MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) Discussion > The priest who said "...pristine...".

The priest who said "...pristine...".

posted 9 years ago by Mary_Crewe
18 replies | jump to latest

About the priest taking advantage of Mr. Darcy at the beginning...

Why is the only apparently gay character a predatory one? Plenty of people learn from movies how to perceive people, so making this guy predatory can feed into someone's already existent hatefully fueled homophobia, further confuse someone who is just unsure (someone who isn't around a lot of gay people, or bi people, or only knowingly around predatory gay or bi, or other identity where people can be attracted to the same gender, people), or if a gay or bi, or pans, etc., person does like that character that's just giving that person more rape culture fantasy for them (or the problem people of rape culture anyway) to live off of.

What did anyone else think? It honestly stopped me from wanting to get it on DVD or ever watch it again.

[–] cagneychick182 9 years ago

I got the impression Collins was gay as well.

Either way, I thought it was funny. The movie clearly played with a wink on how iconically sexy Mr. Darcy has become since the 1996 mini-series. A great example of this Darcy's jump in the lake.

So, to me, it was more about everyone objectifying about Darcy, including the guy in the beginning to Mr. Collins calling him about during the wedding scene.

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Collins is not gay. He's just silly and over-anxious to impress.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I agree but Matt Smith has said in interviews that he gave the role that spin so it's not surprising if people take it that way.

I just thought, if you’re going to reimagine something like this, then you’ve got to give it a slightly new spin. I thought it might be interesting if he were secretly in love with Mr. Darcy.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/06/pride-prejudice-zombies-matt-smith

[–] Mary_Crewe 9 years ago

I don't think that spin on Mr. Collins is fair, when that's all gay (I assume he meant he was gay, not bi or something else) men are getting in the movie: the predatory guy and the conceded annoying weak (there's nothing wrong with being weak, but the movie treats it as one of his flaws) guy.

It's 2016 and we have a long way to come. I get to see awesome straight people in the film, as well annoying ones and villains, but, like I said, I get to see admirable straight characters too. I don't want that at the expense of someone else (gay men) and I don't want any gay, bi, pans, etc. men who are apart of rape culture being the ones getting something.

[–] teatat 9 years ago

IMO there's not enough character development in this movie to judge anyone's sexual orientation except the leads and maybe Jane and Bingley.

[–] Mary_Crewe 9 years ago

That scene plays into rape culture and Darcy is being sexually harassed by a homophobic character. It's not funny, when someone isn't in control of their body, and it was unnecessary to the plot. Having sexy scenes is fine, when the people in them are treated like people.

At the end, I thought Mr. Collins might have been gay too, which I don't think is helpful either. He's weak (which I don't find bad, but his weakness is portrayed as a flaw and it's not fair to gay people to only see weak characters), conceded (which is unfair to gay people to only see that), but also he really seemed attracted to women and bisexuality is real and doesn't get covered enough, but he still would be the only bisexual character and a bad portrayal, unlike the great characters straight people like me get represented by.

[–] ffnogoodnik 9 years ago

At the end, I thought Mr. Collins might have been gay too, which I don't think is helpful either. He's weak (which I don't find bad, but his weakness is portrayed as a flaw and it's not fair to gay people to only see weak characters), conceded (which is unfair to gay people to only see that), but also he really seemed attracted to women and bisexuality is real and doesn't get covered enough, but he still would be the only bisexual character and a bad portrayal, unlike the great characters straight people like me get represented by.

You THOUGHT Mr. Collins might be gay and so because you thought this you then say the film in unfair to gay men because it shows them to be weak and conceded but you also observe that Mr. Collins also seemed to be attracted to women so now you THINK he is bisexual which is a bad portrayal of bi-sexuals.

The problem is that you mistakenly think Mr. Collins is gay then basically accusing the film of showing gay and bisexual characters in a poor light. Mr. Collins is not gay he never simply developed the social graces needed to interact in the world they were in.

He thought he was important because of standing with Lady Catherine de Bourgh. This did not matter to Elizabeth and her sisters. They just thought he was, to use a more modern term, a 'dork".

