Jane Austen discussion

Directed by Robert Leonard, Screenplay by Aldous Huxley and Jane Murfin, Cast includes Greer Garson, Laurence Olivier, Edna May Oliver, Maureen O'Sullivan, Ann Rutherford (Austen film or not, an afternoon in the company of these actors is a treat.)

Wait, THE Aldous Huxley wrote the screenplay? I wouldn't have expected that. Great movie! :)

I'll have a look at the You tube clips in a couple of days - have company at the moment.:)

I saw this movie a year ago or so, and to say that it deviated from the book significantly is a bit of an understatement. Still, some fabulous acting!

Yes indeed, THE Aldous Huxley—so many literati tried their hand at Hollywood screenwriting at one time or another. He was living in Hollywood by 1940, I believe, and lived there till the end of his life. (Random factoid: he died the same day as John F. Kennedy.) Not sure he would be the first name to come to my mind when it’s a matter of adapting Austen!

Wow! Thank you for this interesting information. :)

Emilia wrote: "I saw this movie a year ago or so, and to say that it deviated from the book significantly is a bit of an understatement. Still, some fabulous acting!"

That's because it's an adaptation of a Broadway play inspired by the novel. The play was designed to make people laugh during the tough times of the Depression. This info comes from Susannah Fullerton's Celebrating Pride and Prejudice: 200 Years of Jane Austen's Masterpiece

I love finding notes and information about these film productions. Especially how 20th century writers and the happenings of the times tied in to the outcome of the movie.

If any of the material states anything specifically about Huxley's views on Austen, I would love to know.

And yes, the screenplay property had been purchased to create the movie, so this film is a product of 1930s Depression era and the beginnings of World War.

I read while perusing online that the film was an Oscar winner for artistic direction -- didn't check that. It certainly was done in immense Hollywood style. One of theories was that the costumes were retooled from Gone with the Wind and for audience appeal they wanted that more elaborate style of the later decades of the 1800s. I don't understand why they didn't make the bonnets larger. haha Just kidding.

I also noted that this production takes place AFTER Waterloo. In the beginning when Mrs. Bennet learns of Mr. Bingley's arrival in the neighborhood, she says "This is the best news since the Battle of Waterloo." or something like that. I'd like to know more about the play. It was apparently a bit hit.

The Internet Broadway Database lists the facts

Pride and Prejudice
Music Box Theatre, (11/05/1935 - 11/25/1935)
Plymouth Theatre, (11/26/1935 - circa. 5/1936)
Opening Date: Nov 05, 1935
Closing Date: May 1936 Total Performances: 219

Produced by Max Gordon
Dramatized by Helen Jerome; Based on the novel by: Jane Austen; Music arranged by Alexander Haas; Musical Director: Alexander Haas
Staged by Robert B. Sinclair
Scenic Design by Jo Mielziner; Costume Design by Jo Mielziner
General Manager: Ben A. Boyar; Company Manager: A.L. Rheinstrom
Stage Manager: Eddie Sobol; Assistant Stage Mgr: Jock Munro
Press Representative: Ted Goldsmith and Max Gendel

Starring Adrianne Allen as Elizabeth and Colin Keith-Johnston as Darcy.

I'd love to see the play. I watched the film on monday, and realised I have seen it so many times that I can say much of the dialogue with them.

I did a review for the P&P 200th anniversary on Austenprose, and rather than try saying it all again I'm going to post that in a spoiler tag (for the length as well as the content), I hope you don't mind but it still says what I want to say.

(view spoiler)[
Pride and Prejudice 1940

It happened in OLD ENGLAND in the village of Meryton. - Opening Titles of Pride and Prejudice 1940

I approached this review in the same way as my previous ones, by making notes of the good and bad points while I watched the film. I shall try to be objective but I must confess that I love this film and have since I was a child, and I think perhaps in some cases the good and bad points are one and the same.

Now this version has even more scenes and people missing than the 2005 version but as I made the choice not to comment on that for a film then, I will mostly do the same here. A film’s time is limited so what is important, to my way of thinking, is to keep the essence of the story line and characters intact. In this the 1940 version succeeds where the 2005 one fails. Was it a faithful adaption? Of course not. Was it a beautiful story? Most definitely. The style of the film is definitely classic Hollywood and I think there is something magical about films from that era. They were made to make you feel good, to make you smile and to uplift you, even when they were sad. Modern films in some ways might be more realistic but they have lost something.

The most evident ‘mistake’ is the costumes, it’s obviously been set after the regency period but whilst the style is incorrect to the book, their dresses are suitable for young women of their station in life. Likewise their ages, though they are all clearly older than the characters they depict, are in proportion to each other. The conversations are recognisable but the words are not Jane Austen’s. Having said that there is some great banter that doesn’t feel out of place in the film or coming from the characters, whether that is the dialogue itself or the actors’ ability to deliver the lines, is possibly open for debate.

