In the past couple of weeks, we watched the lengthy BBC adaptation of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ with a friend and her young teenage daughter. They were interested to see the 2005 film version starring Keira Knightley, so we watched that with them a couple of days ago.
When we first saw it, just over ten years ago, it had been awhile since we had seen the BBC version and we thought the film well done, on the whole. This time it was impossible not to make comparisons. The story, set around the end of the 18th century, is well-known: Mr and Mrs Bennet have five daughters, and Mrs Bennet is keen to marry them off. She hopes that at least one of them will marry a wealthy man, because their family home is entailed; so when Mr Bennet dies, it will be inherited by his cousin Mr Collins.
Into the neighbourhood come the very rich Mr Bingley and his friend Mr Darcy. Mrs Bennet is delighted when Mr Bingley shows an immediate attraction to her eldest daughter Jane. However Mr Darcy is rather cold and proud, and comes into conflict with Elizabeth, the second daughter and most intelligent of the five. Elizabeth is her father’s obvious favourite; he considers his three younger daughters remarkably silly, even though Mary (the middle one) is ‘bookish’ and uninclined to the frivolities of her younger sisters Kitty and Lydia.
The budget for this film was clearly much higher than that of the BBC adaptation. The balls were lavish, the costumes gorgeous, the stately homes superb. The setting for the Bennets’ house seemed more realistic, too; it came across as rather smaller, not in a top neighbourhood. On the negative side, fitting into just over two hours rather than five and a half, a great deal had to be cut. If we hadn’t read the book or seen the other version, it would have been quite hard to follow the story at times.
We thought that Keira Knightley was well cast as Lizzie Bennet, as was Rosamunde Pike as Jane. The younger sisters had far less of a role in this adaptation than the BBC one, but they were also nicely done. Simon Woods as Mr Bingley was remarkably similar to the character in the BBC version, although he seemed younger and a bit over-enthusiastic at times. Matthew MacFadyen makes a good Mr Darcy, too, although we all agreed that he could not compare to Colin Firth’s portrayal.
We thought Mrs Bennet (Brenda Blethyn) was better acted and more realistic than her equivalent in the BBC version, although without the high drama and screeching she was less amusing. Unfortunately Mr Bennet (Donald Sutherland) was not at all well cast, in our opinions. He came across as very elderly, almost doddering, and there was very little humour in his ironical exchanges with Lizzie and others. He was probably the most disappointing character.
Mr Collins (Tom Hollander) is less horribly smarmy than his BBC equivalent; we thought him more realistic, perhaps, but less amusing. However we were very pleasantly surprised - I had totally forgotten - when Lady Catherine de Burgh appeared, brilliantly portrayed by Judi Dench. She seemed more realistically haughty and cold than the somewhat exaggerated BBC version - though, again, less amusing on the whole.
So it was an interesting experience; perhaps it’s unfair to make so many deliberate comparisons, as the film was an entirely different project, and had to catch the essence of the story while missing out some scenes (and characters) entirely.
However the one part we all agreed was clichéd and disappointing was the ending. Without giving spoilers, it includes soft sunlight, people going to meet each other outside in a scene which didn’t happen that way at all in the book, and a very awkward kissed hand, leading into the credits. No real ending, no weddings, and a sense that it had finished too abruptly.
Thus, despite some clear advantages in a couple of characters and the more lavish settings, we all agreed that the BBC version was far truer to the book, and more enjoyable to watch overall.
Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
We watched the gentle and moving film ‘Ladies in Lavender’ first in 2006, and remembered liking it, but not much more. So we watched it again last night.
Judi Dench and Maggie Smith star as the elderly sisters Ursula and Janet. Although they look quite different, they have excellent rapport, and it was easy to think of them as being related. Janet, the older sister, is sensible and practical, while Ursula is more dreamy and emotional.
Their ages were not given. The actresses are almost exactly the same age, and were approaching seventy when this film was made in 2004. Ursula could easily have passed for sixty-five, or even younger. But it didn’t much matter. The film is set in 1936, in a small fishing village in Cornwall; most of the inhabitants look fairly elderly.
