Pride and Prejudicial Endings
by Walt Posted on Nov 25, 2005 under Buzz, Movies |
“Pride and Prejudice“, starring Keira Knightley, is being released in 1,000 additional theaters this week — but it has a terrible secret!
Yes, even though you may have devoured every previous incarnation of this Jane Austen story published around 1813, I’ll make you click on the continue link so you don’t accidentally read what happens in this adaptation.
Spoilers ahead:
The American version of “Pride and Prejudice” does not follow the story as originally written.
The ending created for the American audiences of this movie has the characters of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy cuddling after sex.
The ending for the British version of the film adheres more to the traditional ending in the source novel. Well, the ending for the British version DID adhere to the ending of the novel…
It seems as soon as word got out that the Americans got a happier ending than the Brit version, demand for the happier ending caused the filmmaker to offer up the “Americanized” ending in select British theaters starting this weekend. Test market audiences in Britain had originally convinced the director to remain faithful to the rather crappy ending rather than focusing on the loving couple… or the couple loving on each other…
No word yet on whether Austen traditionalists in America will demand the stodgier ending in theaters here in the States.
[NYTimes link]
November 25th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Not really. They were cuddling, but they were outside by a pond and by modern standards fully dressed. I don’t know why the NYT decided to call it “poist-coital.” That’s reading a bit too much into what was actually on the screen.
Is that your choice of adjectives, Walt? Crappy? Or is it someone else’s?
I guess one of these days I should blog about why I disliked this movie so much…
November 25th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
I confess, the word “crappy” came from my keyboard. Even not having seen either version of the film, I’ll stand by my crappy.
I certainly wouldn’t “test” well against a movie with an ending that didn’t focus on the “chalice winners”(hero/heroine), and so I suppose I’m even making my knuckle-dragging kin look bad by suggesting that romances with happy endings should … well, end on a happy note.
I can’t say I remember much outside of the 1995 version with Collin Firth, so, yes, I’d read anything you have to say on the topic.
Mind you, I wouldn’t suggest re-writing “Romeo and Juliet” with a happy ending, but since many of us already KNOW what the ending is — if you’re not trying to parrot every single line as it was originally written, why not twist it a bit?
I’m feeling a bit flushed at the moment…
November 25th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Well, see, the 1995 version added an alternate ending, too. But that one was of the double wedding and it ended with the hero and heroine leaning in for a kiss as they drove off in a carriage. I have no problem with that kind of ending. What they added to this movie, though….it wasn’t even so much the fact that they’re outside by the pond in clothes they would never have gone outside in. It was the freaking dialogue, which was so cheesy that if I ever ready it in a romance novel, I’d be embarrassed on the author’s behalf.
The book, I think, ends on a fitting note, which I agree would be too abrupt for a movie. But the scene they decided to add to this movie was horrid for more reasons than I can even begin to explain. There’s a fuller description of it here. If that doesn’t make you cringe, I don’t know what would. *g*
November 26th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Gotcha. Characters acting/dressing out of character in the added scene. I can certainly understand why that’s upsetting, too.
There ought to be a list somewhere of movies that were passable as films but had an otherwise unacceptible ending tacked on. I’m not a movie encyclopedia, but some endings just don’t work well. Twist endings, or sequel potential(”hand from the grave”) tack ons are one thing.
Lord Of The Rings’ final few minutes didn’t work for me, and certainly not for my wife, as the movie faded out, and then faded back in to wrap up some ending, and then faded out, and then faded back in to wrap up another ending… and of course the ending in LOTR wasn’t the same as in the book by a long shot. (The ending in the book wasn’t my personal favorite, either, btw!)
Many folks advise walking out of “AI:Artificial Intelligence” before the 20 minute ending that doesn’t really belong in the movie.
I don’t mind the moviemaker making changes to the source material, mainly because it IS their movie. I’m sure that drives screenwriters mad, too. But the audience also gets to get mad at endings. It’s their movie, and it’s our dollar.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
You can’t please everybody. There are scores of women who just about wet themselves over that P&P ending because it’s so gosh darned romantic (yeah, that noise you’re hearing is me dry heaving).
It’s tough to write a great ending to a story. If you’re a screenwriter or director adapting a much beloved book, though, it takes a lot of balls to change the ending just a little bit let alone by a lot.
