Urgh

[gillieweed]

Took daughter to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory last night--was largely unimpressed. Definitely got the same "What theme park is working on the Wonka ride?" vibe mehitobel_ny mentioned to me. However my problem concentrating on the movie had less to do with the quality of said movie, but the fact I was subjected to one of the most disturbing movie

Comments

[dphearson]

I reads an article about P&P in The Times ( London), in their Culture section.

Apparently, what the filmmakers are going for a 'more gritty, more realistic' adaptation of P&P. They will emphasise the grime, the messiness of living in the English countryside at the turn of the 18th century. Oh, and they intend to move teh action back ten years, because the director does not like Regency dresses- they make everyone look like 'balloons'.

Sigh.

This is not going to be a good film, for many reasons:

1) Although P&P is a wonderful, realistic novel- the observations of people in their element is dead on- it is also a comedy. A comedy, about two rather unremarkable people whose charms and goodness are revealed gradually to each other. Yes, money is very much at stake here; that does not mean that the Bennet family is any less funny.

2) Speaking of which, the director wants to show examples of 18th century country life, like an uncastrated pig and chickens wandering through the courtyard. Thus, we see the Bennetts as bumpkins, and so does Darcy.
Nope.
This is in contradiction to the text entirely; what makes Elizabeth and Jane's plight so frightful is that they don't know how to take care of domestic matters. They can't even cook. Mrs. Bennett makes a point to bragging about this. It is the pragmatic Charlotte Lucas who keeps chickens and bees; it is she who knows how to run household expenses and to manage a small income.
As for country life, Darcy, as a man in that time, would not be offended by famr animals and unpowdered women. He lives in London, for chrissakes, where there is amazing filth( rudimentry sewer system), people whipped and executed, people who wash twice a year whether they need it or not,prostitutes, and horseshit everywhere, simply everywhere. A plump piggy should not offend him. what offends Darcy is the manners and placement in society, not the substance.

3)Keira Knigtley is far too thin. A country gentry girl should be will fed and voluptous. Elizabeth is described as this, while also being small and light of body. Jennifer Ehle was perfect for the role, Keira needs another 20 pounds.

4) Judi Dench is too old for the role. And I love Judi Dench. I think she's sexy. But a little too old.

5)How will they fit in the subplots that figure into Elizabeth's and Darcy develop as characters?

Ugh. I could go on and on. Ugh.

[gillieweed]

It did look filthy. And the Bennett house would make an ideal Snape...er...estate. Actually it might have made a good "Burrow" it was that bad.

*smirks*

Oh, this is going to be just awful!

[dphearson]

Actually, I was thinking that the description of the house in the film would be dead on for the Burrow!

But still, during that time period, there were dissolute gentry who lived in relative filth, but becaus eof name and connection, they were welcomed in homes. What teh filmmakers are being coy about is the fact that society is run on connection and money, an dthat it is perfectly ridicolous and limiting- which is what the BBC version did so well.

[gillieweed]

Although mill-owned rowhouse!Snape is now canon, I really have no trouble seeing him rattling around in something like this version of Bennett house:


It certainly does have a look of The Burrow about it--except for all the right angles.