Atonement and Pride & Prejudice
Some time ago, I finally finished reading Pride & Prejudice (to make a long story short: I just cannot be as fond of it as of Sense & Sensibility or Emma, but I would recommend it) and after that watched the 2005 film version, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen (who would have been a new face to me, had I not, through a strange coincidence, watched the tv-series Murder Rooms that he appears in that same week).
As a fan of the BBC miniseries of P&P but not of Miss Knightley, I was, well, prejudiced. Yet I would claim that I wouldn't have liked the movie even if I had not seen the miniseries.
First of all, while watching the movie I felt like they were trying to get every little thing about the book into the film. Unfortunately, with the limited timeframe, that means a need to rush. Especially the whole Mr Wickham storyline. They barely had time to introduce the character, and then he was only referred to in speech until appearing again at the very end.
Usually I complain about movies being too long, but this perhaps could have benefited from some extra minutes. Or then leaving something out.
And although I have never understood what exactly do film critics mean when they say that a movie lacks vitality, I would imagine it means something like what I saw in this Pride & Prejudice. No irony, no passion, no feeling. Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has no trace of her wit that is so essential in the novel. I would call her blunt, at best. And Matthew MacFadyen takes the idea of Darcy as a man of few expressions to a completely new level.
And then, last but not least (because everyone who has seen the tv-series is going to wonder about it anyway): why make yet another adaption of the book, as there is no way it would surpass BBC's?
Soon after P&P, I watched another movie directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley -Atonement, based on the novel by Ian McEwan. After that I was ready to forgive Wright and even Knightley, to some degree.
If Pride & Prejudice lacked feeling, Atonement has quite enough. Saoirse Ronan (playing Briony at 13) can in one look tell everything that is necessary (although now that I'm reading the book, I feel more sympathy for the character. Ronan's Briony is rather brutal), and the atmosphere in the film is always built carefully, especially the ominousness during the first part. Emotionally this movie can quite drain you, if you tend to be easily affected.
Keira Knightley does her part well enough, as does James McAvoy. yet I would say the three actors playing Briony at different ages are really more central, and they all do very well. Romola Garai as the 18-year-old Briony was an especially nice surprise to me -after seeing her in I Capture the Castle I've been almost unreasonably fond of her.
The fact that the screenwriter of Atonement (Christopher Hampton) is also going to do Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell I find quite promising. While I am ready to admit that after Atonement my opinion of Joe Wright has greatly improved, I still suspect the screenwriters also have something to do with the huge difference between my reactions to P&P and Atonement.
As a fan of the BBC miniseries of P&P but not of Miss Knightley, I was, well, prejudiced. Yet I would claim that I wouldn't have liked the movie even if I had not seen the miniseries.
First of all, while watching the movie I felt like they were trying to get every little thing about the book into the film. Unfortunately, with the limited timeframe, that means a need to rush. Especially the whole Mr Wickham storyline. They barely had time to introduce the character, and then he was only referred to in speech until appearing again at the very end.
Usually I complain about movies being too long, but this perhaps could have benefited from some extra minutes. Or then leaving something out.
And although I have never understood what exactly do film critics mean when they say that a movie lacks vitality, I would imagine it means something like what I saw in this Pride & Prejudice. No irony, no passion, no feeling. Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has no trace of her wit that is so essential in the novel. I would call her blunt, at best. And Matthew MacFadyen takes the idea of Darcy as a man of few expressions to a completely new level.
And then, last but not least (because everyone who has seen the tv-series is going to wonder about it anyway): why make yet another adaption of the book, as there is no way it would surpass BBC's?
Soon after P&P, I watched another movie directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley -Atonement, based on the novel by Ian McEwan. After that I was ready to forgive Wright and even Knightley, to some degree.
If Pride & Prejudice lacked feeling, Atonement has quite enough. Saoirse Ronan (playing Briony at 13) can in one look tell everything that is necessary (although now that I'm reading the book, I feel more sympathy for the character. Ronan's Briony is rather brutal), and the atmosphere in the film is always built carefully, especially the ominousness during the first part. Emotionally this movie can quite drain you, if you tend to be easily affected.
Keira Knightley does her part well enough, as does James McAvoy. yet I would say the three actors playing Briony at different ages are really more central, and they all do very well. Romola Garai as the 18-year-old Briony was an especially nice surprise to me -after seeing her in I Capture the Castle I've been almost unreasonably fond of her.
The fact that the screenwriter of Atonement (Christopher Hampton) is also going to do Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell I find quite promising. While I am ready to admit that after Atonement my opinion of Joe Wright has greatly improved, I still suspect the screenwriters also have something to do with the huge difference between my reactions to P&P and Atonement.