Pride and Prejudice: Movie Battle

After reading Bridget Jones's Diary I thought I'd give Pride and Prejudice a re-read. I'm not going to bother to review P&P here because I've already done it. And while that normally won't stop me from rehashing old points, but instead I figured I'd ask you guys a question.

My BJD post I mentioned I had recently watched the 2005 Kiera Knightly Pride & Prejudice and I figured this wouldn't be popular with people. But some people really don't like it. Or alternatively, some people just really like the 1995 Firth BBC mini-series Pride and Prejudice. So enlighten me

1. Why is the Kiera Knightly one so awful?
2. Why is the Colin Firth one the best thing ever?

Not necessarily compared to one another, just separately, as their own movies, why do you think the mini-series is so much better? I mentioned this in my last post, but I haven't seen the mini-series one for a couple reasons. One being that it's loooooooong cos of the whole mini-series aspect and I have a short attention span. The second being a big draw for the '95 one seems to be "Colin Firth, he's so dreamy" and no. Sorry. Not that that is a bad reason to watch that one (I will totally watch the 2011 Jane Eyre even though that story makes me eye-rolly if only for Fassbender) but just because Firth = eh. Not as an actor. He's fine. But nothing there makes me want to go out of my way to see something he's been in.

Why do I like the 2005 one? I think it does a good job with the story. I think Kierna Knightly makes a good Lizzie one who knows and understands and (for the most part) follows the rules of propriety but she doesn't come off as stuffy or so overly formal that I don't believe her as a character. Brenda Bethyn's Mrs. Bennet is ridiculous in the right amounts, Donald Sutherland's Mr. Bennet tolerates his family with general amusement, which seems the only way to do it. Kelly Rielly's Caroline Bingly is manipulative and bitchy. Matthew Macfayden's Darcy is pompous and adorably awkward. Tom Hallander's Mr. Colin's is hilariously awkward and oblivious. And OF COURSE, Judi Dench nails Catherine de Bourg as pretentious and intimidating and terrible. The shots are pretty, it has humor, and it is true to the original text. I mean, almost down to many of the exact lines. Maybe the 2005 version is more modern in some senses but I'm not seeing that as a downside.

So tell me your answers to questions 1 and 2 up there. Or if you have any other points or movie versions I should mention. I'll updated this post to keep up with people's responses. And since a number of you already left thoughts on my last post, here are some of those:

Why is the Kiera Knightly one so awful?
Mr. Darcy's head looks like a toe.
SO MANY THINGS WRONG. Too much focus on the romance between Lizzie & Darcy instead of everything else. NO TO SWEEPING VIEWS OF NATURE AND DRAMATIC SCENES IN THE RAIN
Jena Malone (Kitty) is terrible. Knightly is fine. (Counterpoint comment: JENA MALONE IS GREAT WTF PEOPLE?)

Why is the Kiera Knightly one maybe not so bad?
The family seems to actually act like a family. Feels natural.

Why is the Colin Firth one the best thing ever?
It's longer so the characters are more developed.
It's focused on more than just the Lizzie/Darcy romance
Firth had more personality than Macfayden.
It's the one I saw first so it's the definitive one in my head

One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other

I decided to give Jane Austen's Emma a try because of Clueless. Well, more accurately, I needed a Classic Romance for the Classics Challenge and THEN I picked Emma because of Clueless. I want to mention this right up front: I liked Clueless better. But hear me out.

If you're a semi-regular reader of this blog (or if you read my little About Me blurb) you'll know that contemporary fiction is my jam. But I really need to expand my reading beyond books that have been written since I was born.* Hence one of the reasons I signed up for the Classics Challenge. Sometimes I can get into the groove of different writing styles easily and sometimes it always stands between me and the story. The Woman in White was fine and I was on the edge of my seat during Marian the Ninja scenes. With Emma I could never get into the story. Maybe because it's less of a thriller, less sensational but I often found my mind wandering while I was supposed to be paying attention. I would say that I just can't do Austen, there's something about her style that keeps me at a distance from the story, but I was sucked into Pride and Prejudice no problem.

I can't decide if knowing about the Clueless connection helped or hurt. Because I did spend a lot of time figuring out who was who, which scene from the book matched up to the movie, etc. Maybe the book would have been better if I didn't do that. But then again, it was fun to do that so I don't care too much.

