Whether or not a film remains as true to the novel as possible or far it deviates from the original has been argued by critics and audiences for a century now. There are many major differences between Jane Austen’s book Pride and Prejudice and the 2005 film adaptation that starred Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet. The book, published in 1813, was intended as a satire and a comedy of manners. The film released in 2005 was a full-blown romance. The time period is different. Much of the dialog is different. In fact, aside from the names and some of the classic lines from the book, faithful readers and devotees of Jane Austen know immediately that the film does not convey the same theme and spirit. The novel is set in the 19th century. The Bennet girls are desperate to get wealthy husbands for all five of them with their mother’s eager assistance. Pride and Prejudice used the contrivance of satire in order to move the characters through time and events. In the end, most of the characters learn valuable moral lessons. Some remain unrepentant, such as Lydia and Wickham, however the reader senses they will learn the error of their ways soon enough. Most of the characters are revealed to an extent by their foibles. The main characters experience a change of heart by the end of the novel (Austen 1990). In the novel, the scenes between Elizabeth and Mr. Collins, especially his marriage proposal, were farcical and hilarious. Throughout much of the novel, the comedy of manners plays out with clever repartee. The book has a happy ending for Elizabeth who is not quite pretty, but has fine eyes. She marries the tall, dark, handsome, wealthy, and no longer brooding Mr. Darcy. He has become completely devoted to her (Austen 1990). The 2005 film adaptation is set during a different era, the 18th century. The film is not a satire. Instead of being zealous and ridiculous husband-hunters, the female Bennets of the film are depicted in a strictly romantic way. By casting Kiera Knightley as the lead character the film’s deviation from the novel begins (Wright & Austen, et al 2006). Knightly is a raving beauty no matter how bad her haircut. Much her interpretation of Elizabeth is that of slouching, smirking tomboy. In the novel, Miss Bennet is out-spoken and known for her enjoyment of long walks no matter the weather. In the film, Miss Bennet is an unladylike and downright messy. An educated guess about the reason for the difference between the novel and the 2005 film would begin with money. Younger audiences, who make up the majority of paying movie customers, would not be drawn to see a film that was a classic. Characters in regency period novels like Austen’s are circumspect, if sometimes foolish, and care about things like honor and etiquette. The audience for the 2005 film was probably drawn by the beautiful Kiera Knightly as well as the promise of a tumultuous sweeping romance. The filmmakers assumed that the new generation of Pride and Prejudice fans would be bored with double entendre, subtle sarcasm, and drawing room farce. The issue of film adaptation is as old the film industry. By the early 1900s, film had begun replacing the novel as a recreational pastime. In silent films, the writers adapted novel uses limited amounts of words and much action. Films were very short, a matter of minutes in some cases. While writers had labored for centuries to make their novels real to audience and in-depth explorations of character and themes, the film tried to convey the same message in a capsule format (McFarlane, 1996). Many film critics from earliest film history have complained that novels are not suitable for film adaptation. There is no way to remain faithful to hundreds of pages of literary achievement in a fraction of the space. Some modern authors deliberately write their novels so that the novel will be adaptable to the screen. Such was not the case with Jane Austen. Thus, the transfer of beloved works such as Pride and Prejudice garner reactions that range from criticism to outrage by readers and devotees of the book. However, the younger audiences who are the primary financial supporters of films and the film industry were raised on cinematic productions. The sweeping angles and vistas of the 2005 film, the clothing, the many close-up of the beautiful Knightly appeal to a generation (or two) who never read the book. Human folly is a recurring theme in the novel but not in the film. Knightley scampering about looking disheveled and then revealing herself secretly gorgeous in, for example, her nightgown (that never would have happened in the book readers scream) is a recurring theme in the film. Filmgoers want to see adaptations of novels; in fact, it can be argued that younger filmgoers want to see film adaptations instead of reading novels. The onus of remaining true to the novel is one accepted, or in some cases completely, ignored by the filmmaker. The issues of film adaptation are not new, they have bee argued for a century now (McFarlane, 1996). Austen was revolutionary in her time. Her message was aimed at her contemporaries who married for money and position in favor of other concerns, for example love and happiness. Filmgoers want to see romantic love with someone good-looking and rich. While Austen used satire to make a broader moral point, the 2005 film producers chose to take advantage of the fame of the novel and the idea of romance without the moral lesson attached.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg, 1990. Internet resource.McFarlane, Brian. Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Print.Wright, Joe, and Jane Austen, et al. Pride & Prejudice. Universal City, CA: Universal Studios Home Entertainment, 2006.
