MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice (1996) Discussion > Elizabeth should have not been apologeti...

Elizabeth should have not been apologetic

posted 2 years ago by VonFisch (354)
42 replies | jump to latest

I know she was very grateful for Darcy saving her sister's butt as well as being embarrassed by the behavior of her family that Darcy called out. But Darcy's words on the first proposal were atrocious. His character did evolve from that, and that is the point. During the first proposal after her refusal, he asked why, and she told him and she was spot on. She should not have felt shame about them later. The scene follows the book and I don't agree with Miss Austen having Elizabeth take the words back.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

She wasn't actually sorry that she'd said what she'd said, so if she wanted to apologize for being rude where she could have been tactful then that was up to her. Because they both knew that he was better for having been told the truth for once in his life, and that she regretted nothing and he wasn't angry, so if they wanted to share a laugh about an episode where neither of them had behaved with perfect grace, then that was fine with everybody.

Including me. Jane Austen understood these things better than you do.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

I disagree, I watched and read. He basically asked for it. I don't agree she should have just smiled and kept quiet about her reasons and his behavior. He never would have checked himself, and he kept asking and drew it out of her. Her later embarrassment just seems to negate. This is compounded by her telling her father, "he's not proud". Better would have been, "He was proud, but has changed, (etc.)"

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Dude, you don't seem to get that neither of them is actually sorry she said those things, although now that she's giddily in love with him maybe she feels a little less self-righteous about hurting his feelings and deflating his ego earlier in the story.

She isn't humbling herself, just declaring that his feelings mean far more to her than they used to and she's going to treat his feelings with far more respect from then on. Unless, of course, he needs to hear some unvarnished truth, and at some point in the dialogue he asks her for exactly that. That whole scene is an expression of perfect accord between two humans.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

They certainly worked it out, but the most she should have said could have been that she shouldn't have said those things in that harsh of a manner, not that she shouldn't have said them at all. Darcy is the one who related to her that the words did him good regardless, "you thought me devoid of every proper feeling" and then went on how he was that way.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

One of the great things about Darcy was how he reacted to that one bit of unvarnished truth! Most people get defensive or have panic attacks when they hear unwelcome truths about themselves, but Darcy actually thought about whether she was right... and had enough wisdom and insight to realize she actually was! And to change his ways because of it! Because a filthy rich gentleman of that era wouldn't be hearing a lot of truth in his life, his social inferiors knew better and his peers were to polite, and his family seemed to be dead except for a little sister.

And I really don't understand why you keep harping on that minor point. She said what she said because she was feeling all loving and tender, and wanted to show Darcy that she too had grown. What the hell is wrong with that! We should all be doing the same, not complaining about it.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

I recently rewatched it and it struck me. I commented about this to a friend and she said I was absolutely right, he was an ass. Then she said the reason why we fall for Mr. Darcy is because of that "look", and I'm like, yeah, the one at the piano.

Anyway, it's better than politics, no?

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Well he had been an ass, she'd called him an ass, and when she started to feel mushy about him she no longer thought he was an ass and said so.

I keep putting it in simpler and simpler terms...

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Yes, she said her feelings were changed, but then she said, "don't remind me of what I said back then..." etc. as if they shouldn't have been said.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

They both grow up and change during the course of the story, and that was one of the ways that Lizzie expressed the changes she'd undergone.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

I think the main reason for the bumpy start was simply the distance between Darcy and Elizabeth in social terms. Darcy was way above her and so he naturally mentioned it because it was going to be an issue for them if they got married. But he didn't consider Elizabeth's feelings about the matter and put it very undiplomatically.

So Elizabeth got her back up and let him have both barrels which she later regretted. It's not that she was wrong but where Darcy had been unthinking about Elizabeth's feelings Elizabeth deliberately hurt Darcy's feelings in the heat of the moment to get even with him for putting things so badly.

And as Elizabeth said to Jane later on once she had caught sight of Pemberley Darcy suddenly seemed a lot more appealing to her. So neither Elizabeth or Darcy were pure and totally virtuous as human beings.

