One of the more iconic scenes of “pride and prejudice” (2005) is that of the first marriage proposal . Even those who haven’t watched the beloved film You probably have some idea of the scene.
Under a torrential rain, Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen) – with wet hair falling on his forehead – confesses his worship to the witty protagonist Elizabeth Bennet: “I love you burningly.”
Anyone who knows the story knows what happens next. Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) rejects him, and the two follow opposite paths, keeping the novel tense and full of comings and goings. But in Jane Austen’s original novel, the scene happens indoors, with no constant rains or hills in the background.
And in the book, with no real clue about Mr. Darcy’s feelings, his marriage proposal comes as a total shock. Already in the version directed by Joe Wright, there are signs: contained breaths, tense hands, and a sexual tension thick enough to be cut with a knife.
These are just some of the elements that distinguish this version of “pride and prejudice” from the original novel. And it’s one of the reasons why this movie has even resonated with those who don’t consider a fan of Austen.
Wright’s version of “Pride and Prejudice” is back in American theaters this week, in celebration of the 20th anniversary of its release. Therefore, we revisit how, exactly, the film continues to bewitching the audience – body and soul.
Movie moves away from Austen’s novel
While “Pride and Prejudice” has been adapted in several Hallmark -style miniseries and modern versions, Wright’s film is considered only the second faithful film adaptation, alongside the 1940s, starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier.
Until its debut 20 years ago, the 1995 BBC miniseries, with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, was seen as the most emblematic visual adaptation. Many Austen fans still prefer this version, which, more than five hours long, follows the romance more rigorously.
But as seen in the marriage proposal scene, the freedoms that Wright takes with the text contribute to the charm of their adaptation.
Although Deviony Looser, an expert in Jane Austen and author of the future book “Wild for Austen”, consider the 1995 miniseries her favorite adaptation, she says that most of her students prefer the 2005 movie. Over time, she also recognized her merits.
Wright’s approach to Mr. Darcy is one of the main differentials. In the original text – and also largely in the 1995 version – the character is distant and harsh. His feelings are largely hidden, which makes the first marriage proposal a surprise, according to Looser.
Macfadyen’s Darcy is different. Although still reserved, it is more introspective and tormented, and the public clearly sees the effect that Elizabeth has on him. He is misunderstood and full of desire, more than just unpleasant. This makes him desirable – not only for Elizabeth, but for those who watch the movie.
Wright was not the first to make Mr. Darcy attractive to the public; In fact, this idea of a “charming Darcy” appears in many 20th century adaptations, according to Looser. But Wright deepens the romantic tension further. And, as spectators, we are hooked.
“The public has something to invest emotionally,” says Looser. “And also, I think, in Darcy’s sexual desire, visually speaking.”
Note the scene where Jane (Rosamund Pike), Elizabeth’s sister, gets sick in Netherfield, where Mr. Darcy and her friends are temporarily staying. When Elizabeth will visit her, we heard Caroline Bingley out of the scene, saying she looks “positively medieval.”
But the camera focuses on Mr. Darcy’s line of view – that is, we don’t see Elizabeth’s muddy dress or her dirty boots. Instead, the camera takes a long time in her wide eyes and her loose hair – a striking contrast with the focus of the book and other adaptations, according to Looser. The public has a glimpse of Darcy’s tense and confused feelings.
And there is also the famous “Flexing of the Hand” scene, so well known that distributor Focus Features now sells t -shirts and sweatshirts with MacFadyen’s extended hand.
In the scene, Mr. Darcy helps Elizabeth to climb the carriage. When she enters, still holding her hand, he lets out her palm, turns and walks away as she watches confused. Then he flexes his hand, as if he had taken a shock – a release of emotional electricity caused by her touch.
Wright gives us this visual glimpse of Darcy’s mind and feelings, says Looser – something Austen doesn’t do. This tension, built throughout the film, holds the public’s attention and fills even the most daily moments of intensity.
But Wright’s “pride and prejudice” is not just a love story. Although many adaptations reveal Darcy’s emotional interior, Wright extends this look to all the characters, according to Justin Smith, a professor of history of film and television at Montfort University in Leicester, England.
See Mary (Talulah Riley), sister of Elizabeth. When the young woman announces that she refused Mr. Collins’ marriage proposal, Wright’s camera focuses on Mary, whose face is filled with melancholy expression.
“It’s almost like she said, ‘I would say, if he asked me,” says Smith. “And a whole parallel story comes there.”
These small windows bring all the characters to life, says Smith, in a way that doesn’t happen in other versions. Together they create a rich world for the public to dive.
In addition to the novel, Wright’s “Pride and Prejudice” is a family story – and who does not identify with an insistent mother or jealousy between brothers?
Today, the movie resonates differently
When it was released, Wright’s “Pride and Prejudice” was a box office hit, raising more than $ 121 million worldwide, with a budget of $ 28 million (approximately $ 164 million) and a cast led by two young talents.
Critic Roger Ebert gave the movie, which was nominated for four Oscars, maximum note: four stars. The soundtrack is full of soft piano and bird corner; The camera strolls through green hills. Each painting looks like a painting.
But the relaunch happens at a very different time from that of 2005. Theaters are declining, analysts lament the end of the average budget movies, and romantic dramas are no longer as common as before. Although this does not take the beauty of the movie, the audience today sees it with a distinct look.
People crowded theaters to see the 1940 adaptation, which was produced during World War II as part of an effort to raise morale, according to Deborah Cartmell, English professor at Montfort University and specialist in adaptation studies. The public longed for a nostalgic England – “worthy of being defended.”
Something similar may be at stake today, she says. “Watching the movie makes you feel a real nostalgia from the 2000s,” says Carteell. “In such turbulent times, it’s a comforting story to follow.”
There is also something reassuring to see two people meeting and falling in love – not idealized, but in a way that seems natural and true. Today, when most novels happen via apps and text messages, seeing a face to face can be nostalgic, according to Smith.
“Movies remind us of the tangible and intense nature of human emotion and intimacy, the act of really knowing someone in physical spaces,” says Smith. “It may seem exaggeration, but I think we miss the romance and loving conquest that precede the rituals and conventions of the digital age.”
Wright’s “Pride and Prejudice” drama and prejudice reminds us in this more organic way to meet someone, find out who she is – and fall in love. This, says Smith, is something that deserves to be celebrated.
Watch the trailer
“War time” portrays real military mission that went wrong; know
This content was originally published in why “Pride and Prejudice” still delights the public after 20 years? on the CNN Brazil website.
Source: CNN Brasil
I’m Robert Neff, a professional writer and editor. I specialize in the entertainment section, providing up-to-date coverage on the latest developments in film, television and music. My work has been featured on World Stock Market and other prominent publications.
