Introduction
Pride and Prejudice was adapted in to film in 2005. It was produced by Working Title films in association with Studio Canal. The director was Joe Wright and the screenwriter was Deborah Moggach. Keira Knightley played the part of Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen played the part of Darcy.
This adaptation has a more modernistic approach which differentiates it from its predecessors. There have been many differing views by critics on this rendition of Pride and Prejudice but overall they have been positive. The film earned four nominations at the 78th Academy Awards, including a Best Actress nomination for Knightley
This adaptation has a more modernistic approach which differentiates it from its predecessors. There have been many differing views by critics on this rendition of Pride and Prejudice but overall they have been positive. The film earned four nominations at the 78th Academy Awards, including a Best Actress nomination for Knightley
Production
The director Joe Wright and the production team came from a different angle on this adaptation which is evident throughout the film.Wright mentioned that he approached the story with realism in mind rather than the picturesque depiction previously used. He claimed that he wanted to make “Pride and Prejudice real and gritty” which would be completely different to adaptations previously made. Many Austen fans were opposed to this idea as alterations to Austen classics were never done to this extreme and it was imagined that if it was so far modified that it would lose it original appeal to the story. Though this view changed for most critics when the film was released in 2005. The producers Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner commented on the initial production and their approach to the story “we wanted to present the story as it was written, casting actors at the ages Jane Austen indicated, and giving them a depiction which avoided the ‘chocolate box’ presentations that television veers towards” (focusfeatures.com). People may have differing views on this statement as one of the complaints of this adaptation is that many deviations have been added to the original story with the addition of script, missing and invented scenes and missing characters. Though they did cast actors to the ages of the characters which is positive. Another member of production Paul Webster also noted that production intended on making a big screen version, one that did not conform to the television drama stereotypes with such emphasis on perfection, which is seen in its 1995 predecessor. They certainly achieved these goals as this version is quite unique.
Script
Quite a few differences stood out in this version in comparison to the novel. Firstly, this film did not follow the dialogue of the book. It retained the main storyline and plot but quite a few of the conversations that were had in the novel were changed or completely left out of the film. Joe Wright on the script says “I come from a background of television social realist drama, and so I suppose I was a bit prejudiced against this material, regarding it as posh.” (focusfeatures.com) Deborah Moggach who wrote the script, initially attempted to make it as faithful to the novel as possible, writing from the perspective of Elizabeth, while preserving much of the original dialogue, calling it "so beautifully shaped as a story, the ultimate romance about two people who think they hate each other but who are really passionately in love. I felt, 'If it's not broken, don't fix it’”. Moggach had to contend with Wright who had a different view of this adaptation and encouraged greater deviation from the text”.(focusfeatures.com) This led to the development of the present script. Though some Austen fans such as myself think it was the wrong decision, because Pride and Prejudice is in its own right a fantastic piece of literature and is international acclaimed, the script should have stayed more true to the dialogue of the novel in order to do the story justice. There is no obvious reason other than possibly the wish of the script writer and director to make it resonate more with modern women for example presenting the female character as stronger and less submissive to the male characters. It is understandable that certain parts have to be changed and combined in order for the whole story to fit into an hour and half but in some areas there was really no need to change the script.
Near the beginning of the film there is a scene that shows Darcy and Elizabeth debating over the power of poetry with Darcy being for it and Elizabeth being against it, Elizabeth comments that ‘who ever invented poetry was to drive away love’ Darcy replies with ‘what do you recommend to encourage affection?’ which Elizabeth retorts in a condescending manner; ‘dancing, even if ones partner is only barely tolerable’ and at that she walks away. This scene depicted Elizabeth as possibly a little harsher then she was intending to be and showed her assertive side which would be more in line with what modern viewers would expect. There was really no need to include this as part of the scribe as it just makes Elizabeth out to be mean and rude, which she is not supposed to be. She was probably supposed to be seen as witty as Elizabeth was but it is not the impression one would get from watching that scene.
