Okay. Today is a super exciting video where
we are comparing 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth, to
the 2005 version with Keira Knightley. Now I feel like this is one of
the most contentious issues in the entire Jane Austen fandom,
which is which movie is better. But really they both do have their pros
and their cons and their own greatness. Let me know in the comments below
which version is your favorite and why. Okay. So first let's talk about
the visuals and sets. I feel like these are the points that
people are least contentious about. Also, this is my cat and
he just likes to visit us. And meow. I feel like we definitely see the
huge difference here between 1995, where everything's sort of more formal
and I wouldn't say stiff as much as it is very proper and controlled. We also saw lighting issues. This could just be me, but even
when they are in rooms that are supposed to be lit by candlelight,
everything's just too bright. When I was watching Pride and Prejudice
again, I now have the remastered version where you can see the texture
in their clothing so much better. But of course, when I was
younger, I was watching it on VHS. So everything was like kind of
blurry, so loses all the texture. But I guess this is also why
you should watch it remastered. Meanwhile in 2005, everything
feels incredibly organic. There's this nature that runs
both inside and outside homes. We see the organic nature of
the movie, even sort of in the textures of their clothing a lot. Obviously the cinematography in the
2005 version is absolutely gorgeous. I remember in school, I had a
professor who said that the definition of good cinematography is being
able to freeze a film at any given moment and for that freeze frame to
be a beautiful picture by itself. And I have seen very, very few
movies that actually meet this definition and Pride and Prejudice
2005 is definitely one of them. Everything in that movie is gorgeous. Even stuff that shouldn't be gorgeous
like when the pig is walking through their house, it still looks good. They make pigs look good in 2005. And so I feel like they went with
completely different aesthetics. Personally, I love 2005. I think it's absolutely gorgeous
the way they went with it. Also, I love 1995. I think more as a nostalgia thing. Next up is the costumes. Now I want to have this huge disclaimer
of, I am not a fashion historian. There are YouTubers out there who are,
and they're absolutely brilliant at it. So I'm going to be talking about
the costumes on the very strict level of what I thought was pretty. Which I know is not the most
scientific categorization of it. But that's how I'm rollin' today, I guess. So the 1995 version, I think really
tried to stick with the Regency Era empire waisted dress thing. Which actually the actress
who plays Jane is pregnant the whole 1995 version filming. And isn't it convenient that they
already looked like maternity dresses. She could easily hide
that the whole shooting. So I'm just saying, convenience there. But then the 2005 version came
in with natural waisted dresses. Now it's of course greatly debated
exactly when Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice, what she imagined
these characters to be wearing. Because she could have very well
written Pride and Prejudice in the late 17 hundreds when they still
had natural waisted dresses, which I do think look better on everybody. So even if you leave out the
waistedness of the dresses. I love the textures and the
colors of the 2005 version. What are you doing? I call my cat crabby old man. Cause this is what he does all day long. He just meows. Say hi to the people. He doesn't care. Also on sets, obviously, I want
to talk about houses in both of these movies, they have so many
pretty houses in both of them. But of course the only Pemberley
in my heart is Chatsworth house. And if you haven't seen my video about my
trip to Chatsworth house, AKA Pemberley, you should definitely check that out. But it is so gorgeous. And in that video, I talk
about how one of the... I almost said servants,
this is not 1810 here. One of the workers there said that
if you read the part of Pride and Prejudice and compare it to the drive
up to Chatsworth house, you will know that Jane Austen definitely based
Pemberley off of Chatsworth House. So I did just reread Pride and
Prejudice before making this video. So I had it fresh in mind for
comparison and it's 100% true. Like the drive up to Chatsworth
houses is exactly like Pemberley and all the descriptions match Pemberly
and I'm like, "It's so pretty." But of course, Lyme Park, which is
Pemberley in 1995 is also very pretty. Okay. So let's get into what I feel like
is probably the more contentious aspects of these versions, which
is how they handle the original books storyline and characters. Because the novel Pride and
Prejudice by Jane Austen is of course a widely translated, widely
read beloved novel by millions. And anyone who tries to take that on
has a huge role they're trying to fill. And so I just want to say to both sets of
filmmakers that you guys did an epic job. And now I'm just going to talk about
this from the perspective of how well it matched up to the book Jane Austen wrote. Now of course, films and BBC
mini-series can have other aims than to exactly match the book. But that's what we're talking about
in this video so let's dive into this. Okay. First up is the storyline. Now, obviously I don't think this is a
