Which Mr. Darcy do you prefer?
I prefer Matthew MacFayden simply because he allows such beautiful vulnerability.
-
My Pages
- Church (3)
- Family (12)
- Graeme (3)
- Heath (11)
- Me (26)
- Padme (1)
- Sac Town (7)
- Stuff (14)
- Summer (5)
- Uncategorized (6)
- Vox Sacramento (2)
- Map
- Support
- Contact Us
April 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
When I saw this post in the Cafe I just had to come here amd comment. (Finally something that has sparked me to write!) I look at many posts but some things I have a very strong opinions about like …
Hands down I prefer Colin Firth. He IS Mr. Darcy to me. (smile)
April 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Well, Colin Firh played Darcy the way he was written…Macfadyen’s version may be very appealing to some, but perhaps as another character.
April 29th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Matthew MacFayden allowed the character of Mr. Darcy to be three-dimensional. Before posting this, I realized that some might argue that Colin Firh did play the character “authentically”, and I do respect your opinions. However, after watching the Joe Wright version, I reread the book and discovered a soft sweetness that I did not realize before. I suggest watching MacFayden as Darcy, then read the book again. You just might be surprised to discover the “softerâ€? side of “poor Mr. Darcyâ€?.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Okay…I’ll keep an open mind if you will! It’s a question of perception…I agree that there is no question that Darcy had a “soft side”… since we are seeing him (in the book) through Elizabeth’s eyes, there is really no way to see that side until Elizabeth does. Clearly, Colin Firth’s Darcy was also devastated by Elizabeth’s refusal. Clearly he was painfully awkward when he proposed in the first place. And clearly he was in torment over Elizabeth’s agony about Lydia. At that point Elizabeth, however, had to believe that “I’ll never see him again.” That was the brilliance in the acting…we see his “soft, vulnerable side” but it can’t be so obvious that Elizabeth does too. I notice that most people enamored of MacFadyen’s portrayal speak of this “shyness and vulnerability”…yet Darcy is supposed to be an arrogant snob and supremely confident in society. He’s a prominent and unattainable person because of his “position” in life. I never saw any of that in MacFadyen’s version…I saw a man who was merely sulking at first and then became “shy” at the end. That’s not to say that the new version isn’t a perfectly lovely movie! No doubt, because of the shortened length, they needed to tart it up and dumb it down a bit. But that wasn’t the question…the question was which Darcy do you prefer?? And I happen to prefer the one who comes the closest to “my perception” of the one that Austen created.
April 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Is a man supposed to enjoy the writings of Jane Austen? Because I do. And so, I give my opinion hesitantly, while revealing the vulnerability of the softer side of myself.
I did not much enjoy the latest adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.
Colin Firth was true to the character I read in the book and I really enjoyed his performance.
There I said it.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Good points. However, I think it makes for better character development to see the character of Darcy through Darcy’s eyes; thus, making the “character” not a caricature of who and what Darcy is supposed to be, but rather a real human being. I see a stereotype through Firh’s adaptation of the role, and if this staying true to the book, then I’ll take the actor’s actor’s performance any day - even if this means that it strays from Austen’s character.
Shall I bring up Harry Potter now?! HAHAHAHA!
Yes, Tommy it is great that you read Austen! I can’t get Heath (my husband) to touch one Jane Austen book! Bravo to you!! Although, he occasionally wears my high heels around the house……………..JOKES!
April 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Wow…your vision is better than Jane Austen’s?? I’ll have to think about that one…
You know, you asked for an opinion. Then you sort of insulted me, by suggesting that I needed to re-read the book. Then when I cited the book, you said the book didn’t really matter.
It’s great fun to discuss things with people of differing opinions, but it has to stay logical. If Firth’s universally acclaimed portrayal of Darcy was merely a stereotype, and if it was also “by the book”….then that means that Jane Austen’s creation of him was a stereotype too. There’s nothing wrong with Matthew MacFadyen and I never said he wasn’t a perfectly decent actor. I also said that the film was lovely! Furthermore, I excused the liberties they took because of the shortened length. If you only wanted to hear from those who agreed with you, you should have said so…..sorry.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:18 am
Dear Blair,
I am sorry. I suppose I did get a little too passionate. Perhaps we are speaking from different perspectives. I grew up in the theater and majored in it in college. I am a Strasberg subscriber and a Stanislavsky believer. One of the most exciting things to me is character development. However, if I am not mistaken you are speaking from the literary point of view, and have made some strong arguments that no one could penetrate. I apologize for my antagonism and hope that we might engage in some more discussions later on.
