Pride and Prejudice movie characters, part 8

Mr.  Collins

I thought picking our favorite Mr. Collins would prove to be challenging. Each depiction of him on the screen has its own appeal, and each is done to the same level of excellence. Does that speak to the human condition - that we can so easily portray a foolish man and can do it well? - maybe. We, however, will not become philosophical at this point, although the women may rightly gloat that men seem to have an easier time of it, considering how so few women captured Lady Catherine’s nonsensicalness very well ... but seriously, Mr. Collins is such an important part of the story no adaptation that I’m familiar with leaves him out. The difficulty in choosing vanished when I started looking at those who played him from how the book describes him.

I don’t know if Miss Austen did this in coming up with Mr. Collins, but he seems to have the opposite qualities of several of the main characters:

• Mr. Darcy: never gives himself the trouble of trying to be pleasing to anyone.
• Elizabeth: sensible, unimpressed by wealth, and definitely not a flatterer.
• Jane: sincerely possesses what would be termed Godly qualities, or as Lizzy says ‘she is really angelic’.

Jane Austen describes Mr. Collins in her book as follows:

He “was not a sensible man . . . A fortunate chance had recommended him to Lady Catherine de Bourgh when the living of Hunsford was vacant; and the respect which he felt for her high rank and his veneration for her as his patroness, mingling with a very good opinion of himself, of his authority as a clergyman, and his rights as a rector, made him altogether a mixture of pride and obsequiousness, self-importance and humility.”

Basing our list, then, on that description of him and not on the acting ability of the men who play the role as Mr. Collins, I have arranged them in the order that I believe most closely resembles him.

#4 -- 2005 - Tom Hollander- Hollander least portrays that sense of obsequiousness coupled with self importance. He is more sheepish and shy than Mr. Collins should be. This portrayal of Mr. Collins being so far off is in keeping with the fact that this is one of the worst P&Ps made, considering the big name actors it has in it. The gentility of what Austen conveyed is all gone from it and it has more the look and feel of Charles Dickens’ description of the London underbelly.

#3 -2004 Bride and Prejudice-- Nitin Ganatra - Ganatra brings that feel of self-importance and self-assuredness, in particular the idea that he is a real ‘catch’ and any lady is his for the asking. The missing ingredient, though, is that he really has no Lady Catherine to be attentive to in an ingratiating or servile manner and with that component gone, you really don’t have Mr. Collins. He is, nevertheless, one of our favorites, for who else could inspire such a song as “no life...without wife”?

#2-1980 -  Malcolm Rennie - Rennie handles the part very well and fits the physical description better than any of the others, because Mr. Collins is said to be tall and heavy and a great walker. Also, we see he can’t wait to utter some complement to whoever for whatever, so he is quite good as Mr. Collins. If the rest of the cast had been as well chosen, this would easily be my favorite portrayal of P&P.

 


There is a tie for the number one spot:

#1-1940 - Melville Cooper - His proposal to Elizabeth is by far the funniest, and even though the movie is just under two hours long, compared to the two versions that are five hours long, he manages to capture the personality of Mr. Collins in his performance. He is my personal favorite, as is this version of P&P. Keeping the comedy and wit to the fore despite the radical changes made to the story is what makes me feel the same way from watching this movie as I do when reading the book.

#1-1995 - David Bamber - Bamber has the advantage of being in the best-made (meaning lighting, sets, etc) long-playing version of P&P. What I don’t like about it is that it is a more dramatic version, as they play down the comedy of the book, and Bamber fits into the overall feel of this version while also playing the part for some humor. So he does actually display every aspect of Mr. Collins as described in the book.

Melville Cooper

David Bamber

Movies -- why begin and not end?

Give me the ending
We recently watched a couple of movies that were a disappointing waste of time. Obviously, there are some people that will consider watching any TV or movie a waste of time, but all that aside, what made the ones we watched unsatisfying for us was the ending -- or lack of one.
Have you ever seen a movie that ends without bringing to a conclusion the various issues raised during the movie? Don’t get the idea that I’m talking about not having a happy-ever-after ending, because neither Romeo and Juliet nor Cyrano de Bergerac do, but they are both movies worth watching, and both give the viewer the satisfaction of closure. We want to know what happens to these people we've just spent time with, whose lives we have been caught up in for a couple of hours.

