Mrs. Bennett is a riot! I have seen the 1980, 1995, and the Knightly one which I thought ok. Of course when I saw the 1995 version I fell head over heels but floated back to the 1980 one. This version reflects the style and manners of the late 1960s. I think it delightful. I only wish Mary was in the series and that this version in color. And Mr. Bennett is perfect. 🎉
I have loved P&P since first reading it over 50 years ago. Since then I have read it countless times. I have also seen almost every film and TV version. Having just watched this version for the first time I must say, considering when it was televised, that it is very good. One cannot, and should not, compare it with the 1995 and 2005 versions because in 1967 TV drama had little or no editing and hardly any mood music. They often went out live so there were no countless retakes. They had to get it right the first time. Having said that, I thought the cast excellent, especially Lizzie and Darcy. I too thought Darcy not so handsome at first but his performance grows on one, as someone else has also noted. I certainly enjoyed it more than I expected to. I also found interesting the presence of Charlotte Lucas' brother at the assembly ball, mentioned in the book, but missing from other adaptions, and his saying that if he were as rich as Darcy he would drink a bottle of wine a day. The few added scenes were also very effective in filling ou the story. All told a very enjoyable production.
How could they leave Mary out? Having five daughters to marry off cranks up the tension beyond only having four daughters to marry off. It shows the great financial difficulties looming on the horizon. And the personalities of the sisters are important to the story. Jane: the pretty and kind one. Elizabeth: the clever and witty one. Mary: the nerdy one. Kitty and Lydia: the wild flirty ones. If they had to remove one of the daughters from the story, it should have been Kitty because she is just like Lydia only she has a smaller part.
Delightful as all the other renditions of this classic! Thanks for uploading. I really hate it when Hollywood takes liberties of changing the story. Mary's character was killed off and not shown at all. This is so unfortunate and upsetting. She is an integral part of that family and its like taking a five-faceted gem and reducing it to 4 facets, it does not shine as bright. Shameful distortion. This shame will live on in this version.
An excellent rendition, one of my favorites now. Most importantly Jane Austen I believe would be pleased & that's honor in tribute enough. I think the entire show captivating.
How many times have you read the novel?? I’ve read it so many times that it’s like a piece I’ve played on the piano, and a wrong word jars as badly as a wrong note. This is not at all a true adaptation, and for no discernible reason that I can see! Austen wrote the dialogue the way it corresponded with her ideas for the characters, but the man who adapted the novel here puts them in the mouths of other characters….someone eventually says what she wrote, but by the wrong character! Right at the beginning, Lady Lucas is speaking, but she never said a single word in the novel….she is simply not important. And Mary Bennet doesn’t appear at all, so WTF?? Why not just have believable characters relate the narration when necessary, and put Austen’s fabulous dialogue in the correct characters’ mouths?? The best adaptation by far is the 1995 version, in my opinion, because at least 80% of the dialogue is _exactly_ as Austen penned it, and nobody can improve on that!
@@voraciousreader3341I have read it more than one occasion, however it's been a number of years since. I am sympathetic or rather can appreciate your dedication towards the original novel, such tendencies towards perfection & myself have felt great disappointment with many fav novels short comings. However I think this mini series, with limited resources which has captured my imagination & I am sincerely fond of it's effect. The characters I believe are exceptionally suited & like you I miss Mary terribly, I only think she was excluded by budget cost. Best wishes to yourself. Good reading as well. ❤
The person who adapted the novel has such a strange way of writing Austen’s words…..he gives the general meaning, when he could just allow the characters to say the dialogue she wrote! It’s 100 times better than he (or anyone else) could come up with!
I miss her presence also, but likely budget limits the reason. No sinister reason exist of erasing the intellectual aspect of women, I believe the case. It is my opinion that generalisation of Mary's intellectual pursuits the only merit, I find somewhat offensive towards feminity undermined here. A sound mind & an active, caring heart is truly beautiful in women. It is not weakness, as course sects may insist downfallen in critical areas, it is strength overall. Mary did pursue academic achievement, as a means of satisfaction, but not entirely to her own credit the book explains. It was of an inclination otherwise she did not feel she could compete( excell ) on any other level with her sisters attributes. So she found her niche in which she was the exception. Mary's obsession was a polar opposite of Lydia's flirtatious nature & both suffered from vanity demonstrated thru their actions. Both desiring to be the center of attention, Mary displayed hers thru playing the piano & wholly unconscious that her taste may not be pleasing in a crowd. This forcible presentation showed a stubbornness that wasn't admirable in her character to insist others see the world from her point of view. A mix of viewpoints genuinely suitable, as amicable is better than extremism or viewpoints in singularity in any case, diversification compliments us all in our varying attributes.
Thanks for uploading as I have never seen this various. It isn't too bad. As a massive fa of the book, I dont think is good as the 1995 version but 100 times better than the film. I agree about the comments about leaving out Mary. It also feels tad over acted, and a bit melodramatic for what it should be. It seems unnatural. Although, I think this is the closest to the actual ages of the characters. Usually the actors are about 10 years older than their characters are.
This is great, many thanks! Do you happen to have other TV plays or films directed by Joan Craft? I've been looking for ''Solo'' series, which is extremely hard to find, for some reason. 😥😥😥
The casting was terrible, the hairstyles make them older (and are not correct for the period). Jane was around 21 years and Lizzy maybe 19 years. Young ! women. And the script jumps from scene to scene. Some interesting ideas - not in the book but derived from the book, but there is little connection between the scenes and the story is not fleshed out.
My mother watched this movie and was appalled at the poor casting. The actress who played Liz looked very terrible, my mother did not like her forehead, she said that forehead looked a bit deformed, too tall, that the actress had to do another hairstyle to look better. Mother also didn't like Liz's eyes, they looked creepy and bulging. Mr. Darcy looked like a drug addict to my mother. In summary, mother said that this couple reminds her of the Frankensteins from "Monster's Garage", that they are both "very suitable" for each other, as if they couldn't have chosen worse actors. Also, my mother said that English actors are ugly and horrible, although I don't completely agree with that.
@@samuelsantosvitorino3974 Thanks for suggestion, but my mother doesn't want to do RUclips channel, she doesn't know how to use RUclips channel, film, edit videos or something like that. She is a busy person, so she doesn't have time or wish to do videos.
Finally I can watch this version. Thank you so much!!!!
Hard to imagine a production of P & P closer to farce than this one. Mrs Bennett’s speaking voice could crack walnuts for a start.
Mrs. Bennett is a riot! I have seen the 1980, 1995, and the Knightly one which I thought ok. Of course when I saw the 1995 version I fell head over heels but floated back to the 1980 one. This version reflects the style and manners of the late 1960s. I think it delightful. I only wish Mary was in the series and that this version in color. And Mr. Bennett is perfect. 🎉
This is brilliant! How generous of you.... Thank you sooo very much! 🌺🌴🇵🇭
I have loved P&P since first reading it over 50 years ago. Since then I have read it countless times. I have also seen almost every film and TV version. Having just watched this version for the first time I must say, considering when it was televised, that it is very good. One cannot, and should not, compare it with the 1995 and 2005 versions because in 1967 TV drama had little or no editing and hardly any mood music. They often went out live so there were no countless retakes. They had to get it right the first time. Having said that, I thought the cast excellent, especially Lizzie and Darcy. I too thought Darcy not so handsome at first but his performance grows on one, as someone else has also noted. I certainly enjoyed it more than I expected to. I also found interesting the presence of Charlotte Lucas' brother at the assembly ball, mentioned in the book, but missing from other adaptions, and his saying that if he were as rich as Darcy he would drink a bottle of wine a day. The few added scenes were also very effective in filling ou the story. All told a very enjoyable production.
I am liking this mr and mrs bennet very much
How could they leave Mary out? Having five daughters to marry off cranks up the tension beyond only having four daughters to marry off. It shows the great financial difficulties looming on the horizon. And the personalities of the sisters are important to the story.
Jane: the pretty and kind one.
Elizabeth: the clever and witty one.
Mary: the nerdy one.
Kitty and Lydia: the wild flirty ones.
If they had to remove one of the daughters from the story, it should have been Kitty because she is just like Lydia only she has a smaller part.
I cannot agree more
1995 is unsurpassed! COlin Firth, Jennifer Ehle ad the rest of the cast are outstanding and this version is closest to the book.
Mr. Bingley (David Saville) is also Mr. Elliot (Persuasion 1971).
thanks so much for this
could not find this version anywhere 👍
I really like the Charlotte & mom scene
Delightful as all the other renditions of this classic! Thanks for uploading.
I really hate it when Hollywood takes liberties of changing the story. Mary's character was killed off and not shown at all. This is so unfortunate and upsetting. She is an integral part of that family and its like taking a five-faceted gem and reducing it to 4 facets, it does not shine as bright. Shameful distortion. This shame will live on in this version.
Unless I am grossly mistaken, this version was from British television - nothing to do with Hollywood.
Mary is killed off?! Oh no
Hollywood?! This is the BBC. Write to White City. lol.
An excellent rendition, one of my favorites now. Most importantly Jane Austen I believe would be pleased & that's honor in tribute enough. I think the entire show captivating.
