My Path to Pride and Prejudice...
... and Colin Firth.
My TV is pretty much always on. (Not recently, because I've been reading a lot, but now my home feels oddly quiet.) There are a few movies that I always watch when they come on, and one of those movies is the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I didn't love it to the extent that I would spend money on it - I didn't need to watch it on a whim - but it was rare that I would change the channel when it was on.*
(Another movie-I-always-watch-when-it's-on is What a Girl Wants. This will be relevant later.)
I've been wanting to read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, but I felt like I wouldn't be able to appreciate it fully if I hadn't read the original. I have pretty strong feelings about the inadequacy of book-to-film adaptations, so of course I knew that the '05 movie wasn't going to be the reference I needed. I wanted to familiarize myself with the tone of Austen's writing, get to know the nuances that a good parody should echo. But I don't think I'd ever read Austen's work (or seen any other film adaptations), and I was a little intimidated. So I took a deep breath, squared my shoulders, and picked up the original Pride and Prejudice.
I actually got through it pretty quickly - much faster than I expected. As I read, I found myself thinking that I was wasting my time, that it was just like the movie. Looking back, I don't know how I could possibly think that. I'd claim that I hadn't seen the movie for a while, but that's not true. In any case, I was sort of shrugging as I read it - a few new details, but no big thing.
Until I watched the movie again, and it was a completely different experience. I'd totally misinterpreted some of the dreamy/thoughtful looks. Now that I know what to look for, I can see the hints of Darcy's interest, where before I felt totally blindsided by his proposal. I notice the bad manners, discomfort, and restrained mortification. I think the movie could've been improved a lot by including a few more lines, but I still like it. I think I like it more now that I/my brain can add some of the details the producers left out. I like Keira Knightly less (not much of a fan anyway), but Matthew Macfadyen is fixed as my Mr. Darcy.
(When I read P&P&Z, I was pretty disappointed. The zombies were totally tacked on, and there was very little deviation from Austen's original writing. I didn't need to know the nuances in order to appreciate the parody, because the nuances stayed intact! Bo-ring! A friend told me she preferred Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters because it does very more from the original story. Now that I've read S&S&SM, I totally agree.)
As I read/researched/talked to people about Pride and Prejudice, I kept hearing about the 1995 BBC mini-series. Apparently it's the version to see. Being me, I had to watch it. It was a much more faithful adaptation, but the casting was a let-down for me. Judi Dench is a great Lady Catherine, Julia Sawalha isn't cute enough to be Lydia,** and Tom Hollander sets a very different tone for Mr. Collins. (It took me a long time to recognize Carey Mulligan as Kitty in the '05 version. I knew those dimples looked familiar!) I also prefer the visual tone of the '05 movie. But this is the definitive adaptation, and the reference point for parodies (like Lost in Austen). And Colin Firth seems to be the archetype for Mr. Darcy... for most people.
Remember what I said about What a Girl Wants being one of those movies I always watch? In it, Colin Firth plays the protagonist's long-lost father. That is my first association with him. He's cute, but he's not dreamy. He's not a sex symbol, he's a dad. When he's walking around in a soaking wet shirt, I don't see "one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history." (Then again, I'm not that familiar with British TV history, so maybe I'm giving the Brits more credit than they deserve.)*** It's not even like he's totally ripped or anything. I just don't get the appeal.
I guess I don't have to. There's no reason I can't keep enjoying Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy, but now I want to think Colin Firth is hot. Besides, this was Firth's break-out role, what he's known for. A bit of an ongoing joke/reference in his career. I feel like I'm missing something that should be part of what he brings to a role. But maybe that would be baggage - maybe it's better that his image (for me) is clean of that association.
This shouldn't be important to me. Big picture, it's not, but it's an entertaining little fixation. My current plan is to watch the BBC miniseries again (next weekend, with a few friends who haven't seen it before) to see if that helps.**** I also put Bridget Jones's Diary at the top of my NetFlix Queue. It's not something I've wanted to see (because the idea of Renée Zellweger in a RomCom makes me want to hurl), but now I'm curious about Colin Firth as "Mark Darcy." I'm hoping it'll help.
I want to think Colin Firth is hot!
P.S. I have yet to read a Jane Austen book before seeing a movie adaptation of it. (I have a copies of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, so I do plan to try it at some point.) I've found it very helpful to have a general idea of where the story's going, some context when I'm not sure what she's trying to say. I have a friend who wants to read P&P&Z who's unfamiliar with Austen, and not very comfortable with Regency-era prose. In the end, my recommendation was to watch the BBC miniseries before reading P&P&Z, but don't bother reading the original book. She'll know where the story's going, but won't be bored by essentially reading the same book twice. By the way, she already thinks Colin Firth is hot. Since she hasn't even seen him as Darcy, I find it very odd. I'll have to remember to ask her why.
* That last bit has changed. It was only $10 at Target, so it eventually seemed silly not to own a copy.
** She'll always be Saffy, and Saffy is decidedly Not Hot.
*** I like that they added that scene, but my reasons have nothing to do with dripping-wet Colin Firth.
**** $15 at Target. If I'm going to own one, I might as well have both.
My TV is pretty much always on. (Not recently, because I've been reading a lot, but now my home feels oddly quiet.) There are a few movies that I always watch when they come on, and one of those movies is the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I didn't love it to the extent that I would spend money on it - I didn't need to watch it on a whim - but it was rare that I would change the channel when it was on.*
(Another movie-I-always-watch-when-it's-on is What a Girl Wants. This will be relevant later.)
I've been wanting to read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, but I felt like I wouldn't be able to appreciate it fully if I hadn't read the original. I have pretty strong feelings about the inadequacy of book-to-film adaptations, so of course I knew that the '05 movie wasn't going to be the reference I needed. I wanted to familiarize myself with the tone of Austen's writing, get to know the nuances that a good parody should echo. But I don't think I'd ever read Austen's work (or seen any other film adaptations), and I was a little intimidated. So I took a deep breath, squared my shoulders, and picked up the original Pride and Prejudice.
I actually got through it pretty quickly - much faster than I expected. As I read, I found myself thinking that I was wasting my time, that it was just like the movie. Looking back, I don't know how I could possibly think that. I'd claim that I hadn't seen the movie for a while, but that's not true. In any case, I was sort of shrugging as I read it - a few new details, but no big thing.
Until I watched the movie again, and it was a completely different experience. I'd totally misinterpreted some of the dreamy/thoughtful looks. Now that I know what to look for, I can see the hints of Darcy's interest, where before I felt totally blindsided by his proposal. I notice the bad manners, discomfort, and restrained mortification. I think the movie could've been improved a lot by including a few more lines, but I still like it. I think I like it more now that I/my brain can add some of the details the producers left out. I like Keira Knightly less (not much of a fan anyway), but Matthew Macfadyen is fixed as my Mr. Darcy.
(When I read P&P&Z, I was pretty disappointed. The zombies were totally tacked on, and there was very little deviation from Austen's original writing. I didn't need to know the nuances in order to appreciate the parody, because the nuances stayed intact! Bo-ring! A friend told me she preferred Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters because it does very more from the original story. Now that I've read S&S&SM, I totally agree.)
As I read/researched/talked to people about Pride and Prejudice, I kept hearing about the 1995 BBC mini-series. Apparently it's the version to see. Being me, I had to watch it. It was a much more faithful adaptation, but the casting was a let-down for me. Judi Dench is a great Lady Catherine, Julia Sawalha isn't cute enough to be Lydia,** and Tom Hollander sets a very different tone for Mr. Collins. (It took me a long time to recognize Carey Mulligan as Kitty in the '05 version. I knew those dimples looked familiar!) I also prefer the visual tone of the '05 movie. But this is the definitive adaptation, and the reference point for parodies (like Lost in Austen). And Colin Firth seems to be the archetype for Mr. Darcy... for most people.
Remember what I said about What a Girl Wants being one of those movies I always watch? In it, Colin Firth plays the protagonist's long-lost father. That is my first association with him. He's cute, but he's not dreamy. He's not a sex symbol, he's a dad. When he's walking around in a soaking wet shirt, I don't see "one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history." (Then again, I'm not that familiar with British TV history, so maybe I'm giving the Brits more credit than they deserve.)*** It's not even like he's totally ripped or anything. I just don't get the appeal.
I guess I don't have to. There's no reason I can't keep enjoying Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy, but now I want to think Colin Firth is hot. Besides, this was Firth's break-out role, what he's known for. A bit of an ongoing joke/reference in his career. I feel like I'm missing something that should be part of what he brings to a role. But maybe that would be baggage - maybe it's better that his image (for me) is clean of that association.
This shouldn't be important to me. Big picture, it's not, but it's an entertaining little fixation. My current plan is to watch the BBC miniseries again (next weekend, with a few friends who haven't seen it before) to see if that helps.**** I also put Bridget Jones's Diary at the top of my NetFlix Queue. It's not something I've wanted to see (because the idea of Renée Zellweger in a RomCom makes me want to hurl), but now I'm curious about Colin Firth as "Mark Darcy." I'm hoping it'll help.
I want to think Colin Firth is hot!
P.S. I have yet to read a Jane Austen book before seeing a movie adaptation of it. (I have a copies of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, so I do plan to try it at some point.) I've found it very helpful to have a general idea of where the story's going, some context when I'm not sure what she's trying to say. I have a friend who wants to read P&P&Z who's unfamiliar with Austen, and not very comfortable with Regency-era prose. In the end, my recommendation was to watch the BBC miniseries before reading P&P&Z, but don't bother reading the original book. She'll know where the story's going, but won't be bored by essentially reading the same book twice. By the way, she already thinks Colin Firth is hot. Since she hasn't even seen him as Darcy, I find it very odd. I'll have to remember to ask her why.
* That last bit has changed. It was only $10 at Target, so it eventually seemed silly not to own a copy.
** She'll always be Saffy, and Saffy is decidedly Not Hot.
*** I like that they added that scene, but my reasons have nothing to do with dripping-wet Colin Firth.
**** $15 at Target. If I'm going to own one, I might as well have both.