Eight Reasons Why A New "Dark" Pride and Prejudice Isn't What We Need

I first discovered Pride and Prejudice in the summer of 2009. I was fresh out of eighth grade, gearing up for high school, starting to tire of the 101 books in the Saddle Club series and frustrated that the Mysterious Benedict Society sequel wasn't out yet. I read some Dickens novels here and there and felt grown-up about them, but though I called Martin Chuzzlewit my new favorite book, I still hadn't been "grabbed," as it were, by a book written for grown-ups. I was starting to think that maybe books for adults just didn't grip you the way kids' books did, and that I was going to be doomed to a life of reading classic novels so I could be an intellectual, stimulating my brain and increasing my vocabulary while being bored stiff.

BOY WAS I WRONG but that's a topic for another day.

Anyway, so then my mom suggested I give Jane Austen a try, and took me to Borders (yes, Borders still existed then) with a new birthday gift card, and I picked out a Modern Library Classics paperback edition of Pride and Prejudice, with a blond Lizzy and snooty-looking Darcy on the cover, and took it home and read the whole thing in less than a week. And I was hooked. And then we watched the 1995 A&E miniseries (the five-hour one with Colin Firth. Y'all know what I'm talking about).  And I was in love. (Not with Colin Firth, though. I mean, he's okay, but... yeah.)

Eventually I read all of Jane Austen's novels, watched almost every adaptation in existence, read all the novels again, started a blog about them (You Are Here), and... well, I have Opinions about the forthcoming newest adaptation of Jane Austen's most popular novel.

I'm not a fan, folks.

Here's what we know so far: the same producers in charge of Poldark and Victoria are spearheading a new P&P series. (Full disclosure: I haven't seen Poldark and can't offer an opinion on that. I do love Victoria, but it's not based on a book.) It's supposed to be "gritty" and "dark" and is supposed to showcase what the writer calls "Jane Austen's wit, which is sparkling like granite."

You can read more about this here and here, so I won't bother recapping every single detail. They say you aren't supposed to write novels in blog posts because you lose your audience's attention (and with the sporadic nature of my blog posts, I need to keep my audience's attention whenever I can get it) so I'll get right to the point. Here are my eight reasons why I am not excited about this new production.

1. P&P is more than just a "bonnet drama."

It really grinds my gears when people refer to miniseries like Cranford and Sense and Sensibility as "bonnet dramas." It implies a note of condescension, that stories primarily told from women's viewpoints in bygone eras are somehow frivolous or unimportant. It's a bunch of ladies in bonnets! Visiting! Having tea! There's nothing deeper there than who's-going-to-marry-who! I will be the first to acknowledge that Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell are not everyone's cup of tea, and I am okay with that, but I am not okay with entertainment critics patting Jane Austen on the head. Yes, there are bonnets in P&P, but there is a plot, too. P&P primarily deals with marriage, money, and morality, but it's not just about Mrs. Bennet howling over Mr. Bingley's ten thousand a year. It was the first novel in English literature to feature a truly independent thinker as a heroine-- a woman who chose her own future (yes, with a rich man, but not because he was rich) within the limitations of her time, who wasn't afraid to speak her mind yet still maintained the sense of propriety with which she was raised. It's a fascinating study in the deficiencies and strengths of human character, and to reduce it to Colin Firth in a wet muslin shirt is incredibly disrespectful to the impact it has had on literature in the Western world.

2. P&P is not a dark story.

This isn't a contradiction of the point above. P&P is serious and deals with some weighty matters. But at its heart, it IS light and bright and sparkling. Jane Austen did not describe Elizabeth Bennet as a melancholy, tortured heroine - she said that she "thought her the most delightful character that ever appeared in print." P&P is funny. It's clever. It's full of snark and sarcasm and you get the constant sense that the author is laughing in her sleeve at all this characters, while simultaneously loving them, and as she writes she's sharing a great inside joke with all her readers. The witty, down-to-earth fun of P&P is a large part of what draws most people to Jane Austen.  (I mean, she wrote some darker stuff, don't get me wrong. Check out Persuasion if you want a dark story! But P&P is not the place to go if you want dark.)

3. We don't need yet another P&P flick, really.

Really...
really...
really...
we don't.

You can go watch the 1940 version or the 1980 or the 1995 or the 2005 (except... ya know, don't) if you want a "straight" adaptation of the novel set in Regency England. (WELL EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE 2005 ABOMINATION TRIED TO PUT IT IN 1795 WHEN THAT WAS NOT THE RIGHT PERIOD but I digress and will leave that for another day). If you want a different re-imagining of the story, skip to Point #8. Are any or all of those adaptations perfect? NOPE. Not even the 1995 BBC/A&E miniseries which is one of my favorite Austen adaptations of all time. That one STILL didn't get everything right (though I still love it). But guys. We have a LOT of P&P out there to choose from. (And I am using a LOT of caps today. I AM SORRY.) There is a finite amount of movie-making money floating around out there, and a finite amount of TV air time, and wouldn't it be better to use that money and time towards an adaptation that we actually need? Like, y'know, Mansfield Park for example? (Hint hint hint hint hint. If Heidi Thomas or Sandy Welch are reading this, please take note.) We have a poorly-filmed and somewhat dry version from the 80's, a totally-not-like-the-book-what-is-even-happening-here chick flick from the 90's, and a scowling hour and a half of Billie Piper with her hair down from the 2000's. Please, please, please. Give us a decent Mansfield Park. Fanny deserves better.

4. We all saw what happened with Anne with an E.

Okay, those of you who were brave enough to watch the whole series saw what happened. To be fair, I haven't watched all of it - just clips here and there and read some horrifying reviews, my hair standing on end the entire time. Taking a beloved, classic story and trying to make it into something it's not will not go down well with that story's many fans. Anne with an E is the latest edition of What Not to Do in the period drama universe.  Let's learn from other people's mistakes.

Charles Dickens wrote his own stuff!

5. You want a dark, gritty story, write your own.

Which brings me to the old conundrum. If you replace a faulty plank in a ship, and slowly over time end up replacing ALL the planks in the ship, at what point (if at all) does the ship cease to be the same ship? Similarly, if you start changing everything familiar about an original work of fiction, is it even still the same work of fiction? Are you just slapping a title that you know will sell onto a hodge-podge, fabricated desecration of your own invention and loudly proclaiming that you know better than the story's original inventor?  Well, if you are... maybe don't. If Nina Raine really wants a complex television serial, maybe she ought to just come up with her own plot and leave well enough alone.