super fair comparison on a lot of aspects. Because BBC had five right hours
to do the whole novel while the movie had like two hours or under. So obviously 2005 had to cut
a lot out and condense a lot. But I have to say, I feel like
for what they were working with, they did a fantastic job at that. I feel like the part where it hurt the
storyline a little bit was when they had to condense the section where Lizzy is
super worried about Lydia having ran away. She doesn't know Darcy is helping, and
there's just this anxiety in the family. Because that issue gets resolved so
quickly in the movie, I feel like we don't get the full effect that it had on her. Meanwhile, in 1995, I feel like it's so
close to the original book that honestly, a kid could write a book report off
of it and the teacher wouldn't notice. Now I'm not saying anyone should do that. Go read the book guys. But if someone needed to, they could. Of course they did change
some of the scenes, I feel like just for dramatic effect. We see this in 2005 with both of Mr. Darcy's proposal scenes. They're very pretty and very romantic. They're not close to the book at
all, but I do have to say, you know, changing a proposal scene to
look more romantic isn't the worst thing a movie maker has ever done. 1995's most famous scene is
Colin Firth diving into the lake. Now growing up watching that, I
didn't understand that was a thing. Probably when I was an adult and I went
on the internet and I saw all these other women being like, "Oh, Colin
Firth diving into the pond is so hot." I was like, "Why?!?!" Okay. So I know this might sound
weird, but my whole life I'm just like that water is so dirty. Do you see how dirty the
water he's diving into is? He's going to get a brain eating amoeba. Now, I don't know if brain eating
amoebas are a thing in the UK. But they are in certain States in
the U S where you can literally get an amoeba that eats your brain
from diving into strange water. Now I have to say brain eating
amoebas are not very hot. Not only that, but he
probably smells weird. And when he runs into Elizabeth she's
probably like, "You smell weird. You smell like brain eating amoeba." I don't know. I'm just saying, I am
not a giant fan of that. I don't know. I guess I just don't like
smelly guys from ponds. Who knows. Life. But it definitely has made
the movie particularly famous. Okay. So now I feel like I'm about
to dive into the smelly pool of talking about characterization. So again, I am sorry if I offend
any of you, this is just my opinion. So let's dive in. So I just want to stay straight off
that I feel like the 1995 version does an excellent job of capturing the
characters Jane Austen actually wrote. As I said, I did just completely
reread Pride and Prejudice, and that was the conclusion I came to. Now I really want to talk about what
they did with the characterization in 2005, because I think it's really
fascinating how they handled it. They tried to modernize the
characters to our sensibilities here in the 21st century a lot. And one of the ways they did this was they
completely changed the characters' innate personality and motivation for acting. While, keeping the actions the same. So for example, a character can do
the same action for different reasons. And with the different attitude,
AKA a kid can do their homework, but is the kid happy to do their
homework because they love learning? Or is the kid, begrudgingly doing their
homework because they hate school? Do you see how the characters
both do their homework, but why are they doing their homework? What's the attitude about the homework? That's the difference? And I feel like that's
the difference in 2005. They took Austen characters. They had them act out the same actions,
but they did it for different reasons and with a different attitude about it. So for some examples, let's go
and talk about these characters. I feel like we really
need to address the Mr. Darcy situation. Now first, I just want to clarify, I love
adorable, super socially awkward, Mr. Darcy in 2005, a lot. But that's not what Jane Austen wrote
and I'm sorry, but it's just not. So in the novel, Mr. Darcy is proud. That is his main defect. He acknowledges this when
he reproposes to Lizzy. I've been a selfish being all my life. As a child, I was given good
principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Such, I might still have been but for you. He owns it and we see that
throughout the storyline. Now is Mr. Darcy introverted? Yes. I don't think anyone
out there is saying Mr. Darcy is an extrovert. But I feel like we need to
recognize that there is a difference between being socially awkward
or shy and being introverted. There's very, very confident
introverts in the world. So I speak from firsthand
experience myself as an introvert, that there is a big difference. Sometimes people say to me like,
"Oh, are you too shy to talk?" And actual reality is, "I just
have nothing to say to you. That's why I'm sitting
here not saying anything." It's not because I'm too scared too. It's because I don't want to. And I feel like that is what Elizabeth
hits on when she says that he needs to practice talking to people more,
when he says that he's not qualified to recommend himself to strangers. I don't think that means
that he's necessarily super socially awkward and shy. I feel like it's like, "I'm
