Ever see the movie Pride & Prejudice, based on Jane Austen's most famous novel? Ever wonder why women melt at the mere mention of that movie? Ever wonder why men roll their eyes and shake their heads at the mention of the same movie?
In my opinion, Mark Twain summed it up well when he said "Jane Austen? Why I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book."
I sat and watched Pride and Prejudice (the 2005, 2 hour version) for the first time last week. Holy smokes, now I know why women go ga-ga over this flick.
Here is my theory on why women love this story.
First, it features the taming of a man. Elizabeth tames Darcy. She turns him from an arrogant snob into a slobbering, mushy, dancing, obsequious, dutiful romantic. Completely tamed. Conquest complete. What woman (deep down in her soul) does not want to change her man? I quote from Joe Carter, so it has to be true "What women fail to mention before the wedding is that they would never agree to marry us if they thought we’d remain the same pathetic losers that they first met. Every wife has an ideal of what her husband can be, and given enough time and the proper guidance, knows that he can become".
Second, Darcy absolutely cleans up every mess in Elizabeth's life. Who would not want that? The family disgrace of Elizabeth's floozy of a sister Lydia -- erased. The sadness of the older sister (Jane) at the loss of Bingley -- erased. Elizabeth's family's financial struggle to make ends meet -- erased. Batta-boom. Batta-bing.
Third, Darcy quietly cleans up all the messes. He does not, for example, clean up a mess and then go crowing to Elizabeth to get his scooby snack. He does it quietly. Humility is irresistible.
No wonder men hate this film.
Jane Austen has done millions of women a great disservice. Darcy is a cartoon. A myth. An icon. He doesn't exist. Well ... pieces of Darcy show up for brief moments during a relationship ... and then reality creeps right back in. The fall from Darcy to reality, I am afraid, is a long one with a hard landing.
Ok, putting aside my tongue-in-cheek post for just a moment, the truth is that there is only one redeemer in this life who can truly deliver. His name is not Darcy. His name is Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can truly redeem the messiness of our lives and deliver us from our own pride and prejudice.
In my opinion, this movie taps into is the universal longing to be pursued, rescued and loved. All themes which find their perfect expression in the life and finished work of Christ for messy people like you and me.
Nonsense. Of course, there is only one Redeemer. But aren't men supposed to love their wives as Christ loves the church? Aren't we all supposed to be little Christs, Christians?
Yes, Mr. Darcy comes in and fixes everything, in humility, and Elizabeth loves him for it. Don't you want to be that "knight on a white horse" for your wife, God strength enabling you?
Darcy is not a cartoon. Darcy is not tamed. He is a man. And he wins the love of a woman. Isn't that what a love story is supposed to be?
Posted by: Sherry | April 22, 2006 at 23:23
Hi Sherry!
I am glad you showed up. You make a good point "that men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church." It raises some excellent questions that I would like to explore with you or any other readers. Perhaps you can change my mind about this movie :-)
When you think of Darcy does it remind you of Jesus Christ? Do you think love must be won, like Darcy won Elizabeth's love? Is the portrayal of courtship and marriage as demonstrated by Darcy and Elizabeth the way marriage is supposed to be ... in other words, is that God's design?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 23, 2006 at 07:41
I have made every effort to avoid this movie. It is a 'chick flick", give me Lord of the Rings anyday.
I have to ring in on Sherry's "Don't you want to be that "knight on a white horse" for your wife, God strength enabling you?" If you read any of Shauntee Feldhan's (sp) books you see that her meticulous research has brought up a big difference in men and women. Women want to be pursued. They want to know they have a man chasing them, earning there respect and love over and over again. They love "the thrill of the hunt".
I feel in my 7 years of marriage I am lucky because "I got me a good one" and now she is mine. Yes she will always be mine, but I can not fall back on my laurels and not do anything to keep her interested.
Maybe I am a little off topic, but maybe not.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 23, 2006 at 09:04
"Maybe I am a little off topic, but maybe not."
Not too far off.
We are exploring the question of what marriage and courtship is supposed to look like -- is God's design for marriage the same as Jane Austen's depiction of courtship and love depicted in P&P?
Or, is my 12 year old daughter, and millions like her who adore this movie, in for a big let-down because they are pursuing a false ideal of courtship, love and marriage?
