Customer Reviews

Pride and Prejudice (1979 BBC Production)

5 star:		(36)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

A lot of people have criticized this version as being too stiff but I think it has so much to recommend it. I have the A&E version and this one, and they both have their merits and faults. I think the merits of this version are: Lizzy can be seen as a more complex character in her musings about marriage, her changing feelings towards Mr. Darcy etc.- her 'soliloquys' are excellent. I love her friendship with Charlotte - it's very well drawn in this version - and the scenes with Lizzy at Hunsford are among my favourite scenes in the whole movie. Mr Colins is hilarious - and I believe more faithfully depicted than in the A&E version. I thought Lady Catherine de Burgh was also excellent in this version - she seemed too elderly in the other. Mrs Bennet is just peevish and silly enough to be believable, but you could also see how she attracted Mr Bennet. She's an attractive woman and you can certainly sympathize with her fears of destitution for her girls. In the A&E version she's a cartoon. I also think Mary in this version is a better family 'fit'. She's a pretty girl, but doesn't make the most of herself. I hated Miss Bingley in the A&E version; she looks 35 and incapable of being in love with Mr Darcy, or anyone else. She doesn't look like she could possibly be Mr Bingley's sister at all! Mr Darcy, criticized as being so stiff, is I believe, still a faithful depiction of the novel. I love Colin Firth and think he did a creditable job, but he lacks the elegance of David Rintoul. I also think the gradual coming together of Lizzy and Darcy is very well done in this BBC version. He is so changed when she humbles him and he wants to make amends. The scenes at Pemberley with aunt and uncle Gardiner show Darcy at his most gentle and kind. Lydia is given less airtime in this version but it seems adequate. She really steals the show in the A&E version. So all in all I think this is a great watch - true to the tone, language and flavour of the novel. All the characters well done. True, there is less mud trudging and no wet shirts, but it's still a good time! Anyone that truly likes this genre will surely like this!

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! I was at university when I went to the public library and saw this VHS with a different cover. I still took it out and, to my surprise, found it had scenes in it that my copies didn't. I finally had to return it but wanted the WHOLE movie. The DVD has 39 mins. that my VHS doesn't have. These scenes that were omitted on my old VHS copies add so much more to the overall movie that I want to watch the DVD over and over again now! As for comparing the A&E version to this one, I have decided that I will enjoy each version separately as they both have different things to offer. I enjoy both for different reasons and I can't say which I like the best because they both have high and low points. (I must confess that neither have that many low points!) I do recommend seeing this version and if you are a true Austen movie collector, then I strongly suggest you add this to your collection. *To those who couldn't wait for DVD, the wait is over!

I prefer this version to the A&E version for several reasons. In this version, Austin's original ideas come through much clearer. I thought the acting stayed much closer to the ideas in the book. Ehle and Firth's Elizabeth and Darcy are constantly sniping at each other. Garvie and Rintoul's Elizabeth and Darcy are both much colder initially - which make their real fights memorable, not just more of the same. You can see the increasing emotions between them as each argument actually breaks down a barrier between them. This version's Mrs Bennett is also not so overacted. One of the main purposes for adding the character of Lady Catherine was to show, though there were objections to Elizabeth's relatives, Darcy had a few ill-mannered and unfortunate family members himself. In the meeting between Mrs Bennett and Lady Catherine in the book, the whole idea was to show Mrs Bennett was actually less embarrassing than Lady Catherine. I also prefer the performance of this Lady Catherine. She is dignified and elegant, which makes the revelation she is nothing but a windbag more surprising. She is also constantly giving tips, pointers and commands. Her arrival at the Collins' house in horror because "the butcher has just told me you have ordered a whole leg of lamb. A half will surely do this time of year" is a delightful illustration of her meddling. Overall, this version shows events more gradually rather than beating the viewers over the head with who the characters are and what is happening. It's only disadvantage to the A&E version is, because it is shorter, it has to leave out a few scenes. It does a good job of making it up, however, by staying focused where the A&E version tends to wander a bit.

I watched the newer A&E adaptation of "Pride & Prejudice" (with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth) a couple of years ago, and enjoyed it very much. Last week, I borrowed from the local British Council Library, the video of this much earlier (1980) adaptation of Austen's novel. And my verdict? I find this earlier production to be MUCH, MUCH superior to A&E's!!

The casting is perfect, principally Elizabeth Garvie (an Elizabeth playing "Elizabeth Bennett", how very suitable!), David Rintoul (as Mr Darcy) and the actors playing Mr & Mrs Bennett (brilliant performance from both), Mr Collins, Charlotte Lucas and oh, just about EACH and EVERY character! I must give my opinion that I find the Mr Darcy here far handsomer than that portrayed by Colin Firth. David Rintoul's Darcy is classically handsome - tall, broodingly dark, with nicely chiselled features and a very noble bearing. I loved to hear him speak. Elizabeth here is reasonably pretty too, has a ready wit and also displays great sensibility and generosity (I thought Jennifer Ehle was a little chubby for her character). The Mr Collins in this earlier production is also truer to the book; he is still odious, self-centred and annoying to the last degree, but is less of a caricature than that portrayed in A&E's version.

