Warrior Word

By: Sara Retta

In the world of literature, there are very few books that can claim the level of renown and prominence as Jane Austen’s 1815 novel of manners, Pride and Prejudice. Not only is it one of the most well-known novels of the western canon, but it also stands as a pioneering work of the romance genre. Although many have tried to reduce it to just that, a romance novel, the book’s ingenious social commentary, expertly woven feminist themes, and ability to enchant multiple centuries of readers proves it to be so much more.

Just like many classic novels, Pride and Prejudice, has been the receiver of a plethora of Hollywood adaptations, ranging from laughably bad (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I’m looking at you) to widely considered triumphs. Joe Wright’s 2005 production is widely regarded as the most beloved Pride and Prejudice adaptation, yet clear differences can be found between the film and its founding novel. These deliberate differences can be credited to creative decisions by Wright and the ever-progressing interpretation of classical literature, but public opinion on these changes varies.

When analyzing a novel as iconic as Pride and Prejudice, it’s nearly impossible to go into it with a completely uninterested view. Luckily for me, I hugely enjoyed this book. For those who haven’t had the pleasure of reading it, the novel follows Elizabeth Bennet, a witty and opinionated young woman, as she emerges into 19th century English society and attempts to find a husband. She is accompanied in society by her four sisters Jane, Lydia, Kitty, and Mary. The novel focuses on Elizabeth’s turbulent and argumentative relationship with Mr. Fitzwillian Darcy, a wealthy yet aloof newcomer in town. The pair unravel many disagreements upon their first impressions, but progressively come to realize that these miscommunications could be delaying a fervent connection. As the title acknowledges, Elizabeth’s pride and Darcy’s classist prejudice prove to be the biggest obstacles of their blossoming relationship. 

As for the 2005 adaptation of the story, a huge change was made in regards to the time period. Director Joe Wright wished to depict life in England after the French Revolution, and so he chose to make the story take place during the 1790s rather than the original period of 1813. This change was perhaps most heavily reflected in the costumes. We see an abundance of two-piece dresses, white cottons, and various hats, such as tricorne, bonnets, etc., as was popular during the time. Overall, the characters’ fashion is plain and simple compared to what it would have been, had it stayed set in 1813. Additionally, our story’s main character, Elizabeth Bennet, was portrayed somewhat differently in the film. Elizabeth is considered to be one of the most relatively progressive and feminist female characters to emerge from the 1800’s, and the movie heightens Elizabeth’s independence and fierceness, perhaps to appeal to the more modern times. The novel is often considered to be a balance between romance and societal commentary, but I would argue that Wright decided to emphasize the romance. This is definitely a common choice within the film industry where romance is considered a more easily digestible topic for your audience rather than more complicated themes like societal commentary and class. New scenes between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are added, for example, with Darcy’s proposal in the rain-soaked gazebo whereas, the proposal scene in the novel takes place indoors and happens over a much more polite and refrained conversation, with Darcy methodically listing the reasons that they should marry and Elizabeth turning him down firmly but kindly. In the film this scene is made into a much more fiery and passionate altercation, with Darcy’s declaration of love being pronounced and romantic and Lizzy scorning him vehemently, claiming he is “the last man on earth she could ever be prevailed upon to marry.” Scenes between London socialites meant to comment and poke fun at social class constructs and practices are either shortened or removed entirely.

Furthermore, the film portrays the men of the story as more softened and empathetic. Mr. Darcy for example displays more moments of vulnerability as compared to his aloof and indifferent characterization in Austen’s novel, and his personal struggles are expanded upon in more depth within the film. The movie also deepens the bond between Elizabeth and her father, Mr. Bennet. Though the book does include many instances of Mr. Bennet saying that Elizabeth is his favorite daughter, the film purposefully displays various moments of comradery and understanding between the two. Mr. Bennet is one of the only people to truly understand Elizabeth’s independent spirit, and does not force her to marry the loathsome Mr Collins, even though doing so would ensure that the Bennet’s are allowed to keep their home indefinitely seeing as all the Bennet children are women and therefore not allowed to inherit the estate.

Personally, I wholly enjoyed both the book and movie. I didn’t mind the changes and understood the importance of them in the translation both through time period and medium. Plot points or scenes that may seem necessary in a novel can become tedious and boring to certain audiences when adapted on screen. The film attempts to quicken the pace of the novel and perhaps dramatize certain points, but I think ultimately stays true to the story’s core themes of love, family, class dynamics, and the cost of pride. I would say both pieces are triumphs and ultimately only work to enhance their counterpart.