6. Jane Austen said herself that she could not write a serious romance to save her life.

If that isn't a good enough reason for you to accept that P&P is not meant to be a serious romance, then I don't know what WILL convince you. (Note that I'm drawing a line between "dark" and "serious" -- as I said in #2, I consider Persuasion to be dark, though not in a bad way.) She said this *after* writing P&P, I might add -- you cannot argue that she later changed her mind and decided to sparkle like granite.

7. Fake P&P already messed up badly enough.

I realize I am stepping on some toes by saying this, and I don't mean to offend the sensibilities of those of you who enjoy that movie. As a film, it's lovely. As an adaptation of P&P, I feel that it does not measure up. Can't it be a cautionary tale to film producers at this point? We've seen what happened when a writer decided to stick the Bennets in a pigsty, introduce wild flouting of social convention, make Elizabeth Bennet (the delightful creature!) incredibly obnoxious, and rewrite everything that makes Mr. Darcy... well, Mr. Darcy. (If you want to read more bashing of what my best friend and I fondly call Fake P&P and understand more of the reasoning behind why I despise it, feel free to click here.)

8. You want a re-imagining? We've already got those!

May I recommend The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, for starters? (Viewer discretion advised-- a lot of the content in this web series adaptation is not for younger viewers.) I haven't seen it, but I've heard some good things about Bride and Prejudice. Death Comes to Pemberley, while not strictly a new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, does a pretty good job of staying faithful to the original while bringing in a new storyline. We won't talk about P&P & Zombies, (although do check out some of the hilarious comics that some clever people have made in response to the Jane Austen/paranormal nonsense going on lately) but there are many, many more novels and films out there inspired by the original.

You may wonder why I seem to have a problem with this new BBC adaptation and not with things like The LBD. The reasons for this are threefold. First, that The LBD doesn't even pretend to be a straight page-to-screen adaptation of the novel -- it's a new version for a modern audience that creatively places new interpretations of the original characters in the digital age. It's very cleverly done, but it doesn't pretend to be "the" P&P. I love it when writers take an old, old story and make it
new again by putting the characters (or basic approximations thereof) in new settings. It forces the reader or viewer to think about the messages the original novel is sending, and why people behave the way that they do. But when a reader who loved a book goes to look for a film adaptation of said book, optimistically hoping for a faithful onscreen bringing-to-life of the characters she fell in love with in the novel, she's going to be very disappointed to turn on a movie that *looks* like it should be great (after all, the costumes look good! The famous people look pretty on the cover! The title is right!) and... isn't.

Am I being cynical?
Yeah, probably.

Am I willing to be pleasantly surprised by the new P&P, if indeed it turns out to be good?
Sure! In fact, I'll write a retraction of this post if that is the case.

But am I holding out much hope for that?
Well, unfortunately, not.

I look forward to your (civil) discourse in the comment section. :)

In Which I Explain My Scarcity Around Here Of Late

Hey, look! It’s Richard Armitage! Yeah, over there!

Kidding.

Sorry. 

But we had to get your attention some way.  So kindly look back here, and forgive us for fooling you—oh, wait, you’re wondering what the “we” is all about?   “We” refers to Melody and Miss Dashwood, and Melody and Miss Dashwood have an announcement to make.  Which may very possibly include ice cream, so we would like to have your attention.

(Note: There will probably not be ice cream.) 

We would like to announce the formation of a musical club, with regular meetings at yours or mine—erm, whoops, wrong club.  We would actually like to announce the formation of the P&P95Forever Club, and you are all invited to join.

Now, right about now some of you are probably clasping both hands to your hearts in a squeal of utter joy at the thought, some of you are glaring and scowling most ferociously, while others of you are saying, “Wait, what?  The P&P95Forever Club?  What’s that?”  Let us endeavor to expline, or if you aren’t accustomed to our Eliza Doolittle method of speech, we shall explain (while the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain). 

Last year, Miss Dashwood wrote a seemingly innocuous review of Pride and Prejudice (1995), hereinafter referred to as P&P95 so we don’t have to bother with italicizing it.  In the aforesaid and abovementioned review, she made a brief joke about how she did not think Colin Firth smiles enough as Mr. Darcy, and hoped that the members of the P&P95Forever Club would not come at her with their DVDs at the ready.  A joke, nothing more than a joke.  (After all, she's a child, only a child.) Melody read the post and left a lengthy comment, as per, in which she only laughed a little over "the Club thing," but tucked the title away in her brain, and at some later point (we are not sure when) mentioned to Amy that a P&P95Forever Club would in all seriousness be quite a marvelous thing. We agreed to begin a blog together, but not just any blog. No, this one would be extra-special—it would be a clubhouse, a place for fans of P&P95 to congregate and learn more about their favorite miniseries. 

In June 2012, the great task began.  Together, we began organizing our information, deciding how much to include and where to find our facts.  We began collecting quotes, looking up dance instructions, researching the actors’ other works, organizing links, et cetera and so forth.   Believe us when we say it was a lot of work.  (And perhaps you will accept this as a partial excuse for our lack of posts lately.)

And now, finally, the P&P95Forever Club is opening its doors.  We do not think it is necessary to explain that we think P&P95 is the definitive adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, and that we will stick to this opinion with our last breath, unless the BBC makes another, better, truer-to-the-book adaptation which is highly unlikely. We realize that not everyone shares this opinion, but hey, if you don’t, you are under no pressure to join the Club.  But if you do agree with us that P&P95 is the best on earth (excellent taste you have, by the way) we invite you to join the Club (visit the Become a Member page so we can send you a member button.

If you are a relative newbie to P&P95, do not despair!  One of the purposes of this new site is to provide fans with everything under the sun that they might wish to know about P&P.   At the P&P95Forever Club you will find everything from trivia facts about the production to pages and pages of screencaps to instructions for dancing those lovely dances in the ball scenes.

This blog, however, is not intended to be a stagnant one-visit website.  No, indeed, for we intend to keep it hopping with new posts, games every week, polls and throwdowns and perhaps even opportunities for you to make an appearance! 

So please, go explore the blog!  And while you’re there, have compassion on our poor nerves and leave a comment.  This is the express wish of our esteemed patroness, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and besides which, it adds greatly to our own happiness. 

See you there!
 ~Miss Dashwood and Miss Marianne

Mr. Collins and Disguises

First of all-- today is the lovely Miss Laurie's birthday! Stop on over at her blog and wish her many happy returns, won't you?

