Pride and Prejudice Films

By Emerson Lovell & Kehan Zhang

 

P&J 1980Pride and Prejudice 1980 P&J Jennifer EhlePride and Prejudice 1995 Lizzy Bennet

P&J Mr. Darcy and LizzyPride and Prejudice 2005 Lizzy and Mr. Darcy

P&J 1995 Lizzy and Mr. DarcyPride and Prejudice 1995 Lizzy and Mr. Darcy

P&J 2005 LizzyPride and Prejudice 2005 Lizzy

P&J 1940 Lizzy and Mr. DarcyPride and Prejudice 1940 Lizzy and Mr. Darcy

 

Pride and Prejudice With The Wing of Mass Media

There is no doubt that the TV and film adaptations have successfully transformed the book in many different ways. These transformations not only reinterpret the text but also bring it alive by turning it into a less abstract but more vivid product, which people can appreciate in a more straightforward way. Most importantly, the commercial success of these transformations relative to the original text has made Pride and Prejudice more popular than ever before and also helps spread its ideals to a larger scale of audience. [KZ]

As of today, Pride and Prejudice has come to the knowledge of the public since its publication in 1813. During the past two hundred years, the book has become one of the most popular novels in English literature and it’s estimated that more than 20 million copies have been sold.1 If we use the average price, around 6 dollars, of a mass market copy of an ordinary novel today to estimate the sale of Pride and Prejudice, we can calculate that the total sale of the book in the past two hundred years would be around 120 million dollars. However, in a time like this era, when the technology of mass media has been made available to everyone, this once impressive number could be surpassed in a heartbeat. [KZ]

For example, Pride and Prejudice’s 2005 film adaptation was released in 59 countries and achieved a worldwide gross box office of more than 121 million dollars alone in one year.2 What’s more, the book’s 1940 film adaptation also earned more than 1.8 million dollars, which is today’s money around 31 million.3 These two films have a total box office of more than 150 million dollars, easily winning the book’s 120 million, which is also a number that has been accumulating for over 200 years. And we should keep in mind that this number only takes into account the box office, let only the DVD sales, views of the TV adaptation series, etc. Since the book has 3 feature films and 9 TV series3, it is very difficult to come up with exact estimates of those numbers but we should all acknowledge the fact that they would lead to a potentially much larger picture. [KZ]

From the simple comparison of the rough numbers above, it is not hard to see that the adaptations do play an indispensable role in the novel’s worldwide popularity and they have also successfully magnified the influence of the novel. The magnificent influence these adaptations come from their commercial success and that commercial success is due to two different reasons. [KZ]

First of all, the technology of mass media itself puts a pair of wings on the novel so that the idea and the name of Pride and Prejudice would be able to fly to every corner of the world. Mass media is a completely different creature than the traditional literature, as what George Bluestone has described in the book Novels Into Film: “Just as the cinema exhibit a stubborn antipathy to novels, the novel here emerges as a medium antithetical to film. Because language has laws of its own, and literary characters are inseparable from the language which forms them, the externalization of such characters often seems dissatisfying.”5    [KZ]

Compared to films, novels are more abstract and complicated. And thus it takes more out of the readers for them to comprehend. And since there are no definite visual details attached to the text, it leaves out a lot of room for imagination. In fact, through the process of reading, readers are also at the same time going through a process of recreation and reinterpretation in their heads based on their own understanding of the text. However, films could complete this exact process of reinterpretation for the viewers so that the viewers could appreciate the original text in a more straightforward and less tiresome way. Therefore, the nature of the mass media technology determines that the adaptations are more accessible to the public. [KZ]

The second source of the influence of the adaptations is the literature’s very self. Just as the hero and the heroine in every great romance novel, novels and their film adaptations complete each other. The novels inspire the films and in return the films would add more weight to the novels’ popularity. There is no one single great film adaptation that is made out of a mediocre novel. This is because the novels possess the soul of the story: the plot. Aside from the plot being the soul, the language of the novels would add the flesh and bone to the characters while the films are merely putting the clothes on them. [KZ]