Those are the general things I would like to see discussed by bright people like you and Sherry and others.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 23, 2006 at 09:22
probably in for a bit of a let down. I hate to admit it, but it is true. The best thing we can do for our sons and daughters is model a marriage of integrity, peace and love. This will develop the ideas and feelings they will satisfy in a mate of there own.
If our generation raises God fearing, love focused children then we can make a difference on society as a whole. That will take some effort, but I am trying to raise my son to be the man I am working to become.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 23, 2006 at 13:22
I read a Christmas story of a just man who long, long ago quietly cleaned-up a pre-marital pregnancy and even took her to be his wife, protecting her honor and solving her financial troubles. Another even more ancient called her husband "Lord" while following his crazy plan to uproot and move to who knows where: where are we going? "I'll tell you when we get there"; she placed her faith in the ONE leading him and followed. They looked in faith to The One who could fulfill their longings while bumping around this earth following imperfect men.
Posted by: PDM | April 23, 2006 at 18:04
I'm surprised, because I had the exact opposite response to the movie. I was shocked that there was a movie that actually had a repentant woman in it. I think that all too often, men are portrayed as either consistent macho men or blundering idiots... never humble and wise men.
Elizabeth was wrong in the movie... several times... much of the tension in the movie comes from Elizabeth not understanding the good things that Darcy has done. Darcy cruelly ruined his almost-adopted brother's life.. right?... Wrong, he threw out a conniving crook that later nearly destroyed Elizabeth's family's reputation. Uncle whoever paid aforementioned crook to marry Lydia.. right?... Again, Darcy. Darcy arrogantly dissuaded his best friend not to marry Elizabeth's sister because he thought that she didn't love him and her family was flakey... right?.. Umm... right.. but although this was offensive to Elizabeth, she realized later that her sister did not love Darcy's friend and her family was completely wacko.
As a guy, I'm not much of one for 'chick flicks', but after watching this version of Pride and Prejudice... I was pleasantly surprised and considered it an atypical chick flick.
Perhaps I misunderstood much of the movie, but I see the major repentance and character change happening in Elizabeth... whereas the consistency lies in Darcy.
Still... I'd take LOTR over P&P any day as well.
Posted by: mathercize | April 24, 2006 at 01:56
"Still... I'd take LOTR over P&P any day as well."
Amen.
"As a guy, I'm not much of one for 'chick flicks', but after watching this version of Pride and Prejudice... I was pleasantly surprised and considered it an atypical chick flick."
Perhaps so -- but I think P&P is the reigning chick flick/story of all time.
"Elizabeth was wrong in the movie... several times... much of the tension in the movie comes from Elizabeth not understanding the good things that Darcy has done."
Elizabeth is humbled in the movie ... well, somewhat. Perhaps in the book the two characters meet in the middle, but in this movie, Elizabeth wins. Darcy is "bewitched", to use his own expression. Elizabeth owns him. Wrapped around her little finger. Darcy is practically grovelling ... it is embarrassing ;-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 24, 2006 at 07:53
In my scientific follow-up to this post, I surveyed several friends for their input.
I found numerous experts on the film and story.
Here was an interesting meme presented to me. I am still mulling it over.
I had one woman tell me that it was a wife's job to "civilize her husband." I replied, "so it is your job to fix your husband?" She quickly said "No, not fix him. Civilize him."
That comment really has me thinking. Any responses out there?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 24, 2006 at 07:56
My wife got me to actually fold my clothes and use a dresser. No kidding. I used to pile things after doing laundry and just walk down the line to get dressed.
Maybe I am more civilised now than I was 13 years ago!
:)
Posted by: BWB | April 24, 2006 at 15:17
Hm, I must be a male or something. I barfed my way through the required Bronte/Austen readings in high school and haven't touched them since. Can't stand Harlequin Romances, either.
She quickly said "No, not fix him. Civilize him."
Why the heck is that MY job? Wasn't his mother supposed to do that? (speaking in broad generalities, of course)
Posted by: carlaviii | April 24, 2006 at 15:51
Jeff:
Except for that little "Christ" part, we're back to agreeing again. I like this better.
But did Duke's loss and Redick's graduation really emasculate you to the point that you now have to watch Austen movies?
I do have to say, though, that I enjoyed Jane Austen's Mafia!
