Darcy, Lizzy and the moral vision of Jane Austen

Once again: What is Job 1 for those who control pop-culture franchises?

Once again, I need to apologize to the unknown — and search-engine invisible — person who created a quote that I want to share. I admit that there is some chance that I created the quote, but it sounds way too literate to have been created by yours truly.

OK, here goes: While the 2005 Hollywood hit “Pride & Prejudice” includes some fine performances and stunning cinematography, it has one major flaw. It feels like Jane Austen when the scenes are indoors and Emily Bronte (“Wuthering Heights”) when the drama is outdoors.

Here’s a funny example — the 2005 scene in which the protagonist Elizabeth “Lizzy” Bennet travels with family into the rocky hills near the country estate of Fitzwilliam Darcy, known to millions and millions of readers as “Mr. Darcy.” Is Lizzy impressed with the scenery and, later, the wonders of the Pemberley mansion and its vast grounds?

That is obvious in the book. But watch the clip at the top of this post! I have to admit that, when I saw this in a large theater, I laughed out loud. It’s beautiful, but ridiculous. One gust of wind from the wrong direction and Lizzy’s flowing, flapping travel dress would have pulled her right over the edge of that cliff, giving Austen’s 1813 novel a rather different ending.

But to “get” the heart (and mind) of the matter, watch this scene from the classic 1995 BBC miniseries version of “Pride and Prejudice.” Note how Elizabeth struggles to restrain herself as she rejects Mr. Darcy’s proposal in a manner that is both articulate, clipped and quietly furious. The dignified, but trapped, Darcy is ashamed, stunned and hurt — but he remains a gentleman.

Contrast that version, which makes every attempt to reflect Austen’s text and the manners of the age, with this version of the same scene from the, yes, much shorter and wildly dramatic 2005 movie.

I find myself in total agreement with the Think Thing video essay (embedded below) contrasting the two versions.

For starters, listen to the music (it’s a great score on its own) as this scene begins. It’s a different mood, isn’t it? Rather dramatic and emotional, right?

How would you describe the appearance of the two leads in the 1995 version and then the 2005 take? There are strong emotions in both, but what emotions are most viewers going to take away from the newer version?

My question: What are the cultures in which these two encounters take place? I find it impossible to believe that the 2005 version takes place in the same culture as the 1995 version, and it is certainly not the culture of Jane Austen.

Watch this, please. It’s only seven. minutes long. Notice, in particular, it’s dissection (5:30 minutes in) of Mr. Darcey’s first proposal. There is power in both film versions, but what kind of power? What kind of personal chemistry is on display?

To be blunt, which version is “hotter”?

Now, back to that “Jane Austen indoors vs. Emily Bronte outdoors” quip.

What is the essential worldview that most critics assign to Bronte’s classic? Here is an AI take on that from Google world:

In Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights, the novel explores intense and complex emotions, including romantic love, but also revenge, jealousy, and obsession, often presented in a way that challenges conventional romantic notions. While the novel features romantic relationships, it also delves into the darker aspects of love and passion, highlighting their destructive potential.

I would argue that we are talking about “Romanticism” with a big, big “R.”

What about Austen? There are legions of different takes on the beliefs and goals of this great writer.

As a male Jane Austen fan, I see her critiquing and even satirizing the traditions and cultures of her day, while writing from INSIDE THEM. She is contrasting the “sense” and the “sensibility” seen in the lives of her characters, including the various forces that form marriages. Along this line, I highly recommend this Elizabeth Kantor book, “The Jane Austen Guide to Happily Ever After.” Guys may want to buy a digital copy or (safely) wrap the book in plain paper to hide the pink cover.

To offer a quick summary, I asked Grok this question: “Is Jane Austen a Romantic writer, with a capital R?” Here is some of the result:

Jane Austen is not typically considered a Romantic writer in the strict sense of the literary movement (with a capital "R"). Romanticism, which flourished from the late 18th to early 19th centuries, emphasized emotion, individualism, imagination, and a reverence for nature, often rejecting societal constraints and celebrating the sublime. Writers like William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lord Byron, and Mary Shelley are quintessential Romantics, with their focus on intense feelings, the supernatural, and rebellion against neoclassical restraint.

Austen, writing during the same period (her novels were published between 1811 and 1818), is more closely aligned with the realism and social satire of the Enlightenment and the emerging novel tradition. Her works, such as *Pride and Prejudice* and *Sense and Sensibility*, focus on domestic life, social hierarchies, marriage, and moral behavior, often with a sharp, ironic lens. While she explores emotions and individual character development, her approach is grounded in reason, wit, and social observation, not the ecstatic or transcendent ideals of Romanticism.

Moral behavior is at the heart of the worldview of this amazing writer, who was the daughter of an Anglican priest. Faith plays a role in her work and, yes, the institutional church gets its share of satirical attention.

But what is Jane Austen’s worldview? To be blunt, morality is the lens through which she views the lives of the women in her novels and their attempts to discern which men are truly good, and trustworthy, as opposed to those who merely look good.

Thus, let me conclude by pointing back to this post from a few days ago: “What is Job 1, when you run a pop super-franchise?”

In her own way, Jane Austen has become a pop super-franchise. Thus, I will ask: To what degree should screenwriters and directors be faithful to her views on life, love, morality and faith?

If that is the case, what was the goal of the 2005 film? I assume, the main goal was to appeal to fans of modern romantic (as in “Romantic”) movies.

Now, before someone asks: My favorite Jane Austen adaption is the 1995 movie “Persuasion,” starring Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. It’s a very complex plot, built on twists and turns in the lives of two mature adults. But if you love the book, this final scene is devastating in its own quiet way.

What think ye?