For the film adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, they have these two exact ingredients. With the commercial success they achieved, the media adaptations, both film and TV, would finally be able to raise Pride and Prejudice to a new height of popularity where the book alone would never be able to reach. [KZ]

The transition from romance novel to book is a peculiar one as literary techniques are not always transferable to film. Many romance novels have been adapted to film such as Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell, Scarlet by Alexandra Ripley, What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson and, the focal point of our paper, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Many scholars have their opinion on the purpose of film adaptations of books, to highlight the opinion of one we look to John Mosier who claims, “the primary objective of a good adaptation, like that of any good interpretative reading of a text, is to make viewers return to the text and reconsider it anew” (Robards, The Janeites Lens). Mosier’s opinion is what fuels our paper as we examine the transition of Jane Austen’s iconic “Pride and Prejudice” from novel to film and TV. The transition is important to analyze because changes made during the transition can alter the message of the story and the influence of the story. [EL]

The four adaptations of Pride and Prejudice we are focusing on have been among the top adaptations ranked on many blog sites and movie sites. What is interesting is the purpose of the numerous adaptations especially to film and television. According to Jenny Allworthy, author of the post, “Pride and Prejudice 1995 vs 2005 (vs 1980 vs 1940)” on The Jane Austen Film Club Blog Spot, “My other theory is that every 10 or 15 years, there will be another version out, so each generation can have their own Mr. Darcy. And I think that there can never be too many Austen adaptations out there. If they are really trying to do it right, (not modern or time travel or different cultures) I think we can welcome another version in a few years.” Are the adaptations created to portray Austen’s differently so each generation can relate to Austen’s classical work or are they created to show a different aspect of the story Austen told in 1813? The answer to that question is not clear-cut. Some might argue the answer is neither because the purpose of the story should remain static regardless of the actors in the adaptations or the generation that the adaptation is trying to appeal to. This begs the question what is the purpose of Austen’s pride and prejudice and how is the purpose conveyed? According to Vanessa Cavanagh, author of Pride and Prejudice: Ranking The Adaptations Worst To Best, “it is a story of empowerment and control over one’s destiny. Our heroine (Elizabeth Bennet) and our hero (Fitzwilliam Darcy) don’t succeed because of the advantages of their birth and their inherited wealth (or lack their of)- it’s their personal revelations, their ability to self examine and change their attitudes and behavior that appeal to us.” Cavanagh like many refutes the notion that Pride and Prejudice is simply a “light romantic comedy” because that notion undermines the greater purpose of the story. This leads to the various adaptions. Do they convey a story of empowerment or do they choose to highlight a different aspect of Austen’s work? We argue that the adaptation choose to highlight a different aspect of Austen’s work. This could be through characters as Cavanagh says, “I think the reason so many of us love Austen is because she has a great eye for authentic characters.”Or this could be through the overall message of the adaptation such as the humor of social interactions. [EL]

In “From Book to Film: Simplification” Lester Asheim identifies three influences that determine if a book can make the transition from book to film “(1) the organization of the industry— the industrial considerations which dictate the production of a profitable commodity intended for mass distribution; (2) the audience— the considerations of audience preference which create a “popular” product;  and (3) the medium itself— the consideration dictated by the technological limitations and advantages of the film form and the artistic solution of the problems created by the form” (Asheim, 292). It is imperative to identify this distinction because the creative process of each adaptation can attest to the success of the transition but this paper is not highlighting or examining why certain adaptions made certain decisions. [EL]

Many scholars criticize films made from books because they do not believe that film is the best medium for conveying essential parts of a story. Austen scholar Rodger Gard says, “The camera has no narrative voice. Pictures can’t establish an ironic context, manage time, or summarize. Pictures can tell only of the surface of things” (Robards, The Janeites Lens). Gard continues by honing in on films specifically based on Austen’s books, “Isn’t it unfortunately the case that none of them remains in the mind as even a minor work of art?”(Robards, The Janeites Lens). The purpose of our paper is not examining Gard’s statements to either dispute or validate them but it is important to see the criteria of which he criticizes film. His statements undoubtedly will impact the way we examine the transition of Austen’s novel to film by way of the 1940 and the 2005 film adaptation as well as the 1980 and 1995 television adaptation. Gard’s influence stems from his critic of pictures. While examining the transition from novel to film it is important to have picture stills of characters as evidence or claims or even as exhibits. Gard and other scholars may not deem this method as effective. However, in this paper, we will use this methodology to examine the appearance of characters and scenery. That is we will look at the descriptions of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. After providing Austen’s description of these characters we will analyze each character and compare the description to a still of the character from each adaptation. [EL]