How many times have you read the novel?? I’ve read it so many times that it’s like a piece I’ve played on the piano, and a wrong word jars as badly as a wrong note. This is not at all a true adaptation, and for no discernible reason that I can see! Austen wrote the dialogue the way it corresponded with her ideas for the characters, but the man who adapted the novel here puts them in the mouths of other characters….someone eventually says what she wrote, but by the wrong character! Right at the beginning, Lady Lucas is speaking, but she never said a single word in the novel….she is simply not important. And Mary Bennet doesn’t appear at all, so WTF?? Why not just have believable characters relate the narration when necessary, and put Austen’s fabulous dialogue in the correct characters’ mouths?? The best adaptation by far is the 1995 version, in my opinion, because at least 80% of the dialogue is _exactly_ as Austen penned it, and nobody can improve on that!
@@voraciousreader3341I have read it more than one occasion, however it's been a number of years since. I am sympathetic or rather can appreciate your dedication towards the original novel, such tendencies towards perfection & myself have felt great disappointment with many fav novels short comings. However I think this mini series, with limited resources which has captured my imagination & I am sincerely fond of it's effect. The characters I believe are exceptionally suited & like you I miss Mary terribly, I only think she was excluded by budget cost. Best wishes to yourself. Good reading as well. ❤
The person who adapted the novel has such a strange way of writing Austen’s words…..he gives the general meaning, when he could just allow the characters to say the dialogue she wrote! It’s 100 times better than he (or anyone else) could come up with!
My favorite sister Mary has been left out😢 she was the only sister worth anything!
I miss her presence also, but likely budget limits the reason. No sinister reason exist of erasing the intellectual aspect of women, I believe the case.
It is my opinion that generalisation of Mary's intellectual pursuits the only merit, I find somewhat offensive towards feminity undermined here. A sound mind & an active, caring heart is truly beautiful in women. It is not weakness, as course sects may insist downfallen in critical areas, it is strength overall. Mary did pursue academic achievement, as a means of satisfaction, but not entirely to her own credit the book explains. It was of an inclination otherwise she did not feel she could compete( excell ) on any other level with her sisters attributes. So she found her niche in which she was the exception. Mary's obsession was a polar opposite of Lydia's flirtatious nature & both suffered from vanity demonstrated thru their actions. Both desiring to be the center of attention, Mary displayed hers thru playing the piano & wholly unconscious that her taste may not be pleasing in a crowd. This forcible presentation showed a stubbornness that wasn't admirable in her character to insist others see the world from her point of view.
A mix of viewpoints genuinely suitable, as amicable is better than extremism or viewpoints in singularity in any case, diversification compliments us all in our varying attributes.
i have been waiting for this for so long aaaaaaah
Thanks for uploading as I have never seen this various.
It isn't too bad. As a massive fa of the book, I dont think is good as the 1995 version but 100 times better than the film.
I agree about the comments about leaving out Mary. It also feels tad over acted, and a bit melodramatic for what it should be. It seems unnatural. Although, I think this is the closest to the actual ages of the characters. Usually the actors are about 10 years older than their characters are.
This seems much earlier than 1967.
This is great, many thanks! Do you happen to have other TV plays or films directed by Joan Craft? I've been looking for ''Solo'' series, which is extremely hard to find, for some reason. 😥😥😥
I wonder why they left out Mary?
casting might be bad but mr bennet goes unironically hard here
Alfred from batman
Mr. Darcy later became Mr. William Walter Eliott.
@@bookmouse2719Thank you.
But why are the hairstyles so sixties-like? 😊
And Jane was supposed to be the beauty of the ball ....
What a disappointment Darcy is not at all handsome, and where is Mary ?😮
He is not at all masculine either! Disastrous casting of Darcy
The casting was terrible, the hairstyles make them older (and are not correct for the period). Jane was around 21 years and Lizzy maybe 19 years. Young ! women. And the script jumps from scene to scene. Some interesting ideas - not in the book but derived from the book, but there is little connection between the scenes and the story is not fleshed out.
My mother watched this movie and was appalled at the poor casting. The actress who played Liz looked very terrible, my mother did not like her forehead, she said that forehead looked a bit deformed, too tall, that the actress had to do another hairstyle to look better. Mother also didn't like Liz's eyes, they looked creepy and bulging. Mr. Darcy looked like a drug addict to my mother. In summary, mother said that this couple reminds her of the Frankensteins from "Monster's Garage", that they are both "very suitable" for each other, as if they couldn't have chosen worse actors. Also, my mother said that English actors are ugly and horrible, although I don't completely agree with that.
That's really mean spirited..not everyone is born perfect....maybe only your mother
@@samuelsantosvitorino3974 Thanks for suggestion, but my mother doesn't want to do RUclips channel, she doesn't know how to use RUclips channel, film, edit videos or something like that. She is a busy person, so she doesn't have time or wish to do videos.
Caroline Bingley is that you?
@@kingdomfreedom8323 😂😂😂😂
@@kingdomfreedom8323 that was good!