yay! I am so, so glad you enjoyed it. I just had a feeling you would, though. You were in the back of my mind when I decided to go see it. Here is a shocking confession: I have never read the book, or seen the BBC miniseries. So I think I went into it a blank slate. But now I am very intrigued, because the actress who played Miss Bingley was so subtly evil I wanted to see her get her own, and know what the heck was going on between her and Darcy!

Wasn't the music incredibly gorgeous? As a film composer, the score always takes precedence for me when I see a film. If I'm not enjoying the score, I have a hard time concentrating on the rest of the film, because I have been trained to hear certain things. But this score by Dario Marianelli was so gorgeous it moved me to tears several times, especially when Lizzie is standing outside at dawn and she sees Darcy walking towards her. It's such a simple visual image, but at one point, even though Lizzie is not on the screen and the camera is still focusing on Darcy's figure, you hear the part where her joy just overflows and the music breaks into this amazing harmonic change...hats off to Marianelli for his brilliant psychological scoring!

Christy -- I should have mentioned the music, because you're right: it was perfect. I may have to buy the soundtrack.

I adored this beyond all reason, and I really didn't expect to. Its casting is just perfect. There are a number of roles that I thought were miscast or overacted in the BBC version -- Mrs. Bennett and Lady Catherine you mentioned, but I can't stand Jane and Mr. Bingley either. She's bland and he's a buffoon. But here, Jane really is a little prettier and a little less lively than Elizabeth, and Bingley is open and friendly without being an idiot.

Getting rid of the second Bingley sister was a brilliant move. I do wish we'd gotten to see just a bit more of Georgiana, but I have to admit that her two brief little scenes were all it took to humanize Darcy at that point.

I went to see a very late showing last night and came home floating. I almost went to see it again today. I love Jennifer Ehle, but I really think this version has topped the BBC's.

As for purity... eh. Mansfield Park wasn't true to the book either, but that doesn't make it any less brilliant.

Stefanie -- excellent point about Mansfield Park, which I think was also a top notch adaptation.

Did you miss the crucial scenes with Miss Bingley?

Dear Sara, I loved this interpretation, but knew I couldn't quite do justice to all the reasons. You have expressed them perfectly - thank you. I think the best reason of all was the genuine chemistry, as you mentioned, between Elizabeth and Darcy, which was apparent right from that wonderful frozen moment at one of the dances, when they seemed to be isolated in the room. I loved Mr Bennett, too, and the affection he had deep down for his foolish wife, which I've never seen portrayed before, and that Mr Collins wasn't a complete charicature, but someone you winced in sympathy for as well as wanting get away from as soon as possible. All the characters were perfectly captured, I thought.

Crucial scenes with Miss Bingley... hmm. I don't think they were quite so crucial in this version, because her rivalry with Elizabeth was less overt.

I have heard that the original cut was 45 minutes longer -- that means there's 45 minutes of footage out there still to see!!! What do you think we can do to beg the producers to put those deleted scenes on the DVD?

Jill -- where did you hear that?

I agree, I hope they include every little bit in the dvd release. How to influence that? No idea.

I've been thinking about the movie a lot since seeing it two days ago. I think it was a great movie and quite a brilliant riff on "Pride & Prejudice," but it's not aligning exactly with my idea of the book. Mainly because of my sense of Austen's writing, which differs greatly from the pictorial style of the movie. I love her writing so very much, but I've never gotten the sense that she's a sensualist, nor that she cared to revel in depictions of the textures and colors of the physical world. Hers is a slightly more cerebral view, a sort of medium-distance shot, if you will. Far less tactile and close-up than this movie. For example, I don't think Austen cares so much about the delicacy of Elizabeth's clavicles or the ripeness of her lower lip as much as the filmmaker does. This is the problem with transferring stories from one medium to another, of course. And why it's an interpretive act, more of a riff on something, at least in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, I am not faulting the movie. But I felt it straining sometimes, in its effort to make things more dynamic, more action-packed, and more earthy, with mud, with the farmyard, with rain-soaked hair and clothing, with characters in dishabille. I began to get the impression that this film was terrified of formality and stillness and elegance. That in its fear of creating a waxworks, it had tottered off into another era. Hardy, maybe, or Dickens. And I don't think that the period the movie depicted, or Austen herself, was quite so frightened of those more formal, quieter qualities.

sherryf--

now this is an interesting take. A couple things come to mind, as I think about your post. First, Austen's time was less formal and restricted than what came later -- the Victorians, if you think about it, were really into the corseting both of the female body and mind. All those stiff layers, meant to hide and cover up and dissuade from sexual thoughts. In that way at least, Austen's England was simpler and less formal.

Elegance is something else. First, I think that the pairing of elegance with simplicity or quiet is a modern day concept. Certainly in the Rococo, elegance had nothing at all to do with simplicity at all. But aside from that, can we say that Austen's England was more elegant than Hardy's? Or maybe you're saying that Austen took a more elegant (or, to look at it from a different perspective, less sensual) approach to storytelling. But Hardy's work is both more sensual and far wider in scope, which is one of the things I love about it -- certainly he might have presented Dorset as Austen presented Hertfordshire, from the narrow perspective of women of a certain social class. I'm glad he didn't. I'm also glad that Austen stuck with her bit of stitchery and her more focused view.

I agree that the film maker did seem to be straining a little bit to make Elizabeth's world real, almost going to one extreme in reaction to the BBC version, which was (as I've said) fairly sterile in its formality.

Here's a solution: make the movie again! See if it's possible to get just the right touch of real-life in there while keeping some of the formality of approach that we associate with Austen herself.

I saw this movie over the weekend, and while I liked it, I didn't love it. I agree that the scenery and the music were both beautiful. However, I felt that one of the most important events in the movie was barely touched on.

Lydia's elopement was such an important event in the story. Just when Elizabeth finally understands the kind of man Darcy really is, and hopes that he will renew his proposal, Lydia runs off with Wickham. At a time when family and connections were so important, this was the worst possible thing that could happen for Elizabeth. She found herself in what she felt was a no win situation. If Lydia remained unmarried, then their family's reputation would be ruined and Darcy would never attach himself to them. On the other hand, if Lydia and Wickham did get married, then Darcy would be attaching himself to the same family as his mortal enemy. Unthinkable! The fact that he did just that, and that he spent a considerable amount of time and money to arrange Lydia's marriage, shows the depth of his love for Elizabeth. None of this was conveyed in the movie because Lydia's elopement was treated as merely a side point.

Beth -- I agree that the Lydia/Wyckham storyline was a little rushed, but to my viewing, it still served as the crucial event which allowed Darcy to demonstrate his ability to change for the better. It was something more than a side point, I think.

I too liked this movie a lot more than I expected to. They added some dialogue but I though it stayed true to the spirit of the story. As you all have pointed out this was certainly a more earthy film than the A&E; version. As yes, I agree that Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Collins were much more beleivable in this version. What I didn't like was that smarmy ending. I hated that ending. It was so from somewhere out in left field and ended what had been for me an enjoyable film on a somewhat sour note.