Jurassic Park Series: A Review of Sorts

I recently watched through the Jurassic Park film series, currently numbering six movies: an original trilogy released in 1993–2001, and a follow-up trilogy released in 2015–2022. 

As you've likely noticed, readers, the 2010s and 2020s have seen a spate of sequels and reboots of successful film franchises from the 1970s–early 2000s. The Matrix: Resurrections. The disastrous Star Wars trilogy (episodes 7–9). Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. The hobbit trilogy (yes, that's in lowercase on purpose). An unending cascade of new Mission Impossible movies. You get the picture.

Most of these haven't been worth the two hours+ they took to watch, but because we will keep going to them, the producers will keep making them.

As you will see, I was pleasantly surprised by the caliber of the Jurassic World trilogy as sequels. Except, as I continued to ponder the films, I noticed one glaring issue: the makers of the latter movies seemed to have missed the same lesson as the characters. But more on that below.

Jurassic Park Series: Review

Note: In this review of sorts I will mostly not attempt to be spoiler free. In fact, I'm going to tell you exactly what happens in every movie. At the time of writing, the movies were released 32 years, 28 years, 24 years, 10 years, 7 years, and 3 years ago, respectively. So if you haven't seen all of them by now, that's on you. (And if you've only seen one... well, as we will see that's really the same thing as seeing all of them anyway).

Plotlines

The first movie (Jurassic Park) opens with a team of scientists using fossilized mosquitoes to extract dinosaur DNA, which they are able to successfully synthesize into living dinosaurs. (Most with surprisingly normal dinosaur behavior and no genetic defects. Movie magic.) 

Someone has the brilliant idea to create a whole dinosaur community on an isolated South American island, from the tiny but vicious Compsognathus, to the always-there-for-the-wow-its-a-dinosaur-shot Brachiosaurus, to the terrifying Dilophosaurus that spits poison, to the classic, carnivorous, and charismatic Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Wow, it's a dinosaur!

With this menagerie in place (carefully corralled behind electric fences, in the case of the carnivores at any rate), the most logical next step is to add a few food trucks and souvenir shops, and invite the public to tour the island. What could go wrong?

Everything, actually.

You remember the electric fences? Yeah, that won't be nearly enough to keep the dinos in line. The security is never sufficient, the dinosaurs are always smarter than anticipated, and the humans keep making the same mistakes, again and again.

And that's even before reckoning with a double-crossing character, of which every Jurassic movie has one. Whether he's in it for the money, the power, or the military potential of the Velociraptors, there's always one character who isn't leveling with everyone else.

But never fear: if the disasters in Jurassic Park are predictable, so, too, are the key plot points of the ending. First of all, the bad guy(s) gets eaten. This signals to the audience that the human threat has been removed, and the dinosaur threat is only just behind.

Just as one dinosaur is about to devour the good guys, another (bigger) dinosaur shows up in the nick of time to start a duel, and the dinosaurs decide to fight it out first and eat the good guys later. Meanwhile, the good guys escape on a boat/plane/helicopter/truck. 

Everyone lives happily ever after. Except the bad guys, who are dead. And the T-Rex, who missed out on his dessert. And the good guys, who will inevitable appear in another movie and live through the same dinosaur trauma again. And again. (What's that quote about the definition of insanity?)

One continuous story

It may sound like I'm criticizing or belittling this plot structure, but please don't misunderstand me. On the one hand, watching a Jurassic Park movie like watching a horror movie, where you can only watch helplessly as the characters persist in going down to the basement that they've been warned nineteen times not to enter and the consequences for their actions naturally, painfully, and predictably unfold.

On the other hand, there is something kind of comforting in how no Jurassic Park movie tries seriously to deviate from this basic outline. With Jurassic Park, you know what you're getting. The good guys will inevitably end up trapped with the T-Rex, but the bad guys will definitely get eaten. It's like ordering your regular meal at a mediocre restaurant. There are no surprising flavors, but that's not always a bad thing.

This was particularly evident in comparing the three most recent installments to other films in the sequels/prequels/reboots genre. By coming up with new characters and details but sticking to the same basic premise, the new trilogy builds upon the old trilogy better than any other reboot film I could think of.  Most sequels either try too hard to repeat the originals (e.g., The hobbit: An unexpected journey), or they completely disregard the original story and the real effects of its conclusion (ahem, The Matrix: Resurrections), or somehow do both at the same time (*cough cough The Force Awakens cough cough*).

Unlike these other examples, the newest Jurassic Park movies feel like they belong on one continuous timeline with the originals. Yes, the new characters use Millennial slang and humor, but that doesn't ruin the effect since the movie timeline is supposed to roughly follow the "real" timeline, with the original park being created in the early 1990s and the events of the rest of the series taking place over the next twenty to thirty years.

In fact, I will pass over summarizing movies 2–4 because they're really just movie 1 with new clothing.

Questionable messages

The most irritating part of watching any Jurassic Park movie after the first one is that one can't help feeling, every five minutes or so, that the characters are complete dunderheads for not having learned their lesson yet. Didn't they see the last movie? Shouldn't they realize by now that mixing small children and multi-ton carnivores is a bad idea?

Yet as I pondered the last two films, I started wondering if the movie creators themselves somehow missed the message too.

The opening premise of Jurassic Park #5 (Fallen Kingdom) is that a volcano on the abandoned Isla Nublar is about to erupt and kill all remaining dinosaurs on the island. Rational people might say, "Thank goodness, that solves that problem!" But with the exception of the mathematician Ian Malcolm, whom one can always count on to say what everyone else ought to be saying about the insanity of propagating and domesticating dinosaurs, there are no rational people in Jurassic Park. Therefore, some people start advocacy groups to lobby various world governments to... move the man-eating creatures off the island. 

I mean, what could go wrong?

One could say this is just the latest installment in a series following People Who Do Not Learn Their Lessons and that we're meant to shake our heads at this newest exhibit of idiocy, except that the corporate-executive-turned-Julia-Butterfly-Hill—who is one of the two the main characters of the second trilogy—is on their side. At least to some extent, consigning multiple human lives to certain death in order to rescue highly dangerous animals who should never have been cloned in the first place is portrayed as a noble endeavor.

SPOILER ALERT! This is really quite a serious spoiler, and thus I'm giving one of the only spoiler warnings in this post. So if you haven't seen Fallen Kingdom, scroll past the velociraptor.

The movie writers try to counter the argument that a volcanic eruption is just fixing what should never have happened in the first place by introducing a disturbing new kind of clone: a human girl. At the end of the movie, after the adults decide to let a group of dinosaurs die of poisonous gas because the alternative is setting them free into civilization, the girl opens the cage doors because "They already exist, just like me." 