Secondly, Miss Laurie happens to be hosting a delightful Jane Austen caption contest.  (You can find out more by clicking on the link.)  I adore period drama photos with funny captions (I do run a blog for that specific purpose, after all) and so I had great fun coming up with two entries for her "Funny" category.

Picture: Frewen Warne in Miss Potter.

Quote: Elizabeth Bennet, Pride and Prejudice (the book).

Picture: The Old Hag Sir Percy Blakeney in The Scarlet Pimpernel.

Quote: Mr. Darcy, Pride and Prejudice 

(the movie-- he says this in the book as well but this exact wording is from the film.  Because I was too lazy to look up the quote in the book).

The contest runs until Friday the 27th, so there's still time to enter!

A Few Gracious Women

The days of knights and fair maidens are long gone. For many young women the question, “Can I carry that for you?” sounds more like, “Prithee, fair maiden! Allow me to relieve thee of thy luggage.” To which they respond, “What century are you from?”
~Brett Harris, When Lancelot Comes Riding

The last strains of Carl Davis' famous theme fade away as Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy ride off in their wedding carriage. Pride and Prejudice ends, and with it comes the blissful sigh of satisfaction. Happy ending! But the bliss doesn't last long, because after the sigh soon comes the question, "Why can't there be guys like Mr. Darcy today?"

I know I've asked myself this question--and I'm betting that you ladies have, too. For a diehard Janeite like myself, a real hero might look something like Colonel Brandon or Mr. Knightley--a true gentleman in every sense of the word. This is a great ideal, and gentlemanliness (hmm, that's not a word) is definitely a trait I want to see exemplified in my husband someday. Unfortunately, though we may admire men like Colonel Brandon, Mr. Knightley and Mr. Darcy, that admiration is often followed by--quote, unquote--despair. Where are all the gentleman of the Modern Era? Did they go out with cravats? Are they an extinct race, vanished from the face of the earth.

Well, no, they're not. But it's an indisputable point that true gentleman are rather scarce nowadays. Simple courtesies such as opening doors for ladies, not smoking indoors and removing hats are now considered as obsolete as Internet Explorer.

I myself am an old-fashioned girl.  I only started using Google Chrome last summer.  (And I still haven't switched to the new Blogger interface.  I know, I know... delaying the inevitable.)  I'm a history buff and love studying times gone by--now really, wouldn't it be pretty neat to be able to step back in time and attend a Regency ball or be in the crowd during Lincoln's Gettysburg address? I've often daydreamed about living in a world of hoopskirts and four-wheeled carriages, a world where people bowed and curtsied ... a world where good manners were taken very, very seriously, where gals were ladies and guys were gentlemen.

And though the desire to live in a bygone era may very well be "just me", the fact that true ladies and gentlemen are rather scarce nowadays is something that a lot of people are acknowledging.

In his four-part series on The Rebelution blog, "When Lancelot Comes Riding," Brett Harris writes,
"For decades gentlemanly behavior has experienced decline. Not only are men becoming less apt to offer service, but ladies are much more likely to refuse it."

You know, I have to wonder... does the Decline of Chivalry maybe, just maybe have something to do with the way we girls are treating gentlemanly behavior today?  Could our unladylike attitudes possibly be keeping guys from being gentlemen?  Might this just be, in some way, our fault?

The Marine Corps are famous for saying that they need a few good men. Well, I'd like to say that I think we need a few gracious women.  Our world needs women who are not afraid to be ladies, who are not unwilling to be mannerly and gracious, who don't worry about looking "helpless" or "wimpy" if they--gasp--let a guy open a door for them.

via

And really, why is it awkward for us to accept a little chivalry now and then?  I know I'm guilty of it-- if a guy opens a door for me or steps back to let me go first or offers to carry a box, my automatic response is, "Oh, no, I've got it."  Why?  Probably because I don't want him to think I can't do it myself.  I don't want to be considered helpless.

But if a guy offers to carry something for me, he's not saying that he thinks I'm helpless.  He's simply showing good manners.  It isn't that he thinks I can't do it myself-- it's that he's being polite! (Hey, did you read that article I linked to yet? No?  Go read it.  I'll wait.)  Okay, are you back again?  Great, now we can discuss it.  I think my favorite analogy in the whole Rebelution series is the one about the CD.  (I know some of you didn't go and read the article even though I asked you to, so I'll just repeat the analogy here.)  If a friend bought you a CD for your birthday, a CD she knew you'd been wanting, would you consider that an insult?  Would you think she was hinting that you're too poor to buy the CD yourself?  Of course not! You'd know that your friend got you the CD because she wanted to do something nice for you... something that you could have done yourself, but didn't have to because she did.

So let's stop getting offended over a CD.  Let's stop saying, "Oh, it's fine, I'll get it," if a guy offers to do something for us.  Because you know what?  If we keep refusing, they'll stop offering.  And then they'll think we're morons when we start whining about how there are no gentlemen around these days.  And since nobody wants to be called helpless, I think I can say with certainty that no one wants to be called a moron either.

Seriously, letting a guy do something for you does not automatically turn you into this.  Believe me.

Accepting chivalry isn't easy for us to do at times. But do you think it's always easy for guys, to act like a gentleman when they know there's a pretty good chance of getting snubbed?  Let's make it a little easier for them... by being ladies.  If we want to encourage our brothers in Christ, we have to act like the sisters in Christ that we're supposed to be.

Plus, it's embarrassing for everyone if you refuse when a guy steps back to let you go through a door.  Believe me, I speak from experience.  I remember one time when my family got together with some friends, and as we were moving from one room of the house to another, one of the boys stepped back to let me go through first.  Under the impression that I was being a good hostess (it happened at our house), I said, "Oh, no, you go ahead."  Embarrassed, he shook his head and insisted that I go first.  By this point, we were holding up everyone else and his mother had to say, "Now, now, ladies first, you two..." and at last I realized how ridiculous I was being and hastily zipped through the door.  I think we were both mortified for the rest of the evening.

Now all you lovely readers know just how much I'm willing to do for you--I'm actually telling you embarrassing stories about myself to get a point across.  Sigh.  Moving on.  (I haven't refused to go through a door first since then, by the way.  Lesson learned.)

Recently, I've been trying to encourage my brother in this respect by thanking him every time he opens a door for me.  He's seven, I'm seventeen.  He's half my height and often has to ask me to pick him up so he can reach things.  I don't need him to open doors for me-- but it doesn't hurt to let him.  In fact, if he gets into the habit of being a gentleman now, his future wife will be grateful someday. :D

(You can read a little more on this topic here.)

