Flawed but fascinating

Rating: 8/10 (8 April 2006)

An interesting film, but caveat emptor.
This current version of P&P, while enjoyable, lacks the satirical and moralistic spirit of Jane Austen's novel. The focus in this film was on the romantic -- a genre Austen, a clergyman's daughter, deplored. Her novels emphasized common sense and character refinement, although, certainly, physical and emotional compatibility was important, especially to Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy.
Furthermore, there was other problems in its presentation. The Bennetts, though in the book financially embarrassed, are shown here as downright impoverished and somewhat coarse. The girls appear ill-groomed, drab, and wanton. Donald Sutherland's Mr. Bennett looks like a crazy old man. I doubt animals would just roam through the house. Certainly, the earlier film versions might have prettified the era, but emphasizing the dirty rural environment here -- things that Austen had taken for granted -- is cynical and mean-spirited. (Why must the historic past be deconstructed?) P&P belongs in a drawing room, not a barn.
Granted the film had to condense events, but it did not allow time for Wickham, who is scarcely on screen here -- the entire catalyst in Elizabeth's view of Darcy -- or other characters like Bingley's sisters. Maybe had the film been longer -- even by a half hour -- there would have been more development of the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy's nemesis.
There was a problem I, an American, had with the dialog. It simply could be that almost everyone spoke too fast (a typical American perception of British speech). However, while the earlier versions of P&P relied on "standard" British accents, the characters in this film, including Mr. Darcy, at times lapsed into dialect that I couldn't follow. Also, as was noted in other posts, some of the dialog was jarringly modern, as if the filmmakers were trying too hard to accommodate the MTV generation.
That said, I think the film had more merits than flaws. For openers, it is lush and sensual. With the exception of Donald Sutherland, as mentioned above, it seemed well acted. While Laurence Olivier's Darcy was intense, and Colin Firth's more virile, Macfayden was downright sexy. (And those eyes!) His portrayal of Mr. Darcy of someone shy, though a tad sullen, rather than pompous and arrogant, differed slightly from the usual perception of this famous character. When we first meet him, at the village dance, the way he rigidly strolled about the hall reminded me of a guy at a singles event awkwardly checking out the territory. In the scene in the rain, when he first proposes to Elizabeth, he looked like some doofus, befuddled and lost.
Keira Knightley gave a good portrayal of Elizabeth, though, again, given the film's time constraints, the script did not allow enough of this character's rapier wit. It's the verbal repartee that made the novel sublime.
Most of the characters are portrayed here sympathetically. This is a definite departure from Austen's book, in which the characters are either smart or foolish. Mrs. Bennett here is simply a worried, rather than silly woman, who understands that a daughter, depending on whether she has a fortune, is a commodity or a liability. Again, the blander depiction of these characters makes the film lose its satiric edge. Nevertheless, it is easier to view these people in a different perspective.
Generally, I would give this film a thumbs up. Although the 1995 version remains the definitive, in my view, as far as the era and mentality of the book, and will inevitably remain the benchmark, this newer one has a somewhat artistic interpretation which should just be enjoyed for its own sake.