Pride and Prejudice ~ Lost in Adaptation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 янв 2021
- Go to BuyRaycon.com/dominicnoble for 15% off your order! Brought to you by Raycon.
How close did the 2005 movie adaptation of Pride and Prejudice stay to the plot of the book by Jane Austen? Let's find out.
Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.com/DomSmith?ty=h
Co-writer/editor: Kate Robinson: / channel
Dominic Noble merchandise: teespring.com/stores/dominic-...
Dom on Twitter: / dominic__noble
Original music by: / djilneige 
Развлечения
"incredible burns disguised as polite conversation" is pretty much the essence of Britishness, no?
Bruh, don't come at me like this
Yes, but Austen mastered it in a way it's an entirely new level.
@@cferracini Austen is honestly in a league of her own
Every Brit spends their life trying to reach the Austen level of sass. None of them know it, but it's the ultimate goal in the life of a Brit.
@@MariWakocha my life’s goal
So about the changing of the Bennetts to a common family rather than being landed gentry: while I understand the appeal of not having to justify why a crazy rich family is considered poor, a very interesting irony is lost. You see the Bingleys were not landed gentry. Their father amassed wealth, and Bingley was considering buying land to become landed gentry. In the class system, he and his sisters were below the Bennetts until their land would be bought. Of course people still flocked to them because they were rich and would soon become gentry. But that distinction is very clear in the behaviour of miss Bingley. She is acting very vulgarly, by insulting someone of the gentry and trying to impress people with her wealth. She makes fun of the Bennetts for having a non-gentry born mother, all the while ignoring that she herself is not considered gentry either. She is trying very hard to pretend she's cultured, but she is failing.
The Bennetts are also not actually considered to be that poor. However instead of setting money aside as a dowry, their father was content to spend everything as they saw fit because he expected to get a son. Now he has 5 daughters and is getting older, and suddenly they realize that their daughters make for very poor brides without a fitting dowry for their status. So while they live a good life now, they are almost certain to have to marry down because most men their standing would expect a larger dowry. And they do not have the luxury of waiting for a good match because as soon as mr Bennet dies, all unmarried daughters will be left without any money. So it wasn't that they are poor NOW, but that they faced the very likely possibility that they would become poor in the future.
Bingley is richer than Mr Bennett, but he is not necessarily a good match because he's so much better off than Mr Bennett, he's a good match because he is of higher class than a girl without a dowry should expect to attract.
Elizabeth herself mentions in her conversation with Darcy's aunt that she is a gentleman's daughter and therefore of equal standing to Darcy. With that she is a more acceptable bride to Darcy than miss Bingley would have been. For if Darcy were to marry miss Bingley, he would gain what's left of her 20 000 inheritance, but lose social status by marrying lower class. Elizabeth is worth less money, but he has more than enough of that, and would not lower his class status. So that's likely why miss Bingley wants mister Bingley to buy an estate, and why she immediately sees Elizabeth as a threat.
Edit: spelling and minor clarification
This is such a good and insightful comment. Thanks for this
This might be the best reply to anything I've ever read on youtube.
Standing ovation time!
I've only now understood all these. Thank you so much for the clarification. :)
Thank you, stand by for one round of applause for that comment!
YES, this class dynamic is really interesting and lost in 2005 adaptation. Caroline and Louisa Bingley being snobbish about the Bennett sisters' aunt and uncle in "trade" are being really ridiculous because their fortune is FROM trade (from the North so probably textiles or some such) and they don't yet own land meaning they are not gentry themselves. The Bennetts have negligible dowries and their father, mother, and younger sisters are a bit improper, and their connections are not so high as they could be (a very important thing in regency high society) but they are firmly entrenched in the landowning class while the Bingleys are not. In point of fact, Jane and Bingley's match is eligible from both sides and Bingley is in a sense, marrying up.
"the film does not have a wet shirted darcy scene" is a great criticism. Thank you Dom
But it kind of does! Doesn’t he propose the first time soaking wet in the pouring rain? Lol
@@lexinicole4317 Yeah, but he's wearing a coat; totally ruins the moment.
@@tracy4290 lol!!! It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film… guess I’ll have to rewatch it now just to check 😉
@@tracy4290 Had Jane tried to get such a scene past a publisher, we wouldn't have this novel today. As much as I enjoy that lake scene, it should have been left out - and if we're to believe Colin so many years down the line, they wanted him to be naked in that scene (what on earth were they thinking!?). I'll take the failed proposal in the rain and Darcy walking at dawn to Longbourn over the lake scene any day.
I like this version of Darcy. I see him as an introvert with probable social anxiety, trying to navigate the extremely conspicuous position he has been born to, who admires in Elizabeth all the vivacity, sociability and playfulness he lacks. That being said, I think every interpretation has its different merits.
wildthornrose I’ll admit I prefer Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy. However I greatly appreciate that Matthew Macfadyen didn’t just try to become a new version of Colin Firth’s Darcy, he actually approached the character from a different perspective altogether with the shy introvert angle he brings to it. I do also feel his version of Darcy adds more depth to his intrigue of Elizabeth, since as you mention it helps highlight that he is drawn to her vivacity and social ability, something he lacks. Overall this different version helps make both actor’s portrayal seem like an other side to the whole of Mr Darcy instead of simply being a different actor in the same role, if that makes any sense.
@@Carolinagirl1028 I agree totally :) I will always appreciate an actor who takes the time to consider and interpret their own version of a character, as long as they respect the spirit of the source material. I think both Colin and Matthew do this! Colin's version is perhaps more text-literal, whereas Matthew seems to have "read between the lines" of the character, but in a respectful and considered way. The same goes for the various Elizabeths.
There's an interesting analysis of this Darcy in another RUclips video talking about his costume and it's progression throughout the film. I think it was called undressing mr. Darcy. Made me see him in a different light
But we meet Darcy at a very turbulent time, he’s just “rescued” his sister from Wickham, he’s pissed off and has his mind on other matters... his sister doesn’t see him as an introvert, his friend and employees speak so highly of him, we (the reader) see Darcy from Elizabeth eyes, it’s bias to her views. And her first impression is circumstantial and after a while he relaxed back down and becomes his usual self. I can’t believe this version of darcy was the actors choice or idea, I think it was a bad screen adaptation, with bad writing, huge parts of the story missed and too much gurning from Kira. The only thing good about it is that Jane is actually pretty in this version, other than that bbc had it down!
@@gd5298 I admittedly had the same reaction when I first saw the movie at the cinema. I had grown up with the book and the 1995 version, and felt all the indignance at Jane Austen's dialogue being (as I saw it) "corrupted", and the irritation of Keira's smirks and pouts. However, I have since mellowed out a lot about it. The reframing of it as something a little more romantic and accessible, especially to a new, younger audience, was inevitable and even understandable. I hope it has brought a new legion of fans to discover the books. As far as "huge parts of the story missing" - well, it is a movie, and did not have the leisure of a 6 hour series to do the plot full justice. Consider the massive liberties taken by the Laurence Olivier version...yet I enjoy that one too, such as it is. There are some fragments of a sprightly 1967 version you can find on youtube...Elizabeth is quite delightful in that one, and Darcy rather stern and wooden; I like them too!