Lester Asheim brought to our attention the concept of modernization. Contemporary audiences are whom the film directors are trying to attract and impress. Asheim informs his readers, “Slang expressions of an earlier day are revised to fit contemporary meanings; costumes are sufficiently altered to be acceptable to contemporary tastes; the period is often shifted to coincide with the year of the film’s release rather than that of the book’s original publication…” (Asheim 294). Our analysis will identify the time period of the adaptation to account for the modernization. However, keeping with the theme of the paper we will address how each adaptation attempts to address (or not address) the description Austen provides, of her characters in her text, through using the costumes/clothes of it’s time. [EL]

 

Elizabeth

In the 1940s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (Robert Leonard, 1940) we are introduced to Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennett. Garson is significantly older than the 20-year-old Austen describes in her novel however this does not take away from the story as Garson embodies key characteristics of Elizabeth Bennett such as her “humor and spunk”. However it is important to note that Garson’s Elizabeth is not as witty as Austen’s and this is probably due to the various plot changes made by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios in the production of the film. In fact, Cavanagh quotes Turner Classic Movies website as saying “MGM took several liberties with Jane Austen’s novel, among them moving the time period of the story forty years ahead. According to modern sources, this was done in order to allow for more ornate costumes.” Another liberty taken besides changing the plot and moving the time period of the film, was eliminating characters according to Charlie Lovett, author of Pride and Prejudice on Film: The Best – and the Not-So-Great. The plot changes were conscious decisions and ultimately fueled the notion of Pride and Prejudice being somewhat a comedy. The argument here is that the 1940s Elizabeth Bennett’s purpose is to show the comedic aspect of human interactions. [EL]

In the 1980s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (Cyril Coke, 1980), a BBC miniseries, we are introduced to Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennett. Again Garvie is older than the Elizabeth Austen describes but she does embody the wit of and humor of Elizabeth Bennett well as seen in her response to Mr. Darcy when he asks her to seize the opportunity to dance and she refuses, “I heard you the first time Mr. Darcy but I was puzzled as to know how to reply, if I said yes you would despise my taste in views. If I said no you would despise my taste in rejecting you. No I do not wish to dance, now despise me.” This is said with a smirk on her face and active eyebrow movement, which reveal the intentions of Elizabeth rejecting Mr. Darcy. She is simply trying to get a reaction out of him being that this version of Darcy portrayed by David Rintoul is highly arrogant in his demeanor. According to Vanessa Cavanagh, “Elizabeth Garvie is also the favorite version of Lizzie for many fans and I would attribute it to her eyes- she may be one of the few who can so clearly make the viewer recognize Lizzie’s ‘fine eyes’ described by Austen.” Cavanagh continues on later speaking on the 1980’s adaptation and says “On the bright side, the accuracy and subtlety in this adaptation, in terms of dialogue and characters, may trump the more recent ones, and is most likely why so many favor this version.” Charlie Lovett however believes that due to the filming for this adaptation being primarily indoors, “it feels claustrophobic” and goes on to say, “Lizzy is too old, Darcy too unlikeable, and Mr. Bennet so serious that his comments come off as rude rather than humorous.” The purpose of this adaptation seems to be upholding the prestige of Austen’s novel, as there is an emphasis on staying true to the story in terms of plot and dialogue. With this in mind, this version of Elizabeth is meant to be the literal embodiment of Austen’s descriptions in her novel. [EL]

