3 Adapting Pride and Prejudice: Portrayals of the Enemies to Lovers Trope – Camma Duhamell

Adapting Pride and Prejudice: Portrayals of the

Enemies to Lovers Trope

While the enemies to lovers trope has existed for centuries, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is credited with popularizing it through the burgeoning relationship that emerges between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy as the two learn to overcome the prejudices that have separated them. This paper will compare the novel with the 1995 miniseries adaptation directed by Simon Langton and the 1940 film directed by Robert Z. Leonard. These comparisons along with peer-reviewed research on the sources will outline the cause, development, purpose, and implementation of the enemies to lovers trope through Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s relationship in all versions. This paper posits that Leonard’s 1940 film tones down the tension between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy that leads to a satisfying denouement as the pair overcomes their differences, while Langton’s 1995 miniseries faithfully captures the novel’s relationship progression from enemies to lovers for the central couple.

At its most basic level, the novel is centered on the conflict between Elizabeth and Darcy.  James Sherry points out the novel Pride and Prejudice is “dialectical, and hence…both Darcy and Elizabeth must undergo some changes of heart and of opinion before the novel can reach its beautifully poised and profound resolution in their marriage” (28). Gordon Hirsch examines the central dynamic between pride and prejudice in the novel through a modern psychological lens, arguing that Elizabeth’s transformed opinion of Darcy accompanies her realization that some pride is justified. Hirsch argues that Austen’s novel depicts the complex interplay between pride, prejudice, and shame (with the former two often being motivated by the latter). Thus, the two central characters struggle with the shame developed by their different upbringings. However, they reach a reconciliation that is catalyzed by their recognition of and efforts to overcome their faults. For example, near the novel’s conclusion, Elizabeth declares that Darcy “has no improper pride” (Austen 316) and, influenced by the laudatory opinion of Darcy’s housekeeper, recognizes that her own prejudice and internalized shame over her family has been the greatest barrier towards forming an accurate opinion about Darcy (Hirsch 99).

In their reconciliation, Darcy admits to Elizabeth that he has also displayed unwarranted and inexcusable pride. Hirsch refers to this pride as “an offensive walling off of himself from others, something which cannot be justified on the grounds of either his personal character or his elevated social status” (Hirsch 99). During his second proposal, Darcy admits, “I was spoiled by my parents…allowed, encouraged, almost taught to be selfish and overbearing, to care for none beyond my own family circle, to think meanly of all the rest of the world” (Austen 310). Hirsch argues that the climax of the novel reveals “Elizabeth’s unflattering recognition of her vulnerability to shame and her understanding of what has motivated her behavior toward Darcy” (95). However, Darcy also transforms throughout the work, not only Elizabeth. Both overcome their initial perceptions of others, from Darcy’s first rude comments about Elizabeth at the Netherfield ball to Elizabeth’s realization of Mr. Wickham’s slight towards Darcy. Both characters remedy their central flaws and through increasing intimacy, recognize their mutual love and strive to form a healthier relationship.

Besides the themes of overcoming pride and prejudice as character flaws, the novel has a feminist goal. Judith Lowder Newton outlines how Austen utilizes Pride and Prejudice as a vessel for fantasy about women’s empowerment during a time when women were completely dependent on men for economic survival. Despite this inequality, Newton argues that Austen does not allow readers to perceive the women in her novel as powerless by depicting them, particularly Elizabeth, as calculating and complex while the men bumble their socially ordained power. However, Newton also posits that even rebellious Elizabeth is not immune to established social mores of power, constantly forcing herself to resist Darcy’s charms and the status boost his association with her provides during their first dance and onwards (29–30). After Darcy’s letter, Elizabeth realizes her “vulnerability to the good opinion of men…has blinded her to both Darcy’s character and to Wickham’s” (Newton 30). Dictated by male persuasion, this culminating recognition of the impact of her own vanity on her perceptions of others is what spurs the self-reflection that leads Elizabeth to heal her central flaw and change her opinion of Darcy for the better.

According to critics, there is a set of preferable criteria that strong adaptations (particularly for Pride and Prejudice, which has been widely studied) must meet. In Screen Adaptations: Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: The Relationship Between Text and Film, Deborah Cartmell unpacks the essence of a solid adaptation of Austen’s novel, popular with filmmakers: it must include an emphasis on words (as in Austen’s letters), art (like Pemberly’s galleries), new technologies (the pianoforte), and “female friendly episodes” to emphasize its cultural worth (13). In addition, Cartmell notes that critics could consider any romantic comedy in which the love interests initially dislike one another a “loose adaptation” of the novel (7). As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the novel Pride and Prejudice has catalyzed the popularization of the enemies to lovers trope.