The two women are spinsters who lost their father fairly recently. Janet, as we learn later in the film, had a love affair in her younger days but lost her young man in the war: presumably World War I. There are hints that another war is on the horizon, and there’s a great deal of suspicion about ‘foreigners’, particularly Germans.
Into Janet and Ursula’s peaceful lives come a young man, washed up on the shore. He is unconscious, but alive and they gradually nurse him as he recovers from a traumatic experience; again, no details are given but he was evidently in a shipwreck of some kind, presumed the only survivor. His name is Andrea, and he speaks no English at all. He is fluent in German but in fact is Polish.
Andrea recovers slowly and demonstrates an incredible talent for the violin. The story, such as it is, involves moving apart, taking risks, and some unrequited (and inappropriate) love. It’s rated 12 in the UK because of one instance of ‘strong’ language and minor violence in a scene involving a jealous villager. There’s some gentle humour, mostly involving the ladies’ maid-of-all-work Dorcas, but overall we thought it poignant, and beautifully done.
The DVD has an extra entitled ‘Soundbites’, which turned out to be brief comments from members of the cast and film crew interspersed with text. It was a bit distracting to watch, but we were interested in what the main three cast members said about each other and the filming.
We were startled to learn that Daniel Brühl, who plays Andrea, did not in fact play the violin nor speak Polish when he was given the role. He learned a little of each, and mimicked passionate violinists so well that we had no idea that someone else was playing the sound.
It's the kind of film that could easily have been based on a true story, but it wasn't. Instead, apparently it was based on a short story by William Locke, written in 1908.
It’s not particularly exciting, and there isn’t a great deal of plot; but we enjoyed seeing it again, and I look forward to seeing it in another ten years or so, by which time I shall be around the same age as Ursula and Janet…
Recommended in a low-key way.
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
It’s over twelve years since we watched the excellent BBC adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’. It’s a lengthy DVD, about five and a half hours in all, with six episodes. A friend and her teenage daughter had just read the book and asked if they could see this, so - over the course of three evenings - we watched it together.
Jennifer Ehle stars as the delightful Elizabeth Bennet, the most vivacious and intelligent of the five Bennet sisters. Jane, the eldest (Susannah Harker) is considered to be the most beautiful, but we all thought Lizzie to be considerably more appealing and attractive. We meet the family as the Mrs Bennet (brilliantly played by Alison Steadman) is in raptures at the thought of a young and wealthy man, Mr Bingley (Crispin Bonham-Carter) moving into the neighbourhood.
The story is well-known; Mr Bingley is ready to be friendly with everyone and to fall in love with Mary, but his friend Mr Darcy (Colin Firth) is arrogant, and professes his dislike of country balls and social expectations. Mrs Bennet is loud and emotional, changing her mind and preferences as circumstances alter. Her main aim in life is to see her daughters well-married, but this is for her own sake rather than theirs. She is shallow, unable to think beyond her own prejudices and ideas; a caricature, but in places a very amusing one.
I very much liked Mr Bennet (Benjamin Whitrow) who clearly regrets his marriage, but takes refuge in his study whenever he can. He is extremely fond of Lizzie, and also Mary, but does not enjoy the company of his three younger daughters. Mary, the middle one (Lucy Briars) is the academic, ‘bookish’ daughter, played also as a caricature, offering homilies and advice in situations about which she knows nothing. The fourth sister, Kitty (Polly Maberly), is somewhat bland, but I thought Lydia (Julia Sawalha) very well done.
The storyline is familiar, but I had forgotten some of the scenes and interactions, and also the beauty of the photography. The settings are perfect, the costumes exactly right, as I have come to expect with the BBC, and the main characters realistic. Mr Collins (David Bamber) is smarmy and snooty, exactly how I imagined him to be, and Lady Catherine de Burgh (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) as rude and arrogant as the book demands. Perhaps some of the balls are a little sparse, and the rooms smaller than might be expected, but overall I thought the film very well done.