In the 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (Simon Langton,1995) Jennifer Ehle takes on the role of Elizabeth Bennet. This version of Elizabeth Bennet hones in on her intelligence and wit. This could be a product of the adaption being true to Austen’s Dialogue. According to Cavanagh, “It’s faithfulness to the book is what makes this version great.” She also describes Ehle’s performance, “Ehle does a wonderful job of portraying the headstrong Lizzy. Ehle’s constant smirking was a drawback for me, and some may even classify her as smug throughout portions of the series.” The constant smirking was something new, as the pervious portrayals did not utilize this facial expression as often. However although Cavanagh is not a fan it does not mean this expression was less effective. The smirking is indicative of how Elizabeth views herself in society. The smirking is her assessing the situations before her while thinking of a witty response. This is how Austen’s Elizabeth acts in the novel so the screen portrayal’s excessive smirking is not a flaw but an ode to the novel. In fact the producer, Sue Birtwistle, said her adaptation is “A fresh, lively story about real people. And make it clear that, though it’s about many things, it’s principally about sex and it’s about money. Those are the driving motives of the plot.” Birtwistle’s comments explain the smirking, which was stated as something new earlier but also explains the purpose of this adaptation. One of the many praises Austen receives about her work stems from its characters their development and descriptions. This adaptation explores the characters not as fictional beings but as real people so the audience can relate to the story of empowerment Austen is telling. [EL]

In the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (Joe Wright, 2005) sees Keira Knightley play the role of Elizabeth Bennet. First and foremost Knightley is the only twenty-year-old actress in the discussed adaptations. Knightley’s portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is described by Cavanagh as “witty, but playful”. This is evident in the dancing scene with Mr. Darcy where they stop and hold a back and forth in the middle of the dancing scene as if it was just the two of them dancing. Cavanagh also states, “Knightley manages to supply is with a more fiery and youthful heroine who has rough edges”. Again this is clear from the dance scene as Elizabeth storms off after her curtsey. Beyond the dialogue differences, which can be attributed to the movie being 127 minutes versus the five-hour length of the miniseries, there are major consume differences. Cavanagh cites one as she says, “ Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to leave home without wearing bonnets… when Elizabeth, in her nightgown, meets Darcy, sans cravat and vest, is a vicious historical inaccuracy to many.” The 2005 rendition was not universally loved as Lady T, author of Classic Literature Film Adaptations Week: Comparing Versions of “Pride and Prejudice”, believes that Knightley did not realize what the problem is for Elizabeth Bennet because “in an interview she compared Elizabeth and Darcy to two teenagers who don’t realize how much they actually like each other and that’s exactly how she plays it”. Lady T claims that Elizabeth Bennet’s actual problem to be “she’s almost as arrogant as Darcy is, so impressed with herself for being a wonderful judge of character, that she doesn’t revise her opinion of him until given evidence that she’s wrong”. Lady T’s point is one worth analyzing because much of the appeal to Elizabeth Bennet is that she is a relatable character. [EL]

Jane Austen describes Elizabeth through other characters most notably her mother Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Darcy. Mrs. Bennett says “she is not half so handsome as Jane, not half so good humoured as Lydia” (Austen 2). Mr. Darcy shares a similar sentiment as he describes Elizabeth as “But no sooner had he made it clear to himself and his friends that she had hardly a good feature in her face, than he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes… Though he had detected with a critical eye more than one failure of perfect symmetry in her form, he was forced to acknowledge her figure to be light and pleasing” (Austen, 19). [EL]

In each adaptation Elizabeth is portrayed by a brunette actress. The hair color of the actress is only thing that stays static across all four adaptations. In the 2005 film adaptation Keira Knightley’s Elizabeth rarely has any jewelry on. Her hair is either in a bun or laying down upon her shoulders and is hardly done in a special hairstyle. This is different from the Greer Garson Elizabeth which always has her hair done and often times a ribbon in it. The glaring difference is the necklace that Garson’s Elizabeth has. Her neck usually dressed with an accessory of some sort. Knightley’s Elizabeth does not have jewelry on unless if there is a special occasion. The use of jewelry is relevant in the 1995 television adaptation where Jennifer Ehle’s Elizabeth has a cross on at all times. The appearance of Ehle’s Elizabeth is very similar to that of Garson’s Elizabeth. Neither dress overly casually nor wear obscure clothing like an oversized dress, for instance. Finally Elizabeth Garvie’s Elizabeth also has hair that remains static throughout the movie. Like the Elizabeth we see in Ehle’s portrayal, Garvie’s Elizabeth has a necklace that is on her at all times. This Elizabeth also wears more pastel colors versus the vibrant colors of the other Elizabeths. [KZ]