Expanding on the transfer of Austen’s novel to the screen, the form of adaptation limits its capabilities. Films have less screentime available than miniseries, necessarily limiting how much content from the novel can be included. Anđelka Raguž argues that miniseries and films are not cross-comparable because of the time restrictions that limit directors’ ability to flesh out subplots and other characters in films, while miniseries have the space available (351). However, Raguž also claims that the 1940 Pride and Prejudice suffers from more than the limitations of its form, faithful to the novel at a much shallower level than other adaptations. This author posits that the essential components of adaptation are “omission and compression, simultaneously maintaining and translating the ‘spirit’ of the novel” (352). Finally, Raguž criticizes the shifted point-of-view of Langton’s 1995 miniseries from Elizabeth’s centrality in the novel to a shared consciousness with Darcy; the inclusion of extra scenes of Darcy that increase viewers’ sympathy for him also dampen the suspense about whether he will “renew his addresses to Elizabeth” as Austen intended in the novel (Raguž 355–57).

Diving deeper into best practices for the novel’s adaptation, one of the greatest struggles of adapting Pride and Prejudice is showing Elizabeth’s inner world on the screen. The first central theme, pride, is more easily displayable through physical cues like Darcy’s dress and behavior towards others. However, according to George Lellis and H. Philip Bolton in their essay, “Pride but No Prejudice,” the second central theme, prejudice, is “internalized, subtle, difficult to dramatize. A novelist can portray it fairly easily by detailing [a character’s] thoughts; a filmmaker (unless he resorts to obtrusive devices, like the voice-over) has far more limited access” (46). While in the 1940 film, Greer Garson (Elizabeth) conveys complex emotions through facial expressions that hint at Elizabeth’s inner world, Leonard’s film overall fails to provide enough visual evidence of Elizabeth’s prejudice towards Darcy to convince readers of their conflict (Lellis & Bolton 47). In many other scenarios, such as the carriage chase at the beginning of the film and the visual gags during Mr. Collins’s proposal, the filmmaker resorts to slapstick tactics to compensate for the ineffective storytelling that should establish the characters’ dynamics and theme.

With the 1940 version’s divergences from the novel in mind, Leonard’s purpose was satisfying the production studio’s demands and suiting the culture of 1940 America. Continuing criticism and providing context on the 1940 adaptation, Linda A. Robinson posits that Leonard’s adaptation is a film motivated by the production studio’s desire to portray characters with “a silhouette of cinched waist and hoop skirt, overly decorated with flounces and ruffles…primarily an MGM product and only secondarily a rendition of Austen’s work” (283). This motivation is the keystone for shifting the setting several decades later than either the novel’s setting or publication period. Behind the motivation is the historical context that the United States was on the brink of entering an alliance with Britain in WWII and the conversion of the Bennet family from landed British gentry to middle class serves also to strengthen the director’s egalitarian narrative and humility of Darcy (Robinson 284). Furthermore, Robinson argues that the conversion of Lady Catherine de Bourgh into an ally (a stark alteration of her character) was “a key component of the film’s project of implicitly promoting a US-British bond” (287).

The Robinson article showcases how the alterations in Leonard’s film through setting, plot, and characterization serve the MGM business model of producing lavish literary adaptations to earn profits rather than prioritizing faithfulness to the source material over all else. Robinson also references Cartmell’s criticism, noting that “the women’s costumes…are designed to be looked at rather than through to the characters who wear them” (Robinson 295). This shift directly contradicts the purpose of Austen’s female perspective centered narrative by portraying women as ornamental rather than complex, rational people. While Leonard’s film has literary merit of its own, fitting neatly into the popular genre of screwball comedy at the time, its liberties from the novel in plot, setting, and characterization alter the effect for viewers.

Raguž, Lellis and Bolton, and Robinson are correct that Langton’s adaptation is largely faithful to the novel while Leonard’s film does not prioritize story so much as satisfying cultural and production guidelines. With the length of a miniseries to its advantage, Langton’s adaptation preserves the extended initial conflict between Elizabeth and Darcy. Subtle interactions and character behaviors that are preserved in Langton’s adaptation but absent in Leonard’s film shift viewers’ impressions of theme from each piece of media. One key example of Langton’s faithfulness to the novel is when Elizabeth begins to value propriety and be ashamed of her family’s behavior only after Darcy points out its impropriety. Furthermore, Langton’s adaptation preserves the turning-point sequence of the novel: Elizabeth’s visit to the grand Pemberly estate, during which she learns of the housekeeper’s high praise of Darcy (Episode 4, 41:26). This drastically shifts Elizabeth’s volatile opinion of him because she views his inferior’s praise as a reflection of his true character. In the novel and Langton’s adaptation, Elizabeth’s changed perception of Darcy is toiled over, earned, and therefore more authentic and satisfying. By removing this integral part of the plot, Leonard’s film renders Elizabeth’s hasty declaration of love for Darcy insincere.