And you know what?  If we practice being ladies now... we'll be so much readier when Mr. Knightley does come riding.

Entries for Miss Laurie's Contest

Miss Laurie over at Old-Fashioned Charm is hosting a lovely period-drama themed Keep Calm contest, and I had a great deal of fun making up two entries!  (The downside to hosting your own contests is that you don't get to enter them... so I was quite thrilled to hear that Miss Laurie was going to be hosting one similar to my Jane Austen themed contest.)

Entry #1 (from Anne of Green Gables):

That scene where Matthew goes to buy the dress for Anne is my mom's favorite in the entire movie, and I love it too--it's so sweet and funny!

Entry #2 (from Pride and Prejudice 1995):

This one, as I'm sure you can tell, comes from the infamous Lake Scene-- I always get such a kick out of Mr. Darcy's nervous stuttering.  "And your family is--is in good health?"  You said that already...

Thanks for hosting this, Miss Laurie!

Defending Mr. Darcy

I've decided that instead of writing an ongoing series for my top ten literary/period drama heroes the way I did for my top ten heroines (eep, I need to actually finish that thing), I'm just going to write hero posts when I feel like it.  I've also decided that the posts are probably all going to follow the same general format: that of "defending such-and-such".  Because a lot of my favorite heroes get a bad rap, and I want to set about correcting that.  I am only one, but I am one, and though I cannot convince everyone, I may be able to convince someone.

Since this week happens to be Hero Week, it seems a perfect time to write my post in defense of *drumroll please*...

...Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy.  Hero of Pride and Prejudice, owner of that gorgeous estate known as Pemberley, brother to Georgiana, nephew to Lady Catherine, enemy to George Wickham (boooo), husband to Elizabeth Bennet, Prince-Charming-alternate to many, yawn-inducer to others.

"Something I've noticed about [Mr. Darcy]," my dear friend Melody said recently, "is that you either 'get it' or you don't."  There are, in my humble opinion, three kinds of people where Mr. Darcy is concerned.  There are the staunch Mr. Darcy fans (of which I am one-- but not of the most rabid sort), there are those who honestly don't care about Jane Austen (they don't know what they're missing) and finally there is the apathetic, eh-Mr.-Darcy's-kinda-boring-but-I-don't-hate-him crowd.  (And if you're a member of the crowd that only likes Pride and Prejudice because of Colin Firth in a wet shirt, please take your business elsewhere.  Not to be rude, but... um... that's not what this is about.)  I congratulate the first group on their excellent taste, pity the second group and am aiming this post right at the third group.  Listen up, Third Group.

In the course of my extensive blog reading (I have to improve my mind, you know), I have come across several major misconceptions concerning one Fitzwilliam Darcy, and with your kind permission (or without it) I will now refute each one to the best of my ability in my best higgledy-piggledy fashion (i.e., with neither rhyme nor reason, and in no real order whatsoever).

First of all, Mr. Darcy is not some idle rich guy who does nothing but sit around in his fancy house and go swimming in his fancy lake and give orders to the servants and go to balls to glare at people.  He's one of the most responsible gentleman to be found in literature.  He's not the type to twiddle his thumbs and let everyone else do what needs to be done, nor is he afraid to do unpleasant business.  He obeys his father's posthumous instructions pertaining to Mr. Wickham, even though he can't stand the sight of Not-Gorgeous George.  And when Wickham the Wicked tries to elope with his little sister Georgiana, he steps in and takes things in hand... and then does the same thing all over again for Elizabeth's wayward sister Lydia, putting his own reputation on the line for the sake of the woman he loves.

Second, Mr. Darcy is not incapable of smiling.  Now, I am as much of a fan of the A&E Pride and Prejudice miniseries as anyone (P&P95Forever!) but though that adaptation was practically perfect in every way, Colin Firth's portrayal of Mr. Darcy was lacking in just one teeny respect: his smile.  In the book, Mr. Darcy smiles.  Repeatedly.  See chapter eleven:

"And your defect is a propensity to hate everybody," [said Elizabeth.]
"And yours," he replied, with a smile, "is wilfully to misunderstand them." 

Colin Firth doesn't smile until the end-- that's the movie's fault. The book has no such defect.

That reminds me of another misconception.  It seems to me that there is a wild idea flying around the blogosphere, something about a fellow by the name of Matthew Macfadyen?  Has anybody heard of this?  He's an extremely talented actor and did a fabulous portrayal of Arthur Clennam in Little Dorrit, but he is not Mr. Darcy.  If you want to see an accurate representation of the character Jane Austen created (not the character created by Focus Features), bearing in mind that no actor can do a perfectly perfect job of interpreting such an iconic character, then by all means watch P&P 1995.  I'm no drooling Colin Firth fan, but I do think he does a fantastic job.

Moving on to the all-important sense of humor.  Sadly, Mr. Darcy does not possess as much of this quality as some other Jane Austen heroes (think Henry Tilney or Mr. Knightley) but he does have a sense of humor.  Really.  You just have to look for it.  He's not, perhaps, as hilarious as Mr. Tilney, but he has a dry wit that jumps off the page at you at the most unexpected moments.  "A lady's imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony in a moment."  (True? True.)  Mr. Darcy also knows how to put Miss Bingley in her place (with all of us cheering him on, naturally.  Boo to Caroline Binglebop.)  "Yes, but that was only when I first knew her, for it is many months since I have considered her as one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance."  And really, nothing can match the amazing-ness of his "WHAT?!" in P&P95.  'Nuff said.

I also really love Darcy's interaction with his sister Georgiana.  Their relationship inspired two principal characters in the novel I'm writing right now, but of course that's not the only reason I like them.  It's evident that Georgiana adores her big brother-- and she has good reason.  He may be cold and unfriendly to people he has never met before (after all, he has not that talent of conversing easily with strangers) but with his sister, he's gentle, caring, affectionate and generous.  


I abhor awkward moments in real life, but I get a fiendish delight out of awkward moments in books or movies (the poor characters in my novel... how they do suffer...).  I'm not always a fan of superfluous movie scenes (generally being the first one to squawk, "THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK!") but I have to applaud Andrew Davies for his wonderful addition to Elizabeth's Pemberley visit, commonly known as The Famous Lake Scene.  I'm not talking about the swimming sequence here--don't quite understand all the hype about that--but instead I'm referring to Darcy and Elizabeth's unexpected meeting after Darcy's impromptu bath.  (My comments are italicized, in brackets.)