 

Mr. Darcy

In the 1940s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice Lawrence Oliver plays Mr. Darcy. As a consequence of deviating from the novel Oliver’s Darcy is extremely flirtatious. This is seen through his interactions with Garson’s Elizabeth Bennet. In fact Cavanagh says, “In fact, the two may be too spunky, and Oliver’s Darcy is too much of a flirt.” Cavanagh is not the only person who noticed Lawrence’s portrayal as Lovett says, “to me Oliver’s Darcy is overplayed”. The purpose of this Oliver is to counteract the witty Garson’s Elizabeth Bennet. This is evident through their chemistry. When speaking on Garson’s Bennet and Oliver’s Darcy, Cavanagh says, “they have good chemistry and are engaging as an on screen couple”. [EL]

In the 1980s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice David Rintoul plays Mr. Darcy. His rendition of Mr. Darcy is compelling due to his ability to epitomize Darcy’s “noble man” characteristic. Cavanagh says, “ David Rintoul’s Mr. Darcy is the ultimate version of this character to some. He’s more of an asshole than usual, and arguably, the most accurate to the book’s version of Darcy. He’s a snob, and he smiles no more than three times throughout the entire miniseries.” Cavanagh continues, “He does stone cold disdain so well that its hard not to admire his version of the character.” Rintoul’s demeanor sets the tone for the interactions between him and Garvie’s Elizabeth Bennet. Austen uses Mrs. Bennet to describe Darcy as she says, “ But I can assure you, that Lizzy does not lose much by not suiting his fancy; for he is a most disagreeable, horrid man, not at all worth pleasing. So high and so conceited, that there was no enduring him!” (Austen 10). Rintoul’s Mr. Darcy personifies this character through his lines, which are true to the novel and his mannerisms like lack of smiling. [EL]

In the 1995 adaptation Colin Firth plays Mr. Darcy. His portrayal is one of the more favorable as the 1995 miniseries is highly popular. One of the highlights of Firth’s Mr. Darcy is his mannerisms. When analyzing this version of the Pride and Prejudice adaptations Cavanagh says, “ Firth’s body language is so subtle, and his eyes, like Ehle’s, are so expressive, which goes extremely far when acting in a Regency time period drama.” Firth’s actions emit the verve of a noble man similar to Rintoul’s version of Mr. Darcy and more importantly Austen’s version of Mr. Darcy. Lady T points out the points of humor with Firth’s version of Mr. Darcy as a strength citing this line, “Your family’s an embarrassment. I make much, much more money than your family does. Being united with your family would be shameful and I would be humiliated to be associated with them. But I love you, so marry me?” The humor stems from the harshness of his words coupled with result Mr. Darcy is looking for. This Mr. Darcy also inhabits more of an overtly sexual role in comparison to his predecessors. This is made clear by the scene at Pemberley when Firth has a wet shirt from the lake that exposes his physique. [EL]

In the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice Matthew Macfadyen plays Mr. Darcy. Macfayden’s portrayal of Mr. Darcy is unique as he makes Darcy a “down to earth” character. Jenny Allworthy says, “Matthew Macfadyen is a great Darcy. He puts a bit more shyness and awkwardness into the role which is a great take on the Darcy character.” The new take on Darcy creates a more sympathetic hero. Cavanagh agrees with this sentiment as she says, “What’s wonderful about Macfayden’s Darcy is that he doesn’t try to emulate Firth’s- instead he achieves a new vision of Darcy while managing to stay true to the novel’s character. He broods, but maintains a sense of humor and sensitivity that is visible on screen.” Macfayden’s acting job is a microcosm of the purpose of the film. This 2005 adaptation was meant to modernize the Austen novel, as the audience became modern viewers. Cavanagh also comments on this as she says, “The criticisms about the dialogue and manners of many of the characters being too modern is valid.” If the purpose of Macfayden’s Mr. Darcy being more visibly sensitive was to help modernize the character, then the director was successful as his counterpart Keira Knightley portrays an empowered/liberated Elizabeth Bennet. [EL]