You might as well start watching a game -- pick any sport you want -- and then not be able to see the finish, just be left hanging. Who would keep watching sports if that's all you got? What kind of entertainment is that?
It is primarily so-called romance movies that end without really ending, apparently for some claim to realism. I would argue if that is the case, then why have a beginning of the story? Since the movie-makers are not going to give us an ending, or lamely say the ending is up to the viewer, then why not just give us a title and let the viewers come up with our own beginning and ending? These artsy movies, (if that is what they are called) are a bad use of the word art. Movies that end this way in the end are unfulfilling, anti-climactic, and downright frustrating, no matter how good the rest of the movie is. 

By the way, I'd say the same thing about a book, because some of those kinds of movies are based on a book. Come on, you guys, give us the ending.

Great movies:
Romeo and Juliet 1968
Cyrano de Bergerac 1950

Pride and Prejudice movies, part 7

Bride and Prejudice, 2004

No, that's not a typo... we're talking about Bride and Prejudice. For those of you who are fans of good music, you won’t want to miss this Bollywood version of Pride and Prejudice, with Aishwarya Rai and Martin Henderson in the leading roles. If you don’t get up and dance at least once during this movie, someone has removed your music bone -- or is it the rhythm bone? Well, whichever it is, this is a fun movie to watch and compare with the beloved P&P.

It is set in modern times, with the Bennet family replaced as the Bakshi family in India. This, of course, means the names of several characters involved in the story have likewise changed: Elizabeth is Lalita Bakshi, Jane is Jaya Bakshi, and Mary is Maya, Lydia is Lakhi and there’s no Kitty in this one. Mr. Bingley is now Balraj, Caroline is Kiran, Mr. Collins is Mr. Kohli, Charlotte is Chandra... and what do we call Mr.Darcy? Why, Mr. Darcy, of course!

Lalita is every bit the witty Miss Lizzy Bennet, and William Darcy is an American hotel tycoon, if that word is still used for rich guys. Why make Darcy an American is a bit of a puzzle, unless they wanted to give the film a real international flair, which was also accomplished by having the movie shot on location in India, England, and the United States.

Aside from the music, which in my opinion is the best part, the transformation in the setting works well. And all the actors are perfect for their roles, with beautiful girls and handsome guys. They’ve done an excellent job modernizing the story too, making it one that P&P enthusiasts will want to own so they can watch it often.

Watch the clip, but note: This trailer has the song “You Make Me Feel Like Dancing”, which is not in the movie, and also says “featuring music by Ashanti”, but there’s only one song and dance scene with her in it.... we aren’t fond of that particular scene, but some will be.

More links:
IMDb page
Bollywood's Pride & Prejudice Extravaganza!

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Get your free Amazon Kindle apps

Pride and Prejudice movies, part 5

The little known 1967 version

The Bible says “pride is before a crash”, and as proof of the truthfulness of this inspired saying, I submit myself. 
☺☺
I have proudly declared knowing about every English production of P&P, and lo and behold, here is one I never knew about! In my defense, though, there seems to be no way of seeing this entire movie. There are only bits of it on YouTube, and those are of very poor quality. Nevertheless, as we are writing about the various adaptations here on our blog, it would be remiss of me not to mention this one. (Sorry it is out of date order, but we just found it) From the segments I have seen, I can say they seem to go along by the book for awhile very nicely, and then all of sudden they change things drastically. To read more about this version, check Movies MSN.

And so, like Elizabeth, who fancied herself safe in her assertions about Mr. Darcy, only to have to take it all back when she realized she was wrong... well, here I am, having to do the same about my knowledge of English-speaking P&P versions. With confidence I will quote any thought from the Bible, such as the one above**, as being absolutely true. And now as someone who loves to read - and I should say, watch - all things Jane Austen, I can also say Pride comes before Prejudice.

 

**Proverbs 16:1

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Get your free Amazon Kindle apps

Pride and Prejudice movies, part 4

Our last post on P&P movies was on the 1995 mini-series, thought of by many as the quintessential version. Both of us really like this set and have watched it many times. And as previously noted, Noe will be doing future posts that get into detail about characters and persons who played each part, as well as favorite scenes and that sort of thing.

But we recently found this interview from 2006 to be very entertaining. Some of the cast and crew members are looking back at the success of their movie, and give us insight into a lot of things about it. For instance, did you know the scene at the beginning, when the Bennets are coming home from church, was shot much later, after the cast had gotten to know each other a lot better? No wonder that's such a nice "family" scene -- they really had become like a family by then. It wasn't necessarily planned that way, but that's how it happened. I just love that kind of trivia.