A film of this length can cover a novel well, and we all felt that it was, for the most part, very faithful to the original. If lines were changed here and there, they still fit in with the original theme, and enabled some lengthy dialogue or thoughts to be included in a way that worked for visual drama.
Definitely worth seeing if you have any interest in Jane Austen’s books, whether or not you have read them. Also highly recommended to anyone studying ‘Pride and Prejudice’ for a test or exam.
Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
I watched ‘The Lady in the Van’ nearly three years ago when staying with my father. I thought it extremely well done, and eventually added it to my wishlist a few months ago, thinking my husband would enjoy it, and that I would like seeing it again. I was given it for Christmas, and we watched it last night.
While I remembered the overall story - an elderly woman living out of a van comes to stay in the driveway belonging to a writer, in the 1960s - I had forgotten most of the detail. My main reason for wanting to see it again, and share it, was the brilliance of Maggie Smith as the elderly Miss Shepherd.
The make-up artistes were also excellent; at the start of the film we see the ‘lady’ dressed fairly smartly, probably no more than about fifty. When we get to know her, parking in different places in a suburban London street, she is in her early sixties, and quite scruffy. By the time the film ends, she is almost eighty, and could pass for ninety or more.
It’s a character-based film, based on a true story written by Alan Bennett himself after Miss Shepherd dies. Or rather, on a ‘mostly-true’ story, as it becomes plain in the film that some poetic license has been taken. There’s a clever plot device meaning that there are two Alan Bennetts (ably played by Alex Jennings): one who lives life, and the other who sits at his typewriter, writing. They have a lot of interaction and dialogue, and one of the ‘extra’ features explains how this apparent doubling is done.
It’s not a film that would appear to have a lot of special visual effects (other than a somewhat surreal final scene). But as one of the graphics staff explains in the 'extra' feature, having two apparently natural instances of the same person was remarkably complex and painstaking to create.
I probably enjoyed this more the second time around, aware of the story and inevitable outcome, also aware of the underlying tensions in Bennet’s life: his own lifestyle was not something generally accepted at the time. I could also appreciate more the tension he felt between trying to care for his elderly - and increasingly confused - mother, while also fending off the feisty, often rude Miss Shepherd.
The acting is excellent, the pace just right, the locations authentic. It helped, I'm sure, that the crew were able to film in the actual house and front yard where the action happened. The way that Miss Shepherd's past life unfolds slowly - almost reluctantly at times - is beautifully and sensitively done.
We watched all the extras - none of them are particularly long and we both like seeing a few insights from directors and cast members. The real Alan Bennett, who was very involved in the script, gives insights too - in particular how much he appreciated Alex Jennings’ portrayal of him, originally in the theatre production based on his book. If he and Maggie Smith not been available or willing to make the film, it would not have gone ahead.
There are one or two instances of strong language, but they’re not gratuitous. There are strong hints of a violent incident, and also implications about Alan Bennett’s orientation and lifestyle, but nothing that would be considered explicit. The rating in the UK is 12A and in the US PG-13, and that seems about right to me. It wouldn’t be of much interest to anyone younger anyway.
Definitely recommended if you want something a bit different and like ‘mostly true’ stories.
In general, I read reviews before putting DVDs on my wishlist. There are many which look appealing at first glance, or which Amazon recommends to me, which I realise I would not like at all once I have read a few reviews. I look at the negative ones primarily. Sometimes a poor review can actually convince me that I would like a film. And in most cases I’ve chosen appropriately.
However, sometimes I browse the DVD shelves of a charity shop or church fair. Then I pick out a few that look interesting, based on the look of the cover, the actors listed on the front, and the blurb on the back. The results are typically somewhat mixed. Last week we watched the excellent film ‘Doubt’, for instance, which I had bought under these circumstances. It was well worth seeing.
Another DVD I picked up at the same church book stall is ‘Imagine me and you’. It was billed as ‘the best British rom-com since Notting Hill’. Made in 2005, it does not have any names I recognised on the front. However it features photos two young women and two young men. The blurb tells me that a newly married couple are settling down when the wife meets someone who turns her life upside down. The story, we’re told, is poignant and hilarious (words that don’t usually go together, in my view).
It starts well. Rachel (Piper Perabo) is about to get married to her best friend and lover Hector (Matthew Goode), whose name is bizarrely abbreviated to ‘Heck’. Heck’s best man Cooper (Darren Boyd) is evidently a promiscuous womaniser, and has no desire to settle down. Cooper is rather attracted to Lucy (Lena Headey) who is employed as the florist for the wedding. She is also, a little confusingly, involved in the wedding party - meeting people, having a drink, even dancing.
Rachel and Heck think Cooper and Lucy would make a nice couple; Rachel feels a strong kinship with Lucy as soon as she meets her and hopes they can be friends. Then they learn something about Lucy that turns everything upside down… that part of the blurb, at least, is correct.
There are some amusing moments in the film. Rachel’s young sister H (Boo Jackson) is full of intelligent questions, albeit rather caricatured ones, and some of the responses or interactions following are quite humorous. Rachel’s parents, too, have an exaggerated love-hate relationship. Her mother Tessa (Celia Imrie - one of the few names I recognised) is excellent. Rachel’s father Ned (Anthony Head) makes a good straight man, clearly fond of his daughters and letting his wife’s constant criticisms go over his head. Tessa and Ned’s relationship provides one of the poignant parts of the film, too.
However, although the film is well made and the actors excellent, on the whole, I really didn’t like the storyline. I found it disturbing - not for what might seem obvious reasons, if you have seen it, but because of the idea that ‘falling in love’ in an instant can - and should - trump years of growing love and closeness. It also suggests that promises and commitments mean nothing, if one partner decides that somebody else is more attractive.
So although it’s a well-made film, I really wouldn’t recommend it. Particularly, for reasons which I won't give as they would be spoilers, I don't recommend it to fundamentalists of any religion. If you want to know why, a quick glance at Amazon reviews (or elsewhere) would tell you.
The rating is 12A in the UK, which I think is about right, though I might have opted for 15; I doubt it would be of much interest to younger teens anyway. There’s some ‘strong’ language, though not a great deal, and plenty of discussion about sex, but nothing shown beyond some kissing. I don’t recall anything remotely violent. However the US censors, perhaps due to the occasional ‘strong’ language, or possibly the nature of the story, have rated this as R.
I'm pretty sure I won't be watching this again - but at least it only cost me a euro!
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
I had not previously heard of the film ‘Doubt’, which I spotted in a box of second-hand DVDs next to a church book sale. Since it featured Meryl Streep, and indeed three other well-known actors, I thought it was probably well worth the euro it cost me. A few days later we decided to see it.
I knew from the blurb on the back of the box that there was a disturbing theme to the story, and I began to regret having picked the DVD up at first. But it didn’t take long to get into the story. Meryl Streep is a nun, Sister Aloysius, who is headmistress of a Catholic school in New York in the early 1960s. As in every part I have seen her, Streep is superb, becoming the character in a way that most actors cannot do. Sister Aloysius is rigid in her outlook, quick to pass judgement, stern in her punishments of every infraction amongst the children.
One of the staff, Sister James (Amy Adams), is young and enthusiastic, and wants to inspire the children in her class rather than rule them by coercion. However she is quite concerned about Desmond (Joseph Foster), the only black child in the school, who is also an altar boy at the connected church. Desmond is quite a loner, and it seems that the priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), is taking rather too much interest in him…
Sister James reports her concerns to Sister Aloysius. Then much of the film involves verbal battles between her and Father Flynn, who comes across as a caring, gentle person on the whole. We hear parts of some of his sermons, which are quite thought-provoking. Indeed, the contrast between this gentle priest and the rigid nun is quite marked. Their dialogues are extremely well done, the timing perfect, and the on-screen chemistry, albeit of a rather different variety from many movies, works superbly.
