As you may know from reading previous posts, I have a love for romantic period dramas. In my humble opinion, there is no one better at writing such things as Jane Austen. At the time she wrote them, they weren't exactly historical fiction (it's so weird to think of Jane Austen as a realistic fiction writer) but now that we have the art form of film that is what they have become. Recently I read one of her most famous novels (arguably the best)
Pride and Prejudice. I have always loved the 1995 BBC version of this story and have always thought it to be accurate even though I hadn't read the book until now. I have also thoroughly enjoyed the 2005 version starring Keira Knightley. It is a more condensed version, but also a great summary of the timeless tale of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy.
After reading the novel, I have a greater respect for both versions of this movie. The storylines of the films both expertly capture the essence of the story while keeping in some of the most important lines and scenes. Some characters have been altered and a few facts turned to help the story, but mostly these films keep true to the original.
Both films have a strong and independent Elizabeth Bennet who seems to be above her family in both intelligence and wit. In the novel, at least to me, Elizabeth comes off a bit sillier. Yes she is clearly the most aware of other people's opinion of her family, but she seems to be a tad on the silly side compared to other young ladies of her society. I rather like the portrayal of Elizabeth by Keira Knightley better than that of Jennifer Ehle. However, I think Ehle's is closer to the actual character from the novel. Knightley is more accessible from a modern standpoint. She is a bit more harsh in her judgment of Darcy than I think Ehle was as Elizabeth. Knightley is also open with her emotions and thoughts as a character, more so than Ehle was and this makes her a bit less like Elizabeth. Elizabeth's thoughts and emotions were rather kept to herself and only presented to the reader from an omniscient narrator's perspective.
Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Bennet both are truer to their form in the 1995 version s well as Elizabeth's younger sisters. Jane, however, seems to be a good combination of both versions. She is pretty and innocent, but also a tad more commanding of her sisters than that of the 1995 version. Bingley is much more agreeable from the 2005 version. He is sillier and less sure of himself in that version which makes him better for someone like Jane. Darcy, however, will always be Colin Firth. Always. He is so incredibly close to that of the original that I can't help but picture Firth as Darcy with every line written by Austen.
In the 2005 version, Mr. Collins was quite different from the novel. He appears short in his responses and arrogant, rather than silly and misguided in his knowledge of the world. In the novel he is quite obsessed with Rosings Park and his vocalization of such is much better represented in the 1995 film. Another character vastly different is that of Mrs. Hurst, Mr. Bingley's older sister. She doesn't even exist in the 2005 film, but her character is hardly important to the development of the plot.
In the 1995 BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, the Bennets seem to have a finer environment than that of the 2005 version. Longbourn is better taken care of and the clothing worn is much finer showing that the Bennets are better taken care of than the 2005 P and P. 2005 paints the Bennets as a poorer sort. Their home has paint peeling from the walls and their belongings are all scattered about. their clothing is of duller fabric and their hair is always pulled back in a manner which shows haste in preparation and not perhaps the care for appearance that 1995 Bennets did.
Another difference from the novel to the screen in the 2005 version is the representation of the two most important scenes in the novel. The first of these is when Darcy first proposes. This occurs in Mrs. Collin's parlor, but in the film this happens at an unknown location in the rain. Perhaps more cinematically interesting, but rather less like the original than the 1995 film. The other of these scenes is the final confirmation of affections on Elizabeth's side to Darcy. Like in the 1995 version this happens while they are walking, though not exactly as the film shows, but rather similar. In the 2005 film, the couple meets at sunrise on a walk. Though an iconic scene for this particular film, it is very distant from the occurrence of such in the novel.
From a film perspective, both films are quite different in style. The colors presented in 2005 are richer and darker whereas 1995's coloring is of paler and finer detail. They use concentrations of light green and creams. Another aspect observed is that the composition of shots is much different.2005 likes to use symmetry to balance the shots. By mirror colors on both sides of center and balancing the people on both sides the shots appear more staged. The 1995, however, appears to use darker and busier backgrounds with pale full face close-ups to bring attention to the dialogue. 2005 also seems to have a nasty habit of presenting some suggestive images. There is a scene with a pig which is a bit questionable in taste and the Pemberly house also has a statue garden full of naked statues which is shot in a way which almost seems seductive to the viewer.
Here there is a balance of the two silver dressed servants and on the opposite side are two silver candlestick holders. The only thing that is out of place and unbalancing is Mr. Darcy standing. This shows the awkwardness in the room created by Darcy.
In this scene the sliver is balanced by the tea pots on both sides of center. There are two plates of bread on the outer edge of the frame. Again the unbalancing point is Collins showing the emotional unbalance in the scene.
Here The sides of the room are balanced by the people and unbalanced by the difference of height from Darcy to Collins.