Sincerely,
Sue
May 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
These comments are great. Who knew that this little subject could ignite so much passion. I love it!!!
May 1st, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Dear Sue…
Apology accepted! I may have been pretty overbearing as well…after all, this is your blog!! Say, we could go onward and discuss character development and all my other quibbles??? (Don’t worry, I won’t go there.)
I do have a question for you, though. Which did you see first…the BBC version or the movie? And do you own either one? Normally I don’t go around reading peoples’ blogs, but I had just seen the film and was curious to know what others thought too. I googled it and your blog popped up.
And for Tina: Passion? PASSION??? We’re talking Mr. Darcy here!!! Who of us (except Tommy) is entirely motivated by literary integrity??
Sincerely too,
Blair
May 1st, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Blair - Actually, I saw the BBC version first, but that was quite a while ago. Though, I should confess that I should have seen the BBC’s adaptation before watching the latest one. To be honest I did not like how Wright’s film omitted so many important details such as the extent of Mr. Wickham’s and Lizzie’s relationship. I realize that a movie for the masses must be cropped for the sake of mass appeal, but if one’s only experience of Pride and Prejudice is Joe Wright’s movie alone, then that is a shame. Furthermore, while I found the newer film’s Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander) quite amusing, I was somewhat annoyed by his appearance. He looked nothing like Mr. Collins.
As for “literary integrity” - I quite contradict myself when it comes to Harry Potter. I’d be surprised if David Heyman actually read one chapter of an HP book. Literary integrity? Not even a reference! Okay, so maybe I’m exaggerating a bit! Don’t get ME started on Harry Potter!
Blair, I am so pleased that your quest brought you here. While this may be my blog, this is a public forum. You are always welcome to comment, share, argue, and defend your opinion on this blog any time! I have enjoyed our lively debate and look forward to more stimulating conversation.
Tina - I, too, am shocked that such a subject would create such a stir. Who knew?
Sue
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:28 am
Have any of you watched Bride and Prejudice (the Bollywood version of Pride and Prejudice)?! I suspect you may find it almost sacreligious, but I thought it was very funny!
As to the Mr Darcy I prefer, I think I would have to go with Matthew MacFayden (if only because he went to my school!)
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:42 am
My two bits…
I think that the new film really did a disservice to MacFayden simply by being so short; there was virtually no time to get to know Mr. Darcy at all. It felt so rushed; how did Elizabeth even have time to fall in love with him? It seemed like the only two reasons she could possibly have for marrying the man were to get away from her family, and out of gratitude. How could she possibly even know that they had compatible tastes and opinions? The man barely says two words that aren’t about her, Bingley, her mother, or Wickham. So, in order to show us that he’s in love, he has to sulk and then be vulnerable. Not much script to work with. As a result he comes across more like a Charlotte Bronte hero than a Jane Austen one.
But, I’m probably biased. Though I have read the book several times, Colin Firth made Mr. Darcy come alive for me, and will probably always be Mr. Darcy in my mind. He is confident and yes, arrogant.
For the rest of the characters in the book, I kind of prefer the new version. It’s less over the top. Especially Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet. Tom Hollander I liked a lot. Have you seen him in Wives and Daughters (which also featured Rosamund Pike, who played Jane Bennet– six degrees of separation, anyone?)? The man must be the most versatile period drama actor I’ve seen in a while. Fantastic.
Tommy and Sam, love hearing from guys on this. My Dad watches all these JA adaptations with me, and tells me how Elinor Dashwood should never have married that wishy-washy Hugh Grant character, she should have wound up with the Colonel, and if I ever marry somebody with so little backbone he’ll be very ticked off; that sort of thing. Our favorite, by far, is Persuasion, with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. She’s so ordinary-looking at the beginning of the picture, and by the end happiness has made her so pretty.
Yes, I’ve seen Bride and Prejudice and I love it! Again, Mr. Darcy isn’t very Mr. Darcy-ish in my book, but then, anybody would be hard-pressed not to let Aishwarya Rai steal the scene!
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 am
Yeah, I didn’t think much at all of Darcy in Bride and Prejudice. I just thought it was a fun adaptation!
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:57 am
Would like to come back and comment soon, but real life has stepped in….ever dealt with contractors??? One interesting thing I’ve learned is that the success of the film has spurred a huge new interest in the mini-series as well (and no doubt the book, as well)….While the new film is #8 on Amazon’s list, the mini-series is currently listed at #21. For those who care about people getting a clearer picture of the whole story of P&P, that’s a good thing!
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Correction: Today the mini-series is the #3 bestseller and the movie is #10…..
May 4th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Doooooooood, Blair…You’re killing me here!