Near the beginning of the film there is a scene that shows Darcy and Elizabeth debating over the power of poetry with Darcy being for it and Elizabeth being against it, Elizabeth comments that ‘who ever invented poetry was to drive away love’ Darcy replies with ‘what do you recommend to encourage affection?’ which Elizabeth retorts in a condescending manner; ‘dancing, even if ones partner is only barely tolerable’ and at that she walks away. This scene depicted Elizabeth as possibly a little harsher then she was intending to be and showed her assertive side which would be more in line with what modern viewers would expect. There was really no need to include this as part of the scribe as it just makes Elizabeth out to be mean and rude, which she is not supposed to be. She was probably supposed to be seen as witty as Elizabeth was but it is not the impression one would get from watching that scene.
The Characters
The differences are quite apparent in this adaptation compared to the novel when it comes to the characters. The first point to note is that many of the characters are missing who play a big part in the story. It is understood that shortening of the novel needs to be done in order to suit film duration which ultimately leads to omissions of either characters or scenes As mentioned earlier adaptations always depends on the perception of the script writers, directors and what themes they want to portray. Depending of the perceptions the viewers this could be a good or a bad thing. Firstly the elder Mrs Bingley, Louisa Hurst and her husband are missing from this film. These two characters appear in many scenes throughout the novel and contribute to the character of the story, Mrs Hurst having the same views as her sister Caroline and they play of each other. The omission of these dynamic characters could be seen to take from the overall film. Their inclusion is not essential to the story but Mrs Hurst brings a comical value to the story and Caroline Bingley is not such a prominent character without her sister. As for Mr Hurst, the exclusion of his character is not cause for great concern as he does not contribute much to the novel. Another important character is Mrs Bennet’s sister; Mrs Phillips, who appears many times throughout the novel, appears to be left out. The Bennet sisters frequently visit their aunt while in the village of Meriton. It is here that they receive their daily news of the regency and also the happening of others in their circle. Other minor characters not included in the film are Charlotte Lucas’s father and sister. They appear in the novel in some scenes such as the balls held in Meriton and Netherfield. They also accompany Elizabeth on a visit to Mr Collins abode after he and Charlotte married. There was also no mention of Mr and Mrs Gardiner’s children in the film. These characters mentioned are not fundamental in the telling of the story but they add to the character of it.
Another note to mention is that the behaviour of the characters deviated from what they were originally meant to be. An example of this is Elizabeth who is portrayed to be very outspoken and rude in this adaptation whereas in the book she is playful and witty. This appears in several scenes throughout the film. In one scene Elizabeth is sitting down for breakfast with her family when Jane receives a letter from Caroline Bingley inviting her to dine at Netherfield. Jane asks for the carriage but Mrs Bennet says no as she wants her to stay overnight so she might be able to see Mr Bingley. Elizabeth then asks Mrs Bingley for the carriage in a raised voice and rude manner by shouting MAMA!, this behaviour may not have been seen in that period among their class. The modern day viewer would not think any different of her behaviour as they may not know how young ladies were supposed to act back in the regency era so the change in her behaviour may not affect them so. Also seen in this version is Elizabeth acting in a derogatory way towards her cousin Mr Collins. She openly and sarcastically mocks Mr. Collins at the dinner table. Everybody else in the room knows that she is teasing him, but he is unaware, which makes it even worse. This type of act was rarely committed by a young woman of Elizabeth’s social class, and even at today’s standards this would be viewed as being inappropriate and rude, and it is doubtful that it was Austen’s intention for Elizabeth to be portrayed in this light.
Another example of Elizabeth’s questionable behaviour is when Lady Catherine De Bourgh comes to interrogate Elizabeth on rumours surrounding the relationship between her and Darcy. After leaving Lady Catherine in the parlour Elizabeth storms upstairs and screams "For once in your life, leave me alone!" when asked by her family what is going on. This behaviour and responses are more typical to modern day society and would almost be unheard of in regency times. Viewers might not appreciate these modern modifications as it can be hard to relate to the original story.
