The few remarks on the P&P and Jane Eyre screen adaptations...
I feel I must, lest it is forgotten, post a few brief and concise remarks upon the matters such as the screen adaptations of the 'beloved' romance novel of one Jane Austen called 'Pride and Prejudice' and the esteemed work of lady - namesake - Bronte entitled 'Jane Eyre'.
First of all, hereby I do declare that the collective mind has very decisively dubbed the assorted Messrs. Rochesters of the various movie versions as follows:
- the Mr. Rochester of 1973 is quite obviously a Mr. Pussycat, that with his mild classic handsome features, languid attitude, and a slightly askew huge bow right under his chin;
- the Mr. Rochester of 1983, when smiling, hauntingly resembles another actor, Robert Hossein, in the role of the noble pirate and aristocrat count Joffrey de Peyrac;
- the Mr. Rochester of 2006, finally, and quite simply, is Mr. Hyde, no explanation required.
Unfortunately, no nickname could be found for William Hurt of the Zeffirelli version, for he, allegedly, would still be William Hurt even in Africa.
***
On to the movies of 'Pride and Prejudice'. Laconically; in a manner of a tiny scribble.
Number 1940: Light, bright comedy in the style typical of Hollywood of those times. Surprisingly delightful at that. Darcy is Laurence Olivier, which is notable. Follows the book rather considerably, compared to what might have been expected. One can do perfectly well without watching this version at all. Oh, and the time/place setting is off entirely.
Number 1980: BBC multi-episode film I haven't watched, save for a couple of brief scenes. From what I have seen, I judge this one must represent the lead characters... ah, well, - the unlikeable character of Mr. Darcy - most honestly. Seemed rather dull to me from afar, yet I might one day reconsider and try watch it entirely, although I very much doubt that.
Number 1995: BBC, again. Enter the drums! The best ever, simply put. No need to read the novel (and be vastly disappointed); better watch this. Most characters are quite true to their literary originals; the most striking difference is Mr. Darcy, who out of a vaguely disagreeable fellow transforms here into a misunderstood, shy, but enormously decent and worthy man of passion and restraint. The setting is superb, all the cast is too. I need the DVD of it.
Number 2005: it's a wholesome movie, like the first of the versions listed. Very, very beautiful cinematography. As in, the picture. The 'omg modern' (quite cliche that way, actually, yet still awe-inspiring) camera moves, painstakingly crafted colour schemes, frame division... Characters mostly quite distant to their originals, and the spirit of the production spectacularly off, on the whole. Um, yes. Leads, that is to say, seriously different from the novel, too. Faithfulness to the time period seems to have been a concern alien to the creators. But the thing is quite beautiful, nevertheless. Somewhat ridiculous most of the time, though. Yes. Dialogue and story are mostly Austen; however, when concerning the leads, quite conspicuously altered to show off the charming stick-girl Keira Knightley. Matthew McF-something looks, by the by, as some or other astute reviewer put it, 'as though someone kicked his puppy' throughout the film. Overall, I find the version a relatively good means to spend a delightful evening potatoeing on the couch.
Now then; the brief and concise notes predictably threatening to expanded themselves (nothing to do with me, to be sure) into an almost full-fledged account, - I will leave them at that.
First of all, hereby I do declare that the collective mind has very decisively dubbed the assorted Messrs. Rochesters of the various movie versions as follows:
- the Mr. Rochester of 1973 is quite obviously a Mr. Pussycat, that with his mild classic handsome features, languid attitude, and a slightly askew huge bow right under his chin;
- the Mr. Rochester of 1983, when smiling, hauntingly resembles another actor, Robert Hossein, in the role of the noble pirate and aristocrat count Joffrey de Peyrac;
- the Mr. Rochester of 2006, finally, and quite simply, is Mr. Hyde, no explanation required.
Unfortunately, no nickname could be found for William Hurt of the Zeffirelli version, for he, allegedly, would still be William Hurt even in Africa.
***
On to the movies of 'Pride and Prejudice'. Laconically; in a manner of a tiny scribble.
Number 1940: Light, bright comedy in the style typical of Hollywood of those times. Surprisingly delightful at that. Darcy is Laurence Olivier, which is notable. Follows the book rather considerably, compared to what might have been expected. One can do perfectly well without watching this version at all. Oh, and the time/place setting is off entirely.
Number 1980: BBC multi-episode film I haven't watched, save for a couple of brief scenes. From what I have seen, I judge this one must represent the lead characters... ah, well, - the unlikeable character of Mr. Darcy - most honestly. Seemed rather dull to me from afar, yet I might one day reconsider and try watch it entirely, although I very much doubt that.
Number 1995: BBC, again. Enter the drums! The best ever, simply put. No need to read the novel (and be vastly disappointed); better watch this. Most characters are quite true to their literary originals; the most striking difference is Mr. Darcy, who out of a vaguely disagreeable fellow transforms here into a misunderstood, shy, but enormously decent and worthy man of passion and restraint. The setting is superb, all the cast is too. I need the DVD of it.
Number 2005: it's a wholesome movie, like the first of the versions listed. Very, very beautiful cinematography. As in, the picture. The 'omg modern' (quite cliche that way, actually, yet still awe-inspiring) camera moves, painstakingly crafted colour schemes, frame division... Characters mostly quite distant to their originals, and the spirit of the production spectacularly off, on the whole. Um, yes. Leads, that is to say, seriously different from the novel, too. Faithfulness to the time period seems to have been a concern alien to the creators. But the thing is quite beautiful, nevertheless. Somewhat ridiculous most of the time, though. Yes. Dialogue and story are mostly Austen; however, when concerning the leads, quite conspicuously altered to show off the charming stick-girl Keira Knightley. Matthew McF-something looks, by the by, as some or other astute reviewer put it, 'as though someone kicked his puppy' throughout the film. Overall, I find the version a relatively good means to spend a delightful evening potatoeing on the couch.
Now then; the brief and concise notes predictably threatening to expanded themselves (nothing to do with me, to be sure) into an almost full-fledged account, - I will leave them at that.