Fitzwilliam Darcy is supposed to be a bore. Actually, most of the good guys in Jane Austen's novels of love and marriage, which she set in Regency England, have a dull veneer, especially when contrasted with their flashy but morally flawed foils. Who wouldn't sense a fatal attraction to such dashing rogues as Willoughby ("Sense & Sensibility"), Frank Churchill ("Emma"), and Wickham ("Pride and Prejudice") instead of the shy Edward Ferrars, the middle-aged, sensible Mr. Knightly and the uncommunicative, snobbish Mr. Darcy? Austen lets her heroines, those models of courageous self-realization, uncover the paucity of character beneath dashing, rouguish veneers while simultaneously giving them the ability to see the gold mine of quality beneath the drab surface of her heroes.
Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy is perhaps the most notable of these heroes-disguised-as-bores, and that is because "Pride and Prejudice" is generally considered to be the most popular Austen novel. It is a Cinderella story that has the poor girl telling the proposing prince to get lost because she thinks he's a jerk. Well, Darcy is a jerk, but he's a really, really rich jerk. What spirit! Elizabeth Bennet, however, is not so mired in her beloved prejudices as to be obtuse to the growing realization that this boring stiff might possess some attractive virtues that are as solid as his material wealth, and this awakening self-knowledge makes her one of the most interesting characters in classic literature.
The novel has been transformed to celluloid many times, but I would like to explore here only those adaptations which keep Darcy and Elizabeth in Regency England, where Austen placed them. The story has timeless truths which can be transferred to any setting, I suppose, but I most savor watching adaptations that place literary characters in their original settings. In other words, much as I enjoyed watching Mr. Darcy time-travel to Victorian England (the 1939 version was at least 50 years off in setting not to mention 1,000 miles from the original plot points) or fly to 21st century India for "Bride and Prejudice," I would like to concern myself here with the films that place Darcy where Austen did.
Released in 1980, the BBC version of P&P includes more of the actual novel than any other adaptation and stars the ebullient Elizabeth Garvey as Elizabeth Bennet and David Rintoul as Darcy. Rintoul pours all his dramatic energy into the snobbish side of Darcy, creating a two-dimensional, cartoonish performance. His stiff gait and jutting chin serve as constant reminders (like we needed them) of Darcy's prideful character. Austen's Mr. Darcy is indeed a cold snob whose initial marriage proposal is vastly easy to resist, but refusing the proposal of Rintoul's Darcy must have been a breeze for Garvey's Elizabeth. His facial contours soften so drastically during the story's second marriage proposal that he almost looks like a different person. He was, of course, but Rintoul's performance in the main is so two-dimensional that his is the least appealing of that given by any actor in this well-intentioned and largely successful literal adaptation.
The 1995 A&E version, although a visual stunner which remains outwardly faithful to most of the book, does some major overhauling to Austen's characterizations. Mr. Collins is not merely a pompous doofus; he's a creepy pompous doofus. Jane Bennet is a good girl only because her IQ doesn't seem to be all that high. Colin Firth's Darcy — whose smolderingly passionate performance earned him cult status among an adoring female fan base — resembles a Byronic hero, the stuff of 19th century Romanticism: his performance makes one think that he may have gotten lost on his way to a Wuthering Heights adaptation. His Darcy certainly won our hearts, but I'm not sure he would have won Austen's; she was writing during the Regency period and wanted her heroes to keep their emotions under wraps.
Matthew MacFadyen stars as Darcy in the most recent adaptation, which, despite some serious character mangling (Lizzie a brat? Bingley a doofus? Mr. Bennet Donald Sutherland?) manages to sprint through the novel's major plot points in just over two hours, occasionally catching its breath during some artistic liberties of such sheer cinematic beauty and raw emotional truth that even an Austen purist (if she is also a fan of cinematic beauty and raw emotional truth) can easily forgive them. Does MacFadyen accomplish what Rintoul and Firth could not? A resounding yes! MacFadyen's Darcy is a solemn snob, unwilling to communicate except through his expressive eyes, and who "will not take the trouble of practicing" his underused conversational skills. His attraction to Keira Knightly's Elizabeth is quite palpable, yet he somehow manages to remain an 18th century stiff throughout the entire film. He is Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy through and through while giving an attractive performance that appeals to 21st century sensibilities.