Sadly, the whole cast was not in this; as a matter of fact, I'm still looking for interviews with Jennifer Ehle or Colin Firth about this movie. But this has Mr. Bennet (Benjamin Whitrow), Mrs. Bennet (Alison Steadman), Mary Bennet (Lucy Briers), Mr. Bingley (Crispin Bonham-Carter), Mr. Collins (David Bamber), and Mr. Wickham (Adrian Lukis) along with Sue Birtwistle (Producer) and Carl Davis (Composer).

I'm sure you'll enjoy it:

Thank you for reading what noeandcindy.write !

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Get your free Amazon Kindle apps

Pride and Prejudice movies, part 3

1995 BBC, A&E version

Mr. & Mrs. Bennet and their five daughters

This is actually a six-episode BBC production television drama which aired in 1995 in Britain and then aired on A&E Network as a mini-series in early 1996. Starring Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, this version is considered by many as the quintessential adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. For instance, when Masterpiece Classic was remaking Austen’s other works from 2007-2009 -- Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, Northanger, and Mansfield Park -- they did not see fit to remake P&P, but chose simply to air this version.

To be sure, more was done in the production of it: instead of having sets as was done in the 1980 version, it was shot on location, and there are many beautiful country scenes and exquisite homes to see. This always lends a sense of class to any movie. The lighting and editing is also much better than its 1980 predecessor (and other things that I’m sure have names for them if you’re in the movie-making business, but for those of us who aren’t, we just say it looks a whole lot better).

For me, though, the more often I have seen this one, the more fault I find in it. In my opinion, this version doesn’t get good until Episode 4, which takes up after Mr. Darcy has proposed to Elizabeth. When I get to particulars of characters and scenes on our future posts, I will be specific as to what I think should have been done differently.

That being said, it is nonetheless five hours of Pride and Prejudice, and that alone is reason enough to see it! If you are not smitten with the brilliance of Jane Austen, you may well consider that a reason not to watch it, in which case you’re not reading this post anyway.

But for the rest of us, even that short amount of time just isn’t enough . . . which is why we are glad there are other adaptations, and why we own all of them we can, so we are able to watch them again and again.

Links to PBS on the movies mentioned:
Emma
Mansfield Park
Sense & Sensibility
Northanger Abbey
Persuasion
Pride & Prejudice

Other links in the post:
BBC production television drama
IMDb: Colin Firth
IMDb: Jennifer Ehle
Amazon instant video: the third episode

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Pride and Prejudice movies, part 2

1980 BBC Version (265 min)
2013 = 200 years of Pride & Prejudice

Listed on IMDb as a TV mini-series, this five-part version of Pride & Prejudice stars Elizabeth Garvie as Eliza Bennet and David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy. Our first impression of this version left something to be desired. It seems poetic, then, that upon closer examination it improved -- or more accurately said, the more often I have seen it, the more I have come to enjoy watching this one. 

You might wonder, though, why we would bother to see it again if we didn’t think so much of it the first time. Well, we all know about First Impressions! And Cindy and I have often found that seeing movies a second time has changed our initial impression, and that certainly happened for me with this version.

There are many things to separate this adaptation from the others, some being things that would recommend it, others would be up to the individual. First thing you notice is the look: it has the appearance of a live performance, except for the outside scenes (why there’s a difference, I don’t know, but it’s definitely noticeable). And the acting has that sense of a live theater production, that sort of tone and cadence associated with a play. So for those who like the idea of P&P done in that manner, this will be appealing; for others it might come across as cheaply done, although the sets and costumes are nice.

Here are some aspects of this version that separate it from the others and make it worth watching:

It has more scenes taken from Jane Austen’s book than any of the others. For example: the day after Lizzy was slighted by Darcy about only being tolerable and not handsome enough to dance with, all the girls, including Charlotte Lucas, are talking about it at the Bennet home, and it’s enjoyable to see that conversation. Another I like is when Charlotte asks Lizzy to play the piano, and Darcy hears her play and sing for the first time. There are many other such scenes that give viewers who have not read the book a more complete picture of this treasured novel.