I can't quite agree that Matthew's portrayal of Darcy was a consequence of bad screen-writing - he is a very good actor (an accomplished and well-seasoned character actor, as well as occasional leading-man) and he has always manifested intelligent, and sometimes inspired, performances. I respect him finding something different in Darcy from the traditional interpretation.
Anyway, I agree that the 1995 version is the closest version to the books. But I think it's okay to enjoy the other versions, too. :)
here’s what my english university teacher taught us about mr bennet: he is dismissive of his daughters. it’s not that he doesn’t /love/ them, he just wants his peace and quiet and for them to stop complaining. else, he would /never/ have let lydia go. he should never have done that, a careful father would never have done that, cause he actively put her in a dangerous situation, just to have her shut up. that’s why mrs bennet, even though she’s annoying and ridiculous, is basically right: because she realizes that the only way for a woman to have any kind of social position and financial security is to get married. and the actor in this movie plays just that.
I always thought mr.bennet didn't like his daughters because of his disappointment that they weren't boys, except lizzy, the favorite. We read POV through her and hear a loving father but that's just to her. I always hated that he got a pass to be neglectful, not financially he did still feed and cloth them but just never interacted with them
@@jessbeingme8155 that’s also very true
Tbf, Mrs Bennet doesn't stop Lydia going to Brighton either. She doesn't see the dangers, she just sees the opportunities to get Lydia hitched so she minimizes the dangers for someone who is too young to know what to do.
No, he is dismissive of the three younger daughters, not the two oldest. It's clear in the book that he was responsible for raising Jane and Elizabeth while he was still captivated by his wife. He gave up influencing the younger ones so they were largely a product of Mrs Bennett. Elizabeth's growth as a person happens when she stops solely blaming her mother for Lydia's behaviour and realises that her father is partly to blame. He often mocks the younger girls in public, something Lizzie realises is as wrong as her mother's lack of tact.
You're right
Aah, a nice and calm Jane Austen, just what we need after all the Twilight trauma.
A romance book/film that's actually good for once
lol your avatar just confused me. I thought I’d already watched and commented on the video despite it just being released. I need sleep.
@@PomegranateStaindGrn That reminds me of that time I didn't end up liking an excellent post on a forum until later, because a user called "You" had already liked it, convincing me that I already had.
I like your profile pic.
#same
😂
"... she, like all the best things in this world, was british."
The culinary world would beg to differ.
Stereotypes!
@@patrickt.6492 Always :P
@@patrickt.6492It is very true though XD
- a british person
Let me serve you, cooked boar in pepperminzesauce.
The subcontinent would beg to differ :/
You're missing the entire point. It's about THE HAND FLEX
The Hand Flex™
COLLIN FIRTH DOES NOT HAVE THE HAND FLEX
That was the only thing I liked about this version. The hand flex was very good.
Pride & Prejudice: Revenge of the Upper-class Ninja
AKA, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. lol
@@robertgronewold3326 a movie and book Dom definitely needs to cover 🤣🤣
That would be amazing! It's remarkable how much it tried to be like the OG P&P
@@barbarabaker1457 I like how it had the vibe of pride and prejudice while also being it's own thing
@@tsgumi Right? If lizzy had fight skills that is exactly how I picture the proposal scene.
"oh...believe me, no one would suspect your manners to be rehearsed" I'm dead.
He should have pointed out that line was stolen from her father.
Notice that neither of Elizabeth's parents call her out on this. It's rather clear that Mrs. Bennett isn't fond of Collins at first either. She only pushes the marriage between him and Elizabeth because it would encourage her husband's heir, Collins, to take care of his wife's mother and sisters. She's concerned about her family's future because she has to be.
The Mr. Collins of this adaptation took his rejection so badly that he decided to go after all of Elizabeth's pirate friends.
I laughed so hard at this comment.
😅Enigma 2001 Matthewhe is in the image and make-up similar in appearance to "a pirate " @@intergalactic92
Gosh, I just love that pin on your tie. "Incredible burns disguised as polite conversation" is my language.
Thanks! I forget where I got it but it's pretty boss.
I noticed it as well, very nice!
@@Dominic-Noble i think you assessment on matthew couldnt hold a candle to colin is greatly flaw. Matthew's eye alone can eat up all the sexiness that colin ever acquired for breakfast/
They're all leaping into the shots like Ninjas in these two adaptations in preparation for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Wait for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Aliens
Oh I got a pride and prejudice and zombies shirt I'm wearing it right now
@@romainsavioz5466 I'm sorry I don't know if you're joking or not and the thought of this being real feels me with dread
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a disappointment simply because the movie has the ugliest Mr. Darcy of any adaptation.
And also because it tried too hard to appeal to a younger audience and it ruined the charm of the original.
@@LunaWitcher 🤣
The Dom's softspoken, rapid delivery always sounds like he's stalking his topic in the wild and doesn't want to startle it. 😆
Just pictured Dom out on safari observing authors and film crews in their natural habitats 🤣
“Here we see an example of the mating dance of the 19th century English country villager. The male is expected to make a courtship display through exhibits of his financial stability and his witty repartee...the female denies his courtship.”
@@Ticket2theMoon 🤣 Love it!
He is the Sir David Attenborough of adaptations
@@scarylion1roar can Sir Terry knight him or is that something only the Queen can do now? If Sir Terry can I so want to see that!
You know what you have to do, complete the trinity and make an episode about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
He could also cover Bridget Jones's Diary.
Which basically takes the bare bones outline of Pride and Prejudice, only if Elizabeth Bennett was a modern 30year old lady in London
Hell, one of the characters is literally Mr Darcy.
There is also Lost in Austin, which is basically a self insert fan fiction in miniseries format.
Oh, and there is also Bride and Prejudice which has a Bollywood take on the source material, with the Bennett family made into an Indian family.
@@antheathetiefling8581 More than that, Mr Darcy in Bridget Jones' Diary is played by none other than Colin Firth
Truly, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is an excellent adaptation and I'm a Jane Austen purist. I think people assume it's a parody or a disrespecful interpretation when, in fact, it's a faithful pride and prejudice movie with the added tension and action scenes that work to enhance all the emotional tension we love about P&P in the first place.
yep
I would sell my soul to see that, this movie was truly something else
Fun fact: The ending of the film that riped off the ending of 16 candles was a US exclusive ending! In Europe (as far as I'm aware of) the movie ends after Elizabeth talks with her dad, which I think is a far better ending in my opinion (Though I do love that cheesy scene between them)
I'm from Argentina and only knew that cheesy final from RUclips.
@@guiomarbarbeito7385 yes !! Though I do think the scene is cute, it always felt a bit tacked on to the film to make it idk more appealing maybe? there's something about that 100% doesn't mesh well with the rest of the movie. I wonder why they kept it in the US cut
Same! I had no idea the us ending even excisted before someone told me about it!
@@xdlol38 I think they did it for the US after some bad reactions in the film screenings (not sure if I'm making sense, english is not my first language). I find the ending with the father really moving and in tune with the movie.
