Dirty word! Well I am not about to try to re-create that whole thing all over again. When will I ever learn not to type directly into this stupid non-cacheable window!

Oh, Joan,Joan, say it is not so!We will never know what you were going to say! ;-)(emoticon in case picture does not work!)

Well, what do you know.....

kendall (response #81), I think you've got it nailed. I never thought Darcy was going to propose at the Inn. It was just that Elizabeth seemed to finally be somewhat favorably disposed to him and SHE WAS SO CLOSE! He simply couldn't stand not to go to her.

' He simply couldn't stand not to go to her.' ssssiiiigggghhhhhh

I have read your comments and am lead to believe there are no helpless romantics out there. Sure logic would tell Darcy not to propose at the Inn but if he went by logic he never would have proposed in the first place. But on a serious note, even when I've read (and re-read) the novel, there is no real reason for Darcy to go to the Inn other than to see Lizzy. We know that arrangements have already been made for their respective parties to meet. I know after being slammed as he had been, he would be r luctant to put himself out there again but . . . And also when he is comforting Lizzy at the Inn, the dialog let out reveals Darcy as much more tender than he is portrayed. In Chapter 46, he says, "I am afraid you have long been desiring my absence, nor have I anything to plead in excuse of my stay, but real, though unavailing, concern. Would to Heaven that anything could be either said or done on my part that might offer consolation to such distress! But I will not torment you with vain withes, which may seem purposely to ask for your thanks. This unfortunate affair. . . I still think the aura of that last evening was working on him and anything would have been possible.

Karen, I like you attitude! I too am a hopeless romantic and would love to think that after THE LOOK, Darcy got on that horse and galloped like the wind to propose to Lizzy again. I agree that the adaptation kind of muddies the water, because it seems like the filmmakers are trying to go for maxiumum romance while still staying true to the book. THE LOOK is so powerful that the story almost stops there -- it's clear these two are in love, and are going to get married. It's almost like the Wickham sub- lot doesn't matter -- I think Darcy would have married Lizzy even if Wickham and Lydia were living in sin forever. He was that far gone.

]he was that far gone.... And isn't that why we love him so!

Amy2 - I agree with you THE LOOK is that powerful but the novel also does leave the door open for one to think that he might ask her again. I can understand why literary critics felt that he was going there to ask her as well. Meggin - Yes, this is why we love him so!!! And now for something completely different. . . Why is it when Lizzy is flashing back to Wickham's behavior prior to the elopement, she imagines him saying he is loath to leave Lydia? When it happened, Wickham was referrig to Lizzy. Also is there really the possibility that Mr. Bennet will fight Wickham or Mrs. Bennett just being crazy (again)? Mrs. B. blathers this nonsense in the novel as well. I remember reading one critic who obviously thought Mr. B. would fight. As for me, I always thought thi was Mrs. B. being hysterical.

' she imagines him saying he is loath to leave Lydia? ' I chose to interpret this as Elizabeth wondering if he could have been thinking of Lydia, thinking back to see if there was anything that could have tipped her off. or Mrs. Bennett just being crazy (again)? ' She's crazy. Mr. Bennet nor Mr. Wickham appear to be of the temperament to duel.

Would such a duel have been swords or pistols? What would Brandon and Willoughby have used.

They've been talking about duelling on Austen-L lately, Ann. You could do a search. Looks like very soon Arnessa will have the list archives here for us. That will be nice.

Karen: Why is it when Lizzy is flashing back to Wickham's behavior prior to the elopement, she imagines him saying he is loath to leave Lydia? There was considerable discussion about this some time ago. It is a device used a number of times by the screenwriter to give "instant insight" into the state of mind of a character without having to use a conversation or a "voice over". In this case, Lizzie had always assumed that Wickham had meant her, but now she begins to wonder whether he actually meant Lydia. There are many other such cases - such as when Lizzie thinks back to the Netherfield Ball after Darcy's first proposal, and envisions the behavior of her relations as even more vulgar than they actualy were, or when Darcy returns to the music room at Pemberley in the dark and thinks back upon "the look" - the expression that he "sees" in his mind is quite ambiguous - not the same warm and wonderful look that we, ourselves, saw on Lizzie's face. He is not sure of what she is thinking - although we re. There are many others...

Or when he walks back from the disaster at Hunsford. Lizzy's voice is even more angry than it was earlier. That may have made the first proposal scene even harder to act: both actors had to leave room at the top of their emotions so that Lizzy could be angrier in the voice over and Darcy could be ruder.

There are many others... __ Should we list them? One interesting one is our first glimpse of Georgiana as a self-assured young lady receiving the attentions of Bingley. Is this Jane's vision -- or Lizzy's, as Caroline's letter is being read aloud?

