Time to resume... sort of.
You're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, so I'm not going to.
Anyhoo, I'm back with a... tweet. That is, I'm interested in posting some more, but every time I have the time to sit down at my computer, I don't have any new ideas for posting. I should probably do the Jonathan Edwards thing, and always have pen and paper handy to write down ideas for blogging. Then I could take the world by storm. Or not.
Perhaps you've noticed that my post on public education is missing. That is a permament change. Although my views on education have changed not one iota (That's pronounced \ee-OH-tuh\, in the unlikely event that you wanted to know), I have been convicted that while what I said might very well have been true, I didn't necessarily say it in the most charitable method possible. This is not, however, to rule out the occasional shock value treatment, the which Jesus is by no means the only Biblical person to have used.
Ah, one thing I can do: review the recent movie Pride and Prejudice. In short, thumbs up. It's worth seeing, although the theatre doesn't necessarily make the movie astoundingly better than it would be in the home.
What I liked: they left out no major plot elements, the movie was only 2.5 hours long, and it didn't feel rushed. That in itself is quite an accomplishment. The acting was superb, especially Keira Knightley as Lizzy. In fact, I would say that of the four version currently made (the black-and-white Greer Garson/Lawrence Olivier, the BBC Elizabeth Garvie/David Rintoul, the A&E Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth, and the current one, this Lizzy is the truest to the book. Knightley manages to have plenty of spunk and fire while focusing on the fun-loving-ness of the book's character. Also impressive was the casting choice for Jane: Rosamund Pike, who is in my mind more attractive even than Knightley. This is as it should be, because it is a point of no small importance in the book. Jane is supposed to be prettier than Lizzy. The Darcy was quite good as well.
One thing that impressed me particularly about the cinematography was the scene where Darcy and Lizzy dance together. The directors, at one point in the dance, cut out all other people in the dance: they're not there. That's a really neat way of showing how Lizzy and Darcy are both thinking hard about the other person, without regard to anyone else in the room. It was very effective.
What I didn't like so much: very little. Mr. Bennet was acted very well by Donald Sutherland, though I think there were a few hard edges in the book's character that were missing in this movie's version. In particular, Mr. Bennet shows some unwonted affection to his wife, which just isn't the Mr. Bennet I read. The BBC Mr. Bennet is the best. The BBC Mr. Collins is also the best (you just can't beat the Mr. Collins bass clarinet in the BBC; it's perfect!). The only other thing I didn't like so well was the ending scene, where Darcy is in shorts, and of course Lizzy and Darcy kiss. You know, Austen didn't seem to feel a need to put that in her book, and people have not complained that the books are not romantic. The dialogue in that scene was also not at all Austen.
That's all for now.
In Christ.
Anyhoo, I'm back with a... tweet. That is, I'm interested in posting some more, but every time I have the time to sit down at my computer, I don't have any new ideas for posting. I should probably do the Jonathan Edwards thing, and always have pen and paper handy to write down ideas for blogging. Then I could take the world by storm. Or not.
Perhaps you've noticed that my post on public education is missing. That is a permament change. Although my views on education have changed not one iota (That's pronounced \ee-OH-tuh\, in the unlikely event that you wanted to know), I have been convicted that while what I said might very well have been true, I didn't necessarily say it in the most charitable method possible. This is not, however, to rule out the occasional shock value treatment, the which Jesus is by no means the only Biblical person to have used.
Ah, one thing I can do: review the recent movie Pride and Prejudice. In short, thumbs up. It's worth seeing, although the theatre doesn't necessarily make the movie astoundingly better than it would be in the home.
What I liked: they left out no major plot elements, the movie was only 2.5 hours long, and it didn't feel rushed. That in itself is quite an accomplishment. The acting was superb, especially Keira Knightley as Lizzy. In fact, I would say that of the four version currently made (the black-and-white Greer Garson/Lawrence Olivier, the BBC Elizabeth Garvie/David Rintoul, the A&E Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth, and the current one, this Lizzy is the truest to the book. Knightley manages to have plenty of spunk and fire while focusing on the fun-loving-ness of the book's character. Also impressive was the casting choice for Jane: Rosamund Pike, who is in my mind more attractive even than Knightley. This is as it should be, because it is a point of no small importance in the book. Jane is supposed to be prettier than Lizzy. The Darcy was quite good as well.
