One of the most iconic scenes in “Pride & Prejudice” (2005) is the first proposal scene. Even those who have yet to watch the beloved movie likely have some idea of the shot. Pummelled by the rain, Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen) — wet hair flopping against his forehead — confesses his adoration to the spunky protagonist Elizabeth Bennet: “I love you, most ardently.” Those familiar with the story know what happens next. Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) denies him and the two part ways, continuing their strained will-they-won’t-they romance. But in Jane Austen’s original novel, the scene occurs inside, empty of any steady downpours or rolling hills in the background. And, in the novel, devoid of any hints of Mr. Darcy’s true feelings, his proposal comes as a total shock. But in director Joe Wright’s version, there are clues: held breaths, hand flexes and sexual tension thick enough to slice. Those are just some of the elements that distinguish this version of “Pride and Prejudice” from the original novel. And it’s one of the reasons why this movie has resonated even with those who may not consider themselves fans of Austen. Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” is back in theaters this week in honor of its 20th anniversary. So we looked back at how, exactly, the film continues to bewitch viewers, body and soul. The film strays slightly from Austen’s novel While “Pride and Prejudice” has been the subject of many miniseries and modern Hallmark-esque takes, Wright’s film is considered only the second faithful film adaptation, alongside the 1940 movie starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. Until its premiere 20 years ago, the 1995 BBC miniseries starring Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was considered the most emblematic visual adaptation. Many Austen fans embrace that version, which, at over five hours long, more strictly follows the novel. But as seen in the proposal scene, the liberties Wright takes with the text lends to the appeal of his adaptation. While Devoney Looser, Jane Austen scholar and author of the forthcoming “Wild for Austen,” considers the 1995 BBC miniseries to be her personal favorite adaptation, most of her students prefer the 2005 film, she said. Over the years, she’s come to see its virtues. Wright’s approach to Mr. Darcy is one of the main differentiators. In the original text, and largely in the 1995 version, the character is standoffish and prickly. His feelings are largely hidden, hence why that first proposal comes as such a surprise, Looser said. Macfadyen’s Darcy is different. While still aloof, he’s more brooding and tortured, and the audience clearly sees the effect Elizabeth’s presence has on him. He’s misunderstood and yearning, more than he is simply detestable. And that makes him desirable, not just to Elizabeth, but to audiences. Wright isn’t the first to make Mr. Darcy’s character attractive to viewers; in fact, this idea of an “attractive Darcy” is found throughout many 20th century adaptations, Looser said. But Wright leans into the romantic tension even more. As viewers, we’re hooked. “The audience has something to invest emotionally (in),” Looser said. “And, I think in terms of sexual desire in Darcy, visually.” Note the scene when Elizabeth’s sister Jane (Rosamund Pike) falls ill at Netherfield, where Mr. Darcy and his companions are temporarily staying. When Elizabeth visits, we hear from Carolyn Bingley, off screen, that she appears “positively medieval.” But the camera focuses on Mr. Darcy’s sight line, so we don’t see Elizabeth’s muddy dress or her dirty boots. Instead, the camera lingers on her wide eyes and her cascading hair — a stark contrast to the focus in both the book and other adaptations, Looser said. Audiences are allowed a peek into the tense and clumsy feelings Mr. Darcy holds. And take the famous hand flex scene, so well known that distributor Focus Features is now selling T-shirts and hoodies emblazoned with Macfadyen’s outstretched hand. In the scene, Mr. Darcy is helping Elizabeth into her carriage. As she steps in, her hand still in his, he releases her palm, swivels around and strides away, while Elizabeth stares in bewilderment. Then, he flexes his hand as if he’d been shocked — a release of the emotional electricity her touch wrought. Wright gives us that visual insight into Darcy’s mind and his feelings, Looser said, but Austen doesn’t. This tension, built throughout the film, seizes audiences’ attentions and fills even the most seemingly mundane moments with heat. But Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” isn’t just a love story. While many adaptations give a peek inside Darcy’s interior life, Wright extends this lens to all of the characters in the story, said Justin Smith, professor of cinema and television history at De Montfort University in Leicester, England. Take Elizabeth’s sister Mary (Talulah Riley). When Elizabeth announces her rejection of Mr. Collins’s proposal, Wright’s camera focuses on Mary, whose face fills with a wistful expression. “It’s almost as if she’s saying, ‘I would say yes if he asked me,’” Smith said, “And a whole back story emerges about her.” Wright’s small windows help all the characters come to life, Smith said, in a way that doesn’t happen in other adaptations. Together, they create a rich world for viewers to fall into. Beyond the romance, Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” could be a family tale, and who can’t relate to a nagging mom or sibling jealousy? Today, the film lands differently Upon its release, Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” was a smash hit, netting more than $121 million worldwide on a $28 million budget and a cast led by two rising stars. The critic Roger Ebert famously gave the film, which went on to be nominated for four Academy Awards, four out of four stars. The soundtrack is filled with a lilting piano and birdsong; the cameras sweep over the rolling hills and lush greenery. Every frame seems like a painting. But the rerelease comes at a very different time than the original premiere back in 2005. Movie theaters are in decline, analysts are mourning mid-budget films and romantic dramas aren’t as ubiquitous as they once were. While this context might not subtract from the beauty of the film, audiences today are approaching it with a distinct lens. People flooded theaters to see the 1940 adaptation, which was produced during World War II as part of an effort to boost morale, said Deborah Cartmell, a professor of English at De Montfort University and an adaptations studies expert. Audiences craved that nostalgic look at an England “worth fighting for.” A similar nostalgia could be at play today, she said. “Watching it makes you feel really nostalgic for 20 years ago,” Cartmell said. “In these turbulent times, it’s a really reassuring tale to look at and enjoy.” There’s also something soothing about watching two people meet and fall in love, not necessarily in the most fairytale way, but in a way that appears natural and true. Today, when much of romance is mediated through dating apps and text messages, watching face-to-face intimacy can also be nostalgic, Smith said. “Movies remind us of the very tangible and raw nature of emotion and of human intimacy, and of actually getting to know someone in physical spaces,” Smith said. “That may sound far-fetched, but I think we may have a nostalgia for romance and courtship that predates the rituals and conventions of the digital age.” The drama of Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” reminds of this more organic way of meeting someone, getting to know them and tumbling into love. That, Smith said, is worth celebrating.
