The reason the costumes are all wrong is because they made them reuse the stuff from Gone With the Wind to save money in the budget. As to why the story is all wrong (who the hell makes Lady Catherine into a good person??), that is for a reason I cannot fathom besides someone was either very drunk or very high.
Oddly, to my mind this version is the only one that actually makes any logical sense - in all other versions Lady Catherine seems to pick the idea of a Darcy/Lizzie engagement out of thin air, which given her remarkably inattentive and self absorbed attitude at Rosings in both the 1995 and 2005 productions makes little sense at all. In this version that considerable plot hole is covered by Darcy using Lady Catherine to sniff out Lizzie's state of mind on marriage to him, which is the only sensible reason for her to know such a thing given that she communicated no such interest to Charlotte Lucas or her husband Mr Collins. In this version Lady Catherine also seems to actually notice Darcy's attention to Lizzie at Rosings, notice AND attempt to counter.
Kenny Hill, what’s great about Austen is that she doesn’t spell it out for you. You have to use some deduction skills to figure out who told Lady Catherine. It’s not that hard. Clearly, Charlotte picks up on the fact that something is going on between Darcy and Elizabeth. In fact, at one point during Elizabeth‘s visit at Charlotte’s house, we see Charlotte come in just as Darcy is leaving. Charlotte even comments on it. So, Charlotte picks up on it and makes mention to Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins would no doubt, mention it to Lady Catherine. In fact, he’s so egotistical that he would’ve likely bragged that he and Lady Catherine would soon be related through marriage. As that went over about as well as one would expect with Lady Catherine, Mr. Collins hurried to write his cousin, Mr. Bennett, to warn him against the match.
She was not a nice book, or in the 1995 series, or the 2005 movie. Total nonsense, didn’t they read the source material. I also think the actors are too old, Lizzie was only 20 and Darcy about 27. Terrible interpretation
kroakie4 YOU WIN!!! 😂😂😂 Sadly I agree. Olivier and Garson are legendary actors to be sure, but this adapatation of P and P is just...WRONG. Adapting to other periods is one thing, Lizzie Bennet Diaries proves it can work, but this is just weird as hell!
Don't be too upset, just enjoy it..It was made in 1939, an American film...one of the screen writers was Aldous Huxley and it was adapted from a stage version as well as the book. It was supposed to be filmed in England but the war broke out. It got great reviews because on its own merits, as it was witty and delivered as a "comedy of manners" . I imagine that with a war going on, it was a wonderful diversion. One of the changes involved the dropping of the minister and making him into a librarian because the Production Codes stipulated that film could not make fun of clergy!
So delightful! Not true to the book much, but that doesn't ruin it for me. Lawrence Olivier as Darcy is so good looking, he's hard to hate! I really felt bad for him when he got refused the first time, and I've never felt that way about any other Darcy. Mrs Bennet's accent is cracking me up: Mr DARSAAYYYY. This ending is so ridiculous! Very creative, I love it.
This was just a splashy MGM (I think) costume drama, where the writing,etc, played 2nd fiddle to the costumes and sets. and as far as Mr. Olivier is concerned, he wanted Vivien Leigh as his Eliza Bennet, so his disinterest in Miss Garson, is pretty obvious.
people have very decided opinions about which version of P&P they prefer, and it always seems to hinge on who they prefer as Darcy. I rather like the 1995 version, but the 2005 version was also quite impressive.
@@sherryduggar8821 My friend and I laughed through the 2005 version...what a joke! The 1980 BBC series was excellent, close to the 1995 version. Truer to the characters...
Ugh, the entire 2005 film was like watching someone try and play every speaking scene on fast forward - it looks nice and the score is good, that's the only good thing I can say about it. Keira Knightley seems to have only 2 methods of expression, pouting or looking lost staring while into space throughout the film, a million miles from the nuanced and expressive performance of Jennifer Ehle. The 1995 series was superior to the 2005 film in almost every possible way where the speaking/acting was concerned - while the 1940 film has problems it does not feel rushed, while the 2005 film feels like the word rush was on the script directions for every scene.
