The 1980 Pride and Prejudice made-for-tv miniseries is a solid, well-respected BBC adaptation–so respected that it almost kept the 1995 version from being made. It has a reputation for being quite faithful to the original dialogue and story lines, which is half deserved.
What’s this version like?
Pride and Prejudice 1980 is a studio version done on videotape, which makes it feel like watching a play. Most of the action takes place indoors, because videotape doesn’t allow much flexibility for changes of scenery. Charlotte Bronte’s infamous commentary on the novel describes this version very well: “No open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck. I should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined houses.”
Who is Elizabeth in 1980?
It’s the character of Elizabeth that gets top billing in 1980; Darcy is not the focal point of this version. Elizabeth Garvie handles the leading role well, even if she is far too old for it. Her Elizabeth is sweet and witty, and surprisingly boy-crazy–she’s very outspoken about her interest in Wickham. This Elizabeth is solid and competent, although she’s certainly not Darcy’s idea of the accomplished woman.
Who is Darcy in 1980?
Many Pride And Prejudice fans will object, but here it is anyway: David Rintoul’s Darcy is a real jerk: he’s snobbish, arrogant and cold. He smiles, literally, twice in the whole movie. He also speaks with an odd, melodious tone, which accentuates his stiff manner.
What’s to Love in the 1980 Version
Much of Jane Austen’s text and dialogue have been translated to the screen intact, which makes this version a pretty faithful representation of the novel.
What’s Not as Lovable in the 1980 Version
While P&P 1980 is largely faithful to Jane Austen’s text, many of the characters feel off to me. Mrs. Bennet is too intelligent; Jane is not intelligent enough. Mr. Bennet is frequently rude to his wife and daughters, with no redeeming hint of humor or gentleness. Kitty and Lydia are supposed to be silly teenagers, but the actresses playing them are so much older that the idea is inconceivable.
Not only that, but the “faithful” dialogue is compromised by frequently assigning some lines to other characters. Jane Austen’s words may be the same, but if the speaker is different, is it truly faithful?
Favorite Original Scene:
Elizabeth’s visit to the Collins’s “humble abode” is punctuated with many little vignettes that show how intrusive Lady Catherine is into Charlotte and Mr. Collins’s day-to-day life. I enjoyed these little asides, in which Charlotte always shows her good humor and Mr Collins is made to look ridiculous. (Interestingly, 1980′s Lady Catherine is 20 years younger than the Lady Catherines from any of the other adaptations.)
Scenes That Make You Yawn:
The 1980 version languishes at key moments due to lazy film-making. When Elizabeth reads Darcy’s letter, and when she’s reconsidering his character in the halls of Pemberley, the viewer is given a static screen-shot and a placid voice-over. These are exciting moments–but the scenes are boring.
In fairness, letters are difficult to adapt to the big screen, and it’s hard to follow the trusty adage “show, don’t tell” when you’re trying to reveal a character’s deep inner thoughts on screen. But Elizabeth Garvie isn’t given a chance to show us through good acting how she feels during these pivotal moments. Instead, she delivers long-winded internal monologues in which she tells us her feelings. Yawn.
Fun Facts
- The 1995 BBC production starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle was set in motion in 1986 (!) but it was widely felt that it was too soon after the 1980 version to do it again.
- Many of the costumes were made for the 1972 BBC miniseries Emma.
The Final Word
Every adaptation brings something different to the table. See the 1980 Pride and Prejudice if you’re a devoted Jane Austen fan. But skip it if you’re not hard core–your time will be better spent with 1995 or 2005.
If you’re on the fence about whether to watch this version, would it help to know that Amazon prime members can stream this version for free?
Like this post? Subscribe to the Modern Mrs Darcy in a reader or by email.
Modern Mrs Darcy, a blog that puts a timely spin on timeless women's issues. Read more 
Hmmm…I’ve thought of watching this one, but may forego it now. I have Persuasion done in the same way and it was really a sad little adaptation of my favorite Austen book. Sigh, if only filmmakers were all women, these would be perfect. Or, dare I suggest, if they’d read the book through a few times themselves…
You are a dedicated woman! I can’t stand those BBC studio versions of anything! I am ashamed to admit that I haven’t even tried this one.
I’m glad to hear it’s not just me! I felt a little guilty about this review–it makes me feel better that there are other true P&P fans (because I know you are one) that hate the very idea of watching it!
I’ve been meaning to watch the wet shirt version after reading Jane’s Fame, so I think I’ll just skip this one!
I’ve been watching the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma under the free movies section of On Demand and really liking it.
I may give this a go. The 1995 version is one of my favorite movies ever. I watch it at least once a year. I could not stand the 2005 version and turned it off about 25 minutes into it.
I love 1995, but I also think 2005 brings something to the table. Keira Knightley is the only actress who approaches the “real” Elizabeth Bennet in age, and I enjoy her representation of the character.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on 1980!
I have watched several versions of p&p as an avid fan myself. My favorite is still the 1995 version with Collin Firth & Jennifer Ehle. I have to watch it at least once a year, often with my mom or sister. The biggest thing that I had with the ’05 version was that it did not seem true to the manners of that time. (Like when Mr. Bingley went into Jane’s room while she was sick) I really need to watch it again to really form an opinion about it, but I wanted to turn it off after a short time like another of the readers here did.
I thank you for a very honest assessment of this version, Anne. And while I agree that the 1980 Darcy has a wooden-ness about him, & that the “play like” quality you mention can sometimes make things feel a little contained, I still can’t help liking this version.
I also like the 1995 version (and my girls prefer it), but I didn’t care for the movie with Keira Knightley. Although you are right in pointing out that she, as an actress, is closer in age to Jane Austen’s Lizzie Bennett.
