Return to Archives home
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
While I thought that Colin Firth did a superb job in the BBC
production, did anybody enjoy Laurence Olivier's 1940 portrayal?
I was so used to Olivier's version that it took awhile for me to accept
Colin's spin on the character.
But I think that the latter had a more interesting time with the
role, as the BBC included scenes that were cut from the 1940
film (and the novel itself).
This time around, we got to see Darcy dancing at several balls
(only he can dance haughtily!) and struggling with his emotions
(Lizzie's visit to Pemberley). The scenes where he searched for Lydia
were also useful in showing character development.
While the Olivier film will always be a classic (for me, anyways), the 1995
version examined some of the complexities of Darcy's character.
Plus, it gave us more footage of Colin to view over and over and over...
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Only the old Emma for me posted by Janey on August 16, 1996 at 08:27:44:
Janey sed:
>: I rented the old Emma a couple of days ago, and couldn't get past the first hour, I found it so tedious. Emma was so unappealing and too old! Tell me if I should try again.
Knightley was not much more appealing visually. Also a little old, maybe. But I did love his voice. I thought he sounded a lot like James Mason.
Amy
In Reply to: Darcy:Then and now posted by Marla on August 17, 1996 at 17:28:01:
Marla,
I loved Olivier but can't stand to watch the movie and all its betrayal of the novel.
Amy
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Only the old Emma for me posted by Janey on August 16, 1996 at 08:27:44:
: Now I understand why there hasn't been a flurry of postings about the Emma movie. I don't think Boston is the hub of the universe as many here would believe, but at least I have had many choices of theater to see all the Austen adaptations promptly, and even after Persuasion was released on video it was still showing in one theater. As for the next Emma, I have read somewhere (Austen-List?) about an Emma with Kate Winslet (from Sense & Sensibility) in the lead. If that is the Davies/Birtwistle production, so much the better. I would love to see a nice long Emma, as of course 2 hours requires shortchanging some scenes.
: I rented the old Emma a couple of days ago, and couldn't get past the first hour, I found it so tedious. Emma was so unappealing and too old! Tell me if I should try again.
I just watched the 1972 BBC "Emma" today and agree that it was hard to get into it.
However, I survived!
While I enjoy the story itself, there were some major casting problems in this
production.
This Knightley was too old and unappealing - and Emma looked like a tired old maid!
I mean, I love English dramas, but I can't blame someone for being put-off with
such a boring cast. Emma is meant to have SOME lighthearted moments!
I'd stay with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam on this one.
P.S. Amy: I'd agree with you that the old BBC Emma might be the same
actress playing Mrs. Gardiner in P&P2.
In Reply to: Darcy:Then and now posted by Marla on August 17, 1996 at 17:28:01:
The distinguishing feature of Olivier's Darcy was that he attempted to place him within the comedy Austen had written (and not just the romance).
That's why his Darcy seems a little "thick", a little TOO out-of-it (socially speaking). He's pushed as a character just like everybody else in the novel is.
Perhaps it was because he had already done his Heathcliff a year earlier.
Perhaps it was to amuse himself while having to play opposite the sexless Garson.
(Something no one could accuse Jennifer Ehle of!)
The movie screenplay is by Aldous Huxley (one of two) and nobody ever accused him of being too romantic.
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Oliver great, but... posted by Amy on August 17, 1996 at 20:03:58:
Amy:
Your points are valid, but I'm only trying to show that Olivier was
a great Darcy in his day.
Naturally the movie would be a disappointment to major Jane Austen fans...
remember that it was a Hollywood-made film with English stars!
And Huxley completely rewrote the screenplay to make it "palatable" and "tolerable" for
American audiences, who on the most part probably never read any of
Austen's books!
I agree with the marriage-brokering, kilts and lack of Pemberley.
But I don't know what you meant by "general condescension to us overall".
In terms of Darcy, the condescension was priceless.
