Pride and Prejudice

Rating:
Summary: Irony, indeed ...
Review: ... that so many reviewers would choose to compare the two BBC versions of Jane Austen's masterwork--such an embarrassment of riches. Mightn't it be better to take each of them on its own terms, and then have twice the pleasure?

I liked this 1980 version because Fay Weldon's script retained so much of Austen's inner narrative, which forms the heart/soul of the novel.

Rating:
Summary: The best Pride and Prejudice video
Review: About a year ago I wrote a review of the Colin Firth BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (about the 115th review, and as of this writing, there are 169 reviews of that version). This version, unbeknownst to me then, was re-released at about the same time. I said then (and still believe) that the Colin Firth version is very good (4 of 5 stars) but this is clearly the best. The main reason: Elizabeth Garvie simply "IS" Elizabeth Bennet. There could not be a better actress for the role. Elizabeth Garvie may have the most expressive eyes that I have ever seen on the screen. Further, this version is more faithful to the book. In this version, I think Jane is substantially better cast and most of the rest of the cast are either as good, or marginally better than in the Colin Firth version. (I think the two Lydia's are roughly equal, though completely different--but I get a kick out of Julie Sawalha's Lydia in the Colin Firth version since the character is almost the polar opposite to "Saffy" in Absolutely Fabulous, also played by Sawalha.) The main exception as to the two casts is Colin Firth, who did a substantially better job as Darcy than David Rintoul. Rintoul (as several other reviewers have agreed) was too stiff or wooden. (However, the scene--and Rintoul's acting in it--where Darcy and Elizabeth meet by surprise at Pemberly is absolutely magical.)

I note that most of the other reviewers share in my enthusiasm for this version, and I agree generally with their comments. One reviewer who was lukewarm about this version complained that it did not track the book accurately. I haven't read the book 40 times (like one favorable reviewer), but I have read it several times, both before and after seeing both this version and the Colin Firth version, and this is far more faithful in my opinion. One viewer has lamented that there no other productions with Elizabeth Garvie--a lament I share. I was told one time when I was in England that she retired from acting to raise a family, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of this. She did have a minor part recently in a new production of Jane Eyre, however.

My advice: Pride and Prejudice with Elizabeth Garvie is the tops by a mile. The Colin Firth version is very good, and a must for real lovers of Jane Austin. (I have it and I watch it occasioally.) The pre-war Hollywood version with Laurence Olivier is a travesty!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul (VHS Edition)
Review: I have seen the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier and Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth versions too, but I have always remembered this version most fondly (and found myself certainly truly uncomfortable with the first one and have quite a few reservations in regard to the second BBC production)! The pace is much slower than that of the previous versions, but I did not mind that. Which is true to Jane Austen's intentions with her novel and conveys her edge and therefore the slower pace and intimacy of this production fit Austen's story perfectly. I did not like the superficial take of the Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth production and the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version totally missed out on what Jane Austen intended with her book. Everyone who was involved in this production was well aware of the restrictions and strict codes of behaviour which the class society of Jane Austen's England imposed on people (the straightjacket of the time). First and foremost 'Pride and Prejudice' is a comedy of manners about two young people (and the diverse characters who circle about them), who each come from very different social classes, and their first impressions in regard to each other. Further a very good supporting cast, also lovely costumes, locations and music.


Elizabeth Garvie portrays Elizabeth Bennet wonderfully! For me she completely corresponds to the mental picture which I have of Elizabeth. Her portrayal is so expressive, witty, intelligent, vivid and a delight to behold (she clearly defines Elizabeth revising her prejudice against Mr. Darcy and vice versa). We truly see Elizabeth developing as she should, as Elizabeth Garvie conveys Jane Austen's edge, wit and sarcasm perfectly.

As for Mr. Darcy. About the supposed stiffness of David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy. It is a difficult part, he has to be really arrogant, gruff, stiff and haughty (which is exactly as Jane Austen wrote his character). Although it is obvious that Darcy must have Elizabeth and he will bridge the substantial social gap which separates them from each other. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy perform their duet of mutual attraction and repulsion delightfully, to her sparkling wit and character he will represent order and steadfastness, they need and will keep each other into balance. David Rintoul as Darcy comprended and captured the best, out of the three actors who have played this part, how it should be interpreted. This version from 1980 is true to- and breathes Jane Austen's spirit, and for this viewer Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul became and will remain Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy.


by stardustraven



Rating:
Summary: An Adaptation to Treasure
Review: I encountered this BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in the early 1980s when it first aired on PBS and was immediately enchanted by its beauty. The A&E release from the 90s, while not without its merits, just couldn't compare.

