I'm an English professor, specializing in Austen's time period, and I love her books--have read all of them many times. I loved this movie, also. Yeah, it's not BBC-ish superfaithful to the book. I teach "the book vs. the movie" in most of my classes, using many different book/film combos, and this is what I tell them: a movie adaptation is an interpretation of a text, i.e., someone's reading. No more, no less. How hard is this to understand? I get it that people love their books and all, but what they love is their own interpretation. That's fine, but what is wrong with looking at someone else's interpretation, just for kicks, just to see if something interesting can be gleaned from another person's interpretation? This movie version made sense to me--there IS an incipient romanticism in Austen's books--anyone's who's read Persuasion should see that. Yes, they're funny, yes, they skewer cheesy, hypocritical, mean-spirited and small behavior. But they are also about the transforming power of love for the protagonists. Sentimental and romantic are not the same thing. I'm surprised that someone who considers herself a Janeite isn't able to make that sort of distinction.

I also teach English -- and never allow a student to critique a film by simply arguing that it is different than the book it is based on. A film is by necessity different than a book. It requires a unique interpretation of its subject.

That said, kimjacobs is off base in her response to Gina Fattore -- unless she thinks all interpretations are equally sound. Certainly if I were to let out a long fart, and say that this fart was my interpretation of Pride and Prejudice, this would be a bad interpretation (well, at the very least a lazy and unsatisfying one). And while my fart would also be a worse interpretation than the film in question, this doesn't mean that the film might not also be a mediocre or bad interpretaion. Or, at least, that the film might provide a weaker interpretation than does Gina Fattore.

In fact, I appreciate Gina Fattore's critique of the film as bad. She doesn't say it was bad just because it was different. She makes a case, rather, that it has inferior aesthetic sensibilities than the Novel. Moreover, her critique makes me want to look at the Novel again. The film did not. Her critique is engaging. The film was dis-engaging.

I will never understand why Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters are so often compared. While on the surface the comparison seems valid, both write about women and love, they display a shocking variance in both mood and style. Austen favors the witty, back-and-forth banter that showcases the quick intelligence and cheery disposition typical in her heroines, while the Bronte sisters were melancholy brooders of the most sincere mien and could go pages without any dialogue to speak of, providing us a view of their characters rich inner lives. The Bronte sisters wrote of complex women and possessed a knack for grotesque plot twists and profound psychological insight. Definitely nothing like the ever-so-clever romantic misunderstandings (regardless of how sarcastic the intent) favored by Austen. So let's do both groups of women a great favor and stop the comparisons.

i may not be 18-25 or particularly "romantic", but i disagree with ms. fattore--this movie hit my buttons. despite the fact i'm single, 30-something, and have cats (oh, horrors!), i've also read every word jane austen has ever written and seen every film interpretation of pride and prejudice i've been able to get my eyes on (direct interpretations of the novel from 1940, 1952, 1958, 1967, 1980, 1995, and 2005, many other indirect interpretations, like "bridget jones" and "bride and prejudice," etc).

i wholeheartedly agree that this particular interpretation is not true to the novel. but i'm thankful for that instead of resentful. why on earth would anyone believe a film could (or should) capture the wit and satire of an austen novel? even if a film truthfully portrayed austen's dialogue, it's the reader's juicy internalized interpretation of her dialogue, and her subsequent reflections on humankind, that makes the novel fulfilling, or even relevant in modern society.

imagine standing in the most beautiful vista you've ever seen. (the grand canyon? the alps? the dead sea?). now think back to the photographs you took while visiting that vista. did they come close to capturing the all-encompasing reality that you experienced at that one moment in time? i expect not.

go a step further--if ansel adams (insert any other extraordinary photographer) was standing next to you, would they posess the skills to fully capture your perspective and experience? again, i expect not.

this is the limitation of film--film is static. words, on the other hand, because they are interpretive, are alive. every reader of pride and prejudice (millions of them? billions?) has had a distinct interpretation of the novel. yet, when condensed to film, there is only one visual/auditory interpretation--that of the writer or editor or director or director of photography, etc.

we must be content to view film interpretations of the novels we love as we view photographs of the places or people we love--as a relatively simple interpretation of (or insight into) the heart of the subject. i've learned to be inspired by other people's photographs, and their interpretation of the things i hold dear. instead of feigning offense because one person's interpretation doesn't synch with mine, i've learned to celebrate the enrichment another person's perspective brings to my understanding of the subject.

while this most recent pride and prejudice may have taken greater liberties than many of those before it, i believe it also provided a unique perspective on the novel. through the first half of the movie, i felt assalted by the film's energy, but slowly got drawn into appreciating the elements that were different (and decidedly more modern) about this version--the exaggerations inherent in the actors' appearances, elizabeth's precious rolling of her eyes as she enters darcy's estate for the first time, etc. but these details enhanced my fantasy about the novel instead of limiting it.

maybe all of us jane austen-lovers should just spend a weekend taking in the album of film devoted to pride and prejudice. until then, perhaps we can agree to absorb each interpretation as it comes along--because i'm sure each one we absorb inspires us to think again about what we loved about the novel in the first place.

at least, i know i've picked my well-worn copy up for another read.