Bridget Jones - watched it last night, erm it’s aged a bit!

[Noeuf]

Gosh watched with dd as I was up late and it came on. Funny how I remembered it and how we’ve moved on now.
The emails about her skirt - funny/flirty then and now massively inappropriate
Darcy ‘negging’ her - dd couldn’t see why he was meant to be the one we all wanted
Fighting in the street! And no comeback for him as a human rights barrister
91/2 stone - and she was fat??!!! I weigh more than that and don’t think I’m comment worthy!
Just so interesting to see how my views have changed really.

I don't think we should be critiquing media from years ago through a modern lens

This. The only thing I recall being majorly unrealistic at the time was her flat and it snowing. Trashing restaurants aside, which is a fictional scene.

" He tells Caroline that women's minds always jump to marriage in an instance"

Well, yes, but it was true in those days as women needed to marry more than they do now.

@Peggytheredhen

I don't think we should be critiquing media from years ago through a modern lens

This. The only thing I recall being majorly unrealistic at the time was her flat and it snowing. Trashing restaurants aside, which is a fictional scene.

I think I found it unrealistic that she would be outside in her knickers, but that's only in the film I think.

@Taoneusa

I wonder what is today’s equivalent feel - good chick flick comedy. Because even if you don’t like BJD nowadays, it was a feel good comfort film for a long time.

Do we have a current day equivalent ?

I think some chick flicks have aged well. Muriel's Wedding, maybe?And Romy and Michelle's High school reunion. Yes, none of them end up with a man:)

@Gwenhwyfar

" He tells Caroline that women's minds always jump to marriage in an instance"

Well, yes, but it was true in those days as women needed to marry more than they do now.

It was made in 2000 not 1842.

BJD is a film made in 1999 about life in 1990-1992. The second book is set around 1997 (it contains the Labour landslide). I was 14 in 1990- everyone smoked everywhere, casual sexism was expected and accepted and the borough area of South East London and Shepard's bush were considered quite rough, it's a one bedroom flat without any outside space, I reckon she could have bought it for £80k after the financial crash of '87.

"It was made in 2000 not 1842."

The poster was talking about P&P. At least I took Caroline to be one of the Bingley sisters, isn't that right?

Here

Love this film sooo much! Watched it too many times really. Bridge comes over as witty,amusing and smart,Her main problem is lack of confidence surely? When she stands up and her mic isnt on ,she laughs and is embarrassed ,however its the sort of thing many people might do .Difference being she laughs ,a guy would probably blame someone else (probably a female!) The whole film is 20 years old so obv some things will have changed .I must say I always felt he flat was rented though .

The thing that was really lost in the film was her relationship with her friends, and how important they were. That was much more prominent in the book.

@Gwenhwyfar

"It was made in 2000 not 1842."

The poster was talking about P&P. At least I took Caroline to be one of the Bingley sisters, isn't that right?

Sorry. Then yes marriage really was reasonably essential for those girls and women. Tbh, it kind of annoys me in P&P that Mrs Bennet is so ridiculed by her husband when she is right to be stressed at the fate awaiting her daughters if they can't marry. I also see Elizabeth's attraction to D'Arcy having more to do with his house than him, as it's after she sees it that she seems to soften towards him. And the idea then, that this could translate to Bridget and her Darcy being true love, in either the early 90s of the book or the nearly a decade later movie, seemed like an obvious misstep due to the completely different options that had become available to women in the nearly two centuries between them.

When it came out I even had the black satin dress/boots combo for a big night out. And her fridge contents and ate Branston from a jar for dinner. I also had a serious Chardonnay and Silk Cut habit.

I also remember before in came out that Next used to sell totally sheer office blouses that the women in my City office used to wear with a lacy push up bra, spray on skirt and heels. The Perpetua's used to blow gaskets.

Borough was still a bit shit at the time and she could've easily afforded rent. My flat, 5 miles away, in z2 was 42k.

Surely everyone had at least one Daniel Cleaver (albeit not as exaggerated) in their 20's life?

As to all the missed opportunities, unrequited love, cads and heroes it's all in Jane Austen, which was also being filmed to death at the time. If you weren't wearing a black satin dress and little cardi you were at another friends wedding with her and the BM's in empire dresses.

The 90's were fun. Would I go back? No.

Caroline was indeed one of the Bingley sisters, and not a character in Brigit Jones' Diary!