The A&E's version does seem to do a better job in introducing this classic by catering to the taste of the contemporary audience, while this 1980s version seems more faithful in attempting to reconstruct the Regency world so masterfully depicted by Austen. The leisurely-paced story-telling here will require patience, but that patience is amply rewarded by the richness of portrayal from a superbly talented cast. At the risk of repeating many thoughtful and perceptive comments here, I just want to say that the casting director deserves huge kudos: Elizabeth Garvie IS Elizabeth Bennett! The direction, a source of complaints for some, does seem to rely on techniques of television than film. You will see extreme close-ups of characters--including many nuanced expressions of these fine actors. To me, this is a plus.

Contrary to some reviewers' complaints on the low production values, I actually love the spare setting of homes. The interior lighting is deftly handled--a warm yellow-orange palette glows in daylight scenes and enhances the sense of domestic intimacy. I'm no expert in Regency music, but I love the scoring of the entire series, from the theme song to every scrap of melodies played over to complement the scenes or as interludes. The small chamber ensemble style, led by woodwind instruments, is in harmony with other aspects of production details. A fully-orchestrated technique, while rich-sounding, would have been totally off the mark. In short, this is an adaptation to treasure!

Now, if only BBC would release the VHS/DVD version of its equally superb 1970s adaptation of Jane Eyre, starring the incomparable pairing of Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston! Sigh.

Rating:
Summary: BBC Vs A&E Pride and Prejudice
Review: I enjoyed both the A&E and this the BBC version. I feel they both had their strong points and weak points. Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzie in this version could not be bested in my opinion. She was excellent. Although, I did not see anything really wrong with Jennifer Ehle's portrayal I liked Elizabeth's better. There was some license taken with the dialogue and specific scenes and this certainly effects understanding the relationship between Lizzy & Mr. Darcy. His admiration of Lizzy is more apparent in the A&E version, the scene where she is playing the piano at Pemberley. This scene is not the same in the BBC version. Darcy's gaze upon Lizzy says it all, is very revealing, and why Colin Firth's Darcy was just a little more human. David Rintoul was good, but I could not see open admiration in his face as you could Colin Firth. I thought Jane was too plain in the A&E version. She did not strike me as a beauty! And poor Mary was too plain. All in all they were both well done and entertaining. This one is very close to the book!

Rating:
Summary: Buy them both!
Review: I have longed for this to be available on DVD and was afraid that the A & E version would preclude this re-release. Happily, given the bargain rate, Austen fans can enjoy both versions. While I must say I adore Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, I really prefer the rest of this cast to that of the A & E editon. Elizabeth Garvie IS Elizabeth Bennett to me; the other actress playing EB was too "modern." (In fact, she reminded me of a flapper that landed in the wrong period piece; too much smirking and not enough wit for Our Miss Bennett.) And Lady Catherine deBurghe--this actress really makes her terribly believable (and therefore, Eliza much more courageous for standing up to her), whereas in the A & E version she's a frail old lady one feels rather sorry for (and therefore Eliza gains no points for taking her down a peg or two). I wish we had a computer technology to put this cast into the lush historic settings of the A & E version, but barring that, buy both!

Rating:
Summary: Kind of Dull
Review: I read the book of "Pride and Prejudice" before I ever saw any versions of it on screen and after reading "Mansfield Park" by Jane Austen (terrible book! You'll want to slaughter Fanny) can appreciate why most people enjoy P & P the most. Elizabeth was easily my favorite character because she is witty, has her faults, and is playful and fun. I didn't fall in love so much with Mr. Darcy who seemed a bit of a stick in the mud, but by the end of the book when they married I had plenty of warm, fuzzy feelings. Still, Mr. Darcy wasn't the most likable, so when I bought the more recent version and watched it, I was like WOW! 'Cuz not only do you like Mr. Darcy, you fall in love with him thanks to Collin Firth's superb acting. In the older version, however, David Rintoul played him a little too stiff and uppity. His portrayl is closer to that of Mr. Darcy than the dreadful Laurence Olivier version (Mr. Darcy is far too "perky" in that one). Still, even in the book, Mr. Darcy at least smiled every now and then; here he's as morose as a corpse. Jane in this version is prettier than Elizabeth as depicted in the book, which is better because I didn't find the Jane in the more modern version that pretty although I think the actress in the A&E version did a better job of portraying Jane's character. Comparing Elizabeth Garvie's performance and Jennifer Ehle's to determine a favorite is very tough. Garvie's performance is probably closer to the book as is the rest of the movie, but Jennifer Ehle's Lizzie is more playful, like Elizabeth is described as. I didn't really see Garvie as "playful", but she still did an excellent job. All in all, this version was just a whole lot more boring than the Firth/Ehle one. In that one I was hooked from beginning to end, but this one I found I just didn't really care one way or another. Mainly I just watched it to note the differences between both versions and the novel. This version is closer to the book, but all in all the version with Jennifer Ehle and Collin Firth is my favorite. There's such chemistry between the two main characters, which was lacking in the older one, so while it's all right, the BBC/A&E venture captured my heart more.