Just saying... Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is closer to the source material. This doesn't feel nor look nor sound like Darcy and Lizzie. Lily James and Sam Riley kicking undead asses together feels more fitting than them here smiling all the time in their frilly costumes.
@@elizabethmcnamara6548 Closer to period, but ridiculously rushed - it would have been better to cut material entirely than to rush it the way the 2005 film did. They basically tried to condense the best speaking parts of the 1995 TV series into a 2 hour film while leaving time for score and nice cinematography interludes with zero speaking - in short it was not at all ideal.
@@elizabethmcnamara6548 Actually, given the Grot and the Character / Mores shifts in the 2005 movie, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a FAR better adaptation of Austen's World!
It's sad this movie is so underrated just because it doesn't stick to the book. Personally, it didn't bother me, the initial spirit is still here, and Elizabeth's sarcasm and wittiness is just great in this. And I like Laurence Olivier as Mr Darcy.
Yess, like although I don’t know if anything can top the 1995 one, this one was still super enjoyable, and though a lot of things were one event after the next for the time frame, I love the scenes between Elizabeth and Darcy. I’m also kinda happy for Mary since I feel bad for her in the other movies and it was nice to see an almost overall happy ending for a change of perspective.
I really liked this version. As a PnP fan, I just can't get enough of this story. I found this version utterly hilarious. A very feel good movie. Also very keeping with early 1940 MGM formula. I adored Lizzie here. Her father as well! A very funny and light rendition every PnP fan should watch. Only bothersome matter is Darcy's openness. But damn if those new scenes didn't make me squeal in delight! That archery scene was so cute! Also, Caroline is such a beauty in this one!
This movie was my first introduction to the world of Jane Austen when I was 8, and I have loved it ever since. Though taking liberties with the storyline, some characters personalities, and costumes (which one can forgive given the era it was made), overall it does remain true to the essential spirit of Jane Austen's novel - being a comedic study of human nature. I just love Mrs Bennett's complete turnaround at the end when she goes from being completely anti-Mr Darcy to considering him her favourite future son-in-law. The acting is superb, and is of a more refined, sincere quality than you get with many of the more modern versions. When Mr Darcy reveals the truth about Wickham in this movie I always want to give him a hug - he seems so genuinely hurt and sad for his sister's suffering. Overall, unless you're a modern cinema snob, or an overly-rigid Austen fan, than this movie is enjoyable, with many fine performances given by brilliant actors and actresses.
@@rmp7400 💖 He had some wonderful films in his early years. Yes, indeed, he was married to Vivien for over 40 years until they divorced. Vivien famously said he couldn’t love anyone more than he loved himself. 😅
Why are the Bennets dressed so grandly?! They are supposed to have limited means. Changing the fashions of the time to these clothes is just unforgivable. This version completely slaughtered Austen's visions and disrespected the times she lived in! And don't even get me started on the mannerisms of this Mr. Darcy... I can't even watch, I simply can't lol
Actually, what happened was that the studio had some budget problems while filming the movie so they decided to reuse 'Gone With The Wind...' costumes. Ultimately, therefore, they know the time period of the clothes was wrong, but it was their financial alternative - not that it justifies or anything, but it helps us understand some of the movie's choices (:
DudsCampos I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. These fashions are from an entirely different time than GWTW, actually 30 years before. Producer Irving Thalberg decided to set the story in the 1830s as to him the original fashions of the 1810s felt less appealing and too bland. (The complete wardrobe of GWTW was under lock at Selznick Int. - MGM only distributed and co-financed, but was never involved in any great details of production matters at GWTW)
Willem Hermann My knowledge comes solely from IMDb trivia, so I might indeed be mistaken, but it is the only explanation I've ever found for the costumes worn in P&P
Lynn Abbud They have limited means in the exact same way your average person with a low seven figure income just can't quite keep up with people who have high seven figure incomes. How sad. No, the problem the Bennet daughters face is not that the family is poor, but that the wealth is entirely tied up in the estate which will go to someone else, and their parent's can't be bothered to save. That and they really aren't ready to deal with the lower middle class existence they'd be able to afford on the 5,000 pounds from Mrs. Bennet's dowry.
