Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that Jane Austen would be spinning in her grave...

235 replies

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 02/09/2012 00:27

If she could see 'no tits' Knightly playing Elizabeth Bennet?! And as for Matthew Mcfaddyan [sp] he just spends the entire film looking like he's had a bucket of water dumped over his head!

OP posts:
Indith · 02/09/2012 08:48

She did absolutely not live on a farm.

Yes the horses were needed on the farm but they had a small estate, they were gentry. They had the main house where the family lived and then there will have been a farm and assortment of cottages etc for workers who paid rent and gave the family their income.

I hate the KK version, it takes far too many liberties- the pigs in the house, the dropped waistlines on the dresses and KK is just not Eliza.

Indith · 02/09/2012 08:50

Sorry, was going to say so they were gentry but not all that wealthy so only had the one set of horses to share between farm and carriage rather than having dedicated horses.

HumphreyCobbler · 02/09/2012 08:54

I suppose I should say they live off a farm Grin

I do agree about the pig in the house. But I also think that the shabby nature of the house is plausible, also the mud and filth.

Katienana · 02/09/2012 08:55

Want the horses being in use just a ruse to ensure jane couldn't leave the bingleys?

Anniegetyourgun · 02/09/2012 08:58

Having just googled the McFadyen, I conclude he is quite pretty but severely under-ripe. Distinctly short on strength and dignity. He does appear to do a good line in brooding but I can't imagine him running a massive estate or crushing the socially pretentious. He'd make a better Bingley or even a Wickham IMO; handsome, charming, lightweight. Not having seen the film, I could be being quite unfair, of course. (But I bet I'm not.)

KK was great in Pirates of the Caribbean. Apparently someone thought that since she looked good in a bodice she was suitable for any film requiring period costume. A rather sweeping assumption. But she does have good eyes, which is mandatory for playing Elizabeth Bennett.

If anyone casts their minds back to 1940 (!), the Lawrence Olivier version - now there was a fellow who could do dignity - was ruined by making Lady Catherine de Bourgh a nice old stick really, who was just testing out Elizabeth to see if she was a fortune hunter, and as she passed, gave her blessing. Argh! (Also somewhat spoiled by Greer Garson being approximately twice as old as the role requires, but you can't have everything.)

HumphreyCobbler · 02/09/2012 09:03

no, Mr Bennett admitted after some prevarication that the horses were in fact needed on the farm.

WillNeverGetALicence · 02/09/2012 09:11

Sorry if I offended anyone commenting on KK's physical appearance.

I just get very perplexed by the assertions that she is a great beauty.

Original poster
SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 02/09/2012 09:11

MM does not do brooding! He does 'bucket of water over the head, nice but dim, greasy road kill hair meets with Deputy Dawg'! Confused

OP posts:
LadyFlumpalot · 02/09/2012 09:12

I like the KK version but mostly because part of it was filmed in Stourhead gardens, which is very close to me and I watched them setting up the rain and wind machines etc.

marshmallowpies · 02/09/2012 09:14

Loved MM in Spooks (oh, Tom Quinn, how I love thee) and seen him on stage as Hal in Henry IV, but he really can't top Colin Firth as Darcy.

Also Jennifer Ehle IS Lizzie Bennett - I am not in the anti-Keira camp but somehow Ehle captures the essence of the character and makes her seem real. And there was just as much mud and dinginess in the BBC version (and rooms all gloomy and candlelit at night).

The thing that annoyed me most in the film was Lady Catherine de Bourgh arriving in the middle of the night to confront Lizzie and making her do an interview in her nightie! I mean, Lady C may be an old battle axe but showing up on someone's doorstep at night & getting the house out of bed? Not a ladylike way of behaving...just seemed an unnecessary gimmick to inject a bit more drama into the story.

Agree that the BBC adaptation letting the story develop slowly is the best bit. This is why tv adaptations win over film every time!

bigbuttons · 02/09/2012 09:14

I have smaller tits than KK, maybe I should shoot myself or somethingHmm

Original poster
SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 02/09/2012 09:15

I'm not sorry! I hate the whole trend for being a fence post in a dress! And she does have a huge mouth, and her eyes might be beautiful, but her expression looks like someone who has been hit round the head with a plank of wood!
IF she could act, that would be something, but she's more wooden than Pinocchio!

OP posts:
bigbuttons · 02/09/2012 09:22

I hate KK, she is very annoying for all the reason already stated , but if she were fat and people here were having a go because she was so fat she looked unhealthy there would be an outcry.

Original poster
SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 02/09/2012 09:26

I don't think so Buttons. And you don't tend to see people who fit into that my category in american tv. It's just not fashionable.

OP posts:
bigbuttons · 02/09/2012 13:29

Perhaps not, but my point is that fat bashing is not allowed but having a go at woman for being skinny and therefore having small tits is ok. I don't think it's ok.

Original poster
SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 02/09/2012 14:29

I'm fat. You can have a bash at me any time you like.

OP posts:
squoosh · 02/09/2012 14:43

Other people mentioned her gurning, it really irritates me too. She is an actress of limited talents who has got very lucky. She seems to be the go to pretty girl for all period films these days. Very similar to Hugh Grant in that both of them can only ever play themselves.

Nancy66 · 02/09/2012 14:46

The KK version was much more realistic - all the women looked a bit shiny and sweaty and frizzy haired - which they would have done.

hackmum · 02/09/2012 14:49

The BBC series was so good that I'm not sure any other version will measure up to it. If you compare it with previous adaptations of classical novels (including the Fay Weldon adaptation of P&P in the 70s) it just stands head and shoulders above the rest. The characters all feel like real people. Mr Darcy doesn't really get that many lines, but Colin Firth's eyes were so expressive they said everything.

The film with Keira Knightley is massively disappointing. Apart from the fact that she's wrong for the role (not because of her shape, but because of her acting), I think one of the reasons it doesn't work is the simple one that it has to tell the story in under 3 hours whereas the series has six hours. It makes a massive difference to what you can do - it's an involved, complicated plot and you need a lot of time to do justice to it.

BurlingtonBertieFromBow · 02/09/2012 15:02

I always thought Jennifer Ehle looked a bit old to be Lizzie Bennett [ducks missiles] Isn't she supposed to be about 20?

Nancy66 · 02/09/2012 15:03

Jane in the BBC version wasn't beautiful enough either.

squoosh · 02/09/2012 15:04

I do like the mud and scruffiness in the film version. It's more realistic. Daily baths and washing a frock after one wear were not the norm.

chihiro · 02/09/2012 15:04

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who hates this version - yes it may look more realistic, etc. but the real crime here is how they sucked all the Austen wit and sparkle out of the characters and the story.

squoosh · 02/09/2012 15:19

Yep little wit or sparkle to be seen, I say I like the film version but I don't like KK or MM in the lead roles, so disliking Lizzie and Darcy but liking everyone else isn't really much of an endorsement.

bionicmummy · 02/09/2012 16:10

I prefer the BBC version too.

I agree, kiera knightley is such an awful awful actress. A tree could do a better job she's that wooden

Swipe left for the next trending thread