atwoodsmith

We had no trouble sitting through the whole film - the cinematography was very fine, and Claire Danes was stunning. Overall, it was easy to care how things came out, rooting for Claire's character and wondering if Martin's character would ever get a clue about their relationship.

By the end, I couldn't help but wonder if Martin actually produced this movie as a way to apologize to some girl. I can easily imagine him in a similar relationship, treating the girl in a civil manner but totally misunderstanding her feelings as well as his own.

I don't know how much this film cost to create, but I'm suspecting that the $10M box office didn't quite cover expenses. So it may have been a costly apology.

Martin was one of the film's producers as well as having written the original "novella." There are occasional and jarring voice overs, which allowed Martin to spell out things that a better filmmaker would have conveyed by implication. Either that, or he just loved the sound of his own writing so much that he couldn't help himself.

Martin took himself too, too seriously to do justice to this film.

I really enjoyed this movie but, like most Austen interpretations, there were moments to cause me to wince. This one had more than the classic Ehle/Firth 1995 miniseries in less than half the running time, but the result was entertaining.

Plusses:

+ The film did a better job of "show, don't say" than earlier versions. My main complaint about the Garvie/Rintoul BBC version of the '80s was that characters too often mouthed Austen's words when there should have been a visual portrayal instead. This film cut letter-reading to an all-time low.

+ Related to the above, this version drew a sharp visual distinction between the costly gentility (and cleanliness) of Netherfield and the shabbiness of the Bennets' Longbourne. The Bennets "cleaned up nice" when needed, but they didn't live in spotless splendor.

+ There was a tendency to move scenes to more dramatic settings, like the portico of a rainswept mausoleum. This was both good and bad.

+ The film brought out the character of the father a bit more. Donald Sutherland was terrific.

+ Judi Densch as Lady Catherine.

+ I liked how the script compressed the early action and drew out the final resolution. Again, an opportunity for Donald Sutherland.

+ Kiera Knightley is lovely, and a treat to watch on the screen.

Minuses:

• Related to the above, Elizabeth was much prettier than Jane. Wrong.

• The movie had too many "Harlequin Moments" in which the characters did the sort of gestures associated with hormone-driven romance stories. This had the most kissing and almost-kissing of any Austen adaptation I've seen. I wonder if this was just to provide imagery for the previews.

• Related to the above: unmarried male characters spent an unrealistically large amount of time in the presence of unrelated female characters whilst the latter were clad only in nightwear. Titilating and suggestive, perhaps, but unrealistic for the period.

• Time and story compression. At some points it seemed like we were being propelled through the plot at breakneck speed. The script does a reasonable job of covering the major events, but of course some are shortchanged in the warp speed presentation.

• I had to get used to various bits of modern speech, like the clip from the preview where Darcy says "Not if I can help it!"

Unlike other films, Elizabeth was shown to be only slightly competent at the piano, making it clear that Darcy could only like her for her "liveliness of mind." An interesting difference that I'm not sure is good or bad.

This movie taught me the danger of anticipation. After "Bend It Like Beckham" it was clear that the director could portray Indian expatriate culture with enjoyable, ironic humor. I expected a lot of the same in "Bride," but it fell a bit short.

While the musical aspects were nice, I thought they detracted from the social satire. Placing the story firmly in India gave the director a culture where marriage was arguably as important as in Regency England, but I suspect the humor would have been sharper if she has placed the story among expatriates in the UK again.

Maybe I'm too much of an Austen/P&P junkie, but I found myself impatiently waiting for the social repartee that was being delayed by the musical numbers.

On the other hand, it was hilarious to see a chorus of drag queens in saris.

I think the director wanted to do a musical, and she wanted to do P&P, but she didn't want to do another expatriate movie after "Beckham." I'm sorry she made the choices she did, since the movie isn't as sharp and entertaining as it might have been.

If you're attracted to the P&P story line and are entertained by the idea of the plot working itself out in different cultural contexts, then this is the movie for you. The context here is the LDS or "Mormon" culture of Utah. Like "Clueless," the movie's strength comes from recycling the plot of one of Austen's classic novels. As it is, it's fun, though rough around the edges.

P&P poses some real challenges when you transport it to a modern setting, since a lot of the things that mattered to women in the Regency period just don't matter any more. By placing the story in the LDS context, the producers subjected the women to a culture with a few crucial similarities. I know very little about the LDS culture, but the film suggests that LDS women *want* to get married and the men expect them to be virgins. This gives the story its foundation.

This is clearly a low budget production. It shows in some of the technical aspects and in the acting, but the actors are at least competent. There's lots of gentle humor, but the movie lacks the sharp wit that is Austen's trademark.

I think this film illustrates the potential Austen's work offers to future filmmakers. While following the overall outlines of Austen's book, it departs in a number of astonishing but very effective ways. In many ways I find it the most satisfying Austen adaptation I've seen.