@@guiomarbarbeito7385 i agree ! us audiences are weird man
I'd love to see Lost in Adaptation do Sense and Sensibility and Jane Eyre. The mini series being more book accurate again for the latter.
And Emma!
I would love for him to cover Sense and Sensibility, as the film version was my introduction to Jane Austin and her novels. Strangely, the film version also introduced me to Alan Rickman and the England way of speaking- a bit more formal and slower speech- in movies anyway. As for the other Jane Austin movies and books outside of P&P and Sense and Sensibility, I can not say.
@@stargirl2477 Yes, S&S was also my introduction to both Austin and Rickman, and the beginning of my love of both! 💕 😉
Yes to the mini series for Jane Eyre! I did watch the film, but it seemed really slow, despite it being less runtime than the mini series, while the mini series portrayed the playful banter of the romance much better (and added a few scenes). Jane Eyre is one of my favorite novels ever!! Also I would love from him to cover all the JA adaptations, but my favorites are actually Persuasion and Northanger Abbey. Sense and Sensibility and Emma are actually really great ones to review because they had a plethora of really great adaptations (esp. with after Emma 2020).
@@stargirl2477 I just watched it and it was bloody confusing to me because I had rewatche Love Actually just a few weeks before and couldn't quite get over the switched roles of the actors.
My biggest problem with the condensing was the Pemberley scenes. Those are the moments when Lizzie actually begins to fall in love with Darcy and they condense it down to accidentally run into each and have awkward conversation and her running away, and then her meeting his sister. She doesn’t see the growth in his character when he is a friendly host to the Gardners (people he doesn’t know, and which he has expressed he doesn’t do well around strangers), and then we don’t have her dealing with Bingly and sisters who may sny comment about Wickam and Lizzy just dismisses them signaling to Darcy that hey dude I believe you. Maybe on Darcy end they focus on the romance, but Lizzy actually falling in love with Darcy was rushed.
Yes!! I was years late to watching this movie, I read the book again and again but for some reason didn't see the movie until adulthood - and the Pemberley part is when it lost me. That's the most crucial and interesting part of their romance, and imo, this film completely misses it. I'm so glad to hear someone else mention it. So much of the conversation about which adaptation is better ends up being about whether you think Firth or Macfadyen is more attractive.
i disagree completely--i honestly feel like those two sequences shows us a darcy elizabeth (and therefore we) hasn't seen
he's cultured and caring, when elizabeth spots him with his sister it's the very first time she sees him laugh and be openly affectionate--that is a shared connection, they have a deep bond with a sister, she understands him a bit better now
and when they return to the manor the next day, he's openly joking and smiling and is extremely pleasant with the gardner's without prompting
Not to mention that the Pemberly in this version was so hideous--those white statue rooms made me cringe.
@@sosha20
I do agree that this movie does more in showing an affectionate relationship with his sister, but the other parts go by so fast that the significance isn't as poignant. It is like how he said that it feels more staged and it is like they're doing a line through. The "dinner" at Pemberley is literally they walk in, officially meat his sister, then go through the lines of asking about if Mr. Gardner likes fishing. Then suddenly we are done.
I also dislike how the invitation to dinner is brought about. It is done completely behind Elizabeth's back. She gets back to the inn and is told by her aunt and uncle "Oh hey you missed Darcy, we're going there for dinner", she kinda gets trapped into it. Verses the more probing Darcy (which also by this time they have talked to her each other, besides the real awkward conversation they had), lets her meet his sister and sees how receptive she is, and then asks HER, not her aunt or uncle, making sure that hey she would be comfortable having dinner, not entrapping her into a dinner by asking her aunt and uncle who know nothing about their history.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a youtube algorithm is always in want of a comment and a like.
The SOUNDTRACK for this movie is just amazing.
Agreed. It's one of my favorite things about it. There was much I didn't like, especially the modernized language. Her rejection of him just doesn't have the same zing as the miniseries, which was lifted directly from the book.
a masterpiece
The Music 🎉
The only thing I have a tough time with in this movie is the continuous kicked-puppy look of Mr. Darcy. In that sense, I prefer the mini-series Colin Firth if only because it was not obvious he had depth beyond his standoffish nature at first glance. Matthew Macfadyen just seems to always need a hug or something.
Yes, the magic of Mr. Darcy is the idea that a man might genuinely change out love and respect for a woman, this is ruined if he isn't an ass to begin with. Of course, darcy was never BAD just a bit of an ass. It's a tightrope but must be shown and the 2005 version was too likeable in the beginning to feel excited that he was likeable later
It's why Macfadyen works so well in succession as Tom. And unfortunately, once I realized that he was the actor playing Tom... Any romantic interest went down the toilet.
I'm kind of into it though. It's definitely a different interpretation, but Matthew Macfayden's Mr. Darcy comes off as if he is more socially awkward (and yes, in need of a hug), and tbh, it's quite endearing. He says the wrong thing but he doesn't mean to, he's just dumb. Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy definitely pulls off the "grumpy sexy," though, and he's not a bad guy, he's just arrogant and more socially distant, and for good reason (his friend growing up demanding his inheritance multiple times and then trying to make off with his little sister.) Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy is probably more accurate to the book, but when it comes to my silly heart, I know if they were both real, I would easily fall in love with MM's Mr. Darcy and might be pretty unforgiving towards CF's Mr. Darcy.
@@lilyduck4538 I always kind of attributed it to a combination of what we'd call having a moderate level of social anxiety combined with being one of the richest guys around in a culture of social climbing and being judged by who you marry. He's not good with people, in general and knows that most of those he meets want something from him.
It's probably why Elizabeth is so attractive to him. She actually makes no bones about being honest with him and doesn't suck up to him just because he's rich.
I agree that it was a character choice that changes a lot of the original dynamic, but it’s done so well that I’ve come to appreciate it more each time I watch it. I think in the end it was a smart choice if the director’s goal was to introduce the story to a modern audience, because it lines up with a lot of the traits that are more appealing now by giving him a dash of anxiety and sensitivity. It felt like a lot of characters in the film got a slightly more sympathetic makeover, and I found it refreshing. It helped the film to stand on its own as an adaptation rather than simply existing as a less thorough cliff notes to the miniseries.
lmao now i wanna see dom cover pride and prejudice and zombies lol
there wasnt a single head of cabbage in the whole movie though!! at least to my recollection. I saw the movie in theater just the once.
So do I - since it WAS made into a film it should be a contender :P
@@lunar1199 exactly haha since there's a book and a movie he could easily do a lost in adaptation lmaoo
OMG YES!!!!!!!
Yes!!! Please Yes!!!
This version of Darcy is actually one of my favorites. I know you claimed it made little sense for him to assume Jane was indifferent in this version given how much warmer she is than in other versions, but I didn't get that impression at all and I'll explain why.
I'm on the autism spectrum, and oftentimes, I have difficulty picking up on the emotions of others (especially if I'm unfamiliar with them). I imagine Darcy is either on the spectrum, and/or is so used to his friend's behavior (Bingley wearing his emotions entirely on his sleeve and being a total puppy throughout the movie) that Jane is still a stark contrast to that. She doesn't stare at him as often or notice how he seems to float after her every time she's in the room. To someone like me (and Darcy, at least in my interpretation), Jane could absolutely seem indifferent in comparison.