"Mr. Darcy!"
"Miss Bennet! Uh..." [My brother loves to quote those lines]
"I did not expect to see you, sir. We understood all the family were from home, or we should never have presumed..."
"Er, I returned a day early. Excuse me; your parents are in good health?"
"Er, yes. They are very well. I thank you, sir."
"I'm, um, glad to hear it... how long have you been in this part of the country?"
"But two days, sir."
"And where are you staying?"
"At the inn at Lambton."
"Ohyesocourse. [This is spoken as one word, haha.] Um, well, I've just arrived myself. [You said that before...] Um... and your parents are in good health? And... and ALL your sisters?" [You said THAT before too...]

This is the part of the movie where you really begin to like Mr. Darcy, I think. You can't help liking someone you feel sorry for, and I definitely feel sorry for him in that scene.  (I feel sorry for Lizzy, too, but I liked her from the beginning.)


Lest you begin to think that this guy is some angelic being who never does anything wrong, let me enlighten you.  Mr. Darcy is proud.  (See title of novel.)  He's arrogant.  He's prejudiced (see title again) against people he believes are beneath him.  He's also socially awkward and often misunderstood, but let's not make him out to be some poor pitiful version of Bashful.  Mr. Darcy has issues. He's not perfect.  But in all honesty, who wants a perfect hero?  Not this far-from-perfect girl, that's for sure.  


What I really love about Mr. Darcy is his character transformation.  The theme song from Beauty and the Beast comes to mind when I think of his relationship with Elizabeth.  "Bittersweet and strange, finding you can change, learning you were wrong..."  Mr. Darcy may have begun as a selfish being who rudely snubbed young women without dancing partners (she is tolerable, I suppose...) but he changes drastically... and we get to know him a little better.


Now, for all those of you who say that Darcy's first proposal was unromantic-- well, I agree with you.  "In vain I have struggled, it will not do, my feelings will not be repressed, you must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you" sounds quite nice, but not when it's followed up by, "In declaring myself thus, I am fully aware that I will be going expressly against the wishes of my family, my friends, and, I hardly need add, my own better judgment."  Um, yes.  That's the way to any girl's heart: tell her that you know you're making a mistake by proposing to her.  Indubitably.


But for all those of you who say that the second proposal was also unromantic... well, there I have to disagree.  Strongly.  "Such I was, from eight to eight and twenty; and such I might still have been but for you, dearest, loveliest Elizabeth! What do I not owe you! … You showed me how insufficient were all my pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased."

Perhaps I've convinced you by now, perhaps I haven't.  In the end, it really doesn't matter to me, because writing this post has served its purpose for me-- reminding me all over again how much I like and admire Mr. Darcy, and that Pride and Prejudice is the best book ever.

Oh, and also?  His name is not Fitzwilliam.  Okay, the book might say his name is Fitzwilliam, but we do not call him that.  Nor do we call him Fitzy or Will.  The name is Darcy, gals.  With or without the Mr., whatever floats your boat, but not Fitzwilliam.  Actually, now that I think about it, I have a better idea-- who's in favor of changing his name to Cordelius? It's so much more romantical, you know.

I Have Just Met You, Now Let's Get Married

SQUIRREL!

My favorite animated movie, hands down, would have to be Disney-Pixar's Up.  It's one of the sweetest stories ever, it's hilarious, the animation is stupendous, it's full of quotable lines and the characters are so very memorable.  Dug, the Talking Dog, ("but it's a TALKING DOG!") is probably my favorite character, and some of his lines are just plain hysterical.  Take this one for instance:

"I have just met you, and I love you."

Hmm.  You know, that line rings a bell with me somewhere.  It reminds me of several other Disney films, in fact. Cinderella, for instance, or Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Snow White... they're all stories about a prince and a princess (or a girl who eventually becomes a princess) who meet each other unexpectedly, gaze into each others' eyes, and fall in love just like that.  Bada-bing-bada-boom.

Wow.  That's incredibly romantic.  Amazingly so.  (You can decide for yourself whether I'm being sarcastic or not-- you'll know for sure by the time you reach the end of the post.)

And believe me, Disney isn't the only perpetrator of the whole love-at-first-sight thing.  Anyone who knows me well knows that I am a huge fan of musical theater, and a bordering-on-obsessive fan of the show based on Victor Hugo's classic Les Miserables.   Les Miz is not, strictly speaking, a romance story-- the main plot revolves around the life of a convict who was imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread.  However, there is one major love triangle in the play, one that involves Marius Pontmercy, Cosette Fauchelevent, and Eponine Thenardier.  In brief, Eponine's in love with Marius, who has no idea that she's alive (well, okay, he knows she's alive, but it's an expression, y'all) and who falls in love with Cosette after bumping into her on a crowded street.

This is for Petie.  :D
You see what I mean about the hair, dear.

Yes, you read that right.  Bumping into her on a crowded street.  His first thrillingly romantic words to her? "I did not see you there... forgive me."  Her first thrillingly romantic words to him?  Well, they don't show up in that scene because she doesn't say anything.  Yep.  The first meeting of this star-struck (and I'm using that in the most literal sense) couple lasts about thirty seconds (if that!) and leaves them mooning and gooning their separate ways like a pair of... um... lovebirds.

When they finally do meet each other For Real, the ensuing song ("A Heart Full of Love") is quite romantic, but it leaves me feeling unaccountably giggly.  Marius sings, "...For shame, I do not even know your name! Dear mademoiselle, won't you say? Will you tell?"  Dude, if you're head-over-ears in love with her and THAT'S the first question you ask, you're doing something wrong.

Of course, Cosette and Marius do eventually end up together, and I may or may not have shed happy tears during the wedding scene, but all of that is beside the point.  Irrelevant.

And this one is for Anne Shirley-- take a look at those sleeves!

Then there's another of my recent musical-theater-discoveries, West Side Story.  Now, I have never been a fan of the Romeo and Juliet story (that is, until I saw the ballet, but that's another story for another time) and though I thoroughly enjoyed WSS and took some morbid pleasure in the tragically romantic ending, Maria and Tony bugged me to no end.  As a couple, that is.  Individually, they weren't so bad. But together?  This is how they met-- and please, if y'all would put on your Credibility Hats, it would make my explanation so much easier.