Throughout the film Elizabeth laughs at almost everything. Her behaviour does not distinguish her from her more immature little sisters such as when she attended the ball in Netherfield, she prances through the ballroom laughing loudly and stops abruptly and awkwardly when she nearly runs into Mr. Darcy. She does not apologise for the near accident. She just looks at him disgustedly for a minute and stiffly replies to his question she does not apologise for the incident. It is difficult to believe that Elizabeth would act in this manner towards Darcy. Elizabeth’s pride was hurt by Darcy’s comments about how she was only tolerable, so this could have inspired this behaviour. But in the novel Elizabeth hides her hurt by laughing off Darcy’s comments and no conversation of the sort occurred between the pair. In the film a modern day reaction to the situation was used.
Another character worth mentioning is Mr Bingley who was played by Simon Woods. Woods portrayal of Bingley was perplexing. From viewing the film alone the viewer would have the illusion that Bingley was a feeble and pathetic sort of man. This is not the case in the novel. Bingley is portrayed as a kind gentle sort of person with good qualities but his true character did not come across in this adaptation. There were many instances where he would break out into a fit of giggles while having a conversing with people, such was the case seen many of times throughout with Jane and Elizabeth.
On a more positive aspect of this adaptation, the two youngest Bennet sisters where portrayed quite well. Lydia Bennet who was portrayed by Jena Malone retained her immature youthful side which is slightly lost in the 1995 version as the actor playing her is quite a bit older and she comes across as a more deceitful in her actions as in she knows exactly what she is doing, which is not the case. Lydia is unabashed and untamed but this is due to her young age and being brought out into society too young. This makes her very naive and she does not think of the consequences of her actions such as her continuous flirting, but in saying that she does not do this to intentionally cause havoc nor is she deceitful.
The character of Mr Bennet also deviates from the original description of him in Austen’s novel. Donald Sutherland had the task of portraying Mr Bennet and his performance was sufficient for viewing purposes but he did not grasp the character quite well enough. Mr Bennet’s dry humour as well as his preference of Elizabeth was lost in Sutherland’s rendition.
Another note to mention is that the behaviour of the characters deviated from what they were originally meant to be. An example of this is Elizabeth who is portrayed to be very outspoken and rude in this adaptation whereas in the book she is playful and witty. This appears in several scenes throughout the film. In one scene Elizabeth is sitting down for breakfast with her family when Jane receives a letter from Caroline Bingley inviting her to dine at Netherfield. Jane asks for the carriage but Mrs Bennet says no as she wants her to stay overnight so she might be able to see Mr Bingley. Elizabeth then asks Mrs Bingley for the carriage in a raised voice and rude manner by shouting MAMA!, this behaviour may not have been seen in that period among their class. The modern day viewer would not think any different of her behaviour as they may not know how young ladies were supposed to act back in the regency era so the change in her behaviour may not affect them so. Also seen in this version is Elizabeth acting in a derogatory way towards her cousin Mr Collins. She openly and sarcastically mocks Mr. Collins at the dinner table. Everybody else in the room knows that she is teasing him, but he is unaware, which makes it even worse. This type of act was rarely committed by a young woman of Elizabeth’s social class, and even at today’s standards this would be viewed as being inappropriate and rude, and it is doubtful that it was Austen’s intention for Elizabeth to be portrayed in this light.
Another example of Elizabeth’s questionable behaviour is when Lady Catherine De Bourgh comes to interrogate Elizabeth on rumours surrounding the relationship between her and Darcy. After leaving Lady Catherine in the parlour Elizabeth storms upstairs and screams "For once in your life, leave me alone!" when asked by her family what is going on. This behaviour and responses are more typical to modern day society and would almost be unheard of in regency times. Viewers might not appreciate these modern modifications as it can be hard to relate to the original story.
Throughout the film Elizabeth laughs at almost everything. Her behaviour does not distinguish her from her more immature little sisters such as when she attended the ball in Netherfield, she prances through the ballroom laughing loudly and stops abruptly and awkwardly when she nearly runs into Mr. Darcy. She does not apologise for the near accident. She just looks at him disgustedly for a minute and stiffly replies to his question she does not apologise for the incident. It is difficult to believe that Elizabeth would act in this manner towards Darcy. Elizabeth’s pride was hurt by Darcy’s comments about how she was only tolerable, so this could have inspired this behaviour. But in the novel Elizabeth hides her hurt by laughing off Darcy’s comments and no conversation of the sort occurred between the pair. In the film a modern day reaction to the situation was used.