END SPOILER

This is a powerful argument, but it does have one flaw: animals are not just like humans. In Genesis 9:3 God tells mankind that he gives them "everything that lives and moves about" (i.e., animals, including dinosaurs) as food. Two verses later, God contrasts killing animals with killing people: 

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an account from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being." (Genesis 9:5, emphasis added)

So not only is killing animals licit while killing other humans is not, even the T-Rex will be held to account for killing people made in God's image.

I don't mean to say that this gives license to wantonly kill or cause harm to members of the animal kingdom, even dangerous ones, but it does mean that putting human lives at risk (let's face it, there's a certainty of death for at least some of the people in every Jurassic adventure, particularly interns, assistants, and passersby) in order to possibly save some dinosaurs from re-extinction is not a morally admirable choice, but I think we're supposed to think it is, or at least to see it as a real dilemma.

The sixth movie seems so show even more clearly that the writers of the series (or the most recent films at least) didn't grasp the lessons from the films: that just because we can doesn't mean we should, and when people continue to meddle in things that should be God's alone, problems always get worse, not better.

Jurassic World: Dominion opens with a new level of disaster: dinosaurs now roam at large upon every continent in the world (as well as in the ocean, we should add—snorkeling in Hawaii is no longer a safe proposition). Even worse, a new dinosaur-locust species (picture a grasshopper the size of a toy poodle with impenetrable armor and fangs) is decimating crops across the world.

Of course, *spoiler but not really* we learn that the locust-zilla are no normal species but were designed in a lab (in order to provide profits to a biotech company, to no one's surprise).

The solution they provide, however, is not to cut one's losses, pray for God's mercy, and regret that such a thing had been designed. Instead, a scientist proposes designing a virus that will spread to all the locust and kill them. 

Hm, what could go wrong with creating and spreading a worldwide virus?

*Also a spoiler, scroll past the mosasaurus if you prefer to avoid it* Having opened Pandora's box and spread dinosaurs across the world, the movie creators were apparently unable to come up with a way to put them back on an island somewhere. Instead, they end the film with the sentimental, idealistic picture of a parasaurolophus herd mixed in with horses and a group of triceratops slowly plodding along next to elephants, all to suggest that peaceful coexistence is not only desirable but possible... somehow forgetting the bloody carnage of the past six movies. 

Not to mention the terrifying mosasaurus that is now posing an ineradicable risk to surfers, cruise ships, and sharks.

A Conclusion with a Bow on Top... almost

Remember the formula for a JP film? Scientists engineer a new terrifying species. People once again think it will be just fine. And one character is particularly out of touch with reality: the bad guy, i.e., the person who is most clueless about the real danger of large wild animals and most arrogant about his (it's always a his) own superiority to and/or capabilities in dealing with the prehistoric species.

But the second part of the formula is that — after a lot interns and small children nearly or actually lose their lives — 1) the bad guy will always get eaten by a dinosaur, and 2) right when a dinosaur is about to eat the good guys (moving noticeably slower than when there's a villain on set), another dinosaur will always show up in the nick of time to start a fight so the good guys don't end up as someone's dinner.

Until this guy.

Dr. Wu, who makes his first appearance in the original Jurassic Park way back in 1993 and then returns for the last three films, is among those who is living in an alternate reality. The kind of person who never asks the question of "Should we do this" but rather considers the fact that they are doing these things as self-justifying, as though to do original or creative work is itself an inherent moral good, regardless of the thing being created or what boundaries are crossed in the process.

In short, he is a clear candidate for becoming the petit déjeuner of a pterodactyl.

At the very climax of the last film, when the main villain has just been dispatched and we know the rescue of the good guys can't be far off, Dr. Wu shows up. He is regretful. But not about the whole enterprise, just about one particular experiment that — shockingly — went sideways. And he is already scheming about more experiments, not having learned his lesson in humility sufficiently to recognize that he ought to promptly hand in his resignation and accept that perhaps he can be a lab assistant somewhere in five or six years if he continues on a path of contrition.

Not only this, but the other characters decide to give him a chance. Instead of leaving him alone in a facility quickly being overrun by dinosaurs, they decide to take him with them and promise him the chance of conducting his (potentially human-rights violating) experiments.

Now, I'm glad the writers decided that the characters should extend forgiveness, grace, and mercy and not leave him to meet a sticky end.

However, in this story justice is executed by dinosaurs. The characters showed mercy, as they should have. But the writers should have carried out justice by having Wu carried off by a pteranodon or trampled by a triceratops as soon as he exited the building. By breaking one of the fundamental rules of the Jurassic Park universe — the antagonists always get eaten — it feels like they were excusing, not condemning and forgiving, his offenses.

Despite the movie writers seeming to miss the point of their own movies (and having unrealistic expectations about the possibility of dinosaur-human cohabitation), the series finale really does end things nicely. To my surprise and delight, the original three main characters came back for the last movie: the archeologist guy, the scientist with whom he is just friends, and the mathemagician (in addition to one of the original villains). And because the new trilogy builds upon the original one, their presence in the movie feels natural rather than engineered, like coming full circle in one coherent story. 

Outside of these few objections, the series wrapped up quite well with no loose ends holding out the chance of future movies. One would hope they wouldn't spoil a good thing by attempting to make more, but then... Life finds a way.

An Inspector Calls: Movie Review

I used to review movies because I really liked them, or because I couldn't find any other reviews that touched on what I consider the important points (e.g. faithfulness to a book or era, level of "mature" content). I no longer have time to write reviews just because I like something; rather, there has to be something I feel the desire to talk about. And this movie definitely fulfills that.

To give a brief summary, An Inspector Calls is about the visit of an inspector (the one and only David Thewlis) to the home of a typical British upper middle class family in 1912, after the suicide of a young lower class woman. It is important to point out that this is not a murder mystery. He does not ask them "Where were you at 5:18 last Tuesday?" and the movie does not end (spoiler alert!) with hauling off a hardened criminal to prison. Rather, though this movie does not quote scripture, it explores the question "Am I my brother's keeper?"

All of the members of this family would be described as "good people" by their own set and seem like an ordinary bunch, but it is revealed throughout the movie that each of their lives intersected with that of Eva Smith, the dead girl, in some way.

Each of the characters had an opportunity to do good to this girl and each instead put their own interests first. Without wanting to give too much away, this includes doing direct harm as well as looking the other way when a fellow creature was in need. Once again, I would note that most of these characters would not be described as "criminal" or seen as some kind of aberrant monster. They simply chose to act out of fear, pride, spite, and selfishness instead of loving their neighbor.

I also think it's interesting that the play this movie was based on premiered in 1945, directly after the end of World War II. At this moment in history, the world was grappling with the question of complicity in regards the horrible genocide in Europe. How much were ordinary Germans (and Europeans generally) who never held a gun responsible for the destruction of their neighbors?