I felt very seen. It was portrayed well without it being played for laughs or cringe by this version. Darcy is sympathetic, smart, but reserved - he'd clearly rather be alone with those he is closest to, even at the start. But to most of the cast (much like in real life), reservation is seen as pride, a pompousness. Especially given how warm most of the interactions are here. I think it all worked out beautifully.
As someone who jusg finished the book, my biggest takeaway was that Darcy was *definitely* autistic. If the book wasn't written in a time when autistic children were still thought of as "changelings", I would have thought it to be completely intentional.
The loss of Whickham as a real "villain" for the story is the biggest sore point for me. Your points about it were spot on.
i feel like a lot of modern ppl dont have a grasp at how completely powerless and fucked over women were except in making a good match. like that was it, that was there only hope and it was still mostly done by parents
There is an extremely interesting video by Philosophy Tube about why that is. It's called Witches I believe and details the different ways women used to be able to make a living and how the Salem witch trials destroyed that.
I think in general there are a lot of connections to what's going on in the news today...I may have to rewatch it.
@@rosemali3022 oooh, thanks for the tip!
Virginia Woolf likened the history of women's rights to those of the working class in general. Like upper-class women, for the longest time poor people and laborers weren't allowed into universities, to vote, to own land or even to travel by themselves. Even if they were gifted, they rarely could become financially independent on their artistic talents alone, and were definitely ignored by academia and richer circles. Some of the very few ways to escape one's poverty and lack of independence were through crime or by ending up in the good graces of some nobleman.
That said, it isn't like women did nothing all day except wait to be married, bear children and die. There were politically influential women, rich women, and women who negotiated business deals. An unmarried, childless woman of class could still make a name for herself as an important confidante for a royal personage, or a writer of letters. There were more than we today are aware of because unfortunately, documents, newspapers and journals have a tendency to be lost to time very quickly.
Bear in mind that when reading history books today, they are all involuntarily biased. This is because history is filled with theories, as not every document is necessary genuine, there is a lot of room for interpretation of events and lifestyles. Every historian leaves an indent of their own ideologies on their work. This isn't a bad thing, it's simply inevitable, but it's something to consider when weighing the veracity of any history book or documentary. Looking back at the history of history books and you'll find that opinions come and go in waves. For a century, Marie Antoinette was a debauched villainess. Then, she became a poor victim of the violent rabble. Then she became a cultural icon. Then she was treated as a hapless bystander who wanted nothing else but to raise her kids and buy nice clothes. And so on. And these opinions are all based on different texts and documents that have been available to historians for centuries already (even though every now and then some writer will pop up with "look what I just found! This puts all of our theories in the water!" -- this is rarely anything but clickbait or a forgery).
Going back to the role of women: period literature written in bygone eras is a great way to gauge the actual lifestyle of people. "Tom Jones" by Henry Fielding is great in this regard. Fielding was, I felt, exceptionally un-prejudiced for a mid-18th century English writer, and extremely observant to boot. It's also a comedy-adventure novel similar to Don Quixote or Simplicius Simplicissimus, making it an easy and enjoyable read in spite of its length.
I stumbled upon P&P when I was in High School, loved it then & have read it many times since. I used to think Mrs. Bennett was an insufferable, gold-digging bore-- but NOW I see that she was really only looking out for her daughters in the ONLY way she could.
The phrase "Upper Class Ninja" makes me laugh way too hard. Not just because it's an inherently funny sounding phrase, but due to the irony that shinobi were generally from the peasant class in Japan. Yes, I find strange things funny. Sue me
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies...
I haven't watched the video yet and I can't wait to find out, how 'upper class ninjas' figure into a video about a Jane Austen novel 😄
All I'm thinking of is Sebastian Michaelis from Black Butler
@@otaking3582 Ah, but you see, Sebastian isn't a Ninja. He is simply one hell of a butler
@@kahkah1986 now we know had the idea for that book came into being
I love this movie's version of Darcy because he always seems to just be very socially awkward and I can relate lol
The movie doesn't have the wet shirt Darcy scene- Dom knows what we were here for.
But shame you make a President Snow joke but totally ignore Joanna she's right there.
Exactly!!
Ha! Thank you! That was driving me crazy when i saw her again
While we're talking audiobooks, the Pride and Prejudice audiobook is read by Rosamund Pike, which turns in an absolutely perfect performance.
And yeah...it may not be perfect, but I hella love this movie. I kind of fell in love with Knightley's Elizabeth, and it carried the film through all of the little flaws.
I want to hear Dom read an audio book. His voice is nice.
I've been thinking this, too! Definitely a side line he should get into.
Now that you've said it, I want that too.
Its so smooth...its weird in a good way
Bold of you to assume he wouldn't get frustrated because of his dyslexia. Though I'd love to hear him narrate one too, I wouldn't want him to get more stressed
Hell if he did I’d hire him for my book
A thing a lot of people miss about Austen's works us that she's actually satirizing contemporary works in the same genre at the time...
Romances that focused entirely on the gentry, and often had speech conventions so restrictive you couldn't tell the characters apart by their dialogue...
But Austen became so popular in her own right that she arguably reinvented the genre and provided the basis for a huge number of modern romance tropes
Northanger Abbey is a straight up savage but affectionate parody of the 'trashy' Gothic Romance novels that were popular at the time, and I feel that book is soooo underutilised in that capacity when it comes to adaptations.
When I saw this version, despite the slightly earlier period setting, it felt almost like they were going for something more like the romantic period of the Bronté novels - rooted in experience, all about nature, wildness and sensuality, rather than the harmony, balance and rationality of the Georgians.
I really loved it for that tactile feeling, and agree that the Bennetts are more relatably "poor" in this version, however having read the novel, the BBC version is much closer to it in style and the society it portrays.
I snorted so loudly when I heard the words "grympy sexy".
Since we're back to jane Austen, any chance of Sense and sensibility with Alan Rickman at some point? Now there's a performance that gives me the vapors...
Back when imdb still had its message boards the S & S board was pretty active and there was this one woman who would come into EVERY discussion whining, "But that's not how it was in the book!" So annoying. If we were discussing money in the time she'd pop in to say "Emma Thompson was TOO OLD to play Elinor!"
That *might* have been the best adaptation - and there is a miniseries to compare it to! Would be awesome if Dom continues the Jane Austen series.
I wish I could give this comment infinite likes!!! ♥️♥️Alan Rickman 🤤
Now that you’ve done Pride & Prejudice, you should do
Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.
"The time period seems to have been fiddled with a tad, taking it from the original 1813, to 1790" - The time period wasn't tampered with at all for this movie. It only appears that way in comparison to the BBC mini series. Jane Austen starting writing Pride and Prejudice in 1796, completing the initial draft in 1797. When you start writing a book, unless you're able to see into the future, you would be basing the characters, places, clothing, etc on your lived experiences in the time you're writing it. It may have been published in 1813, but that doesn't mean anything. What matters is when it was written, not when it eventually got published. It was an oversight to set the mini series so late.
