Pride and Prejudice
May. 7th, 2007 11:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lukon_ideinARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! Let the outrage begin!!!! Ok. So, the first version of Pride and Prejudice I ever saw was the old Lawrence Olivier/Greer Garson version from 1940. This was back when I was about 13 and well before I'd read the book. I thought it was light-hearted and funny and generally a great film - okay, so I was 13 but still, it made me read the book, which I love, and even after that I still love this film. Yes, the BBC one with Colin Firth is more faithful to the book, and the costumes are historically accurate and is generally considered the best, and I do enjoy it immensely, but I still love the 1940 version. Laurence Olivier was to die for, Greer Garson so confident and serene, and her family's foibles very well rendered. To me it catches the inherent humor of Austen better than other versions, because her books, despite their quiet veneer, really are comedies of manners and human foibles.
So imagine my outrage when I go on Netflix to rent it and start checking out all the reviews. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANNOYED! My spirit was so crushed. :(
* Item: "Garson is so ladylike and gentle she would have made a far better Jane" WHAT??? Just because Elizabeth is holding out for a husband she can respect, doesn't mean she doesn't have gentle manners!! FUCK, people. This was the British upper class, here, not a suburban block party!
* Item: "If the bennett's financial position was so much in question, why in the 1940 v were all the clothes so immaculate? etc in the 2005 v, i could see and appreciate the wrinkles in elizabeth's cloth dress..." Have you even read the book? They DO have money, it's just entailed to the nearest male heir, so they won't have anything once Mr. Bennett dies. They have servants who can iron their clothes and can afford to maintain their estate in a manner befitting a family of their station, even if they can't compete with the likes of Bingley and Darcy.
* Item: "When I saw that Lawrence Olivier was Darcy I thought, Perfect. However, he was less unapproachable than I imagined Darcy to be." Are you serious? That is one of the best parts of Olivier's performance - he's such a stiff, standoffish bastard that you want to smack him half the time, and therefore it makes complete sense why everyone finds him odious! Sure, he tries to make himself approachable to Elizabeth once he realizes he's attracted to her, but he's not exactly a big, huggable teddy bear. He's chock full of pure, elite British snobbery. And I don't get that 'sullen/spoiled brat' vibe I've gotten from other film/tv Darcys. Ok, maybe not Colin Firth, but he still never entirely convinced me that he came from the blood-blooded, entitled aristocratic set the way Olivier did. (Hmmm, could my own prejudices be shining through here??)
* Item: "It's okay for it's time. but no English accents..." HUH? Okay, so it may have been a mixed Hollywood cast with a hodgepodge of expat Brits, Canadians and Americans, but you can hardly tell me that Laurence Olivier didn't have an English accent??????? And Greer Garson - Mrs. Miniver herself? Born in LONDON? Edmund Gwenn, anyone?? W.T.F???
* Item: "There is none of the beautiful cinematography from the other movies either." *weeps quietly for the death of b&w cinema* Ok, yes there were no sweeping vistas, but really as an example of quality b&w lighting, exposure and composition this can't be beat. It may not be as dramatic as Citizen Kane or Wuthering Heights, but it is an excellent example of the craft from the man who did Camille and Key Largo.
And yes, some complaints are legitimate: Greer Garson was technically far too old (but I thought her combination of maturity and irreverent wit worked for the character); it is a bit more "melodramatic" (though perhaps "vivacious" is a better word) and less staid than the book or other film adaptations, but I again this felt to me like an attempt to capture the humor of the books for modern audiences; and yes there is at least one major plot rewrite. BUT, I maintain it is STILL a GREAT FLICK. GRRRRRRRR.... This is why I hate reading Netflix reviews. (Some of the anime reviews make steam explode from my ears!)
One interesting thing I did learn (about the completely out-of-date costumes that I've often wanted to know): "The costume changes mentioned by so many reviewers are easily explained because this film was made during WWll and many of the costumes were recycled from other period movies…. Yes that dress was in Gone with the Wind!"
