Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins since 1896
June 19, 2025
June 19, 2025 | Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins since 1896

Pride and Prejudice a worthy shot

November 10, 2005

It came as no surprise when the release of Pride and Prejudice, the new film by Focus Features, was announced. It is the most recent movie rendition of Jane Austen's renowned book. Instead of Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier playing the lead roles, Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFayden play Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. The producers of Love Actually and Bridget Jones' Diary most likely thought it a wise business maneuver to produce because of its well-established fan base. Even if the movie itself wasn't Oscar worthy, it would be guaranteed to attract the many Jane Austen fans. With Keira Knightley and Jane Austen on your side, you couldn't lose, right?

Well, you would be wrong. Hollywood has taken another beloved book and twisted it into a B-movie. No one can forget Ron Howard's How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Granted, the film industry could never truly do justice to this amazing piece of literature, and it is always difficult to squeeze five hundred pages of text into two hours. It is certainly a challenge to capture the wit and passion of Austen's words and illustrate them on the screen. Yet, you will not have the same spiritual experience seeing this movie as you would reading the book.

If judging the movie simply by itself without taking the book into consideration, Pride and Prejudice would receive positive reviews. The cinematography is one of the movie's strengths. Scenes of the English countryside, with its rolling hills, towering trees and endless skies stretch across the screen. One image of Elizabeth standing on a cliff's edge against a cloud filled blue sky with her cloak billowing in the wind is absolutely breathtaking. Composer Dario Marianelli's classical piano and string pieces perfectly compliment the serene and passionate landscape.

Director Joe Wright has a talent for effortlessly moving the camera through the scenes. For example, the camera spins around the setting of Longbourne, the Bennet's estate, as Elizabeth spins on her swing. The audience is moved gracefully and fluidly from room to room in Netherfield for the ball. Every building from the humble home of Longbourne to the ostentatious mansion of Rosings Park perfectly matches Austen's written descriptions.

Novelist and screenwriter Deborah Moggach does a decent job of adapting Austen's novel. It is impossible to recreate scene and every conversation in the book, but Moggach carefully choose the most important aspects. Many differences between the novel and the movie exist. Mr. Bingley's second sister is removed from the plot, down playing the wickedness of the remaining sister, Caroline.

Mr. Wickham, a pivotal character in the book, only appears in two scenes of the movie. Elizabeth Bennet's character is also somewhat manipulated. Maggoch and Wright wanted to emphasize her struggle, and so they made her more secretive and introverted. Unlike the novel, she does not confide in her sister Jane and her best friend Charlotte. Elizabeth's friendships are not as defined and prominent in the book. Also, the final scene between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy following their marriage (which never is shown, though it appears in the novel) is completely fabricated. The intimacy of their actions and their conversation though romantic is untrue to both characters.

Austen's elegant and ornate language is "dumbed down" for the general uneducated masses, greatly detracting from the movie. The entire tone of the movie is too casual. The movie fails to capture the rigidity and the formality of the 18th century British society. For example, Mr. Bingley casually walks into the room when Jane is sick and feverish. It would be completely improper for a man to see a woman in such a state. Moggach herself states that Austen's novel had too polite conversation. She thought it would be more natural for the sisters to speak over one another instead of taking turns. The informality of the language and the lack of traditional English manners make the movie seem too modern.

The casting of Pride and Prejudice is another strength. The immature and emotional personality of Mrs. Bennet is perfectly illustrated by Brenda Blethyn. The chemistry between Mr. Bingley and Jane is true to the story, most likely because the actors are actually dating. Judi Dench plays the perfect pompish and bitter Lady Catherine de Bourg, and Donald Sutherland is wonderfully caring and affectionate Mr. Bennet. Mr. Darcy's character is accurately awkward, rude, and cold. MacFayden is an appropriate choice.

Though Keira Knightley exhibits the liveliness and playfulness of Elizabeth, she is not true to Austen's description. Originally, Wright wanted "someone who didn't fit the normal feminine conventions" of beauty like Knightley, but he felt that her tomboy attitude would work for the character of Elizabeth. However, Austen does not portray Elizabeth in that light, nor is she as pretty as Knightley. Wright should have trusted his instincts in knowing that Knightley was not right for the part.

Pride and Prejudice is a good movie, but does not do justice to the book. If you are looking for a film adaptation of the book, save your money and borrow the BBC television miniseries version of Austen's masterpiece. It is a much better adaptation that is truer to the passion of the text.


Have a tip or story idea?
Let us know!

News-Letter Magazine