Another area which I think falls into both the good and bad category is the humour. They ham it up a little in places, for example, Lady Catherine walking into the chaos at Longbourne and accidentally sitting on Kitty’s music box, which again is not out of keeping with the style of the film, and so does not jar you or make you cringe, but you can’t necessarily imagine it in the more tranquil confines of the book.

A few odd things… Charlotte Lucas whilst professing to be as plain as she is in the original work, is anything but, Mr Collins is Lady Catherine’s librarian and not a clergyman, and Caroline Bingley whom at no point appears to be friendly to anyone other than her own party and Jane, is apparently in correspondence with someone residing in Meryton. A production point, that I’ve always rather liked, is the fact that certain characters have their own background music that plays whenever they are centre screen for that scene. A grand and imposing tune for those of the upper classes and something rather more whimsical for Mr Collins… it does add a certain atmosphere but now I know it well enough to notice, it also makes me smile. Another thing that I have always appreciated is the name they give to Colonel Forster’s regiment, where ‘the ___shire’s’ from the book, is literally pronounced as ‘the Blankshire’s’.

Possibly the one thing that I don’t think should have been altered was Lady Catherine’s attitude at the end. It wasn’t really necessary to change her into a loving aunt just looking out for her nephew, but this film has a neatly tied up happy ending for all its characters and I suppose they felt it might spoil it for her to remain opposed to the last.

What I think really makes this film work for me however, are the characters. Despite everything I have listed, the characters themselves remain true to their basic natures. They’re graceful, they have poise, and at first glance can pass for what they are meant to be. They have faults but it’s not in manners. There’s a general affection between the Bennetts that makes them seem like a family even when they’re at odds. The younger Bennett girls are immature but not vulgar or fast or particularly childish. They’re just enjoying themselves and being silly, and they’re also trusting where they shouldn’t be. Bingley is a gentleman and not stupid, Wickham is handsome and gentlemanlike, Caroline Bingley is delightfully snobby, Mrs Bennett is just the right mix of well brought up and dizzy, desperate to marry off her girls because that’s her job and old enough to have become a gossip. Jane is beautiful and sweet whilst Elizabeth played by Greer Garson is the stronger character, protective and caring of all her sisters. Mr Collins wonderfully pompous, Lady Catherine is suitably imposing and Mr Bennett is the perfect mix of dignified gentleman, resigned husband, and affectionate but disinterested/mocking father. And of course Laurence Olivier as Mr Darcy is the strong male lead, stiff at first but learning to bend to please Lizzy as he learns about her and himself.

On the whole it was a beautifully made romantic film and I would highly recommend watching it.

(hide spoiler)]

QNPoohBear wrote: "I also noted that this production takes place AFTER Waterloo. In the beginning when Mrs. Bennet learns of Mr. Bingley's arrival in the neighborhood, she says "This is the best news since the Battle..."

Some things I would transport back in time for! :)

Louise Sparrow wrote: "I'd love to see the play. I watched the film on monday, and realised I have seen it so many times that I can say much of the dialogue with them.

I did a review for the P&P 200th anniversary on Aus..."

Louise, I enjoyed reading your review. "..the good and bad points are one and the same." I like that.

I missed the part of Caroline writing to someone in the village. Where was that in the film?

I also think it was interesting that Collins was made to be Lady C's librarian. I didn't understand if he was also the parson, but was employed in particular as her librarian.

The essay I read earlier discussed how things were reflective on class details a bit in this movie. I wondered if Collins as librarian would have meant his social status was lower in this version.

The essay comments that Darcy's statement at the assembly ball is more cruel than in original text. In this film he remarks on "middle classes at play." Meaning more that middle classes (at that time period would have meant poorer and working class) playing at being rich -- which would have been more of an insult even. Especially since many of the people there were genteel at least.

I agree that this movie puts the girls in a better light. Even though they are getting tipsy at the picnic, they are not so verbally vulgar as shown sometimes. Mary seems to be less pious and annoying also -- more a part of the merriment.

I do love Garson and Olivier. Even though Darcy is thought of as more a sedate role, he surely is charming in this. It was said online that Colin Firth thought Olivier was perfect in this role. Don't know if that is fact.

I've watched the trailer & the first Darcy Proposal.

The trailer has five love-hungry sisters written across it. :D

Oliver & Garson make an attractive Darcy/Elizabeth. The non Regency dress was a bit disappointing.