Accuracy apart, I find this film wonderful and so uplifting. Along with Casablanca and the Adventures of Robin Hood, it is a world with restored order and a happy ending.
I grant your point that Austen is anything but "cute," so it would make sense to propose--as you do--that such "cuteness" is a surprise in a film that "stick[s] to the original story." However, I am ultimately confused about your claim since this movie, in fact, takes many liberties with the story, including in this scene, and can't very well be said to "stick to the original."
Best best actors of Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett ever filmed. And very artistic direction set design and costuming. Possible 6 to 8 hour film into 2 hours was amazingly created.
People are a bit over reacting here. I 100% that its fare from the real thing but really its just a romantic/ comedy of P&P thats all. And for a romantic comedy adaptation its really good. At least i really enjoy it lolll
My favorite part of the ENTIRE movie is when they're making excuses to get away from Mrs. Bennet and are talking over one another so awkwardly and adorably. It's a moment that's over very quickly, but it makes me giggle like nothing else. If you're a fan of "Pride and Prejudice", you really have to be in the right frame of mind to watch this adaptation, to accept that it's totally different and just have fun on the ride. Not always easy for someone like me who prefers things more true-to-book, but I've managed to make allowances for this film and can laugh my way through it.
I must say that I am rather fond of this film. Sure, it has many faults and the costumes are wrong, but it was my first introduction to Jane Austen. I saw it on TV when I was 9 or 10 years old (in 1975 or 1976) and I loved it. Of course I didn´t know anything of Jane Austen at the time and afterwards I couldn´t even remember the name of the film, but I called it "the funny film with the silly woman who wanted to marry her daughters". When I was 20 years old I saw a copy of the book "Pride and Prejudice" for the first time and realized that it was the book of the film. Despite all its faults the film contains enough of Austen´s wit to make me remember it always.
Hello Una, I totally agree. I think I was about 14 when I read the book and saw the movie when I was about 16 (ish). I found the book in my school library _ and then devoured anything written by Austen. Of course there was a lot wrong with it, but there was so much that was right as well. Wonderful memories!!🥰
all this negativity in the comments is over exaggerating.. this film is charming and yes- the costumes aren’t correct but it’s because they reused so many extra Gone With The Wind costumes- and the costume designer, Adrian, didn’t like the Regency style costumes for the film so he decided to go with these. It’s worth a watch just for Greer and Laurence though 🥰
How can people compare this movie to the 2005 movie or the 1995 mini series? I mean the context is totally different... THIS movie is an old HOLLYWOOD movie from the 40s ! It was released one year after Gone with the wind, which was such a huge success. Yes, it's not a good adaptation of Jane Austen's novel, but it's a good old Hollywood movie ! The spirit is there, Laurence Olivier is so handsome and a very pleasant Darcy, Lizzie's wit is there too. Yes, the acting seems ridiculous, yes the hair and costumes are wrong, but it's a movie from the 40s, made by Americans, one year after Gone with the wind, what did you expect? I loved watching this movie ! Watch it as an old Hollywod movie in black and white, as the first movie inspired by a Jane Austen's novel!
He was extremely handsome don't see that anymore they don't look like him or Tyrone Power, so many then were so handsome and could act also that's why they were really stars back then! miss it. all time greats are gone now!
I have seen many versions of Jane Austen's book, but keep coming back to this 1940 film. I like it very much. The cast might be too old for their parts, but the film is a delight! Lord Olivier is the best Darcy of them all! Miss Garson is a wonderful Elizabeth! I know a lot will disagree. It is old fashion and a bit corny but that is what I like about it.
I agree that this version is the most fun of any adaptation, and Olivier is a matchless Darcy; MGM broadened and over-animated it all (include sweetening Lady Catherine) so that it's more Dickens than Austen, but once you adjust to this it's a happy experience. Aldous Huxley had a hand in the screenplay, which adds considerably to its interest.
