Another show tomorrow!
I will be at Great Bridge High School in Chesapeake tomorrow for a craft show (MAP HERE). My inventory is super-low, I was not that productive this week (it has been 75 degrees these past two days!!!) Yeah, we totally went to the beach yesterday. It was sweet.
I'd still love to meet any local gals out there, and I'm issuing "the coupon" again:
I am planning a small-ish shop update for next Monday. I should still have some goodies left from the show. But don't think of them as "leftovers"....unless you LIKE leftovers. Yeah, then think of them as better-the-next day, nuked in the microwave, eaten while lounging on the couch watching Pride and Prejudice* lasagna leftovers.
*I'm referring, of course, to the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice, which is the only TRUE version. But you can go ahead and watch the Keira Knightly version if you want to.....as long as you don't mind getting motion sickness and suffering through bawdy, third rate acting, AND not to mention NO sign of Colin Firth. You go right ahead.
***Everyone, feel free to jump in the Pride&Prej. debate in the comments! And remember, no matter what I may say, this is just a freindly, little debate - she said as she rubbed her hands together and let out a sinister chuckle.
The only true version is Jane Austen's novel.
But the 2005 adaptation was very good and it's got the reviews to "prove" it. Just take a look at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | March 24, 2007 at 02:53 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... the book is a classic, but when it comes to the movie.....
Oh, it is "on" now, baby!
Come on Kat, Kippy, Nanny....back me up on this one. A&E all the way!!!! Keira Knightly and her perfect features can kiss my grits! You're goin' DOWN anonymous coward....you are going DOWN. I don't speak passionately about many things, including politics or religion. But you mess with my Pride and prejudice?!? It's gonna get ugly....
Let's see.....I can watch a bony chick with crappy bangs spin on a swing until I'm nauseous....or....I can watch Colin Firth swim in a pond in his pantaloons.
Um, no contest.
Posted by: amanda bel | March 24, 2007 at 03:26 AM
;-)
There was no pond swimming in the book, and it was all the better for it.
I actually like both the 1995 and 2005 versions about equally well. Any adaptation has to make difficult choices and I'll probably never find one that does absolutely everything they way I'd prefer.
But from a pure "film" point of view I do believe the 2005 version is about as good as it gets.
And Lizzy being young, skinny and pretty is actually straight from the book.
Jane may be more beautiful (although she wasn't in the 1995 version), but Elizabeth is well above average herself.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | March 24, 2007 at 05:02 AM
A&E is the best. The 2005 version just left out lots of stuff from the book and was kinda confusing. Especially if you had read the book before. I LOVE the A&E version and thought the 2005 one was horrible
Posted by: Denial | March 24, 2007 at 08:43 AM
Colin Firth makes me swoon :)
Good luck at the sale!
Posted by: Barbara | March 24, 2007 at 09:42 AM
Goodness her rings sure are pretty! :) I can't wait to see what updates you have in store for your shop. Oh yeah, I like the new banner too! :) I've been popping Starburst candies myself like my life depended on it.
Posted by: Marilyn | March 24, 2007 at 11:46 AM
First of all I don't remember jane Austen writing " she said as she giggled obnoxiously and gave that same toothy smile she always give after every statement". Keira knightly? come on , that whole taking a pretty girl and trying to make her look homely is so played out. The reviews to prove it? Sites like that are unreliable. 160 some people voted..because they chose to.
Posted by: kristinalouise | March 24, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Austen makes it very clear that Lizzy likes to laugh and that her manners don't always conform exactly to what would have been expected in polite company at the time.
That even an intelligent twenty year old girl will sometimes giggle in the company of her sister or closest friends is in my opinion obvious.
And I didn't see any attempt to make a pretty girl look homely. I saw a pretty girl looking like a pretty girl.
The "give her glasses and greasy hair" trick was, on the other hand, used on Mary in the 1995 version.
One thing especially liked about this adaptation is the fact that the characters came across as real human beings and not members of a historical reenactment society as is so often the case in period drama.
