A good but not great version of a great novel

Rating: 7/10 (5 September 2007)

Having just watched the most recent version of "Pride and Prejudice," I must say that although a respectable effort, this version is in every way inferior to the 1995 mini-series. The only element that measures up to that landmark version is Keira Knightley's performance as Elizabeth, and I couldn't help noticing how closely her features, gestures, facial expressions, and line readings resembled those of Jennifer Ehle. One problem is that the movie is just too short to adequately capture the atmosphere of the book. The first third of the movie is particularly irritating. It seems to have been constructed for viewers with the attention spans of ten-year olds. Thus we have a series of overly condensed, hyperactive, almost "short-hand-like" scenes that completely fail to engage the emotions. The rushed, clipped line readings are especially annoying, and both they and the frenzied pacing prevent any significant interaction between the characters. The movie improves when the pace finally relaxes, about one-third of the way through. Brenda Blethyn and Judi Dench are well cast, although both of these actresses seem obvious choices who could play these roles in their sleep. And there are other more serious problems. Aside from Elizabeth, the Bennet girls are only sketchily defined. (At least the incessant coughing of Kitty has been eliminated, about the only improvement on the source material.) I particularly missed the close, confidential relationship between the two oldest sisters. Donald Sutherland seems a poor choice to play Mr. Bennet; his wonderfully written dialogue never once sounds natural, and his close relationship with Elizabeth and respect for her good sense and intelligence are not adequately conveyed. The Bennets are far too countrified and peasant-like, and their house too much a mucky working farm, not the shabby-genteel urban home it should be. Why would Mr. Collins covet such a run-down, undesirable property? Matthew MacFadyen is never more than adequate as Mr. Darcy, a result largely of the sketchy writing, not the performance. He looks right for the role (although probably too young--Austen heroines always seem attracted to older, more mature men), but he is never on screen long enough to make much of an impression. Thus his actions seem to be the result of arbitrary mood swings, not those of a complete but mysteriously contradictory person, as they should be. Elizabeth's rejection of Mr. Collins' proposal comes off as unnecessarily brusque and cruel; it almost makes Mr. Collins the more sympathetic of the two. The scene with Elizabeth on the precipice seems to belong in another movie altogether, perhaps a later David Lean spectacular, not the intimate, house-bound chamber piece that "Pride and Prejudice" should be. The scene with the nude statues at Pemberley introduces an overtly erotic element that seems incongruous with the tone of Austen; isn't her persistent theme the superiority of sense over sensuality? And really, Burghley House as Netherfield? Altogether too grand for an unoccupied county residence let for the summer. Despite its shortcomings, worth watching for fans of the novel. Just don't expect it to measure up in any way to the still-definitive 1995 version.