There was this dance, held at a gym in New York, which is irrelevant, and there were these feuding groups of Americans and Puerto Ricans, which IS relevant. There was this Puerto Rican girl named Maria who had never been to a dance before, which is irrelevant, and an Italian-American boy named Tony (or was he Polish-American? Irrelevant) who may or may not have been to a dance before, which is also irrelevant.  The Americans and the Puerto Ricans all attended the dance but refused to dance with each other, which is very relevant, and the long and short of it is that Tony and Maria bumped into each other during One Of Those Slow Dances, and by the time the music ended and the lights went up, they were kissing right there in the middle of the dance floor.  (And Maria's brother and Tony's best friend didn't exactly find this cute but that is irrelevant.)

Look! It's Rab Silsbee!
Oh, wait, wrong movie...

Actually, it's irrelevant that Bernardo and Riff didn't find it cute, but it's not at all irrelevant that *I* didn't find it cute, because that's my point in writing this post.  (This is where you decide that I am, in fact, not in favor of the whole love-at-first-glance deal.)  Here was a couple who literally knew nothing about each other yet decided that it was totally okay to "fall in love" and start kissing--I wish I were kidding, but I'm not--without even a proper introduction.  On what, may I ask, were they basing this so-called love?  On each other's character and integrity and personality?  Or on each other's looks?

Well, I ask you-- what can you learn about a person from looking at him or her for thirty seconds?  Not.  Very.  Much.  Except, perhaps, the fact that the person is or is not good-looking (which is a completely subjective thing, I might add).

Now, I'm no expert, but I say that that is not enough to base a romance upon.  I'm not a cynic.  I'm not saying that there is no such thing as love at first sight.  Well, okay, I am.  I'll rephrase that-- in the words of my dear blogging friend Alexandra, I believe in attraction at first sight in some (even many!) cases, but I do not think that it's possible or reasonable for any two people to really, truly fall in love based solely on outward appearances.

As my dear blogging friend Petie put it in her recent amazing post, 

"Listen, if you find a guy who loves the Lord with everything he has, loves you with unspeakable passion, and can blow you away not with his looks, but with his character and integrity, then the love you and he share will be far and above anything Hollywood can come up with."

And this, people, this is why I love Jane Austen's stories so very, very much.  (You knew I had to drag her in here somewhere, didn't you?  Didn't you?)  I am so much more pleased by a beautiful story like that of Emma Woodhouse and Mr. Knightley (a slow process of learning from one's mistakes and coming to realize who truly matters to you) or that of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy (ditto) than I am by a silly tale of an unnamed guy who meets a girl by a wishing well and later saves her life by kissing her when he thinks she's dead. (Um, is it just me or is that a little bit creepy?)

I could go into another harangue about another couple whose romance does indeed begin with attraction at first sight but then develops into something much more beautiful, but I'll save that story for a post of its own.

(And for the record, I'm not bashing Disney-- in fact, their version of Beauty and the Beast has a message that's completely different from most of their trademark stories.  "Barely even friends, then somebody bends unexpectedly... bittersweet and strange, finding you can change, learning you were wrong...")

But I am crrrrriticizing Marius and Cosette and Tony and Maria, even though crrrrrrriticizing isn't Chrrrrrristian.  Because I've become acquainted with far better stories than theirs, and if you don't believe me, go read Pride and Prejudice.  And you hereby have my permission to fall in love on the first page.

Because, you know, people and books are not at all the same thing.

Pride and Prejudice meets Beauty and the Beast

I said that I would post the Beauty and the Beast/Pride and Prejudice crossover trailer this week, and here it is. Actually, the trailer of which I speak is the second one here. The first one is one I encountered while searching for the second one.

It's hysterical.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice, but its theatrical trailer does mix quite nicely with Beauty and the Beast. The first trailer is P&P with B&B audio, and the second is B&B with P&P audio.

Trailer 1


Trailer 2

Something There

This year for Christmas I gave my sister Molly the Beauty and the Beast soundtrack, and we listened to parts of it after she unwrapped it. While we were listening, I mentioned offhandedly to Anne that I should send Hayden the link to the Pride and Prejudice/Beauty and the Beast video we liked, because I thought she would get a kick out of it. Anne promptly replied that I should do one better and post it on my blog so everyone could see it. I took her advice as I always do (haha, not) and here it is. (I didn't make this. I just found it on YouTube and I think it's awesome.)

In Conclusion (and my tag answers)

Wow.  That is all I can say.  (Kidding, kidding... when have I ever been at a loss for a great deal of words??) This was my very first attempt at hosting a blog party, and I must say that all of you made it a smashing success.  I loved reading all your posts and reviews and answers to the tag questions and especially your birthday cards.  It is going to be very difficult to pick a winner.  This may be partially due to the fact that I am just the teensiest bit indecisive. (Do tell!)  But my sister the Anne-girl is quite the opposite; she, in fact, is very decisive and will be a tremendous help in picking three winners.  (Because I've decided to award first, second and third place.  Just so ya know.)

And since the party draws to a close today, it's about time that I answered my own tag questions, don't you think?

1 - What was the first JA novel you ever read, and who introduced you to it?
I read Pride and Prejudice in June of 2009, at my mom's prompting.  I was at that age (14) when I was feeling too old to be reading a lot of the juvenile fiction at the library, yet wasn't ready (or eager) to start browsing the adult section. One day my mom announced, "I think you're old enough to start Jane Austen," and off we went to Borders to purchase my Modern Library of Classics edition.  (This one.)  I read it in less than a week, fell in love on the first page and never looked back.  Since then I have read all six of Jane Austen's major works and am midway through The Watsons, but it's Pride and Prejudice that owns my heart.

2 - Which is your least favorite JA novel, and why? (Everybody posts about their favorites... I want to know what's at the bottom of your list!)


Mansfield Park, probably.  I do love it, but it just didn't quite captivate me the way her other works did.  I've only read it once, though, so maybe it deserves a little more attention.

3 - Who do you think is the funniest character JA ever created?

That would be a tie between Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins and Henry Tilney.


4 - Which JA villain[ess] do you love to hate?

Too many to count, but probably my favorite villainess would be Caroline Bingley.  But when I say "love to hate", I mean that I intensely dislike her but the story wouldn't be the same without her.  I enjoy reading about her, just so that I can say, "Ugh, Miss Bingley again!"  But I don't loathe and despise her the way I do Mr. Wickham or Willoughby.

5 - What's your favorite JA quote?

(Can I list my top ten? Of course I can, it's my tag! But I won't.)  It would probably be the famous opening sentence from Pride and Prejudice: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."  Funny story: I had heard of this line long before I read P&P, and before I read the book I completely misunderstood the line.  I thought it mean that a single man is in possession of a large fortune BECAUSE he has no wife; e.g., there is no one to spend all his money for him and that if he had a wife his fortune would diminish greatly.