And I completely agree with posters who said yes, women's minds were a lot more on marriage then. Because marriage was the only life route open to women unless you were independently wealthy and/or had a wealthy family who could and would support you (in the manner of Emma). For everyone else, marriage was your only way out of a fairly grim spinsterhood where - as Austen knew all too well - you'd be pitied and reliant on the support of others, and those others called the shots in your life. Marriage, if you were lucky, meant at least a degree of independence and autonomy, even if it was only relative to spinsterhood. The ideas of feminism and women's rights were only nascent at this point in history.

Mrs Bennett was a pretty irritating character but she understood far more than Mr Bennett the importance of marriage for girls who had no other prospect (no gentlewoman would have been allowed a job) and no home once Mr B shuffled off his mortal coil. Austen brilliantly lampooned her but there was still a reason why she was as she was.

When marriage was your only path in life, and what life you had was going to depend on how well you married, damn right women got focused on, and indeed desperate about it.

" I also see Elizabeth's attraction to D'Arcy having more to do with his house than him, as it's after she sees it that she seems to soften towards him."

She's impressed by Pemberley, but she also learns about the real Mr Darcy there from the servants.

@traumatisednoodle

BJD is a film made in 1999 about life in 1990-1992. The second book is set around 1997 (it contains the Labour landslide). I was 14 in 1990- everyone smoked everywhere, casual sexism was expected and accepted and the borough area of South East London and Shepard's bush were considered quite rough, it's a one bedroom flat without any outside space, I reckon she could have bought it for £80k after the financial crash of '87.

I bought in the area in 1990- prices were low but it would have been around £100K I think. We paid £86k and couldn't afford to be quite that far into London.

We earned £20-25k as graduates on blue chip graduate schemes

True but she is 35ish in the first book ? So has been working for 10 years.

Totally, but as a brain switch off movie - perfectly watchable

In fairness, the film was rubbish compared to the book. She was such a drip in the film. In the book she was funny and feisty, not hapless and dopey. The book made me honk like a goose but I cringed at the film. She really should have been played by someone like Kate Winslet or someone a bit like her - someone sparky who gave as good as she got. RZ came across as a bit of a victim.

…the borough area of South East London and Shepard's bush were considered quite rough, it's a one bedroom flat without any outside space

In the original columns, Bridget lived in Notting Hill, IIRC, she references Coins cafe as being her local coffee shop. She was quite clear about how run down the area was (and it was, at the time - Notting Hill didn’t become cool and expensive until the 90s but presumably Bridget would have bought earlier).

@traumatisednoodle

BJD is a film made in 1999 about life in 1990-1992. The second book is set around 1997 (it contains the Labour landslide). I was 14 in 1990- everyone smoked everywhere, casual sexism was expected and accepted and the borough area of South East London and Shepard's bush were considered quite rough, it's a one bedroom flat without any outside space, I reckon she could have bought it for £80k after the financial crash of '87.

And she would only have been able to get a small mortgage as the assumption built into mortgages was that women would have children and go part-time. The flat was always unrealistic. But hey its Hollywood.

The Daniel/Mark brawl is still on my list of funniest comic scenes ever. The ineffectual punches being thrown, polite Mark apologising to other diners and promising to pay while still fighting, the waiter with the Parthenon cake feebly singing Happy Birthday and Daniel and Mark pausing the fight to join in singing, then smash! D,&M go through the window and throw useless punches as they roll about in the street. The fight was so English and hilarious - I nearly needed an ambulance my ribs were so sore.

I think BJ took off because all the messages to young women at the time were they had to be superwomen. A glittering career, good marriage, kids and look amazing. BJ said you can be a bit hopeless but everything will still be okay.
But all those looking for realism are missing the point. Look at Friends. Was that realistic - no. These kind of things never are.

And at the time of BJ I was living in London and earning £12k. A £100k flat in a rough part of London was way beyond me. At the time men could get 3.5 times their wage as a mortgage, but women's wage only counted for 1.5 times.

@julieca

I think BJ took off because all the messages to young women at the time were they had to be superwomen. A glittering career, good marriage, kids and look amazing. BJ said you can be a bit hopeless but everything will still be okay. But all those looking for realism are missing the point. Look at Friends. Was that realistic - no. These kind of things never are.

Yes, I think that's why I like the character so much. So full of good intentions and efforts to improve her life, but the reality is a bit different.

I also started using the term smug marrieds in lockdown to describe people who wanted restrictions to continue because they're perfectly happy in their little cocoon.