Garson had the spirit of an Elizabeth Bennet, but I think she was rather old for the role, and so came off like a debonair, witty middle-aged woman, more than a lively, clever twenty-year old. But I found Olivier's interpretation of Darcy interesting, because he's much less of a brooding Darcy than the ones that came after him. He's more charming and lover-like than the Darcy in the book.

I missed the part of Caroline writing to someone in the village. Where was that in the film?
She was reading from a letter to Bingley and Darcy while they’re playing billiards. She tells them that the Bennetts were no longer welcome at the assembly ball, and Bingley ruins the table.

I also think it was interesting that Collins was made to be Lady C's librarian. I didn't understand if he was also the parson, but was employed in particular as her librarian.
I don’t think so, I assumed he was at first because my brain filled in the blanks with the book, but if you take it purely on what the film tells you, he wasn’t the parson.

The essay I read earlier discussed how things were reflective on class details a bit in this movie. I wondered if Collins as librarian would have meant his social status was lower in this version.
That’s interesting, I had assumed that they did it because a Librarian in 1940 would have seemed more gentile and require less explanation.

Emilia wrote: "Garson had the spirit of an Elizabeth Bennet, but I think she was rather old for the role, and so came off like a debonair, witty middle-aged woman, more than a lively, clever twenty-year old. But ..."

I guess you define 35 as middle-aged? :)

Ugh, just finished watching it again. There’s something so not-Jane-Austen about it—the sentimental music? the fluttering women? the removal of all subtlety? perhaps the pampas grass in the Netherfield garden! And all the older women—including Catherine De Bourgh, huh??—acting like procuresses. I did enjoy Mr. Collins, though like all the rest of the cast he was too old.

And I have to wonder at some of the instances of artistic license: Mr. Darcy was much more gallant, as others have mentioned, which makes Elizabeth seem rather petulant—just another emotional female. Changing the era (to the extent that an era can be identified, with the women wearing midcentury styles of the American South, or at least Hollywood’s interpretation of that, and the men in a simulacrum of Edwardian garb). I noticed that they had Bingley come to his senses without being told to do so by Darcy: perhaps the 1940 definition of a manly man required it? And speaking of manly men, Darcy seemed a bit swishy at times; perhaps he was trying to play courtly?

All in all, I’m afraid this movie tends to be a big, irritating rash in my mind.

Robin wrote: "I guess you define 35 as middle-aged? :)

Ha! I read a review of a no longer funny comedy duo over here, which said something along the lines that these middle aged hasbeens should get off our screens. Startled I looked up the "comedians" ages. 38 (but looks much younger) and 35.

Suddenly I felt really old!

Oh dear... I'm thirty so, no, I don't think 35 is middle aged (I had no idea how old the actress was!!) I just meant she doesn't seem at all like a twenty year old, which sort of affects how we perceive the characters in P&P. For example, Bingley's indecision and inability to make up his mind to marry makes so much more sense when we remember he's only 23. Elizabeth being playful and teasing has a different feel when we see her as a 20 year old (or 21), than if she's 35. I had a similar problem with Colin Firth's casting in P&P '95. He's a great actor and really did a good job on the series, but he's 35 when he plays a 27 year old. I mean, it's sort of okay for a 27 year old to go around in society, full of himself, and thinking that he can get away with showing the cold shoulder to people, when he doesn't want to fatigue himself to be nice to them. For a man in his mid-30s that sort of behaviour becomes a little less acceptable (or possibly we would be justified in thinking that he's less likely to reform his character at this stage). Certain character defects are less grating, more understandable and forgivable in younger people than in older. Or, at least, we perceive them differently.

I'm really interested - does anyone see the ages of actors in P&P as at all relevant? Is it just me?

Emilia wrote: "Oh dear... I'm thirty so, no, I don't think 35 is middle aged (I had no idea how old the actress was!!) I just meant she doesn't seem at all like a twenty year old, which sort of affects how we per..."

I think I'm just more tolerant of age on the old b/w movies. I remember being surprised when we finally got colour in NZ that actors/actresses suddenly looked old!

I had forgotten how young Darcy & Bingley were supposed to be! I am well overdue for a P&P reread! :D

I definitely found the ages of the actors jarring in P&P 1940.

Emilia wrote: "Oh dear... I'm thirty so, no, I don't think 35 is middle aged (I had no idea how old the actress was!!) I just meant she doesn't seem at all like a twenty year old, which sort of affects how we per..."

You make some interesting points, especially about Darcy seeming more stuck-up as a guy in his 30s than in his middle 20s. I hadn't thought of it that way, though I admit I think Firth was the best Darcy (and yes, that discussion is for another thread. In fact, there's one already lol). But your question got me thinking. Several people on other threads have mentioned they don't like Emma's character because she's such a snob, but she's the same age as Elizabeth - yet Austen wrote her to act so much immaturely. Emma forgives Frank Churchill his faults, saying he's just young. And doesn't Elizabeth herself forgive Bingley for hurting Jane as he did because he's not completely mature.

