Differences on the different Pride and Prejudice versions, and my thoughts on all of them ("all" as in the 1940 version, the 1995 version, and the 2005 version, complete with links. Actually not complete, but has a couple links here and there).
Opening thoughts so you know where I stand:
I think Mr. Darcy is supposed to be 1) attractive and 2) aloof. And the
2005 Mr. Darcy was neither one of those. From what I remember, he was
pretty quick to get over his pride. And ik that's because they were
trying to make a short version so that people could watch and not take a
huge chunk of time out of their day but it still undermines the whole
point of the book - you're supposed to be able to see how much he's
changed from the beginning and if he changes too fast than it's not all
that different from anyone else who first didn't like you and now does.
It just seems like the Mr. Darcy from the 1995 version was more
interesting because of how long it takes him to get over his dislike and
distaste for lower-class people. The newer Mr. Darcy doesn't seem like
he even sees their lower class because he's so ready to become friends
with them if you know what I mean. If you don't, feel free to get in touch, and we can argue, I'm willing to take any 2005 fans on because they're all fake P&P fans anyway.
OK, so I watched the 1940 first proposal and here is the first thing that comes to mind:
(just note, you'll probably have to read this very slowly because it's a little bit confusing and rambling so you might have a hard time understanding what I'm saying.)
1) I've never watched how he acts aloof at the beginning, so I wouldn't know, but the first proposal he doesn't seem that much detached. In the 1995 one, the Mr. Darcy is obviously kind of revolted inside that he's doing this - he reminds himself how much beneath him she is and how she's below him in class and in manners and in decorum and he tells her that. He tells her that he told himself how stupid the idea was and that's what makes her mad and what goads her into telling him no no no he's the last man in the world she could ever marry. This Darcy doesn't seem as much like that - he does tell her how he walked the streets of London telling himself how unsuitable the marriage was, but that's about as insulting as it gets. Then he kisses her hand and says "I love you, I love you" but in the 1995 version he's very detached from his proposal and he doesn't really show his love because he's still not 100% on board with the idea of marrying someone so below him socially. In the 1940 version he doesn't seem that put-off by the idea so there's that.
2) It occurred to me that in the 2005 version, he's even less put off by the idea - he seems very willing to marry whoever, which is probably due to the fact that A) it was made in 2005 and there aren't really any prejudices to a lower class anymore, but maybe that's just here in America, idk maybe it's still that way in Britain, just less so. And due to the fact that B) it had to be a quicker romance because of their trying to make the story shorter.
(just note, you'll probably have to read this very slowly because it's a little bit confusing and rambling so you might have a hard time understanding what I'm saying.)
1) I've never watched how he acts aloof at the beginning, so I wouldn't know, but the first proposal he doesn't seem that much detached. In the 1995 one, the Mr. Darcy is obviously kind of revolted inside that he's doing this - he reminds himself how much beneath him she is and how she's below him in class and in manners and in decorum and he tells her that. He tells her that he told himself how stupid the idea was and that's what makes her mad and what goads her into telling him no no no he's the last man in the world she could ever marry. This Darcy doesn't seem as much like that - he does tell her how he walked the streets of London telling himself how unsuitable the marriage was, but that's about as insulting as it gets. Then he kisses her hand and says "I love you, I love you" but in the 1995 version he's very detached from his proposal and he doesn't really show his love because he's still not 100% on board with the idea of marrying someone so below him socially. In the 1940 version he doesn't seem that put-off by the idea so there's that.
2) It occurred to me that in the 2005 version, he's even less put off by the idea - he seems very willing to marry whoever, which is probably due to the fact that A) it was made in 2005 and there aren't really any prejudices to a lower class anymore, but maybe that's just here in America, idk maybe it's still that way in Britain, just less so. And due to the fact that B) it had to be a quicker romance because of their trying to make the story shorter.
3) In the 1995 version, most of the script is straight from the book (I
know because my sister is a HUGE Jane Austen fan and wanted to know how
well they stuck to the book because she noticed how many quotes they
used in the script but she didn't know how many she'd missed. So once
when we watched the movie, she brought the book and followed along with
the movie and the 1995 version follows it almost word-for-word, which is
why it seems older than the 90's, because the language they use is
1800's). In the 1940's version, it still quotes it but only a quote here
and there, not word-for-word. The 1995 proposal is 100% the same
wording. Again, ik because she read it out loud while he was talking,
just to make sure, and yeah they use that whole section in the movie.
Ofc, we can only compare the parts where there's a conversation because
you don't read characters' actions in a movie ;) - AND THEN compare the
1995 version to the 2005 version and you have the complete opposite.
