Pride and Prejudice

When I was a wee lad in Boston, WGBH (Channel 2), the local PBS affiliate, ran Pride and Prejudice as a miniseries on Masterpiece Theater. I remember being intrigued by the costume drama, by the insufferable Mr. Darcy, and the strange twists that bring him together with Elizabeth Bennet. In the mid-90s, the BBC did another version, a 4-hour movie broadcast in two 2-hour parts, starring Colin Firth as Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth.

Now there's a major motion picture with Keira Knightley (Bend it Like Beckham, Pirates of the Caribbean) starring as Elizabeth. She has quite a task ahead of her, considering how widely loved the BBC version is.

Does she pull it off?

I just saw the film. I enjoyed it a lot, but felt that, in compressing the story into a 2 1/2 hour film, everything felt a bit rushed. Overall, I prefer the pacing of the BBC version.

The cast was very good, but again, they had a high standard to meet, if they didn't want the film to be viewed as a waste of time. Knightley seems much more like a teenaged girl than Ehle did, who seems more like a young woman. Also, one is more impressed with Ehle's ability to speak Jane Austen dialogue, esp. dialogue that is intended to express the great intelligence of the speaker. I say this not to disparage Miss Knightley, but I still will view Ehle as the definitive performance. Her Elizabeth seems more secure, in spite of the lower station, and less hurt by Darcy's initial disapproval. Indeed, she manages to express middle class anti-rich snobbery, which is a fairly common phenomenon, but is dismissed out of hand in the 2005 version. Finally, Ehle has smiling eyes that convey a depth of meaning that is stunning.

I went into the film expecting Knightley, the headliner, to be hard-pressed to make a good comparison with Ehle. She did a respectable job, but I was ultimately not surprised.

What did surprise me was Matthew MacFayden, who gives a terrific performance as Darcy. This is a daunting task, given how widely loved Colin Firth's Darcy was in the BBC production. (Indeed, his Darcy in that production led to him being chosen as Mark Darcy in Bridget Jones' Diary.) Firth expressed a pained discomfort in his dealings with people that was palatable. His interactions with Elizabeth start with his attempt to dismiss her, as he naturally dismisses most people, and then go from there. MacFayden starts off slowly. In the early part of the film, he doesn't express discomfort so much as disinterest. But it does pick up from there. By the middle of the film he has found a new Darcy - strong and resolute, though pained. It is an appealing metamorphisis. Does it compare favorably with Firth? Well, I still would prefer Firth's portrayal, but at least MacFayden has taken the character in a new and interesting direction.

I saw two major differences between the film and the BBC production. First, the film did not glorify the period living, the way that the BBC production did, and indeed most costume dramas do. Instead of a manor house that was in order, the Bennet residence was a working farm, with geese and pigs moving about. The contrast with the Binghley estate, and especially with Lady Catherine de Burgh's estate, was marked. This distinction was appreciated.

The second major difference was the time compression. Jane Austen novels are notable for her ability to develop a large number of characters. Sadly, a number of the minor characters get short shrift in the film. The villain Wickham is hardly developed at all - his interest in Elizabeth was totally short-circuited to move him quickly along to his seduction of Lydia. Lydia herself was a delight in the BBC production - again, her role was diminished in the film, as were all the sisters. Worse, the characters of Jane Bennett and Mr. Bingley are nearly rendered completely trivial in the film. They were far more interesting in the BBC version, and integral to the plot! The film does a disservice to Jane by completely ignoring her when she goes to London. And Bingley, who is charming if not terribly deep in the BBC version, is reduced to a silly man in the film.

Having said that, I'd say the biggest drop off was the in the portrayal of Mr. Collins, the preacher cousin who decides to propose to Elizabeth, is rebuffed, and then marries her friend who doesn't love him. Tom Hollander does a good job with the role - it is simply that David Bamber was magnificent in the BBC production. (Indeed, Bamber is listed third in the credits after Firth and Ehle - Hollander is buried in comparison.) Judi Dench is, however, and this comes as no surprise, terrific as Lady Catherine de Bourg. I'd say her performance was the only one clearly superior in the film as opposed to the BBC version (with all due respect to Catherine Leigh-Hunt).

On the whole, the film is definitely worth seeing. Keira Knightley had to stretch to play Elizabeth Bennet - she is doing a good job with the role considering her age. Let's keep in mind the career arcs of leading ladies such as Nicole Kidman, who was doing junk at a similar age but has evolved into a terrific actress. Knightley doesn't quite dominate the movie as, say, Helena Bonham Carter dominated her breakout film, A Room with a View. But there's definitely enough talent here to keep track of.

London sights

Just keeping track of things here. Saw Hampstead Heath last weekend. Seems like a nice place - I'll surely go back, esp. now that I've realized there's a direct bus from Maida Vale.

Noticed (sadly) that the Mummy exhibit at the British Museum is over. Had wanted to see it!
So I'm going to start keeping better notes about what I intend to see in London (outside London is separate posting).

1. British Museum (sans mummy)
2. Victoria && Albert (programmer joke there - not really funny)
3. Greenwich - visited 9/24, want to go back
   
4. Madame Tussaud (?) - maybe this should wait for a visitor
5. Science museum (?? - should get review)
6. War museum?
7. St. Paul's (!)
   
8. Another run through Buckingham Palace/Westminister Abbey
9. National Gallery
10. Tate (?)
11. Globe theatre
12. which reminds me - I need to check that I've got Stratford-upon-Avon on other list
13. Sherlock Holmes stuff

This is all just starter stuff.

August doldrums

Just checking in...

trying to think of fun, exciting things to do in the coming weeks.

