<p>Jane seeing herself as Mary Bennet? Perish the thought! I think she’d as soon see herself as Lydia!</p>
<p>I don’t think Charlotte either; Jane stayed unmarried rather than marry for comfort and her own home. No, I see her as an Elizabeth who didn’t find her Darcy… (okay, that came out kind of shmaltzy…)</p>
<p>I’m with you, Garland (still have to see the new movie).
As for Elizabeth outshining Jane in the movie: she does in the book, too. Jane is the epitome of the vapid blonde who was considered the standard beauty in Regency England. Others might be more beautiful in our modern eyes, but they would have been unfashionable. I never thought of Elizabeth as plain. But she has always been more dynamic than Jane. As for Bingley, he exemplifies the vacuous upper-class twit. He and Jane are well-matched. </p>
<p>H has unearthed our copy of The Jane Austen Book Club, having finished P&P.</p>
<p>Now I admit I haven’t ever finished an Austen novel- just not my cup of tea- the characters always seemed too self absorbed but Kiera Knightley is closer to our current standards of beauty than the books setting- so I don’t think she is miscast- she is also certainly spirited and gives a different another side to Elizabeth than previous versions. I also don’t think it is fair to compare the characterization in a 2 hr movie to one in a mini series- the actor in the mini series has much more time to develop character and win the viewers attention.
I have also read that some moviegoers also really appreciate that Keira Knightley is the age of Elizabeth in the novel.</p>
<p>Cangel, at SF conventions the Regency dancers will be attired in everything from attempts at reproducing Regency attire, some of them studio perfect (there’s a costuming sub-culture in SF, afterall, hence the costume competitions on another evening, with categories from Novice to Master…a Very Serious Business indeed), to ordinary street clothes (mainly me), to SF/Fantasy costumes. Stiff upper lip may be required if you find yourself going through an evolution with a young woman dressed as a barbarian warrior, e.g., a ragged fur halter top and sash-like matching “skirt,” but this being faux Regency, one is supposed to be imperturbable in any circumstance unless one is a bounder like Wickham. (Description reminds me of the bellman at a convention hotel in New Orleans who <em>thought</em> he had seen everything but was completely transfixed by the lass in the chainmail bikini as she walked past him and crossed the street. Nothing under the chainmail but it was a very fine chainmail…but I digress. “Falling Free” sounds familiar but I can’t place it.)</p>
<p>I will have to slip the Paltrow Emma into the player to jar my memory. We have it but even looking at the cover, no bells rang. We also have the BBC version but only recently acquired it as part of a 6-disc set (that includes the 1980 P&P), so we have not watched it yet…Emma is Anne’s least-favorite of the Austen novels.</p>
<p>I also need to play a little of both versions of S&S to get them straight in my mind as I find myself conflating them now. The BBC version is also pretty good as I recall. It was while watching an S&S that I finally got while they’re called “novels of manners” on a gut level: there’s a hinge moment in the story where Edumnd Ferris comes before Elinor and despite everything that has passed before they both perform to their expected roles, including Elinor’s perfect curtsey and response to his greeting, wherein the contemporary response would have most likely been, “You ■■■■■■■!”</p>
<p>I do not care for Mansfield Park very much, myself, as I find myself wanting to slap Fanny Brice silly for being a goosed twit and then to drop kick her over the goal posts of life…such a reaction being very un-Regency like.</p>
<p>Ellemenope, the 1980 Collins <em>is</em> exquisite isn’t he? The 2005 Collins struck me as a would-be criminal as opposed to inept, obsequious, but calculating. Aside from the 1980’s physical appearance–marvelously ridiculous–he nails the character. I prefer the 1980 Wickham but the 1995 isn’t bad…we watched tapes 3&4 last night, with TheMom squawking that she wants to get that version on DVD. I think D wants to figure out a way to get the DVD, take a screenshot of Darcy/Firth in the wet shirt, and use that as her screen saver.</p>