But if you mean that MOST of the characters had a cool air of indifference,
just chalk it up to a poor interpretation of the novel and British character!
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Oliver great, but... posted by Marla on August 17, 1996 at 20:45:42:
Marla,
I am supposed to be writing a seminar outline and you guys keep making me come back to this thing. :) Actually we neither of us ought to be thinking seminars or P&P0 analysis on a Saturday night. What's the matter with us?
>: Your points are valid, but I'm only trying to show that Olivier was
a great Darcy in his day.
Agreed! And I think Firth learned a thing or fifty from his perforamce. You can see hints of influence, don't you think?
>: And Huxley completely rewrote the screenplay to make it "palatable" and "tolerable" for
: American audiences, who on the most part probably never read any of
: Austen's books!
Right. He was no romantic as John mentioned. I even wonder if he might have disliked the book. Either that or he was seeing the story thru his "Doors of Perception." (You think when I saw that book in my dad's library in 1968 at age 14 that I didn't take a peek?)
>: But I don't know what you meant by "general condescension to us overall".
: In terms of Darcy, the condescension was priceless.
: But if you mean that MOST of the characters had a cool air of indifference,
: just chalk it up to a poor interpretation of the novel and British character!
No, sorry. I should have explained better than I did what I meant. I love Darcy's sneers; that's him all over. What I meant was that Huxley, in addition to altering things to to make the story more palatable and tolerable to us, as you say, he must have also felt the need to explain things to us. For example, the Bennets were repeatedly referred to as being among the middle classes. I saw this as a explanation for viewers not astute enough to catch the actual subtler disparity between Darcy's and Lizzie's familie's positions in society. We wouldn't be sharp enough to apprehend that Mrs Bennet's relations in trade would be a disadvantage.
I guess by condescending, I mean I was insulted by what seemed like a effort to spell things out for me. You know?
Amy
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Darcy:Then and now posted by Marla on August 17, 1996 at 17:28:01:
: While I thought that Colin Firth did a superb job in the BBC
: production, did anybody enjoy Laurence Olivier's 1940 portrayal?
: I was so used to Olivier's version that it took awhile for me to accept
: Colin's spin on the character.
: But I think that the latter had a more interesting time with the
: role, as the BBC included scenes that were cut from the 1940
: film (and the novel itself).
: This time around, we got to see Darcy dancing at several balls
: (only he can dance haughtily!) and struggling with his emotions
: (Lizzie's visit to Pemberley). The scenes where he searched for Lydia
: were also useful in showing character development.
: While the Olivier film will always be a classic (for me, anyways), the 1995
: version examined some of the complexities of Darcy's character.
: Plus, it gave us more footage of Colin to view over and over and over...
P&P0 will always be special to me. Long before I ever heard of Jane Austen or her novels, I saw this 1940 film when I was really into classic films. I had taped it and watched repeatedly over the years. At the time I found it delightful on it's own terms since I had nothing to compare it to. If I hadn't liked it enough, I never would have given the mini-series a shot. But to think I was worried that the mini-series wouldn't live up to my expectations!
You must look at LaBelle Helene's P&P: The Musical. Link below.
Amy
Anybody suspect somebody was poking fun at Gilbert & Sullivan when, in the Persuasion film during dinner conversation about the Navy with the Crofts and Capt Wentworth, Mrs Musgrove says, "What never?"
Amy,
Whose 7-year-old says The First Lord
Admiral's Song is his favorite of all
time. Am I teaching my kids to be
Anglophiles or what?
In Reply to: Jennifer posted by Joan on August 16, 1996 at 13:06:23:
Re: What are Jennifer Ehle & Glenn Close filming?
Yes,
They are both filming (or maybe have now completed) Paradise Road, which is about women prisoners of war during WWII, forming a choir, I believe.
Lisa
Fellow P&P junkies:
How does all the numbering work? I have figured out that "P&P2" refers to the latest BBC production.
In one of her posts, Ramona calls the 1940 P&P "P&P0".