Reviews only prove what the general consensus is amongst reviewers, of course, and we're all free to make up our own minds.
But the site doesn't show the votes of 160 random people. It's a collection of links to professional reviews including every major paper in the US.
P&P was one of the best reviewed movies of 2005. This doesn't mean you have to like it, but it is a fact.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | March 24, 2007 at 07:40 PM
Ok, I'm back...
I wish I could remember more about the 2005 version, (I guess I've been trying to block it out) or maybe it just wasn't that memorable? But, it seems that there were TONS of discrepancies with the book. Like the ending!?!? I don't remember a bizzare, barefooted moment with awkward, trite dialouge. Neither was there a breathy, bossom heaving, rain-drenched scene in the book. That was all SO hollywood....not Austin at all, I'm sure old Jane was spinning in her grave when she saw that. And the 1995 Jane WAS pretty, in a old-fashioned, pre-raphealite way. The 2005 Jane was just pretty in a Southern California kinda way.
The set and scenery was nice, I'll give you that...but nothing out of the common way.
Oh, and I forgot about the 2005 Lydia!!! I have nothing against that actress, but she was God-awfull, totally unbelievable and ridiculous as Lydia. She had ZERO sex appeal and I don't know what she was doing in that movie. It was like she was the daughter of the director or something. The 1995 Lydia (Saffron!) was adoreable, sassy, and fit the part to a T.
I don't remember the actor that played Darcy in the 2005 version, and I bet no one else does either. But Colin Firth? Due to his roll in the A&E version, he sky rocketed to one of the most secretly crushed-on actors of all time. Ask ANYONE. He is a legens as Darcy. he has been stalked becasue of it (not by me, of course!) And to say the book was better without the pond swimming? (I think I may have threw up a little..) Millions of devout fans would slap you for saying that. Maybe it wasn't written in the book, but I bet Jane Austin herself would have said, "Dang, he looks good in that wet shirt..."
(All that having been said, I hope everyone knows that I'm just a goofball-loser that has watched the A&E version WAAAAAY to many times! I AM A DORK.)
Posted by: amanda bel | March 25, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Okay....
There is no comparison! The BBC/A&E version is so much closer to the book, not to mention much better!
I don't really care what reviewers say, especially online reviewers, but if one does pay attention to them, they are with regards to the film itself, not the film compared to the book itself! The BBC/A&E version followed the book much closer! Outside from the occasional line ripped straight from the book, there was so much left out and perverted from the novel! Mrs. Bennet was represented as being a mother that is merely, and mostly, looking out for the welfare of her poor daughters, not herself and her importance in society with having her daughters advantageously matched. Lydia in the 2005 version, as well as Kitty, were horrid! Julia Sawalha was the perfect Lydia! In the 2005 version Mrs. Bennet's and Lydia's disconnects with reality were not represented well at all! Their cluelessness and selfishness were not portrayed well enough, at all! Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth the epitome of Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam! Even the guy that played Col. Fitzwilliam was so much better than the dude in the 2005 movie! Lets not forget things like Elizabeth Bennet running around the countryside to visit her sister with her hair down! Back then, a woman with her hair down in public? Pah! What about Georgianna? The 1995 Georgianna was so much closer to the book, shy and unsure, the 2005 Georgianna was not even close! Yikes, how could I forget the whole Bingley family! Where were Mr. and Mrs. Hurst in the 2005 version! They were great examples in the book of how some people in their level of how society could be in the early 19th century, but not even present in the 2005 version! What about Caroline Bingley in the 2005 version! Horrid! The Charles Bingley looks like such a buffoon in the 2005 version! Crispin Bonham-Carter was so much better as the awkward and lovable Bingley! Where is Mariah Lucas? Was she merely never born in the 2005 version, because she did exist in the 1995 version! Mr. Wickham in the 2005 version was not smarmy enough, especially once one become apprised of his true character. The whole in-the-rain proposal (give me a break!) and dawn admittance of love/proposal were horrid! They were so far from the book it was horrible! What about those close-ups of "Darcy's" hand after he touched hers! It was so ridiculous! Yes, people did not commonly touch too much back then (but what about kissing a woman's hand, remember that was not uncommon at that time?), but those hand close-ups just made me laugh, were we supposed to believe that he was supposed to be doing something else (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) with that same hand later, when he was alone? The scenes in which he refers to the issues of her family not showing any manners/propriety are barely supported by scenes in the 2005 movie! The 1995 version really set the stage and makes the viewer understand how embarrassing the Bennet family (excluding Elizabeth and Jane, of course) can be! The meeting between Darcy and Elizabeth were much more believable in the BBC/A&E version! They were more restrained and Colin Firth does not come off as though he is trying to control an uncomfortable erection (can I say that, here?) whenever he is around Elizabeth!
