I know. The pig. God Forbid the Pig. The pig wasn't in the house. It was in a covered way probably going to the courtyard. And Mr. Bennet was simply following his dear pig, there was a farm worker leading it. Many gentleman farmers bred special breeds of animals. He was mumbling something about a famous pig from Gloucester - a Mother Goose poem, I think. Goodness, the uproar.<quoted text>
No, i can understand why she and other people think so.Fact is that really in the miniserie the wiewers have a LOT of time of Colin. Not only that, the miniserie semms more a Pride and Prejudice as seen by Darcy side, that Pride and Prejudice as is in the book.Yes, the miniserie is more faithful to the book, but we have a lot of Darcy scene more than in the book. Darcy in wet shirt, Darcy that duels with sword,we see what Darcy see and does, all that seems built to "create" not the Darcy-caracther-sexsymbol but just Colin Firt-actor as sex symbol. I think that the miniserie had JUST the purpose to show the book, yes, but also ( if not especially) that, and very explicit, to make a sex Symbol of Colin Firth as Darcy.The Darcy of the movie is more subtle, and has soooo little time on screen that you have really to be attentive or maybe more sensisite ( like us :) to " catch him", and the movie is SURE more by Elizabeth( and Keira )eyes and feelings side. It is so much so, that you really feel that the MacFadyen part is quite...uncomplete, a bit lacking.To be clear, i liked a LOT more Matthhew than than Colin Firth, but i think the movie had not used"" well MacFadyen.If you add this to the fact that the movie is quite different from the book, thing that brought a lot of sacred-untouchable Austen fan(*)to kind of reject it ( and with it the two actors )...
(*)Believe me, i think that some Austen fan are really exagerated. Come on, Darcy and Elizabeth are fictional caracthers, is not like the movie changed real persons, or real events. Some changes are allowed. I mean, a lot had been done with Shakespeare, and there have not been all the complains made about the Austen books! I've read almost all rewiewes made on IMdb, and you couldn't believe some of the most bizzarre bias toward the movie. For example, the Pig. Oh, my God, they showed a PIG in a movie based on a Jane Austen book, HOW THEY DARED?
I think this movie could've covered another fifteen minutes given its popularity, but the producers didn't know that at the time. There are legitimate opportunities to include more Darcy (MD) without straying from the text. You don't have to include fencing, ponds, etc. Some scenes that the miniseries used as flashbacks could've been used like Wickham's memory vs. truth. Another visit at Rosings. A couple of scenes could've been used to lighten his character and perhaps show his charm, although the fumbling glove business cracks me up every time. I wish there had been more at Rosings. It was such a pivotal time for Darcy. More of Col. Fitzwilliam paying attention to Elizabeth (esp. I am a poor second/last son.) would've shown Lizzie's surprise more at the proposal. If there's a fault in the movie, it is a bit rushed.