Sorry - This one just didn't cut it!

Rating: 2/10 (13 November 2005)

First I must confess to fighting my own level of prejudice toward this subject, the new 2005 film version of "Pride and Prejudice" based on the Jane Austen novel. After a decade of frequently and very enjoyably watching the inner workings, delights, silliness, sadness, disappointment and joy of the Bennet family on the 1995 BBC version of this story  a 6 hour- lovingly laid out feast of character, plot, manners and love winning at last, I was unsure of what to expect of this film in spite of good reviews. I decided to remain "open". If you are a person with no prior context such as the BBC production you might like this new version as is. For those of us who have appreciated the films versions of Mr. Austen's books you can not help but judge this one against the others.
FALLING SHORT: The new film, two hours and ten minutes long would I suppose be of use as an introduction to the film adaptations of Ms. Austen's particular story, but it falls very much short of quality. In the end it doesn't even come close to matching the 1995 film versions of "Sense and Sensibility", "Emma" and "Persuasion". These were and are very well charactered, well acted gems of films with pace, grace and heroines and participants you can relate to and sympathize with. This latest adaptation of "P and P" is a sad bumper car ride of disappointment.
INSULTING THE CHARACTERS: I was shocked and insulted the way the screen writer and designers depicted the Bennet family. This was not the house of a country gentleman, with five "country-squire" daughters of varying beauty and intelligence or silliness, who had a loud mouth mother who was smart enough to know how to put her girls in front of rich young men. It was rather a depiction of 21st century city squalor, rudeness and impoliteness dressed in country Regency garb. I knew the film would need to move quickly but the plot "jerked" from scene to scene, without a breath or reflection or adequate transition.
The director erred seriously in this respect. Perhaps he was trying so hard to NOT make a film similar to the BBC version that he simply went to far in the other direction. My goodness the house they lived in is not shown as tidy or well-thought-of. No it is a country slum, with wash hanging everywhere; mud obviously mixed with animal leavings, stacks of everything piled everywhere, views of the full back side of a muddy, dripping, male pig walking through the house and very unkempt women and unshaven men. With the exception of the Nether field ball, ALL the actors looked like they had slept in their clothes, had hair they did not care to brush and had never been taught by their mothers how to be presentable in public. The director seems to delight in making sure that every possible wrinkle on the more senior actors was center-stage. Poor Judi Dench was the main illustration of this technique as was Elizabeth's mother.
WHERE WAS ELIZABETH?: The film was not about Elizabeth Bennet, her character, her spiritual worth and development, her overcoming her prejudices and misjudgments. Nay, it was not. It was a gangly, never coached in "how to speak, talk and walk like an early 18th century lady" Kiera Knightly bad mouthing others in a high-society English accent. She looked like a wastrel waif wearing somebody else's hand-me-down clothes. I fully expected this Elizabeth Bennet to wip out an iPod, jam the earphones in, ignore anyone talking with her and start rapping. These people did not have manners instead they had 21st century voices, walks, attitudes and postures. Mr. Darcy came across as a one-dimensional uncertainty with a monotone voice. What was it about Darcy that we should think him attractive aside from his money? Nothing. And by the end of the film when he shows up walking across the field to Elizabeth there was no anticipation of joy that they would finally come together. Rather I felt relief that the ruddy thing was coming to an end. Ms. Knightly although capable I think did not have the depth needed for this character. Move on and try again.
All the characters were one dimensional cut-outs with actions taken due to unexplained reasons. The film had no context, no setting, depth or presentation of rationale why these people do what they do.
MUSIC  FORGETFUL/ PHOTOGRAPHY-LOVELY Sadly even the music didn't measure up. For the three films mentioned earlier when you left the theater you had memories of music, themes, perhaps used to remind of the characters. Not so here. Although I enjoyed the use of solo piano music it just wasn't memorable and emotionally never carry the scene. The only good element of this film was the photography. The English countryside can be breathtaking and brilliant. It would take a really determined director to ruin that.
This film tried hard but it didn't learn from the success of other films that proceeded it.
In the end let's hope Emma Thompson and Ang Lee can team once more and fix this blemish.
Cheers!