Haven't ya got any pride?

Well, went and saw the new Pride & Prejudice today. I'm still smarting from the experience. I thought there had been some abominable productions of Jane Austen in the past, but this surely took the prize. Where to begin? What to say?

First, when doing a period piece, it's generally a good idea to at least look like you've done some research into the time period. That would involve having main characters, whose initials are Elizabeth Bennett, wear a corset, at least. We all saw her in Pirates of the Caribbean, we know she can wear one (and a period one too, please). And a full grown young lady wearing her hair down in public? What on earth were they thinking? Half the costumes were over a half-century out of date (Mrs. Bennett was wearing what looked like an early to mid 18th century polonnaise). I won't even mention the lack of chemisettes on the day dresses, or Miss Bingley's sleeveless ball gown. The clothes looked so badly sewn, so poorly fitted, so wrong in style and material -- half of Lizzy's gowns had a waistband almost at the natural waist, and they persisted in dressing her in a men's style coat. None of the girls looked like a brush ever touched their hair, except for one or two formal outtings.

But these are only the minor details...minor details, however, that can make or break a period film. What was with the the Bennett household? Was I going blind or was there a scene where Mr. Bennett was walking a pig through his house? The whole place looked run down, shabby, filthy, and coarse. Even the first assembly ball looked like it took place in a barn -- and the attendees acted like it did.

Even so, these flaws might have been overlooked, given superb acting, realistic dialogue, and satisfactory casting....but again, the movie flopped in all three areas. Superb acting? Keira Knightley seemed content to pout and bat her eyes under the mass of tangled bangs, and occassionally burst into a ridiculous grin or pointless fit of giggles. Darcy was possibly the only tolerable character, though he didn't look the part at all. Lady Catherine was tolerable as well, in the 2 minutes of screen time they gave her. Jane was passable, but Lydia and Kitty were more like hysterical pre-teen Grobanites (no offense, Josh fans) than anything.

Dialogue? Lines lifted directly from the earlier movies and from the book were misplaced, squished together, so poorly delivered, and surrounded by dumbed-down, modernish lines that they were utterly unbelievable. There were some scenes that were completely laughable and out of place in a Regency piece, and of course they had to throw in impropriety in Mr. Collins (and work in nudity somehow, with the art and statuary). Casting...what on earth were they thinking when they cast Bingley? O.o I nearly jumped out of my seat the first time he came on screen, and couldn't stop giggling every time afterwards. What a ridiculous looking creature, with his 4 inch hairdo and all, and absolutely foolish with his bumbling talk and gulping swallows at every moment. What a complete moron.

But perhaps the most aggravating thing was the utter lack of dignity and propriety in the film. People bursting in on other people at all hours of the night, or in whatever condition -- Bingley popping in on a nightgown-clad Jane? Unthinkable. Lady Catherine intruding on someone's house in the middle of the night? Right. *rolls eyes* Lizzy came across as this Bohemian shabby-chic country bumpkin with no accomplishment whatsoever, and all her family seemed reduced to uncultured impropriety and poverty. And then there was so much dwelling on environments (why did it have to be pouring at every "dramatic" moment? And why did Lizzy feel obligated to always go running through it?), with artsy screen techniques to show time passing...that only made the viewer all too aware of his time passing...my only thought was, if they could afford that much time to showing ducks swimming or a room darkening while our heroine stands practically comatose in front of a mirror, why could they not use it to flesh out the characters or improve the dialogue?

Well, what to say in conclusion? If you enjoy movies that feel like they're on speed for half, and on opiates for the other half, or that have ridiculous and inconsistent dialogue, that show no research or thoughtfulness whatsoever, with only the occassional pretty face, that don't even deserve the designation "inspired by the novel...", that end in the most pathetically stupid way, that are so chopped and reduced that they almost lack both plot and character, and whose only redeeming quality is pretty scenery...then this film is for you. I found it a disappointment, and a waste both of my time and money. The best thing about it was the company I had -- we had a delightful time commenting on it during the showing, and were in fits as we left the theater. If I had to sum it up in a word: Ridiculous.