Well, boys and girls, let's get one thing straight right off the bat. The film under review here is not the recently released Pride and Prejudice (2005) (which Austenites call P&P3) starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen. Nor is it the ever popular A&E miniseries Pride and Prejudice (1995) (P&P2) starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. It's also not the farcical 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice (P&P0) with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. Nor is it the modernized LDS version, Pride & Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy (2003), or the Bollywood musical version Bride and Prejudice (2005). The movie reviewed here is the 1980 miniseries broadcast on television by the BBC (known as P&P1), which stars Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet and David Rintoul as Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy. I'm reviewing this version mainly for two reasons: (1) to complete my cycle of reviews of films adapting or based on my favorite novel, Pride and Prejudice, and (2) to provide a balancing opinion for what I view as excessively laudatory reviews and comments for this film already posted here at Epinions and at the Internet Movie Database. While the latter site includes both positive and negative comments, it's not until you get to the third page of comments in the group that you begin to encounter the negative ones. In the interest of ensuring that consumers won't have unduly elevated expectations in relation to this version of Pride and Prejudice, I offer my perspective. For what it's worth, I've owned this tape for several years and have seen it perhaps five times. I'm thoroughly acquainted with all of the Jane Austen novels and every film that has either adapted or been based on any of the novels.

Production Values: The script, written by Fay Weldon, for P&P1 is a mixed blessing. It's greatest strength, in my opinion, is that its dialog adheres more closely to Jane Austen's original language than any of the other film versions. Austen was a master at writing dialog and her witty use of language is one of the joys of her novels, so adherence to the original language is generally a plus for those of us who love Austen's prose. The down side of that faithfulness is that readable prose is not always the same thing as prose that sounds natural when delivered in conversation. The dialog in this version often sounds stilted and unnatural. The same point could be made about Shakespeare's dialog, but great Shakespearean performers have learned how to deliver lines from Shakespeare in a way that sounds natural even when the language is archaic. Great Shakespearean performers help audiences understand Shakespeare's difficult passages by the weight and inflection they give to various words as the speak the lines. Unfortunately, most of the performers utilized in P&P1 are not of that quality. Most of the performers, including, unfortunately, the two principal ones, sound very much like actors delivering lines in an amateur play rather than people conversing in real life. A few of the middle-aged actors, such as Michael Lees and Barbara Shelley, who play Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, deliver their lines naturally, but all of the actresses, excepting Sabina Franklyn (as Jane), who play the Bennet sisters are all too obviously performing parts rather than inhabiting their characters.

Elizabeth Garvie is not physically unsuitable to the part of Eliza Bennet. She has the right build. She's a bit too old for the role, but that's a problem for most of the film versions. Her face is pretty enough though not as appealing as any of the women who play the role in P&P0, P&P2, or P&P3. Elizabeth is not supposed to be as drop-dead gorgeous as Jane, but should be pleasing to gaze upon, with especially fine eyes, and a personality, intelligence, and expressiveness that enhances the beauty of her visage. I have a lot of appreciation for the ability of personality, demeanor, and facial expressiveness to enhance a woman's beauty. As a college professor dealing every year with young women (and men) in their prime, I've observed many times that some young women gain in attractiveness as you get to know their personality and mannerisms. The ones who seem most attractive at first are not always the same ones who seem most attractive after you come to appreciate the personality and expressiveness that each person brings to bear on their appearance. Elizabeth Garvie is pretty enough to be Elizabeth at first sighting but there is nothing about her behavior or facial expressions that enhances her looks. Her eyes are not "fine." In fact, her stare is harsh (and seems cross-eyed at times), and the facial expressions by which she manifests frustration, irritation, and mortification are rather unappealing. Like so many other aspects of this adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Garvie only matches Elizabeth in the letter of the description, but she doesn't match her in spirit or the deeper intents of the novel. Elizabeth Garvie doesn't grow on me over the course of the film; in fact, she becomes less and less interesting. Garvie's Elizabeth may be strong willed, but shows less composure, intelligence, and sense of humor than her counterparts in the other films. Garvie's resume only lists ten films and eight of those were the made-for-television variety.