Why the 20-year-old ‘Pride & Prejudice’ film still bewitches audiences today
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"The Enduring Appeal of Joe Wright's 2005 Adaptation of 'Pride & Prejudice'"
CNN
7.6
TruthLens AI Summary
The 2005 film adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice," directed by Joe Wright, continues to captivate audiences two decades after its release, largely due to its unique interpretation of key scenes and character dynamics. One of the most memorable moments is the rain-soaked proposal scene between Mr. Darcy, portrayed by Matthew Macfadyen, and Elizabeth Bennet, played by Keira Knightley. Unlike Austen's original text, where Darcy's proposal is an unexpected shock, Wright's film subtly hints at his feelings through visual cues and emotional tension. This approach allows viewers to engage more deeply with the characters, making Mr. Darcy's aloof yet brooding demeanor more appealing. Critics and scholars note that while the 1995 BBC miniseries remains a beloved adaptation for its fidelity to the source material, Wright's film offers a fresh perspective that resonates with modern audiences. The film's visual storytelling, particularly in its portrayal of romantic tension, invites viewers to invest emotionally in the characters' journeys, enhancing the overall viewing experience.
As the film returns to theaters for its 20th anniversary, it is essential to consider the changing landscape of cinema and audience reception. Released during a time when mid-budget films and romantic dramas were more prevalent, Wright's adaptation grossed over $121 million worldwide and received critical acclaim, including four Academy Award nominations. Today, however, the film is viewed through a different lens. With the decline of traditional movie theaters and the rise of digital romance, audiences find nostalgia in the film's portrayal of genuine human connection and the natural progression of love. Experts suggest that this longing for authenticity in romance, juxtaposed with the current digital age, adds a layer of comfort and reassurance for viewers. The film's exploration of family dynamics and emotional depth, along with its breathtaking cinematography, creates a rich tapestry that continues to resonate, reminding modern audiences of the beauty of face-to-face intimacy and the organic nature of courtship.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article explores the enduring appeal of the 2005 film adaptation of “Pride & Prejudice,” particularly highlighting its memorable scenes and the director's creative liberties that differentiate it from Jane Austen's original novel. It discusses how the film, now celebrating its 20th anniversary, continues to resonate with audiences who may not traditionally be fans of Austen.
Cinematic Interpretation vs. Literary Originality
A key point raised is the contrast between the film and the source material, particularly in pivotal scenes like the proposal. By altering the setting and adding emotional nuances, director Joe Wright creates a version that, while diverging from the text, enhances the romantic tension. This suggests that adaptations can serve to modernize or deepen the emotional landscape of classic narratives, thereby attracting a broader audience. The film has been reintroduced into theaters, indicating a strategic move to rekindle interest in both the film and Austen's literary work.
Cultural Resonance and Audience Engagement
The piece implies that the film's appeal goes beyond loyal Austen fans, reaching a diverse audience that appreciates the film's visual storytelling and character depth. This could indicate a shift in how classic literature is consumed, favoring adaptations that provide a fresh perspective while still honoring the original story. By focusing on the film's 20th anniversary and its impact on modern viewers, the article seeks to foster a sense of nostalgia and appreciation for the film's artistry.
Potential Underlying Messages
There might be a subtle agenda to promote the value of literary adaptations in cinema, suggesting that they can transcend their original narratives if executed thoughtfully. This could align with broader cultural discussions about the relevance of classic literature in contemporary society, possibly aiming to increase interest in both the film and the original work.
Manipulative Elements and Authenticity
While the article celebrates the film, it may also inadvertently downplay the value of more traditional adaptations, such as the acclaimed 1995 BBC miniseries. This could be seen as a form of manipulation, possibly steering audience preferences towards a more visually stylized experience rather than the narrative fidelity of earlier adaptations. The article's tone suggests a longing for modern interpretations, which may influence readers' perceptions of how adaptations should be approached.
In assessing the credibility of this analysis, it is crucial to recognize that while the article presents a compelling narrative about the film's lasting impact, it does so with a specific angle that may not encompass the full spectrum of adaptations available. It emphasizes a modernist approach, potentially sidelining the merits of traditional interpretations.