@AND ANDREY ISN'T HERE That’s assuming she purposefully went back and changed things for the sake of making the clothing more contemporary for when it was published in 1813. There’s no evidence that she painstakingly edited things like that. Furthermore, when you’re writing a novel, you’re using your own experiences to give the narrative believability. Her friendship with Tom Lefroy influenced her work, and his visits were between 1795-1796 (the time when she first started writing ‘First Impressions’ which went on to be titled ‘Pride and Prejudice’). She writes from the perspective of a young woman, as her protagonists typically range from 17-27 years of age, not women in their late thirties (the age Jane Austen was in 1813). Setting an adaptation in the year the source material is published rather than written, is an obvious oversight. Even in the best of circumstances, publishing takes a lot of time.
Fashions and style eras changed so slowly back then that a difference of ten years wouldn't mean much style wise.
@@Steersky But she DID go back and change the book -- it was originally epistolary, and she spent the years 1810-12 reworking it. R W Chapman posits that she used an almanac for the years 1811-1812 to set the dates in her updated edit. At any rate, she WOULD have updated the book to appeal to her readers and to her own sensibilities as a more mature writer.
To everyone who commented here: thank you for this very polite and very interesting debate!
@@jefferroo I’m aware she changed aspects of the story several times. But the clothing is hardly mentioned in detail. It’s not something that defines the story in any way. Considering it’s based on her experiences, and was written primarily in 1796-1797, things that influenced the story most were obviously lifted directly from that time in her life.
"she hasn't been up to much since my last video"
That's what she wants you to think...
and people think george r.r. martin takes long to write. Where's Sandition Ms Austen??
She secretly writing Pride And Prejudice sequel
@@vanilloia7479 EXACTLY.
@@J.R8765 2Pride, 2Prejudice
He has become Sokka
I look forward to see where else his ever growing hair takes him.
As far as making it more palatable for a younger audience, the director did a fabulous job. My daughter really doesn't like other adaptations, but is in love with this one.....AND it got her to read the book. She eventually fell in love with Jane Austen. For a die-hard sci-fi/fantasy girl, that was pretty amazing.
Never knew there was an alternate ending until today. I absolutely HATE that scene at the end where they are discussing pet names. The ending over here is perfect and always leaves me smiling
Young Colin Firth will always be my Mr. Darcy. You're absolutely right: no one does "grumpy sexy" like Colin Firth.
I desagree imensly HAHAHA i find Matthew MacFadyen 100% better at grumpy (ans specially) sexy. But I'm a minority ;_;
@@anaCalaudia Mathew MacFadyen did a good job of the role, but look at the filmography of Colin Firth. Grumpy sexy sums up every leading man part he's ever had so he's the expert! 😁
I personally prefer Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, however since both actors brought something completely different to Mr. Darcy it makes it easy to like them both and appreciate their different versions of Darcy. Colin Firth does a great job portraying a ‘brooding’ sexy Mr. Darcy with his more uptight nature while Matthew Macfadyen does a great job portraying a more ‘vulnerable’ sexy Mr Darcy with his often shy and introverted nature. Basically while I may slightly prefer Colin Firth, I really just want them both and can’t imagine having only one of them.
I always consider Sir Laurence Olivier to be Mr. Darcy.
Absolutely. It was THE role that made me fall in love with him as an actor.
I was never able to see Mr Bennett as being a loving involved father in the book. He always acted more like a vodka aunt that kinda of just inhabits the library.
Dom pulling a surprise twist in the sponsor read. He mentions audiobooks, making us think it’s gonna be an audible ad, then NOPE it’s actually a raycon ad. Bravo good sir
I just wish script writers who adapt Austen would not think they can write better dialogue than the original. They can inlude dialogue to progress the story but her dialogue is exquisite, perfect with wit and irony.
I love the movie, I really do. But, the mini-series borders on perfection.
The mini series had the advantage of much more time to tell more of the story and play more of the character moments. It gave the absolute best Charles Bingley, and even seemed to have some suggestion that Caroline Bingley wasn't all horrible. And Julia Sawahala was a perfect Lydia.
The mini series is nearly 6 hours long and my friends and I still managed to watch it 5 times in one month after we first discovered it back in high school. XD
A funny bit of information, the actress who played Caroline is a great-something niece of Jane Austin.
For me, it was the costuming. I’m a massive dress history nerd, and while I prefer most of the movie actors (with the exception of Bingley), the inaccuracies of the costuming just kept pulling me out of the story. I wrote a fairly long comment about my gripes with the costuming.
And I’m not or. Who thinks that all historical costuming must be as period accurate as possible (Marie Antoinette is still one of my favourite movies for costuming), but in a story like this, it does matter.
@@katherinemorelle7115 the caroline in the movie was terrible
A good Jane Austin adaptation with a large budget must be in want of a Kiera Knightley.
This made my day, thank you!
Why? I get that some people enjoy her, but... Why as Elizabeth Bennett?
@@nancyjay790 It’s a play on the first line of the book. I love a good pun! 😊
@@Dresdenflower I know. But I'm not a Knightley fan. Which is funny, because the male romantic lead in Jane Austen's book Emma has the surname Knightley.
@@nancyjay790 In that kind of adaptation it made sense. I still prefer Jennifer Ehle.
I tried to watch this version, but I love the book. Not seeing some of the things you love on screen or some loved dialog changed to be more "romantic " (and really is just cheesy) doesn't cut it for all of us.
I abhor this version. It is not Jane Austen. Instead of her amusing study of human nature and wry wit, it is a romcom, and not a very good one.
The movie cut my favorite scene in the book of Elizabeth dining at Mr Darcy’s and actually meeting and speaking to Georgiana
Donald Sutherland's eyebrows deserved their own Oscar in this movie
Now I’m forced to wonder who would win an eyebrow competition - Donald Sutherland or Peter Capaldi.
Donald Sutherland's final scene with Elizabeth is so beautiful that it brings me to tears every time, especially since I lost my father last year and it reminds me of how wonderful a loving father-daughter relationship can be. Regardless of who did a better job of portraying Mr. Bennett, this scene will always be in my heart. Both he and Keira displayed a deep familial affection that seemed as real as if they were truly related.
@@yvettescheiman4991 Agreed. The movie ends with his line, as far as I'm concerned. And sorry for your loss. My dad and I had came up with a hurricane of musical composer puns yesterday. We were laughing so much. It's those moments I'll be sure to treasure.
"Like all the best things, are British."
Colonialism, timeless!
Burn
Yeah that line is uncomfortable :/
@@moonydoll7109 I understood as he was referencing himself being British i.e. the best. I could see that interpretation, but I'm 100% positive that's not what he meant.
@@moonydoll7109 oh my god why don’t you cancel him then.
@@martasorangeberry yeah, the Romans were there before the British
I personally love the "muddy hem" approach of this adaptation. It's warmer, more colorful, and less sterile than the squeaky-clean 1995 take, and it makes rural England look absolutely stunning. Accordingly the performances are more natural and show greater character depth.
I never noticed how they all jump up into frame before! Cannot unsee.
It will now forever be a comedy for me.