Which brings me to my answer, that I don't find the age of the actors in P&P relevant unless they're too young. I'm okay with Greer Garson being 35 in the 1940 movie, but I don't like Keira Knightly playing Elizabeth at 19. Somehow, I just don't find her mature enough.

I think of a lot of famous actors in roles they were popular for and it seems that watching them play the role and the age must work. Michael J. Fox comes to mind because I think he was around 25 playing 15 as Alex on Family Ties. Thinking of Mickey Rooney the other day, because of Ann Rutherford in this film...I think he played a lot of younger roles. playing a range of roles seems pretty traditional but I know women battle the producers on that more than men do. i am surely glad we had Olivier in this one, regardless of his real age.

In my case, I think it matters in Pride and Prejudice particularly, because we're suppose to be able to assess people's behaviours, and as I said the verdict varies depending on the age of the character. Firth is an excellent Darcy, but I think he would have been even better if he'd looked younger.

Coincidentally, I found both adaptations of Sense and Sensibility (the Emma Thompson and the more recent BBC series) jarring because of the age of Colonel Brandon. In the book he was in his thirties, but each time he's played by an actor in his forties (and they both look it) - which makes me feel a little uncomfortable about their devotion and love for a girl who is 16. Either is too old for her IMO, but somehow a man in his 30 is not *as* bad.

I've seen and liked the '40's adaptation. Caught all P&P's but my fave is the Firth version. Least is the Knightly adaptation. But that's not to say any were bad. Just that I'm partial to Colin Firth and that whole cast of characters. Enjoy.

Emilia wrote: "In my case, I think it matters in Pride and Prejudice particularly, because we're suppose to be able to assess people's behaviours, and as I said the verdict varies depending on the age of the char..."

That is a good point about portraying Colonel Brandon in film. It also might illustrate the nuances of each character. Colonel Brandon reflects more than just Marianne's potential lover in the story. Brandon also comes to the scene as a character of experience and wisdom, having background information that affects the larger picture of the story. He is also a character that offers support to the Dashwoods and their connections as the story goes along. All of this might cause a choice of an older actor to reflect these things.

Maybe roles like that of Darcy could be seen in the same light. He is a wealthy young gentlemen but has gone through an amount of turmoil...parental deaths, dealings with Wickham, the charge of his young sister. Maybe in a way we may envision him as a few years older.

Overall, psychologically, do we see the fictional character in a range rather than a specific age? Especially when we see roles from classic or well-known literature?

Emma Thompson as a 19 year old was far more unbelievable to me, but I don't usually find the ages jarring as long as they are in proportion.

That's a good point too. Louise. Casting the actors to fit within the group is certainly part of it, at least that seems to be said in "the making of" documentaries about films. Not that I have ever cast production myself!

Emma Thompson has always been such a lovely, vibrant human -- again, I am glad we have her in that role rather than not. I often see her as Eleanor in my head, when thinking of that character.

Louise Sparrow wrote: "Emma Thompson as a 19 year old was far more unbelievable to me, but I don't usually find the ages jarring as long as they are in proportion."

Indeed! I still prefered the film to the book though. My least favourite Austen.

Carol ♔Type, Oh Queen!♕ wrote: "Indeed! I still prefered the film to the book though. My least favourite Austen."

Mine too!

I think it's also important to remember that people of that era would be significantly different to anyone nowadays.

Girls of Elizabeth's age would be expected to be ready to marry and run a household... in some respects we know modern teenagers are less sheltered now but they also are not as well prepared to settle down so someone a few years older portraying them might actually be correct in terms of maturity.

Incidentally I saw the 1980 BBC S&S before I read the book, and consequently left it to last to read, but when I did finally read it I loved it and wondered how they could have made it so boring. The Emma Thompson version in my opinion was a brilliant screenplay, and I understand her casting herself, but her acting makes me shudder.

Louise Sparrow wrote: "I think it's also important to remember that people of that era would be significantly different to anyone nowadays.

Girls of Elizabeth's age would be expected to be ready to marry and run a hous..."

How interesting! It's so funny that we all love Austen so much, and yet have such different views on the adaptations! In a way that makes the continuous re-shooting of different adaptations all the more justified. Everyone wants to get it right, and nobody ever will (at least not to all Austen fans at once).

Incidentally, I love Thompson's S&S, her acting included :)

We DO have very different opinions. haha! Yes, we will certainly keep the movie industry in business.