It's clear that the person releasing Zyklon B into the gas chambers is guilty of murder, but what about the manufactures of the poison? What about the guy driving the train filled with prisoners? What about the townspeople who lived close enough to concentration camps to hear what was going on but did nothing?

These aren't easy questions. History is messy and there are no cut and dried answers because people are messy. I mean, I can't always fully tell you my motivation for actions I took yesterday, even if I wanted to be honest and leave a clear historical record.

Which is why I appreciated this movie. It (and, I presume, the original play) doesn't wrap up in a nice and tidy ending. Half of the characters are concerned only about covering up their involvement in the life and death of Eva Smith. The other half are filled with guilt over the part they have played in driving her to her own destruction.

This is not to say that they "as good as murdered her" or to excuse her for any sin that she committed or to lay the blame for that at their door. Yet, the Bible does say that it is better to have a millstone tied around your neck than to lead another person into sin, which seems to me to say that we do have a weighty responsibility to our neighbors and can have an effect on whether or not they choose sin. And certainly we have the responsibility to pursue justice for the vulnerable — God even tells the Israelites that bringing him sacrifices and following ritual laws means nothing if we are participating in injustice.

It also struck me that so many of the situations in this movie were related to the fact that Miss Smith was a woman. Because she was a woman she was paid less. Because she was a woman she couldn't find a job. Because she was a woman she had little choice in becoming a man's mistress because she didn't have any other option. And further, because she was a lower class woman, she couldn't make a good marriage or live a life of idleness. In that time of the world — and in many parts of the world today — the powerlessness of her gender intersected with her class to create a no-win situation.

And then this speech:

"Eva Smith is gone. You can't do her any more harm. You can't do her any good either. You can't even say 'I'm sorry.' But just remember this: there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives and hopes and fears and suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives and what we think and say and do. We don't live alone on this earth. We are responsible for each other."

It reminded me rather of A Christmas Carol. Ebenezer Scrooge can't go back and marry his sweetheart. He can't change the past. But he can choose how he treats Bob Cratchit.

I cringe as I write this, lest I come across sounding more like a moralist than a Christian. To be clear, I don't think it's possible to live our lives putting the other at the center instead of ourselves. And I hope that no one reads this and finds themself in the position of going from selfish motivation to motivation of guilt, "ought to," or duty. We have the power to choose selflessness and love and humility and even our own death only when God is at the center of our lives, not ourselves or our neighbors (wow, a lot of italics in one sentence). Because we love him, we can obey him and love other people. And we get to love him because he first loved us.

What is the conclusion to this philosophical sketch? I'm not sure. What does it stir in you? Where in your life are you brushing past the other, are you leaving an unexamined impact?

One thing that comes to mind for me is my purchases. Friends, it's really expensive to be healthy. Yes, processed food costs more than bulk ingredients, but there are times when it is simply a lot more expensive to choose the zero-waste, organic, ethical choice. And it feels like, is it really worth it? Can I justify spending twice as much on this item because it feels somehow better?

To be clear, not everyone has the budget to go plastic free and organic. I don't have that budget. I guess all I'm saying is that yes, it is harder to choose the road less travelled. It is way easier to buy clothes made in a factory run by slave labor. It is always going to be cheaper to buy conventional produce. But the point is, "We don't live alone on this earth." My choice to buy jeans from a thrift store or Target affects someone else's life. And when I weigh the many factors that lead to that choice, I hope at least one of them is Eva Smith.

A brief comparison of Howard's End (1992) and Howard's End (2017/2018)

Okay, folks, here's how this is going to work: I'm a reader first and then a movie watcher, so any novel-to-film review will mostly examine the faithfulness of the adaption. Secondly, I love historical costuming, so I can never review a period drama without touching on the clothes. Thirdly, I'm short on time because right now it's 8:45 pm, my bed time is 9:00pm, and I still haven't finished my reading my 8:00am class tomorrow...heh. And even though I'll be working this in more than one sitting, the likely case is that I will have homework calling my name regardless of when I finish this. So basically, you're going to get the down and dirty version of my thoughts, so to speak (except I'm not speaking. I'm typing and you're reading. So take that for what it's worth, I guess).

I'll attempt to talk in veiled terms so as to be spoiler-free for those of you who haven't read the book or seen either of these adaptions, but I'll also be referring to "that one scene where the guy talks about his job," which will obviously make no sense if you have no frame of reference for the story. I do recommend reading the book. I listened to it, but think I would have appreciated it more reading it. I didn't immediately know what I thought about it when I finished. It seemed sort of abrupt, and had some "unreliable narrator" moments which I'm not a fan of. However, I think it's really quite a progressive book for its time (written by a E.M. Forester in 1910) and deals with such complex themes as women's roles, sexism, classism, extramarital affairs, the spiritual relation to the physical, and the intellectual life. It would make for a great book group discussion, I think (which is sort of ironic, as some of the book reflects on the fact that it is only the wealthy, privileged class who has time for intellectual pursuits and discussion clubs).

A Hasty Overview of Plot Points

1992: For a fairly short movie, this stuck to the plot very well. The main important episode that was omitted was the drive down to Evie's wedding. The car hits a cat and the Wilcox clan blows it off as the fault of the peasants who were in the road, while Margaret leaps from the car to check on the people. This basically shows to demonstrate, once again, the worldly, money-fixes-everything, spiritually deficient nature of the Wilcoxes.

The iconic keys-in-the-grass scene.

2018: As a miniseries, they were able to be a bit more detailed, but they also omitted the cat-turned-pancake scene. Surprisingly, for having more time than the 1992 movie, I thought that it was a little bit less faithful to the book. 

Evie being fake nice, as usual.

For instance, in the scene were Leonard Bast has tea with the Schlegels, they changed the dialogue. In the book (and the original movie), Len takes the hint about his business being likely to "smash" as though the Schlegel girls are trying to "pick his brain" (i.e., use him to get information about his company for some devious underhand purpose). He simply is not used to people who have the leisure to do an act out of pure (if misguided) benevolence. 

However, in the 2017/2018 miniseries, Tibby comes in as Helen is trying to smooth things over with Len and says something like "Is this the fellow you talk about in your social club? Part of your experiment?" I think this was the writers' attempt to make one of the themes of the book —interaction across social classes and how that can benefit or harm both parties — more obvious, but it was very clumsy in my opinion. It put an entirely new spin on Len's irritation and/or embarrassment that I didn't feel was in the book at all.