I feel the adaptations are a little too kind to Mr. Bennet, the book version feels to me a lot more disinterested and dismissive... he also treats his wife very poorly
I think there’s two reasons for that:
1) The book is told primarily from Elizabeth’s perspective, and she gives him a lot of leeway. As a result of that and the need to compress things in most adaptations, we lose some of Mr. Bennet’s dismissiveness.
2) Because he gets some of the best lines and is nice to Lizzie and Jane, we’re inclined to like him, and so are the people adapting the work. So the people making the movies/miniseries sand off some of his edges, perhaps not even consciously.
I feel that way about both her parents. And Mary, tbh. Mrs. Bennet is treated pretty horribly by most adaptations. Mr. Bennet is given too much slack. And, while I know Mary is pretty much a non-character, there's no reason to think she's a terrible pianist and singer as is the usual interpretation.
Yes, he treats his wife very poorly - he cares not for her nerves! :D
That ending is called something like the American ending on the UK DVD we have. The movie ends on Mr Bennett :)
Thanks for this bit of info! I thought I was going mad, I've never seen that shot before and was wondering if it was because the Dutch channels always cut it off when airing it!
I was so confused! I have never seen that scene before, so I thought maybe it was different in my country...
I don’t like the honeymoon ending, but to end with Mr. Bennett seems so abrupt!
Thank you. Was about to type that exact thing. In Australia we got the UK ending. I HATE the “US Ending.”
If I remember correctly, then ther german film ends with the Elizabeth kissing Darcy's Hand with the low hanging sun in the background. I'm not sure, though, I haven't seen the film in years. 😅
A quick critique about the Bennets being the "poor family": the Bennets are *not* poor. They are looked down upon because Mr B, a rich semi-aristocrat, in a fit of youthful lust, married Mrs B, who is firmly from the lower classes. Her relations have to- shock, horror!- work, and her manners are crude and garish. This is interesting for a couple of reasons: 1. Mr and Mrs Bennet's love mirrors Wickham and Lydia's eerily well, and 2. the Bingley sisters criticising Lizzy for her "low connections" (which aren't really low at all) is hugely hypocritical, because they themselves are "new gentry"- they earned money through the same trade as the Gardiners.
It's also worth pointing out that the entail that threatens to drive out all the sisters is an example of Mr Bennet's recklessness, hoping that he has a son, and it foreshadows his recklessness in letting Lydia go to Brighton. (I have a whole GCSE on this book, sorry)
I'm not a fan of this movie in general, but I have to say that the rejection of the empire silhouette by a male director because it isn't sexy enough really pisses me off. It's one of the only fashions over a period of centuries that was comfortable for women and easy to move in, and I do think that plays a part in why the era is so popular.
"Because it isn't sexy enough" is an oversimplification. He just didn't like the silhouette, and that's fine. A lot of people don't. There are a lot of visual elements to this story, and the way everything looks matters in this movie. You could argue that the changes he made are more in line with the rest of his decisions, seeing as everyone and everything is quite "dressed down" and things are much more tactile. Elizabeth's browns and tans work so well for this setting, much more than whites would. Regency silhouettes can come off as very prim and proper and stiff and that's clearly not the vibe he was going for. As for regency clothes alone being comfortable, that's just such a weird assumption to make, seeing as regency stays aren't that much different than shortly before or shortly after, long trains were in style, they wore bonnets all the time, back seams are still way in the back... It's not *that* different from the subsequent or previous century🤷♀️
Now, if you wanna talk about the tragedy that is the hairstyling in this movie, I'm all for it😂
the clothing style shown places the movie in the 1790's (which is when Jane Austen wrote the first draft of what would become Pride and Prejudice at that time called First Impressions) when the underbust waistline was just coming into fashion (Jane is wearing a dress like this) rather then placing it in the 1810's (when the book was published).
@@liv97497 if you don’t like regency clothes don’t make a regency film no wonder it was crap
“But you do get some sweet v-neck action.” HA. I SEE YOU KATE.
I haven't seen any adaptation and haven't even read the book. Why am I even here? "Hello my beautiful watchers". Ah, now I remeber.
truer words
It’s been a few years since I’ve watched this movie in its entirety, but I remember that it’s very beautiful and completely misses the point of Jane Austen’s writing. P & P is above all a comedy, highlighting and satirising the meat-market surrounding regency era marriage. The strong tilt towards cheesy romance and modern mannerism might make it more accessible to young audiences, but in my humble opinion damages the essence of the characters and story.
It also just ruins the story for people who are fans of the original story. Which, fine, whatever, but maybe don’t call it Pride & Prejudice - rename it slightly, to make it clear this is based on or inspired by, rather than THE story.
The other way around. This movie captures so much the essence of the book, not only the SURFACE
@@khills it doesn't ruin anything. People are introduced to Austen world after watching this version for those who don't read the book yet. And make them admire her books more. So thanks to this masterpiece.
@@finarakhima1327 Is there a particular reason you think just stating your opinion is going to make people who have given specific reasons for disliking the movie change their minds? Because “nuh uh I like it” really isn’t a convincing argument in the face of actual reasons people dislike the movie’s removal from the source material.
@@khills you stated your opinion too, so why bother? I don't even try to convince anyone. What I want to say, anyone can have different point of view, not by judging anyone's preference.
Lets be real, the 1995 bbc pride and prejudice is literally the definition of best adaptation of a book.
This movie seems interesting, all the shots even without sound look interesting, however this video had no dom in a dress so the original Pride and Prejudice video wins out.
Actually that ending scene is only in the us version. The UK version ends with the Mr Bennet scene. Though with DVD and streaming it gets a bit weird. I have encountered both versions.
I've only seen the Mr Bennett version and was totally lost when he talked about that other ending.
Watched it recently on netflix and yeah was confused about the alternate ending. Mine ended with mr bennet
Thank you! Netflix Canada must have been streaming the UK version when I first watched the movie. I had no idea what Dom was talking about.
I figure it must include both U.S. and U.K. Versions for the Pride and Prejudice (2005) DVD.
I knew the second ending existed because I rented the DVD once and it was included as an extra, but the Mr. Bennett ending is the one they show on TV here in Argentina
I respectfully disagree on the hotter Darcy. Also, Mr. Collins in this version makes me laugh out loud every single time.
Colin Firth has always struck me as bland. He was fine in Nanny McPhee, but Matthew MacFINE is my idea of Darcy!
I like them both but where Colin Firth Darcy is "damn, that is a fine ass man, very hot!" Matthew McFadyen Darcy made me go "oh... OH"
@@ljooni we have totally different taste. Matthew for me is way hotter
If "modernised" isn't the right word, you can say it's anachronised
Yes, I found it VERY anachronised. Which I hated. But the landscape shots were spectacular!
This is the softest, calmest I've seen Dom in this series
That’s true, his exasperation with exasperating things is definitely... a thing. Wouldn’t want him to fake it though, low-key is equally good!
lol he's suffered enough for our sake, let him rest
Ngl I'm with him on favouring older styles over empire waists
I think it's really at odds with the spirit of the era in the novel. There's an emphasis on the athleticism of women, something which wasn't even possible in most other styles of dress. Not to mention what it says about women's natural bodies being accepted, as opposed to "perfected" by tight-fitting bodices and corsets. Fashion says a lot about the time period.