2005 was all over the place, they barely quoted any parts at all, it was
so inaccurate and the emotions they displayed were not what you would
expect a 19th century girl to display, it was so inaccurate. Watching
the first proposal from the 2005 version over again, I am impressed by how they kind of raised the tension when the music
begins and the thunder starts and then he looks up and she looks away to
when she's racing across the bridge, that was well-done but so
inaccurate. He didn't propose to her in the rain, and he didn't rattle
off the things that were cons about their relationship (like McFadyen
did). And he doesn't list them (like McFadyen did), he talks over them,
like he tells her what his struggles were like.
And she doesn't hear
about her sister and Mr. Bingley being separated - she didn't hear that from a friend of Darcy's, especially not during a church
service! She took her religion seriously, she wouldn't have been
chatting away with a friend, even if the service were conducted by Mr.
Collins (who, btw, failed to be sufficiently creepy and awkward in the 2005 one, but
was excellently portrayed in the 1995 one, and idk about the 1940 version). In the 1995 version AND in
the book, she hears about it from Mr. Darcy himself in a letter he writes to her! (you can read the book version, they quote it: https://www.quora.com/What-caused-Mr-...).
It's the inaccuracy of the 2005 one that has me so confused why people
actually like that one over the 1995 one. Maybe it's bc fewer and fewer
people have actually read the book and so they don't know how off-track
it is, but honestly you can use your eyes - McFadyen is unattractive,
has an odd voice (idk, he just sounds weird), and does not have a
compelling character even AFTER he's become a nice guy. Elizabeth is
not a compelling character either and she's the main character, the one
you're supposed to sympathize with! I love Colin Firth's portrayal,
especially since it's basically just watching the book, and he has an
amazing, deep, rich voice, which totally influences the proposal!
4) I think they both do a good job in the 1940 version. Not as good as
the 1995, honestly - ik I'm biased because that was the first I watched
and my favorite but here's why I don't think it's as good: because
A) the costuming is not as accurate as the 1995 one which really was what they wore in the 1800's - which, btw, is another problem I have with the 2005 version: it's second-least-accurate because in the 1940's it was very popular to have poofy skirts. And in 2005 it was popular to have fitted dresses that came in at your natural waist whereas in the 1800's it was popular to have your dress fitted in the middle of your rib cage:
B) the way they talk is not the way you would in the 19th century - another problem with the 2005 one, but again less so than the 1940's. And last,
C) the dramatic way of acting is so 1940's that it's hard to imagine it actually happening in real life. I read for school that back then they have to be overly dramatic and very big with their expressions and movements because you couldn't hear the audio very well and it all came from the silent movie era where you only have their movements and body language to watch and read from, because you couldn't hear them, and it didn't make for a compelling or interesting movie unless they moved a lot - which is what I noticed in the 1940's version, that they move a lot around the room and she says her spiel and then takes two steps to the side for no reason. I understand that the 40's version is limited, then, because they have to act bigger than someone naturally would - but I'm just listing it because that is something that separates it from reality. Nothing wrong with it, it's just so the style of the 40's that it doesn't breathe 1800's like I think the 1995 one does.
and idk where to put this but in the 2005 first proposal when she says no, his first response is "are you laughing at me?" like ?? I don't care how ignorant you are in the language of the 1800's but even I know that they didn't just say "are you laughing at me" like was that even a phrase back then? That's not how they talked, which just makes the 2005 version sound incredibly modern. And her saying Jane looked indifferent "because she was shy" and because "my sister hardly shows her true feelings to me" - none of this is like the book. All of it is 100% their own idea of a script. And those are the more extreme examples, there are definitely other, smaller examples like his saying "I don't deny it". In the book he says he doesn't deny it, and he has no wish to, which also appears in the 1995 version (idk about the 1940 version since it doesn't come up). Then also in the 2005 one, their feelings are so so evident, it's so much out there. In the 1800's gentlemen were supposed to be above everything polite and even-tempered, they were seen as rude and ill-mannered if they let themselves get carried away or if they raised their voices. And if they were going to get mad, they got mad in the privacy of their own home. They didn't stand out in the rain where anyone could run into them, and yell at each other, especially if the other was a woman! You were expected to hold everything back until you were in private and in the book, he doesn't tell her everything, they don't argue over everything, face-to-face or in person, he wrote her a letter! And that has a lot of meaning because it was considered rude and improper and inconsiderate to write a lady a letter unless you were related, engaged, or married. It was looked down on if you just wrote a letter to her, so the fact that he was willing to do something so improper for her is supposed to carry a lot of weight and the fact that they ditched that altogether just shows that the script writers weren't familiar with the world of the 1800's half as well (if at all) as the BBC script writers, and that they did a shoddy job of making it a shorter-but-accurate movie. Instead it was just shorter. You just did not let anger get the upper hand in the 1800's, it was not good decorum and it's surprising that the 2005 one is still looked on as a good replacement for the 1995 one.
