Pride and Prejudice Revisited: From Novel to Film, Austen’s Society, and the Roads Not Taken
Introduction
On 18th September, 2025 in our English department we watched the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice directed by Joe Wright. It was a special experience because this was not just about watching a movie for entertainment. As literature students, we were watching it in connection with Jane Austen's novel. That made every scene feel layered, almost like a conversation between two forms of storytelling, the book and the film.
First, I'll look at how the novel and the film use very different narrative strategies. Second, I'll try to sketch the society of Jane Austen's time because that background is what makes both the novel and the film meaningful. And finally, I'll play with some alternative endings. What if Darcy and Elizabeth never got together? What if Lydia's elopement ended differently? These questions are strange at first, but they force you to see how much of the novel depends on very delicate threads of chance, choice, and social rules.
Pride & Prejudice (2005) - Official Trailer
1. Comparing the Narrative Strategy of the Novel and the 2005 Film
Reading Pride and Prejudice as a novel is very different from watching Joe Wright's adaptation. You feel that difference almost immediately. Austen's writing has a sharpness that comes from her control of point of view. She uses free indirect discourse, a technique where the narrator slips into the thoughts of characters, especially Elizabeth. The effect is that you are both inside Elizabeth's head and outside it, able to see her mistakes while also sympathizing with them.
In the movie, that interior voice is gone. Instead of words, we get images, sounds, and performances. This forces the film to rely on atmosphere, gestures, and visual framing. Take for example the first assembly ball. In the book, the event is described with irony, especially the way Darcy dismisses Elizabeth as "tolerable but not handsome enough to tempt me." Austen gives us Elizabeth's perspective on this insult, colored by her pride. In the film, the camera does something different. It sweeps through the crowd, letting us feel the energy of the room. When Darcy speaks, it is not only about the insult but also about the public humiliation of saying it in such a setting.
This difference makes you think about how stories shift depending on medium. The novel gives you inner access, the film gives you outer immediacy. Neither is better, but they are not the same.
The Famous Rain Proposal Scene - Visual Storytelling at its Finest
Another example is the famous proposal scene. In the novel, Darcy's first proposal is full of awkwardness. He insults Elizabeth even as he declares love, reminding her of her inferior connections. The narrative strategy is to let Elizabeth's shock and anger guide the scene. We read the clash of pride and prejudice directly in her reactions.
In the film, Joe Wright stages the proposal in the rain. The stormy weather becomes a physical mirror of their emotions. You see Darcy and Elizabeth almost unable to resist each other, their voices trembling not only with anger but also with attraction. This is more romantic in a cinematic sense, but it also shifts the meaning. The film adds passion where the novel stresses wounded dignity.
The other striking difference is pacing. The novel takes time with letters, conversations, visits, and reflective pauses. The film condenses. Charlotte's marriage to Mr. Collins, for example, is a major thematic development in the novel. Austen gives space to Elizabeth's disappointment and Charlotte's reasoning. In the film, it passes quickly. You see Charlotte in one or two short scenes, and the depth of her choice is easy to miss unless you know the book. This is probably inevitable. A film has two hours, a novel has hundreds of pages. But the result is that the novel feels like society observed in slow motion, while the film feels like emotion caught in fast flashes.
There is also the question of tone. Austen is famously ironic. Her narrator makes sly comments that often expose the absurdity of characters. Think of Mr. Collins, whose every word is ridiculous but who never realizes it. In the novel, his long speeches are written out, giving us both the comedy and the pain of his self-importance. In the film, the actor plays him with awkward movements and stiff manners, which makes us laugh, but the careful irony of Austen's sentences is gone. The humor becomes more physical than verbal.
At the same time, the film adds something the novel cannot: landscapes, costumes, and visual rhythm. The long tracking shot at the Netherfield ball, moving through groups of dancers, is something no words can replicate. It gives the sense that all these relationships and tensions are part of one flowing society. Similarly, the close-up shots of Elizabeth walking through fields or standing at dawn with Darcy give us a sense of openness and elemental force. The novel is enclosed in parlors and letters, the film sometimes bursts into nature.
As a student, you might feel torn. Part of you misses Austen's irony in the movie. But part of you admires the way the film makes emotions physical. Reading gives you thinking space, watching gives you sensory immersion. Together, they show how the same story can live in two different kinds of art.
2. Illustration of the Society of Jane Austen's Time
If you try to understand Pride and Prejudice without its social background, it feels like only a love story. But if you bring in the society of Austen's time, you see it as something sharper. Austen wrote in the early 19th century, during what is sometimes called the Regency period. This was a world structured by class, inheritance, and gender roles.
Marriage was not simply about romance. It was a form of survival and social mobility. Women like the Bennet sisters had very few financial rights. Their father's estate was entailed, which meant it would pass to a male relative, Mr. Collins, instead of them. That created constant anxiety about their futures. The question "who will marry whom" was not idle gossip but a life-shaping issue.