The description of Mr. Darcy also comes from those around him as he is compared to Mr. Bingley and Mr. Hurst. The description of Mr. Darcy, ” Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien… The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man, the ladies declared he was much handsomer than Mr. Bingley” (Austen, 12-13)  [EL]

Each Mr. Darcy is wearing a suit for the duration of the film/series. The main difference between the physical appearances in each adaptations is the hair. In the 1940 Portrayal of Mr. Darcy by Laurence Olivier there is always gel in Mr. Darcy’s hair. The gel slicks his hair back, which allows the viewers to see his facial features. This tactic makes sense as Mr. Darcy is described as having handsome features. His 2005 counterpart Matthew Macfadyen does not have his hair gelled but his hair does draw attention to his strong facial features such as his eye brows, eyes and nose. David Rintoul’s Darcy (1980) has messy hair but utilizes a top hat, which draws attention to his face namely his strong cheekbones. Colin Firth also utilizes a top hat. The Colin Firth portrayal (1995) of Darcy seemed to influence the 2005 portrayal as both have bangs. The examination of hair is important because Austen tells us that Darcy is of “noble mien”. It can be inferred that being well groomed in part of “noble mien” which makes examining Mr. Darcy important. Is the messy hair the flaw that makes his character imperfect physically? [KZ]

The various adaptations of Pride and Prejudice are an ode to Austen’s dynamic writing abilities. Galen Adair, author of Another Pride and Prejudice Film in the Works, and the Immortal Appeal of Jane Austen, says, “Endless versions of Pride and Prejudice aside, not a single book of hers hasn’t been adapted into a film, and furthermore, all of hem have been adapted multiple times… Jane Austen’s work will always be relevant, because it’s still relatable”(Adair, 2013). Each adaptation reveals a new perspective on each character. Although this paper focused on Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, views of Jane, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Wickham, Lydia Bennet, Mr. Bennet and Charlotte Lucas have changed across adaptations. The purpose of the multiple adaptations is to prove the relevancy of Pride and Prejudice to society today. The adaptations show the intricacies of social interactions and provide an escape for a society that faces challenges that pertain to human interaction. When speaking on the 1940 adaptation Allworthy says, “Think of all the people who picked up Jane Austen’s novels in the 1940s because of this adaptation. What a blessing in the midst of WWII to have this film and a renewed interest in Jane Austen” (Allworthy, 2013). This is the purpose of various adaptations. [EL] [KZ]

 

Sources Cited

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)

4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Austen_in_popular_culture#Pride_and_Prejudic

  1. Page 23, George Bluestone, Novels Into Film, University of California Press, 1968
  2. http://janeaustenfilmclub.blogspot.com/2013/02/pride-and-prejudice-1995-vs-2005-vs.html (Jenny Allworthy February 20, 2013)
  3. http://www.wordandfilm.com/2013/02/another-pride-and-prejudice-film-in-the-works-and-the-immortal-appeal-of-jane-austen/ (Galen Adair, February 12, 2013)
  4. http://www.btchflcks.com/2013/01/classic-literature-film-adaptations-week-comparing-two-versions-of-pride-and-prejudice.html#.VSoMrRebRKo (Lady T, January 24, 2013)
  5. http://www.wordandfilm.com/2014/10/pride-prejudice-film/ (Charlie Lovett, October 14, 2014)
  6. http://whatculture.com/film/pride-and-prejudice-ranking-the-adaptations-worst-to-best.php (Vanessa Cavanagh, January 24, 2013)
  7. Brooks, Robards, The Janeite Lens. The Women’s Review of Books, Vol. 21, No. 7 (Apr., 2004), p. 14
  8. Asheim, Lester, From Book to Film: Mass Appeals. Hollywood Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Summer, 1951), pp. 334-349
  9. Wright, Andrew, Jane Austen Adapted. Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 30, No. 3 Jane Austen 1775-1975 (Dec., 1975), pp. 421-453
  10. Asheim, Lester, From Book to Film: Simplification. Hollywood Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring, 1951), pp. 289-304
  11. Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *