#kajaono

Okay, so XD

Imagine you had a BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that was 5 hours long, faithful to the book, and yet having a different perspective/understanding/interpretation of the characters and the story? That's P&P 1980 in a nutshell, and I think it is worth watching just for that. But here are some other concrete things it has going for it, specially in relation to other adaptations:

The casting is closer in age than 95, and on one specific important case, closer than 05 too: Lady Catherine de Bourgh is played by an actress in her mid 40s, and she nails the absolute Opinionated Facebook AuntTM thing that the character has going in the novel.

It's not the only case of closer accuracy to the book in characters: Mr Collins is a young, tall, big guy, whose main issue is being very small minded, petty, and obsequent, instead of recurring to "he's greasy or slimy" as other adaptations do.

If you agree/like the "Darcy has autism" headcanon, this is the adaptation that leans the most heavily into it (it does overdo it, in my opinion, but there's a very interesting contrast between the flat affect of his facial expression, and the richness of inflexion in his voice)

Elizabeth Garvie's Lizzy is just... extraordinary. This adaptation circumvents the Jane-as-prettier-than-Lizzy issue by casting as Lizzy an actress with big, dark, very expressive eyes, small features and a very lively, sharp countenance and manners, whereas Jane's actress is tall and graceful and has a general air of kindness and sweetness, but in a very youthful way.

Speaking of Jane, this adaptation focuses much more on the sisters as sisters, and gives special emphasis to Lizzy's love for Jane, which I appreciate a lot.

Also speaking of Jane, Jane and Bingley are the cutest in this. They are given time, and he's kind and sociable and sweet without being an idiot. This adaptation includes that great line of his about how he wouldn't mind Darcy so much if he wasn't so tall, and the following comment about how Darcy can be fastidious of a Sunday evening.

That way, this adaptation includes several fan favorite scenes/lines that don't usually make it to adaptation, such as Darcy asking Lizzy to dance a reel, Lizzy playing and singing at a party in Meryton, Caroline teasing Darcy about putting uncle and aunt Phillips on the Pemberley portrait gallery, and the "I cannot fix the hour or the spot..." line. EDIT: also, the coffee pot scene!! and the rivalry between Mrs Bennet and Lady Lucas!

I also think it balances well how awful, in different ways, both Mr and Mrs Bennet (EDIT: and she's not insufferably shrill!!!!) are as parents (unlike how 95 and 05 "pick sides"); it emphasizes how self centered her efforts are, and how lazy and callous he can be in his mockery and indolence.

The opening sequence of each episode is a roll of a hand-drawn summary of the events of the episode and that's such a lovely detail.

it's 100000% anthony's hand! 👀 (yes, i made a gif to prove it a;sldk)

I’d sell my soul for it, but I’m not sure they’re actually going to confirm it

What Are you thoughts on the PRIDE article?

for the most part excited! But cynical that it’ll be a side character they introduce and not people we already know and think are NOT straight. If it’s like a Bridgerton partner that can still work, but mostly “we’ll see”! I get that the new show runner is the legit source but 🤷‍♀️ again I wasn’t really on tumblr or any sort of fandom forums in season 1 and legit thought Eloise or Ben would be the gay sibling. And then Eloise had a crush on Theo and Ben sorta just never spoke to that art guy I forgot about… so 🤷‍♀️

Or is he wearing a top hat and my translation just sucks?

... before I answer, I just need to share - I opened the book in order to refresh my memory on that part and the first lines I laid eyes on were

"The madman seemed to think we had the room to ourselves. I knew better, but, like another madman, had let him ramble on unchecked."

And isn't that just them in a nutshell.

Anyway, the original version does state that he is wearing "frock-coat and top-hat" during the visit at the British Museum! The St. Agnes cup is rather large so yes, it would have been difficult to put it underneath a bowler x)

(Thank you random guy reading the sign for providing us with a good reference of size)

It's quite the feat either way, just keeping it balanced under there - makes me wonder if he had one of those ribbons that keeps the hat in place.

Following that thought I started to wonder how much it actually weighs so I checked its page on the museum's website - turns out it's just over 2,1 kg. Dude is dedicated. But we knew that already.

"Raffles devoured his two-penny guide-book as greedily as a school-girl with a zeal for culture." damn this collection is so full of wonderful phrases.

So yes, Raffles was wearing a top hat and, I imagine, must have had a bit of a headache at the end of it all, especially after keeping it on all through Bunny lecturing him after they got back to Earl's Court because of course he had to wait for an opportunity to do a big dramatic reveal.

No the true horror here is that Mr Elliot forced Mr Smith into poverty and death. Leaving an ill Mrs Smith behind, who has no money to get the medical care she needs. And people think that is a boring story to tell?

And instead tell the story of Elliot wanting a title (wow) or is in need of money (yawn)

I couldn't finish watching 2007 so I can't speak to that, but yes, it's always disappointed me in 2005. The equivalent would be skipping over Wickham's history with Georgiana, or Willoughby's with Brandon's ward, and just saying "well, they're insincere and fickle, their interest in you/your sister is selfish, and their finances are in a bad state, you can't trust them".

And the reason that I would particularly like to hear to hear that whole backstory in Persuasion is precisely the fact that, while WIlloughby's and Wickham's past sins are sexual/seductive in nature, Elliot's is not. There's nothing warm or impulsive about it, he didn't make mistakes: it was cold and calculating and deliberate and cruel, every step of the way. And it wasn't for love, or even lust. It was for money and, presumably, the cool pleasure of having this power over somebody else's life and then being able to discard them when you're done.

It isn't as dramatic or easily reduced to a few sentences of 'and then he ran away with her', a gasp and a shocked reaction. It takes some time to explain the actions and to convey the heartlessness and horror. Perhaps that's part of why neither of the previous adaptations took the time to do it: maybe if either of them had been a miniseries, like my favourite adaptations of each of P&P, Emma, and S&S.

But I think leaving it out, as you say, leaves the Big Villain Reveal as... rather a non-event. It's a bit boring and it feels like he's just a bit greedy, rather than (in my opinion) worse than Wickham, or Willoughby, or the Crawfords (and certainly worse than silly little John Thorpe). It also cuts out the thread of 'persuasion' (friend misleading friend, not out of good intentions but maliciously) which ties it to the novel's theme and Anne's character development, and so her change of heart is disconnected from it.

Perhaps it gets downplayed too because this is one case where the heroine or her sister isn't in love with the villain, so the reveal doesn't have so strong an effect on the narrative: Anne wasn't going to love Elliot either way and was unlikely by this stage to agree to marry him. The main effect it has on the plot is to confirm the way she was already thinking and feeling—about Elliot, about persuasion, and about separating her own judgement from that of Lady Russell—and... well, I can see how, when it comes to writing a film script and trying to fit it all into two hours, one might decide to simplify it to just 'oh, btw, he's selfish and insincere'.