Another character worth mentioning is Mr Bingley who was played by Simon Woods. Woods portrayal of Bingley was perplexing. From viewing the film alone the viewer would have the illusion that Bingley was a feeble and pathetic sort of man. This is not the case in the novel. Bingley is portrayed as a kind gentle sort of person with good qualities but his true character did not come across in this adaptation. There were many instances where he would break out into a fit of giggles while having a conversing with people, such was the case seen many of times throughout with Jane and Elizabeth.
On a more positive aspect of this adaptation, the two youngest Bennet sisters where portrayed quite well. Lydia Bennet who was portrayed by Jena Malone retained her immature youthful side which is slightly lost in the 1995 version as the actor playing her is quite a bit older and she comes across as a more deceitful in her actions as in she knows exactly what she is doing, which is not the case. Lydia is unabashed and untamed but this is due to her young age and being brought out into society too young. This makes her very naive and she does not think of the consequences of her actions such as her continuous flirting, but in saying that she does not do this to intentionally cause havoc nor is she deceitful.
The character of Mr Bennet also deviates from the original description of him in Austen’s novel. Donald Sutherland had the task of portraying Mr Bennet and his performance was sufficient for viewing purposes but he did not grasp the character quite well enough. Mr Bennet’s dry humour as well as his preference of Elizabeth was lost in Sutherland’s rendition.
The Bennet's Wealth
From the start of the film to the end there is a striking difference in how the family are perceived financially. In this film the family are shown to be a lot less well off than in the novel. Aesthetically the 2005 version didn’t seem to be true to how a middle class family lived. In one scene Jane receives a letter for the Bingley sisters inviting her to dine in Netherfield. Jane proceeds to ask for the use of the carriage with her mother interjecting with “But my dear, your father cannot spare the horses, I am sure. They are wanted in the farm, Mr Bennet, are they not?” To which he replies, ‘They are wanted in the farm much oftener that I can get them”. (Pride and Prejudice, pg 27) It is here that it becomes apparent that the Bennet’s own a working farm; this point is quite forgotten among many people as it is not mentioned again throughout the novel.
.Also a common thread throughout the film is the “poor country folk” theme which is concentrated on heavily throughout. The first scene shows Elizabeth arriving at Longbourn through a makeshift bridge connecting the house to the road. There are several farm animals scattered around the front of the house which was quite shocking at first.
This point alone turned many viewers against this adaptation, but as mentioned above the family owned a working farm, but also in the case of working farms and families of a respectable social standing, the farm was not in close proximity to the home, so these scenes of farm animals running around throughout the house is unlikely. When Elizabeth entered the house, it can be seen that it is unkempt and unmaintained, there is a mass of clothing scattered along the dining room table and there are also animals within the household.
Within the Bennet’s society this kind of behaviour and household was unheard of. Cleanliness was essential and they would go to many lengths to achieve it. Wrights portrayal of the Bennet’s is inaccurate, according to critics and many viewers myself among them, felt that they live in a grimier world then Austen intended. First of all the Bennet’s were a middle class family who could afford some luxuries and live quite comfortably and they could also afford to employed help. The Bennet’s employed servants to carry out everyday duties in the house and they also kept a house keeper known as Hill. In the adaptation they would have the viewer believe that the Bennet’s had no help working for them excluding a cook as it shows them carrying out many tasks within the house such as preparing food, mending clothes among other tasks, however this did not seem to be the case in the novel. During the 1700s and 1800s cleanliness, neatness and tidiness were of the utmost importance. People would go to great lengths to make sure this was the case, especially within the society the Bennet’s socialised in. This point was shown in other Austen adaptations and there are incidences where it can be seen throughout the Pride and Prejudice mini-series 1995 and also the two adaptations of Sense and Sensibility. The sheer panic that occurred when an unexpected visitor arrived and everything was not in perfect order within the house shows that under no circumstances were visitors allowed to see a less than perfect setting within the house. The main point here is that this muddy hem version is not historically correct, even though the director mentioned they were aiming for a more realistic approach to the story, it is not.