I was always told that they made Lady Catherine likeable in the end because in 1940, the US had not entered the war and they didn't want any anti British sentiment. Lawrence Olivier had wanted his wife, Vivian Leigh, to play Elizabeth but producers wanted an actress not prettier than Jane. That part never made sense because in all the movies, the actresses playing Elizabeth were prettier.
@@granny58 I'm afraid they will... Mr Darcy stripping off to jump in lakes was taking a liberty with the character and it was both incongruous and cringe worthy... Lydia in the novel is silly, self willed, ignorant and vain, but not crude. Alison Steadman somehow manages to make Mrs Bennett unfunny .. Even good versions have faults
This was an amazing film .with some wonderful actors. I have only ever seen it twice but that makes it more special. The first time was when I was a little girl with my Mother..And the second time was with my own daughters.
Everyone should consider that this MGM version of Pride & Prejudice was the one initially seen by the greatest numbers early on and was quite good for the time when it was done....both Greer Garson & Laurence Olivier were amazing actors along w/the rest of the cast. It’s not my favorite version now (the 1995 British drama is THE BEST in my opinion) but I respect this one too.
Oh I absolutely agree, the 1995 version is amazing and is by far my favorite, but this one is so fun to watch even if doesn't match the book in most its details, great movie and I loved Greer Garson's portrayal of Lizzy
I thought this too at the beginning but you should give a chance. Once you stop thinking about “how it’s supposed to be”, it’s really a lovely movie. And really funny!
After watching the whole film, I like how Greer Garson saves it from the Hollywoodesque adaptation, capturing Lizzy character in spite of all the atrocities committed against Jane's Austen novel.
Film adaptations always have to condense everything into 2 hours-ish. They always 'play' with the plot. But you can still enjoy the "essence" of the original book.
This version was so so so far from the book. the costumes aren't even accurate. most of the scenes that make it so memorable are misplaced in this one. although I enjoy re watching it every once in a while. it's not the best adaption. in fact it's probably the worst.
This film is one of my favorites. I love this scene. Great actors and wonderful delivery. Like most classic films it has quality dialogue, real acting talent, I feel a film should make you walk away feeling like you are floating on a cloud not rutting around in modern day graphic gutter- being real. Who needs that. I have had a real life and I want a film to be like a wonderful dream, which this version of the film succeeds in making me feel the wonders of true love.
People who say the costumes are all off as is the era don’t seem to realize that even in this era those same etiquette still existed so it’s still relevant... I for one love this version in addition to the bbc version with Colin Firth I find both very charming!
They changed the period for the film on purpose because they wanted the more romantic style of Victorian fashion (voluminous sleeves and skirts) over the Regency style (empire-waist dresses). And I personally think Olivier makes the best Darcy of 'em all. :)
This film distorted Darcy's introverted character And why would Lady Catherine help Elizabeth? Lizzie looks more rich than Darcy? They made life look like bed of roses... And every decision taken by Elizabeth to be considered righteous. No morals in this story at all. As if she didn't have to take any risks at all
When this version was made, the movies were an escape from dark times. They were supposed to be pleasant and happy. Your "morals" are the average millennial self righteous prig type. People's ideas of morality were totally different in Jane Austen's time. Don't kid yourself that you're "superior", because you come from a different time/culture.
I get that Greer Garson was too old for the part but Sir Laurence Olivier was the image of Darcy that I had in my head when I read the book. Absolutely and utterly hated Kiera Knightly's version of Lizzie. Her mannerisms were far too modern - she came across too much of a brat. Watched the BBC TV version with Colin Firth and of all the versions, it stands the test of time best.
it's remarkable to read the reviews here, that are so often negative. I cannot imagine that modern directors, much less actors imagined that they could improve on these actors. Of course the modern ones are far longer, but Carson is simply superb in this scene, every bit the match for Olivier. Probably paid a fraction of what he got.
'That man' is Laurence Olivier, one of the greatest screen actors and thespians of the 20th Century. Everybody seems to be forgetting that this film was made in 1940, just around one of the times when Hollywood was at its greatest. The 'affected', 'gay' etc etc acting you're accusing these stars of is what was considered the very best kind of acting at the time. Also, Pride and Prejudice has had a fanbase since last century...