Even more importantly, I was pretty shocked that they entirely skipped the conversation between Helen and Margaret that takes place when Margaret surprises Helen at Howard's End. In the book and the 1992 adaption, when Margaret bursts in they have a long conversation, as Helen is angry and Margaret explains, etc. In the movie, they show Margaret walking in and then cut to a scene presumably an hour or so later, alluding to the fact that they talked but entirely dismissing the viewer from participation in this important conversation. Also, I felt they rushed one of the most important scenes of the story, where *SPOILER* Meg confronts Henry and drops the keys on the grass. *End spoiler* Also, why was Aunt Julie with the Schlegels the first time they met Leonard Bast? But overall, I'm pleased with this transfer of book-to-screen as well.

A Quick Sketch of the Cast

1992: Overall, I thought the cast was very well chosen. I love Emma Thompson, but I felt she was too old for the role. In the beginning of the book, Margaret is 29. She is still viewed as a naive girl, even though she is more mature and firmly grounded than Helen through virtue of being the oldest child and having basically raised Helen and Tibby. But Emma Thompson is such a good actress that by the end of the movie she had convinced me into loving her. Plus she and Anthony Hopkins are a great pair. 

I love Tibby.

Can we all just take a minute to appreciate how amazing Anthony Hopkins is as an actor? Helena Bonham Carter was good as Helen, but not all that memorable in my opinion. Tibby was quite good. The actress for Jackie was fine, but the way they made her up gave the impression that she was quite a bit more disreputable than I got the impression she was in the book. Both of the adaptions did a good job of showing that, while the Basts' marriage was not perfect and was in some ways unsatisfying (especially to Len), Jackie does care about him. This movie has my favorite Charles and Dolly. Dolly is honestly the most hilarious personage.

Dolly's ability to always say the absolute wrong thing is priceless.

2018: As with the other film, I'm generally satisfied with the cast. Charles and Evie were just as nasty as necessary. Margaret seemed a bit more the proper age in this one — and Hayley Atwell is really good — but Helen and especially Tibby seemed too young. Tibby is 16 at the beginning of the book but is at Oxford by the end. In this adaption, he seems all of 14 years old throughout (and was as annoying as a fourteen year old boy would be expected to be). I did feel that the siblings seemed a little bit more like a real family than in the 1992 version. 

The actors/directors did a really good job showing the close relationship and mutual oddness between the Schlegels. I love Matthew McFadyen so of course he was great. I liked that in this version, Mrs. Bast seemed a little bit more respectable — yes, I know she has a past, but the book does not imply she has a present, if you know what I mean. This Mrs. Bast wears actual clothing instead of hanging out in a corset and dressing gown all day (in general, this film makes the Basts' seem less destitute — they have walls instead of curtains and decent furniture to sit on. Not sure whether that's more faithful to the book or not, but there you go). 

The Basts

A Disproportionate Amount of Pictures (ie. The Costumes)

1992: There is not enough space on this blog (nor enough screen captures available on the internet) to showcase the costumes from this film. I loooooveed all of Margaret's outfits (though Helen's not so much). Absolutely lovely white frocks, shawls, hats, etc. What I can't figure out is why Helen had her hair down in almost every single scene. Yes, she's young when the story starts, but she's twenty-two, not thirteen! I thought maybe they would use her hair to show her aging, but nope, it stays down. This is the Edwardian era, not the 1970s. Going out without a hat, let alone leaving your hair down, was a social faux-pas.

 I'm sorry, Helen's hair is just a mess and her costumes were not very appealing to me. I love the black and white dress Margaret wears to Evie's wedding, though.

The coat!

2018: Overall, I preferred the costumes in the 1992 film to the miniseries. In the first couple episodes, Margaret wears a lot of plaid and dark colors, which was surprising to me as one usually sees so many light colored tea gowns and blouses in Edwardian fashion. 

Just not feeling the plaid.

Some of Helen's ensembles were downright strange.

In the last two episodes, she wears a lot more of the white, lacy frocks that one expects. I read another reviewer suggesting that they were trying to contrast Margaret's independent, emancipated-woman situation in the beginning with her position after *SPOILER* marriage, as she molds herself to the expectation of the submissive woman. *End spoiler*

I love all the details of this dress.

 I absolutely loved Margaret's hair. I know it's a wig but I'm missing the time when I had hair long enough to do that kind of thing. Can someone put out a tutorial for that, please? 

This movie had the same issue with Helen's hair as the 1992 version. Once again, I thought they would use the transition from loose hair to up-do as a way to show time passing, but she has it hanging loose up to the very end. Perhaps they were trying to show Helen's indifference to social customs that she deemed unnecessary? But I don't get the impression, from the book, that her frankness and independence extended to a flagrant disregard for modesty, which is what this would have been considered.

In Summary

I have compared both versions for the benefit of anyone interested, but I leave the choice up to you, as I cannot pick a favorite. All in all, both versions are excellent adaptions, and I highly recommend you watch them both — always provided that you've read the book first. ;) 

Little Women (2017) Mini Series Review

It's always when I'm the most busy that I have the most ideas for posts. I have had a weekend at home (yay! traveling for conferences is fun but east, west, home's best) but plenty of stuff to fill it with. So this shall be a very brief review of the new BBC Little Women (variously dated as 2017 or 2018). Apologies in advance for the picture overload.

Casting

To be honest, I didn't think any of the sisters were amazing actresses.  Amy was the worst — she seemed an annoying brat throughout the whole movie, rather than merely a slightly vain silly little girl who grows up into a young lady with a liking for elegance.

For instance, when she burns Jo's manuscript she has neither fear nor regret; instead she says brazenly "I said I'd make you pay." Now, I'm definitely biased in favor of the 1994 version (because I grew up with it, adore the music, and etc), but I think it portrayed this scene muuuch better. Amy denies having been the one to do the deed, is afraid of Jo's rage and also seems regretful, if not penitent. Jo's anger is also more realistically portrayed.

Super jealous of Beth and Jo's freckles.

Jo, Beth, and Meg had good moments and bad moments. For instance, Beth was pretty good in general, but during her scene of telling Jo she was dying (sorry, spoiler) she didn't seem to have any emotion whatsoever. Yes, she has been processing and experiencing her own decline for months, but still. One might expect a tear leaking out, a trembling lip, or at least a faltering voice...? Nope. She might have been informing Jo that she'd decided against purchasing a new hat.

I liked Meg in general, but in the "Aunt March abuses Rook" scene, she didn't seem all that believable. Buuut I got teared up in the ensuing minutes when the said Rook — er, Brooke — departs to serve in the war and the sisters are singing "Land of the Leale," so she can't have been too bad. :P

Jo also improved over the course of the three episodes. I think part of the reason her acting felt unnatural was the dialogue. Normally I'm a big fan of quoting directly from the book, but in the context of this movie (which had a generally modern rather than period drama feel, in my opinion), the old-fashioned phrases felt stilted and awkward.

