MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice (1995) Discussion > sorry, but the acting is horrible!

sorry, but the acting is horrible!

posted 16 years ago by 1980sGirl
54 replies | jump to latest

I just recently bought this version of P&P, after already owning the A&E version for a long time and being in LOVE with it (and P&P the book is my all-time favorite book). (note: in my opinion the 2005/06 Hollywood version should not even be allowed to be called P&P, it's so off)
Overall this one (1980) was a tolerable version, but my goodness the actors were all ROBOTS! There was no emotion whatsoever, until the last episode! Especially Elizabeth and Darcy. The actors were complete robots until the last section, when they finally showed some variance. And with regard to Jane and Mr. Bingley, there was nothing there! Blah!

The only actors I thought were very good in this version were those who played Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine, and Charlotte.

[–] alessia78 12 years ago

The first time I saw this version of P&P I thought the same as you, I found all the actors too stiff, especially Rintoul. However, rewatching this after some time and trying to forget for a minute P&P 95, I came to appreciate this a lot more. It is very close to the book, with entire paragraphs taken from it. Rintoul plays Darcy as I imagined him when I first read P&P, while I feel that Firth (and Andrew Davies) tried to sex him up to appeal more to contemporary taste.

The acting IS a bit stagey, but this is quite typical of early 1980s BBC, as far as I can tell...if you have the opportunity to check out some other Austen from that period you'll know what I mean. They didn't spend much money on these productions and it kind of shows...they are often in a set rather than in real locations and some have very bad sound quality (Mansfield Park 1980 for example), or very bad hairstyles LOL.

I don't agree abou the P&P with Keira Knightley (2005?). I really liked it...I think that within the constraint of a 2 hours film, they did a good job of capturing the spirit of the novel, and KK was a good Elizabeth. Photography, music and costumes are very good too.

[–] Julie-30 12 years ago

It seems to me that, overall, P&P80 fans are more likely to appreciate P&P05 than P&P95 fans are. There are, of course, exceptions, but the general rule of thumb seems to be that P&P95 fans are less (shall we say) willing to accept P&P05.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that, but it's true in my case. I prefer the 80 mini to the 95 mini, and I like many aspects of the 05 version. I didn't care for Knightley (Keira, not Mr.) so much...just a personal preference, but liked her as much as Ehle. E Garvey is my favorite Elizabeth. I'm growing to appreciate Sabina's Jane...never really cared for S Harker. Of course no guy could disapprove of Rosamund Pike as Jane{: I'm even gaining a better appreciation for Rintoul's Darcy.

[–] Bronte_Sista 12 years ago

I agree 100%. Some of the posters are trying to pass off his robotic acting as being reserved or introverted. No, just bad acting.

[–] jfondo 11 years ago

I have to disagree with the o/p (I know, this is 4 years too late). I actually really like all of the versions I've seen for different reasons and think they need to be judged independently of one another.

I really think if you take a closer look at this version and analyze it within its cultural context, you'll find it's a really true and charming version. It seems more "distant" because of the way it's shot - not due to the prowess of its actors: it doesn't have the gritty theatricality of Joe Wright's version with his cinematic backdrops and expressive close-ups, and it's filmed basically in a less participatory and more observatory way - almost as if you were watching actors on a stage perform a play. Pay attention to the annunciation of the lines - it's very concise and theatrically delivered - as well as the even lighting of every scene. I'm no theatre major, but I'm still sure that lighting and camerawork contribute greatly to the more contemporary versions. There's a bit more distance between the viewer and the actors - a characteristic that sets this version apart from the "Colin Firth" or Joe Wright P&P...and in that way, I wouldn't be surprised if the actors didn't have to work harder to convey the emotions of the characters.

I might be in the minority here, but I have a lot of respect for this P&P.

[–] joes119-1 11 years ago

P&P '95 is my favorite but I think only this version is comparable with it for effort, 330 minutes and 270 minutes respectively, and both better than any film could attempt.

There are my preferred actors in P&P95: Ehle, Firth, Bamber, Leigh-Hunt, and Julie Sawalha.

I liked Moray Watson in this one. Garvie was OK. The other sisters..no. I did like this version for the absence of Andrew Davies and his fetishes. Hated it for the miserable effort by Judy Parfitt as Lady C.

[–] Julie-30 11 years ago

I think Judy Parfitt is positively brilliant as Lady Catherine.

Babara Leigh-Hunt's Lady Catherine is so indolent that I really have trouble picturing her getting into her carriage and bullying her driver to take her the 50+ miles to Longbourn to berate that upstart Miss Elizabeth Bennet. Whereas Judy Parfitt is very active -- both physically and mentally. She's so good when she's telling Charlotte how to run her household. And her indignation when Elizabeth tells her off is beautiful to watch.

Julia Sawalha is at least 10 years too old for the role of Lydia Bennet. The character is around 15 years old at the start of the story, but Sawalha is more than a year older than Jennifer Ehle, meaning she was in her mid-to-late 20s when the series was aired. Natalie Olgle, on the other hand, is, IMNSHO, a terrific Lydia. She's completely self-absorbed and doesn't need to fling herself around rooms or snort while she's laughing to show us just how immature Lydia is.

The Gardiners in this version are also outstanding. Austen tells us that they could be taken for people of fashion, and these Gardiners most certainly can. The 1995 Gardiners are terribly frumpy, and the 2005 Gardiners look as if they are farmers. But these Gardiners are perfect.

Malcolm Rennie's Mr. Collins is also just about perfect. And Peter Settelen is my preferred Wickham.