One thing that impressed me particularly about the cinematography was the scene where Darcy and Lizzy dance together. The directors, at one point in the dance, cut out all other people in the dance: they're not there. That's a really neat way of showing how Lizzy and Darcy are both thinking hard about the other person, without regard to anyone else in the room. It was very effective.
What I didn't like so much: very little. Mr. Bennet was acted very well by Donald Sutherland, though I think there were a few hard edges in the book's character that were missing in this movie's version. In particular, Mr. Bennet shows some unwonted affection to his wife, which just isn't the Mr. Bennet I read. The BBC Mr. Bennet is the best. The BBC Mr. Collins is also the best (you just can't beat the Mr. Collins bass clarinet in the BBC; it's perfect!). The only other thing I didn't like so well was the ending scene, where Darcy is in shorts, and of course Lizzy and Darcy kiss. You know, Austen didn't seem to feel a need to put that in her book, and people have not complained that the books are not romantic. The dialogue in that scene was also not at all Austen.
That's all for now.
In Christ.
posted by Adrian C. Keister @ 9:36 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
yes, but you have to give the director/producer credit for emphasizing "Mrs. Darcy" at the end -- a remarkably anti-feminist slant.
I've heard very mixed reviews (from friends and acquaintances, not from Ebert ;) ) on the new Pride and Prejudice. I haven't seen it myself. My friend Emily and I had plans when we were together over Thanksgiving Break, but her town was late in releasing it, so we couldn't see it. I think I'm now going to wait until the dollar theater :).
Emily thought it was a little hollywoodized and not to be compared to A&E, but I've heard from others that it was good. I'll be interested to decide for myself.
That's impressive that no major plot elements were missing, even with such a "short" adaptation. The Chronicles of Narnia also was like that, although I felt there wasn't the same opportunity to linger that the old movies and the books provide. CoN did feel a bit rushed to me.
I have to admit I'm not a great fan of Keira Knightley, but I can get past that :). It would also be hard to best Colin Firth's portrayal of Darcy. He will always be the definitive Mr. Darcy in my mind, just as Jeremy Northam is Mr. Knightley.
Darcy in shorts???!!!
Of course I read Pride and Prejudice. While I have doubts about my masculinity at times, I am secure enough to read all of Austen's works without quibble. She's just too good to pass up! Benjamin Disraeli, previous Prime Minister of Great Britain, read Pride and Prejudice 17 times. I think I'm up to about 6 or 7 myself. The wit in that book sparkles!
As a matter of fact, one thing I'm hoping to glean from my next reading is a better understanding of propriety: when things are appropriate to say and when they're not.
"You know, Austen didn't seem to feel a need to put that in her book, and people have not complained that the books are not romantic."
Ha! What a great way of putting it. Kisses ending Austen movies annoy me so much. I will see this on video... thanks for the review.
My husband LOVED the book Pride and Prejudice also. He was inspired, related to what you said, Adrian, by Mr. Bingley's "amiability." He jokingly says "what would Mr. Bingley do?" when put in a situation he doesn't much care for (a little preposition there for you so you wouldn't feel lonely in your improper grammar).
I can't stand Keira Knightley either. I wonder what I'll think of her in this movie.
It confuses me when people reviewing this movie talk about "Knightley"! Emma?
Adrian, I enjoyed this review- apparently Knightley is up for all kinds of acclaim for her role at this year's Oscar's. Also enjoyed your comments at Biblical Womanhood- who would have every thought that the Master C.S. Lewis ever needed so much defending?! Uncanny-
Zan,
I know you weren't questioning my masculinity. :-)
Your dad doesn't like romances? Ah, I think that not wise. People over the centuries have loved romances. Why is that? I think it is because the Bible, our truth, is one Great Romance. It is the story of how Jesus Christ, the bridegroom, redeems his bride, the church. So in one sense, all romances have at least something of this story in them. And it is true, do you not think, that to the extent these romances reflect the Bible, we call them good? I think so.
In Christ.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home