Why another Pride and Prejudice?

Rating: 1/10 (13 December 2005)

OK where do I begin? First the writing: the idiot who wrote this screenplay thought himself superior in writing to Jane Austen and decided to replace Austen's superb economy of words with his own ramblings. Second of all the whole story completely lacks the understanding of social interactions and mores that governed the early 19th century British society. At the time, a woman of 19 or 20 was expected to fully run a household and a gentlewoman was expected to handle many servants as well. Kira Knightly plays Elizabeth as a giggling airhead more at home at the main shopping drags of Paris, London and Los Angeles now than in 19th century British countryside. To add to the travesty we have Donald Sutherland playing Mr. Bennet not as a British eccentric but like an ex-hippie. It is as if Sutherland is channeling his character from Kelly's Heroes.
As for other characters, Darcy is forgettable. One wonders why anyone would love him Judy Densch has too much bearing to play the foolish Lady Catherine. Finally, Mrs. Bennet is not the oaf that Jane Austen makes her to be.
Having said all this, the main problem with this movie is that it is a "Romantic" movie in the true sense of the word, i.e., its heart and its values are those associated with the romantic movement of mid 19th century. However, Pride and Prejudice the book is decidedly "unromantic" and "rationalistic." While romanticism is based on rebellion against convention, Pride and Prejudice is rather a celebration of social convention. The people who would be romantic heroes in other novels, i.e., Wickham and Lydia are treated as fools and knaves. On the other hand Elizabeth and Jane, fall in love within the conventions of the day and are given full rewards and happy endings. This movie is contrary to that spirit.