Change Your Image
valerie-53
Reviews
Pride and Prejudice (1980)
The best adaptation out there
As many other reviewers have pointed out already, this adaptation does not rely on a sky-high budget, lavish costumes and modern filming techniques to get its point across. It does, however, rely on a close reading of the novel and the superb acting from a marvellous cast.
D. Rintoul's Mr. Darcy does come across rather haughty and arrogant - but that is exactly the point. He is not supposed to be sympathetic or charming in any way. His good qualities lay hidden beneath the surface and will come to light later.
Mrs. Bennet is portrayed as fussy and somewhat silly, but not to the point of caricature, as it was done in the 1995 and 2005 adaptations. I especially appreciated the fact that both Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine de Burgh in this version are played by actresses in their 40s, as they would have been in real life back then, rather than 70-somethings, as we saw in other adaptations (how can Lady Catherine be that old if she has a young daughter?).
Finally, Elizabeth. There is an opinion among Austen lovers that Elizabeth is the most harmonious female character among those we meet in the novel.
Her younger sisters, although vivacious, are too empty-headed; her middle sister Mary, although pious and studious, is too preachy, talentless and plain; her older sister Jane, although beautiful, is too passive and devoid of any real passion; Charlotte Lucas is nice but too pragmatic, and so on. However, Lizzie is a perfect blend of all those qualities. She is the most well-rounded character in the book.
Which is why, I think, it is so difficult for actresses to hit the mark with Lizzie. Neither Jennifer Ehle, nor Keira Knightley even come close, in my opinion, the former looking wooden and angry all the time, the latter giggling like a spoiled 5-year old throughout the movie. But Elizabeth Garvie does it with such an ease. Her portrayal shows the character's intended intelligence, wit, liveliness and honesty - all without going over the top and staying well within the social norms of the time. Because of this, she still is the best Lizzie Bennet, hands down.
The pace of the adaptation is leisurely and unhurried, just the way life itself was in those times, so do not expect some kind of an action series here. But this is a wonderfully true rendition of a great novel, which captures the book's spirit beautifully. Highly recommended.
Miss Marple: Sleeping Murder (1987)
Very muddled yet entertaining
I understand that the novel was written in the 1940s, so the events in the novel's past take place some 20 years prior, that is to say in the early 1920s. This adaptation's producers decided to have the story set in the 1950s instead, with the novel's past taking place "some years before the war", and that immediately creates a lot of discrepancies. For example, how were the newlyweds Gwenda and Giles able to afford the huge house and the servants, in the 1950s, without being super rich or landed gentry? The 1930s and the 1950s were two entirely different epochs in that respect. Practically no average middle class family was able to employ a housekeeper and a gardener towards the end of the 1950s, even part-time, not to mention the soaring real estate prices and the financial devastation brought on by WWII. And Giles, the young husband, is not "old money", he obviously has to work for a living, because we are told he is going to be "a gentleman of leisure" for the next two months - which sort of hints at him being on a leave or on vacation. Gwenda is not mentioned as having inherited a fortune either.
Another problem with this adaptation (and it is an issue with all of the Joan Hickson adaptations of Miss Marple) is that the great reveal, the explanation of the "how" and the "why" by Miss Marple, is usually very hurried and is almost an afterthought (as opposed to the Poirot films).
Here, for instance, we are told that poor Helen was not man-crazy but merely wanted to get away from her possessive brother. Well, in that case why did she not marry the lawyer chap in India? She would have been as far away from her brother as possible. Why on earth would she have moved to Dillmouth with her husband (Gwenda's father), which is situated so close to where Dr. Kennedy lives? Why did Dr. Kennedy, if he was so obsessed with his sister, let her get engaged and be on her way to her fiancé in India to begin with? Why did he not murder her then? And what is the deal with those garden steps exactly? Did Dr. Kennedy bury his sister's body there, under the old steps, and then had them covered by bushes? But how would he have achieved this with Gwenda's father still living in the house for some time after Helen had disappeared, and wouldn't the old gardener have known about this? Very little in this plot makes any sense at all, including, of course, the ability of a three-year old to remember so well the house in which she only spent one year of her life. But that could be not so much the fault of the producers as of the author of the story.
All in all, an enjoyable and entertaining appearance of Miss Marple, as usual, but the story itself does not bear any scrutiny, I'm afraid.