Garvie's shortcomings are modest in comparison to those of David Rintoul as Darcy. Rintoul's credits include only one film outside of television (along with 18 television series, miniseries or movies). Pardon my bluntness, but Rintoul plays the part as though he has a broomstick perpetually stuck up his butt. Yes, Darcy is reticent when in company and excessively proud, but one of the points of the novel is that Elizabeth's initial impression of Darcy was prejudiced by his aristocratic manner. Then, her prejudice was further increased when she overheard his disdainful remark about herself and, again later, when she was mislead by Wickham's story. Darcy is supposed to have an aloof manner, but underlying that haughtiness and pride, both Elizabeth and we viewers are ultimately supposed to recognize in Darcy the kindness and warmth about which the housekeeper at Pemberley speaks. Rintoul gives us a fundamentally unlikable Darcy and one for whom Lizzie's initial impression seems more accurate, in the end, than her revised feelings of admiration. Quite honestly, when I watch this version, I find myself hoping that the Elizabeth will reject Rintoul's Darcy. Of course, I'd feel all the more strongly about that if Garvie's Elizabeth were more likable and desirable herself. When two fundamentally unappealing performers enact the world's greatest love story, it loses 90% of its appeal. Then, there's also very little chemistry between the two. The scene in which Darcy first proposes, which is supposed to be the story's highlight, comes across as two amateurs reciting memorized lines, without any spontaneity of feeling. It's all well and good for reviewers to assert that emotions were hidden beneath the surface in Regency England, but this is, after all, a love story. Without a palpable warmth and attraction between the two leads, the romance comes across as hollow.

Among the other roles, there are some casting strengths as well as some more deficits. Sabina Franklyn as Jane is the only one of the Bennet sisters who comes across as a real person. Tessa Peake-Jones, as Mary, overacts in her part. Although she spouts some pedantic nonsense from time to time, she also actually comes across as more appealing in this version than Elizabeth. She does a nice job with the line, "One coughs when one must, doesn't one?" Clare Higgins is never natural as Kitty, plus she's too tall and too old for the part. Can anyone claim that Clare Higgins looked like a girl of about 16? Lydia is never developed as a character in this version until after running away with Wickham. Then, after Lydia returns to Longbourn married, Natalie Ogle hams it up excessively in the role. Moray Watson is pretty good as Mr. Bennet and Priscilla Morgan is adequate as Mrs. Bennet, though nothing special. Judy Parfitt is very effective as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Osmund Bullock is ineffective as Bingley as is Marsha Fitzalan as Caroline Bingley. Malcolm Rennie is very good as Mr. Collins and Peter Settelen is adequate as Mr. Wickham.

Cyril Coke directed P&P1. The production values are nowhere close to the quality of any of the other true adaptations. The costumes and sets look cheap and stagy. There's very little opening up of the story to take advantage of the potentials of cinema. Compare, for example, how little of P&P1 takes place outdoors compared to the A&E version. The soundtrack is sometimes decent, but nowhere close to the brilliant soundtrack for P&P2. Worst of all, there are a couple of times during the film where the sound people introduce ridiculous "significant sounds" to accompany quick edits of the character's faces showing looks of drama or double-takes. It is exceedingly amateurish.

Bottom-Line: This version of Pride and Prejudice pretty much epitomizes what people sometimes criticize about BBC Masterpiece Theater kinds of productions: stilted, dry, slow, stagy, amateurish actors reciting lines as though they had just memorized them, and poor production values due to limited budgets. The film's biggest strengths are that it delivers many of Austen's best lines intact and includes a few scenes omitted from other film versions. Some of the supporting performers are good and provide another take of how different characters can be rendered. The film's biggest shortcomings are poor production values, a stiff, unyielding, and unemotional David Rintoul, and four (out of five) Bennet sisters, including Elizabeth, poorly cast and/or scripted. When the two leads in a romance sound like they're reciting lines rather than living their parts, no other aspect of the film will be enough to compensate.

Recommended:
Yes

Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 9 - 12