fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3242 ]

[ SECRET POST #3242 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3242 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Babylon 5]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Hamilton/Founding Fathers]

__________________________________________________

04.

[The Walking Dead]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Jack Davenport/Matthew Macfadyen/Colin Firth]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Air Master]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 010 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Matthew Macfadyen will always be Darcy to me. It's not that I dislike Colin Firth. I like him in a lot of things. I just never enjoyed the P&P miniseries. Jack Davenport...would actually make a pretty good Darcy. I wasn't expecting to agree, but yeah, I can definitely see it.

Sorry, but Mr. Darcy did not and would never spew sentimental tripe like "... you have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you"! I actually flinched when I got to that part of the 2005 P&P adaptation because seriously, WTF.

Oh god, the dialogue in the 2005 version was just atrocious. Whenever the writer deviated from the book, it sounded awful... like a generic "feisty girl" stereotype and not particularly Austen-like at all.

Mr. Darcy: How are you this evening, my dear?
Elizabeth Bennet: Very well... although I wish you would not call me "my dear."
Mr. Darcy: [chuckles] Why?
Elizabeth Bennet: Because it's what my father always calls my mother when he's cross about something.
Mr. Darcy: What endearments am I allowed?
Elizabeth Bennet: Well let me think..."Lizzy" for every day, "My Pearl" for Sundays, and..."Goddess Divine"... but only on *very* special occasions.

Elizabeth Bennet would never say such vapid, arch things in her life.

Is this embellishment, or legit dialogue from the film? I honestly can't tell - it's been a while since I've seen it. If it really is that bad, I don't think I'll ever try and watch it again.

It was a post credits scene added to the American version of the film because test audiences didn't like the fact that Lizzie and Darcy never kissed.

So glad I'm not american and got the uk version that is perfect the way it is

It's an extra on the UK DVD and it is not good. Obviously just written on the hoof and seems to be from a different movie.

http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=176

THIS. I find the 2005 movie completely unwatchable, for this and many other reasons. They got it SO. WRONG.

Funny, I find the BBC miniseries barely watchable - stiff and lifeless. The 2005 movie, on the other hand, is near perfection - rich and vivid, and with a very natural feel to it.

One of my favorite movies. Lucky for me, everyone else in my life loves it too so I've always got someone to watch it with.

I love the 2005 movie! I get these really appalled looks whenever I say I like it since I also like the novel and everyone always sputters, "But it's just so wrong! The movie stinks! How can you like it and like the book too?!" I don't even care. Macfadyen is my Darcy.

I get these really appalled looks whenever I say I like it since I also like the novel and everyone always sputters, "But it's just so wrong! The movie stinks! How can you like it and like the book too?!"

It's a shame you can't hang with me and mine. Two of my closest friends love it and it's my father's favorite movie period. So I never want for opportunities to watch it again.

I like the novel too, though I tend to view the two separately. I'm fond of the novel, though it's not my favorite of Austen's novels, and I tend to like all of her works best when I think of them as a collection. The movie, I love. It's sincere and engaging, and maybe the most visually exquisite movie I can think of. I makes me incandescently happy.

As for the haters, I totally know what you mean. Some people's antagonism towards the movie is laughable in its intensity. And it really does seem to be a problem mainly for people who loved the miniseries, because critically and with general audiences the film did very well.

Have to disagree. The tone of the miniseries is far more restrained, because manners and outward behavior was more restrained. That doesn't make it lifeless, just far more subtle than dudes standing in the rain going "I love love love youuuuuu"... which doesn't sound the least bit natural to me. The 2005 adaptation just sounds like a super cheesey romance, so hyperbolic it could almost be parody.

Have to disagree. The tone of the miniseries is far more restrained, because manners and outward behavior was more restrained.

That's fine, though I also have to disagree with you. I'm so sick of this BBC tradition of believing life before 1900 existed on a pristine British theater stage. What made the 2005 version so wonderful is that it brought life and spontaneity and texture and dirt to the story. I don't care whether it was 1500 or 2015, people chat, they converse, they stumble. They don't recite their lines as they do in so many of the BBC adaptations of the 90s. To me, that is what lacks subtlety and vitality; things which the 2005 film had in spades. The 2005 version has that one line people cite for being clunky, Darcy's "I love, I love, I love you," and yet that's a line which makes complete sense, given that Darcy's been walking half the night to come profess his love to Elizabeth, and has undoubtedly been rehearsing while he walked. It was just one of those beautiful moments where life actually lets a person say the thing they mean to say at the time they mean to say it.

The 2005 adaptation just sounds like a super cheesey romance,

And yet I could count the romance films I like on one hand and have fingers left over. The P&P film is certainly not much like the romance films that I've seen.

But...nothing like that happens in the book? At all? This is not a story that needed 'dirt'. The whole point is to find the emotions buried under the layers of social repression and sublimation, not have them ham-fistedly whack you in the face with trite romantic rubbish that isn't in the book and undermines both the main characters.

Not only do I disagree with you on every point, the intensity of your hate on for this movie is truly baffling to me.

Ironically, people at the time complained about how much the BBC miniseries overcooked things (they had a point - Mrs Bennett in the TV series is much more vulgar that she is in the book - but at the same time they had to over play that so that a modern audience would be able to understand why Darcy finds her so off-putting).

And then there's the various little bits of business put in to play up Darcy's sexiness (not that I object to seeing more of Colin Firth...)

(no subject)

arcadiaego - 2015-11-20 21:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-21 05:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

arcadiaego - 2015-11-21 21:42 (UTC) - Expand

I find Elizabeth and Darcy incredibly wooden in the miniseries. But then, I don't like Austen so I don't really care if the 2005 one is accurate or not, it's just a nice story and the acting is good. Plus Keira is around the right age for the character to be believable.

Honestly? I don't think they were really trying to do a proper remake of P&P, because they knew the miniseries had done that. The 2005 version was written to be a more generic romance. Look at how much of Austen's dialogue was stripped completely or rewritten to sound "modern". I wouldn't even call myself a huge Austen fan, but it sounds gratingly anachronistic to me and lacks the novel's voice and style. It came off as very dumbed down, IMO, and that's really unfortunate.

I loved Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy, too -- I loved how he brought out Darcy's shyness and reserve as opposed to arrogance.

I hated almost everything else about that particular adaptation, but Matthew was flawless and his voice is like melted butter.

Wasn't the arrogance kind of the point, though? I mean... Mr. Darcy is reserved (not so much shy, per se), but combined with his pride it comes off to everyone else as arrogance. The misinterpretation of his character and realization of his true character is a (arguably the) major plot point.

Tbh, it's been 20+ years since I read the book, but I seem to recall Darcy's character written such that you can see both traits equally in him, and various actors have chosen to play up one or the other. (For ex, David Rintoul's Darcy was super supercilious and openly disdainful of the Bennet family.). To me, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy seemed like he was mostly shy and hid behind his courtesy, and the younger Bennets made him cringe in embarrassment with their gauche behavior, so he acted stiffly uncomfortable because of that, not because he was a snob who couldn't bear interacting with his lessers.

Whatever, I just loved his Darcy, okay??? :)

To me, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy seemed like he was mostly shy and hid behind his courtesy, and the younger Bennets made him cringe in embarrassment with their gauche behavior, so he acted stiffly uncomfortable because of that, not because he was a snob who couldn't bear interacting with his lessers.>

This exactly. It's such a subtle, complex take on his characterization, and I love it.

"Tbh, it's been 20+ years since I read the book, but I seem to recall Darcy's character written such that you can see both traits equally in him..."

Overall, yes, we come to see both the good and bad sides of Darcy's personality. But initially, no. At that first dance where he makes his appearance, he definitely comes off like an ass because it is impolite to show up and than refuse to dance and there isn't really any positive side to implying that no girls here at pretty or classy enough to be your partner.

The idea of Darcy cringing with secondhand embarrassment is almost sweet, but that doesn't make sense in the context of the story. The younger Bennet girls' behavior isn't just gauche, it borders on impropriety because they're young, unmarried girls who are flirting heavily with officers. By modern standards, that's nothing. But back then, anything that hinted you might have loose morals was a huge thing, not just for you but for your whole family. Lydia's flirtations don't just imply she might be so loose she's unmarriageable, it also drags down her sisters' reputations and chances at marriage (and financial security and happiness), too. THAT'S why her behavior is such a huge deal.

And Darcy knows all of that because of what happened with Georgiana, and he knows exactly what damage to a young woman's reputation can result. So when he reacts to the younger Bennet girls, it's not just because they're tacky and poorly behaved, it's because of the larger implications that go beyond snobbery. He has a family name (and his beloved younger sister) to protect, so getting involved with a family of loose moraled daughters has pretty serious implications. He is (or should be) waaaay more than just slightly uncomfortable or embarrassed, because the Bennets' actions raise big ol' red flags by the standards of the time.

Yes! None of these things really come through in the movie, which turns Darcy into a completely different character. Darcy is supposed to be socially awkward, yes, in circles that he is unfamiliar with. Some of that stems from pride, and some from simply not having 'practised' enough, as Elizabeth says. But I do not think that he feels secondhand embarrassment when the younger Bennet girls are misbehaving. As you said, it goes beyond simple snobbery, and has larger social implications. A 'want of propriety' I believe he calls it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only