“Mrs. Collins did not think it right to press the subject, from the danger of raising expectations which might only end in disappointment; for in her opinion it admitted not of a doubt, that all her friend’s dislike would vanish, if she could suppose him to be in her power” (132, in my edition).
The first and only time that I had read through the original text was five years ago in my freshman year of high school, and I don’t remember much from the experience other than having a difficult time understanding what was happening. Since then, I’ve become familiar with the text by consuming several P&P remixes. Besides spending the entire novel mentally noting which scenes were most dramatized in different versions, one of the most enjoyable parts of re-reading Pride and Prejudice was the insights from the secondary characters like Mrs. Collins here before Mr. Darcy’s proposal in Kent and the Gardiners during Lizzie and Darcy’s reunion Derbyshire. In film especially, we miss out on a lot of that, and I enjoy having those different perspectives as a reader because it demonstrates just how narrow Elizabeth’s understanding of a situation can be. Those other characters don't necessarily have a more accurate understanding, but their perspective offers the reader a better scope of the scene.
 |
| Darcy's Inner Struggles: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/107101297364631424/ |
First, that meme is great!
ReplyDeleteNext, I agree that the secondary characters are satisfying in the novel in a way that they really can't be in film; their thoughts are often way more interesting than their dialogue (because Mrs Bennet really just has the same 3 lines over and over again, but her thoughts really do show her to be someone who cares, who plans, who wants to do right by her family in a world where her daughters have no guarantee of being OK. The fact that she can be all of that and also be pretty darn ridiculous is quite impressive. But in most movies, she's mostly just kind of shrieking and complainy.
Agreed! I'm always a big fan of characterization, and I think utilizing secondary characters to enhance the characterization of the text is a great way to go about it. I also think that it is difficult to do the same in film and TV, mainly because there's usually a time limit on these kind of things (unless you put it straight on Netflix and just don't care like Scorsese did with The Irishman) and I feel like the importance of characterization through secondary characters is usually lost in translation. When they watch a movie, people are more interested in the visual aspect of it and just want to get down to the nitty gritty; they don't care what any of the smaller characters have to say... They just want to see love between main characters and whether or not their relationship will make it in the end.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely one of the reasons why the books are usually better than the movies... 90% of the time.
At the heart of any great story is the REACTION to the action of the story by the secondary characters. In film, this reaction can be shown in the simplest of terms (a tight shot on a character with an eye movement is one way), while in books we expect there to be a more detailed explanation of the same reaction. It is the main difference between the grammar of film and the grammar of written work. I agree with you that this is where a book is almost always better than the movie: audiences are more invested in the minutia in a book as compared to the big picture of a movie.
DeleteI'm kind of going down a rabbit hole with this thread because, obviously, the movie wasn't assigned and doesn't need to be the focus. BUT. Why are we so impatient as a film audience "to get down to the nitty gritty" and simultaneously willing to wade through elaborate detail in writing? Is it because our brains process the mediums differently? Because we have different expectations for them? At what point do we say the integrity of the story and how well it is fully understood by the audience afterward is more important than the process of consuming it? For example, I did not enjoy the act of reading Game of Thrones, but there's a greater appreciation of everything in that story after finishing the book, thinking it through, and discussing with others.
DeleteAlso. Relevant, not relevant. (Like I said, thinking about this novel in film sends me down a rabbit hole.) I saw that Joe Wright, the director of the 2005 film, said, "The whole idea of the film is to make it as subjective as possible. So you're constantly seeing the world through her eyes." It's a very different approach than what Austen does in the novel. And I'm not saying it was wrong...After all, the ultimate product was a beautiful movie. But, as Dr. MB pointed out in some other threads, it has some flaws in its interpretation, and I think this approach is probably why.
I have to agree with what you are saying here, the movie leaves out a lot of the smaller characters true impact on the rest of the characters and the story progression all together. Smaller characters are often left behind in the books and never make it to the movie the way they are intended. That is one of my biggest frustrations with books turned into movies, because I know something will be lost and it will make me sad :( , but also I try to understand that there is only so much they can do with movies whereas novels have endless space and length.
ReplyDeleteSecondary characters do contribute to the story in a huge way. The conversations Elizabeth had with some of her friends or relatives encouraged the choices she made. However, she took it upon herself to make good decisions, denying Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy's first proposal. The secondary characters also provide a sense of more conventional viewpoints for the time period. Mrs. Bennet was extremely conventional in wanting her daughters to marry while they were still very "marriageable".
ReplyDelete