Charming, but not the best version

Rating: 6/10 (7 March 2006)

First, I should probably make it clear I compare any P&P not only with the original Jane Austen book, but with the glorious and faithful 1995 Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version. This version has lots of plusses, but has major problems both on its own and in comparison. My main objection is the rushed feeling and the unnecessary deviations from the book. Even the six-hour miniseries had to cut some of Austen's dialogue, so it's not surprising that a two-hour movie had to cut much more dialogue and even some characters -- the Hursts have disappeared, as have Mariah Lucas, the Gardners' children, and others. Other than lack of faithfulness to the book, the missing characters are not a great loss, but the rush through one story element and to the next is unpleasant for the viewer. Why on earth did the director waste screen time on long shots of woods and parks that could have been used to add a little more story? The artiness of the dawn shots doesn't add anything to the movie. The clothes and hairstyles were also poorly done: gowns not very attractive or accurate for the period, hairstyles sloppy and falling-down. It could be that the production was trying for a grittier feeling, as the Gardners were both quite coarse and the exterior shots showed more of the underside of pleasant upper-class living, but I found it quite distracting. Even more distracting were the changes that served no discernible purpose. Why was the first sort-of love scene between Elizabeth and Darcy set in a rainy wood? Why the scene in the ribbon shop? What is gained by changing the scene at Pemberley from the grounds to the music room, or the scene between Lady Catherine and Elizabeth to the middle of the night, or the denouement to early morning in the fields? Many of the actors compounded the production's problems. Matthew Macfadyen's portrayal of Mr. Darcy makes him simpering rather than stately. (To be fair, one of the minor flaws of the 1995 version was that Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy was SO reserved that the viewer saw very little of his struggle against his interest in Elizabeth.) The able Donald Sutherland is horribly miscast as Mr. Bennet, and fails to present his humor or his weakness. As usual, Jane (Rosamund Pike) is not the stunning beauty that Austen describes, but I have yet to see an adaptation that uses a lovelier actress for Jane than the star, Elizabeth. Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins was pompous rather than silly. Judi Dench, of course, manifested stateliness as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and Claudie Blakley was suitably unimpressive as Charlotte Lucas. I've liked Keira Knightly since 'Bend It Like Beckham' (qv), and she is luminous as Elizabeth.
The biggest reason to see this version is, actually, its shortness. Many members of our MTV generation won't sit through a six-hour show, no matter how faithful or well-done. Anyone who has not read the book or watched the 1995 version will probably miss the defects and simply enjoy Austen's story. If it piques the viewer's curiosity enough to look for the book or a better version, everyone wins.