Pride and Prejudice (1979 BBC Production)

 

 

Create your own review

I've lost count of how many times I've read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - it's one of my very favorite books. Comparing the two screen adaptations of it -- the more recent one by A&E/BBC and this one done in the 80s by BBC -- there are definite advantages to each. The one you choose depends on what you want. If you want a really good and fun modern romantic comedy, watch the A&E version. But if you want what is closest to Austen's novel (which I prefer), watch the older BBC version.

POSITIVES OF THE A&E VERSION:
1) It is a visual feast: The costumes, sets and scenery are exquisite and make this version worth watching for that reason alone. They obviously had a larger budget than the 80s version.
2) Since this version is 75 minutes longer than the BBC version, you get to enjoy that much more of Austen's incomparable dialogue - the best ever written in the English language besides Shakespeare, in my opinion!
3) In the interplays between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, their emotions are much more pronounced and open than in the BBC version... which makes their relationship more openly romantic even than in the novel. This is developed further by some scenes of them individually that weren't in the novel. In the 80s version and the novel, many of the subtleties of their relationship and feelings are left to the imagination. The A&E version is more in the unsubtle style of a typical modern romantic movie, which gives a wonderful new dimension to the story. The "unexpected proposal" scene is absolutely perfect; I think Austen would have loved it!
4) Casting Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. Although not as strikingly handsome as David Rintoul's Darcy in the 80s version (in the book, Darcy is far handsomer than Bingley), Firth adds the right amount of visible emotion to the character which David R. did not, while also maintaining a very aristocratic, refined air about him.

POSITIVES OF THE 80s BBC VERSION:
1) It is much more faithful to the historical setting of the novel. It captures much more accurately the slow-moving, thoughtful, refined, restrained, purist, obsessed-with-manners (but still quite amusing) aristocratic society of 18th century England. This to me gives not only a needed believability to, but also a much deeper understanding of, the characters and story. Austen's novels were very realistic and true to their time and place, so if you want the genuine Austen feel rather than the 'in-your-face' Hollywood style, see the 80s version (or just stick to the book). The A&E version comes across as being 20th century American, just cloaked in 18th century England costumes and sets. Some people have praised this aspect of it, saying that the 80s version is boring by comparison. But I believe that Austen's intent was that the interest in her novels would lie with her detailed character studies and intricate relational plots. That's what made her books so interesting, without all the action-packed gallivanting around and crassness which Hollywood seems to think is a necessity to entertainment. The 80s version recognizes this and retains a historical elegance and dignity; the A&E version does not. (In the A&E version, Bingley's two supposedly high class sisters slouch around, make faces and giggle audibly behind people's backs. Everyone seems to be constantly running, skipping or galloping somewhere. The less-than-savory characters, like Mary, Lydia, Kitty, and Mr. Wickham, look and act like they are from a much lower social class, in ways that go below what would have been acceptable in their class. A visitor to the Bennett home accidentally sees one of the sisters in her undergarments. When E. visits Pemberley, she sees Mr. D. coming from a dip in a pond with a wet undershirt on, rather than just having arrived in a carriage as in the book.)
2) The casting is better in the BBC version and each actor is completely natural and believable in his or her role. In the A&E version, much of the casting does not seem to fit the characters: Elizabeth comes across as being about twenty years older than she is (with a constantly knowing look as if she's already married with children), Mrs. Bennett seems too intelligent to be so silly, Charlotte seems snobby rather than humble, Miss Bingley seems cold and sharp rather than sweetly slimy, Mr. Collins is like a cartoon and not a believable person, and the five Bennett sisters don't look at all like they could be related to each other. The actors seemed quite competent, just not cast in the right roles, and maybe directed to overplay them.
3) The 80s BBC version gives the same attention to each character that Austen's novel does. In the A&E version, only the principal characters are focused on, with the result that many of the characters whom we should have gotten to know better seemed to just be cardboard props, and their relationships with each other don't come across as being as intimate and familiar as they really are in the novel. For example, Elizabeth had a much deeper relationship with both her father and with her Aunt Gardiner than the A&E version portrayed, because it left out some key scenes between those characters. The only ones I could perceive as being really close in the A&E version were Elizabeth and Jane - and in the last half, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. This is a great loss, because Austen's novels are all about the relationships between people, and each of their interesting personality quirks. They are character studies -- not just of the main characters, but of ALL the characters.

Sorry for the length, but P&P is a special book and I wanted to share my full views on these adaptations for anyone trying to decide between them!

