Jane Austen Pt 3: 1995 or 2005?

     Today, instead of discussing a Jane Austen “mystery,” I will discuss the two screen versions of Pride and Prejudice and show you which I believe is better. Before I start, though, I want to make a point of saying that I have watched both of the popular versions and have read the book twice.   

     Based on these three things (as well as conversations with friends) I am firm in my opinion. The 1995 version, starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, is better than the 2005 version. I even conducted a survey and found that roughly 70% of people I asked like the TV series better. I will explain why I have come to that conclusion.   

     First of all, I believe that the 1995 TV show is much closer to the actual book than the 2005 version. The 1995 version sticks with the original time period (1813) while the newer movie is set in the 1790s. This newer version also cut out quite a few characters that, while not affecting the plot, give Austen’s world more of a “peopled” feel. A few of these characters include Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, Maria Lucas and the Philipses. 

     Another reason I don’t find the 2005 movie as close to the book as the other one is that many of the problems introduced in the book—including one of the love interests' disappearance—take months and months to solve, while in the movie, it seems to take a couple of weeks. In general, the movie is quick to solve problems that are introduced, taking away from the suspense that one feels when reading the book. In contrast, the 1995 version’s six episodes give plenty of time for suspense to build and details to be explained. 

     Secondly, the dialogue is drastically changed in the Hollywood movie, reducing Austen’s witty characters to modern-English speakers. The main problem with this is that in Austen’s novels, she very rarely describes physical appearances. Instead, each character’s unique dialogue is her description of them. When the 2005 version changed the characters’ dialogue, they subsequently changed her characters. The plot might be the same, but it is essentially no longer Austen’s work. This changing of the dialogue was done for the sake of modern audiences who, it is true, may not understand Austen’s dialogue very well. While simple dialogue may be easier to understand, it does not mean that it is best. In this case, I certainly believe it is not. In contrast, the TV show uses Austen’s dialogue, sometimes to the letter. Admittedly, while this is more difficult to understand, it forces you to pay more attention in order to understand what is going on. In my opinion, you appreciate Jane Austen more in the end because of the time you have given her. Things that we work for always mean more than things that are given. 

     Even the actors in the TV show agreed that the dialogue was difficult, but in the end, they appreciated it. Jennifer Ehle, the actress who portrayed Elizabeth Bennet said, “It’s the hardest dialogue I’ve ever had to learn. Shakespeare is (easy) compared to Jane Austen…(but) it’s like anything—by the end I found it much easier to learn. It’s like learning another language.” Alison Steadman, the actress who plays Mrs. Bennet, explained that, “I found the language very difficult…(but) you get into the rhythm of it and the speech patterns suddenly all begin to make sense.” When they had finally nailed the dialogue down, they likely appreciated it for all the work it took to get it right. 

     Thirdly, Jennifer Ehle plays Elizabeth Bennet much more accurately than Keira Knightley. Keira’s portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet was much the same as her portrayal of Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean. She is a feisty, spirited Miss Bennet, one who refuses to marry anyone who will take control of her life. She plays a rather immature Elizabeth as well, one who giggles her way around ballrooms, joking with her friend Charlotte Lucas and getting in fights with her parents and even yelling at her mother. Jennifer Ehle, on the other hand, plays a headstrong but very sweet girl who respects her father and mother and is composed and lady-like. While some of her words certainly say a lot, they are always politely spoken. (The true British way things were handled during the early 1800s.) She does not look like she is about to throw a fit or burst into tears.

     Fourthly, I found the 2005 version very hard to follow. The movie was very quick to introduce and resolve problems. Sometimes things barely even had an introduction. For example, Lydia Bennet elopes with Mr. Wickham without so much as a forewarning. In the TV show, this is foreshadowed, with Mr. Wickham making constant appearances with the Bennet girls, hanging around and flirting with Lydia. In the movie version, he barely even appears once—and then suddenly they’ve eloped. How, you wonder, did that happen? In my previously mentioned survey, 75% of the responders thought that the 1995 version was easier to follow. I agree. Even though I had read the book twice and watched the TV show three times, when I watched the movie I sometimes found myself wondering, “What just happened? Did I miss something?”

     Lastly, the 2005 version is much more romantic than the 1995 version. Mr. Darcy’s first proposal is given in the pouring rain outside of an elegant gazebo, instead of in a room like the book implies. His second proposal is given just at sunrise when he meets Elizabeth out walking. The music too, by Dario Marianelli, is emotional and sweeping. This is the same composer who did the music for the romantic, passionate movie Jane Eyre (2011). On the other hand, in the TV show, the composer, Carl Davis, created a score with piano and minimal strings carrying the melody. It creates a much more classical feel, suiting the time period of the novel. 

     While I see nothing wrong with a (clean) romantic movie (I very much enjoyed the above mentioned Jane Eyre) I believe in sticking with the book. Joseph Wright, the director of the Pride and Prejudice movie, did not stick with the book. While Jane Austen’s work is a romance, it is not a passionate book, filled with extremely emotional scenes. Joseph Wright took liberties with Pride and Prejudice, turning it into this kind of movie. 

     While I am not here to prove which style of romance in general is better—the more detached, mind-focused love or the more passionate, heart-focused love—I am here to try to prove which version of Pride and Prejudice is better. And, because the BBC TV show is more detached  (like the book), withholding from manipulating emotions, I believe it’s the better version. Its purpose was not to modernize Austen’s story and appeal to American audiences but to create a realistic portrayal of the much-loved novel. 

     Even though I know a couple of people that I highly respect who like the movie version better, I have come to my own opinion. Even if it is an unpopular opinion, I am unmoved.

Bibliography

Birtwhistle, Sue and Conklin, Susie. The Making of Pride and Prejudice. London: Penguin Books/ BBC Books, 1995. Print.

Bruce, Amanda. “The 2005 Pride and Prejudice Movie's Biggest Differences From The Book.” screenrant.com. ScreenRant, 1 Aug 2023. Web. 25 March 2024. 

Guram, Malika and Locke, Alexandra. “Pride & Prejudice 2005 vs. 1995: Which Version is Better?” cbr.com. CBR, 2 Feb 2024. Web. 25 March 2024.