Pride and Prejudice: 1995 vs 2005

If there's a hot-button topic among Austen Fans, it's usually over Adaptations of the author's timeless works, and nowhere is that more obvious than the fierce debate over which is the superior adaptation: the 1995 BBC Miniseries starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, or the 2005 movie starring Matthew MacFayden and Kiera Knightley.

Honestly, the whole argument debate never made sense to me, because it really is like comparing apples and oranges.

The two adaptations were designed for different audiences, have vastly different formats and running times, and presume different levels of familiarity with Austen's works. There is no comparison, because other than the characters and the story they're adapting, the two versions don't have a lot in common to compare equally..

Let's start with the 1995 Mini-Series.

Like most BBC Mini-Series, Pride and Prejudice presumed a certain level of familiarity with the source material. Consisting of six episodes running nearly five and a half hours, it had plenty of time to focus on fan favourite moments and additional scenes to flesh out the book's limited viewpoint.

The costumes are excellent, and a lot of research went into making them as accurate as possible. As a history nerd, I approve. However, there is very little individuality in the costumes, which I consider something of a necessity in any visual media.

It is also a very British show, with everyone speaking largely in an upperclass monotone, occasionally punctuated by microexpressions and longing stares in lieu of visible emotion. I have no doubt that this appeals to the local audience, but for non-UK viewers, it's more than a little jarring, and makes it harder to get invested when the actors don't seem invested. The only way I could get all the way through an episode in one sitting was to watch it on my treadmill, or have it play while I was working on a craft project.

By contrast, it over-compensated in characterisation, turning several of the supporting cast almost into caricatures of their book counterparts. I blame the '95 version entirely for the overwhelming perception of Mrs Bennet as a screeching harpy who has the brain of a jellyfish and doesn't care about her children, only their rich future husbands, and the perception of Mr Collins as an odious creep, rather than just a ridiculous brown-noser.

If I had one major complaint, it would be that there is too much time given over to exposition, often un-necessarily. The audience doesn't need their hand held through every tiny detail, and explaining everything as the story goes ruins more than one emotional payoff for those who were new to Austen or hadn't read it in a while.

Jennifer and Colin are both incredible actors, but the dynamics between them didn't draw me in the way other adaptations have. Ironically, I love Colin Firth as a main character in other movies, but I've never managed to get invested in him when he plays a love interest.

The 2005 Movie is a very different kettle of fish.

I often refer to it as a movie designed to be "Baby's First Introduction to Austen", and as a hook to get people watching other adaptations, as well as buying and reading the original books, it really works.

With a run-time of roughly 2.5 hours, it had less than half the time to tell a story that the Mini-Series did. As such, it made use of every second.

At some point, I really do need to sit down and write an article on the use of staging, body language and costuming as storytelling mediums in their own independent right, using Pride and Prejudice 2005 as Exhibit A.

The Cinematography and music were breathtaking, and you'd be hard-pressed to find even the most abject '95 fans who have much bad to say on those aspects.

Rather than cling to accuracy, Pride and Prejudice, 2005 is more like an Impressionist painting, capturing the broad strokes and general feel, and allowing the viewer to fill in the finer details with their own imagination.

My biggest complaint with this version is the inaccurate detail, but I can't complain as much as I normally would, because most of those inaccuracies are deliberate and used to highlight character traits or details that would otherwise be easily overlooked.

There are a lot of things that are inaccurate to both book and history, but they are deliberate inaccuracies to convey the underlying messages better than having to waste screen time explaining the fine details. Kiera Knightly perfectly captured Elizabeth's barbed wit, and her ability to convey entire volumes with a single facial expressions is incredible. Mathew MacFayden is much the same; even when he didn't say a word, I could feel everything he wasn't saying though his body language.

When I have time, I'll probably sit down and review both versions independent of each other, as I've been doing with other Austen Adaptations.

No promises on when, though.

If you want to read more of my opinions on Jane Austen, or read any of my Jane Austen Variations, you can visit my profile or buy them at the link above.

If you disagree with my opinions enough to sign up and comment to say so, you can join at the link below.