<p>Elleneast, KK’s striding around like Jo March…that’s part of the contemporary feel of the 2005 version, 1860’s being closer to us than the Regency. She also delivers her lines with far too much freedom, often crossing over into abandon. Elizabeth Bennet may be critical of her society but she would never view herself as an individual outside of it.</p>
<p>Coureur, the film of “Master and Commander…” may have made a hash of the story and taken liberties with the characters (particularly Stephen I’m a thinking) but they nailed the “look and feel” of the period pretty well, I thought.</p>
<p>Garland: schmaltzy but accurate, I think. Many novels start out as exercises in one form of wish-fulfillment or another.</p>
<p>Marite, the 1980 Jane is in fact, dark haired. You choose better words than I, “vacuous upper-class twit” over “amiable doofus” but either way, yep, that’s Bingley. Of the three productions, Bingley is one of the most consistently cast.</p>
<p>EmeraldK, you can be in character…or out of it…as easily in a two-hour piece as you can in a five-hour piece. Neither of the BBC Elizabeths are bad looking, though the 1995 one looks just to fresh-scrubbed to me, but KK looks as if I should run into her outside the shops on Montana Ave.</p>
<p>In the book, E doesn’t outshine her sister with beauty and girlishness, as she does in this movie. She does it with wit and insight. Her intellect is the draw card.</p>
<p>That point was not wholly evident in this movie.</p>
<p>TheDad - we will have to deal with your latent tendencies toward aggressive behavior. First you’re wanting to reach for your shotgun, now you’re fantasizing about drop kicking poor little Fanny Brice over some goal posts. <em>shakes head sadly</em></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ouch, Marite! I prefer to think of Jane and Bingley as well-matched because they are so amiable.</p>
<p>And I agree with SBMom that the 2005 Wickham is more eye candy than actor. He kind of reminded me of an unsuccessful Orlando Bloom (in Pirates of the Caribbean) knock-off.</p>
<p>TheDad, the way the 2005 Collins quaked in front of Lady Katherine when he, Charlotte and Elizabeth were invited to dinner at Rosings was precious!</p>
<p>I really don’t think any males should be allowed to comment on Pride and Prejudice (even with an &). This is sacred ground.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What? For two centuries serious Jane Austen admirers have struggled to avoid having her work dismissed as Chick Lit, and now you insist upon it.</p>
<p>Coureur, there was a young woman who was a writer in a writer’s group I was in some 20 years ago who insisted that only women could say bad things about a female character because it was “supportive,” that the same statements made by a male were “oppressive and hostile.” That kind of thinking was nonsense then, nonsense now.</p>
<p>PretEtManger, at least I’m not shaking your head <em>for</em> you. I liked the Aubrey/Maturin books because I could engage with both the Aubrey and the Maturin sides of the equation. There’s at least one discussion here on CC where I recommended firing double cannister over open sights. But it’s a facet of the critical temperaments you know.</p>
<p>Cangel, TheMom says that we’ve never watched either of the Emmas, so we will do so. But first we must finish watching the 1995 P&P, then the 1980 P&P, then both S&S’s, and <em>then</em> the Emmas. I know what our TV watching will comprise for the next month.</p>
<p>Agree with Coureur. If we accepted that perspective no woman should comment on War and Peace (all those musings about Borodinov and history!)</p>
<p>Just returned from seeing P&P. And now, I have to agree that Kiera Keightley is miscast. She remains too tomboyish and modern and completely eclipses her sister Jane (who does not look like a “beauty”). I also thought that, however insomniac they might be, 18th century people did not stride around in their pyjamas (only modern students go to breakfast in theirs). Miss Bingley’s clothes were too modern-looking as well.
