Pride and Prejudice

[jf51381]

This is one of the best novels and stories ever. Kimbo, I agree that the 1940 version was good, but in my eyes, it pales in comparison to the 1995 A & E production. Besides film noir, Jane Austen is my other big "love." I took a seminar in college devoted to her, and it was a great course. Of course, the 1940 version could not possibly include all of the details, but it did generally stick to the story.

One of the most problematic elements in the 1940 version was the end, in which Lady Catherine DeBourgh (Edna May Oliver)visits Elizabeth as Darcy's ambassador, with every intention of securing the match between them. In the book, she clearly disapproves of the match and does her best to dissuade Elizabeth from acceting him.

Because of Edna May Oliver and her finesse at playing likable characters, this scene comes off nicely on its own terms, but I can imagine that some die-hard Austen fans do not approve of it.

There are two great books that fans of Austen and film should consult. One is called "Jane Austen in Hollywood" by Linda Troost and Sayre Greenfield and the other is "Jane Austen on Film and Television: A Critical Study of the Adaptations" by Sue Parrill."

 

Long live Jane Austen, Song Standards, Film Noir, and Classic Film in general.

 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Forte:)

jcforte03@yahoo.com

[loveoldmovies04]

You do have a point. In the book, that scene is one of my favorites because I love the way lizzy (elizabeth) completely stands up for her self. I did not mind so much in the (1940) version of the movie because I loved the actors/ actresses in it and I knew that like some one said (I think kimbo) in another posting is that it was a 2 hours version and that there were going to have to be things different about it. I do still like the newer version of the movie because it follows the book almost exzactly.

-phoebe

[venerados]

Haven't seen the newer movie version. I will say I actually preferred the 1940 film to the book even with the changes. It's a wonderful, funny story and there was something a little frustrating about reading it in the stilted language of those days. The words couldn't quite keep up with themselves.

[gingerrogers25]

Believe me, my dear Jonathan, that your post, so far from doing you any disservice, rather adds to your other perfections. You would have been less amiable in my eyes had there not been this little rebuff of the 1940s version; but allow me to assure you, that I have the respected TCM's permission for this address. You can hardly doubt the purpose of my post, however your natural delicacy may lead you to dissemble; my love of the A&E version has been too marked to be mistaken. Almost as soon as I entered the 'General Discussions', I singled you out as the post of my future opinion. But before I am run away with by my feelings on this subject, perhaps it will be advisable for me to state my reasons for loving the A&E version -- and, moreover, for coming into this post with the design of telling you of my Austinian love, as I certainly will.

 

I love Mr. Collin's proposal. It can be applied to anything.

 

I need to buy another Pride and Prejudice because the one I have I watch (all the way through) at least once a month and it is awfully scratched. I can barely get through Netherfield ball without it jumping about.

 

I was not overly impressed with the 1940s version because of one reason - Mary was too pretty. Her point in the book is NOT to be pretty. But that's just me. But, as you state, as a die hard Austen fan I did not approve of those more slight details. However, A & E knows that nothing is too slight to count as negligable.