As to your statement about the scene of Darcy being sexually harassed playing into rape culture. It does not. In no way was that scene indicative that "Rape is good". If anything it goes the opposite way and shows that people that take advantage of situations for sexual reasons are bad people.

[–] genevaporter 9 years ago

Darcy seemed more annoyed that the priest wasn't doing his job (not noticing whether visitors had scars or not) than he was that the priest leered over him. That was his priority.

As for Mr. Collins, I thought he was a lot less creepy than the Mr. Collinses of the real P & P movies. He didn't seem as predatory, even though he made it clear he wanted to marry one of the Bennets. He seemed more good-willed towards his cousins.

[–] Mary_Crewe 9 years ago

Mr. Collins was definitely friendlier, although I always felt there was an underlying kindness.

[–] [email protected] 9 years ago

You don't half talk some bollocks don't you, Mary Crewe....

[–] dark_frances 9 years ago

to me, it was more about everyone objectifying about Darcy, including the guy in the beginning to Mr. Collins calling him about during the wedding scene.

That's exactly what I was thinking concerning the OP. The scene was not about vilifying a gay character, but about sexualizing Darcy (and mmm yes I loved it ).

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

[–] teatat 9 years ago

When you say he took advantage of Darcy, do you mean because it was inappropriate to comment on Darcy’s appearance while conducting a professional exam or do you mean something else?

I took that scene much the way cagneychick182 did. As a wink at iconically sexy Darcy -- even a man is impressed. Or playing off the line from the book, “The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man”. I do not mean to be dismissive of your concerns I just took it differently.

(Side note: my spell check wanted to change the line above to "ironically sexy Darcy" LOL)

[–] Mary_Crewe 9 years ago

I think he took advantage of him, because it was professional and Darcy didn't have a choice. That man was using his job for his own pleasure and the right thing to do would be to consider his feelings an not objectify him. I think any joke about someone being objectified just plays into the problem of rape culture. Even Darcy and Elizabeth's fight was crossing lines, but at the same time straight people, like myself, are not going to be at risk because of it, although it could play into rape culture too or this idea that hostility is attraction or love.

[–] teatat 9 years ago

I'm not convinced he was using Darcy for his own pleasure or that he's gay or homophobic. IMO one person can find another attractive without objectifying them or being a predator.

Darcy has choices. He has a lot more power than the man doing the exam. If the comment made him uncomfortable he could have told the man it was inappropriate, challenged him to a duel or made trouble for him, etc. Since there were a number of men around the guy couldn't have threatened to say Darcy had been bitten. I didn't notice anything to indicate Darcy was bothered by the comment. The only thing that seemed, to me, to bother him is that the man didn't pay enough attention since he's able to trip him up with the comment about the fencing wound.

[–] ambersexton-49268 9 years ago

I was confused as to why that scene was in it. Was it in the book? I just read it this week but I can't remember haha.

I absolutely loved this movie, but I did think this was a strange way to start it.

[–] teatat 9 years ago

It wasn’t in the book. I can see a few of reasons for that scene.

In story:
It shows us a security system that explains why the people inside think they are safe and hints at the sort of human error and overconfidence that can explain how Mr. Kingston managed to get in. (If the priest had been paying better attention Darcy wouldn’t have been able to trip him up with the question about his wound.)

As a way of poking fun at other adaptions:
In the 1995 adaption we see Darcy playing billiards without his jacket, taking a bath and swimming partially clothed (and in his wet shirt afterward). The 2005 doesn’t go that far but it does have Darcy show up a couple of times without being properly dressed. So it’s like saying, “We’ll just take Darcy clothes off at the beginning and get it over with.”

As a funny twist on the original text:
In the original P&P when Darcy first comes to the ball, “The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man…” Obviously in JA’s time that didn’t mean the men found him sexy but showing a man who finds him attractive kind of gives a modern twist to those words (IMO).

[–] dark_frances 9 years ago

That was a lovely explanation!

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

[–] teatat 9 years ago

nfm