If you follow me on Twitter you may have noticed a recent Tweet about a certain DVD I received. I realized the only copy of Clueless I owned was on VHS which is cute of me and all, but sort of useless. So I bought a dual DVD Clueless and Mean Girls and then made Boyfriend watch Clueless with me the other day because can you believe he'd never seen it??? This is why he needs me. I was very happy to see that the movie is as awesome as I remembered it.

So instead of actually reviewing Emma which I've been trying to do for days but have been failing, I've decided to talk about how Clueless relates to Emma which means I can spend a bunch of time talking about the movie instead. So this will be sort of spoilery, but really, you should already be familiar with Clueless.
Clueless and Emma or a bunch of connections you probably already know about if you've seen/read both of these, but that I'm going to write out anyway like I made some big discovery
Cher is a great Emma. She's narcissistic and shallow and yet still likeable. Likeable even though you know you probably shouldn't like her. Maybe because she's not outright cruel to anyone and she really believes she's being kind. And look how nice they are to their fathers.

Tai is an adorable Harriet. Unsophisticated in a world where status means so much. She desperately wants to be liked and is so smitten with Emma/Cher that she goes against her own feelings for Mr. Martin/Travis. She's like a lost puppy.

Josh makes such a perfect Mr. Knightly. And they kept that whole "he's sorta family, but not blood so it's not hillbilly" angle. The relationship still strikes me as sorta weird in the movie but I accept it because I love Paul Rudd. And that scene at that party where the Bosstones** are playing and he dances with Tai after no one will dance with her. JUST LIKE IN EMMA where Mr. Elton is a douche to her and won't dance with her even though he totally should have for reasons I don't totally understand because I don't really understand Regency propriety.

Elton is the best Mr. Elton. He's such a douche-nozzle in both. He's a super snob and sort of date rapey (in an Austen/PG-13 way). Plus I never understood why Elton would keep a picture of Tai in his locker just because Cher took the picture. BUT Mr. Elton kept the picture because Emma painted/drew it. And that makes way more sense. So I appreciate that detail of the movie, even if it was sort of stupid and not very logical.

How clever is the Christian/Frank Churchill thing? Now since I saw the movie first I was wondering how the hell they were going to make a character unavailable to Emma because he's gay and Austen doesn't seem quite progressive enough to include a homosexual character. And if she did I'm pretty sure that's the only thing I'd know about her. How smart was it to take a character that was secretly engaged (which wouldn't have worked in a teen comedy) and make him gay instead? He can flirt with Cher without it meaning anything, at least to him.

Now I didn't think the Mel Horowitz/Mr Woodhouse thing really matched up as well as the other characters here, but that's OK because I can't picture it working out any differently. Can you imagine a Mr. Woodhouse that is as much of a pitbull as Mel the litigator (the "scariest kind of lawyer")? At the same time, a hypochondriac Mel would never have worked. Or maybe it would have but I loved Cher's father's character so much I don't want him to be anything different. And in both cases the affection Cher has for her father comes through.
That is the end of the book/movie stuff.
So I prefer the movie to the book. I wanted to like the book more. But I just couldn't stay in the story. I kept getting distracted by literally anything else around me. I should probably give the story another chance but really it was eh.

Also another Classics Challenge book down!

*I also need to read less white people from the US or UK. Baby steps, people, baby steps.
**This note doesn't really add to the post, but I just like the Bosstones and this was the first time I heard them. Also I'm still convinced the dancing guy Ben Carr in the band was blackmailing the other members to let him be in the group and just do his dances. Now they are sweet dance moves, but really? That's all he does.

Title quote from page 70, location 1055

Austen, Jane. Emma. Public Domain Books, 2006. Oringally published 1816. Kindle edition.

Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage

I just finished Pride and Prejudice and my happiness with the story was sustained through Part III when you finally see Darcy and Lizzy get together*.  Loose ends are tied up, people are paired off, happily ever after, etc etc. And there's the scene where Lizzy pisses off Lady Catherine. It's fantastic. Lady Catherine is a great character I'd never want to run into in real life, but man, is she fun to watch be a bitch. Since I don't have too much more I wanted to look at with the text itself, I figured I'd look at just a few of the plethora of book cover options.


 

1. Twilight-esque - If this wasn't associated with Twilight I think I'd like it more. I like the simple flowers against the black background, regardless of if it has anything to do with the book at hand. Hopefully some Twilight fans picked up the book and actually enjoyed it. And I can laugh at those that picked it up expecting something along the lines of sparkling vampires and were disappointed.