Edit: Oh and of course Darcy did himself no favours when he and Elizabeth first met by insisting on upholding his social position at the dance and looking down his nose for a good deal of the time.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

That's totally misunderstood, she was joking about Pemberley, and it says so in the book.

Darcy told her I fell in love you even though I think you're way below my society. That's not cool.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

It's not cool now but it was the way things were back then. Lady de Bourgh for example was outraged by the idea of Darcy marrying Elizabeth.

And yes there was an element of tongue in cheek about what Elizabeth said of Pemberley but also a grain of truth I think. Remember that Darcy fell hard for Elizabeth fairly quickly but she had to be persuaded against her initial bad opinion of him.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

She gave a lot of thought after the letter, the revelation about Wickham, and how he used Col. Fitzwilliam to be testimony of what he related. She knew he trusted her enough to expose the situation with his sister that he loved dearly. She realized he also was cognizant of the embarrassment of her family as she did. Also, how her family's behavior is what prompted Darcy to separate Bingley.

That first proposal was nasty, though, I can't blame her at all.

Elizabeth was a jokester, too, and the book goes on, "Another intreaty that she would be *serious*, however, produced the desired effect, and she soon satisfied Jane by her solemn assurances of attachment.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Oh yes well Elizabeth would say that wouldn't she !? I think Jane Austen was having a bet each way.

[–] Techto (1388) 2 years ago

Yes, there was a big grain of truth in Elizabeth’s comment that she first realized she might actually love Darcy when she visited Pemberely. While there she was caught up in reverie imagining that she might have been the mistress if that majestic manor.

One of the things that struck me in watching was how often women remarked, in specific terms, on the incomes of eligible bachelors. It was evidently common knowledge.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) a year ago

Yes particularly for the Bennets where because Mr and Mrs Bennet had only daughters Longbourn would have gone to Mr Bennet's closest living male relative ( Mr Collins ) upon Mr Bennet's death. So the future financial security of the Bennets depended on either Jane or Elizabeth marrying into money. Of course it was in Elizabeth's mind and seeing Pemberley was the turning point it seems to me when she seriously started to consider marrying Mr Darcy even though at that point she didn't really like him.

[–] Techto (1388) a year ago

We are in total agreement. Elizabeth had the example of her “practical” friend Charlotte who married Mr. Collins for a secure and comfortable life despite having little or no affection or even respect for him.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

As Elizabeth later told Lady Catherine de Bourgh, their social stations were *not* different, just their financial situations. “ He is a gentleman;" said Lizzie, "I am a gentleman's daughter; so far we are equal. ”, and that was true. Their social "rank" was theoretically equal, they were both members of the landed but untitled gentry, the real difference was that Darcy was male and had ten thousand a year, she was female and had some pocket money.

So Darcy wasn't considered to be off limits to Lizzie, the way an aristocrat might have been, just so far out of her league that there was no point to her trying. Darcy and Bingley were the only two people in the entire milieu who weren't being pushed to marry for money or status, although of course everyone expected them to marry for money or status because that's what everyone did. They were the only two people around who could marry whomever they liked, and that's what they did.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

All you have to do is compare Pemberley to Longbourn to see the yawning gulf between Darcy and Elizabeth. Or compare Mrs Bennet to even Darcy's housekeeper for that matter.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

People cared far more about social "rank" than we do now. Nowadays financial, educational, or political barriers are considered huge barriers to a happy relationship and rank doesn't exist, so no sane person would devote much brainpower to understanding the English idea of "rank" circa 1800. But they were theoretically of the same social rank, and as evidence I present the fact that Darcy and Lizzie got to know each other, because they were both part of the regional social scene for "Gentry". If they were so unequal, why were they attending the same parties and dinners?