It’s just that I find myself being rather suspicious of recent movie translations of Austen’s works. It seems there’s something often inserted in the dialogue, or the way the characters are played off each other, to give the very unmistakeable impression to the viewer that the female lead is a strong & independent woman…..so of course, this must mean that Austen herself was really, at heart, a feminist. And but for the time in which she lived….
That such pains are sometimes taken with the way historical novels are presented to us today casts a kind of snarkiness over the whole production, for me anyway. Almost as though the screenwriter & director are trying to apologize for a period in history, instead of just letting us observe it for what it was.
I’m sorry I’ve babbled on! I like coming here to your blog, & do enjoy & appreciate the time you take to critique the various screen versions of favorites in English literature.
sincerely, Brenda
Brenda–I’m glad to hear from someone who liked this version! I know the 1980 version has tons of fans–thanks for bringing that perspective.
I recently rented a Colin Firth movie, and I can never think of him without remembering his Mr. Darcy–so I got out my 6-tape VHS set and watched it again. I then borrowed the book from the library and read it (again). Then, I got out my DVD of the 2005 movie and watched it again. I had previously bought the 1980 version on DVD but could not get past the first 20 minutes, so donated it to the library. However, last night, I watched it all, in 30 segments, on YouTube. Since Pride and Prejudice is on my mind now, I’d like to join the discussion.
My LEAST favorite is the 1980 version. E. Garvie was too sweet; she lacked the spunk, wit, and liveliness that was the very essence of Elizabeth. Jane was not at all the beauty that Austen described. Darcy was a pompous snob throughout and I never believed he was changed in any way by Elizabeth. His expressions and mannerisms revealed very little emotion, when he proposed or even at the end. Mr. Bennet seemed downright mean rather than teasing. Mrs. Bennet was not comical, as Austen portrayed her. I’m sorry to say that there was nothing in this version that I liked.
My absolute favorite is the 1995 version. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth nailed their roles, in my opinion. Jennifer’s way of delivering lines shows Elizabeth’s intelligence, spunk, and wit very well. I also credit Andrew Davies for giving us enough of Darcy to really understand him. Yes, at first he is a pompous snob, but his falling in love with–and rejection by–Elizabeth make him reevaluate himself. The scenes in which he comes out of the lake dripping wet and runs into Elizabeth, and then meets her aunt and uncle are precious, because you see how hard he is now trying to change. At the end he tells her that he was given good principles as a child but was left to follow them in pride and conceit and would have still been that way if not for her (straight from the novel). Colin Firth played Darcy perfectly. I didn’t find Jane as beautiful as she was supposed to be, but in those days probably a fair-haired, fair-skinned girl was considered a beauty. I thought all the other characters were very well cast and when I read the book, theirs are the faces I see.
The 2005 version was somewhat of a disappointment, though not as bad as the 1980 version. I felt Mathew portrayed Darcy as a man who only “seemed” proud on the surface but really was just shy and uncomfortable around strangers. This to me is a huge error because it completely mistakes Austen’s Darcy–who as I said above was a pompous snob at first, but gradually changes, with Elizabeth being the catalyst. However, I blame the script writers not the actor. As for Keira, I didn’t like her at all in this role. She came across as impetuous and almost bratty at times, rather than witty and intelligent. And she yelled at Darcy and her parents, something Elizabeth would not have done (also compare the way Ehle and Knightly refuse Darcy’s first proposal). I thought Jane to be truly beautiful, much more than in the 1995 version. However, I liked the chemistry between Keira and Matthew. I would have enjoyed this movie more, had it been advertised as a love story “inspired by the Jane Austen novel P+P” or “loosely based on P+P.” However, to change so many essential elements while calling it P+P seems disrespectful to what Jane Austen wrote.
PS: I really enjoyed reading the other comments on this blog. Thanks.
I agree with you… I read and watch this book and the movies (2005 and 1995 versions)… and I just found out about the 1980 series. I was pretty excited about it and I started watching with great excitement.. but really I couldn’t keep watching after Eliza overhears Mr. Darcy calling her tolerable.. ugg, running to her mother to tell her what she just heard.. no, no.. I don’t think I can give it a second chance, but so many people think it’s the best casting.. or maybe is the video quality of the series what doesn’t help with my perception.. who knows.. I’ll have to be in a really good mood to try it one more time.
Hmmm, I was surprised by the comments. I don’t know whether it was me, but I preferred the cast of the 1980 version the most to the others. All the Bennet sisters look alike, and I think they all looked well for the age they were playing.
People forget that Elizabeth is not just witty and intelligent, she is also very much proper and introspective, as we can see when Bingley’s sisters think she is initially worth knowing after the Netherfield Ball and when she dances with Darcy (she remarks that they are both of a taciturn disposition). I think Ehle was a good actress for portraying a playful Elizabeth, but I liked that in Garvie’s Elizabeth they played up her more thoughtful side.
I adored Garvie as Elizabeth and Rintoul as Darcy. I know many will object when I say they are my definitive Elizabeth and Darcy, in light of Ehle and Firth’s portrayal. The former just seems so much truer to the book to me, and I wasn’t sure about the new scenes added in the novel (especially the lake scene, which never needed to happen and no gentleman of the times would do such a thing).
I wouldn’t say it is the most faithful of the adaptations, and I don’t know about costuming enough to be sure, but it certainly meshes well with how I imagined it to occur in real life for that time.
“It certainly meshes well with how I imagined it to occur in real life for that time.”
Kay, that’s the best reason to watch–and enjoy–a literary adaptation, and I’m so glad that you found that in the 1980 version.
Pride and Prejudice fans are lucky to have so many to choose from!
Thanks for stopping by and for commenting.