This explains why Mrs. Bennet seems so frantic. Modern readers often laugh at her nervous energy, but in context her desperation makes sense. She knows her daughters must secure marriages or face poverty. Charlotte Lucas shows another side of this society. At 27, she is considered old, and she marries Mr. Collins not out of love but out of pragmatism. Her choice is painful but realistic.
Social rank also shaped interactions. Darcy's pride comes from his aristocratic background. Elizabeth, though a gentleman's daughter, belongs to a family whose manners and connections are considered inferior. This gap is not only about money but about social codes. Lady Catherine de Bourgh embodies the arrogance of inherited status. She cannot imagine Elizabeth as her equal.
Austen's society was also one of manners and appearances. Public events like balls and dinners were stages where reputations were made or destroyed. Lydia's elopement with Wickham shows this. Her personal mistake nearly ruins the entire family's standing. In such a society, one person's scandal spreads like a stain.
At the same time, Austen's world was in transition. The rising importance of personal merit and the value of individual choice appear through characters like Elizabeth. She refuses to marry without respect and affection. That was not the dominant social norm, but it was becoming a possibility. This makes her both a product of her time and slightly ahead of it.
Looking at this society from today, you notice both distance and closeness. Distance, because we no longer live in a world where a woman's entire security depends on marriage alliances. Closeness, because social judgments, class distinctions, and family pressures still exist, just in different forms. Austen's society is a mirror with old-fashioned edges but familiar reflections.
Understanding the Social Context of Jane Austen's England
3. Alternative Endings: What If Darcy and Elizabeth Never Got Together?
This part is more speculative, but it helps you realize how carefully Austen balanced her plot. The happy ending feels natural, but it is actually fragile. Small changes would have collapsed it.
Scenario 1: Darcy and Elizabeth Never Reconcile
If Darcy had not written his explanatory letter after the first proposal, Elizabeth's prejudice against him might never have been corrected. She would have continued to see him as arrogant and unjust. Darcy, wounded by her rejection, might have withdrawn permanently. In this version, Elizabeth might have remained unmarried, or perhaps married someone like Colonel Fitzwilliam if he had not been restricted by fortune. Her wit and independence would still shine, but her life would be more constrained by economic insecurity.
For Darcy, without Elizabeth's challenge, he might never have softened his pride. He would probably have married within his social class, perhaps someone like Miss Bingley. That marriage would be stable but cold. The novel's theme of transformation through love would be lost. Both characters would remain stuck in their flaws: Elizabeth in misjudgment, Darcy in arrogance.
Scenario 2: Lydia's Elopement Ends in Ruin
In Austen's novel, Darcy saves the Bennet family by arranging Lydia's marriage to Wickham. This act redeems him and clears the way for his union with Elizabeth. But suppose he had not intervened. Lydia and Wickham might have lived together unmarried, creating a scandal that destroyed the Bennet family's reputation. In that society, no respectable man would marry any of the sisters.
Jane would lose Bingley, pressured by his family to avoid disgrace. Elizabeth would lose any chance with Darcy. Even Charlotte might distance herself. The Bennets would face isolation, and Mr. Bennet's negligence would become a permanent curse. The novel would end not with marriages but with social ruin. This darker version reminds us how much depended on appearances.
Scenario 3: Elizabeth Marries for Security
Another possible ending is that Elizabeth, worn down by pressure, accepts Mr. Collins. This would mirror Charlotte's choice. She would live in comfort but without respect or affection. Her independence of spirit would be caged. Austen makes this scenario imaginable but rejects it. By refusing to let Elizabeth marry without love, she makes a quiet but firm statement about the value of personal happiness.
Scenario 4: Darcy Loses Courage
One more twist could be if Darcy, after arranging Lydia's marriage, still believed Elizabeth could not accept him. His pride might keep him silent. Elizabeth, meanwhile, might regret but never confess. They would live with unspoken feelings, each carrying a shadow of what might have been. This would be tragic in a subdued way, not scandalous but quietly heartbreaking.
Conclusion
Writing these alternative endings makes you appreciate Austen's actual conclusion. It is not inevitable. It is carefully crafted to allow growth, redemption, and balance. Darcy learns humility, Elizabeth learns self-awareness, and the Bennet family survives disgrace. The happy marriages at the end are not just romantic resolutions but symbolic acts of social and personal harmony.
Watching the 2005 film reminded me that these stories are alive. The novel and the film tell them differently, but both keep you thinking about society, love, pride, and judgment. As a student, you come away not only entertained but also challenged to see how fragile human lives are, shaped by choices and chances that could easily have turned out otherwise.
Works Cited
- Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. 1813. [Project Gutenberg Edition - Free Online Text]
- Wright, Joe, director. Pride & Prejudice. Focus Features, 2005. [IMDb Page]
- Jane Austen Society of North America. [Official Website - Resources and Articles]
No comments:
Post a Comment