Jane Austen discussion

A Latter Day Comedy

I have seen this movie some time ago (2 or 3 years?) and I remember not liking it particularly.

It annoyed me that they signalled Elizabeth is clever not by her ever saying anything particularly intelligent and witty (like she is supposed to) but by her knowing who Kierkegaard was. To me that's lazy characterisation, because Elizabeth's type of intelligence is actually important. She's not a walking encyclopedia!

It annoyed me that Bingley was as dumb as a dog in the movie. Like literally I think at some point he barks. The 2005 Kiera Knightley adaptation also made Bingley into a bit of a doofus and it's such a strange characterisation, because we're told over and over again in the book how Darcy doesn't tolerate fools - why the hell would he be friends with an idiot!? Nor would Elizabeth ever approve an idiot for a husband for her sister. Nor would Jane fall in love with one. It's a pet peeve of mine, this. At least they use 2005 Bingley's stupidity for comedy, but in this 2003 version if I remember correctly it all fell flat for me.

I also remember that Wickham kept trying to get married to everyone. I'm not sure why, and what he hoped to achieve in that way, but in modern times this seemed a bit silly and pointless.

Those are valid criticisms Emilia. The Bingley character often takes a strange turn in these scripts. I wonder if they feel that to make Bingley likeable (which he is already) that he must be portrayed a lesser intellect. Male followers of Austen should rally up around this issue. Someone should write an article in defense of Bingley.

I did like many of the modernizations of this Andrew Black version and I liked that they made Bingley's business the classical music for dogs (and later cats). That level of comedy met me where I am right now, as did some of the other points of comedy in this film.

The last modernized version of P&P that I tried was the Eligible book discussion we held here last year. That comparison came to my mind as I watched this film version. I like this version without all the heaviness that Eligible brought forward. I know this lighter comedy won't be for everyone, but I appreciated much of it.

For me, Elizabeth's intelligence was developed well through the movie. She pursued her novel, seemed to be expanding her college studies, and pursued the international program in London at the end.

I don't know what Wickham's problem was though! He seemed just the wrong sort altogether.

I liked that the female cast was made to be friends/roommates rather than sisters. The casting was good.

I also like that the plot fell back onto something very old-fashioned at that particular point-- young girl gets lost in the woods in a rainstorm and finds her way to the door of her love interest. Why watch a movie if something like that doesn't happen within it somewhere?

I’m with you, Emilia, about Bingley! I hate it when they make him stupid! In the novel he has a high level of what we now call social intelligence, even if he isn’t bookish.

As for the Wickham issue, perhaps we are overlooking an element of Mormon culture? I believe the LDS place a high value on chastity before marriage, so if the field he plows (sorry) is devout women, he might feel rapid marriage proposals were the way to get there. (view spoiler)[And it sets up a particularly LDS variant on his perfidy. (hide spoiler)]

Oh interesting, Abigail! I completely missed this! Do we have any LDS people in the group? It would be good to hear from them, and see whether there is something there! I'm completely ignorant on this, I must admit, but would love to know if the adaptation did some clever things with it :)

As to Bingley: social intelligence is a very good way to describe him! He is actually very clever and witty in his own way, just not, as you said, bookish.

The modernisations of P&P I am familiar with is this movie, the Eligible book, the Bridget Jones' Diary (book and movie) and the Lizzie Bennet Diaries, of which the last I think did the best job. This movie felt a little on the silly side for me.

However, if I remember correctly, they did a good Lydia!

I see what you are saying about Wickham's possible motives. But still a chain of illegal marriages would hardly get him anywhere, so his behavior seems to have more dark psychology than anything else to me. I thought Lydia was well cast also.

I would love to hear from an LDS voice here, too! I think a lot of the storyline was wound into Mormon traditions and history. The number of foreign characters reflects their requirement of doing two years of missionary work, I assume; and the Mary character is redrawn in a way that makes use of the fondness for historical reenactments.

I would especially like to hear what a member of the church thinks about the scene at church where Liz fantasizes about throwing her Bible at Collins!

Mary liked the story of her ancestor sleeping inside the buffalo!

The discussion of this film kinda petered out. Any other comments? What did you think about the way Wickham’s perfidy was adapted to Mormonism?

Maybe we will have other comments if more members join the thread. Thanks for encouraging more discussion, Abigail.

It may be that it’s hard for some people to obtain a copy to view. I’m lucky to have an extensive set of JA films, so it’s easy for me!

Yes, this one is less available than some of the others.

I just watched the movie on you tube. Just search for it if you want to watch it. If it had not been based on Jane Austen's novel, I am not sure I would have watched it to the end. It is hard to transfer a story from one period in time to a period 200 years later. Society and its way of thinking changes. Yes, there are unchangeable values and truths, but there are cultural norms that do change.

The movie is clearly set in the Mormon culture and society, but was it produced by Mormons? There were some comments in the movie that seemed to poke fun at LDS values. This was mainly accomplished through Collins, so it may have been his type that was ridiculed. Since I am not familiar with the LDS teaching on marriage and the roles of women, it is hard for me to tell.

As a side note, in the original P&P I always thought Mary and Mr. Collins had a lot in common and that those two would make a good match. This movie got that right.

I was not overly impressed with the intelligence of Elizabeth. She did not seem to stand apart as someone special. Yes, she is writing, but her speaking parts should also reflect her uniqueness.

Thanks, Brit, for noting the You Tube source to watch.