Posted by: tgirsch | April 24, 2006 at 17:39
"My wife got me to actually fold my clothes and use a dresser."
This is, indeed, progress. :) You are more civilized than I, sir. I still cannot fold my clothes or hang them in a civilized manner. I get creases in the wrong spot on my pants, and I cannot fold shirts to save my life. Mom did teach me how to fold socks, however, and that, at least, has served me well in my marriage ;)
"I barfed my way through the required Bronte/Austen readings in high school and haven't touched them since."
I don't ever recall hearing the names Bronte or Austen in high school. I must truly be uncivilized.
"Wasn't his mother supposed to do that?"
I agree with you. One of mom and dad's most important jobs is civilizing their sons. Civilizing barbarians is a huge task, however. Perhaps some "touch up" civilizing is still required for most wives.
"But did Duke's loss and Redick's graduation really emasculate you to the point that you now have to watch Austen movies?"
Answer: yes. Next question.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 24, 2006 at 18:03
I'm back--like a bad penny. Yes, I think Darcy's and Elizabeth's marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. I also think that the novel is not at all about "taming" a man. That's a nasty sort of goal in a marriage, except insofar as God uses both husband and wife to refine and encourage one another.
No, the book is about how Darcy and Elizabeth get past their pride and prejudice and discover one another's sterling qualities. Darcy is not really a an arrogant snob; Elizabeth only thinks he is. And she doesn't transform him into something different; he is already a gentleman. She eventually discovers that fact. Elizabeth is not a proud manipulative young woman from a bad family. Well, she does have a difficult family, but she is really a delightful, intelligent young lady. Darcy eventually discovers that fact.
Yes, both of them are a bit idealized in the end. There are revelations to come over the course of their marriage. However, isn't that how courtship always works? Love is blind--at first. Humans can only bear a little reality. We learn as we go along and grow into a deeper love as we overcome difficulties in marriage.
Posted by: Sherry | April 29, 2006 at 19:25
PS: I'm glad you enjoyed the war series. I'm taking a poll at my blog as to whether or not you should be required to READ Pride and Prejudice. So far, you'll be relieved to know, no one's voted. :)
Posted by: Sherry | April 29, 2006 at 19:28
One more comment, and I'll shut up. In response to your question at my blog about the movie(s), the short, recent version of P&P does leave out a lot. It's a good movie, but of course, it had time limitations. The BBC version is much better, but who's going to watch six hours of Pride and Prejudice unless they already love it? The best thing is really to read the book--first. You get a much better idea of Elizabeth's and Darcy's character, their strengths and weaknesses, from the book than from any movie. Movies are good at creating visual images (duh!), but tainted by the pre-suppositions the viewer brings to the movie. For example, if the actor playing Darcy comes across as a wimp, or if I already don't like that actor (or if I do), or if Elizabeth is too pretty or not gentle enough or whatever, then the story is skewed by my viewing of the movie version.
I really do think Jane Austen meant for Darcy to be a strong, gentlemanly character, with a bit too much pride or reserve that had to be overcome for there to be a comedy ending--a marriage. Maybe that strong core of character doesn't come across in the movie.
Posted by: Sherry | April 29, 2006 at 22:30
I like the six hour version and don't mind seeing the 2h version sometime; but I don't think I understand "uncivilized" men. Maybe it's too late for me to understand.
Posted by: Phil W | May 01, 2006 at 01:03
Sherry,
I agree that I need to read the book -- because the 2005 movie version does not fit well with the characters you describe. Several (at least 3) other women have made the same kind of comments as you. So I am going to restrict my criticisms to the rendition of P&P I saw and say you might be right about the actual book.
Darcy comes across (to a first time male viewer like me) as snobbish (at first), then love struck and weak-kneed. He ends up kind of appearing goofy and schmaltzy -- versus gentlemanly and noble. And he and Bingley look like little boys with big time crushes. I think a lot got lost perhaps on the editing floor -- or perhaps I am picking up on the worldview of the screen writer of the short rendition. Honestly, it does not paint a very high view of men (unless you have read the book, apparently, and can fill in all the gaps and have background knowledge on Darcy) -- it has a feminist edge to it -- and it surprised me that so many Christian women thought so highly of it.
I'll take your advice and read the book -- better yet, listen to it on tape on a long car drive :)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 01, 2006 at 17:13