2. Ostentatious - OK, I don't actually think the room is that bad but wow that is a huge, overly decorated space. I'm just going to think of it as Rosings Park, Lady Catherine's place. I'm sure it could Darcy's as well, since that seems to be the style at the time. Not my favorite cover, kind of boring.

3. Lovely Ladies - My copy of Sense & Sensibility has this type of cover. Not my thing but there are a million cover options for P&P that have the same style artwork as the cover, so obviously some people like it. It's not my aesthetic style, not what I picture Jane and Lizzy to look like (I assume that's who that is) and overall pretty dull.

4. Busy Wallpaper - I feel like this one is somewhere just past 2 and 3. It's along those lines, with a background pattern that would fit right in #2's room and it includes a couple portraits like #3, albeit in a more modern style. I like the styling more and I'm a fan of that pattern so getting better.

5. Burn-Your-Retinas Green - This is the cover I have, not because it's my favorite but because it was the cheapest copy at B&N. If I had my Kindle at the time I would have just gotten an e-copy. That said, I don't actually hate the cover because it is so green and so bright. 

6. Tim Burton-y - This is my favorite cover. It actually looks like this cover belongs on this cover, it's silhouette style, which was actually popular during the time the book was written and set, yet the style of Lizzy, Darcy, the trees, the house is very modern.

So which is your favorite or least favorite cover?  Is there another one you love or hate that I didn't include here?

*I'm sorry if that was a spoiler for anyone but it really shouldn't have been. Not even because of the age of the book. Seriously, you had to know how this was going to turn out when you started reading. The journey, not the destination, is the fun part.

Title quote from page 359

But vanity, not love, has been my folly

I've finally gotten around to reading Pride and Prejudice. I've mentioned this before, but I've read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies a couples times, so I figured it was about time I read the original. Now I can quit feeling guilty. Here's the thing, I think I might like the zombie one better. Now before you start bludgeoning me with your Complete Works of Jane Austen* let me explain. The story, the characters, the plot of Austen's Pride and Prejudice are what primarily makes up the story of P&P&Z. The zombies are really secondary. If you don't like Austen's text, you'll never like the zombie version. I'm actually surprised Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has been so popular. I'd think the cross section of people who like Austen and people who like zombies is very small. So the zombie version is just Austen with a little something extra. Something extra that is absurd.

I don't want to spend this whole post talking about zombies though. I do want to talk about Austen's work, which is brilliant. Even after reading the zombie one, I was still a little worried going into this that I'd find the work boring. I know, I know, I just finished saying that if you don't like Austen you won't like the zombie version. While I liked Austen's language and story, I wasn't sure if the zombie scenes were getting me through some of the parts that would drag more in the normal version. I've read Sense and Sensibility before and wasn't crazy about it. I have been pleasantly surprised. I've hardly been able to put the book down. Austen creates wonderful characters that are so smart and so well developed. They behave in a way that is true to their personalities and it never feels like they are doing anything as simply a means to progress the plot.

Lizzy and Darcy are wonderful characters. The scenes where these two are together sparkle. There is so much wit and pride between them that it is a joy to read their interactions, and anytime they were separated I found myself flipping ahead to find out when the two would share the page again. Their love is clear early on, but obviously they must be kept apart for the duration of the book or else the story would be very short and boring. The events that keep them apart don't feel contrived, which means I don't have to spend the whole book thinking the main characters are morons, as is the case with most romantic comedies.

Even the ridiculous characters make sense and feel real. Sure, Mrs. Bennet is obsessed with getting her daughters married off, but her worries are not unfounded. Her family will be very likely turned out of their home when Mr. Bennet dies and women didn't have many options for making their own way in the world. Marriage was essentially their only hope. I can laugh at Mrs. Bennet, but at the same time I can understand her worries.

I'm happy I finally got around to this book. Not only because it's long overdue but because it gives me at least one book that is a) not written by an American author and b) written pre-1970s. I'm not quite finished with the book so there's a possibility of a second post coming up.

*As soon as I typed that I started to imagine different book related homicides. I bet those metal book marks could do some damage.  Or maybe millions of paper cuts and then the victim falls apart, a la that laser scene from one of the Resident Evil movies. See, I start writing about Pride and Prejudice and then just segue right into book-deaths. This is why the zombie version worked for me.

Title quote from page 199

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Signet, 2008.