Skip to content
Home » Essays » Pride and Prejudice (2005) or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Wish Fulfillment

Pride and Prejudice (2005) or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Wish Fulfillment

Pride and Prejudice Keira Knightley

To celebrate the birthday of Jane Austen, a small thought about why the 2005 Pride and Prejudice film adaptation deserves the love it receives from its cult following.

pride and prejudice 2005 joe wright keira

I remember the first time I truly considered Pride and Prejudice. A literature student showed me her dog-earred, yellowed, cover-torn copy. A possession she’d kept and re-visited again and again for over a decade. She said it was one of her favourite books, one she cherished a lot. Unbeknownst to her, I’d tried reading the book myself a few times. Austen’s writing, though brilliant, is far too difficult for a casual reader like me. The dialogue flew straight past my head, her witticisms completely invisible. It’s fair to say I’d been put off the by whole experience. I looked at this earnest friend who was trying to tell me more about herself and I snootily said ‘Classics aren’t worth it. They’re never good’ in a way only egotists who once had fanciful dreams of themselves being a classics-reading type would.

I think back to this literature friend a lot and how sorry I am about the whole ignorant ordeal. Because I wasn’t able to keep reading Pride and Prejudice, I dismissed it as old boring wish fulfillment for old dead bored women and literature nerds. And because, within me, was a hatred for the kind of literature that I perceived to be appealing to women, at the same time hurting them with dreams of meeting some rich guy who would solve all their problems. All that really needed to happen was for me to find it on Netflix on a bored Tuesday night, and I would have quickly realised how wrong I was.

Joe Wright’s 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice stands as one of the few cases where the over-polished sheen of the Hollywood adaptation is not only forgiven but completely suitable. And that may get some Austen-heads fuming, but hear me out.

For many people, Pride and Prejudice is the timeless comfort of bringing yourself back to the world of Austen, where all things end happy (unless you’re Lydia) and your friend Lizzy Bennet is snickering in your ear with a schemer’s voice that she’d rather drop dead than talk to someone you both dislike. Keira Knightley gets this so dazzlingly right when she giggles with Charlotte behind, what are effectively, the bleachers. The beauty of this Austen adaptation is how it, as any 2-hour adaptation of a book should, highlights key dynamics of the story and heightens them.

Pride and Prejudice 2005 jane austen birthday.JPG

The point of Wright’s Pride and Prejudice isn’t to be a word-perfect projection of the book on screen —we have the wonderful BBC adaptation for that. After all, isn’t ‘You have bewitched me, body and soul. And I love, I love, I love you. And wish from this day forth never to be parted from you’ ridiculously correct for Regency period dramas of the mid-2000s?

Critics of the film rightfully point to how it warps the relationship of Lizzie and Darcy to be a case of stark opposites attracting, with far more obvious passion than the book did. But I say the film isn’t there to fit Austen’s era, it’s for the audience of 2005. And it’s no different than translating Emma to the 90’s quirks of Clueless (1995). Or the Bridget Jones’ Diary film which transforms the whole story to fit an audience of rom-com lovers.

In a way, the cult love for Wright’s Pride and Prejudice is indicative of a thirst for escapist fantasy. Austen’s original work was about pointing out the subtle hypocrisies of upper-crust society, the effects of downward mobility, the unjustnesses of marriage. All of that is in the film, but what people remember most about Wright’s adaptation is the proposal in the rain, the way Mr Darcy flexes his hand after its touched Elizabeth’s, the kind of earnest declarations of love that would only be forgiven in stories set in late 18th century England. Not by accident either.

p&p 2005 keira knightley rosamund pike

In the DVD commentary, when Darcy is walking towards Elizabeth in the fog of dusk and through the countryside field, about to propose to her for the second time, Wright says:

‘One of my make-up artists was stood beside me while we were shooting this. And she whispered very quietly “I wish that was my life.” And I think wish-fulfillment is…wish-fulfillment serves a purpose. A lot of people consider it a cop-out or a cynical act, but I think wish fulfilment’s very important in drama. And it’s important for the people who watch it and the people who make it. We need to have something to reach for. To not settle for less.’

pride and prejudice 2005 jane austen matthew macfadyen

On some level, we all know the simplified fantasy of marrying a rich man to get you out of institutional and financial oppression is not good, but that’s completely discounting how empowering it is to fantasize. The case for 2005 Pride and Prejudice is not just one for Hollywoodisms, but also a case for holding women-centric wish fulfillment in high regard. That isn’t to say Pride and Prejudice isn’t challenging, it is. But Wright leaves some of the challenges behind, leaving more space to enjoy the gorgeous cinematography and beautiful faces.

Need more thoughts on movies? Read our other essays.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *