MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice (1995) Discussion > My problem with the script

My problem with the script

posted 8 years ago by the_reminder
9 replies | jump to latest

I just read the first few chapters of Pride and Prejudice and then watched the beginning of this series for the first time, and I was quite surprised how different it was from both the 1995 and the 2005 versions. It seems to me that the writer here does not really trust Austen's dialogue or for that matter the acting medium.

The first few chapters are actually very film-able (as is much of the book, IMO), with the animated discussions about Mr Bingley, Mr Bennet's refusal to see him, and the revelation that he had been to see him anyway. In the 1995 and the 2005 versions we immediately get a good idea through the acting of the Bennets' relationship, their respective personalities and how important Mr Bingley's arrival is. The information that Austen adds as a narrator is shown to us through the acting in these versions.

In the 1980 version on the other hand, the script writer has felt the need give Austen's explanations to Elizabeth as lines. And so she tells us that a single man of good fortune is considered the property of the daughters in the neighborhood, that her parents' have had a rather difficult marriage, and even that Mr Bennet is an odd mixture of reserve and caprice etcetera. It seems like amateurish writing to me, to think that everything has to literally be explained. Or at least, it is certainly not considered the "right" way to write scripts today.

(Don't yell at me now for only watching the beginning before making this post. ;) But please do point out if it gets better so I know if it's worth sticking with it.)

[–] Julie-30 8 years ago

It's been more than 35 years since I first saw this version, and it is still far and away my favorite. It is, absolutely, a product of its time. I don't know how old you are, but if you watch any adaptations from the 70s and 80s you will see that they all have similarly low-quality production values. But I absolutely love this version. I always have and I am pretty sure that I always will.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] the_reminder 8 years ago

You are right, I am not quite old enough to have watched this when it first came out. I have watched a few of these 70s-80s Austen adaptations and I didn't have a problem with any of them as I did with this one to the point that I actually couldn't continue watching it. I wouldn't say a poor script is necessarily unavoidable with a small budget. I've been thinking though, if I perhaps was too hard on it in my spontaneous post yesterday and that my dislike of this version is more due to my having the more recent versions so vividly in my memory and that I'm just comparing them too much.

[–] Julie-30 8 years ago

If you think the production values of this series are bad, I can only imagine what you'd think of Emma71 and Persuasion 71. S&S 71 is also pretty bad. But I guess I'm lucky in that I am able to overlook the production values and focus on the performances. And I firmly believe that P&P 80 has some excellent performances.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] teatat 8 years ago

But the OP didn't say anything about the production values. His or her comments refer to the dialog.

[–] supergran 8 years ago

I understand the point that you're making, the_reminder.

As a general principle, close adherence to book dialogue is often redundant in the medium of film. Novels aren't screenplays. Why use dialogue when the same effect can be achieved by visual means?

Some productions are definitely more verbose than others! I particularly dislike voice-over. I find it patronising, as if I can't work out for myself what's going on. And when it's inserted into a dramatic scene, it's downright distracting!

I think older productions were probably more attached to book dialogue. It's a throwback to theatre. As productions have become more filmic, they've become longer on cinematography and shorter on the spoken word.

Having said that, book-lovers have enormous affection for their favourite lines, and love to hear them spoken by a good actor. Austen created some wonderful dialogue! It's a braver person than me who has to decide what to leave in and what to omit.

I'll conclude by saying that P&P80 is a joy. Do stick with it. It took me a long time to bring myself to watch it all the way through, but I'm so glad I did. My one disappointment is the way it handles Darcy's letter. Very unimaginative. 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] teatat 8 years ago

This may be semantics but I don’t think adherence to book dialogue is the issue. It’s how much of the narrative gets translated into dialog. But your comment about it being a throw-back to theater has me thinking. One of the things I love about this production is that it reminds me of a play and maybe this is one of the reasons. If so I can’t have it both ways :o)

[–] supergran 8 years ago

This may be semantics but I don’t think adherence to book dialogue is the issue. It’s how much of the narrative gets translated into dialog.

Thanks for clarifying that, teatat. I obviously didn't read the OP closely enough. 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] teatat 8 years ago

I know exactly what you mean! I feel like this adaption works too hard to get the narrative into dialog (and I’ve often thought I’m the only person this bothers so I’m glad you posted). I can understand why they do it – there’s brilliant stuff in the narrative that they don’t want to lose, but to me it’s bogs it down and as you say, explains things that don’t need explaining. (One you didn’t mention that always get me is Jane saying Mr. Darcy causes offence wherever he goes. Really, Jane says this about a guy she just met? Jane?)

If I remember correctly this does let up some as there is less to be explained later on. It’s hard for me to be sure because there are other things that bother me about the dialog, they kind of add to it and drag it out in ways that I sometimes find strange so I don’t really remember how much what bothers me is what you’ve described and how much is that. I will say I enjoy this adaption more if I focus on the things I love about it, like the casting and portrayal of the characters, rather than the dialog. I do think it’s worth sticking with it.

Oh: I just realized this post is from November (I’m not sure how I missed this thread before) – so you’ve probably already decided whether to watch the rest or not? If you did keep watching I’d be interested on your thoughts on the rest.

[–] supergran 8 years ago

Good points.

I'm a lover of Jane Eyre. As you may know, it's written in the first person and there is a great deal of introspective narrative. Jane has very few companions to share her thoughts with. There have been umpteen adaptations. The one made in 1973 adaptation is a good one, but it relies very heavily on voiceover. As you can read in my previous post, voiceover is a particular hate of mine. I understand the temptation to use Bronte's wonderful narrative to explain the heroine's motivations, but most of it is rendered unnecessary in the medium of film. It's use is clumsy and an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Lol. 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.