Posted by RachelE on December 04, 1997 at 22:46:48:
In response to Yes, Kate (A bit of a Rant), written by Mark on December 04, 1997 at 10:21:51
] Precisely correct, Kate. Thank-you. They sliced, diced, and hashed P&P to make a two-hour movie. With so many changes, how can you tell what is interpretation, and what is Hollywood trash?
] For example, in P&P2 the screenwriter, Andrew Davies, has Elizabeth say the line, "I am determined that only the deepest of love will ever induce me into Matrimony". That is not in the book anywhere, but we are having a lively discussion on these pages as to whether or not Elizabeth would ever say that. That is interpretation. It shows Mr. Davies' ideas on the character of Elizabeth. I am a purist, but I am a purist for the ideas of the novel, not necessarily for the written word, per se. So I don't mind when Mr. Davies', or any other screenwriter takes liberties with a novel as long as it is true to the book.
] There is no way that anybody can argue with a straight face that P&P0 is true to the book. Mr. Collins is a librarian, and Lady Catherine is plotting with Darcy to win Elizabeth's affections?!? Come on, already.
] That is what I meant by P&P0 not counting as a serious interpretation of the Novel. It's fun, yes, but it is not P&P.
Thanks for that explanation. I haven't really seen it since reading the book two or three times, and I *certainly* didn't remember that Mr. Collins was a librarian! and yes, Lady C and Darcy collaborating did seem odd.
As for renting P&P2, I haven't any free time at the moment, being involved in two reading groups, a study group, and working full time, as well as keeping up with this board! However I do hope to watch in January when things calm down a bit. :-)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.