?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Saw the movie version of Pride and Prejudice tonight. While… - Melodramatic, corsetted mistress of the obscure
December 2nd, 2005
09:52 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Saw the movie version of Pride and Prejudice tonight. While radcliffe is correct in that the story could be done by muppets and it would still be good, I don't think this version is going to replace the BBC version in my heart. Of course, the book is best, but as movies go.... ;)

I am SO much better at pointing out what I don't like than what I do, so bear with me. If I don't mention something, it's likely because I found it just fine. :D

The music was too loud - it drowned out the dialog at times. And since the dialog IS the story, that's unfortunate.

Many times, even without the music, it was difficult to understand what was said. I have gotten used to that in TV shows, but it's very distressing to find it in movies, now, too.

Let's not get me started on the costumes, k? Although I did find it amusing to see the older women in older styles since that WAS realistic. Keira's posture sucks, however. And the clothing they put her in was NOT flattering to her (not so lush) shape. Unfortunate, again.

The acting was great, however. Only once or twice did secondary characters make me go "um....".


But, but, but they left out the opening line! The oh-so-snarky one about it being common knowledge that a man of good fortune MUST be in want of a wife. I mean, that set the tone for the whole book and they left it out! Nothing else I considered 'necessary' was left out, however, so I suppose I forgive them. But, still..

(12 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:dragonet2
Date:December 3rd, 2005 04:12 am (UTC)

We saw the preview

(Link)
when Me, my sis and her best friend went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Her comment: I suspect the A&E version is way better.(she's the Owner of Brits, so she watches an incredible amount of British video...0

Someone in Making Light commented that the leading lady's costume had enough of a gap that you could drop a small mammal (squirrel) into it and make an improvement.
[User Picture]
From:solan_t
Date:December 3rd, 2005 06:13 am (UTC)

Re: We saw the preview

(Link)
I knew the 6 hour long BBC version would be better. Simply by dint of being longer, if nothing else. lol Not to mention, I consider it rather definitive. As I read the book, I could HEAR the BBC version characters saying the lines, it stayed so close to the book.

As for Keira's costume, ANYTHING added would have been an improvement. :p
[User Picture]
From:tessagratton
Date:December 3rd, 2005 03:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Natalie and I thought the whole costuming of older and younger ladies differently was awesome, too. One of our favorite details.

It was unfortunate they didn't put Kiera in some kind of empire corset thing. So she didn't just hang there.

Ah well.
[User Picture]
From:solan_t
Date:December 3rd, 2005 03:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I was all "Oooo, the grannies in the back have paniers!"
[User Picture]
From:radcliffe
Date:December 3rd, 2005 04:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, since this is in comments and therefor a cut tag...


I loved the fathers bit at the end, tears welling up in his eyes having to let Lizzie go. I always felt in the BBC version that he says the line lightly, and in this one the father really felt it. Totally got me.

And the romantic dance, I know that dance and have fallen madly in crush during it, too. Oh madly. I knew exactly the feeling of the rest of the room melting away, it is that type of dance. Total romantic moment, and sense memory combined. Aw yeah.

That made up for the thick makeup in the last scenes, the fact that you could see her cropped hair peeking from under her wigs, and a lot of other little details that only I would notice...
[User Picture]
From:solan_t
Date:December 3rd, 2005 05:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, I noticed her hair, too. ;) Stared at it for the whole time she had her back to the camera going, "no way. They didn't...."

Didn't notice the make-up so much though.

As for the father's last scene, yeah. That was good.
[User Picture]
From:tessagratton
Date:December 3rd, 2005 06:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I couldn't *believe* they left her hair out like that. It seems soooooooo bad. I did my best to pretend it was part of the wig so I wasn't distracted in every scene.
[User Picture]
From:themadblonde
Date:December 5th, 2005 05:24 pm (UTC)

costumer...

(Link)
or WHOEVER insisted that Ms K needed to be in some kind of drop waisted gown rather than following period fashion SHOULD BE SHOT.

person who adapted the book to dialogue (or what passes for it these days) should be drawn & quartered.

hair dresser or WHOEVER decided that ladies in the country must look dishevelled @ all times should be beaten to death w/ a comb & brush.

& whoever TOTALLY neglected to read the book & thought it would be cute to have the Bennets living in filth w/ pigs in the house & nothing to put on the table but potatoes should be buried alive under the complete works of Austin & Dickens.

But that's just MY opinion. ;-)
[User Picture]
From:solan_t
Date:December 5th, 2005 05:30 pm (UTC)

Re: costumer...

(Link)
Oh yeah on ALL those points. I was particularly shocked to see Lizzy go VISITING with her hair down, completely down. I mean, REALLY. It was indecent (according to the times)!
[User Picture]
From:themadblonde
Date:December 8th, 2005 03:22 pm (UTC)

Absolutely!

(Link)
& more than that- it was a PRIVILEDGE to wear your hair up, a sign that you were a woman, not a girl. It was a big deal when a young lady was first allowed to formally dress her hair. It showed that you were "out." A Regency young-lady of twenty would no more have gone out w/ her hair down than a modern woman would dress up in a child's pinafore & pigtails. Even less likely, actually. ;-)
[User Picture]
From:solan_t
Date:December 5th, 2005 05:37 pm (UTC)

Re: costumer...

(Link)
Come to think of it, there were times the ladies went outdoors WITHOUT HATS or bonnets. I am pretty sure that was still forbidden, too.
[User Picture]
From:themadblonde
Date:December 8th, 2005 10:49 pm (UTC)

even above fashion...

(Link)
there were extremely practical reasons for ALWAYS wearing a hat & gloves. A lady was judged by her complexion & delicate features. A tan meant that you spent too much time out of doors, & rough hands that you were working with your hands, both of which meant that you were NOT the best match because you were not wealthy enough for a carriage & servants to do your work for you. It also meant that you were coarse & careless. If you were tanned & your hands were brown & rough, it would MATERIALLY affect your ability to win a husband, which was pretty much the only career option open to women of that class @ that time.

It was also grating to see how many men & women were not wearing gloves @ the dances. Again, fashion aside, there were VERY PRACTICAL reasons for doing so, particularly for men. As you dance, your hands sweat. If you touched your partner w/ sweaty hands it would stain her gown. A lady would NOT wish to dance w/ a gentleman who would ruin her gown in such a way.
Powered by LiveJournal.com