Amy: . . . our first glimpse of Georgiana as a self-assured young lady receiving the attentions of Bingley. Is this Jane's vision -- or Lizzy's, as Caroline's letter is being read aloud? I'd say it's Caroline's. But it could be Lizzy's as well. Certainly not Jane's--she's too sweet to be bitchy, even in a situation like this.

I think it's Jane's as she sees it "drawn" by Caroline. Not in a bitchy way, but imagining her as actually being that self-assured and accomplished.

It's a really interesting device, and I'm glad Davies used it. It's kind of a RASHOMON view of the same events as viewed by different characters. I like it very well indeed!

Amy2: It's a really interesting device, and I'm glad Davies used it. Not to take anything away from Davies, but shouldn't we be giving some credit (here and elsewhere) to Simon Langton, the director? I'm sure he was responsible for many of the effects we admire.

Joan: I think its Jane's as she sees it "drawn" by Caroline I think its Caroline's rather than Jane's because, near the end, Darcy is smiling and looking at Caroline (obviously C.'s wish) but Jane would know he a: never smiles and b)not at Caroline!! Anne3: I think you're right - Davies wrote the scene but Simon Langton implemented it. Probably a good example of the two of them working together.

Sorry Anne3. Writers so very rarely get credit for anything in film, I guess I was a little overzealous. You're right -- Simon Langton did an all around spectacular job directing the show. It seemed he made all the right choices, with never a misstep!

I hate the direction of the scene where Darcy first calls on Hunsford alone and sits with Lizzy for a while. His head is almost off the side of the screen!

Lizzy's conversation with Col. Fitwilliam in the park at Rosings is really excessively truncated and botched, in my opinion...

=excessively truncated and botched How scarce a word for a so important missing part, you surprise me HC ;). Excessively indeed. How I missed the matter of Darcy's power and his freedom followed by the Colonel's hardships because of rank, lack of money and therefore his own lack of freedom and to openly choose love over money. We could have been tantalized in believing, like Lizzy, of his deeper interest in her well-being, his falling for her.

But Henry, in a filmic sense, it conveys everything it should, and in a time-efficient way. Davies knew that Col. Fitzwilliam is not a particularly major character, so he wasn't going to waste a lot of screentime on him. I have to say I agree with his choice.

I'm with HC and Johanne on this. Aside from being so abrupt--"Will you walk with me, Miss Bennet?" "Do you know the Bingleys?"--we lost a lot: the glimpse into Darcy's background that helps us understand his pride, the conversation about Georgiana that prepares us for the story in Darcy's letter, the attraction between Fitzwilliam and Lizzy that shows how attractive she is to men and how difficult the marriage market is for her. And Antony Calf was such an appealing Colonel--I would like to have seen ore of him.

Janet, next time, "The Colonel's Story" !!!

Anne3: And Antony Calf was such an appealing Colonel--I would like to have seen more of him. Yes I liked him too and would like more, but not at the expense of seeing more of Darcy! What do you propose cutting out? ;-) I know we're all of the "adding to" faction here...10 hours wouldn;t have been long enough for us! ;-)

I'm with Cheryl, though I did miss that longer scene with Col. Fitz; I'd also liked to have Lizzie and Darcy actually walking, if not talking, together. I think 8 or 10 hours would have been fine!! Then they could have included everything!! Actually, if I'm not much mistaken, I think Anthony Calf wasn't in P&P2 much because he was probably busy filming "Madness of George III" at the same time. He had a bigger role in that, and wore nearly the same uniform!!

..."and wore the same uniform"... Yes, and I thought it made him appear rather "hippy". I don't like lard-y men----give me Darcy any ol' day!

who did Col. Fitz play in King George? I cannot place him...

Fitzroy, another Fitz

Johanne: Fitzroy, another Fitz Sorry dear, not enough info...who was Fitzroy? Do I just need to go rent the movie again? I also didn't know that Laura's Rupert was in this too...:-(

Cheryl, Fitzroy was a military aide to King George III and stayed loyal to him. I don't know if Laura's Rupert was in this - I don't remember him - but Rupert Everett played the Prince of Wales (later regent and George IV). RE was in Another Country with CF. Actually, I'd seen the stage play in London and didn't pay too much attention to the movie.

We saw so little of Col. Fitzwilliam in the adaptation that he did tend to come off like the town gossip/flirt.