Of course Marmee and Aunt March — Emily Watson and Angela Lansbury, respectively, were amazing. Father was fine. I'd like to dislike Mr. Laurence on principle (he's played by Michael Gambon) but he was fine as well.

Mr. Bhaer was much better than the 1994 actor. He seemed younger and livelier, and it seems less confusing that Jo would be attracted to him.

We cannot forget Laurie, of course. He was simply adorable - his dimple! — and fun.

Script

This leads me to the dialogue. In many parts they quoted directly from the book, but either the context or delivery made it feel very awkward. The miniseries felt both more old-fashioned and more contemporary than the 1994 version.

However, with the additional hour they were able to include Camp Laurence, Beth and Jo's trip to the seaside, more snapshots of Meg's family life, and a brief "epilogue" type scene at Plumfield.

In summary, more accurate to the book, but in some ways not as well delivered as the 1994 version.

Sound

Part of old-modern disconnect was from the soundtrack. It utilized a banjo and violin which occasionally sounded like authentic late 18th c. old West music but more often did not fit the mood of the scene at all. At some points where the mood was supposed to be uplifting, it was very dramatic/somber. At other points it was so bouncy and modern it felt like I was watching a Youtube tutorial for DIY wrapping paper.

AH! This scene!

This may be because I love the 1994 (sorry, I can't help comparing) soundtrack so much. I think it captures the themes of Little Women — the passing of time, growing up, sorrows and joys, family life — so well.

Visuals

The costumes and hair were in general very visually appealing. I'm not an 1860s expert by any means, but there seemed to be a lot more loose hair on Jo's part than would be acceptable.

Jo and Meg had several simple, but pretty, costumes that I would definitely wear in real life if it was socially acceptable. Haha.

I quite like Meg and Marmee's dresses here (incidentally I wore a dress very similar to Meg's when I played Jo in a play.)

The wedding clothes were the best. The garlands!

Only complaint was that Jo had a few really homely hats. I could only find a screen capture of one, but as you can see, it is simply strange. (Nice scene though. I loved that Jo couldn't stop smiling.)

In summary, I'd probably give it a 4 out of 5. The soundtrack was definitely a huge drawback, and the acting at some times felt awkward with the dialogue, but in general it was believable, beautiful, and fun.

Well, readers? Have you seen any Little Women adaptions? Do you support Jo/Bhaer and Laurie/Amy, or are you holding out for Jo and Laurie yet? Would you wear any 1860s ensembles?

Awdur

The Relative Merits of Pride and Prejudice films

There seems to be a continuing debate on the superiority of one Pride and Prejudice film (1995 or 2005) over the other. Despite the vocal majority being on the side of Colin Firth P&P '95, it is a not a truth universally acknowledged. Additionally, the debate sets up a false dichotomy, since of course these are not the only films to attempt to portray Jane Austen's classic.
Because I had way too much time on my hands am not entirely satisfied with either movie, I recently watched the 1940 Pride and Prejudice also presented here for your interest. It will henceforth be referred to as "Southern Belle P&P."

*Note: This is not a "review." I'll be dropping spoilers like... well, frequently, and I provide no synopsis. It is intended to be a guide to Janeites who have read the book but have yet to see any (or some) of the adaptations.*


CHARACTERS

1940 // 1995 // 2005

ELIZABETH BENNET

Southern Belle P&P: As an actress, I actually think Greer Garson may be the best Lizzy. Her character is written a little more teary-eyed than Elizabeth Bennet of the books; at times the Old Hollywood style of acting (tending to the melodramatic) is a little too much. However, she plays Lizzy's overall outlook of "choosing to be amused at the world" well, so I think if she had been directed by the 1995 or 2005 director she could have been the ideal Lizzy.

Colin-Firth-in-a-wet-shirt P&P: I do like Jennifer Ehle as Lizzy, but she isn't the ideal Lizzy for me. She is a good actress, and has a good handle on the character, as well as being the most Lizzy-looking of the three. I think it might be her voice (sorry, I know she can't help it) which just doesn't shout "Elizabeth Bennet" to me.

Emo P&P: It's hard to put my finger on what drives me crazy about Kiera Knightley's portrayal. Perhaps she's a little too emotional? Brooding? Yes, she says funny things and laughs, but instead of an overall amused outlook on life it seems to be an overall brooding outlook, which she forces herself to break by making a joke. Also, she doesn't behave with dignity. Perhaps that is the main flaw with her acting. Or perhaps it's just hard to get past all the eyeliner and sloppy hair (complete with pixie cut sticking out in the back).

1940 // 1995 // 2005

MR. DARCY

 1940: It is difficult to say how much is due to Laurence Olivier's acting and how much is due to the writer/director of his character, but Darcy is much too likeable in this movie. His first line "Tolerable, but not enough to tempt me" was his first and last moment of rudeness. From then on, he and Lizzy have amicable conversations and he is all kindness. Except for the first proposal. They kept the lines pretty much straight from the film, but it felt all wrong, because this Mr. Darcy is so nice. It rather came out of nowhere. He even says, halfway through the film, "I rather admired what you did this afternoon, Miss Elizabeth. Your resentment of what you believed to be an injustice showed courage and loyalty. I could wish that I might possess a friend who would defend me as ably as Mr. Wickham was defended today." ??

They spent so much time making Darcy seem like a great hero, the writers forgot that Darcy is NOT a friendly, perfect guy in the opening scene. He is proud (see the title) and because of that, rude at times. There isn't a secret romantic passion between him and Elizabeth from page one. She only takes interest in him some time after his first proposal, and for a reason.

1995: Not my ideal Darcy (sorry!), but it's hard to say why not. He's the best I've yet seen. I'm only now just getting past the the Darcy hype and learning why, 10 years ago, I fell in love with this romance and this hero. I haven't much to say about Mr. Firth because he plays Mr. Darcy pretty well.

2005: Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy does a much better job showing his pride than Laurence Olivier, but it also tends to the "he's just socially awkward and shy, it's all a misunderstanding" view of Darcy. My dear readers, Darcy's change is central to the story. Also, his hair wants cutting.

1940 // 1995 // 2005

JANE
1940: Jane is totally ditzy in this film. I mean, ridiculously. I'm unable to find any youtube clips of her  illness at Netherfield, but the way she nods and smiles in a nothing-going-on-upstairs kind of way in that bit kills me. She says a few sweet things, is definitely pretty, but appears to be an idiot. Clattering by Lizzy and Darcy talking: "Mr. Bingley is going to have dancing!"