Another example of what lengths women from this era went through in order to protect their clothing from dirt was by the usage of Pattens.
These overshoes were worn outdoors over a normal shoe; they were either made out of wood or metal and were held in place by bands made of leather or cloth. These overshoes were essential for the regency females as roads and footpaths were covered in dirt and horse dung as they were used to elevate the wearer from this in order to protect their outfits. In this depiction it be seen in many incidences throughout that cleanliness is clearly not a priority.
This is also shown in one scene, Elizabeth is shown siting on a swing in the backyard of her house, the area is full of muck and is incredible dirty which the modern day viewer may think it understandable as they did own a working farm but even in that case the area would not be that dirty. It is also lashing rain and she’s sitting there smiling shoeless with her hair down on the swing, this type of behaviour would be unlikely to be seen from a grown woman during the Regency
.Also a common thread throughout the film is the “poor country folk” theme which is concentrated on heavily throughout. The first scene shows Elizabeth arriving at Longbourn through a makeshift bridge connecting the house to the road. There are several farm animals scattered around the front of the house which was quite shocking at first.
This point alone turned many viewers against this adaptation, but as mentioned above the family owned a working farm, but also in the case of working farms and families of a respectable social standing, the farm was not in close proximity to the home, so these scenes of farm animals running around throughout the house is unlikely. When Elizabeth entered the house, it can be seen that it is unkempt and unmaintained, there is a mass of clothing scattered along the dining room table and there are also animals within the household.
Within the Bennet’s society this kind of behaviour and household was unheard of. Cleanliness was essential and they would go to many lengths to achieve it. Wrights portrayal of the Bennet’s is inaccurate, according to critics and many viewers myself among them, felt that they live in a grimier world then Austen intended. First of all the Bennet’s were a middle class family who could afford some luxuries and live quite comfortably and they could also afford to employed help. The Bennet’s employed servants to carry out everyday duties in the house and they also kept a house keeper known as Hill. In the adaptation they would have the viewer believe that the Bennet’s had no help working for them excluding a cook as it shows them carrying out many tasks within the house such as preparing food, mending clothes among other tasks, however this did not seem to be the case in the novel. During the 1700s and 1800s cleanliness, neatness and tidiness were of the utmost importance. People would go to great lengths to make sure this was the case, especially within the society the Bennet’s socialised in. This point was shown in other Austen adaptations and there are incidences where it can be seen throughout the Pride and Prejudice mini-series 1995 and also the two adaptations of Sense and Sensibility. The sheer panic that occurred when an unexpected visitor arrived and everything was not in perfect order within the house shows that under no circumstances were visitors allowed to see a less than perfect setting within the house. The main point here is that this muddy hem version is not historically correct, even though the director mentioned they were aiming for a more realistic approach to the story, it is not.
Another example of what lengths women from this era went through in order to protect their clothing from dirt was by the usage of Pattens.
These overshoes were worn outdoors over a normal shoe; they were either made out of wood or metal and were held in place by bands made of leather or cloth. These overshoes were essential for the regency females as roads and footpaths were covered in dirt and horse dung as they were used to elevate the wearer from this in order to protect their outfits. In this depiction it be seen in many incidences throughout that cleanliness is clearly not a priority.
This is also shown in one scene, Elizabeth is shown siting on a swing in the backyard of her house, the area is full of muck and is incredible dirty which the modern day viewer may think it understandable as they did own a working farm but even in that case the area would not be that dirty. It is also lashing rain and she’s sitting there smiling shoeless with her hair down on the swing, this type of behaviour would be unlikely to be seen from a grown woman during the Regency
My conclusion of this adaptation
With all these changes that were made it still tells the story well and this film is a favourite with many. Jane Austen may not have been best pleased with it but it satisfied many of viewers. There are many things in this version that are better. Over all the film doesn’t alter the plot despite omitting many characters. Any deviation from the original plot could be due to Wrights more modern interpretation that he wanted to convey with this adaptation