There are some books written exclusively for adaptations. They make good stories. They have good 'plot'. Perhaps alluring mystery or some centerpiece around which the whole thing revolves. They hardly provide anything else. Once you read it, you are done with it. You might not look up to that book or film later on ever. Though it certainly may give some pleasure. And there are other types of books; where an adaptation is nearly impossible. Its characters are perhaps so intricate, intriguing and nuanced that they cannot be transformed to the screen. Sometimes these books give something so distinct of a feeling, mood or ambience that cannot be replicated. Like that one of Hardy's mysteriously dark, symbolic and tragic Tess, or The Mill On The Floss' brother - sister dynamic by George Eliot, or the social commentary in Dicken's Hard Times or even Oliver Twist. Pride And Prejudice is certainly one of those books.
No adaptation can bring that distinct feel, the nuance and peculiarities of the characters; the charm, the suspense, the romance, the omniscient view of things, and the ability to suppress secrets till the very perfect moment taking the effect of relief to some grander level where all feels too good to be true. That distinction is a subjective and it depends on the reader how he interprets those words and visualizes them in his own mind. I have my distinct version of that world. And so criticism on this adaptation or interpretation of Pride And Prejudice on the basis of something so subjective and abstract is rather unreasonable. Its just the distinct interpretation of the makers, who might have visualized the world differently than me. So, I have no choice but to submit to the interpretation which I am provided for. But rather than just accepting whatever I am being offered, it would be wiser if I take the liberty to judge how good it interpreted or visualized the text rather than how good it actually adapted the original text. The same originality cannot be ever achieved, so I have to satisfy myself with interpretations.
First of all, it is a faithful interpretation. It does not invent and change many things unlike in the case of 2005 version, where lot of things are changed and invented. This one stays close to the book. But how close, that is the question! With the exception of the famous lake scene, the series is a word by word adaptation, though one can't play out whole book given the time constraint. The series intelligently manages to include all the necessary parts of the book, in a way, which can be called as artful and mature. You certainly feel that the people behind it have definitely loved and adored the text thoroughly and have their own version quite well imagined. This makes me rather more comfortable and liberal in its reception.
It was because of that supposition, that they have felt the book in their distinct way, which is unique and perhaps better than mine, I submitted myself to their interpretation, atleast till I completely live theirs, wholeheartedly. Yes, this one do have the seriousness, sensibility and understanding and even respect about what they are dealing with. This has the dignity of doing something important, not just an adaptation to churn out monetary gains, though perhaps it might have. And I respect that more than anything, the dignified and thoughtful approach. There are ways by which you can guess their sensibility, the way their characters are, and lack lot of changes in already perfect dialogues, the subtlety and nuances, all pretty existing. Their characters do talk naturally, taking pauses and really making reflections, they do seem to think, have maintained their distinction, are rich in details. It is admiring that, although the characters speak the exact same words written by Austen, they certainly aren't bland and too shallow, or exaggerated; though it should be noted that sometimes the whole affair of talking looks theatrical, more so in the very beginning when you certainly not expect it, but it gets better with time and hardly seems odd.
What is the greatest pleasure of reading Pride And Prejudice? It is the confusion. The characters go under massive misunderstandings and we have that omniscient view of things, having known all the secrets of each of them, though not at the right time. We know characters more than they know each other and perhaps themselves! We have a portal into their hearts and brains which makes the experience more enjoyable, exquisite even! And it is one of the most important thing to bring that confusion on screen as well. The confusion is so long lasting that the end which settles everything almost seems heart melting. All the time Lizzy was in shadows about Darcy, and Darcy was shadowed by his own character refraining himself from knowing true Lizzy. That confusion and tension between those two is an integral part and this series definitely, to some extent bring that to screen effectively.
Perhaps it is not completely impossible to adapt this masterpiece. Given that the adapted work effectively brings that complexity of characters well, their mannerisms, their features, their motivations, their goods and bads, their persona. After all it is all about characters. Say something like Crime And Punishment would require way different sets of things. But in the case of Pride And Prejudice, it is its characters.
Talking about characters, were they well featured? Darcy could have been no better. There certainly is a debate over his being sexualized, which perhaps I don't agree. Yes, he is quite overly pretty and hansome, and the original Darcy had some uncharming features, but Colin's Darcy is just all right and I am rather afraid that if anyone else could have brought that regal, dignified, reserved and most importantly that stoic look all at the same time. Darcy is after all a stoic man, who's past have made him hardened and who have lot of restrained emotions beneath. Oftentimes, though, the restrained features need to be freed which rarely happens.
Lizzy is my biggest disappointment. Jennifer Ehle's sensible and somewhat accurate performance, though, makes it less disappointing affair. I feel somewhat foolish to accept that I expected Lizzy to be lot different than what she is here. So its my fault and I half-heartedly accept it. Well, Br Bennet, you are the way I imagined you to be! The same wit, charm. You are quite sarcastic too, I like that. Though you could have been more attentive to Lydia, but I don't blame you. I can sympathize with you. Mrs Bennet is overly Mrs Bennet here. And quite loud too. My imagination on Mrs Bennet was fairly limited, so would have go with this one. Lydia stands out. She is as impactful as the two main leads. More so given that she has a small part than many others, yet she still has a wider presence than even Mr and Mrs Bennet. She is acted out with lot of enthusiasm by Julia Sawalha, and really incorporated the stupidity and hyped excitement of Austen's Lydia. The very features of Lydia Bennet.
Mary is fine, even appealing sometimes. Kitty, unfortunately, is mildly neglected. Oh I forgot Jane! That's perhaps because it was actually forgettable. It was mild, restrained, perhaps overly restrained. The counter argument is also valid that, its her characteristics of being mild, serene and restrained, yet it isn't really very convincing. Though it is not detestable by any means. She has her moments. Collins' character is so distinct and different than anyone else, that I am rather perplexed whether to reproach or compliment it. Ahh Wickham! Yes! He is perfect. The conceit, cowardice, charm, all very aptly portrayed. But Bingley can't be that affectionately silly, can he? Perhaps I need more musing on him too. Miss Bingley was apt. So were Mr and Mrs Hurst. I found Colonel Fitzwilliam's character uncommonly natural, though he had very small part. All other characters were also deliberately casted and acted.
The unhurried pacing was particularly admiring, there seemed to be no rush at all. Giving way for better characterization, plot structure and devices. The setting and production was something I am unsure myself, so made little difference to me, yet bigger bugdet would have improved the whole thing quite significantly.
Though the things I admire far outweigh the things I dont admire, there are still few things which I have gripes about. First, the theatrical approach. The whole affair sometimes seems painfully theatrical. Everyone have been given parts to act out and there is no space at all for being natural. Yet, it is one of the justified disadvantage of being a faithful adaptation. Only if there could have been a middle way! Second, perhaps budget or something else doesn't allow for bettering of few obvious things. The balls consist of nothing but very negligible amount of people, not more one or two dozen. The town is nothing but a lane of houses and shops, few people, cartridges, and horses, nothing else in the sight. I have no particular idea about 19th century rural and urban English setting yet I am quite sure of their not being this way. Perhaps, yes, budget would have allowed many disadvantages to vanish.
Well, it is no faultless or ideal adaptation of Austen's timeless classic, but it is not detestable in any significant way. It is charming, mature, sensible, and grounded adaptation, not without its faults and lackings, yet enjoyable enough, and smart enough to be considered as serious, deliberate attempt to give a life to one of the most known, loved and felt stories of all time.
Rating : ★★★★
Comments
Post a Comment