It’s a big year this year. An anniversary, in fact: Pride and Prejudice turns 20.
I’ve watched Joe Wright's film from 2005 a good 20 times, maybe more. It’s all English country side beauty, exquisite romance, noughties drama of will they? Won’t they?? and lovely music. Lovely really is the word for this film.
Jane Austen wrote a satire of the marriage mart and the English aristocracy and Joe Wright chose to interpret it, not as a comedy, but as a story of love and fate. It’s not, I believe, what Jane Austen had imagined, rather it’s a time capsel of 2005 and I, for one, do not want to be without the original script nor the movie. They are perfect in their own respective way.
Let’s dig in to what I think makes the film so shimmeringly, heart-wrenchingly glorious.
The family
We see the family dynamic in the very first scene, when Mrs Bennet is asking her husband if he has heard that Netherfield park, at last, is let. Does he not wish to know who has taken it? Mr Bennet answers that he doubts he has a choice in the matter, as his wife wants to tell him.
(Without knowing much about it, I want to believe Jane Austen had a very warm relation to her father, based on how she wrote Mr Bennet and the father in her Emma, Mr Woodhouse. Emma is arguably my favorite novel by Austen by the way.)
The younger sisters Lydia and Kitty are eavesdropping, and when Elizabeth sees it she tells them not to, for the sake of it, but immediately joins them. As does Jane, the eldest and most beautiful, while serious, unfunny Mary sits at the piano, oblivious to the whole thing. The family is presented in one gossipy, piano-y, beautiful swoop. And while Lizzy is having av arch of development throughout the movie, every other Bennet stays exactly the same. Easy, very 2005: No need for big, contradicting personalities in anyone but the heroine.
The set, the light
You could pause at any given moment and end up with a an artwork worth printing. The camera work is chef’s kiss, and so are the settings. The imperfections of the Bennet house, with the paintings hanging askew. The perfect light by the lake when Lizzy is told by her father she does not have to marry the horrid Mr Collins, and when Mr Bingley is rehearsing his proposal to Jane with Mr Darcy. The thunderous darkness when Elizabeth confronts Mr Darcy about his meddling. The light as he later comes walking over the field at dawn.
I imagine it must have been a nuisance, timing the sun perfectly for so many of the scenes but man oh man, what a beautiful film it made.
The music
It’s just magical. No notes.
The costumes
Jacqueline Durran received her first Academy Award nomination for her costumes for Pride and Prejudice. It’s hard to say, based only on the costumes, when the film is supposed to be set. Though the book was published in 1813, Austen wrote it in 1796-1797 (a reminder, if any, not to discard our yet to the published ideas and manuscripts…) and I feel like Wright, the director, and Durran wanted it to unfold somewhere in between, with the result being quite…patchy? My love for this film smoothes this over, however, with a romanticized view on the very 2005 way of doing the costumes.
That is not to say the costumes are without though behind them: Cuts and colors are used to showcase personality, depth and forward (or backward…) spirit. Lizzy, for example, often wear browns and neutrals, to show her oneness with nature and her intellect – she is above fashion, just like every noughties main character should be. Even when she dresses for the ball, it is Jane who does her hair while Elizabeth looks a bit bored, playing with a feather.
Jane is dressed in pastels, blues and pinks, to show her femininity, soft personality and obvious beauty. Mrs Bennet is mostly wearing older fashions, those worn in late 18th century, and Kitty and Lydia is wearing their hair in ringlets to further amplify their youth.
Historical accuracy is not a thing in this movie – the movie is more a time capsel of 2005 than anything. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s the VIBE that counts. See the vibe, not the clothes. (If you want perfect costumes, watch Emma from 2020.)
Honorable mention to this shoot with Rosamund Pike from 2004. It’s VIBEY. Brb just adding these to my Q2 mood board.
Rosamund Pike by Rachel Lum, 2004.
THE stutter
You have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love – I love – I love you. I never want to be parted from you from this day on.
Well, then.
The stutter is not in the book. The proposal in the novel is much more pragmatic, very stoic and, well, British. But when Mr Darcy comes walking over the field at dawn, almost distraught with hope and yearning, and almost given up –
It’s perfection.
I could go on and on but I won’t as I’m not a film critic – I just LOVE this movie. I can’t wait for this film to be back in cinemas for it’s 20th anniversary. I might just go to every screening.
Happy Easter! Here are three witchy reads if you lean more towards goth than regency romance.
HOW TO BE A GOTH by Tish Weinstock
On my TBR list since it was published. Have yet to read it, but am sure will LOVE it. The subtitle is Notes on Undead style – perfect for Easter, no?
GOOD OMENS by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett
A twisted story and a good laugh. This novel is something of an contemporary fantasy equivalent to A Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy.
HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL COVEN by Juno Dawson
Currently reading and enjoying. Not sure I like the ending (read the last page already…) and I’m not a big fan of the language or the generous sprinkle of Spice Girls, but it’s easily digestible and honestly, isn’t Easter all about the easy digestibles? (Well, no, Easter is by definition about painful death and the miraculous resurrection, but you know… Also candy and bunnies.)