Comparing Pride & Prejudice Adaptations #AustenInAugustRBR

Three Pride and Prejudice Adaptations

by Rachel Kovaciny

I am here today to compare my three favorite filmed adaptations of Pride and Prejudice by the immortal Jane Austen, the ones released in 1940, 1995, and 2005.  I love all three of them, so prepare for some joyful gushing!

A picture containing text, newspaper

Description automatically generated

I first saw the 1995 BBC adaptation when I was a college freshman in the late ’90s.  A literature professor was appalled that I hadn’t seen it yet, so she loaned me her personal VHS copy for a whole weekend.  Some friends and I commandeered a dorm lounge and watched it from start to finish.  I liked it, but not enough to buy my own copy, especially since I was a poor college student.

After college, my husband and I lived near his family for a few years.  His younger sisters loved the 1940 version, and they brought it over to show to me when they learned I had never seen it.  Once again, I enjoyed the watch, but I didn’t rush off to find a copy of my own.  Our library had it, so I knew I could get it from there any time I wanted to rewatch it.

A year or two later, I rented the 2005 adaptation from the video store (on DVD, it’s true, but it was still called a video store).  I liked it quite a bit.  Over the next few years, I rewatched the two earlier versions.  And then I rented the 2005 version again.

Do you know what I discovered?

I like all three of them!  In fact, I now own all three on DVD.

A few years later, when I got more into blogging, I discovered that some Jane Austen fans consider it absolute heresy to enjoy specific adaptations.  In fact, opinions run hot and strong on this subject.  Which has always confused me a bit and amused me a lot.  Why should this be an either/or topic?  If I can enjoy three different adaptations of this wonderful book, why do some people seem to resent the idea that any version but their own favorite even exists, much less could be enjoyed?

I’m probably inviting a lot of angry comments by stating that all three of these films have good points.  So be it.  I hope I’m also encouraging people to try out a movie or two they have been told is “bad” or “unacceptable” when I declare that it ain’t necessarily so.  I like encouraging people.

For the rest of this post, I’m going to discuss the portrayals of the main characters and then touch on the aesthetic of each film.  Ready?

A collage of a person

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Elizabeth Bennet

Greer Garson plays Elizabeth as an intelligent, sweet-tempered, self-assured young woman.  She dearly loves to laugh, as Jane Austen wrote her.  She flirts archly with both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham, and she is highly amused by Mr. Collins.  I think she’s the happiest Lizzy of the three.

Jennifer Ehle plays Elizabeth as a confident, cheerful, witty young woman.  She has a self-contained air, and she definitely gives the impression that she is laughing at people people privately.  As Jane Austen wrote, she can be an obstinate and headstrong girl, indeed.  She strikes me as the most arch Lizzy.

Keira Knightley plays Elizabeth as straight-forward, spirited, and sharp-witted.  She enjoys verbally sparring with those around her, especially anyone who can challenge her.  Just as Jane Austen wrote, her courage rises whenever people try to intimidate her.  I find her the most confident Lizzy.

A group of men

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Mr. Darcy

Laurence Olivier plays a polished, aristocratic, but aloof Mr. Darcy.  He does not enjoy small talk, he’s tired of being pursued by ambitious young ladies and their mamas, and he has little time for fools.  I find him the most stand-offish Mr. Darcy.

Colin Firth plays Mr. Darcy as confident, often bored, and uncomfortable around strangers.  He knows his own worth, but he’s not fond of attention, especially from those he doesn’t know well.  I find him the most intimidating Mr. Darcy.

Matthew Macfadyen plays a socially awkward, shy, and kind Mr. Darcy.  He would rather stay home with a few people he knows and trusts than go to a social gathering.  I find him the most approachable Mr. Darcy.

A collage of a person

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Jane Bennet

Maureen O’Sullivan plays a beautiful, good-hearted, wistful Jane Bennet.  

Susannah Harker plays a very sweet and kind Jane Bennet, but she’s not particularly beautiful, unlike Jane in the book.

Rosamund Pike is a beautiful, self-contained, hopeful Jane Bennet.