Something else that is very charming is the interaction between all the Bennet sisters in various settings, which one would expect from a family of five girls not greatly separated in age. Things like having a mother whose sole purpose is to get all five girls married, and of course, their love of balls. This really highlights what living at that time in a close-knit family must have been like. And we should mention, all the actresses are cute, as all the Bennet girls are reputed to be.

Hence, if you haven’t seen this one, I recommend you give it a good look.

 

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Get your free Amazon Kindle apps

Let's talk about Pride and Prejudice movies

This being the 200 year anniversary of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, we will be joining in the conversations about this great book and some of the movies that have been made of it. We have scheduled a systematic approach, beginning with discussing the movies in general, one at a time. After that, the posts will take a look at the individual characters of the book, which actor played them, and our opinion of how good the portrayal was. We will also take a look at various scenes from the movies in comparison to how the scene is portrayed in the book.

We have chosen to start with the 1940 movie version, starring Greer Garson as Elizabeth and Laurence Olivier as Darcy. Now, when deciding to write about the movies, we determined not to rate them from best to worst. The reason for that is, we think there are major flaws in all of them, except this one! Yes, this version deviates wildly from the book, and there are probably only four scenes in the movie that are actually from the book... so maybe that is a flaw -- LOL

But what we love about this movie is that it actually captures the feel of the book better than the others do. Lizzy is funny and independent, the acting is strong from all the players, the costumes are wonderful, and most of all -- yes I know I’m repeating myself -- this movie has that light-hearted sense of humor that the book has.

P&P is certainly not written like a drama, even though it has the stuff of drama: broken hearts, ruined reputations, slander. But this is the genius of Jane Austen in her book, Pride and Prejudice. She sees the sense of humor in life’s episodes, and by means of Mr. Bennet’s sarcastic humor and Lizzy’s clever wit (not to mention Mrs. Bennet’s silliness), Ms. Austen keeps P&P from having the same dramatic feel as her books Persuasion or Sense and Sensibility.

I don’t think the term dramady quite fits it, because that word suggests more drama than comedy. I would suggest a whole new word: comed-ra, or for those who like bigger words, comdramady. Whatever it’s called, it is our opinion that this version is more true to the spirit of the book.

Cindy's note: Here’s a scene that not only shows a wild deviation from the book, but at the same time captures the light-heartedness of this version. I wish I could have gotten the whole scene that comes before this part, but maybe you can watch the whole movie sometime. By the way, we did see the colorized version of this once, and it's really beautiful. Just never have been able to find it to buy.

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Get your free Amazon Kindle apps

200 years of Pride & Prejudice!

Two hundred years of Pride and Prejudice, and with all the blogging going on about it, this is one discussion we definitely want to be a part of!

I will begin by relating how I was introduced to this story. One night more than twenty years ago, I came home late from work.  Cindy and our son were asleep, but I was too wound up to go straight to bed, so I turned the TV on and started watching a movie. I didn’t even know the name of it, but recognized Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. The movie immediately grabbed my full attention, because it was really funny! I came in around the middle of it - I say middle meaning somewhere after the beginning - and can point out the exact scene:  it’s the part with the bulldog puppies.

Anyway, I finally found out the name of the movie on one of the commercial breaks -- Pride & Prejudice. At the time, I had no idea there was a book by that name, and with head held low, I must admit I had never even heard of Jane Austen. But I loved this movie and had to go rent it asap so I could see the whole thing and share it with Cindy, after which I quickly bought it. It was VHS; there were no DVDs back then... as a matter of fact, we had just recently purchased our first VCR and entered the world of watching what-you-like when-you-like at home!

This was my introduction to one of the greatest love stories ever told.

Although it has been many years now, I have made it a practice to read P&P once a year. Each time the dialogue sounds fresh, and of course, funny. Even though I know the story so well, I find myself swept along, feeling all the emotion I did the first time I read it. Despite the fact that some guys would laugh at that, I think most who kid their wives about “chic-flicks” really enjoy them as much as the women in their lives do. I mean, there are plenty of “real men” involved in the making of these films.

For the two hundred year anniversary of P&P, we will be blogging about the movies, characters and so on. We look forward to sharing our thoughts about what we like and don’t like about the different movie versions -- there are many, you know. And we will consider each character and who we think plays the part best.

Even though we take our Jane Austen quite seriously around here, it should be great fun. Please join us and leave comments whenever you feel like it.

https://www.amazon.com/author/noeandcindy.write

Get your free Amazon Kindle apps