Why would anyone want to make yet another Jane Austen movie?

Rating: 10/10 (1 February 2006)

Why would anyone want to make yet another Jane Austen movie? If you think that it is a smart question to ask then you are utterly wrong. Why? First there are many different ways to make an adaptation of Austen's novels, and second, somehow the costume movies, with some shameful exceptions, tend to get better all the time. The new adaptation of Pride & Prejudice proves it very persuasively. I am not going to summarize the plot because every genuine fan of Austen's novels would treat it as a grave offence. So let's assume you know the story and let me tell you instead what makes this particular project so successful. Actually, a number of things: first of all much attention was given by the crew to very careful and convincing depiction of the historical setting. I have to admit that my knowledge of Georgian England is rather limited, yet as a professional historian (almost there!) I am very suspicious whenever a period movie comes out, because "life as it used to be" is usually portrayed in a carefully sanitized and rather simplified way. Remember those ugly plastic artefacts in Hollywood classics of the sixties? Fortunately, it does not have to be the case anymore. The director and his staff really made a remarkable job: the actors are a bit shaggy and it becomes obvious even affluent ones had a limited number of stockings, dresses and shirts. Their dwellings, both simple mansions and luxurious palaces, do not like museums rented for a day of shooting, but actually have a feeling of being inhabited. Even poultry, pigs and other animals play an important part in the movie and make it much more authentic. In other words, there is a touch of real life in the movie. A few words about the actors: the major character, Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Bennet) is just fine. What she does is not exactly exciting, yet the role is a very difficult one, and Keira certainly did her job well. Actually, the character of Elizabeth Bennet is used as a focal point around which the action revolves. As a result, other characters draw more attention, at least in the movie. The roles of Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins, Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet and Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourg are simply remarkable. Mr. Bennet has been portrayed as a slightly inner looking and withdrawn gentleman, who only seldom crosses his way with his shaving utensils, preferring instead to spend most of his time in his enormous library. At the same time Mr. Bennet is very fond of his eldest daughter, which forces him to openly confront his wife. Mrs. Bennet has been presented as an old, talkative, tactless and sly hen that would use and abuse any means to make sure her daughters merry suitable parties as soon as possible. Brenda Blethyn is simply marvellous in this role and the character she plays is so convincingly overwhelming, that the audience might wish to strangle her with the strings of pearls she wears in the movie. The role of Mr. Collins, a one time candidate to Elizabeth Bennet's hand is especially challenging and Tom Hollander put all his skills into it. The result is very convincing, funny and rewarding. Very good job indeed! Judi Dench (Lady Catherine de Bourg) is as great as ever. And Mr. Darcy? I'm not a woman but let me tell you this - Matthew Macfadyen is shamelessly good looking, a bit rude and yet disarmingly charming. He fits in perfectly.
The movie is really very good and I believe it is one of those movies you can watch again and again. Even though you know the story, it does not matter, because every time it gives you a real visual pleasure. I'm looking forward to getting it on a DVD and hopefully there will be some unreleased scenes and other goodies