A picture containing person, person, indoor, suit

Description automatically generated

Mr. Bingley

Bruce Lester plays a charming, sweet, open-hearted Mr. Bingley.  He’s quite lovable.

Crispin Bonham-Carter plays a proper, sweet, open-hearted Mr. Bingley.  He’s quite lovable.

Simon Woods plays an enthusiastic, sweet, open-hearted Mr. Bingley.  He’s quite lovable.

A collage of people

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Mr. and Mrs. Bennet

Edmund Gwenn plays Mr. Bennet as mischievous, a little absent-minded, and overall kindly.  Mary Boland flutters and fidgets and exclaims a great deal as Mrs. Bennet.  She’s definitely flighty, but she means well.  Most of the time.

Benjamin Whitrow plays Mr. Bennet as being often irritated by those around him, but nice to a select few.  Alison Steadman plays Mrs. Bennet as quarrelsome, meddlesome, and demanding.  She’s purposeful and can be a bit abrasive.

Donald Sutherland plays Mr. Bennet as sharp-tongued and weary, but almost secretly fond of his wife and daughters.  Brenda Blethyn is a foolish but determined Mrs. Bennet.  Her timing is always terrible and she’s a wretched judge of character, but she is a fierce advocate for her daughters.

Mr. Collins

Melville Cooper plays Mr. Collins as an oblivious dimwit with affectations of grandeur.  He makes me laugh.

David Bamber plays Mr. Collins as an obsequious weirdo with no social skills.  He creeps me out.

Tom Hollander plays Mr. Collins as socially awkward with an inflated sense of his own importance.  I feel sorry for him.

A group of men in clothing

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Mr. Wickham

Edward Ashley’s Mr. Wickham is a frivolous and opportunistic dandy.  I don’t hate him, but I don’t like him, either.

Adrian Lukas’s Mr. Wickham is a creeper with a taste for teenage girls.  I can’t stand him.

Rupert Friend is a suave charmer.  He kind of frightens me with how likeable and yet despicable he is.

A collage of a person and person

Description automatically generated with low confidence

The Aesthetic

The 1940 Pride and Prejudice is a happy, buoyant love story.  The filmmakers deliberately filled it with over-the-top costumes reminiscent of Gone with the Wind because that’s what the audience really wanted in a period drama at that time.  They also gave it a light and upbeat vibe because times were hard in 1940, and people went to the movies to escape the troubles of a long Depression and a growing war in Europe.  This film was made to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, to attract everyone from school children to housewives to downtrodden factory workers.  While modern audiences might find the 1860s costumes gratingly inaccurate, the audience at the time wanted beautiful dresses and fancy hats, and that’s what they got.

The 1995 Pride and Prejudice is a serious and sumptuous bringing to life of a beloved book.  A year earlier, BBC had had a huge success with their adaptation of Middlemarch, and they wanted to please literary audiences again with another lengthy, character-driven adaptation of a classic.  They succeeded beyond all expectations and set off the whirl of Austen Mania that we are still caught up in almost thirty years later.  Casting, writing, costumes, sets, and locations in this adaptation reflect the 1813 world in which the book was published.  But it still has a fairy-tale-like quality that many find very appealing.

The 2005 Pride and Prejudice is a vibrant and nuanced film.  Instead of being set in 1813, the filmmakers chose to set it in the 1790s, which is when Jane Austen wrote the first draft.  This has caused many fans of the book to fuss that the costumes are inaccurate, not realizing that this movie is not meant to be set in the Regency era of 1811 to 1820, but slightly before it.  This change lets the film have a distinctly different look for its costumes from the 1995 version.  The film as a whole is drenched with color and light, and it does not shy away from or gloss over the realities of life in eighteenth-century England quite so much as the other two versions.

I love all three of them!  All three bring out different aspects of the characters and the story line, helping me to see and understand Jane Austen’s book in new and different ways.  I find all three of them to be valid and respectful interpretations of the story, each with different focuses and aims and purposes.  

Thanks, Rachel, for this fun comparison!