But I enjoyed this production best of all for the following 3 reasons:

1) I like it that some of Elizabeth's most important thoughts are made known to the viewer through a voice-over. For instance, after rejecting Darcy's proposal, we find Elizabeth, not in tears like in A&E's version, but thoughtful and a little dazed, and as she sits down to "digest" what has just happened, the voice-over lets us know what she is thinking. At the end of her thoughts, when she smiles and concludes that she finds Darcy's proposal, "gratifying", I find it plausible. Who in Elizabeth's position wouldn't find Darcy's proposal flattering?

2) although made in 1980, this production does not look at all "jaded" or 1980s (unlike many earlier BBC dramas). The costumes are beautiful (with many costume changes for the main characters) and the make-up does not give the impression that this is an outdated production. The characters too do not look like they are wearing wigs. I only wish it will be made available on DVD soon with perhaps the colour and picture quality improved.

3) the ending here is more pleasing and romantic than A&E's. The words uttered by our hero and heroine in the end are sweet and romantic and will stay in the viewer's mind for a long time.

If you have enjoyed A&E's adaptation, then I urge you to pick up this earlier video and see for yourself why the latter is the better and more enjoyable production. I also notice that the newer adaptation actually took a lot of "ideas" from this earlier production.

To me, this video was 259 minutes of pure viewing pleasure!

This adaptation is true to the Jane Austen wit. Even without its hollywood frills and thrills, it delivers the visual impression that my imaganation carries from the book. I've had this video for about ten years and have read the book (at least) twice annually for fifteen years. Why the devotion to this 1980 adaptation? Well, the book and the video are one in the same for me because Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul ARE Eliza and Darcy. Not even the great Colin Firth can pull off a better Darcy. I think only a Jane Austen fan will truly understand the value of this version. For the rest of the world...I'm afraid you'll have to settle for A&E's glamourized version.

About a year ago I wrote a review of the Colin Firth BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (about the 115th review, and as of this writing, there are 169 reviews of that version). This version, unbeknownst to me then, was re-released at about the same time. I said then (and still believe) that the Colin Firth version is very good (4 of 5 stars) but this is clearly the best. The main reason: Elizabeth Garvie simply "IS" Elizabeth Bennet. There could not be a better actress for the role. Elizabeth Garvie may have the most expressive eyes that I have ever seen on the screen. Further, this version is more faithful to the book. In this version, I think Jane is substantially better cast and most of the rest of the cast are either as good, or marginally better than in the Colin Firth version. (I think the two Lydia's are roughly equal, though completely different--but I get a kick out of Julie Sawalha's Lydia in the Colin Firth version since the character is almost the polar opposite to "Saffy" in Absolutely Fabulous, also played by Sawalha.) The main exception as to the two casts is Colin Firth, who did a substantially better job as Darcy than David Rintoul. Rintoul (as several other reviewers have agreed) was too stiff or wooden. (However, the scene--and Rintoul's acting in it--where Darcy and Elizabeth meet by surprise at Pemberly is absolutely magical.)

I note that most of the other reviewers share in my enthusiasm for this version, and I agree generally with their comments. One reviewer who was lukewarm about this version complained that it did not track the book accurately. I haven't read the book 40 times (like one favorable reviewer), but I have read it several times, both before and after seeing both this version and the Colin Firth version, and this is far more faithful in my opinion. One viewer has lamented that there no other productions with Elizabeth Garvie--a lament I share. I was told one time when I was in England that she retired from acting to raise a family, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of this. She did have a minor part recently in a new production of Jane Eyre, however.

My advice: Pride and Prejudice with Elizabeth Garvie is the tops by a mile. The Colin Firth version is very good, and a must for real lovers of Jane Austin. (I have it and I watch it occasioally.) The pre-war Hollywood version with Laurence Olivier is a travesty!

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. The pacing of the story is slow and the setting is not visually striking as in the A&E version. The costumes are very good though.

The A&E version is a visual feast. The story is paced well and the set and costumes are beautiful. However, there is a more modern spin on the story. The actors did a wonderful job but their portrayal of their characters was not quite in line with society of that period. Their was not enough reserve of emotions that was displayed in the book.

I can't say that I liked one version over the other. If you want a truer version of the book, you will be most impressed with the BBC version. If you want a feast for the eyes, the A&E version would be your preference. I own both.