Screen Adaptations: Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice

A close study of the relationship between text and film

Deborah Cartmell

• Publisher: Methuen Drama
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9781408105931
• eBook ISBN: 9781408130971
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

The study of literature on screen is a growing area of study in schools and universities. Many students have to produce critical essays comparing the novel and film versions of a particular text. The Screen Adaptations series offers a wealth of study material: from the literary context of the original work, through to thought-provoking comparisons of the screen versions, critical commentary and the afterlife of the films.

Pride and Prejudice is a classic piece of literature and any new adaptation is a major event. With several well-known TV and film versions available (featuring stars such as Keira Knightley) as well as a Bollywood version, discussions around how these films interpret the story, themes and characters is a popular classroom choice for students and teachers alike.

This new title in the Screen Adaptations series, provides a rich source of material to help students understand and write about the reciprocal relationship between film and literature. It offers in-depth analysis of the various screen versions and alternative `readings' as well as critical insight and an interview with writer Andrew Davies, best known for his 1995 BBC adaptation. Following from Shakespeare, Jane Austen on screen is now an established part of literary studies and the volume will conclude with a survey of the growing body of literature in the field.

PART 1: Literary contexts

‘Before the picture in earnest contemplation’: a timeline of pride and prejudice adaptations

The time has come when a work on an adaptation of a literary text need not open with an apology, in response to accusations of ‘dumbing down’ or to those in Literary and Film Studies who have historically banned literary adaptations from admittance into their respective fields.¹ And, certainly, the time is ripe for a full length study of one of the most adapted of all novels, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice; and in Jane Austen’s words, we come ‘before the picture in earnest contemplation’.

In spite of a lack of sustained scholarly attention, filmed novels and plays have always generated heated debates. Adaptations of literary works have been around since the beginning of cinema: among the many earliest adaptations were versions of Hansel and Gretel (1897), Cinderella (1898, 1899), Alladin and the Wonderful Lamp (1900), Cyrano de Bergerac (1900), Alice in Wonderland (1903), A Christmas Carol (1910), and Romeo and Juliet (1900). Conspicuous for her absence from early cinema is Jane Austen. While filmmakers in the silent period produced plenty of adaptations of the plays of Shakespeare and the novels of Dickens, Charlotte Brontë, and Tolstoy, it seems that no cinematic value or potential was detected in Austen’s novels.

It’s easy to understand why: stripped of their words, the novels would appear quite absurd; while Shakespeare’s narratives normally have a sweeping grand scale (hence the many early adaptations of his works), nothing much happens in Austen’s stories, the pleasure being in the choice of words and in the verbal subtleties. Even Austen’s 19th century readers were struck by the lack of action as Margaret Oliphant summarises in her essay in Blackwood’s (1870): ‘The neglect which leaves the delicate heroine without a horse to ride, or the injury conveyed in the fact that she has to travel post without a servant, is the worst that happens.’² For a cinema that was deemed in the early period, ‘the art form of democracy’, Austen’s restricted subject matter, not to mention class representation, would not be appropriate material.

As far as Pride and Prejudice goes, it’s hard to imagine a silent version. Elizabeth’s mortification upon overhearing Darcy’s initial rejection of her at the Assembly ball would be difficult to render without words. How could a verbal rebuke be translated into a purely visual medium other than to have Darcy plugging his nose and pointing at Elizabeth in disgust? Darcy’s letter would have to be shown with Elizabeth reading accompanied by an interminable number of flashbacks. It’s not surprising that Austen waited until the sound era, especially given the frequency of radio dramatisations, to make her film debut. There have been several stage adaptations, including a version by A.A. Milne entitled Miss Elizabeth Bennet (1936) and a Broadway musical, First Impressions (1959). The first recorded filming is a television adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in 1938 (in fact, the first recorded filming of an Austen novel) and, since then, the novel has found a home in television on many occasions, whereas there have only been two major ‘faithful’ film versions of the novel, the 1940 film starring Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson and the 2005 film with Keira Knightly and Matthew McFadden. Excluding spin-offs or loose adaptations (like Bride and Prejudice, 2004, and Bridget Jones’s Diary, 2001), there are two films and seven television adaptations, ranging from 1938 to 1995, reflecting the highly ‘adaptagenic’ nature of the novel in the sound era.

This section surveys the various Pride and Prejudice adaptations from 1938 to the early 21st century and those features of the novel that have become identified with what has become known as the ‘classic adaptation’. While the novel is seen as eminently adaptable, Austen’s text poses a number of problems for adaptation, problems that are also considered in this section. The critical reception of the novel in the 19th and 20th centuries and the novel’s place within both canonical and popular traditions is considered in ‘The novel and its reputation’. The book on screen is the subject of the following four sections in which Pride and Prejudice adaptations are separated into television, film, ‘loose’, and autobiographical readings. The final section (‘Critical responses and the afterlife of the novel’) considers the extensive ‘afterlife’ of the novel, especially in its ‘paratexts’, including internet sites, games, dolls, and the effects of earlier and later performances of the actors who have taken parts in the adaptations, who sometimes unwittingly carry the baggage of Pride and Prejudice into other roles.

A chronological list of Pride and Prejudice adaptations is difficult, if not impossible to compile, and the following consists of the most obvious – or ‘straightforward’ screen versions of the novel.