And only one small photo in the "Making of ..." book

Back to Ann's comment (#122) on the filming of Darcy's first solo visit to Hunsford. The great distance between Darcy and Lizzy is certainly irritating. but I think it was quite deliberate. It is an uncomfortable scene because they are so at odds with each other. Lizzy is puzzled by his visit, his aloofness, and what he does say when he gets round to talking, (the easy distance conversation - him thinking of when they are married, she not realising this), on top of her dislike for him. Meanwhile Darcy is truggling with his attraction to her, and his usual difficulty in talking to her. I think the exaggerated separation in ther seating is meant to emphasis this. It foreshadows the proposal scene, the point at which they are furthest apart in the whole story,and it is acknowledged openly. And it also makes a lovely contrast to the scene at Lambton Inn, where they sit so close, feelings much closer and more in tune, and Darcy takes her hand.

Re 137 Hilary - I agree with you, although when Darcy starts the conversation by remarking about the alterations Lady C had made to the house he begins to "thaw" a little and look more at ease than Lizzy. If he were truly very uncomfortable I don't think he'd have snickered when she said "I am sure she could not have bestowed such kindness on a more grateful recipient" (paraphrased). I love the look he gives her when she says that :)

Hilary, I too love that snicker re: grateful recipient; I always thought that he just appreciated Lizzie's humor in that and the fact that she could be polite while describing her idiotic cousin so accurately! He was actually quite "thawed" out otherwise he wouldn't have paid the call in the first place; it's Lizzie who is still very cool to him!!;-)

I have no problem with where they are sitting, I have a problem with the fact that the cameraman barely has Darcy in the frame. Most of his head is off the side of the screen. It is really annoying. There is the same problem with the second proposal scene. The camera is pulled in so tightly that Darcy keeps falling off the edge of the screen.

The camera is pulled in so tightly that Darcy keeps falling off the edge of the screen. Yes, these are both examples of errors in camera work when shooting something in film that is intended to be transferred to video. Which makes me marvel even more at the skill that it must have taken to film the Netherfield ball scene in such a masterful manner!

Joan, do you think Darcy is completely in the frame on the film then? I'd love to see that, it's always annoyed me too that he is practically out of the picture.

Yes, I like that snicker and look too....I'd forgotten about it! He does appreciate her humour, doesn't he? He may be thawed out, so to speak (!), but he still finds it hard to talk to her.

do you think Darcy is completely in the frame on the film then? Yes - would be interesting if they ever decided to distribute the filmed original to theatres. (Or televise it in letterbox format?) The place that it bothers me most is in the second proposal. At least in the parsonage scene, it is consistent with the attitudes of the characters to have them at opposite ends of the screen, and even partially "offstage" - but IMO it really looks bad in the proposal.

How dare they deprive us of even one frame of our complete darling Darcy! Blasphemy!

A&E deprived us of many frames. The video, though, includes every frame, but a few inches at each side of each frame do not show - like when they show "The King and I" without doing it in letterbox - only in that case often what you miss is significant! I love it that AMC shows those films in letterbox format.

Yeah, it's amazing how much you miss after they "pan and scan" films for TV. I think AMC did a special using KING AND I as an example, and you suddenly realize you're missing half the movie if it's not letterboxed!

TV stations are beginning to show letterboxed movies more often these days. At least cable stations are. Sci-Fi showed the Star Wars Trilogy in letter box, and of course AMC shows some movies that way as well. Hopefully people will get used to it, and the networks will pick up on it too. Probably wishful thinking, but more titles are available in letterbox in video stores and people are getting used to it. Occasionally TV does wise up. I heard that Shindler's List is going to be shown commercial-free on one of the networks--with an intermission. I don't know if there will be commercials during the intermission. They realised it would be increadibly crass to break that movie up with advertisements. Someone actually was thinking!

There is a terrific review of P&P2 in today's (2/8/97) New York Times by Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, a book reviewer for the NYT. He compares the translation of book and series and likes both better than any other Austen adaptation. I'll try the link. Hope it works! http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/arts/tv-austen-review.html

Well, since we're not from the US there is a fee involved, and I resent paying it to see one article (for now). Could you comment on it Inko ?

Johanne, sorry about the fee - didn't realize. Anyway, I also posted this in the "Ramble" topic and Amy was kind enough to put the whole article in there. She put it in last Saturday afternoon, so if you go back a bit, you'll find it there. I suggest you go read it. He liked it, he really, really liked it!!!

I probably should not have posted it. But it seemed dumb that an article should expire on the very day it comes out. I suppose I am not setting a good example. It just seemed wrong, somehow, that we, of all groups, should not be able to read it.

I tried to access the site yesterday and it had already been incinerated. At least the L.A. Times manintains articles in an archive!

Do you have an address for the online archive, Amy2? Is it pubicly accessible without registration or fee?

The New York Times on the web is free, but they want to make some money out of it by charging for the archives.

Actually, the L.A. Times started off with free archives but now charges per search. And WHy are newspapers online so eager to give you a password? What purpose does that serve?