Pride and Prejudice

http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/featurePhotoSet.php?featureID=89
http://www.sndc.demon.co.uk/japp.htm
It's not easy to admit that one of the greatest works of English Literature was written by a woman. Peter Leithart has done a great job of arguing that Austen was a real Aristotelian, a student of human nature, and a precise minaturist of morals. The fact is is that I can't think of a single contrived scene in her book - there is no Deus Ex Machina, no pathetic fallacy, no jarring disharmony of characters. Everything occurs, as Shakespeare would have it occur, according to a Nature that is striving to move to Supernature, but without giving itself away to the fact. Her characters are always in character. Elopement leads naturally to scandal and coverup, which in turns provides the impetus to reunite Darcy and Lizzie, who were separated by the pre-scandal to start with (the scandal of being from a loud family without riches). A perfect circle.
The new movie is, in my opinion, less well done dramatically than the older television version. Each version emphasizes different scenes and different lines. Collins, in particular, received more attention in the first. However, the production values far surpass the older, and I can forgive its shortness, as its for the cinema. And the characters are well cast, with the exception of Judi Dench as Lady de Burgh. The old one was immensely better. Keira Knightley is very well indeed (a bit of all right), and Matthew MacFayden, that god among Englishmen for charisma and stage appeal, does a better than passable job. All in all, worth owning and rewatching. Jane Austen is wearing better and better with time.