Modern eyes find the traditional Fanny Price to be too much of a, well, a "wuss". She shows a steely resolve that anyone would envy when faced with a serious moral choice, but most of the time she's portrayed as timid and resigned to being trampled upon. Her moments of joy and excitement pass quietly. Such a character isn't especially appealing to today's moviegoers, and it's hard to make such a character engaging.

Instead of giving us the traditional Fanny, Patrician Rozema (the director/screenwriter) has built a character with parts of Fanny and parts of Jane Austen herself. This Fanny will sit in her room during free hours and write stories home to her sister or write her "History of England" for her own (and her cousin Edmond's) amusement. She races down stairs, expresses her thoughtful but unorthodox opinions, rides in the rain, and does all sorts of other non-timid things. But her vivacity is squelched by Aunt Norris who constantly ensures that Fanny not forget her (low) status in the household.

Another important departure is the opportunity we're given to finally look behind the curtains that hide the inconvenient piles of dirt. While Austen didn't always sidestep messy things, most Austen filmmakere have. But in "Mansfield Park" examples abound of plain old shabbiness. Mansfield Part is a huge pile of masonry (seems almost a palace to naive American eyes) but it's partially a ruin and it's frugally decorated, especially when compared to similar homes in Ang Lee's "Sense and Sensibility". Austen indicates that Lady Bertram suffers from poor health, but the film portrays an illness fueled by regular doses of narcotic medicines. Sir Thomas' problems at his New World plantation seem to be tied to his use of slave labor (with an ironic resolution at the end).

As with the other '90s Austen revival works, this one shows much improved production values over the '80s BBC miniseries -- better use of musical scoring, more physical action by actors, and better use of locations and scenery.

I believe this version is much more faithful to the book than the 1995 miniseries. This is both good and bad. The good point is that it includes a crucial scene or two that were omitted from the 1995 version. The bad point is that the actors are occasionally strapped down with reciting some Austen jawcracker phrase word-for-word. It's times like that that you appreciate the difference between prose that's readable and prose that sounds natural in conversation.

I like the use of Elizabeth Garvie's singing voice. It plays an effective role in developing Elizabeth's character and Darcy's fascination in her. I think it's more believable than the admiring glances they rely on in the 1995 miniseries.

However, I don't especially like the acting. The overall stiffness of the characters' behavior puts me more in mind of stage acting. Of course, Darcy is *supposed* to have a stiff personality, but David Rintoul's portrayal doesn't even loosen up when it's supposed to. A lot of this could be due to the script's compulsive faithfulness to the book. Of course we expect the actors to sound like they're from the Regency period, but we don't need to hear Austen's exact words.

Overall production values are lower than in the 1995 miniseries. The musical score isn't as well developed, and the sets focus on the oft-derided "women in a drawing room" aspect of Austen's work.

Despite some worthy good points, I don't find this version of "Pride and Prejudice" to be as watchable as the 1995 miniseries. Perhaps it's the production values, perhaps it's the acting, or perhaps it's the screenwriters' failure to put enough effort into really adapting Austen's story to the (small) screen.

As someone who spent a lot of time reading and thinking about Rand's ideas many years ago, I found this film very informative and entertaining. It presents Rand with just the right breath of grandeur. It shows her the way I like to think of her.

Like Thomas Jefferson, flaws in Rand's personal life throw a bit of shadow on her intellectual triumphs. This is not to suggest that Rand's achievements come close to Jefferson's. But, like Rand, his lifestyle contradicted his life's major achievement: the Author of The Declaration of Independence was a slaveholder.

In Rand's case, the champion of individualism surrounded herself with a "Collective" of yes-men (and -women) that systematically excluded anyone who didn't toe the line on matters of philosophy, religion, aesthetics, and even cigarette smoking. Incredibly, this champion of "independent judgement based on facts" would actually forbid her followers from reading things written by people she deemed "evil."

But, just as a tribute to Jefferson might not dwell on slavery at Monticello or mention Sally Hemmings, this love letter to Ayn doesn't explore her problematic social life or her peculiar band of followers. But I still think this documentary earned its accolades from the film industry. Ayn Rand probably would have approved of the film herself.

This film led me to start reading Jane Austen, thanks to an accident of late night TV programming. A local station was showing this film in the wee hours, and my VCR cut off the last 5 minutes or so. The rest of the film thoroughly captivated me, despite some obvious Hollywood-isms. I watched my truncated copy several times, since I couldn't find a rental copy. But I wanted to know how things turned out, so I ended up reading the book. Definitely the right move!

Words can not contain the horror and disgust I felt when, months later, I *finally* saw those final 5 minutes! Trite, saccharine, yecch!

If you are stuck watching this film, let me warn you that it's much easier to take if you sneak out right after Lady Catherine reads Elizabeth the riot act at the end. At all costs, avoid Darcy's subsequent talk with Lady Catherine! The work of a Hollywood hack.

Trust me. They All Live Happily Ever After. You don't want to see exactly *how* Hollywood tries to bring this about in a truly ham-handed fashion.