1938 Pride and Prejudice (UK), BBC

Unfortunately, typical of this vintage of broadcast, there appear to be no surviving recordings of this production. Archiving broadcasts is a relatively recent enterprise, the storage of kinescope and video recordings was implemented in hindsight in the 1970s but tended to be selective and hit and miss. Given that the 1938 Pride and Prejudice was transmitted from Alexandra Palace with a guaranteed range of a mere 25 miles, it’s not surprising that it didn’t make a long-lasting impact. However, from 1940, adaptations of Jane Austen’s first novel on screen emerge with noticeable regularity.

1940 Pride and Prejudice (US), directed by Robert Z. Leonard, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Starring Greer Garson as Elizabeth and Laurence Olivier as Darcy, this MGM film is in the tradition of the ‘Screwball Comedy’ of the 1930s and 40s. Sue Parrill describes Garson as ‘too old and too knowing for this role’³ and Darcy’s superciliousness as heavy handed. Adapted by Jane Murfin and Aldous Huxley, based on the dramatisation by Helen Jerome, this is a much pared-down version of the story. Notable changes include Mr Collins as a librarian rather than a vicar (so as not to bring offence to the clergy), the Assembly ball and the ball at Netherfield compressed into one Assembly ball (in which Elizabeth behaves with uncharacteristic rudeness, refusing to dance with Darcy and seconds later accepting a dance with Wickham), the excision of the visit to Pemberley, and the transformation of Lady Catherine into a kindly old lady, her visit to Elizabeth designed as a test to determine that Elizabeth is attracted to Darcy for love rather than money.

1949 Pride and Prejudice (US), directed by Fred Coe, NBC (The Philco Television Playhouse)

This version of the novel appeared live in black and white on NBC’s Philco Television Playhouse on the 23 January 1949, sandwiched between adaptations, such as A Christmas Carol, Cyrano de Bergerac and Twelfth Night, and starred Madge Evans as Elizabeth and John Baragrey as Darcy. Omitting Charlotte Lucas, Mr Collins, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Mary and Kitty Bennet, Mrs Philips, Georgiana Darcy, Colonel Fitzwilliam, the Forsters, and Captain Denny, this series adds Jane Austen to supplement the story.

1952 Pride and Prejudice (UK), directed by Campbell Logan, BBC

First broadcast on 2 February 1952, this is the first television mini-series of the novel, consisting of six episodes, starring Daphne Slater as Elizabeth and Peter Cushing as Darcy. Jane Austen, herself, is portrayed in all six episodes.

1958 Pride and Prejudice (UK), produced by Barbara Burnham, BBC

As a reflection of its popularity, the novel returns to television six years after the first mini-series with Jane Downs and Alan Badel in the leading roles. According to fans who watched this at the time of its broadcast, Badel is remembered as a definitive Darcy.

1967 Pride and Prejudice (UK), directed by Joan Craft, BBC

This series, again broadcast in six episodes, stars Celia Bannerman and Lewis Fiander, scripted by Nemone Lethbridge. Rather than filmed theatre, this adaptation used location shooting, including scenes set in Bath, Lacock Village and Dryham Park in Wiltshire. Its popularity is evident in the fact that it was re-broadcast in 1969. This adaptation omits Mary.

1980 Pride and Prejudice (UK), directed by Cyril Coke, BBC

Feminist novelist Fay Weldon produced the screenplay for this adaptation in five parts, starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. The first episode was broadcast on the 13 January 1980, and for many this remains the best ever, according to the user reviews on the Internet Movie Database: ‘In a few places, the pace is stilted, and it was clearly made for TV before big budgets, fancy sets, and more modern technology. Nevertheless, if someone wants to view an adaptation true to Austen's creation, this is an enjoyable experience.’⁴

1995 Pride and Prejudice (UK), directed by Simon Langton, BBC

Without doubt this six-part mini-series is the most successful adaptation to date, largely down to Colin Firth’s Darcy, and Andrew Davies’ script that draws out the male figures in what has always been regarded as a female-centred story. Unlike Elizabeth Garvie’s restrained high-necked dresses, Jennifer Ehle’s Elizabeth is almost always seen with plunging necklines, contributing to the rewriting of the novel in a thickly veiled sex-romp format. The production was a huge success, producing a new phenomenon named by the press as ‘Darcymania’, largely due to the much commented on plunge Darcy takes in the lake at Pemberley. As Andrew Davies has wryly observed, in spite of being a popular novelist and screenwriter for numerous productions, he’ll probably be best remembered for putting Mr Darcy in a wet shirt.⁵

2003 Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy (US), directed by Andrew Black, Excel Entertainment

According to everyone I’ve spoken to who has had the misfortune to see this film, the less said about this ‘adaptation’, the better, and it’s not surprising that it’s not managed to attract any critical attention, as a second viewing would be unthinkable for most viewers. In this version, set in Mormon Utah, Elizabeth is a very diligent college student, unwilling to think of boyfriends until she graduates. And then along comes playboy Wickham and businessman Darcy, in a very badly acted and transparently low budget production. While the novel, it seems, should lend itself to a teenpic version (as demonstrated so successfully by the adaptation of Emma in Clueless, 1995), to date, surprisingly, Pride and Prejudice has been unable to break into this genre on the big screen. The film sunk into oblivion indecentl...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Part One: Literary contexts
• Part Two: From text to screen
• Part Three: Critical responses and the afterlife of the novel’s adaptations
• Selected further reading
• Imprint