Pride and Prejudice

Recently the basis for a well-regarded BBC miniseries, Jane Austen's 1813 comedy-of-manners is transposed to a contempo American college town in director Andrew Black's splendidly, surprisingly charming "Pride & Prejudice." Taking inspiration from Amy Heckerling's "Clueless" (loosely based on Austen's "Emma"), pic transforms its source material into a bubbly, pastel-colored frolic, while adhering closely to Austen's essential themes. Bolstered by a strong cast of relative newcomers, pic is much smarter than the fare usually pitched at its targeted teen ticket-buyers. However, the lack of name thesps (save for Carmen Rasmusen in a cameo) means careful grassroots marketing will be required for pic, which opens in limited release on Dec. 5. Modern-dress makeovers of "P & P" are all the rage nowadays, with writer Helen Fielding citing the book as the inspiration for her "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "Bend It Like Beckham" director Gurinder Chadha currently at work on the Bollywood-style "Bride and Prejudice," due next year.

This considerably lower-profile entry, cleverly scripted by Anne Black, Jason Faller and Katherine Swigert, actually represents the latest in a wave of independently-financed films made in and around the Utah area by predominately Mormon (or Latter-day Saints) filmmakers. (It's even subtitled "a latter-day comedy" in the advertising.) However, whereas such niche LDS successes as "The Other Side of Heaven" and the films of Richard Dutcher have distinctly religious themes, "Pride & Prejudice" is a movie in which the characters just happen to be Mormon.

Most non-LDS audiences may not even detect the movie's LDS content, and yet the substitution of a present-day Mormon setting for Austen's Regency England is an inspired one, given the correlation between the two cultures' emphasis on traditional values and, most importantly, marriage.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife," Austen famously wrote at the beginning of her novel, before detailing the efforts of her plucky heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, to find the right such man. Likewise, the movie's Elizabeth (Kam Heskin), a student and bookstore clerk with dreams of becoming a famous novelist, oft has marriage on her mind, though she is loathe to admit it.

The four other Bennet sisters from the book, have here been turned into Elizabeth's housemates: sultry Argentinian Jane (Lucila Sola); perpetually squabbling Lydia (Kelly Stables) and Kitty (Nicole Hamilton); and the fatally shy, awkward Mary (Rainy Kerwin). At a party thrown by the charmingly naive Charles (Ben Gourley), Elizabeth is rather disastrously introduced to Will Darcy (Orlando Seale), an expat Brit stopping through Utah on undisclosed business. It's Will's smug "pride" that, in turn, "prejudices" Elizabeth against him, although viewers may realize from the start these two are meant to be. But first Elizabeth settles for the company of with her erstwhile admirer (and inveterate gambler) Jack Wickham (Henry Maguire), as Will is pursued by Charles' strapping sister, Caroline (Kara Holden).

That's a lot of relationships for any movie (especially one running under two hours) to keep track of, but "Pride & Prejudice" does so nimbly. The screenwriters understand the story's appeal lies in its chaotic structure, in the way that its many suitors and their potential mates are constantly pairing off and trading places as if part of an elaborate square dance.

Black, the Scottish-born director whose short film, "The Snell Show," won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2003 Slamdance Film Festival, has a fine sense of pacing and timing; he keeps the movie spinning, so that no one part overstays its welcome.

The winning cast breathes new life into Austen's characters. Spunky Heskin is responsive to the comic stimuli around her like Reese Witherspoon was in the first "Legally Blonde" pic (or, natch, Alicia Silverstone in "Clueless"). And like those actresses, she's well-supported by an array of charismatic scene-stealers, including the irrepressibly emotive Sola, the hilariously repressed Kerwin and the acrobatically goofy Gourley, whose inspired physical-comedy antics dominate the movie's Vegas-set climax.

Tech achievements are well-realized on a modest budget, with Travis Cline's sunny lighting adding luster to the giddy pinks, purples and greens of Anne Black's production design. by Scott Foundas

As a resident of Utah who DOESN'T belong to the LDS church, I honestly hadn't wanted to see this, but my kids saw it and said that it was actually pretty good. I am a BIG fan of Jane Austen (with an E!) and I thought the references were rather cute. My husband, who is really clueless when it comes to Austen, was a little lost. We had to keep stopping the DVD and reminding him who all the characters were as it was a bit hard to keep track if you're not familiar with the story. That is probably this movie's biggest flaw; however, it's rather cleverly done for those of us who are Austen fans, even attempting (a bit clumsily) to illustrate the injustice women face (Austen's 19th century theme) when they MUST marry well in order to survive. The performances were uneven; some were rather wooden, but most were adequate. The lead characters (Darcy and Elizabeth) did fairly well. Bingley and Jane were distractingly goofy. I loved the grocery store scene! I didn't quite understand, what with Mormon families typically being as big as they are, why the 5 girls couldn't all be sisters, but that's a minor flaw, I suppose. Overall, this was cute and had some clever writing. I had very low expectations and this exceeded them. A definite possibility if you're looking for a rental the whole family (particularly if you have all girls as I do) to enjoy.