21 Comments on “Comparing Pride & Prejudice Adaptations #AustenInAugustRBR

  1. I didn’t realize that about 2005 version set in 1790s. My first Pride and Prejudice was 1980 Masterpiece Thearte one. It sent teenage me to the Library to find the book. I have it on DVD haven’t watched in awhile.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Annie, yup, that’s what I’ve read about the 2000s one, and the costumes seem to bear that out.

      I still haven’t seen the 1980 one, tbh, but maybe it will cross my path one day!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I loved this post! Especially your take on all the different character portrayals.

    The 2005 adaption is by far my favorite, but I’ll happily curl up and binge watch the 1995 miniseries when I’m looking for something cozy and a bit nostalgic. As for the 1940 adaption, I find that it’s really fun to watch it every few years. The Mr. Collins in that one is great. XD (Also, I don’t mind Lady Catherine’s character change in the 1940 adaption, even though it’s wildly different from the book. I feel like once she got over her horror at Elizabeth’s outspokenness, she *could* actually come to respect and even like her.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Eva, I’m so glad you loved this! And yes, the 1940 changes Lady Catherine’s purposes at the end, but it really works extremely well for that version. And I think most of Lady Catherine’s dislike for Lizzie in the book stems from the fact that they are a LOT alike in many ways, so maybe she will come to realize that and accept Lizzie more….

      Liked by 2 people

  3. This is a great analysis of the pluses and minuses of each adaptation. My husband would have a hard time with the 1940 version because he doesn’t like Greer Garson. We really like the 1995 miniseries, and I would love to try the more recent film sometime.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Love this post! Your analyses of each portrayal is especially fun to read. I agree, I think Ehle’s Lizzy is the most arch, with that air of private mirth you mentioned.

    Your comment on the Bingleys made me grin. 😉

    I think Susannah Harker is beautiful, but her beauty is such a different style than Ehle’s. I always wonder if perhaps Harker’s is the kind that would have been more highly prized in Austen’s time? Maybe someone can enlighten me.

    Liked by 3 people

    • So glad you enjoyed this, Olivia! You are probably right that Harker actually looks like the women we see in paintings from the Regency era. Her sloping shoulders and more classical nose in particular.

      Like

  5. I agree, I love all three. The big difference from the book though is that the films almost let Mr and Mrs Bennet get away with their lack of responsibility, which Jane Austen doesn’t do. She puts the blame for Lydia and Kitty’s silliness firmly on the parents’ shoulders, and makes a very direct point about girls’ lack of education.

    Like

    • Jane, that is a good observation! Austen definitely doesn’t let either Bennet parent off the hook for their negligence. And the movies all portray them as more well-meaning but obtuse, rather than neglectful.

      Like

  6. I enjoy all three adaptations, but watch the most recent one the most often simply because it’s shorter than the miniseries. I feel that all three have good things about them and bad — the BBC version is terrific but lags in the middle, the shorter one doesn’t dig deep enough into Wickham, etc. But I am big on loving multiple adaptations of the same book — that’s why I own three different versions of Emma. 😉

    Like

    • Charity, the newest one being shorter definitely gets it extra watches. Same for the 1940. Also, there’s a theater near here that has shown the 2005 several times, and so I’ve seen it on the big screen at least twice as a result.

      I am also big on loving multiple adaptations of the same story. (I own 3 versions of Jane Eyre and 15 versions of Hamlet…) As long as they aren’t copying each other! I want them to bring their own nuances and flavors and insights to the story. Which is why I loved the live-action Cinderella but am kinda meh about the live-action Beauty and the Beast and only liked the new Aladdin okay. Those two were just trying to recreate too much, not be their own thing enough to suit me.

      Like

      • This reminds me that I am super excited for the live-action Pinocchio coming soon.

        Like

  7. In defence of Susannah Harker, she is probably the best Jane of all, because we have an idea of what Jane may have looked like from Austen’s letters and she is quite similar to SH. Austen wrote to Cassandra to tell her that she had seen a portrait of Mrs Bingley. This is widely believed to be a portrait of a lady called Mrs Harriet Quentin. https://www.themorgan.org/collection/drawings/144074

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: