Pride and Prejudice Comparison: 1995 vs. 2005

Before I was in the position to compare the 1995 and 2005 versions of Pride and Prejudice for myself, I had seen quite a lot of what people had to say regarding them. The overall impression I got was that the 1995 Pride and Prejudice was the best thing since sliced bread, and that the 2005 Pride and Prejudice was a monstrosity better not spoken of, unless it were to mock.

I watched the 1995 one some time ago, and I liked it. Recently, I watched the 2005 one all the way through for the first time. I actually liked it too – in a very different way than I liked the 1995 P&P. Of course it had its issues, but I didn’t find it the horrible, nightmare-inducing travesty I’d been led to believe. Of course, perhaps coming into it with the expectations I had helped – I knew going into it that it would differ from the book in some ways.

First off, as regards Elizabeth herself.

Jennifer Ehle’s performance is definitely closer to book-Lizzy. I really can’t think of any liberties she takes which contradict in any major way how Elizabeth is portrayed in the book – she’s charming, she’s sparkling, she’s witty, yet she also has a sense of decorum and knows how far to take her teasing and her wit. And hey, she actually does have rather fine eyes. How serendipitous.

Kiera Knightley’s Lizzie is, I think, meant to appeal more to modern audiences; she’s a bit more dramatic and emotional, a bit less sparkling, and a bit more biting at times. And yes, I know her costumes and hairstyles were not all quite what you would expect for a young woman in the Regency era…

…but poor costuming decisions are not the fault of the actors. Despite the modernization of the character, I think Kiera Knightley still does a good job. She’s still similar enough to book-Lizzy that I don’t mind too much.

And of course, there’s everyone’s favorite rich arrogant jerk with a character arc, Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy.

From what I heard before I saw the movie, I thought Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr. Darcy was going to be played as just being shy and awkward, not really proud at all. I was pleasantly surprised, however. I found that his Mr. Darcy was in fact too proud, and though he wasn’t quite insulting enough during the first proposal, he was pretty rude. As a matter of fact, I thought Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen were about comparable as Mr. Darcy. (Let me clarify, however, that that does not mean I approve of all the scripting of Mr. Darcy in the ’05 P&P – particularly in one or two scenes occurring at the latter end of the movie. Heh. Again, though, that’s the screenwriter’s fault, not the actors.)

I know everyone loves Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy – and don’t get me wrong, he really was good! – but I wouldn’t say his Mr. Darcy was perfect. I think he was a bit too stiff and taciturn – Mr. Darcy is supposed to smile sometimes and be able to make jokes and such. His warming up in the second half of the mini-series seemed a little forced to me, since it was so very opposed to his behavior before. I felt like Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr. Darcy seemed more consistent.

I’m not sure which Jane I preferred – both did a good job, and were fairly sweet and Jane-like. (Although in both cases Lizzy is obviously just as pretty if not prettier than Jane, which makes it a little strange for all and sundry to be so insistent that Jane is the beauty of the family…)

As for all the other sisters, I don’t have terribly strong opinions either. Both sets of sisters were rather annoying, which is as it should be. Most of them really did look too old in the 1995 P&P, but not so much so that it bothered me. The Bennet family as a whole felt less dysfunctional in the 2005 P&P, which is nice, but less true to the book.

I’m not sure, but I may have preferred Brenda Blethyn (2005) as Mrs. Bennet. Alison Steadman was just so – so – much. Entertaining and all, but still. I’ve seen people say that the 2005 Mrs. Bennet was portrayed too sympathetically, and maybe she was to a degree, but let’s be honest – even a little more sympathetic, she was still quite annoying. I know Mrs. Bennet is supposed to be a silly character and you’re not supposed to take her seriously at all, but I don’t think that means you can’t use any subtlety at all in portraying her.

As for Mr. Bennet…well, first of all, let the records state that I do not like Mr. Bennet. It doesn’t matter how good he is at one-liners and wisecracks, he’s a very bad father and a very bad husband. Benjamin Whitrow (1995) was without a doubt truer to the Mr. Bennet of the book. Donald Sutherland annoyed me less, but that’s because he was less like Mr. Bennet. Heh.

As for Mr. Bingley, Simon Woods’ portrayal in the ’05 P&P made him seem like one of the less intelligent members of the Drones Club. He was funny and kind of cute in a way, but I much preferred Crispin Bonham-Carter.

Both Miss Bingleys were a bit too obviously and over-the-top-ly scheming and evil for my tastes. I’m honestly not sure which I would go with, though Anna Chancellor does have the plus of reportedly being related to Jane Austen, which is cool. 

I didn’t much care for either Wickham, either, though I probably liked Rupert Friend’s Wickham a little more. Adrian Lukis seemed so obviously slimy (not to mention that he wasn’t charming or dashing at all, which Wickham is supposed to be). Rupert Friend’s Wickham was a tad too whiny and fished around for pity a tad too frequently, but he could be interpreted as mildly charming, I think…although getting rid of that ponytail would have helped with that.

In both cases, though, Lizzy comes across as very blind not to get any hint of the fact that he’s a sleazy jerk – which works in a way, since part of the point is that Lizzy’s prejudice is blinding her. On the other hand, I’d like to think more of her intelligence than to think that someone so slimy as Wickham as he’s portrayed in either of these versions could just spout off his sob story and win her over immediately.

As for Mr. Collins – emm – I’m not sure. David Bamber is funny, but so is Tom Hollander in a very different, subtler way. I haven’t seen the ’80s mini-series in a while, but I may have liked the way he was portrayed there best – he was still funny, but you could tell that he really meant well. (I always had a soft spot for Mr. Collins. He’s not malicious, and it’s not really his fault that he has the personality that he does. In a story with people like Wickham and Caroline Bingley, why would you waste time hating Mr. Collins?)

And though there are more characters I could talk about, this is getting Rather Long, so I shall go on to other aspects besides the characters.

(Although, speaking of the Drones Club, look, Bingo Little #2 is the Netherfield footman! I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t seen it pointed out on Along the Brandywine, but there he is!)

Now, about other differences between the two…its a little difficult to compare, since the ’95 P&P had about five hours to play with, and the ’05 P&P had about two.  Because of that, some things had to be changed in the ’05 P&P – for instance, we get the idea that Lizzy liked Mr. Darcy from the start, and then became prejudiced against him. This has the plus of her losing her prejudice seem more natural than it does in the 1995 one. It has the con of not being the way it was in the book.

Honestly, I think it’s very hard to portray Lizzy’s change in feeling toward Mr. Darcy on screen, because in the book it’s all so internal. In writing, you can thoroughly explain a character’s thoughts and feelings in a way movies can’t. I  think that’s why I didn’t really feel satisfied with Lizzy’s change of heart in the 1995 one. I did feel more satisfied with it in the 2005 one, but, as aforementioned, that was because they tampered with the plot a bit.

Of course a couple big problems with the 2005 P&P – which others have gone into detail about – is the inaccuracy of the clothing, and the fact that the Bennets are portrayed as dirt-poor farmers. As many have pointed out already, no, the Bennets were not that poor, and no, they would not be themselves living on the farm, complete with pigs wandering randomly through their halls and clothes hanging up right outside their door.

There’s also no doubt that on the whole the ’95 P&P has a better script. With some exceptions, of course. It was rather refreshing that Mr. Darcy had no fascination with plunging into grimy pools of water in the ’05 P&P, for instance. The pajama-ed proposal scene and that last mushy-fluff-fest of a scene (is it true that that scene isn’t in the UK version? Lucky people) probably more than compensated for that, however.

One thing the 2005 P&P did have in its favor, however, was the cinematography. I know this isn’t as important as the story or the characters, but it is part of what makes a good movie. A lot of the shots were really lovely, and I did like those avant-garde bits – like the shot at the ball where everyone else disappears and it’s just Lizzie and Mr. Darcy dancing, or the bit where you see Lizzie staring at a mirror and the light shifting across her face to represent the time passing. 

I think what it comes down to is that the ’95 P&P is primarily just trying to be a good adaption of the book, and the ’05 P&P is primarily trying to be a good movie, and keeping it faithful to the book takes the back burner. This means that each version is going to have a unique set of strengths and weaknesses.

There’s much more I could say, but, well, there’ll probably always be more I could say, and one has to stop somewhere. All in all, the 1995 P&P was definitely a better adaption of the book. The 2005 P&P was still an enjoyable movie in its own right, however. I enjoy watching both, despite the things I dislike about both versions.

What do you think? Do you prefer the 1995 Pride and Prejudice or the 2005 Pride and Prejudice? Do the inaccuracies of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice spoil it for you?