Lady Catherine de Bourgh was supposed to have a greatly inflated idea of her family's rank. She was acting like nobility when they were just rich, and as Lizzie was theoretically her social equal, Lizzie felt free to tell the scary old bitch off. Because the only real difference between the ladies was money, and money was officially considered to be less important than rank.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

I just checked, it says, Lady Catherine is styled such as she is the daughter of an earl, and her husband was a knight. So, Darcy is half from nobility.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

And Lady Catherine acted like marrying two cousins who were half nobility would produce a whole aristocrat!

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Give over Otter, you are up against a fact checker !

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Oh, for crying out loud, the fact she has "Lady" in her name is what prompted me to check on it, I didn't recall.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

If you would like to politely say "good night", I'm willing. More than willing.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Do you have notifications on here set to ring or what? I mean, if you wanted to reply, you can wait.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I am actually going to bed soon. We can pick things up later, if you promise to stop about Lizzie apologizing.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Good night, but I'm not making promises on anything, it's a diversion and something I wanted to bring up. Nobody's said much on this movie lately since IMDB got rid of the boards, seems all the old regulars are long scattered.

I am glad you and Quasi replied so promptly and we had the conversation. Thank you

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

There's nothing wrong with being a fact checker. Just the opposite in my book.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Lady Catherine was in denial of her own lack of talents as well as the condition of her daughter.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Tell me was Lady de Bourgh's daughter as unappealing in the book as she was in this mini-series ? Let's face it there was no way Darcy was going to marry her, miserable scrap that she was.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Yes, sickly and looked like it as well as practically mute.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Hmm I think that was a mistake by Austen. I suppose she did it to make Lady de Bourgh and her daughter figures of fun but I would have preferred it if the daughter had been perfectly acceptable. It would have made Lady de Bourgh's anger more reasonable.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

That's an interesting angle and better competition. I imagine Austen designed her character so to make Lady Catherine's airs more laughable.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Yes, a bit of reverse snobbery I suppose. She also had Lady de Bourgh boasting that she would have been a great piano player, if she had ever taken it up !

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Exactly! It makes me wonder if Austen met someone like her before.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

I doubt Austen would have moved in those circles socially. Her father was a clergyman and although they were middle class they weren't anywhere near wealthy. But I suppose she would have observed the high born at public events and the like.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

I don't agree with you. I think rank still exists although not as obviously or comprehensively as it did in the past. The only reason Darcy was at the dance was because it was the only one going and he was persuaded to go by Bingley.

Lizzie told Lady de Bourgh off because she was indeed a "willful girl" and she was going to marry Darcy and all of his lovely money no matter what the Lady de Bourgh's of the world thought about it.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Social class still exists, and is still hugely powerful, but I say social "rank" doesn't, or at least it doesn't outside the aristocracy. Britain used to have official ranks and hierarchies, and hundreds of years ago there were "sumptuary laws" that required everyone to dress according to their official rank, but that sort of thing had rather dimmed by Miss Austen's day and is so gone now that a stewardess's daughter can marry the Prince of Wales.

And Darcy's crowd met the Bennetts at several occasions, there were two balls and Jane and Lizzie were guests at Bingley's, and even that bitch Lady Catherine condescended to invite Lizzie to her home. So yes, they were running in the same circles.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

You are quibbling, for me rank is another way of saying social status.

The only reason that the Bennet's came into contact with Darcy was because Bingley took up a tenancy at Netherfield and had to make do with the society that was in the area. Darcy was always a reluctant participant and was only there because Bingley was a good friend of his.

As for Elizabeth and Lady de Bourgh that came about because Mr Collins was given the position as Vicar or whatever at Rosings and Lady de Bourgh heard of her and decided to patronize her. Or are you suggesting that Lady de Bourgh regarded Elizabeth as her social equal ?

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Sorry, rank isn't quite the same as social class, it's just that social class is the closest thing left to the old concept of rank. Think of today's aristocracy, and imagine that everyone in your nation thought of rank the same way they did!

Nobody gets that unless waste too much time reading old books. If you have better things to do, like most people, you won't get it, so no point belaboring the issue.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Still quibbling.