@@vanyadolly I didn't mean that I agreed with him about the adaptation change. I just meant I prefer the style
@@vanyadolly I have to disagree. The novel's first draft was completed in the mid-late 1790s and I always accepted the fashion change as to being more in line with how "First Impressions" (the original title for the book) might have envisioned its characters when first created. Also, woman of the 18th and the early 19th c. wore "stays," not corsets, a different type of binding.
@@vanyadolly Yeah, no. Lower class women did physically demanding work in stays - before the invention of plumbing lugging around heavy buckets of water was a very time-filling activity that was actually _aided_ by the support garments (they protected the wearer from pulled back muscles and hernia). What you're thinking of is the small minority of rich women in the Victorian era who practised tight-lacing - something not possible in 18th century stays due to the hand-sewn eyelets that would have just ripped. If you're interested in corsetry facts, give costuber Bernadette Banner a watch!
@@TheSleepyowlet Yes, the small minority of rich women the novel is about. It isn't just about the corset or how tightly laced they were (over-lacing was fashionable but also frowned upon and considered vulgar in polite society), but how heavy and stiff the garments themselves were, particularly for upper-class women.
The best description I've heard of a modern Mr. Darcy was that he's been hiding in his apartment for the last six months, still thinking about that time he misspoke to a cashier and said he was feeling paper please sometime last year.
This movie sparked my love of period dramas. I was reading the book in high school and was having a hard time finishing it. My mom rented the movie and we watched it one weekend. I loved the movie and finished reading the book the next day. I still love the movie, but I critique it's inaccuracies to the book whenever I watch it now.
I remember when this movie came out. All the girls around me were huge fans of the miniseries and so automatically hated it and didn't give it a real chance to be it's own version. I felt a bit frustrated because to those girls liking this version automatically meant you didn't like the BBC version, and that's just not true. I still love the miniseries better, but I also really appreciated this version for both feeling more human and more realistic. I felt more connected to both the characters and the time period. I think there's room to love both at the same time for what they bring to the table, there doesn't have to be one definitive interpretation.
Yeah that seems to be the habit with some people. They love the original and hate any and all remakes, even if they are good. And I agree that it is possible to like both for their own strengths and what they bring to the source material. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
I like it well enough but to me the people act like modern people sent back in time. They don't seem realistically 18th/19th century as the miniseries actors did.
@@grumpyotter True enough, but I like to look at it like a translation. It's not like the people of the time period were actually different, just that the culture was different and displayed through that lens. I don't have the knowledge needed to understand the subtleties of that culture, so I enjoyed the modernizing in this way so I can get the full effect of the relationships and character. I can totally understand others not liking that part though, especially if they do have the knowledge that I lack.
My main beef with this version is how it Brontefies an Austen book. The melodrama of both Darcy’s proposals for example really put me off - why on earth did they make both of them all wet after running throgh the rain in that first proposal? If Austen had wanted huge moors and dark rain and people being all theatrical at every turn, she would have written them that way. Of that’s what the film makers wanted to do, there is nothing stopping them from making another adaptation of Wuthering Heights instead of making these weird changes to Pride and Prejudice.
@@SmallFaerie I suppose? I have a higher tolerance to cheese and camp than many others, so I admit to a bias. I think this film's style is a far cry from the melodramatic moodiness of Brontë's work, personally, but I can see how it's closer to a Brontë film than a traditional adaptation would be. Other films do that straight interpretation already, I think it's nice to see a version that takes the rose lenses off the original work as a change of pace, but I don't think doing so makes it feel like I'm watching Jane Eyre. I don't think this style should be the norm for interpretation, but for a saturated market, it was refreshing, especially since England is not as sunny as it's usually portrayed. If that's not your cup of tea, that doesn't bother me at all, and it's nice that there are a lot of other options to enjoy instead. I don't have any problems with people disliking it, it's just people who hate it only because they like a different version that bothers me.
This was my gateway to reading Pride and Prejudice and while it's not as book-accurate as the 90s BBC version, I think it got the aesthetic of the novel correctly.
Great synopsis! I am so glad you explained why the director made the choices he did, I was really baffled about why the Bennett family seemed so disheveled and casual and why the father seemed so emotionally distant even with his daughter Elizabeth in this version.
This is an audience comment. Death to the algorithm.
I always preferred the mini serie over the movie cause it has more real tone to it than the movie. everything is so dramatized and colorful in the movie.
Yeah it seems like the movie was going for a more theatrical and over the top version of the story, whereas the mini series is more subtle and realistic.
As long as everyone else is bringing up other adaptations, I'm just going to through in Bride and Prejudice.
No life, without wife, dun dun dun yeah yeah
Yes!!! I thought I was the only here to have seen it haha
OMG - I LOVE that movie!!! It's the best! (I mean, she did get a refrigerator.)
It's really nice to see someone compare two different versions of the same story in genuine good faith by talking about the strengths and weaknesses of each version, rather than worshipping one and bashing the other as is often the standard. Keep it up!
Colin Firth will always be my Darcy, that being said I also ADORE this version. I definitely prefer his first proposal as well, the rain heightens the drama, and it makes me emotional every time, my heart cracks for him. I also feel like his relationship with Bingley is even more genuine. The scene of them rehearsing Bingley’s proposal is my absolute favorite and the cutest thing ever. Also this movie is just stunning. I adore both adaptations and so pleased such a great work has two incredible options if you prefer a film medium. 🥰❤️
It’s interesting to note Joe Wright “changed” the setting, especially when you look into the history of P&P. It was published in 1813, but was originally written in the mid-1790s as “First Impressions,” and Austen’s father even sent off that version to a publisher, but that never panned out. Sense and Sensibility has a similar history, being written in the same time period under the name Elinor and Marianne. Both were subsequently revised into the form we know and love prior to their eventual publication. As a result, I do wonder whether the time period Austen had in mind evolved with these revisions or not. Some of the later books show hallmarks of the later 1810s political backdrop, but meanwhile her other early manuscript that found publication, the book that became Northanger Abbey, is still very much reflective of the time of original writing (around 1800-03), perhaps due to being the least polished prior to her death (this was published posthumously).
That is a very interesting remark ! I don't recall any exact indications in the book so changing the time period isn't that big of a deal (not that it was in the first place). Especially if it makes more sense historically as you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that up !
1995 darcy is grumpy sexy but 2005 darcy is peak anxious grumpy sexy
This version is my comfort movie, for I love Darcy’s hand scene and the way the camera had to go back to get his gigantic self in frame
Same! Always go back to it when need to just feel better
The miniseries is indeed a tough if not almost impossible act to follow, however, this still stands as my favorite version of Pride and Prejudice. For all the reasons you mentioned concerning the Bennett's status change, I felt that it made Mrs. Bennett more understandable from the beginning. Of course she would do anything to avoid her children being left penniless...anything including almost killing one of them and trying to force the other into a marriage with Collins. Funnily enough in this adaptation, I've always felt that had she paid attention, she could have got her wish through Mary who seemed more respectful and open to Mr. Collins when he arrived but she was far too focused on Lizzie and Jane to see that her third daughter had a chance.
