It is a truth universally acknowledged. . .

I have been sick with a cold these last few days, and haven't felt like doing much other than sitting down and watching Pride and Prejudice DVDs. (For all who weren't already aware, Jane Austen is the perfect antidote to a cold.) I've watched P&P'05 (the Matthew MacFadyen one) and P&P'95 (the Colin Firth one). And I've also been reading the book. This is the third time I've read Pride and Prejudice. Or is it the fourth? I can't remember. All the while, my mind has been busily engaged in trying to find the answer to that much-debated question: which is the best screen adaptation of Pride and Prejudice?

I still haven't decided which one is the best, but I do know which one I like the best. My favourite adaption of Pride and Prejudice is. . . (drum roll please!) P&P'05!! Here are a couple of my reasons for liking it better than any other version.

Firstly, the cast. I watched P&P'95 many times before I read the book. (I would probably have been around 10-12 years old when I read P&P for the first time.) When I finally did read the book, I found it difficult to reconcile Jane Austen's description of Elizabeth Bennet's character and appearance with Jennifer Ehle's depiction of Lizzy. Have a look at these lines from the book:

Mr Darcy had at first scarcely allowed her to be pretty... [however] he began to find that [her face] was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes. To this discovery succeeded some others equally mortifying... he was forced to acknowledge her figure to be light and pleasing...

I don't know about you, but to me this seems to be describing a Keira Knightley-esque figure, and indeed to me Keira is and always will be Lizzy. She really did put in a wonderful performance. It earned her an Oscar nomination for best actress... she didn't win it. Reese Witherspoon won it.

I also have to admit that I prefer MacFadyen's Darcy over Colin Firth's. I know that His Royal Firthness has been idolised and adored by millions of females worldwide, but for some reason I just never "got" the whole Colin Firth thing. The thing is, I've grown up watching P&P'95. In 1995 I was just a tiny little thing. Colin Firth is about thirty years older than me, and so to me, he's always been like a sort of old uncle or an older brother or something like that, but never really 'crush' material. But anyway, as I was saying, I do actually prefer MacFadyen as Darcy. I've always been partial to blue eyes, so maybe that's what it is. ;-)

But I think it's in the supporting cast as well as the two lead roles where P&P'05 has the edge. Several of the characters in P&P'95 - especially Mrs Bennet, Mr Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh - seemed to have been over-acted, to the point where they almost seemed to become caricatures, stereotypes rather than real people. The portrayal of these characters in particular was, I thought, more natural and relaxed in P&P'05.

All of the cast seemed to meld together seamlessly. This is something that the actors talked about in video interviews on the DVD - that those who played the Bennets really did become like a family of sorts during shooting. I know that sounds dreadfully cliche, but watching the onscreen chemistry between all of the actors, one almost has to believe it!

The other thing I wanted to highlight was the 'look' and 'feel' of the film.

The director of P&P'05, Joe Wright, would have been used to working with minuscule budgets and making the most of what he had, so when he was finally given the opportunity to make P&P'05, his first cinematic release, you can imagine what the result was bound to be. Breathtaking, stunningly beautiful scenes rich in detail. The scene of the Ball at the Assembly Rooms near the beginning of the film is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Masses of people dancing, talking, eating and drinking. It's an assault on the senses - the music, the heat, the smell - it does manage to convey the thrill and excitement the young Bennet sisters would have felt. (Of course we don't actually feel the stifling heat or smell anything, but the movie makes us imagine that we do - that's the whole point.)

The setting for film is the late 18th century. This is around the same time Austen wrote the first version of Pride and Prejudice, First Impressions, in 1796-7. Most other screen adaptions of the novel have been set in the 1810s, the time when P&P was finally published in 1813.

The variance in historical period is noticeable particularly in the costumes. In 1797, the empire line had only just begun its period of domination of women's fashion. Caroline Bingley wears wears high-waisted empire line dresses, the latest fashion from London. Most of the other female characters, however, wear dresses with lower waists. Also, compare the clothes and short hairdos of Darcy and Bingley with the more out-of-date outfits worn by many of the other men. And also the hairstyles of Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Mrs Gardiner - it's definitely the 18th century!

P&P'05 gives a much dirtier, grittier, and more down-to-earth picture of the world in which the Bennet family lived. I know that this has become a bit of a cliche, but in this instance I think the film really did capture the 'spirit' of the book.

One review at ChristianityToday.com sums it up nicely by likening P&P'95 to a beautifully detailed portrait of the Bennet family and P&P'05 to a dazzlingly colourful impressionist painting, beautiful in it's own right. (For the record, Christianity today also included P&P'05 in it's list of the 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2005. They even put together a Bible study for it!)

You can read some more Christian reviews of Pride and Prejudice here, here, here, here, and here.

But what do you think? Which is you're favourite adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, and why?