A lovely caricature on great Austen's classic

Rating: 4/10 (21 December 2016)

Interesting thing: usually it does not bother me that tastes differ, but when I see that quite a few people out there honestly enjoy this attempt at adapting Austen – it feels crazy. I try to soothe myself, however, saying that not everyone watches it because they like Austen in general, or have always loved this particular book. Maybe they just came across a nice romantic movie, and romantic in some ways it is, indeed.
My own heart was totally captivated when I saw 1995 series, starring Firth and Ehle, so of course I couldn't help a certain bias. But I kept repeating to myself words of Jennifer Ehle, who once said that nobody owns this story,that it's still "in the public domain" and everyone is free to experiment with it – something along those lines. Finally I achieved a pretty much open-minded state, gave in to my curiosity and pressed Play.
And here comes a big sad sigh. I have basically two criticisms: 1) unfaithfulness to the Austen original; 2) bad and immature film-making. And if one could put up with the first objection – perhaps even enjoy the so-called "fresh take" on Austen, the second one just seems unpardonable. In a way, I'm grateful to the crew behind PP 2005 – because they taught me what a good quality film really is by offering its opposite. An amateur viewer takes so much for granted before an experience like that happens – when you see clearly what can be done by different people with the same material.
For a while, I used to blame the wrong casting and poor acting. But then I thought – well, I generally like Keira and I find her beautiful. And Matthew, though he is not Firth – is a nice Darcy option. Just the other day I watched Simon Woods in "Cranford", and truly enjoyed his Dr. Harrison as a pretty lovable (though not a swoon-worthy) romantic hero. And who would dare hold anything against divine Judy Dench? Then my eyes suddenly opened. All this stiff and wooden acting, reading out lines instead of fleshing out the story-line with heartfelt dialogue – perhaps, somebody else is responsible for that. Someone behind the scenes, that we do not get the privilege to see. As a lovely quote goes, "If everyone in the cast is bad, and bad in the same way, then the fault is the director's".
Returning to my first objection – read somewhere that the story has been "de-austenized" and "brontefied". That the scenery would rather befit gloomy "Wuthering Heights" than Jane's light and sparkling comedy of manners. This would be a less grave claim for 2 reasons – first not every viewer is Austen puritan, and second it's kind of amusing to see how Austen's material might be enlivened with a more emotional, romantic drama twist. Some of the invented romantic scenes, I admit, deserve a big thumbs-up. Though others, for instance Darcy tearing along on horseback through a dark night forest, border on the ridiculous. And still, I cannot believe that Bennet girls had such untidy hairdos. Though I'm not an expert on the subject, we do not typically associate English middle- class gentry with such a messy household. The film crosses the line here, not merely fails your expectations.
Howsoever, romanticizing experiments may all be well and good, but the core – for which the world has been turning to Austen again and again – still must be about something else. P&P is traditionally considered a love story, especially by those who haven't read it, but if it were the only feature – this story would not be so magically fascinating. Austen wrote a very clever book, all based on the battle of wits, making elegant fun of the contrast between sanity and silliness, especially that of social conventions as opposed to a healthy outlook on life. Missing this point – is exactly what 2005 movie does. Instead of being exquisitely funny, it becomes dumbed down and downright stupid at times.
What's all this giggling, squeaking and hiccuping is about? Lizzy looking like an awkward teenager, Bingley looking like an imbecile, and Mr Bennet - like a retired alcoholic? Come on, guys, there's serious stuff going on! Affairs of the heart and all this matrimonial race with financial ties.. Why do you act like kids in a school performance? Eventually it just seems hard to take this rendition of the story seriously.
One last thing, which I think was a crime to destroy is the feeling of restrained passion, which gives the original P&P such a special sexy allure. Here, nothing is simmering beneath, all romantic tension you get is so bluntly in-your-face, that it becomes annoying at times.
I give it 4 stars instead of 1 or 2, just because everything that bears the trace of P&P is sacred to me : ) However, the 2005 film will remain a caricature in my eyes. Perhaps a lovely one, but still a caricature. And I secretly wish somebody made yet another P&P adaptation. Just for the sake of this not being the latest. Otherwise, there's a risk the younger generations will stick with it and miss the whole point of the timeless classic.