I can run with this, but can someone tell me how this numbering came to be,
and does a "P&P1" exist?
Thanks for clarifying!
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: How does this lingo work? posted by Confused Marla on August 18, 1996 at 18:34:11:
Marla inquired:
>
: How does all the numbering work?
It is something the Austen-L list started.
0 = 1940;
1= the first BBC P&P (1985?);
2 = 1995 A&E/BBC;
debatably P&P3=the Wishbone version.
Amy
In Reply to: Re: Only the old Emma for me posted by Amy on August 16, 1996 at 08:15:49:
: Eva said:
: >: p.s. Amy, about that Anna Chancellor comment: you wouldn't by any chance be trying to start another "cross-casting" game btw P&P2 and Emma now, would you? :-)
:
In Reply to: Favorite Character's posted by L. Macaulay on August 13, 1996 at 13:42:43:
: If I have a boy, I will name him Darcy
I would agree with you fully on that, if
naming him that merely indicated my sincere
affection for the character, but Darcy is an
AWFUL name. It is a shame that Jane Austen chose
to give the most romantic, passionate and
endearing character ever written such an annoying,
sissy name. Not to mention his first name,
Fitzwilliam!
Sharon
In Reply to: Colin Firth's other roles posted by Amy on August 14, 1996 at 21:48:43:
Thankyou very very much for that information. I just bought the book "The Making of Pride and Prejudice", but there wasn't anything about Colin in there really. There was a good interview with him about Pride and Prejudice though. It's a really interesting book actually.
Once again, thanks. I'm dying to know what he looks like when his hair isn't dyed dark!
Sharon
Follow Ups:
I would like to get a copy of P&P2. I seems that there are 2 versions available: a 5 volume set, and a recently released 2 vol set (which I think they put together to make it easier to rent). Critic's Choice Video has the 6 volume set for $74.77 plus shipping. Is there another source that I should try? I don't have access to Costco. Does the 6-volume set have the extra bits that were missing from the televised version? Thanks for your help.
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: ordering P&P2 posted by Janey on August 19, 1996 at 10:15:29:
Janey,
I am sure others know more. The six-tape set does include the parts not shown by A&E. I just looked up the only other source I know: Jane Austen Books, which has it for $85, but we may not be talking apples and apples; I don't know if either price includes the book.
Amy
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Clarifying posted by Amy on August 17, 1996 at 21:18:40:
Amy, I agree with your comments on P&P0, but I do think it is good fun. A week or so ago I joined the Austen List, and although I haven't made any comments there yet, I am fascinated by the strong reactions that all the film adaptations elicit. It is unbelievable to me that there are Austen fanatics who actually prefer P&P0 to P&P2, despite the obvious disregard of the earlier filmakers for Austen's details (minor and major!). What I loved about P&P2 was the way the book was respected, and the extra tidbits of scenes such as the bath & the fencing were all in keeping with what would have happened. (I canšt excuse the dip in the lake the same way, but I did think it charming and gave us a sense of how embarrassing the suprise meeting with Lizzy was for both of them.) My husband, an Englishman and an academic, had shockingly never read any Austen before, and has been quite enthralled by all the adaptations this year. He is now reading Pride and Prejudice, and is suprised at just how much wonderful writing is there. To experience the author's intentions, obviously one should read the book. But the films, old and new, are a great way to share in someone elsešs interpretations, and get a picture of the period details such as the costumes & dancing that you just donšt get from the books.
In Reply to: Re: Darcy:Then and now posted by John McAndrew on August 17, 1996 at 20:44:53:
John sed:
: The distinguishing feature of Olivier's Darcy was that he attempted to place him within the comedy Austen had written (and not just the romance).
: That's why his Darcy seems a little "thick", a little TOO out-of-it (socially speaking). He's pushed as a character just like everybody else in the novel is.
You might say the same of Garson's Lizzie. The flippant side of her character seems exaggerated to me.
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
Return to Archives home