not good at that" because he hasn't developed that skill. Meanwhile, like most introverts
I've had to develop that skill. I have to enact it in order to make other
people feel cared about because when you talk to people, they feel cared about. So I feel like what Jane Austen was trying
to get across is sometimes you have to go against your innate inclinations to
make other people happy and to show that you care about them by being considerate
and kind and talking to them sometimes I feel like this too, that
one quote alone in the book, I don't have the talent of
conversing easily with people I have never met before. Perhaps you should take your
aunt's advice and practice. Is I think the basis they built
Darcy's entire character on, but that quote has to be taken in context. You can't take this one quote and
be like, "Oh, push everything else aside" in this what, like few hundred
page novel and base it on that quote. You have to take it in stride with the
rest of his personality, because really when he went to propose to Lizzie,
he thought she wanted him to propose. He was that confident. Right. So I don't see a lot of like
super social awkwardness there. It's almost more, "Yeah,
I'm, I'm pretty epic." And also, "I don't have to lower myself
and try to talk to these people." Anyway, I'm sorry if
this offends everyone. I know everyone really
loves awkward Darcy. But awkward Darcy in my
opinion is not in the book. Let's just talk about
this awkward thing though. I feel like 2005 Pride and Prejudice
is the movie of awkward people. They made Mr. Bingley awkward. They need Mary Bennet awkward. They were like, you know what? We just need to make everybody awkward. Meanwhile, the one person that the
book describes in detail as being super shy and awkward, they make
super bubbly, confident, and outgoing. Which is Georgiana Darcy. Which I just think is so funny. They're like, let's make everyone
awkward except for the actual awkward person let's make her not awkward. Yeah. I feel like they did something
really interesting with the Bennets as in the married parents. Mr. Bennet in the book is verbally abusive
to his wife and his children, and he's extremely neglectful and uncaring
about a lot of their concerns. And that is the Mr. Bennet that Jane Austen wrote. I feel like there was a message
there about what fathers should or should not be like in the family. And I feel like in the 2005 version,
they made him a lot more loving, and interested and involved in
his family than he really was. Now, I'm not saying, "Hey, you know what
we need in our life is super abusive Mr. Bennet." But what I am saying is by changing
his character, they're changing one of the main messages I feel like Jane
Austen was trying to send in the book. I mean, could just go on and
on about how they've completely changed these characters, but I
just want to note two other ones. One is Charlotte Lucas. Charlotte Lucas in the book is
very calculating and unromantic. And they made her come
off as desperate in 2005. Now I'm not saying that she's not on
some ways of grasping at a opportunity. But I do want to say, I feel like they
portray her as someone who would be romantic, who has to desperately grab on. While Charlotte of the book is
just like, "Mmm, this works. I don't really believe in love anyway." So I feel like that's an important change. And then another interesting
thing I feel like is Wickham. Wickham in the book and in
1995, you definitely see as this very charming gentlemanly man. And I feel like Wickham in 2005,
it's just sort of also moody. Like him and Elizabeth have
like this, "We're sort of moody" thing going on together. And I feel like he's just
supposed to be like hot. That's it he's just hot and moody. Where in the book he's supposed
to be charming and gentlemanly. Now, does that mean I don't like 2005? No, I love it for what it is. It Is a great movie. Again, love awkward Darcy. It's stunning. I just feel like, what's important
here is that we recognize that that's what's happened and that
that's not what Jane Austen wrote. Because I feel like this move to sort
of modernize classic literature has some good points, but also is incredibly
dangerous if we don't recognize and understand what's happening. Because what can be lost in the meantime
is the original messages, the original culture, the way the world was viewed. And part of what literature gives us
is that moment to step back and be like, they have this entirely different
worldview and it helps us analyze our worldview in contrast to them. It also helps us learn about
where we as a society came from. So let me know in the comments below
which one you like more in 1995, 2005, or do you like the 1980s version? How about that 1940 version with
the hoop skirts and the archery? I talk about that in "Five Classic
Books That Are Nothing Like Their Movies" video that you should check out. My name is Ellie Dashwood and this
is my channel where we talk about classic literature, history and how Mr. Darcy Is going to get at brain
eating amoeba from the pond. So subscribe to my channel, if
you like any of those topics. Bye! I got a drink. It just sparkling water with lemon. Actually the story of this drink
is when I was curling my hair earlier, I burned the tip of my ear. So it was like doing this with the drink. And then I was like, I should probably
actually drink this drink too. So, but my ears feeling better. Thanks to this drink.