1995: Susanna Harker is a lovely person, but the hair styles in this movie are just not becoming to her. I also feel that she comes across as not particularly intelligent. Of course, this depends on how you like your Jane. Mr. Bennet says that all of his daughters are "silly and ignorant like other girls." He is deliberately antagonizing Mrs. Bennet at this part, but I think his comment is valid. Kitty and Lydia are obviously officer-silly. Mary's moralizing speeches show a lack of true understanding. Jane's insistence on thinking well of people becomes almost willful ignorance. Even Lizzy, who has "something more of quickness than her sisters," is totally mistaken in the true character of our leading gentleman and his enemy. So, if you take the position that Jane ought to be a little dim witted, you would certainly have a case to argue, and I will not complain against Susanna Harker.

2005: Rosamund Pike does such an excellent job of showing Jane's sweet, gentle personality. Her smiles at Mr. Bingley seem genuine, yet Charlotte's advice that Jane had better show more affection than she feels does not seem unwarranted (contrastingly, the 1940 Jane is so vivacious that Mr. Darcy's plea of being unsure of Jane's feelings seems ridiculous). Her tears and "Yes, a thousand times yes!" in response to Mr. Bingley's proposal (oops, did you know they end up together?) is perfectly Jane. I personally prefer Jane kind but not dumb — not that she is ignorant of people's evil intentions, but chooses to hope for the best in them.

Mary, 1940 // Kitty and Lydia, 1995 // Mary and Lydia, 2005

THE SILLY SISTERS
1940: All the girls act TOO silly: Jane, Lizzy, and Mary included. Mary wears glasses and visits a book shop, but isn't otherwise bookish or solemn. Not one moralizing speech makes an appearance. Kitty and Lydia (of whom good pictures are few) are not memorable. Lydia's big scene, when she returns a married woman, is so hastily done that the irony and shamelessness of the moment is entirely lost.

1995: Mary is great. Her serious reflections are just what they ought. She does look a little old for the part, though. Lydia sounds perpetually hoarse but Julia Sawalha is a great actress. Her flirtations and improprieties drive me horribly crazy, as I'm rather a stuffed shirt than otherwise. I'm not a huge fan of Kitty.

2005: Kitty and Lydia are decent, but the girls are simply not that funny. The film tones them all down. Mary's only memorable speech is a line stolen from Miss Bingley about having conversation instead of dancing at balls, delivered half heartedly.

1940 // 1995 // 2005

MR. AND MRS. BENNET

1940: Over the top funny. They, too, suffer from the melodramatic vein of Southern Belle P&P, but they're not bad.

1995: Mrs. Bennet is perfectly awful. Her scheming and gossiping and fancying herself ill drives one absolutely batty (as it ought). Her voice sounds like Miss Piggy (I'm sorry, you'll never be able to un-hear that). Mr. Bennet is delightfully sarcastic. "Well, my dear, if Jane should die of this fever, it will be comfort to feel that it was all in pursuit of Mr. Bingley, and under your orders."

2005: Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Bennet are decent. I've heard it said that Mrs. Bennet is a little too sympathetic as a character. And yes, there are moments, when she and Mr. Bennet are quietly talking over their daughters, that you don't hate her. But Alison Steadman is an excellent actress and her "Such flutterings and spasms all over me!" quickly replaced by "A daughter, married!" is absolutely hilarious.
Mr. Bennet slouches horribly and I have always found it annoying.

MR. COLLINS

1940: He's not bad, but comes across as just totally ditzy, like he's wandering around in a cloud world (come to think of it, everyone in this film seems a bit farther on the ditzy-scale than normal). He isn't as pompous and self-important as one expects.

1995: Every bit of this Mr. Collins is oily, including his hair. He is perhaps a little too much a times, but he is very funny. I will say that the book describes Mr. Collins as tall, and David Bamber is short. This does add to the humour, however.

2005: Mr. Collins is once again, humoursly short. He is very funny, but quite different from the 1995 actor. It really depends on how you like your Collins; Tom Hollander is less oily and seems more sincerely full of his self-importance (David Bamber's pomposity [is that a word?] seems more put on). It is extremely difficult for me to pick between the two, as they are both represent the character well but in different ways.

1940 // 1995 // 2005

WICKHAM
Wickham is a tricky character. He can't seem too good, because of course he is wicked at heart. But if he is obviously a creeper to a person watching the movie with no knowledge of the book, it makes Lizzy seem stupid to have believed in him.

1940: This Wickham is, in a way, the best of the Wickhams, because he doesn't seem like a slimeball at all. He is quite dashing (with his totally-Regency moustache) and seems like a nice enough fellow. He keeps seeming like a nice fellow all the way to the end, in fact, by which time we ought to remember he's not.

1995: Wickham is good, very friendly and gallant, but I will say that he seems like a faker to me from the beginning.

2005: Mr. Wickham suffers from the 2005 hair problems and his modesty is a bit overdone. But I will say he is my pick of the Wickhams, because he manages to be not creepy in the first bit, while still being believably evil in the second half.

1940 // 1995 // 2005

LADY CATHERINE

1940: Edna May Oliver acts Lady Catherine fairly well. She has a I confess this Lady Catherine leaves something to be desired, but it is more the character than the actress I quarrel with. The writers added a plot twist that Lady Catherine is actually a sweet old lady who just has an attitude. ?

1995: Ah, Lady Catherine. Swelled with dignity, yet not polite. She says out loud what everyone else is thinking. Barbara Leigh-Hunt is an excellent actress, but at times seems a little languid, as if she is ill.

2005: It is impossible to complain about Judi Dench. She plays the Imperious Grand Woman to perfection. She is even less apologetic about herself and her opinions than the 1995 Lady Catherine. "How very strange!" "Fitzwilliam, I need you!"

Clockwise from top left: Miss Bingley and Mrs. Hurst, 1995 // Bingley, 1995 // Miss Bingley, 2005 // Bingley, 2005

THE BINGLEYS

1940 (Of which there are no great pictures): Miss Bingley is very imperious and haughty. Nothing to complain about. Honestly, Mr. Bingley is just boring.

1995: Miss Bingley is a very good actress. She gives the Bennets a charming welcome which would certainly deceive Jane, while glancing behind her with a "when will this be over" look that isn't lost on watchers. "Mr. Bennet! Mrs. Bennet! Quite delighted. Ah, and all your daughters..."This is the only film where we get a Mrs. Hurst. Charles Bingley is charming.

2005: Some people think this Mr. Bingley seems dumb. I do not think he is any dumber than Jane Austen intended him to be (see reflections on Jane Bennet, above). She says only that he is "by no means deficient" and that Darcy is "the superior" in understanding. I think this Mr. Bingley is adorable. It's hard to get past the fact that Miss Bingley is almost always in a state of undress, but her cutting lines are well delivered. She is, if anything, a little too nasty. We don't really see her being charming.