I couldn't fall for Rintoul's Darcy and fell way too hard for Firth's; MacFadyen expertly combines the different angles of Darcy's difficult character to create a winning portrayal. I believe Austen herself would have fallen hard.
(This essay was published in Volume V, Issue 3 ("Phoenix Rising," Fall 2006) of Wild Violet, an online literary magazine.
It is hard to compare the three performances. Firth has the edge in that he had 6 hours to convince a viewing public of his being Darcy. Davies spent a great deal of time developing the Darcy myth. He was smart enough to realize he was catering to a female audience. I don't know about your copy of P&P, but mine does not have Darcy taking a bath and then staring loving out the window at Elizabeth. There is no dip in a murky lake and a wet shirt. There is no riding out across the land or fencing scenes. The Firth version develops a masculine Darcy that women love/loved. He spends countless hours staring out the window, trying to distance himself from what we all recognize as his desire for Lizzy. Macfadyen occasional frown or upturned smirk adds to the haughtiness. The 2005 version places the story line back on Elizabeth, where the original Austen dwelled. The 1995 version shifts the attention to the the making of Darcy. Macfadyen has but 2 hours to capture the viewer's attention, and he must do so without upstaging Knightley's role as Elizabeth Bennet.
ReplyDeleteI admit to being a fan of both men. I have loved Firth in countless roles over the years, but I fell in love with Macfadyen when he played a minor role in Wuthering Heights. His smile at the end of the movie caught me off guard, and I found myself smiling back at him.
Thank you for a terrific analysis. You accomplished in a few succinct paragraphs what many have tried to explain in far more. Like Regina said, and you as well, all the adaptations and visions of Darcy offer something unique. They each try to capture Darcy - who is mysterious in Austen's novel to a large degree and thus open to varying interpretations - in very different ways.
ReplyDeleteI thought Firth did a fine job. No doubt he had the smoldering arrogance down pat! But for me it is Matthew Macfadyen all the way. I had never seen him in anything before P&P and totally fell in love. But not with him instantly. His performance is so subtle and never in-your-face. I fell in love with the whole movie, with the story, with the character of Lizzy, before I fell in love with Matthew as Darcy. That came with repeated viewings (and no I will not say how many! - LOL!) He is a brilliant actor and I totally agree that he captured the Darcy that I wanted to see. And, I 100% agree that his Darcy is closer to Austen's vision.
Thanks again, Kathryn. I am going to share this blog with my readers.
Well, you have three Macfadyen fans here now. In truth I didn't like the movie the first time I saw it. It wasn't until I watched at home that the beautify of it hit me - I would love to see that cast do the mini-series. It still grates that there were so many short cuts taken and the kiss at the end was cheesy, but Macfadyen really nailed the part. Colin plays Darcy all the time (Bridget Jones, P&P) so he is more identified with Darcy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I meant beauty NOT beautify - I make up my own words at times
ReplyDeleteSorry to disagree with you, I thought that Colin Firth played the better Mr Darcy Matthew Macfadyen played a good Mr Darcy in the time he had to do so in a two hour film but Kiera Knightly killed the film for me by being too modern. Back then she would not have told her mother 'you cannot make me marry him' if her father had not stood by her and told her that she had to marry him should would have had to make a choice either marry Colins or leave her family and become a governess. There were too many modern attitudes in this film and most of it made it sound comical.
ReplyDeleteI went to see this film twice and the audience thought it was a comedy which spoilt my view of things. Also in the UK we did not get the same ending I don't know why. For me the camera men were in love with Kiera as there were so many close ups of her. Also like many of my friends I found her down right rude where as in the regency period if she had spoken to her mother like she did she would have been thrown out of the house or sent to relatives who no doubt would teach her the manners she was lacking and most likely use her as a governess for their children. Elizabeth in the book is lucky that her father stood by her and supported her.