Rating:
Summary: true to novel, but slack in imagination and emotional spark
Review: I rented this mini some time ago, and although it was true to the text, it has some obvious flaws. The pacing is entirely off. There are some downplayed moments that should be poignant, which instead just feel like dead air. Most importantly, the performances leave much to be desired, as the two main characters, Lizzy and Darcy, are barely brought to life by the respective actors. I have to admit, my favorite parts of the adaptation were those with Darcy, not because of his character, but because the actor had the uncanny ability to barely open his mouth when brusquely and dully dead-panning his lines. His mouth remains a thin harsh line throughout the entre film, keep watch, you'll see!

Rating:
Summary: This version vs. later Colin Firth version
Review: I think all of the previous reviews have interesting points of view, particularly in comparing this version to the later one starring Colin Firth. I think they both have their good points--I like this version mainly for Elizabeth Garvie's portrayal of Elizabeth, which seems much more true to the book. She's witty and also excitable; Jennifer Ehle portrays an Elizabeth who is so mellow she isn't very much like the original character. I also in this version much preferred Mr. Bennett (in the later version he seems more like a kindly old man than the sarcastic and eccentric wit of the book), Lady Catherine, Jane, and Miss Bingley. Although I think I preferred the Jane in this early version simply because she's actually pretty--the later version's actress, though perfectly competent, was not very attractive, and Jane's purported beauty is kind of important in the book itself. I also liked the Mr. Darcy in this version--I think one reason Firth comes off better is because you just get to see more of him so you start to warm up to him--David Rintoul doesn't get the same opportunity.

What I did like about the second version was its dramatization of Mr. Darcy's going to London and seeking Wickham and Lydia, as well as what he went through with Wickham attempting to run off with his sister. It fleshed it out.

Of the more minor characters: Lydia was MUCH better in the later version than in this one. I think Miss Bingley was better in the first version. She seemed more comfortable with her lines, and wasn't as obviously bitchy--it made more sense that she would seek a friendship with Jane, at least initially.

Lady Catherine is much better in this version, mainly because she's much better fleshed out. She's hilarious.

Both of the series have elements where they are more true to the book than the other--I can't say I thought one was more true than the other. For example, in the book Elizabeth was outraged at Charlotte's marrying Mr. Collins; in the later version she's likewise upset (although gets over it quickly); in this version she a little surprised but overall quite sympathetic about it with Charlotte. On the other hand, in this version while Elizabeth is staying with Charlotte she's constantly running into Mr. Darcy while she's out walking, clearly by design on his part-he's courting her even if she doesn't quite get it because of previous experiences. So when he finally proposes it makes more sense that he might think that she would be "expecting his addresses" even if she doesn't--and all that is in the book. In the later Colin Firth version he simply runs into her by accident once while on horseback, stares at her, and moves on. So his proposal comes out of left field, why should she be "expecting his addresses"? (I'm getting that from towards the end of the book, when they've finally gotten together, and he tells her that he thought she would be expecting his proposal--a scene that is also in both versions.)

Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece ... and an Almost Masterpiece
Review: I watched this BBC mini series on PBS "Masterpiece Theater" when it originally aired (I believe it was the very first time they filmed that type of program with exteriors), and I loved it ... even though I had not yet read Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice".

After I read the book I loved the series even more because I could then appreciate how true to the original the production really was. Unfortunately, back then there were no videos, so I was thrilled when it became available and I could then share it with my family. The entire family loves this version and we watch it often. Time just flies by when we are enjoying this scrumptious mix of exquisite acting, lovely costumes, sets and locations ... and the beautiful and witty sound of Jane Austen's style of prose.

Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul portray Lizzie and Darcy true to the book, and so did the rest of the enssemble of very talented performers, bringing to life Austen's characters and allowing us to experience the period of time in which she lived. The person who did the casting for the production did a fantastic job! The actors bring out the character's qualities and flaws with wit, but without downgrading them to the level of caricatures.

I have since also purchased the BBC's version for A&E, featuring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and feel that the two cannot be compared because one was produced as a play (Garvie-Rintoul) and the other one was produced as a movie (Ehle-Firth). As such, they appeal to two different groups of viewers. In the same way that some people adore the theater and some are bored to tears by it, some people will love one and be bored by the other.

In the A&E version the character of Mr. Collins is really over the top, too much of a caricature. The characters of Mr. Bingley, Mr. and Mrs. Bennett also could have been better. In my opinion, the casting department had more misses than hits in this production. Either that or the director and/or supporting actors' portrayals didn't quite hit the mark.

I love watching both versions, although I must confess the 1980 version is the one closest to my heart. Which version would Jane Austen prefer? We'll never know, but I think the important thing is that two different types of audience are enjoying her words more than 200 years after she wrote them. :-)