*Of course, I haven't dealt with Georgianna, Col. Fitzwilliam, the Gardiners or Charlotte Lucas... Since brevity is the soul of wit, however, suffice it to say that Georgianna is omitted from the 1940 version and seems to be all of twelve years old in the 2005 version. Col. Fitzwilliam is strange in Emo P&P, and wears a kilt in Southern Belle P&P. In Southern Belle P&P, the Gardners are omitted and Charlotte Lucas is barely a character. They are decently portrayed in both the 1995 and 2005 versions.

STORYLINE:

1940: Though I've read the book at least half a dozen times, seen the 1995 version thrice and the 2005 version twice that, I didn't know what was going on in Southern Belle P&P. It is right at two hours long, and they manage those 120 minutes very ill. The events of the book are very compressed, in order to fit in some random scenes which seemed peculiarly unnecessary. For instance, at the first ball, Lizzy meets Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley meets Jane, Lizzy is snubbed by Darcy, barely five minutes later is asked to dance by him, AND Wickham and Darcy encounter each other.

Instead of the Netherfield ball, there is a garden party, at which Lizzy hides in a clump of bushes from Mr. Collins (waving conspiratorially at Darcy so he won't give her away and then thanking him for complying), Darcy demonstrates how to hold a bow very closely to Lizzy (who then demonstrates to him that she is an excellent archer), and all of Lizzy's family embarrasses themselves. Miss Bingley then compliments Lizzy on her interesting family, after which she cries in the garden and Mr. Darcy comforts her. And we get this beautiful exchange:
"At this moment, it's difficult to believe that you're so... proud."
Quoth he: "At this moment, it's difficult to believe that you're so... prejudiced. Shall we not call it quits and start again?"
They don't of course, because he still hasn't explained about Mr. Wickham, injured Jane, or proposed, and if they got engaged now we would have no story.

Both proposals are strange. Because she seems to have a secret passion for Mr. Darcy from day one, Lizzy almost accepts the first proposal (which wouldn't have been too unnatural, as it is hardly rude at all), and is almost laughing afterwards, rather than needing many days for composure. Then the Wickham event, which Lizzy hears of after returning home. Rather than going immediately to help Wickham, he asks if he can help and then does nothing, since she says no. Instead we have an unnecessary scene where Miss Bingley tells Darcy and Bingley that Wickham and Lydia are still missing. This has caused the Bennet family to be completely ostracized in their community and she even reports that Lizzy and Jane have been seen fleeing through the streets. It is only THEN that Darcy decides to go look for the pair, after which he sets them up with a yearly salary, enough for Lydia and Wickham to arrive at Longbourne in a four-horse carriage and trumpeters before them (!).
Upon their visit, the viewers learn that the Bennet's are actually moving to a seaside town to escape the shame. Everything is in an uproar, with tea cups on the floor and a parrot in a chair, when Lady Catherine arrives. Her visit is actually a stunt to test Lizzy's loyalty, as Darcy is waiting outside. When Lizzy refuses to not marry Darcy, Lady C. sails out and tells Darcy that Lizzy is "perfect" for him, since he's been spoiled all his life (not evident in this film, for he is kind and considerate and not at all proud or selfish). "What you need is a woman who can stand up to you."
The ending sequence shows Lizzy in the garden with Darcy, Jane and Bingley reconciling in another nook, Lydia together with Wickham, and Mr. and Mrs. Bennet surveying two young men paying attentions to Mary and Kitty in their parlor. (They know it's love because the young rector is playing the flute to Mary's terrible singing with great complaisance.)

So yes, we have five sisters in need of marriage, two proposals, a visit to Rosings Park, and a scheming Miss Bingley, but otherwise the story is quite different. There is no visit to Pemberley, nor is one necessary, since Mr. Darcy is already quite endearing and Elizabeth quite endeared.

1995: It's hard to complain about this movie. It's pretty accurate to the book; though it's hardly fair to compare this to the other two, because it's 5 hours long, and has a lot more time to include all the details of the story (for instance, including Mrs. Hurst as a character. I like it when movies get all the details right, but I don't quarrel with this kind of omission because I realize time constraints make it necessary to do so.)
My one grievance with Andrew Davies is the notorious wet-shirt scene. You know what I'm talking about. Colin Firth strips down to his [albeit modest] underclothes, and it is in this wet shirt (no waistcoat or frock coat, which would have been quite inappropriate to be without) that he greets Elizabeth. Is it unreasonable that a guy would swim in his own pond after a hot ride, and that visitors should arrive concurrently? No. Is it something Jane Austen would write? A resounding no.

Various small bits differ from the book, but unlike certain other adaptions, the additions are things that Jane Austen might have written herself (except for Lydia running into Mr. Collins in the hallway half clothed. That is Lydia behaviour though, so I let it slide).

2005: Though not as deviant as Southern Belle P&P, Emo P&P takes some liberties.
Though I like Bingley, I dislike the fact that he chats with Jane in the bedroom when she's sick at Netherfield (this actually happens in the 1940 version as well, though he has the decency to peer over a screen, I guess). *I* wouldn't let a non-relative male into my bedroom while I'm lying there in my pjs. You think they were less concerned with propriety two hundred years ago?
The first proposal takes place in the rain (so Kiera can have extra runny eyeliner) and almost becomes romantic. ?! It's not supposed to be romantic. They aren't supposed to almost kiss at the end. He is RUDE, readers, and she is offended. (But um, still maintains dignity, Lizzy. You don't run about yelling "For once in your life, leave me alone!" at people).
Instead of meeting her on a walk, Mr. Darcy comes into Elizabeth's bedroom (where's she been sitting in her pjs, staring into a mirror all day), without even knocking, to drop off his letter.
The director must have a thing with filming people in their pajamas, because Lady Catherine's visit to intimidate/interrogate Elizabeth takes place in the middle of the night. I really have no clue why this decision was made.
We shouldn't be surprised then, when a fourth scene, namely the second proposal, also takes place in pjs. Heaven and earth, are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted? Serendipitously, Mr. Darcy and Lizzy both wander out about 5 am or so to take a walk in an adjoining field. With the inspiring words "Well.. your hands are cold" their romance is finally on happy footing.
A brief consultation in pjs with Mr. Bennet (probably agrees to the marriage because her reputation has been compromised) seals the deal, and then the scene switches to the married pair, wearing... you guessed it, pjs once again. A lot of kissing, and then the end.

