Mr. Darcy remains to be the single most popular and charming character to us and has been so for generations now, most of us would agree on that, at the same time, Pride and Prejudice remains to be the most frequently adapted story for the screen (TV or movies).
Please tell who among these handsome men fulfills your portray of Mr. Darcy.
Please tell who among these handsome men fulfills your portray of Mr. Darcy.
 |
| Darcy through the Ages |
Hmm, the only P&P adaptations I haven't seen are the Garson & Olivier version, the 80s one, and that modernized one with the curly-haired Darcy.
ReplyDeleteColin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen are the top contenders for me acting wise. Aesthetically, my favorite's Macfadyen, but with a 2 hour movie he doesn't really get enough time to develop the character as Firth does with the longer 6 hour one. I know people have said he makes Darcy seem more shy than actually proud, but apparently he took that straight from the script so I guess he can't be blamed. (And also Joe Wright hadn't even read the novel - only the script so I guess that's what he was going for.)
So I guess the short answer is Matthew Macfadyen :) Firth is the second.
You have hit the Bull's Eye! I also think the same thing, Macfadyen didn't have the luxury of six long hours to carve out his character, unlike Colin Firth. Both, Joe Wright and Macfadyen didn't read the book before filming, so, yes it was straight out of the screenplay and the script.
ReplyDeleteMy vote -- Macfadyen!
New follower chiming in... I agree with Lady Disdain and Pallavi on their assessments: Macfadyen first, and Firth second.
ReplyDeleteTotally happy!
ReplyDeleteFirth all the way. I did a college class and read all of Austen and I won't say that P&P is my fav (Lady Susan fan!) but I do enjoy the adaptions.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by my blog!
I'm surprised there are some gals who like MacFayden before Firth - I thought I was the only one! So, yeah my choice is MacFayden over Firth. :D
ReplyDeleteMacfadyen over Firth? Impossible! As you all agree, Macfadyen is not impersonating Darcy as Austen wrote him, but a sanitized version cooked up by whomever wrote the 2005's screenplay. Can't stand his nervous, timid, effeminate manner and countenance: is this the sort of character who makes women swoon? Maybe by today's dumbed-down standards but certainly not by Regency/Victorian ones. Besides, central to P&P is the journey Lizzy and Darcy both make as people, in overcoming their pride and prejudice, and this growth can not really be understood through Macfadyen's portrayal, thereby diminishing the drama. Besides, Firth is a better actor and so much better looking.
ReplyDeleteOkay, you are from Team Firth, some of us are from Team Macafdyen!
DeleteYou really loathe Pride and Prejudice 2005 and all its characters, don't you? It is okay, but some of us do find Macfadyen handsome and charming even though he is not the Darcy straight from the book
May I add to the above that perhaps the P&P and Mr. Darcy you all love is really "P&P for Dummies" or "Mr. Darcy for Dummies" but not Jane Austen's. Does anybody, Joe Wright, or whomever, think they can improve on Jane Austen, one of the greatest writers ever? One of the things that made the 1995 P&P is that the screenplay incorporates whole passages, yea, 90% of Jane Austen's dialogue as written, and so sublime is that language. To change it is to invite disaster, and that is indeed what Joe Wright did. 2005 is a travesty.
ReplyDeleteI do like a healthy discussion but I think this is going beyond that.
DeleteNo one was trying to improve upon Jane Austen, but I think directors have their vision and they try to materialize it on the screen, it's just that, and if there are people who appreciate that, I don't think they should be called DUMMIES.
I could write something about P&P 1995 which is not very decent (something which everyone must have noticed but never mentioned), but I am not doing that because there are people(like you) who like that version.
My dear Pallavi, I am so sorry to have given offense, but I think you misunderstand me. I am not calling you or anyone who cares for Joe Wright's "vision" a dummy! Rather, I am referring to the series of reference/instructional books covering a vast array of topics, e.g., "Windows 7 for Dummies" or even "Knitting for Dummies." These guides are beginner-friendly and obviously, not meant to be comprehensive in their coverage of a given topic. This is how I see Joe Wright's condensation, oversimplification and distortion, even, of P&P, as written by Jane Austen. In a similar vein, there are even "The Complete Idiot's Guide" series of reference books. Actually, I have even bought a few of the "Dummies" books, so I guess I am a dummy myself! These guides are a good place to start on a topic, and I guess the 2005 movie might be a somewhat suitable introduction to P&P, but hardly capturing its true beauty and scope. You can read about the "Dummies" reference works at Dummies.Com and even at Wikipedia. To be honest, I don't care for anything Joe Wright does, including "Atonement," which I thought was crass.
DeleteIf that's the case, it's fine!
DeleteYou're a dedicated Austen fan, I appreciate that.
I prefer the 1980 version with David Rintoul because he had the aristocratic features and his characterization was very true to the book. I have enjoyed many of the variations recently in print. I think my favorite is where Darcy is an assassin and Elizabeth discovers his secret.
ReplyDelete