Jane Austen is spinning in her grave

This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever
filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name
be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of
the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam
Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain.
This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers
who hoped it would do justice to the novel.

There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In
the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined
dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and
Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The
gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn
dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the
period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their
hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the
Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet
requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early
morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy
(sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This
is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or
gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek
to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour.

But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's
dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no
assistance from a writer who thinks he/she can write like Austen. The
writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also
has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is
jarring.

As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench (Lady Catherine), who
clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn
takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's
portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald
Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he
portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a
father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy
is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira
Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far
too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her
portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and
conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the
novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the
behavior of women of the period.

If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This
film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about
the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better
appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma
Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future
to erase this abomination from our minds.

The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many
pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as
Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and
pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to
watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer
Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version
from their minds.

Overall a poorly made adaptation that would have better stayed in the
camera rather than on film, avoid it, oh you Austeners