MovieChat Forums > Death Comes to Pemberley (2014) Discussion > Portrayed Women As If Setting Were The 1...

Portrayed Women As If Setting Were The 1970s

posted 10 years ago by mlone
12 replies | jump to latest

I loved Elizabeth's "feminist" personality in the original book, but this miniseries took it a bit too far. Elizabeth was way too confident and outspoken, in ways that I don't believe reflected the times. And she was downright rude to Catherine de Berg (sp?), who deserved it, but I think it was too much. In the original miniseries (BBC), Lizzie didn't like Catherine but was very subtle instead of outwardly rude.

Also, and this is a HUGE problem IMO, the girl who had Wickham's illegitimate baby would NEVER have been allowed to keep the child. It would have been way too much of a scandal for an unmarried girl to keep a child she had with the ruling family's relative (although maybe Wickham's paternity was kept a secret). Even in the 1950s and '60s, things like this were still covered up. I thought this was a ridiculous and unbelievable plot point.

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

Just so you know, the "original miniseries" you are referring to is not the be-all and end-all. Only the book is definitive. All adaptations take liberties. Yes, even the 1995 version.

As for the baby in this adaptation, the stigma of illegitimacy is the reason that Mrs. Bidwell and her family decided to tell everyone that the baby belonged to the daughter who lived up north. Elizabeth bought into this lie -- until she say the baby nursing at his mother's breast. This girl could not have been a wet nurse, so there is only one conclusion one can come to -- the girl who was nursing the baby has to be its mother.

Later on, in the PD James novel that this series is based on (as an aside, I liked this series better than the book), the baby gets adopted by a Mr. and Mrs. Robert Martin of Highbury. And, if you've read Austen's "Emma," you will recognize the Martins as characters from that novel. So, no, the young mother did not get to keep her baby.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] mlone 10 years ago

Good point, Julie-30. I like the 1995 miniseries the best of all the filmed adaptation, but you're right, it's not necessarily the best or the most definitive.

I understand about how the baby was said to be the daughter up north's child until Elizabeth's discovery of the baby nursing. I just felt that it was very unrealistic for Darcy to suddenly announce that it was OK for the baby (who was fathered by his n'er-do-well brother-in-law!) to stay with its unmarried mother. I have not read "Death Comes to Pemberley," so I'm glad to know the baby was adopted; that seems more realistic for the time.

[–] furienna 10 years ago

I have not read "Death Comes to Pemberley," so I'm glad to know the baby was adopted; that seems more realistic for the time.

You are glad that the baby was given up for adoption? I'm sorry, but how can you say such a thing?

Intelligence and purity.

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

You can't use today's sensibilities about something that happened 200 years ago and that was accepted until my own lifetime (I was born in the late 50s).

Illegitimacy was stigmatized -- both the mother and the child were the targets. The mother could move away and take the baby with her and tell everyone that she was a widow, but she still wouldn't have been able to support him. She has no education and no training to do anything other than be a servant. If she moved away, who would take care of him while she worked? A servant's day was long and hard, and there were rules about them being married, much less a parent.

Unmarried mothers gave their children up for adoption. That's the way it was, and no amount of moral outrage on your part will change that.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] klorentz 10 years ago

Did you also catch the reference to a lady in Hartfield who has a school for such children?

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

But of course!

And, in the book, Wickham works for someone named Sir Walter Elliot. What a combination!

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] Latoija 10 years ago

I would suggest in her own home Lizzie would have slightly more authority. Lady Cathrine may have a title but one is expected to show some respect to a person in there on home.

I can't remember all the adaptations but I know in at least on Lizzie invites Lady Catherine to leave the Bennett house shortly before the proposals happen (after Lady C comes over all strong to tell Lizzy abou her lack of status and the ruined Lydia).

In this story she would be the lady of the house and have much more social standing inherited from marrying Darcy so it to me it is no so unlikely that she wouldn't take so kindly to someone coming into her home and being disrespectful to her. The knife cuts both ways.

_____________
Shut it down

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

I think the problem is they behaviour and language of all of the characters was much more 2010s than two centuries ago.

Manners counted for everything, and even if people were trying to insult someone/put them in their place they wouldn't have behaved as this version of Elizabeth did. Additionally, Lady Catherine had a title. There was a strict order of society back then.

That, along with all the other mistakes in etiquette (no gloves or bonnets? that's almost like a woman in 2014 going out topless!) gave this show a too-modern feel much of the time.

[–] lightningcows 10 years ago

...probably a reflection of the tug and pull of some of these shows that take place in a historical setting. There is the desire not to be too incorrect historically, but yet, also have the story relevant to the modern audience. In a way, it is possible that had Elizabeth been portrayed too accurately as woman of her era, it may have offended modern sensibilities concerning women.

[–] mmsbk 10 years ago

There have always been babies conceived by unmarried girls, always. In the country the tendency was, where possible, to get married before the baby was born, but failing that , it was often passed off as a sister's baby or even the mother's ( if you do any genealogy, you will see it turns up quite often) .
There is some evidence to show that illegitimacy in rural areas, among labouring/working class , was not considered to be SO damning . It is, after all a sign of good fertility and marrying for love and love alone is not that old a notion. Marrying a girl of good health and proven fertility might, you know, not be such a bad deal . To have a child fathered by a scion of the Big House was not that uncommon either.

[–] annlevtex 10 years ago

Shotgun weddings were very common in the 18th century. So long as you "got her to the church on time" it was not a big social stigma. And yes, aristos had illegitimate kids all the time and often stashed them somewhere and took care of them. Even acknowledged them sometimes, in a way. Hey, for a Toff male who hadn't produced an heir with his legit wife? Having produced a boy with another woman was a consolation.