A) the costuming is not as accurate as the 1995 one which really was what they wore in the 1800's - which, btw, is another problem I have with the 2005 version: it's second-least-accurate because in the 1940's it was very popular to have poofy skirts. And in 2005 it was popular to have fitted dresses that came in at your natural waist whereas in the 1800's it was popular to have your dress fitted in the middle of your rib cage:
B) the way they talk is not the way you would in the 19th century - another problem with the 2005 one, but again less so than the 1940's. And last,
C) the dramatic way of acting is so 1940's that it's hard to imagine it actually happening in real life. I read for school that back then they have to be overly dramatic and very big with their expressions and movements because you couldn't hear the audio very well and it all came from the silent movie era where you only have their movements and body language to watch and read from, because you couldn't hear them, and it didn't make for a compelling or interesting movie unless they moved a lot - which is what I noticed in the 1940's version, that they move a lot around the room and she says her spiel and then takes two steps to the side for no reason. I understand that the 40's version is limited, then, because they have to act bigger than someone naturally would - but I'm just listing it because that is something that separates it from reality. Nothing wrong with it, it's just so the style of the 40's that it doesn't breathe 1800's like I think the 1995 one does.
and idk where to put this but in the 2005 first proposal when she says no, his first response is "are you laughing at me?" like ?? I don't care how ignorant you are in the language of the 1800's but even I know that they didn't just say "are you laughing at me" like was that even a phrase back then? That's not how they talked, which just makes the 2005 version sound incredibly modern. And her saying Jane looked indifferent "because she was shy" and because "my sister hardly shows her true feelings to me" - none of this is like the book. All of it is 100% their own idea of a script. And those are the more extreme examples, there are definitely other, smaller examples like his saying "I don't deny it". In the book he says he doesn't deny it, and he has no wish to, which also appears in the 1995 version (idk about the 1940 version since it doesn't come up). Then also in the 2005 one, their feelings are so so evident, it's so much out there. In the 1800's gentlemen were supposed to be above everything polite and even-tempered, they were seen as rude and ill-mannered if they let themselves get carried away or if they raised their voices. And if they were going to get mad, they got mad in the privacy of their own home. They didn't stand out in the rain where anyone could run into them, and yell at each other, especially if the other was a woman! You were expected to hold everything back until you were in private and in the book, he doesn't tell her everything, they don't argue over everything, face-to-face or in person, he wrote her a letter! And that has a lot of meaning because it was considered rude and improper and inconsiderate to write a lady a letter unless you were related, engaged, or married. It was looked down on if you just wrote a letter to her, so the fact that he was willing to do something so improper for her is supposed to carry a lot of weight and the fact that they ditched that altogether just shows that the script writers weren't familiar with the world of the 1800's half as well (if at all) as the BBC script writers, and that they did a shoddy job of making it a shorter-but-accurate movie. Instead it was just shorter. You just did not let anger get the upper hand in the 1800's, it was not good decorum and it's surprising that the 2005 one is still looked on as a good replacement for the 1995 one.
I did have someone tell me that, in the 1995 version, they do raise their voices. Yes, they do. But they do it in the privacy of an empty house - everyone is out at Lady Catherine's except the servant who is, ahem, the servant (so does it even matter if she hears idk bc I haven't looked into it, maybe you could do some research and get back to me on that one). Also, compare the 2005 yelling to the 1995 yelling. The 1995 yelling is much quieter and controlled - it's more like boiling, surging, swelling anger - whereas the 2005 version is like spewing, ranting, raging anger. It's very similar to the rain they were standing in. the 1995 one is a "calm" anger, like lava sitting in a volcano. Instead of like a volcano erupting.
5) Also the difference that Lady Catherine is a "good guy" in the 1940
version but is not supposed to be in the book. As well as the fact that
Caroline Bingley doesn't send Mr. Bingley back in the book - she's mad because she
wants to marry him herself (both in book and 1995 version) so she defs
wouldn't give him back to Jane.
For any 2005 fans out there who aren't reading this but might someday in a parallel universe - hope you don't mind how much I dislike HATE the 2005 version. I understand
most people don't mind McFadyen's portrayal of Darcy and don't even
notice the errors. And I get that, I don't really mind (wait lol yes I do). But when people
try to tell me it's just as good - or for petes sake, better - than the
1995 one, that's where I really get animated lol
ps if I ever have time or want to, I'll come back and revise/edit/brush up bc this is rly poorly written, but for rn you'll just have to deal with it
No comments:
Post a Comment
"The true writer has nothing to say. What counts is the way he says it." ~ Alain Robbe-Grillet