I really wanted to like this movie. Modern day adaptations and twists on Austen can be wonderful, many on here have mentioned Clueless, another great one is the Lost in Austen miniseries.

The problem here is not so much the Mormon setting, but the limitations and constraints that Mormon culture appears to put on the writers in terms of plot. I gleaned enough of the cultural setting from other reviewers on here for that to more or less make sense (those reviewers are correct in that it's not very well explained/explained at all).

So what's good? It's nice, bright and colourful. Casting the five sisters as various college friends was an interesting idea. The main actress playing Elizabeth is very watchable. The actor playing Darcy is competent (even if he often looks uncannily like Adrian Lukas, who plays Wickham in the definitive BBC adaptation). Chemistry is more or less there. The quotes from Austen, had they been less hideously pinkly presented, were nearly an interesting touch.

The problem is tone. Austen's work is sharp and exacting, biting, witty and harsh. This was bland. It lacked edge. One got the sense that there was a culturally religious nicely-nicely thing going on here, and it just doesn't work with the background material.

There were slapstick moments that really jarred: particularly in "imagination" sequences - ie they didn't really happen. (Is slapstick perhaps a more tolerable form of humour to Mormons than satire or saucier wit?) Regardless, the movie should have had the guts to follow through with these moments if it wanted that tone, instead of: "no, not really! It didn't really happen, it was just in her mind!" every time. In doing so it weakened the heroine and made her look passive and victimy.

It's hard to fit a novel like Pride & Prejudice into a feature film length, as there are so many characters, and that weakness showed here. The writers would have been better to reduce the amount of female characters (Mary's and Charlotte's roles were mixed up anyway) and they did at least axe one of the Bingley sisters. But ultimately Kitty and Lydia felt very extraneous. From memory, Clueless was slimmed down in terms of supporting cast compared to Emma.

All in all it's a pleasant, visually colourful movie to watch. But it lacks edge, guts and is at times painfully naive. Which, given its religious subtext, is perhaps unsurprising.

I saw Pride & Prejudice at a screening a week ago and absolutely loved it. The movie boasts great production values for such a small project.

The story has been modified and updated from the original source material, but not to the detriment of the spirit of Jane Austen. There were a lot of in-jokes to Austen fans--keep an eye out for the address on the mailbox! The script mixes witty dialogue with physical comedy--something for both senses of humor.

Someone finally made a local movie with decent actors. Kam Heskin is a great Elizabeth. Jane (Sola) is adorable and her counterpart Charles (Gourley) is just delicious--I could eat him up. Darcy (Seale) is appropriately heart-breaking and dashing. Lydia and Kitty were hysterical.

I loved the parallels between 19th Century England and modern Mormons in America. This is a movie in which the characters happens to be LDS, its not a movie about being LDS. That aspect was very refreshing. Are all the characters perfect depictions of model LDS youth? No! And neither are most of the people in my ward. However, I recognized all the characters.

If you go into this movie expecting Singles Ward you might be disappointed. Or you might be thrilled. Pride & Prejudice is infinatly smarter than its Mollywood predecessors. I've heard both sides from people. Those who loved Singles Ward may think that nothing will hold a candle to it. Then there are the people like me, who liked Singles Ward, but are ready for a movie that is more intelligent and has better production values.

In all I can't wait to see Pride & Prejudice again.

If you're attracted to the P&P story line and are entertained by the idea of the plot working itself out in different cultural contexts, then this is the movie for you. The context here is the LDS or "Mormon" culture of Utah. Like "Clueless," the movie's strength comes from recycling the plot of one of Austen's classic novels. As it is, it's fun, though rough around the edges.

P&P poses some real challenges when you transport it to a modern setting, since a lot of the things that mattered to women in the Regency period just don't matter any more. By placing the story in the LDS context, the producers subjected the women to a culture with a few crucial similarities. I know very little about the LDS culture, but the film suggests that LDS women *want* to get married and the men expect them to be virgins. This gives the story its foundation.

This is clearly a low budget production. It shows in some of the technical aspects and in the acting, but the actors are at least competent. There's lots of gentle humor, but the movie lacks the sharp wit that is Austen's trademark.