Then I read the book and saw the light. :)


6 - If you were to "start" someone on JA, which book would you recommend to them first and why?

Pride and Prejudice.  (Do I sense a theme here?)  It's light, bright and witty.  The characters captivate you from the first page and the story moves along swiftly.  Emma, also, is light and witty, but it's so long that it might be daunting to a first timer.  I am also very, very fond of Sense and Sensibility, but I think its more slow-moving story is less appealing to a new Janeite than P&P.

7 - What is your absolute favorite JA film adaptation and why?

Pride and Prejudice 1995.  (Sowwee.)  It just... is.  It captures the spirit of the novel better than any other movie adaptation of any book I've ever seen (except maybe Anne of Green Gables).  I love it to pieces.
I do apologize, however, for the predictability of my answers!  I didn't realize I was so P&P obsessed.  Usually I tend to prefer an author's lesser-known works (my favorite Charles Dickens novel is Little Dorrit) but with Jane Austen I can't help but love her most famous novel.  There's a reason it's so well-known, y'all.

8 - If you could authorize a new film adaptation of one of JA's novels, which would it be and why?

Mansfield Park.  See here for a more elaborate description.  The only adaptation that I saw was the 1983 BBC miniseries, and I was rather disappointed.  No, scratch that.  I was most severely displeased and it was not to be borne.

9 - Which JA character do you most identify with?

Toss-up between Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood.  Actually, I'd say I'm really more like Elinor, but I want to be like Lizzy. :)

10 - If you could have lunch with JA today, what question would you most like to ask her?

"Why didn't you finish The Watsons?"  Or perhaps, "Did Mr. Darcy intend to have Elizabeth overhear his tolerable-but-not-handsome-enough remark?" (Something I've always wondered.)

11 - Is there any one thing that you think could have been improved upon in one (or all) of JA's books? What is it and why?

Proposals, hands down.  Most unsatisfactory in most cases.  Jane, you disappoint your readers... especially in Northanger Abbey.  I was looking forward to Henry Tilney's proposal so much!

12 - If you could have lunch with one of JA's characters today, who would it be and why?

Probably Mr. Bennet, possibly Emma Woodhouse.  Mr. Bennet is so full of dry humor, and Emma would be such fun to talk with!

13 - (optional) Why is Miss Dashwood so fond of asking "why"?


Because my real name is Curious George.  Now you know.

Pride and Prejudice (2005) Review

Oh, where do I begin? How do I describe this movie? How do I compare it to the perfect-in-every way 1995 version? How do I express my delight in watching it, my indignance (is that a word?) in the changes that the audacious screenwriters made, my mixed feelings when it ended? How do I convey how much I love the music and scenery, and how frustrated I am that I can't find the gorgeous "Liz on Top of the World" on Mixpod to add to my playlist? How do I politely express that it was NOT my Pride and Prejudice and Jane Austen may very well be rolling in her grave?

I'll just have to do my best.

So... Pride and Prejudice 2005, a.k.a. the Keira Knightley version, a.k.a. the Matthew Macfadyen version, a.k.a. The New One. I usually just refer to it as P&P 05. :)

I suppose I should really begin by apologizing for the number of pictures in this post. For all of you who have slow connections, I do hope it doesn't take too long to load!

I suppose I should begin with the first picture that appeared on my post. (I chose a grand and glorious lot of stills from Google Images, and then uploaded them, and Blogger randomly arranged them according to its own whimsical whimsy.) I should also warn you that, like my last P&P review, this post will be entirely subjective and may or may not offend fans of P&P05. I will be polite. I promise. But I will also be entirely truthful.

The above picture of the Meryton ball is a good capture of three characters. Snooty Miss Bingley, melancholy Mr. Darcy, goofy Mr. Bingley. Because Dr. Harrison's Simon Woods' version of Mr. Bingley WAS rather goofy. I got the impression that he didn't have very much rattling around in his head. And though Kelly Reilly's Miss Bingley was a real snob ("Oh for heaven's sake, are we to be invaded by every Bennet in the country?") she didn't capture the essence of the character the way Anna Chancellor did. But she was "handsome", as she is described in the novel. Win!

Arthur Clennam Matthew Macfadyen's portrayal of Mr. Darcy, though...

Okay, I have to say that my heart just melted at this scene in the rain. While it was a little strange that Mr. Darcy just popped out of nowhere as soon as Elizabeth took shelter under the columns (was he stalking her???) his "uncivil" proposal was pretty close to perfect. When she said, "I don't understand," and he shot back, "I love you"... well, my sentimental little heart went into raptures. The look on his face when she (vehemently) said "no" was not unlike a puppy out in the cold. This scene above all others made me like Mr. Darcy.

However, all that said, he really didn't insult her the way he was supposed to. In fact, he even apologized a couple of times before he said anything bad about her family. So her furious reaction was a bit unwarranted. "And those are the words of a gentleman. From the first moment I met you, your arrogance and conceit, your selfish disdain for the feelings of others made me realize that you were the last man in the world I could ever be prevailed upon to marry." Um, he really wasn't being arrogant and conceited. Sure, he said she wasn't handsome enough to tempt him at the Meryton ball. He separated her sister and Bingley, and though that seemed unforgivable, it wasn't because of his "complete disdain for the feelings of others". It was because he really thought Bingley was making a mistake--and he had no idea how much Jane loved Bingley. (Here I go on another of my Defend Mr. Darcy rants again...)

But Mr. Darcy is supposed to be proud. True, he's not as bad as he appears to be (he does change, but we the readers also come to understand him better) but he IS supposed to be arrogant and cold. This Mr. Darcy just looked like somebody who had been left out of a game. He came across as shy and withdrawn, not haughtily reserved. Point in his favor: he DID smile a little more than Colin Firth did. But just a little. In short, Matthew Macfadyen is Arthur Clennam and Colin Firth is Mr. Darcy. And don't get me started on David Rintoul.

Lady Harriet Cumnor Rosamond Pike made a beautiful Jane Bennet. This time, the directors hit the nail on the head. Jane is supposed to be gentle, withdrawn and lovely. You could plainly see how she felt about Mr. Bingley, yet she didn't make a big show of her emotions. As Elizabeth tells Darcy, "My sister rarely even tells her true feelings to me!" Her reaction when Mr. Bingley asked her to marry him was so sweet--naturally Jane would cry when she was asked to marry the man she loved! "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes."