I actually found the entire movie on some dodgy Russian website. I enjoyed it much more than I expected. It stayed much truer to the orginal story than I thought it would.
I'd just like to point out that context helps when you're scratching your head as to why this version is so 'weird'. Just remember that the 1930s and 40s were a different time period in movie making and what was normal then is weird to us now. Films were a lot more lighthearted and sentimental back then, the style of comedy that was in vogue was 'screwball' e.g. My Man Godfrey and It Happened One Night. Another thing is that film adaptations of novels back then were often very liberal with interpretation and creative freedom, it is only fairly recently that the trend of 'staying true to the book' became a thing; if you watch more classics adapted into film from the 1930s - 1950s you'll see what I mean. In conclusion, it might all seem very odd to us now but if you're like me and love old cinema, you'll enjoy it for all of its cheesy quirks. 😆
I feel the same ! so much liberties were taken lol I mean Lady Catherine turned into a match maker lol and obviously the 1995 version is and always will be the best but good God lollll I still love this movie! Got to admit, Launrence Oliver is one classy, handsome man loll
This is actually Darcy's THIRD proposal. It would be great if the person who has the ability to post these clips would post the second proposal - it's such a great scene.
If you forget that this is what America thought that Jane Austin was like. Wrong costumes - war time economy - wrong hair, sets, dialogue, in fact wrong everything. Just focus on Olivier’s voice. Only a couple of years later he was back home making Henry V. Again hampered by war time shortages, but so brilliantly acted you had to overlook that. Listen to the voice and forget it’s supposed to be P & P.
May I admit (ashamedly) I have never read the whole bookI loved this adaptation but on reading comments will read the book and hope to enjoy whole heartedly what most comments show.;
Ok, this is not a faithful adaption of Pride and Prejudice, but I think us not liking it because of that is a snobbery level worthy of Lady Catherine. The story is very fun and the movie is hilarious. Just goes to show that Pride and Prejudice is so perfect that you could base any story off it and it can still be good. I know this because I have read a lot of published fanfiction of it and as cheesy as those stories were I still enjoyed them thoroughly (Looking at you, "Unleashing Mr Darcy").
Geez the negative comments on here thank god I was introduced to tcm when I was in my twenty's. Oh and this version of pride&prejudice puts the others to shame.
Sorry but what is wrong with all of you? I love this version! It captures the spirit of the book even if certain details were changed. Don't be so literal-minded, it's called creative liberty. I also like the 1995 BBC version, but hated the one with Keira Knightley, it's much too modernized and self-serious. This one is lighthearted, romantic and full of exceptional actors - nothing "wrong" with it at all.
I think the biggest charm in this, is how fast paced it is, barely a moment to draw breath. But, possibly, if it had been given a couple of episode to fresh it out a bit more, than this might have given 1995 a run for its money.
Laurence Olivier is inhumanly handsome and wonderful in this as always, but everything else about this film is like nails on chalkboard -- excruciating to sit through. And Greer Garson is spectacularly horrendous as Lizzie, besides being *WAY* too old. Utterly dreadful... and to think this abomination was scripted by none other than Aldous Huxley!!!
Although this movie is far from being a good adaptation from the novel and not that good of a movie on its on, i can't help but smile everytime i watch this scene! What can I say? I genuely feel their affection for eachother in this and I will always love the Lizzie and Darcy confession scene no matter the adaptation
Though I truly love the Keira Knightly version, this film I think remains the definitive take on the book. Yes, it wanders from the time period, yes, it wanders from the plot, yes it makes the awful Lady Catherine into a cute marriage maker, it does so much else that should be considered intolerable but there you have it, it still is the most interesting film adaptation of the book.
I wish they'd spent the money to film this version in color. Gone With the Wind was released in 1939 in full color, as what part of The Wizard of Oz. Despite the costumes being from the wrong era, this would have been just beautiful in technicolor.
