Shameful execution of a classic masterpiece

Rating: 3/10 (8 January 2011)

Pride & Prejudice Pride & Prejudice is one of English Literatures all time classic novels, one which has over the years been adapted into television drama, stage play and film. This 2005 re-working directed by Joe Wright sadly misses the mark.
For me, the film falls down tremendously in so many areas beginning with the director and cinematography, or lack of. One might argue that good bread doesn't need butter and likewise such a wonderful novel needs no directorial spin, but given the locations in which P&P is set, and that it was an age when the British were becoming aware of nature and the concept of appreciating natural wonders, I felt that there is such scope for beautifully shot scenes of English countryside with dew covered cobwebs in hedgerows and misty morning sunrises. With the exception of one sweeping landscape filmed in Yorkshire there is nothing in the way of cinematography. Scenes were shot often from a few limited camera angles and whilst I'm not suggesting the film needed CGI and gimmicks I did feel it lacked any real sense of the director input and in that way failed to stand out from any of the previous adaptations.
Another failing for me was the casting of Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennett and Matthew Macfadyn As Darcy. It must be said that in 1995 Colin Firth claimed the role his own and even twenty years later it must be a fairly daunting task to take it on given the standard set. Which begs the question why cast Macfadyn, a Welshman with a Welsh accent? As distracting as this may be it pales in comparison to his expressionless face. A more dull and tedious portrayal of Darcy I am yet to see, and hope I never do for ?Macfadyn I believe would have been far better cast as the Intolerable Mr Collins as he lacked any of the charisma one associates with the character of Darcy. Donald Sutherland was also poorly cast I felt. Has had a wide an illustrious career, but Sutherland's portrayal of characters is often limited in their depth and he is not an actor who immediately springs to mine when thinking of Mr Bennett. Given the immense depths of British character, film, TV and stage actors far more capable of playing the role, and without the monotonous Canadian accent of Sutherland, the viewer is left to believe that he was cast purely as a 'household' name to put large US buttocks onto US cinema seats, perhaps the money behind the film felt Keira Knightly herself and the title of Pride & Prejudice alone was not enough.
Which brings me to Keira Knightly. From the moment we are introduced to Knightly as Elizabeth Bennett I could not see how this adaptation could redeem itself. There is nothing eighteenth century about Knightly, not her frame, features, mannerisms and she never looks anything other than a 21st century girl dressed by wardrobe. You only have to go back 100 years to see that any woman over 5' was considered tall, 5'2" was a veritable giant. I'm not suggesting the cast should all have been short, but a tall talentless actress in a Georgian frock does not an Elizabeth Bennett make. Yet it gets worse, Keira must have convinced herself that the little nose wrinkling snigger and Cheshire cat grin would somehow be endearing when in fact it was irritating and off putting.
It was then, a disastrous adaptation, one not befitting of the weighty name it carries and a shameful disappointment. Those wishing to see this classic novel in celluloid form would be better off finding the 1995 BBC dramatisation with Colin Firth.
3/10