Touring England

Just thought I'd jot down some of my ideas of what to see in England, in no particular order.

1. Cambridge (have seen Oxford)
2. York
3. Bath
4. Brighton
5. Beaches
6. Windsor castle
7. St. Paul's (done - 12/31/2005)
8. Greenwich (done - fall 2005)
9. Stonehenge
10. Cornwall

and beyond England...

11. Wales
12. back to Edinburgh
13. more Ireland, esp. Dublin
14. Germany (as always)
15. Greece (next summer?)
16. Portugal
17. Hungary

etc.

ID coverage in national news

A particularly noxious article by Alan Elsner.

Let's go through this, point by point.

First sentence:

"...is the latest shot in a long-standing war between religion and secularism in the United States in which religion now seems to be making broad advances."

First off, there is no such animal as "secularism". This is a debate between doctrinaire religion and people who understand science. Perhaps it would be better to frame the argument that way.

Paragraph 3 is classic he said-she said stuff.

"Intelligent design holds that life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution and therefore an unseen power must have had a hand. Opponents say that conjecture is a matter of faith and has no scientific basis."

Compare this with

"Terrocentrists hold that the Earth is fixed in the universe and the sun revolves around this fixed body. Opponents say that there is no scientific basis for this claim, and that the Earth moves around the sun."

This is content-free reporting!


"This is just the latest clash between Christian fundamentalists, whose political power has grown exponentially in the past 20 years, and secular opponents. Other battle fronts include school prayer, stem-cell research, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, assisted suicide and end-of-life issues and above all, the question of abortion."

Really, when discussing scientific topics, one should avoid a phrase like "has grown exponentially". Exponential growth has a set, technical meaning in science. Mr. Elsner uses this phrase simply as a replacement for "has grown very rapidly". It's important to distinguish be exponential growth and rapid growth. A population could be growing exponentially with an absurdly long doubling time. Another population coudl be growing quadratically with a much larger rate of growth for any forseeable future.

Also, Mr. Elsner tosses a bunch of different issues together as if they were equivalent. It is important to differentiate between the fronts fundamentalists have opened against the First Amendment (insisting on publicly funded support of their religion, intrusion of religion into classrooms); public, moral issues that may or may not be influenced by religion (abortion, stem-cell research); and a simple question of what is science and what isn't.

Since the question at hand is whether intelligent design is a scientific theory, deserving of co-equal status with evolution, this would appear to be the most important question. But Mr. Elsner is not up to the task.

The next paragraph includes a powder puff quote about religion, and then the author goes straight into historical revisionism. Actually, that's not a fair criticism, as it maligns the field of historical revisionism by equating it with simply fictionalizing the past, and presenting the fiction as truth.

"The United States has always been a religious nation. For several decades in the middle of the last century, however, Christian conservatives took little organized part in politics, with churches preferring to look inward and focus on the congregants' spiritual well-being."

Actually, the first sentence is false. The United States was created as a secular nation. This fact is well documented in many places, see for example the Americans United website. The second sentence is baffling in its historical pigheadedness. The 1950s saw the peak of religious interference in the Republic, with the change of the Pledge of Allegiance to include the phrase "in God we trust". From the mainstream press description offered by Mr. Elsner, one would think that the nation had always been religious, but fell asleep at the switch in the 1950s, allowing ideas like evolution to get a foothold and distract the US from its destiny as a Christian nation. But the Christians in the US were never so timid as that. From CNN, we see that President Eisenhower said, when signing this change into law, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

Does this qualify as "preferring to look inward"? Passing a national law to make the inclusion of the phrase "under God" pervasive through "every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse"?

There are two more paragraphs in the first part of the article, also making evangelicals the focus.

The second half of the article continues its focus on evangelicals: a shorter version.
P1: Evangelicals became angry when the Supreme Court overturned laws requiring school prayer, and banning abortion.
P2: Alleges evangelical groups are growing, without really supporting the argument.
P3: Praises evangelicals for being well-oragnized, quoting a flak from a right-wing think tank.
P4: Discusses "religious awakenings", implying that one is currently going on.
P5: more of the same
P6-7: a welcome comment from Charles Krauthammer, warning evangelicals not to try to take on science.
P8: Evangelicals will not heed warning.

What is missing from this article? Any discussion of science. Since it was triggered by Bush's comment, one would think that the author would want to at least maintain the fiction of "presenting both sides equally". But the scientific side is not presented.

Disappointing.

Chilling in DC

Went to a wedding on Saturday between a pair of friends from my NCBI days, who both currently work for the Tigger, and may be moving to NYC. Good for them!

In DC for the wedding and the world championships of my fav geeky boardgame, Diplomacy. Should be fun.

The John Roberts nomination would have me concerned if I hadn't already given up to the notion that the USA has lost much of what made it a good place to live back in the 70s. Divisiveness is the keyword today. Fuck the poor! Long live self-interest! The sad thing is how much of this movement hides behind the skirts of self-proclaimed morality. The people running this nonsense are all scoundrels. Until that fact is faced, the US will head further down the crapper.

Living in London

So, I move to London in early June, partly to get out of the hideous American political state, partly for other reasons. (Side note: I use the word state here in the sense a physicist would: to describe the condition with respect to all observed variables.)

And then people start bombing the tube. It would be false to say I'm terrorized or scared or anything like that. Having a sniper in suburban Maryland was scary, esp. considering the leading clue about the guy(s) was that they were driving a white van or panel truck. (Try going down a street in the DC area for 1/4 mile without seeing two dozen white vans. It cannot be done! But I digress.)

What I'm aiming at here, is that I'm pissed off.

About the bombings, and about a lot of things.

'Nuff for now.