Pride & Prejudice

The 2005 film Pride & Prejudice offered several deftly executed cinematic tricks that link thematically to the main subject of the film. In one scene, Elizabeth Bennett, who has just rejected the proposal of the foppish minister Mr. Collins, is sitting in a swing that hangs in an open walkway that passes under a barn or shed. She twirls pensively in the swing, and each time her gaze passes through one end or the other of the hallway, the outdoor scene changes--different people walk by, the seasons change. For me this device signifies the passage of time and its significance for Elizabeth, who has just rejected a marriage proposal that would have brought financial security to her and her family.

In another scene, Elizabeth has just argued with Mr. Darcy, who had come to declare his love. Before leaving, he promises never to press her again about the issue. In the next few brief scenes--in her bedroom, walking down a hallway, standing in one of the rooms of her house, it is clear she is in despair. She walks over to a mirror hanging on the wall and stares into it. The scene suggests she is transfixed in some way by her own reflection, but as she stands there, day transitions into night, and the very look of her face seems to change. This is an unrealistic scene in that it's unlikely she would stand there before the mirror in a catatonic state for long hours as she seems to do her, but as a visual figure of her state of mind, it works.

Once again the scene signifies time passing, specifically pertinent to the second marriage proposal that Elisabeth has, in effect, rejected. Time is passing her by. She has rejected the suitor she really does love, and she knows that time is closing in on her, she is growing older, she will lose her beauty, and the prospects of another marriage proposal will grow increasingly dim. And she will also spend the endless passage of days without the man whom she loves.

Other devices of sight and of seeing in the film align with the issue of misjudged or misperceived characters. At key moments Elizabeth peers through some small object made of cut glass, and her resulting view of people and nearby surroundings is unfocused, distorted. In several scenes she looks through windows or doorways--openings into another world, another reality, which is denied her because of choices she has made.

Misjudgment of character is a central theme of the film. So too are the marriage prospects of the five Bennett sisters—always one of the important concerns in Austen’s gentle domestic comedies. Modern renditions of Austen’s novels have given this theme a darker tone than perhaps Austen would have been comfortable with—marriage or spinsterhood in Austen’s world was the only possible future for a young woman. For Austen this was a practical problem to be solved. In our time, we naturally are inclined to view through a feminist lens the prospects of the Bennett sisters, and of their parents who wish to see their daughters well married and provided for.

I do not remember the novel Pride and Prejudice well enough to judge this film by comparison. It's likely the plot and the characterizations have been simplified, but what little I know of Austen suggests to me that the film is true to the spirit of her novel. Although a number of concessions to modernity are made--no portraits of young woman in the 18th century look quite so beautiful as four of the five Bennett sisters in the film--the film does not make the mistake that the 1999 version of Mansfield Park made in its sweeping modernization of the plot and characters--at times it was as if characters from the late 20th century were running around in period costumes. For me Mansfield Park was profoundly unsuccessful in its pandering to modern audiences. To me Pride & Prejudice compares well to the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility and the 1996 film Emma. The director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach are relatively faithful to the plot and characters of Jane Austen, and to the social sensibility of the times. Combined with the excellent acting in all these films, the result is a adaptation of Jane Austen that is probably fairly true to the intentions of the novel. But I would have to read the novel again to be sure. A film's fidelity to its literary source is not an important issue to me--a film must be successful on its own terms. But I do think films should be faithful to the historical realities of the periods about which they are made, and the 2005 Pride and Prejudice succeeds in that regard.

There are reservations: cinematography and set design in the film often seem claustrophobic. Maybe this is an intentional way of suggesting the limited circumstances of the Bennett family—five daughters, parents, and servants in a small country cottage would make for cramped surroundings. But there are some wide shots that seem claustrophobic as well. Some parts of the film are artificial and strained, where family joviality and overflowing sisterly affection seem forced and not credible.

A couple of scenes show too obviously the presence of digital effects—in particular a scene where Elizabeth stands on the precipice of a cliff, apparently thinking with regret of Mr. Darcy (perhaps this scene occurs in her dream, which could explain the stylized effect), and several distant shots of the Bennett cottage and Mr. Darcy’s Blenheim Castle-sized mansion. As is sometimes the case in these films focused on costume and historical period, we linger overlong on the splendor of Mr. Darcy’s palatial mansion.

Finally, maybe it is my 2006 jaded sensibility, but Elizabeth’s attitude towards Mr. Darcy seems to undergo its most thorough transformation while she is visiting his home for the first time. It is almost as if the wealth and beauty she encounters there alter her feelings—not, I think, what Austen would have intended.

All things considered, however, the film is successful and highly entertaining, and the acting by Keira Knightley, Donald Sutherland, and Brenda Blethyn is excellent.