In fact, there is very little about this series that I don't like.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] joes119-1 11 years ago

I think Sawalha was selected for the '95 Lydia because Davies had some sexually suggestive stuff planned for his Lydia. Lucy Davis, who played Maria Lucas in'95 was 22 then and really did look 15. The remnant left in the film is a triple-take by Lydia aimed at Wickham's crotch.

I prefer movie makers to make their movies with respect for their audience. Trying to bring something to the screen that simply doesn't translate is why the 1980 P&P is headed for the dustbin of historical adaptations.

The visit to Pemberley by Lizzie and the Gardiners, for instance, can't be made into entertaining and memorable film. And why should anyone in the business have tried? It was written for a 250 year-old book and should have been left there. P&P'95 turned it into filmed brilliance that, 20 years later, is truly iconic.

``What will be his surprise,'' thought she, ``when he knows who they are! He takes them now for people of fashion.''

That's Lizzie's thought only and not a statement of fact from an omniscient Austen. No hint at all that Darcy or Lizzie would equate body shape with respectability. Lizzie's delight is for the genteel manners of her Gardiner relatives.

My problem with Parfitt was her complete lack of modulation in what amounted to a sitcom style recitation instead of a dramatization.

[–] Julie-30 11 years ago

If P&P80 is headed for the dustbin, then why are we still talking about it, 30+ years later?

If you really think that nobody but me likes it, check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8152793.stm

http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=29403

Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy as played by David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie.

Also, if you've ever seen "You've Got Mail," you might want to know that the scene where Meg Ryan learns that Tom Hanks is her "secret admirer" was lifted directly from the Pemberley scene in this adaptation.

Meaning that both Sandy Lerner (who single-handedly saved Chawton House for posterity) and Nora Ephron like it. I'd say I was in pretty good company. And we're not alone.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] joes119-1 11 years ago

Of course there are others whose favorite is 1980! And thank you for those links. Ms Lerner has done what I'd do should I win the lotto. I'd throw a ball too. Good for her!

[–] Julie-30 11 years ago

She really does sound like a neat lady. She worked very hard for that money, and it's so amazing that she is giving the world this amazing library.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Julie, you are definitely not alone in liking it. I prefer it to the 95 and while I like the 05 version when I want a soft music short version, but when I want the whole story, it's the 80 version...every time.

[–] randommovies2002 10 years ago

Way to raise the banner, Julie!

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

Aw shucks.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I think what you are taking issue with may be the general "Masterpiece Theatre" style during the 1970s and 1980s. Yes, actors tended toward the stagey, blocking and camera work were a bit static. I find most of the 1970s and 1980s Austen adaptations a bit heavy-going, myself.

But if you can, especially with this P&P, try to look past the stylistic limitations to the heart. I do much prefer the 1995 P&P to the 1980, but I feel Elizabeth Garvie is excellent; she conveys better than any other Elizabeth, IMO, the character's fine and deep intelligence.

I have only seen this version once, several years back, but Garvie really impressed me, and sticks in my mind.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

I feel Elizabeth Garvie is excellent; she conveys better than any other Elizabeth, IMO, the character's fine and deep intelligence.

Yes. This version took some getting used to after the more recent adaptations, but she is the closest to Elizabeth as seen in the book.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tps1400 10 years ago

Darcy was terrible. Only at the end he passed that kidney stone and managed to move a single facial muscle.

Elizabeth was not good either. Too low profile and polite and lifeless. She was all politeness and smiling even when telling Lady de Bourgh to go f** herself. Where were the lively, non-formal manners that captured the heart of Mr Darcy?

The only exceptional actor in this production was Mrs Bennet. Her performance was a joy to watch.

[–] Storywatcher 10 years ago

Do you suggest a passionate kissing scene instead? It was another era.

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

Engaged couples did kiss. They did a whole lot more, too. We know for a fact that quite a few children were born less than 9 months after their parents' wedding.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

So many recent historical romance authors try to back up this argument with church records. However, they're forgetting what the average person got up to wasn't quite the same as what the high and mighty ladies could get up to before marriage.

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

But, until relarively recently, the lives of the rich and famous were not emulated by mere mortals they way they are now. The middle class was far more moral and "upright" than the rich. The old saying that "the rich are not like you and me" is very true. But, since an engagement was as binding as marriage (particularly for the man), those 7- or 8-month babies were not the products of casual sex, but of people who were committed to each other.

By the way, in colonial America, young couples were encouraged to sleep in the same bed. They were not encouraged to have sex, but it did happen. The practice was called "bundling."

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

not upper class english couples though. Upper class english girls were chaperoned and not left alone with young men, nor did respectBle young men generally try to seduce unmarried girls of their own class. men who do that in jane austen's novels are invRiably bad lots, like Wickham nd Willoughby.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

not upper class english couples though. Upper class english girls were chaperoned and not on the whole left alone with young men, so opprtunities for seduction wer few. nor did respectAble young men generally try to seduce unmarried girls of their own class. men who do that in jane austen's novels are invRiably bad lots, like Wickham nd Willoughby.

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Austen wouldn't have written about it if it didn't happen. Nobody said it was the usual practice, but it did happen. And, since we have a spinster in the boonies who knew about these things, it was obviously a little more common than you seem to think.

As a matter of fact, one of George III's own daughters (Princess Sophia) gave birth to an illegitimate child (and she never married the father). So, obviously, premarital sex did exist in the uppermost reaches of society.

The Georgian and Regency periods were not as morally strict as the Victorian age was. And, as a reminder, Austen and Victoria's lives did not overlap. Austen died before Victoria was even born.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com