Pride and Prejudice

On Saturday I was all set to put up my first recommendation: Pride and Prejudice (2005). Which, yes, I'll argue is a Cinderella story. But later on that night I went to a party--and I'm glad I did--where someone explained that this version of P&P was actually incredibly angsty, and didn't compare at all to the original BBC miniseries adaptation. Part of the argument was that the movie condensed too much book into two hours of film. Which: point.

Another part of the argument was that Matthew Macfayden was too lovable to be Mr. Darcy, to which I replied, "Decide on your second, sir, because we duel at dawn!"

Image source: http://www.nndb.com/people/797/000129410/matthew-macfadyen-1-sized.jpg
He's my second. 

All of which brings me neatly to Lesson One: You get to decide what you like.

If you want to watch entertaining films that aren't necessarily the smartest books on the shelf, that's your prerogative. Same goes for the foreign language films that require subtitles, and the art house films not even the director understands.

If you like historical romance genre films that have great costumes and bad acting, great! This one happens to have Keira Knightley in it so the acting isn’t bad at all.

If you like vampires you should probably go away and never come back.

If you require a dancing scene that frissons with tension and drama and epic declarations of love by a male lead who is literally swoon worthy—who am I kidding, now I’m just describing the film. The point is no one can tell you a movie isn’t good. There are no ‘right’ opinions in film criticism, only slightly less wrong ones.

I mean, my favorite Bennet sister isn't even Elizabeth. It's Lydia, played by Jena Malone, who has shown up in quite a few notable roles before and since (see: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire) and brings the mean girl power to everything. 

Image source: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/b4/f8/36/b4f83676ba8e418010a5c399bc6f87e5.jpg
On the left, Carey Mulligan.

Not that there aren’t criticisms to be made of this movie. Austen’s talent for weaving cutting social commentary into her plotting was truly formidable, and the story is founded on the premise that a woman can reject a man only to be swept off her feet at the sight of his estate.

This adaptation doesn’t quite delve into that beyond one stammering speech in the rain. They make up for it with picturesque countryside and gorgeous instrumentals and deep, longing stares. There’s a scene so scandalous (hyperbole. The film is rated PG) that Austen fans went up in arms claiming she wouldn’t have approved of it. To which I say, how can you know?

Image source: http://c300221.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/anne-hathaway-as-jane-austen-in-becoming-jane-1350098996_b.jpg
Anne Hathaway is not Jane Austen, but she plays her on TV.

So yes, some people will say that the BBC miniseries will always be the classic adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Those people will be wrong, but it's better to let them believe they've got the upper hand, then swoop in and steal their fiancés while their backs are turned and this argument may have gotten away from me.

The fact is Pride and Prejudice (2005) is my favorite movie of all time. Of all time. It's one of the few films I've bothered to get on DVD, and there have been days I've watched it twice in a row, once for the Director Joe Wright's commentary (surprisingly engaging; you'll never look at windows the same way) and once for all the dialogue I missed because of the director's commentary. 

I'm not going to be changing my mind any time soon, and it's best the BBC learns that now.

Alternate Cinderella tale recommendations: Ever After, Cinderella