While the novel can easily depict Elizabeth’s inner transformation towards Darcy as she gains context about his past and motivations through his letters, the miniseries struggles to depict these elements visually. To compensate, Langton simulates Elizabeth’s inner thoughts by depicting Darcy’s perspective of events, creating dramatic irony. In the miniseries, integrating Darcy more deeply into the story displays the fervency of his love and enhances the satisfaction of seeing the pair each overcome their flaws to merge together, fulfilling Cartmell’s criteria for a strong adaptation of adding content to suit the visual medium. Notably, Langton uses other directorial techniques, such as flashbacks, to compensate for the inability to compellingly convey the novel’s letter-dependent important context. In Langton’s adaptation, flashbacks create a parallel between Wickham’s exploitation of both Georgianna and Lydia. These directorial techniques emphasize the characters’ emotional toil, both concerning the leads’ evolving relationship and all central events of the novel. Therefore, one benefit of the miniseries format compared to the film’s is the ability to deepen subplots and minor characterization.

While Langton’s miniseries fulfills Cartmell’s criteria for good adaptations, Leonard’s film transforms the source material in a different, culturally focused way. While Leonard’s film recognizes and caters to the culture of its production, its changes from the source material are so fundamental as to completely alter the intention and effect of Austen’s original product. Most crucially, what Langton’s adaptation succeeds in that Leonard’s fails to accomplish is a rendition of the interplay between pride, prejudice, and shame that is central to the novel’s developing love story. At its most basic level, Leonard’s failure to achieve the emotional complexity of the novel or the 1995 version stems from the writing, i.e., the removal of key plot elements. The deletion of the pivotal Pemberly scenes, through which Elizabeth recognizes her folly at dismissing Darcy’s character too quickly, fatally harms Leonard’s film. The lack of an initial enemy dynamic severely limits the payoff of the central characters’ transformations into lovers. Garson’s Elizabeth and Laurence Olivier’s Darcy do bicker sometimes, though their animosity is dampened and their interactions politer than in the novel.

In Leonard’s film, the actors verbally reveal their central flaws instead of subtly showcasing them as deeply in their behavior as in the novel or other adaptations. While Leonard cleverly condenses the textual nuance of the novel into a visual format in some creative added scenes, Langton more thoroughly demonstrates how Elizabeth’s rejection causes Darcy to reflect upon and change his prideful behavior. The miniseries also preserves Darcy’s protective, father-figure demeanor towards Georgianna when he breaks off her elopement with Wickham, showing Darcy’s tender side and suggesting that he is capable of changing his arrogance and respecting women. By omitting Darcy’s sister in the 1940 film, Leonard harms an important element of Darcy’s character that contributes to Elizabeth’s changed opinion of him.

Another main difference between the adaptations that impacts their portrayals of the novel’s themes is Elizabeth’s reaction to Darcy’s letter. Leonard omits the letter entirely, rushing Darcy’s revelation that Wickham has slighted him by eloping with Georgianna and removing the time gap that allows Elizabeth to brood over his letter, consider whether he is truthful, and shift her opinion of Darcy. Instead, Leonard has Darcy present Elizabeth with his defense in person immediately after she discovers Lydia has run away with Wickham, upon which she subsequently declares her love for him (1:33:38), a confidence she does not share in the novel for fear of judgment. By not depicting Elizabeth’s prejudice or the process of overcoming it deeply enough, Leonard stagnates the character transformations that are integral to the story.

Ultimately, showing this initial dislike and the process of overcoming it is essential for a story whose key theme is characters overcoming internalized shame and initial perceptions of others, instilled by restrictive societal standards, to develop true knowledge of and love for one another. As Sherry and Newton agree, overcoming the shame that has led to Darcy’s pride and Elizabeth’s prejudice is what makes the novel’s reconciliation so fulfilling for the reader. Leonard’s adaptation, focused on its cultural goals that depend on more lighthearted storytelling and less conflict, rushes the rivalry between Darcy and Elizabeth that makes their eventual marriage both surprising and satisfying. For the same reason, Langton’s adaptation preserves Austen’s intended criticism of Regency era courting and social statuses’ barrier to forming healthy marital bonds borne of love, not necessity. While both adaptations are beloved, only Langton’s fulfills the criteria for a strong, faithful adaptation of its source material—Leonard’s significantly damages the storyline’s core theme.