There is also an extremely moving scene involving Desmond’s mother, beautifully portrayed by Viola Davis. She and Sister Aloysius have a lengthy dialogue about Desmond; it’s a pivotal scene, and I found myself drawn into it, suddenly realising that the situation being discussed was far less cut-and-dried than it might appear.
As well as these interactions the film covers quite a bit of the life of the school, too. There’s some music sung by choirboys and girls too - the school is a mixed one. A particularly poignant moment includes the singing of ‘Deus Caritas…’ - of which the translated words are, ‘Where there is love and care, there God is’. All in all, we thought it beautifully made, and were totally caught up in the story.
Never at any point is it determined whether or not Sister Aloysius’s convictions about Father Flynn are true or not. In one of the extras, we learned that this story was based on play which involved just the four main characters. As Meryl Streep points out in an interview, live theatre often leaves questions and storylines open for the viewers’ own interpretations. This is less common in films, and this one was quite controversial in following the storyline of the play, and leaving the main plot unresolved.
Made in 2008, allegations such as those in this film were all too common, even though the story was set forty or more years earlier. I found it a very powerful film, leaving open many questions, not just whether or not the priest was innocent of the allegations made.
It’s rated 15 in the UK, which I think is about right given the nature of the story, although there is nothing overt that could cause the censors to give it a strict rating. There is no nudity or anything explicit, almost no bad language, and only mild violence.
Perhaps this is why the US rating, which is often higher than that in the UK, is a milder PG-13. I would not want a young child to see this, but reasonably mature teenagers might find it thought-provoking. I would recommend it highly to anyone wanting a well-made film with a somewhat unusual storyline.
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
'Lost in Austen' is a DVD - or rather a DVD set, as there are two discs in the box - which I think I must have bought on special offer, or even at a charity shop some time ago. It has been in our to-be-watched drawer for some years, but we finally decided to watch it on Monday. We did not realise at first that it was in four episodes originally shown on independent television in the UK. The whole is three hours in length. So we watched the final episode the following evening.
The star of this drama is a young woman called Amanda (Jemima Rooper) who is obsessed with Jane Austen books. She loves ‘Pride and Prejudice’ best of all. So when, one day, she discovers Elizabeth Bennett (Gemma Arterton) in her bathroom, she thinks she must be dreaming…
However, a portal has appeared which enables Amanda to enter the world of the Bennets two hundred years earlier, leaving Lizzie to cope with the 21st century…
On the whole, we thought it very well done. The Bennett sisters are well cast, as are their parents. Hugh Bonneville makes a delightfully acerbic (but kind-hearted) Mr Bennett, and Alex Kingston is wonderful as a rather younger, considerably slimmer and less fluffy Mrs Bennett than I am used to. It took me until the end of the first episode to realise why she looked so familiar. Mrs Bennett is really nothing like Doctor Who’s ‘River Song’ where I first came across the actress.
The whole is somewhat surreal. It's even more so than ‘normal’ time-travel stories, since ‘Pride and Prejudice’ is, of course, entirely fictional. So when Amanda’s appearance starts to mess up the expected relationships and storyline of her favourite book, she tries to put things right. Inevitably things go wrong...
It’s a light-hearted story, and somewhat crude in places. But there’s plenty that’s amusing too, and we found ourselves smiling more than once. Amanda begins to realise that things are not as idyllic in the late 18th century as her imagination suggested. And while she attempts to fit in with the period and culture, she makes rather a lot of mistakes, which don’t quite fit with her being such a fan of the books.
We had no idea where the story was going to go, and thought the fourth episode particularly well done. There are some excellent scenes when we finally learn how Lizzie has got on in the 21st century, and some romantic tension as Amanda struggles to know what to do for the best.
On the whole we thought it very enjoyable. The rating of 12 seems about right to me. There are plenty of innuendoes, some which are decidedly not Austen, but nothing overt. However this would not make much sense to anyone who has not read (or at least seen the films of) Jane Austen’s books.
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