One incorrect aspect of the film in general is that the Bennets are portrayed as very poor. The director expressed a desire to show how life was "pretty dirty" back in the day. He said that "messy is beautiful. I think tidiness is ugly and so that's just my aesthetic." This certainly comes across. Mrs. Bennet is slovenly, nobody's hair is tidy, and a pig wanders through the house. Although, yes, Mr. Bennet owned a farm, and yes, in their context the Bennets were "poor," they were not barely surviving peasants. Longbourne is not the name of the Bennets house, but a small village that Mr. Bennet owns. They have servants. The animals would have been some distance from the house. Perhaps the nineteenth century wasn't pristine, but neither are the Bennet ladies farm girls.
Overall, they do a fine job of compressing the plot into just over two hours. However, the expression of the film seems modernized, and, unfortunately, sensationalized. Readers, Jane Austen's original has enough emotional highs and lows without needing everyone in their pjs. (Note: Jane and Bingley's romance is handled much nicer than the main protagonists'. I dote upon them and their proposal scene is adorable.)

COSTUMES
1940: Sleeves as big as your head, eyelashes as long as your little finger, ridiculous bonnets, huge hoop skirts. I think the filmmakers envisioned the time period as the 1830s, while channeling Gone with the Wind.  Lady Catherine's outfits (see above) were reminiscent of an 1890s ensemble.
There were a few pretty frocks, such as Lizzy's First Proposal Dress.

Lovely Greer Garson almost always has large back curls and roses in her hair.

This one is simply strange.

But mostly it is just too much.

It's a balloon! It's a basketball! It's a... sleeve.

1995: I would not claim to be a fashion expert, as I base most of my knowledge off of google searches and being observant, rather than primary research or even reading books on the subject. However, to my limited knowledge and according to the statements of those who do know, this movie has the most period accurate (c. 1815) costumes. One of the only exceptions I know of is that the ladies frequently display décolletage in morning gowns, which would only have been appropriate for evening wear (odd, I know, but our society allows bikinis at the beach and not at the grocery store, so...) Also, the fashion of wearing white at a wedding only arose after Queen Victoria's marriage (1840). I don't blame the film makers too much for this, since people expect white at a wedding now.

As the film is five hours long, the costumes are far too numerous to be adequately covered in an already full post. I shall simply share the highlights.
Lizzy's gowns are probably my favourite. She and other Bennet girls frequently wear white, as would have been common.

She has some lovely spencer jackets (As compared to Kitty and Lydia's, which seem ill fitting and not that pretty. See above.)

Notice the lovely orange spencer and her hem detail. Ignore the fact that Mr. Darcy is in dishabille.

I also love Charlotte's lavender blue ball gown.

Lizzy's hair!

I quite adore Mr. Darcy's green frock coat with his pinstriped waistcoat.

2005: The number one goal of this film was to be pretty, not accurate. I have read that the costume designers found the empire waist ugly, so they decided to set the movie in the 1790s (when the first draft of Pride and Prejudice was written), rather than 1813 (when it was rewritten and published). However, they still weren't going for accuracy, so we have a clash of Regency, Georgian, and just plain modern things in this film.
Most characters, including Elizabeth, have a good deal of natural-waist dresses. She has some particularly strange pieces, like this weird, 1990s-looking jumper.

This is also one of the many examples of her hair hanging loose. This would have been considered quite inappropriate in either 1795 or 1813... (Also notice the eyeliner, which will make many more appearances on Miss Lizzy.)

Even when the waist line is higher, the silhouette is still wrong, as featured on Lizzy and Charlotte here. I do like Lizzy's green dress, as the color suits her very well. 

If you will notice, the waist line in a true Regency dress is very high and defined. It is possible that the designer was trying to make the dress more flattering to Kiera in particular, for Jane's clothing seems to be a little more accurate (this could also be a reflection that Mrs. Bennet gives her favored daughter nicer clothing?).

Lizzy also wears this horrible coat, which looks like it should belong to a man (not a man from the Regency era, though...)

This one is better. The brown and blue look nice together.

What is up with this weird little jacket? At least her hair is up, the hussy.

Jane has some very pretty pieces, all more Regency-looking, my favourite of which is this coat:

Both Jane and Lizzy look quite nice at the ball, I will say. I love the pearls in Lizzy's hair.

Miss Bingley's clothing is generally more Regency (except her hair). Perhaps the film makers intended for her to be more fashionable?

Except when she wears a slip to a ball... twice.

Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Mrs. Bennet, and the three young Bennet girls are squarely Georgian the whole movie. I think the idea here was that Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine, as older women, are still wearing the older fashions, and the girls are too young to have fashionable clothing? This may make sense for Mrs. Bennet, but I quarrel with it in Lady Catherine, as Austen actually goes to the trouble to remark (via Mr. Collins) on her "elegance of dress."

Very pretty, as are many of Mrs. Bennet's ensembles, but not Regency.

The men's clothing is decent (but doesn't compare to Colin Firth's waistcoats), and their hair is awful!

Mary, Kitty and Lizzy in Georgian peasant costume, Jane pretty in a blue Regency gown.

Mr. Bennet looks like he should be playing one of the Founding Fathers.

The tuft in the back spared her the concern she might have felt in refusing him, had his hair been trimmed in a more gentlemanlike manner.

"Why do only men with mullets take an interest in me?"

BONUS: THE DREAM TEAM

So, the question that I've dodged around this whole post: Which is the ideal P&P? The answer is: none of them. Not one of them completely satisfies my notion of the perfect movie. It's hard to do it really well in only 2 hours, but I'd also like a P&P adaption which I don't have to devote an entire weekend to. And I'll be honest, the cinematography of the 2005 is more visually appealing to me than the 1995 (partly because of the simple fact that it was made 10 years later with newer equipment &c.). So if I, in an ideal universe, could produce a Pride and Predjudice adaption...
I would have Andrew Davies adapt his script (1995) to three hours. Roman Osin (2005) would direct the photography.
Dario Marianelli would adapt his soundtrack to the new film. (The 2005 soundtrack is almost my favourite thing about the whole movie. I've nothing against the others but they're nothing to write home about, in my opinion.)
Green Garson and Colin Firth would star as Elizabeth and Darcy. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (just barely beating the 2005 couple), Lydia and Mary, Georgianna, and the Bingley sisters would be played by their 1995 actors. Jane, Mr. Bingley, Lady Catherine, Wickham (with a haircut, a smidge better than his 1995 counterpart), Kitty, and Mr. Collins would be from the 2005 film.

Agree? Disagree? Colin Firth or your money back? McFadyen for life? I'd love to hear your thoughts!



P.S. Read this far and still want the simple answer? My favourite adaption, and the most faithful, is the 1995 film. 2005 is a great romantic movie that I still enjoy, but if you're a die-hard purist, it will drive you bonkers. Then again, if you don't have 5 hours and period accurate costumes aren't important to you, go for the Kiera Knightley version. Only watch Southern Belle P&P if you have two hours to kill and nothing better to do with your life.