Concerning Mr. Darcy, Colin and Matthew hit some of the same highlights but Matthew is not nearly the upper class ninja that Colin was. That man popped up like a jack in the box. I love Colin's Darcy and fully expected to be let down by Matthew because really how can one top perfection. That said, I was more drawn to his portrayal which is still distant but you get the impression that there's more to him than the richest man in the room. He looks miserable and awkward as if he would rather be anywhere but at a ball and when he does show signs of interest and affection toward Lizzie such as the way he helps her into the carriage both to her surprise and his I'm sure, it feels unexpected and just as jarring as Lizzie finds it. Still, this version of Darcy needs a hug and I have hugs to give. lol
I'm not going to lie on this next point. I love this version of Mr. Bennett. The way he talks about Lizzie in the end you know that she is his favorite and the one that he probably thinks of as "his" daughter when the others are decidedly more like their mother. Donald Sutherland was previous to this only a villainous sort on screen to me and his warmth toward his girls was wonderful to see and gave me a new appreciation for him. For instance, when Mary is pretty much laughed out for her poor singing voice, it's not her mother that comforts her but her father, hugging her and telling her that it's alright.
Mary might be my sleeper favorite in this after Lizzie and Darcy. Lizzie might be the self-insert of everyone else but I hold no illusions about how I would be in that period. I am a Mary and I fully appreciate showing her so sympathetically and treated a bit like wallpaper by her sisters.
My god. This was longer than I thought. lol Enough of my ramblings.
I’d love to see you do a third pride and prejudice LIA for the Lizzie Bennet diaries! Maybe at Kate’s next major milestone? I adore both your channels!
OH YES! that would be soooooo good
YES! The Lizzie Bennet Diaries was my intro to the book and it was always hold a nostalgic place in my heart.
I honestly thought I was the only one who remembered the Lizzie Bennett Diaries. I even have the LBD book! I absolutely love them both.
Oh man the nostalgia, great idea!
@@QueenDeni The only pitty with it is that now that it's over you don’t get to experience the series unfolding in real time anymore. The various youtube channels that allow you to follow both Lizzie's and Lydia's stories was great.
That "bah" for Wickham is perhaps the best use of the word I've ever heard. 😂
This film was my first introduction to P&P and Jane Austen in general, and currently I'm writing my MA thesis on specific aspects of her novels. ^^
I *adore* this book and I also adore this film adaptation (the BBC miniseries seems a little dry by comparison), but I think the biggest things they changed are the temperaments of two of the female characters. Jane in the book is shy and retiring, while Rosamund Pike's Jane is vivacious and open. But even more glaringly, Georgiana in the book is SO painfully shy that she can barely string two words together. In this movie she is the absolute social butterfly. I realize it's a "cut for time" thing, but it always makes me wince a bit.
Counterpoint: Pike’s Jane much more embodies the “sees good in everyone” personality than anyone else. And I wonder if you aren’t just seeing her as more social because she’s so pretty.
Jane was clearly interested in him but she would often been seen dancing with other men. Bingley seemed to just follow her around alot, and when dancing at the ball she was more focused on speaking to her sister than him.
I don't think it was considered proper to dance more than twice with someone, unless all those Regency authors have been lying to me since Georgette Heyer.
@@andreamiller3578 Ah I see, that makes sense.
its so funny to me that the director changed the period because he didn't like the look of the dresses
"Your sexy shirts defy all dryness, the universe acknowledges your truth!" Fuck, I wish I remembered to listen to the post review song more often. In fact...I think I'll go do that for the past few videos.
Ok, but have you seen Bride and Prejudice? Modern day India as the setting works SHOCKINGLY well for this story, and the Bollywood dance numbers make it my favorite adaptation
6:58 "Upper-class ninja" needs to be a thing. Someone make that a thing.
Pride and Prejudice and zombies makes it a thing? I mean, the title is the book, it's a copypasted P&P plus extra zombie scenes. The movie screws it all up and accidentally makes Mr Darcy the villain (because I suspect they haven't really thought the changes through at all) but the fight scenes are halfway decent?
are we gonna get the Zombies one to complete this adaptation trilogy
Asking the real questions!
"Snoop Dogg likes them, and that's an endorsement you can trust." LOOOOOOOL! That man is more liberal with his endorsements than Krusty the Clown.
And next, to complete the trilogy, "Pride And Prejudice...And Zombies!" Trust me, the film is really fun.
I feel very special everytime he says "my beautiful watchers" :3
Didn't expect to hear that this adaptation was pretty loyal. When I first saw it, I was freaking out because of how many liberties were taken, especially with Elizabeth's and Darcy's characters. They seem like completely different people in comparison to the book's Elizabeth and Darcy. Austen's heroes are for the most part very sensible people. Even though the plot mostly revolves around love, their love is always guided by the common sense, not by raw untamed feelings. Watching Darcy chasing Elizabeth in the rain because he literally can't wait half an hour for it to stop was just crazy. And Elizabeth's tantrum when she learns of Jane's engagement is even worse >< They act like hormonal teens, not like sensible adults who grew up in a society obsessed with social norms and proper behaviour.
Def agree, the characters were so wrong in this movie (Lizzie blabbing in church to Col. Fitzwilliam??? WTF). Watched it once out of curiosity and then once more to force my sis and mom to watch it so they could hate it as well, lol. The 95 version is near perfection and will always be my favorite (and I would still think that if it didn't have the stupid wet shirt), the 80s BBC version is also pretty good and I even manage to enjoy the silly one from the 40s because it's so ridiculously old school Hollywood I can't hate the inaccuracy. That said if someone likes this version that's fine, especially if it gets them interested in Austen's works.
This movie just feels very American which is like the opposite of what the bbok and mini-series feel like and I don't like it. Especially as I was introduced to Austen through the near perfect mini-series. I love tve mini-series, it has everything: music, costumr, setting, casting, faithfulness to the original and good acting. How could this movie hold a candle to that.
The one scene I really liked (just for my srnse of justice) was Lizzie yelling at Darcy's face that her sister is shy. It felt like: "yeah you asshat! You're mister introvert over here but if a girl does it, she's not interested?! What kinda logic is that you prick?!" But like I said, it just felt satisfying because the fact that that possibility never crossed Darcy's mind always bothered me. It's not accurate to the period of book but it felt satisfying.
Agreed. He really missed the mark on this review, especially with saying the family seemed "warmer" in the film as opposed to the series, I didn't think that at all. It was just all kind of a mess really, and definitely high school-ish, as you said.
I will forever mourn the fact that I am too broke to watch the Lost in Adaptation of Howls Moving Castle. Rip student life
Director doesn’t like empire waist gowns, replaces them with potato sacks.
Yeah, much better.
Now I really wanna see you and Kate take a look at Pride & Prejudice & Zombies
that movie was hilarious
This adaptation is what made me a fan of Pride and Prejudice. I remember seeing it at a local second run theater with my sister and we just loved this movie.
Okay, now all that's left is the fantastic Bollywood adaptation, Bride and Prejudice! I'm not kidding, it's real and it's FANTASTIC!
Pride and Prejudice and the Upper-class Ninjas