My biggest problem with the BBC/A&E version is that Darcy does not smile enough! In the book he actually smiles frequently! But in the 1995 version he barely cracks his lips! The lake-diving scene might not have been in the book, but it added to the awkwardness of Elizabeth and Darcy's first meeting since the disastrous proposal and gave us ladies some eye candy! Finally! :)
It goes without saying, the BBC/A&E version is way better! It follows the book VERY faithfully and the characters ring true, not to mention that it also has had excellent reviews, it was made as a made-for-tv movie, which in some countries, like England and Russia, they actually put time and effort to make quality mad-for-tv movies that stay true to great works of literature. The BBC/A&E version just is so much better with regards to the book! As far as it being a period piece, that is exactly what it IS! There were certain mores and modes of society that make period pieces authentic, such as Elizabeth Bennet wearing shoes! The 2005 version may have had decent reviews (if that matters), but it is so far from the book (except for the occasional quote) and aspects of society at that time, that a comparison between the two is impossible!
Good reviews by people who have not read the book or are just reviewing it for its merits as a film, and not an adaptation, do not prove that it is any good with regards to the original material! Logically (and I mean in the area of philosophy known as Logic, not logic in the everyday use) it is not cogent to say that because it has good reviews that it is necessarily good with comparison to the book, or original material). One shouldn't compare the Mona Lisa to a sloppy reproduction, just as one shouldn't compare the BBC/A&E version to the 2005 version!
Do you think that I could have managed to put more exclamation points in this?! :)
(Ready to start ducking the tomatoes that are surely being thrown!)
Posted by: Kat | March 26, 2007 at 09:38 AM
ohh...I'm jumping in! I just received the PBS version last week from Blockbuster but can't imagine it being better than the kiera/matthew version...but I'll get back to you. I "had to" read Pride&Prejudice this winter for book club. I feel like such an idiot now for not reading the book a long time ago...it is now, by far, the best book I have ever read.
Posted by: julie (jane's apron) | March 26, 2007 at 09:57 AM
My dearest Kat,
You said everything I wanted to say, and more. Bless you , my friend....bless you.
Posted by: amanda bel | March 26, 2007 at 10:00 AM
*rolling up my sleeves and ready to get dirty*
So here is my really uneducated opinion--I say this because I have only seen the '95 version a few times and the '05 version once, and clearly I do not know either movie up and down like my dear friend amanda does, but I can't resist a booky argument...ok I really just can't resist an argument-er "discussion".
I have read the book at least once a year since I was 18 and I feel like the '05 Darcy was the most Darcyest Darcy. Can we still be friends, Amanda? While I love me some Colin Firth (I felt his Bridget Jones Darcy was more accurate to the book than his grumpy '95 portrayal. Just me though.)
The '05 guy (yeah don't know his name) seemed more aloof and detached than snotty and mean, which is how Firth played it in '95. IMO.
Dang. I really keep wanting to add Bridget Jones' Diary to the debate, lol! I know sacriledge, but it was based somewhat on PandP and the Darcy character shows bigtime.
