Pride and Prejudice, 1995 TV miniseries, starring Jennifer Ehle & Colin Firth
After watching the 1995 BBC miniseries the question I have is different: whose story is this? The story still takes place in Jane Austen's Regency England, which sticks closely to the novel's original plot, and the dialogue and period setting are also the same as in the novel. The main difference between the series and novel would be a creative difference. Andrew Davies and Simon Langton, the adaptor and director of the series, invented scenes where Darcy is being followed when he is away from Elizabeth, which didn't take place in the novel. In the series, we watch Darcy fence, ride, brood, and, of course, dive into lakes. None of those aspects are in the original novel by Jane Austen, because we are in Elizabeth's head then. Davies and Langton gave us a Darcy with a life, and for the time period, that made him a bigger romantic lead than what Jane Austen wrote.
With a choice like that, I think it helped to shape the two scenes I love most: the proposal (2:32:42) and the letter scenes (2:48:48). With the proposal, Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth refuses to be flattered, and Colin Firth's Darcy gives his confession as though it's being dragged out of him against his will. This sets up some major irony because he thinks as though he's offering her a gift of some sort by proposing. Ehle's
Elizabeth answers back in fury, and that plays as a rare moment when a woman tells a wealthy man "no" and really means it. The letter scene plays out differently; Jane Austen gives Elizabeth the role of reader and judge, and the series gives Darcy's words back by having him do the voice over. For those few minutes, Darcy is narrating Elizabeth's mind, which shapes her opinions. It really is captivating. 
Darcy and Elizabeth during the (failed) proposal
 |
| The famous lake scene |
That brings me to the gender question, and in all honesty, I think the series is split. On one hand, the series is invested in Elizabeth's intelligence, and Ehle's performance keeps her witty, confident, stubborn, and impossible to patronize (the proposal scene makes that clear, 2:32:42). On the other hand, the series adaptation reflects the 1990s ideas about desire and masculinity in a way Austen's novel doesn't portray. The famous lake scene (3:24:00) puts a man's body on display for the audience's pleasure, which turns Darcy into an object worth gazing at, and along with that, as the scene plays out, Darcy becomes an object for Elizabeth to gaze at and feel a sort of desire for. That creative choice says more about the spectacle of a man's body than it does about Austen's Regency England. The romance aspect shifts after this point. The romance becomes less about Elizabeth and more about Darcy being softened by love. And in the end, we get the reward of seeing the two be married.
So, what does the series do for the audience? I would say that it explains why this version became the standard for every adaptation that followed it. The series allows viewers to have it both ways: a smart female lead that can be admired for her qualities and a man who goes from proud to humbled because of her. Personally, I really enjoyed the miniseries. I got the sense that both sides of gender were being played and I think that's what made me enjoy it more. Don't get me wrong, I love the Jane Austen novel, but I was very pleased to get more of a sense of who Darcy is in the series. So, to answer my own question of whose story is this, I think it's a well thought out and executed story of both of them, without one side being favored more than the other. I don't think the series makes Elizabeth less empowered, if anything, I think it makes her more empowered. I will admit that Darcy gets a whole lot of screen time in the series, but I still think it makes Elizabeth empowered. Giving Darcy an inner life doesn't shrink hers or make hers less important. It honestly raises the stakes. We as viewers see what she's turning down, and that makes the "no" hit a lot harder. But at the end of the day, Elizabeth set the terms. But either way, it's a version that plays to what the viewers wanted during the 1990s, and it was executed very well.
Work Cited:
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. 1813. Edited by James Kinsley, introduction and notes by Christina Lupton, Oxford UP, 2019.
Pride and Prejudice. Directed by Simon Langton, screenplay by Andrew Davies, performances by Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, BBC, 1995. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6tJzNh1TOk
Taryn, I just wanted to start out by saying that I enjoyed the partial analysis you made regarding the topic of Elizabeth's intelligence vs. Ehle's performance. I absolutely agree with you when you mention about how your adaptation reflected on the concept of masculinity, that wasn't included in the novel. The scene that you then described when Darcy's body was put on display I felt very much signified how the roles flipped between female and male.
ReplyDeleteHey Taryn, I like how you narrow in on all those added scenes with Darcy. I have not seen this adaption, but I have seen the lake scene, and I think it’s hysterical that an added in scene can be arguably the most popular part of an adaptation. It’s really cool how added scenes can change how an audience sees a character even if they never really change the story itself. Anytime I can get more context about a character, I am there for it! I also like your notes about how this version played into what people in the 90s wanted. It's fascinating how audience desires change over time, in general, and how filmmakers and writers and all those folks cater to those wants.
ReplyDeleteHi, Taryn. I also chose this adaptation, so it was really nice to see a different analysis. I especially enjoyed your segment on the lake scene with Darcy, and how he is treated as a spetacle to be looked at. I do think that it could be argued this plays against Elizabeth's character development, which could just be my interpretation. I do, however, agree that this series allowed for a smart and independent female protagonist and a man to develop emotionally. Great work, Taryn.
ReplyDelete