Contrary to some other reviews, I find much to recommend this version of P&P over those of Sir Lawrence and Colin Firth. (I will mostly confine my remarks to the two latter versions since I consider Sir Larry's version about as enjoyable as a root canal.)
(No I haven't forgotten about the Knightley version. Its just that even more so than Sir L.'s version, I hate that movie, "...body and soul.")
This is indeed an adaptation for those of us who luxuriate in the beauty of Jane Austen's words and don't need the obvious gratification of dramatic representation of certain scenes as presented in the Firth version. Such as when Eliza is reading Darcy's letter. The Firth version dramatizes the contents of the letter in a rather overwrought way, which serves to drown the preciseness and the carefully controlled emotions present in Darcy's letter. Read the letter in the book and compare the language to the treatment in the Firth version and you'll see that dramatic license can only take you so far before you start trampling over some very precise and purposeful words.
Yes the dance scenes aren't as polished as those in the Firth version, but considering that version benefited from additional 16 years of dance scholarship and millions of dollars more in its budget, it is not a bad effort.
Casting was better in the '79 version. I'll conceed about David Rintoul but little else when it comes to the casts. The disparity of the two Mrs. Bennets was especially glaring. Comic timing never stood a chance over Alison Steadman's shrill rantings in the later version. Susannah Harker also made a rather too earnest Jane Bennet.
I won't pretend to be impartial about Elizabeth Garvie...major hottie.
Bad costuming, marginal choreography and dismal lighting are all forgiven when served by characterizations that honor Jane Austen's words.

Pride and Prejudice is my favourite book of all time by my favourite author, and I first saw this adaptation of Jane Austen's masterpiece when I was still at school.
It was originally shown as an episodic serial over several weeks on BBC2.
I first bought it as a complete work on VHS in ooh must have been the late 1980's, when it first became available, and I have watched it many times.
I also own and have watched the Andrew Davies adaptation from 1995 and the MGM movie made in 1940.
All these productions have their merits and in their way are beautifully done, but without any question this is the version most faithful to the book, in both content and style.
Elizabeth Garvie should have become a huge star as a result of this performance, but she has since chosen to work almost exclusively in the theatre, and David Rintoul is her perfect foil. His Darcy almost anal retentive in his stiff upper lippedness.
And how prophetic, now that he has sold Diana's private video's to the American media, that Peter Settelen should have made such a wonderfully slimy and sycophantic Wickham.
If ever a Wickham deserved a Lydia....his did.
I'm sure there will be those who find the tempo of the piece somewhat pedestrian, but that was the nature of the beast in 19th century England.
The 1995 version, [oh and for the record may I clear up a misconception that some people seem to be under. The 1995 version starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, was and is a BBC production. It may have been released under license in the USA by A&E, but it is NOT and never was an A&E production.]
...anyway..
The 1995 version was much faster paced, and the smouldering relationship between Lizzy and Darcy intensely exciting for the viewer to watch, however, many of the nuances of the piece are far too modern to represent a truly faithful adaptation.
For example, if Elizabeth and Darcy's relationship had indeed been as toe curlingly sexy as portrayed, Elizabeth's shock and dismay at Darcy's proposal would have been ingenuous to say the least.
I also take issue with the portrayal of: Mrs Bennett, who though undoubtedly ditsy was never a common vulgar fishwife, and a far too old and far too buxom Lydia.
And whilst much more accurate than the 1940 movie version, this production was not also entirely faithful to the original text Add to this the excruciating performances of Alison Steadman and Julia Sawalha, both fine actresses, who on this occasion were just horribly miscast, and the 1980 version is a clear favourite for those of us who don't like their Austen tinkered with too much.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 73 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars So worthwhile
A lot of people have criticized this version as being too stiff but I think it has so much to recommend it. Read more

Published 2 months ago by Poetkitty

1.0 out of 5 stars Pride and Predjudice
I disliked this version of a most beloved story. I immensely disliked it, in fact, I could not finish watching this version. Read more

Published 23 months ago by P. Sharp

1.0 out of 5 stars Laughable
I only recommend this version if you want a good laugh. I couldnt stop laughing while watching this 1980 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice not because of Jane Austen's humor but... Read more

Published on April 6 2005

5.0 out of 5 stars The DVD has arrived!
I really liked this version and watched it over and over again. I had to get a second copy because I'd almost worn out the first! Read more

Published on Oct 24 2004

2.0 out of 5 stars true to novel, but slack in imagination and emotional spark
I rented this mini some time ago, and although it was true to the text, it has some obvious flaws. The pacing is entirely off. Read more

Published on July 6 2004 by S. Rossi

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Adaptation!
I must agree with the reviewers that find the BBC version truer to the book. The actors better protrayed their characters in line with the manners of that time. Read more

Published on Jun 24 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars The Greatest Version
This is my favorite version of P & P ever. I really feel that it stays more true to the message of the book than any other. Read more

Published on May 29 2004 by Myridian

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally!
The Masterpiece Theater production of Pride and Prejudice which was previously available only on VHS is now available on DVD! Read more

Published on May 29 2004

3.0 out of 5 stars The best Elizabeth and Darcy
I bought this version because I love Pride and Prejudice and thought I would enjoy any version. I must have been spoiled by the 1995 A&E version, because this one seemed so... Read more

Published on Mar 12 2004 by staley54

2.0 out of 5 stars 1980s version vs. 1995 version
I just saw the 1980s bbc version after having seen the 1995 version and rereading the book, and it is almost not fair to compare the two movies. Read more

Published on Feb 18 2004

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 73 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!