to pay off his gambling debts. It is later revealed in the novel that Mr. Wickham has basically forced Mr. Darcy to pay off his debts out of moral obligations (Mr. Wickham having grown up like a second son to the late Mr. Darcy), had run off with Mr. Darcy’s sister (which, at that time, would have been considered an unforgivable scandal) in the hopes of marrying rich to support his gambling habits, and very nearly ruined Elizabeth’s sister’s reputation by nearly doing the same to her.

The book is neatly divided in the before-the-marriage-proposal, and the after-. The before sets up Mr. Darcy to be the worst of them, and one of the first sticking points, before even his interference with Jane and Mr. Bingley, is the question of Wickham’s character. The worst kind of charismatic, Wickham sets himself up as the poor fool whose fortunes were ripped out from under him by Darcy, and because Elizabeth has no point of reference beyond Darcy’s established snobbery, she finds the accusation easy to believe. Then Austen brings it full circle, because Wickham plays the family for a fool once again when he convinces Lydia to run with him to London, thereby proving Darcy’s innocence on that count and Wickham’s own questionable morals.

The film has to cut down on the narrative where it can, and Wickham’s storyline was perhaps the one most pared down. The extent of his courtship with Elizabeth Bennet becomes almost nonexistent, her indignation on Wickham’s behalf is little more than an excuse, and Wickham’s later wooing of Lydia Bennet is a horrible yet unprecedented incident. Fortunately, the movie did choose to make Elizabeth’s and Darcy’s romance both more central and inevitable than the book did, which means Wickham was portrayed as little more than a bump in the road, turning the film less into a social commentary and more into a forthright romance.

Pacing: Condensing Four Marriages into 2 Hrs 15 Min

I have already spoken throughout the post of the necessity of cutting back on some of the side plots. Why Mr. Wickham’s flight with Lydia was so random, unexpected, and damaging lost some of its weight in the film because of the aforementioned adjustments to his character’s role. Additionally, Charlotte Lucas’s marriage to Mr. Collins was even more abrupt than in the book; I don’t even think it showed that she was the one who initiated the courtship. Even so, with Charlotte’s visit to Lizzy right after, the film still managed to explain her actions, saying that Charlotte was almost too old to be considered marriageable, and that not everyone could afford to be a romantic.

Mrs. Bingley’s sister played a much larger role in the book, both in keeping Jane from her brother and from trying to keep Mr. Darcy from marrying Elizabeth. However, the strength of Mr. Bingley’s affection for Jane was obvious, and one can only assume that they set up his going to London as a result of Mr. Darcy telling him the feeling was unreciprocated. Additionally, as I mentioned above, wheras the book made it seem like Darcy and Elizabeth would never get their happy ending, not after she already denied his proposal the first time, the film made it abundantly clear from the beginning that the two liked each other against their better judgment, and that they just had to get over their own prejudices to get their happy ending.

Because I read the book first, I knew everything that the film had to leave out. But condensing the plot, removing elements and hurrying through others, may make those who didn’t read the book a little confused. It was hard to tell as I was watching it whether I understood everything that was going on because I read the books, or if perhaps it could still make sense to someone who hadn’t. I’m not in a position to say that everything left out was clarified by what was kept in or added, but really, that was my only main concern for the film.

Conclusion: Things Lost to Lack of Time

In my Tale of Despereaux movie analysis post, I made the point that an adaptation can certainly make whatever adjustments it needs to as a result of the different medium of storytelling, but that it should strive at least to tell the same story as the book it was adapted from. It’s clear from the cast, the outfits, the very lines that the characters speak that the intent was to create a film as dedicated to the source material as possible. While the book was certainly far more full of social commentary, I think we can forgive the film needing to cut most of that out.

Perhaps the main question for an adaptation like this is whether or not it will keep interest alive for the original work, and I think the answer to that question is, invariably, yes. The 2005 version is true enough to the original that someone who hadn’t read the books could still talk at some length about the plot and perhaps even some of the points that Austen was trying to make. Better yet, for those who tried to make it through the book but found it hard to read, the 2005 film would easily give them points of reference that might, with luck, help those very same readers try the book again.

In sum, a perfect adaptation doesn’t need to include every single minute detail of the book. Really, what it should do is consider the weaknesses of the story and try to improve upon it where needed while putting emphasis on what made it worth adapting to begin with. So, while I think some of the more subtle themes of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice got lost in translation, I still think that what the film managed to accomplish was commendable.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Home / Essay Samples / Literature / Pride and Prejudice / Pride And Prejudice: Movie Review

Pride And Prejudice: Movie Review

• Category: Literature , Entertainment
• Topic: Jane Austen , Movie Review , Pride and Prejudice

Pages: 3 (1509 words)

Views: 2296

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Pride and Prejudice Essays

The Things They Carried Essays

Their Eyes Were Watching God Essays

The Outsiders Essays

A Modest Proposal Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->