The Ottery
“If an otter can’t have fun doing something, it just simply won’t do it.”

Pride and Prejudice: The Brontë Version

March 12th, 2006

I have to start off by saying that nothing will ever replace The Definitive Pride and Prejudice. Nor will any film adaptation, small-screen or big-screen, ever manage to completely capture the biting wit and laugh-outloud humor of Jane Austen’s novel. The latest big-screen Pride and Prejudice—you know, the one with Keira Knightley—didn’t even really try much for the latter. It had its own humor (in fact, I think Porpoise laughed more at this version than at any other P&P), but it was of a very different sort from Austen’s.

And I’m actually fine with that, as long as I don’t really think of the movie as Pride and Prejudice. It is a work of art in its own right, a work sometimes more akin to the Brontë sisters’ novels than to Austen’s. This version chose to focus on the messy family life of the Bennets and on the romance between Lizzy and Darcy (long passionate looks, in settings that just cry out “Wuther, wuther!”). 

This is one film of 2005 that I actually did see in the theater (um, twice), and I enjoyed it then, but watching it on DVD with the director’s commentary track playing was so fascinating. I have to confess that I’m really not a visual person. Great camera shots, special effects, background details—I don’t usually notice any of these unaided. I suppose I’d notice them if they were bad, but if they’re good, they just serve to draw me into the world of the characters, and, for a couple of hours, I forget that that world isn’t real.

(So you’ll rarely see any insights about the visual aspects of filmmaking on this blog. Perhaps because my parents read to me so much as a child, I hear a movie more than see it. The script and the score are hugely important for me. And I do notice the actors’ eyes and ways of carrying themselves, too, and sometimes the costumes, but that’s about it. Sigh. That’s me, amateur movie critic for the nearsighted.)

Director Joe Wright’s commentary on the Pride and Prejudice DVD is quite unusual. Perhaps because this was his first feature film, he mentions a lot of shots he wasn’t happy with, mistakes he thinks he made. But it’s mostly done with self-deprecating humor, and though I’d never notice any of the “mistakes,” it’s interesting to hear about them. And Wright always credits the actors and designers and technical specialists for moments of brilliance in their work. We learned, while watching, that Emma Thompson actually wrote a couple of scenes for the movie. Any guesses about which ones they were?

When Porpoise and I saw the film in the theater, he noticed how many long shots it had. “Oh,” said I. “There was actually a camera following Lizzy and Darcy and everyone else, wasn’t there?” (Takes me a while to unsuspend my disbelief). There are indeed many long shots in the movie, and in the commentary Wright talks about how they were set up and filmed. They’re particularly useful for the dancing scenes, since they help to convey a sweeping motion.

Apparently, when you’re making a long shot scene, you spend hours and hours rehearsing it, and then maybe an hour filming it (as opposed to scenes with lots of cuts, in which you devote less time to rehearsing and more time to actually filming). I think these long scenes particularly reflect Wright’s perfectionist aesthetic of imperfection. Several times, he mentioned scenes that he had the actors do again because they were technically perfect but lacking in energy. He preferred—and kept in the final version—performances where they gave it their all and made mistakes.

Somehow I think otters would approve. 

(Oh, one more thing: I was waiting for Wright to explain why that idiotic “Mrs. Darcy . . . Mrs. Darcy . . . Mrs. Darcy” scene is even in the film, let alone being the last thing viewers hear. I’ve heard rumors that this scene was only in the American version, but I haven’t seen anything to back that up. Anyway, Wright didn’t say anything about who was responsible for the syrupy scene or about the reasoning behind it, so I’ve just decided to view it as noncanonical. I hence excise it from the film. There.)

Entry Filed under: Movies