Well, then. Sorry about the rant. Knowing the way the world works, I will probably now rent this flick and HATE it. Then I will be completely chagrined. Oh well. And still, even if I hated the film, I'd have to dispute the phrase "no British accents." *head desks*
And on a completely different note, I finally saw Casino Royale last night. Loved the action, pacing, etc. but really didn't buy Daniel Craig as a bloke who can just raise an eyebrow and every woman falls at his feet. But I did appreciate the ruggedness - very like the books. Just no sexual chemistry for me. (And it's all about ME and MY needs, right?)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
So imagine my outrage when I go on Netflix to rent it and start checking out all the reviews. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANNOYED! My spirit was so crushed. :(
* Item: "Garson is so ladylike and gentle she would have made a far better Jane" WHAT??? Just because Elizabeth is holding out for a husband she can respect, doesn't mean she doesn't have gentle manners!! FUCK, people. This was the British upper class, here, not a suburban block party!
* Item: "If the bennett's financial position was so much in question, why in the 1940 v were all the clothes so immaculate? etc in the 2005 v, i could see and appreciate the wrinkles in elizabeth's cloth dress..." Have you even read the book? They DO have money, it's just entailed to the nearest male heir, so they won't have anything once Mr. Bennett dies. They have servants who can iron their clothes and can afford to maintain their estate in a manner befitting a family of their station, even if they can't compete with the likes of Bingley and Darcy.
* Item: "When I saw that Lawrence Olivier was Darcy I thought, Perfect. However, he was less unapproachable than I imagined Darcy to be." Are you serious? That is one of the best parts of Olivier's performance - he's such a stiff, standoffish bastard that you want to smack him half the time, and therefore it makes complete sense why everyone finds him odious! Sure, he tries to make himself approachable to Elizabeth once he realizes he's attracted to her, but he's not exactly a big, huggable teddy bear. He's chock full of pure, elite British snobbery. And I don't get that 'sullen/spoiled brat' vibe I've gotten from other film/tv Darcys. Ok, maybe not Colin Firth, but he still never entirely convinced me that he came from the blood-blooded, entitled aristocratic set the way Olivier did. (Hmmm, could my own prejudices be shining through here??)
* Item: "It's okay for it's time. but no English accents..." HUH? Okay, so it may have been a mixed Hollywood cast with a hodgepodge of expat Brits, Canadians and Americans, but you can hardly tell me that Laurence Olivier didn't have an English accent??????? And Greer Garson - Mrs. Miniver herself? Born in LONDON? Edmund Gwenn, anyone?? W.T.F???
* Item: "There is none of the beautiful cinematography from the other movies either." *weeps quietly for the death of b&w cinema* Ok, yes there were no sweeping vistas, but really as an example of quality b&w lighting, exposure and composition this can't be beat. It may not be as dramatic as Citizen Kane or Wuthering Heights, but it is an excellent example of the craft from the man who did Camille and Key Largo.
And yes, some complaints are legitimate: Greer Garson was technically far too old (but I thought her combination of maturity and irreverent wit worked for the character); it is a bit more "melodramatic" (though perhaps "vivacious" is a better word) and less staid than the book or other film adaptations, but I again this felt to me like an attempt to capture the humor of the books for modern audiences; and yes there is at least one major plot rewrite. BUT, I maintain it is STILL a GREAT FLICK. GRRRRRRRR.... This is why I hate reading Netflix reviews. (Some of the anime reviews make steam explode from my ears!)
One interesting thing I did learn (about the completely out-of-date costumes that I've often wanted to know): "The costume changes mentioned by so many reviewers are easily explained because this film was made during WWll and many of the costumes were recycled from other period movies…. Yes that dress was in Gone with the Wind!"
Well, then. Sorry about the rant. Knowing the way the world works, I will probably now rent this flick and HATE it. Then I will be completely chagrined. Oh well. And still, even if I hated the film, I'd have to dispute the phrase "no British accents." *head desks*
And on a completely different note, I finally saw Casino Royale last night. Loved the action, pacing, etc. but really didn't buy Daniel Craig as a bloke who can just raise an eyebrow and every woman falls at his feet. But I did appreciate the ruggedness - very like the books. Just no sexual chemistry for me. (And it's all about ME and MY needs, right?)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.