Isn't this part cute? Anne said she really liked Jane's hair in this movie--Susannah Harker in P&P95 "always looked like she stepped out of a box of curl papers". Well, I have to say that I thought the hairstyles rather inaccurate for the time period. Okay, maybe Jane's hair wasn't perfectly coiffed all the time, but Lizzy would NOT have been wandering around out in public with her hair down. Ladies just didn't do that. It was considered immodest once a woman was grown up.Hmm. This picture brings me to my next point. I really, really didn't care for Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet. I know she's pretty. I know she has "fine eyes". And yes, her hair is beautiful (even though it shouldn't have been so flyaway). But frankly, all I could like about her was her looks. She was too bold and forward for Lizzy. Lizzy is spirited, yes, but she's not disrespectful. I mean, does it seriously fit with her character to shout at her family "For once in your life, leave me alone!"? Nuh-uh. Yes, she showed a bit of Elizabeth's outdoorsy personality (I really loved "Liz on Top of the World", as I told you) but her mannerisms and expressions and sitting on a swing in the barnyard, barefoot (?) were just completely out of character. Sorry, Keira fans.

Now about the rest of the Bennet family... Donald Sutherland was the most blah Mr. Bennet I've ever seen. (Wow, I'm being ruthless here.) His saving grace was that one scene at the Netherfield ball, when he's comforting poor embarrassed Mary in the hall. I really liked that--it showed Mr. Bennet's loving, fatherly side. The 1995 version focuses more on his wit and sardonic remarks.

Brenda Blethyn played Mrs. Bennet far too sympathetically. As I said in my P&P95 post, Mrs. Bennet isn't supposed to be sympathetic. I liked the character she played, but it wasn't Mrs. Bennet. Mary was okay--kind of dull, but that's the way she's supposed to be. I was disappointed they left out a lot of her pompous remarks, but hey, time constraints.

Oh, and a total aside--this picture really makes me laugh. Mrs. Bennet's goofy grin, Mr. Bennet's Jiggy Nye-ish expression, Mary's boredom and Elizabeth's mischievous grin are just funny. And the camera angle makes this shot look like something out of Gulliver's Travels--Mr. Darcy appears to be a giant in the midst of Lilliputians.

Ada Clare Carey Mulligan made a sweet Kitty, but she was way too silly for my taste. I know Kitty is supposed to be silly. But in that one scene at the Netherfield ball where she and Lydia are holding wine glasses and laughing uproariously... um, that was the way she behaved throughout the entire movie. Giggle. Snort. Giggle. Either Kitty was supposed to be perpetually drunk, or she was just an idiot. I'm leaning towards the second. But Kitty IS supposed to be an idiot. So I guess I liked this interpretation of her. Sort of.

Jena Malone made a good Lydia. She was definitely younger than Julia Sawalha, and she looked more like a boy-crazy teenager. Rupert Friend as Mr. Wickham also played the role of slimeball-pretending-to-be-charming quite nicely. I disliked Adrian Lukis' Wickham from the very beginning, but Rupert Friend's Wickham seemed trustworthy at first. I liked the cute little scene in the ribbon shop, even if it wasn't in the book.

Speaking of cute scenes, I really liked the part where Darcy and Bingley are rehearsing Bingley's proposal to Jane. It really helped develop how Mr. Darcy's character had changed, and how he and Bingley get along together. Delightful!

Osborne Hamley Tom Hollander played Mr. Collins rather well, I thought. "It's been many years since I had such an exemplary vegetable." :) He was quite different from the Mr. Collins of '95, but then again Jane Austen didn't really write Mr. Collins as an oily character. He's supposed to be pompous, dry and dull, but not slimy. So this Mr. Collins was a little more true to the book (except for his height, right Melody?)--however, I was disappointed that we didn't see more of him. Mr. Bennet's "and I will never see you again if you DO" wasn't really justified, IMHO, because we really didn't have any reason to hate Mr. Collins. Sure, he was boring, but he wasn't awful. You could understand Charlotte's agreeing to marry him.

This brings me to another thing I really liked. Charlotte's explanation of why she was going to marry Mr. Collins was extremely well done. Instead of sitting there thinking, "Has she gone off her rocker?" I was nodding and, though feeling sorry for poor Charlotte, understanding why she accepted his proposal. He really was her only chance at a comfortable home, and she was tired of being a burden to her parents. At twenty-seven, she was past her bloom (hmm, isn't that reminiscent of another Jane Austen heroine?)

Georgiana Darcy was too bubbly, I felt. Plus, she looked about 13 years old, when she is supposed to be 16. Georgiana is supposed to be so quiet and shy... Tamsin Merchant didn't do half as good a job as Emilia Fox in '95. (I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I'll stop comparing, I really will!) All in all, I was disappointed in Georgiana. I did, however, like her rapport with Darcy, even if it wasn't quite in character. You really got the feeling that they were a close brother and sister. I liked their little exchange about the piano. "My brother gave [the piano] to me. He shouldn't have."

"Yes, I should've."

"Oh, very well then."

"Easily persuaded, is she not?"

Oh, and the "knight in shining pajamas" scene, as Alexandra dubs it, was just... weird. Sorry, hopeless romantics. I really am one of your kind. But this wasn't really romantic, it was just silly. "Your hands are cold." Also, the scene at the end.... ick. My friend's younger brother refers to it as "the scary part", and I'm inclined to agree with him. Too much kissing! "Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy." Um. Wow. That's so... epic. Far better than, "dearest, loveliest Elizabeth," undoubtedly.

Sorry. *snaps out of sarcasm mode* I really did like this movie. It was a great film. No, I mean that. It was fun to watch, and the story moved at a good pace. Visually it was stunning. The cinematography was amazing, as was the music.

But it really wasn't Pride and Prejudice. It just wasn't. It wasn't my Pride and Prejudice. P&P is my favorite Jane Austen book, and this movie didn't do it justice. I think the real problem is that they tried to modernize it and make it appealing to today's viewers. And in doing so, they missed the point of P&P. The reason Jane Austen was such a brilliant writer--nay, a genius--was that she captured human nature. She wrote about people and how they related to one another. Times and fashions and language and societies change, but people do not. Any person, no matter what era they live in, can relate to Jane Austen's amazing characters. So when a filmmaker tries to "update" a classic story and change things around in order to please shallow moviegoers, that filmmaker has made a mistake. (Oops, here I go into one of my rants about how modern films are being watered down for viewers spoiled by too much TV...)

Really, I can't help thinking that at any moment someone is going to produce a piglet, and we'll all have to chase it.