On the whole, though, it was enjoyable, despite the gratuitous bit of canoodling at the end. We may rent the Colin Firth version.</p>
<p>I don’t think of Bingley as a twit either - the telling line being the one about the servants all taking advantage. I guess I agree that Austen had more trouble with portraying men than women - Bingley being one face of men and the aristocracy - pleasant, humble and easily manipulated by the women (and men, Darcy) in his life. Darcy would be the opposite - too “proud” and stubborn to be manipulated, standoffish and not pleasant. I thought the 1995 did a good job of showing one reason why - he was the head of the household, and his innate good nature had been taken advantage of by Wickham, a man he thought a friend at one time, and with his sister no less. Wow, I should write a paper!</p>
<p>Marite, after you see the 1995 CF version, then launch a relentless search for the 1980 version, assuming you don’t succumb for the boxed set of BBC versions which, oddly (perhaps) enough, includes the 1980. </p>
<p>We’re finishing up the 1995 version tonight with leftover turkey.</p>
<p>Keira Knightley was really really good. She was the perfect young British actress for the role.</p>
<p>Knightely is adorable and the British ‘it’ girl of the moment but an actor like Kelly MacDonald (Trainspotting, State of Play) would have made a better Elizabeth in this latest version.</p>
<p>You’re right, marite. This Jane is not the traffic stopper Austen intended–or rather, the camera did not show her to be the beauty Austen intended. Funny thing, that camera.</p>
<p>After watching the latest movie, the thing I like about Elizabeth Garvie (1980 version) is that she’s impertinent and independent but within the confines of the time, not being at all modern like KK. Playing Elizabeth with a modern sensibility is like playing tennis with the net down and rather defeats the story.</p>
<p>This discussion reminds me of some ways of Leonardo di Caprio in a remake of “The Man In the Iron Mask.” Could not convincingly utter a line of period dialogue to save his soul. I was quite surprised in contrast by what he summoned up for “The Aviator.”</p>
<p>I think di Caprio is a surprisingly good actor. Have you seen his early, Oscar-nominated performance in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”? (A very good Lasse Hallstrom film, with Johnny Depp and an excellent supporting cast.)</p>
<p>I think “Titanic” hurt di Caprio’s career in that he became an enormous celebrity afterwards, and the intense media coverage certainly never focused on his acting skills. He’s given good performances in “This Boys’ Life,” “The Quick and the Dead,” and “Catch Me if You Can.” Imo, he and Kate Winslet made “Titanic” bearable (if only just so). I’ll agree that period pieces such as “Iron Mask” are not his strong suit. I couldn’t stand his “Romeo + Juliet,” either, though that was a contemporary version.</p>
<p>Some excellent actors are just confounded by period pieces. My pet peeve is the 90’s version of “Little Women,” in which three gifted actresses - Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, and Claire Danes - were unsettlingly contemporary and therefore unconvincing. (I was also bugged by the fact that they were playing Jo, Marmee, and Beth as the director conceived them and not at all as Louisa May Alcott created them. Around here we don’t mess with 10-year-old girls’ favorite books.) Somehow, though, Kirsten Dunst was just right.</p>
<p>We have tickets to the current P&P at 12:45 today. I’ll be curious to see what my Austen authority thinks.</p>
<p>Off for a last frantic day of D being home for T-day, including going to her old junior ballet company’s “Nutcracker,” but a quick opinion on “Titanic”: it’s two movies. The more interesting one, imo, runs from the beginning until the ship hits the iceberg; after that, it becomes a very mundane action-adventure flick. The ending frame with Rose is manipulative and sappy…but I liked it anyway.
Hmm…I guess this makes me a manipulatable sap.</p>
<p>Frazzled, I’ve not seen any of those. I actively avoided diC ever since “The Man in the Iron Mask,” though I’ve heard of the Gilbert Grape movie, at least. I live in a bubble where many movies never make it beyond the outer layers of my consciousness and if it weren’t for the parodies in MAD Magazine I would be completely at sea.</p>
<p>I would think you would have seen Johhny Depp and Dicaprio TheDad- after all don’t you have to keep tabs on what your lookalike is doing? :)</p>
<p>I agree with frazzled I think DiCaprio is a strong actor- have you seen the Basketball diaries?</p>
<p>Ah, Gilbert Grape! Should have gone on my list of quirky favorite movies. Both Depp and DeCaprio were excellent in it.</p>