I have a copy of all the PnP versions I can find - audio, 1940, 1980, 1995, even the new version set in Salt Lake City. I've even made a point of seeing the Bollywood (India) version (colorful), and shall purchase it when available on DVD. I have all the books of Austen on my PDA - good for reading at boring meetings. I have read PnP over twenty times, seen the various videos an equal number, and listen to the audio many times on long drives across the USA. I consider myself somewhat familiar with the original.
After watching the 1980 version a few times I see many quality points in acting and in direction. Many of the acting variations, however, are in the spirit, but not the fact, of the book. These add some to the movie but are not the PnP of the purist. I believe the characters are cast a little older than I would prefer. The 'Jane' actor is without doubt the most attractive of all versions, however. Her smile is winning.
The main problem I have with this version rest mostly with the changes made in the script flow. Key phrases are sometimes made in the wrong context. Some portions that I look for as a 'catch' phrase in some of the key quotes are dropped. Sometimes, and I consider this the worst of the lot, they even have the wrong character saying a line.
I understand the use of train of thought which is often used by Elizabeth, but it seems a lazy way to tell the story. The book has the advantage here, of course. Better would have been discussions with Jane - her foil in many scenes. The changing of sites for some dialogs in areas inconsistent with the book lead me to believe that the writer and director were more interested in saving money and production time rather than furnishing a top quality rendition. But, I repeat, there are many areas in which I think the directing choices are very well done.
All of this said, I find, after the third or fourth viewing over several months that I do enjoy the version. But for unequal reasons I put it overall at the same level as the 1940 version - which is, none the less, also very worth watching.
After watching the 1980 version a few times I see many quality points in acting and in direction. Many of the acting variations, however, are in the spirit, but not the fact, of the book. These add some to the movie but are not the PnP of the purist. I believe the characters are cast a little older than I would prefer. The 'Jane' actor is without doubt the most attractive of all versions, however. Her smile is winning.
The main problem I have with this version rest mostly with the changes made in the script flow. Key phrases are sometimes made in the wrong context. Some portions that I look for as a 'catch' phrase in some of the key quotes are dropped. Sometimes, and I consider this the worst of the lot, they even have the wrong character saying a line.
I understand the use of train of thought which is often used by Elizabeth, but it seems a lazy way to tell the story. The book has the advantage here, of course. Better would have been discussions with Jane - her foil in many scenes. The changing of sites for some dialogs in areas inconsistent with the book lead me to believe that the writer and director were more interested in saving money and production time rather than furnishing a top quality rendition. But, I repeat, there are many areas in which I think the directing choices are very well done.
All of this said, I find, after the third or fourth viewing over several months that I do enjoy the version. But for unequal reasons I put it overall at the same level as the 1940 version - which is, none the less, also very worth watching.