And then there are endings faithful to the “real” story that I wish they would have changed, anyway. Like Braveheart. ;-)
November 26th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Here’s another take from an historical author who reviews a lot of films.
November 27th, 2005 at 2:23 am
Well, I disagree most heartily. :D Most of all with how she thought there was chemistry between the h/h. I didn’t feel that at all. As for the Austen purist camp, they seem pretty evenly divided between loving it and hating it.
I still haven’t pegged down exactly why it worked so well for some people and exactly the opposite for others, though…
November 27th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Sunday afternoon, the 2:30 showing, one of the smaller theaters at the stadium multiplex, 80% full, men, women - mostly women. *g* Lots of laughter and sighs and held breaths throughout, and yes, applause at the end! As Jennifer Crusie says, cheese works!
November 27th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Jenny’s a smart lady, but sometimes she’s full of shit. *g*
November 27th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
As this site’s resident film critic, I have to admit that I have not see this film, and probably won’t (and no, not for the obvious reasons
OK, well, maybe a littlenor have I seen the other 9 versions listed in IMDB’s database), but I did see Ms. Knightly in Domino, and I think that ought to count for something.OK, maybe not.
The Perfessor
November 28th, 2005 at 9:26 am
This one had problems, without a doubt. Primarily, for me, the cramming of so much into so little time and shortchanging so many of the subplots. (For example, the whole Wickham storyline was reduced to nothing, meaning it was reduced to nothing. No one knew the true part it played.) I had little problems with the characters. Some I liked better than the BBC version (Mrs. Bennet, Jane), some in the BBC version I liked better (Wickham, Lydia) some I liked equally well, some I liked for their portrayal while taking nothing away from BBC. The Keira / Matthew chemistry was what it was. They were their own version of Lizzie and Darcy. I definitely liked the Ehle / Firth combination better, but I didn’t dislike these two. And tacked on or not, the ending made me smile.
What I liked SO much better in this one than in the BBC version was that this one was alive. It had personality. I never realized how severe and austere the other one was - but then it’s true to the book in that regard. There’s hardly anything in the book about setting or sensory details. This version breathed. It had color. The family Bennet actually did things instead of sitting and pondering their navels. From the BBC version I had no clue that the family even kept animals because I’m not at all familiar with how the classes of people lived then. The town of Meryton looked like a town rather than an abandoned outpost. How true any of that is to the time period, I have no idea. I don’t care. I’ve never seen any book faithfully adapted to the big screen. As a viewer seeking entertainment, the color, the activity, the music, the dancing was much more appealing in this one! If only the pacing hadn’t been so poorly done, sigh. Too much of the book was lost.
November 28th, 2005 at 9:49 am
After watching the movie, I wasn’t bothered by the changes - I’m not overly bothered by any major changes of any movie taken from the book - with one or two notable movie exceptions.
It DOES take some effort to breathe real life into a period drama on the screen. This one had some nice touches to it, but I don’t think I absolutely had to see it in the movie theater.
The bit where suddenly the two dancers are the only ones in the hall dancing was a nice touch. Stuff like that made it a bit more interesting.
November 28th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Hey, not for nothing, but — so long as we’re talking about this in the first place — Would it be possible (worthwhile, profitable) for a studio to update this story to the modern era? I mean, isn’t the Alicia Silverstone film Clueless based on the Jane Austen’s novel Emma?
How would the Austin Purists react to that? (As a matter of fact, how did they react to Clueless based? I thought that was a fun film (again never having read the original book, or seen the film (was there a film?).
The Perfessor
November 28th, 2005 at 11:32 am
Perfessor, Bridget Jones’s Diary is more or less a modern remake of P&P, thogh probably more accurately called an homage. And then there’s the Bollywood version…
November 28th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
OK, I actually liked Bridget Jones’s Diary. I think that it is “Period Piece” aspect of this film that bothers me. The basic story (assuming proper, and respectful updating) works just fine. (At least as far as I’m concerned.)
The Perfessor
November 28th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Romantic Love lasts about a year. With the notable of exception of the relationship with my lover, natch
Awwwwwwwwww, sniff, sniff.
November 28th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
DUDE! I think you’ve been like so seriously dissed!
The Perfessor