And as for comparing movies to accuracy of books, I had to get over that a long time ago and take the movies for what they are-movies. As long as the characters are true to the book that is what counts.
I did feel like the '05 Jane was a more accurate Jane and that Lydia was a royal pain in the arse. But Brenda Blethyn bugged me as mama hen, too. And I did get super sick during the swing scene.
All in all which movie I like better or will watch at a given time will probably depend on how much time I have. do I have 6 hours to watch the A&E or 2 to watch theatrical? Or better yet, do I have time to read the book?
Amanda, are we still friends? ;)
Posted by: Claire | March 26, 2007 at 02:04 PM
I recently just read Bridget Jones's Diary for the first time (this late? I know crazy....) and was amazed at how different the book was from the movie! Mark Darcy barely figures into the book throughout the bulk of it, and the major events of the book (Bridget's mum getting in trouble with the law and her relationship with the men, esp. the guy that got her into trouble with the law, not to mention the relationship between Mark and Daniel, or well, almost everything in general...) were largely changed for the movie. I did like the F. Darcy/M. Darcy saving of Elizabeth/Bridget and her family's name similarity. I also liked the parallels between Bridget Jones The Edge of Reason and Persuasion, although neither was my favorite by their authors!
I know that those with kids, or just hectic lives, don't have much time, but read the book and soon after watch both films (I watch movies while I do something tedious like folding laundry, or when I bake/cook-which I do like) and the truth shall set you free!
BTW-Another note, Elizabeth did not confront Darcy with his rude behavior until the first proposal, surely not at the first dance! The restraint of not assuming familiarity with strangers/people of higher consequence is shown when she begs Mr. Collins not to talk to Mr. Darcy without a proper introduction, it was an impertinence! The 2005 Darcy better? Darcy in the book often smiled and did not come off as though he was in pain all the time, whereas Firth's Darcy was the epitome of one trying to restrain themselves from doing something that they ought not do (like fall in love, esp. with a woman from such a family!), a man trying to overpower his own feelings with logic, and a subdues, but obviously simmering passion beneath his gorgeous surface!
Posted by: Kat | March 26, 2007 at 02:39 PM
For me, there is no Mr. Darcy without Colin Firth-yum....I just bought "Love Actually" today partly because it makes me happy but mostly because it has Colin....double yum
Posted by: dee | March 29, 2007 at 03:30 PM
A&E. Colin Firth. Jennifer Ehle. There IS no other P&P in my world. ('Cept the wonderful book, of course!)
Posted by: Janelle | March 29, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Okay so I don't have a P&P comment but I am a local girl. YAYE! Honestly, I almost peed my pants when I saw this post about you showing at the Great Bridge Highschool Craft Show. A little insight: I have a desk job which allows me to get lost in craft blogs all day long. I am amazed and inspired by all the great stuff I see, but to my dismay all the great craft events are usually in cool places like San Francisco or Sacramento. Incidentally, I stumbled across your great crafts and I kept browsing and reading until I found out you were local! I always thought as the Hampton Roads craft scene to be a little bare. I would love for you to tell me that I am just not looking in the right places. Ironically, I was going to go to the craft show, but alas I had to work. It would be great to see your work in person and I hope there is a great underground craft scene that I am unaware about. :crosses fingers: I desperately want to craft more, but time and money always gets in my way. I would love to know how you got everything going and off the ground. Hope to chat with you soon. Feel free to email me at the above address. Thanks!
-Agnes
Posted by: Agnes | April 01, 2007 at 06:31 PM
I vote for the book first, and the A&E version next. The Keira Knightly movie isn't even to be considered. When Darcy became so popular (thanks of course to Colin Firth!) I found three other great books. They weren't written by Jane Austen (so Austen purists wouldn't be likely to read them) but they do have her flavor - they take place during the same time as P&P but are from Darcy's point of view. The series is called A Novel of Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman.
Posted by: Jill | April 04, 2007 at 01:20 AM