Thursday, January 19, 2006

Is There Anyone Out There Who...

The time: 5:15 Matinee
The place: Any local small theatre
The movie: Pride & Prejudice (yes, yes, the new one)
The review: Well, see, there's the tough part. Is there anyone out there who has seen this movie and relishes its swift but bracing beauty? Granted, it is much shorter than the A&E version, thus less dense - but, shouldn't we try to see if it can stand on its own two feet? I admit I was critical at first, and spent much of the movie trying to sift through some 'Americanisations' (quick scene changes, short dialogue, earthy qualities/characters)to discover its heart, and I found it to be quite genuine. What I thought at first to be simply bad acting was really certain characters fighting their own social awkwardness - a thing rarely done well in Hollywood. In a world where everybody knows exactly what to say when, this movie gets under the skin of real life, where we feel most the burden and the blessing of trying to find and say the right words at the right time (ei. see Darcy). Therein lies the chief romance. As for the character of Elizabeth (scathing remarks of Kiera Knightly aside), I did appreciate her liveliness and quick spirit, even if it was a bit girlish. We often imagine a 'mature' Elizabeth who is somehow above most of her peers, but in this character we are able to see the shock with which she realizes the error of her own assumptions as well as the growth that takes place afterwards. The discussion she has with her father after Darcy's proposal is especially touching - and more than just sentimental. There is a point where one feels tempted to reach out and grasp the beauty there. Is there such a thing as earthy sublimity? That is, at least, what seemed to be present. Overall, I must say I liked the movie very much, and even more the second time, but for different reasons than the 6-hour masterpiece. Yes, in this version the characters were rough-hewn, weak-tongued, and short-lived - but aren't we all in some way or another?

2 Comments:

At 1/23/2006 7:00 AM, Blogger lord_sebastian_flyte said...

I dunno, I just thought that it was anachronistic all the way around--not just cinematographically or nationally. The moral tone of the whole thing was just so different, I thought, than that of Georgian England. It seemed that they drug the characters through the muck morally as well as physically, because it's just so hard these days to imagine a likeable character that has good manners. You know? It's the same thing they did with Faramir in the LOTR. They felt they had to lower him morally in order to make him believable. Striving for virtue is just not as popular today as striving for independence and personal expression and emotional honesty. What do you think?

 
At 1/23/2006 9:07 AM, Blogger M' Lady's Topsail said...

Yes, that's true...There did seem to be a general 'dumbing down' of character, not just characters, in the movie. I will confess that it was more sensual than the A&E version - and sensual sells, but the sensuality was of a tone more Keatsian than Byronic, if I may be allowed to say so (though I'm not sure it justifies the liberties taken). I guess maybe I had him in mind when I wrote "earthy sublimity".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home