I believe it was produced by Mormons—but it would appear that there are just as many ways to be Mormon as to be Catholic or Jewish or Muslim. Some of the irreverent bits did startle me, but like Elizabeth, the filmmakers seemed to enjoy laughing at whims and inconsistencies while not mocking what is wise and good. (If I couldn’t make Episcopalian jokes I don’t know what I’d do with myself. “I’m Episcopalian: I don’t move in public.” “I’m Episcopalian: I dance only on the inside.”)

I don't think this was a high budget movie. I see the budget was 350,000 USD, which is a lot for me, but I do not think that is much for a movie.

I agree, a lot was lost with the missing parents. Parental and societal expectations were a big factor in the original.

I watched this some time ago and it wasn't my sense of humour so I found most of it grating, and the rest just slow.

Either I was bored or I know so little about Mormons that that aspect went completely over my head (probably both)

Thanks to this thread, I didn't even know there was a 2003 version. I just watched it on Youtube.

While I find it annoying that Bingley and Wickham are always smiling for no reason, I remind myself this is a comedy. Collins' persistence to the point of giving a sermon to shame Elizabeth, to me, exceeds the "Pride" (portion of the title) that is supposed to be exhibited by Lizzy or Darcy.

if this was a book, I'd give it at most 2 stars. And unlike the other JA movies I've seen, I will not watch this one again.

I apologize for replying to these comments so late! I am LDS, and grew up in an LDS community, and I'm responding because a couple of people mentioned being interested in an LDS perspective. I think a lot of the humor in this movie may be particular to LDS communities, because I thought the movie was hilarious. I didn't find the portrayal of Collins to be offensive, any more than I think JA's portrayal of Collins is meant to comment on Anglicanism--it's about the person, not their religion.

LDS people generally don't mind poking fun at their culture, while they do tend to take doctrine very seriously. By the way, this movie appears to be filmed in Provo, which is where the BYU campus is located, and which has a notoriously conservative culture (which many LDS people don't particularly like, though some do). So, the movie is also poking fun at these regional differences. Also, as an aside, some of Mary's outfits reminded me of outfits that you might see on a Pioneer Day celebration (the state holiday in Utah is Pioneer Day--the day the pioneers reached the Salt Lake Valley. There are a lot of parades this day, including neighborhood parades where kids dress up as pioneers--or in clothing that somewhat resembles pioneer clothing if you squint enough). Seeing Mary dressed this way made me laugh out loud--it's implying that she's taking things too far. Dressing like pioneers on a holiday to celebrate pioneers is one thing. To do it at other times is just silly.

Also, FYI, Elizabeth throws a hymnal at Collins in her daydream, not a bible. There aren't pew bibles in LDS chapels--you are encouraged to bring your own, so you can write notes if you learn something, or feel so inclined. It was pretty amusing (and alarming) to watch Elizabeth hurl that book, because LDS meetings are usually very calm and quiet, with congregation members listening attentively (or so one hopes), but not participating vocally (except during hymns, or the few times you might say 'amen,' which also tends to be said quietly. Some people do joke about that, too).

Also, those who have speculated that the LDS culture is conservative regarding sexual intimacy before marriage are correct. If anyone is interested, here is a link to a pamphlet that outlines the standards that the youth are encouraged to follow (though adults are often encouraged to review the pamphlet as well).

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared...

For those of you who would rather not follow the link, here is a pertinent paragraph: "The Lord’s standard regarding sexual purity is clear and unchanging. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage. Do not allow the media, your peers, or others to persuade you that sexual intimacy before marriage is acceptable. It is not."

This is a deeply held value--one that LDS filmmakers would be unlikely to poke fun at or disrespect. I am usually uncomfortable when sexual intimacy is portrayed in a movie or book as occurring before marriage (though I totally understand that many others don't have the same values--I just don't particularly enjoy watching it myself). It made sense to me that Wickham would try to marry Lydia. Also--of note--Wickham was taking Lydia to be married in Vegas. Ideally, LDS couples are married in a temple, where the marriage can be sealed for time and eternity--meaning that the marriage won't end at death. The fact that Wickham is not pursuing that route, and is also taking her to a place where marriages can be annulled easily, is a sign that he's not planning to stay married to her. I don't mean to say that all LDS people who marry outside the temple aren't committed to their marriages--there are several reasons people might choose to follow that route. But, there are some young people who mistakenly believe that getting married, being sexually intimate, and then getting the marriage annulled is technically following the commandments. I think the movie is hinting that Wickham feels this way, and is misleading Lydia into thinking he wants to marry her, when he really is only planning to be married for a very short time.

I hope this helps provide a perspective that some of you might find helpful.

That is all fascinating, Erika! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your insights with us. You make some excellent distinctions that reveal the filmmakers’ essential respect for the LDS while they simultaneously make fun of individuals using LDS-specific humor. That was my instinctive take on the movie, but I didn’t know enough to be sure.

Thanks Abigail! I appreciate that.

Erika wrote: "I apologize for replying to these comments so late! I am LDS, and grew up in an LDS community, and I'm responding because a couple of people mentioned being interested in an LDS perspective. I thin..."

Erika,

Thank you for sharing and shedding some light!

Your comments were interesting and informative!

Thanks!

I never finished watching it. It didn't hold my interest. Those with Amazon Prime can rent it for free. There's also a LDS Sense & Sensibility called Scents & Sensibility.

what is Lds

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

is that 7 th day advntists?

Mrs wrote: "is that 7 th day advntists?"

LDS members are Mormons.