This week, I’m going to blog about a classic novel being adapted into a film in the 21st century. In 2005, British director Joe Wright adapted the classic Jane Austen novel Pride & Prejudice  into a movie. The film is one of the many adaptions of Pride & Prejudice, including  a 1940 American adaption, an Italian television miniseries, and several British miniseries.

Pride & Prejudice was written by British author Jane Austen and published in 1813. The main character is Elizabeth Bennett and the story follows Elizabeth and her family as they deal with issues such as marriage, social class, and misunderstandings. The Bennett family consists of Elizabeth, her mother, her father, and her four unmarried sisters. The Bennett family is of the landed gentry, they have money but are not insanely rich. The novel is also a love story between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, although they initially dislike each other when they meet. They get off on the wrong foot, Elizabeth’s pride keeps her from seeing Mr. Darcy as anything except the negative first impression she initially had of him. While Mr. Darcy’s prejudice towards Elizabeth’s lower social class blinds  him to her many good qualities. Other plotlines include Mr. Bingley (mr. Darcy’s good friend) wanting to marry Elizabeth’s older sister Jane, but encountering obstacles because of differences in social class and her younThe book has family, friendship, and an unconventional love story. This is probably Austen’s most famous novel and is considered to be a classic.

The 2005 movie starred Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett and Matthew Macfadyen. The movie was filmed in England and was marketed towards a mainstream audience. Originally, the movie was going to be very true to the book. All the dialogue was kept the same and almost the entire movie was going to be from the perspective of Elizabeth (like the book). In the end, the dialogue in the film varied between being exactly the same as the book in some scenes, while most scenes had altered dialogue. This was done to help a modern audience better connect with the movie and the characters. The movie also features scenes from the perspective of Mr. Darcy, these are additional and not in the book. This was done to show Darcy as more human as well as to show the genuine closeness of his friendship with the character of Mr. Bingley. The movie was well-received by critics, with Keira Knightley being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress and was a success at the box office. Austen fans and British viewers of the film had divided opinions.

The movie has other differences than just the dialogue. In the movie, Elizabeth keeps secrets from her family and grows apart from her older sister Jane. This is different from the book, while Elizabeth does become frustrated with events related to her family, she never keeps secrets from them. She also confides in her sister after difficult events, they never grow apart. The movie also portrays Mr. Bennett as a warmer, more sympathetic father than he is in the book. His role in the family misfortunes, caused by him spending money on the wrong things, is downplayed. His relationship with his wife is much more loving in the movie. However, the movie also makes the Bennetts look poorer than they were in the book. Elizabeth also comes across as much more bold and impatient in the movie, she never yells at her parents in the book.

I’ve read the book twice, both times for classes in high school, and I like it. It’s not my favorite book in the world, but I did enjoy it and found it enjoyable to read. I saw the movie after I had read the book, and I liked the movie also. Weirdly enough, I just knew the movie would be different from the book. I was expecting it. I’ve just noticed that whenever classics are adapted to the big screen, they tend to be circumvented. There is less attention to detail, sideplots, and character development. I’m not quite sure why that is, I think it’s mostly for the sake of time and to make the movies more relatable to a modern audience.

The 1999 popular coming of age novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower was recently adapted into a movie. The 2012 movie starred Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, and Paul Rudd. The novel is critically-accalaimed and very popular amongst teenagers.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky is about a freshman in high school named Charlie. Charlie is really intelligent but is also really shy. He is the titular “Wallflower”, he prefers to observe rather than take actions. The novel is told by Charlie writing letters to an anonymous stranger (they’re pretty much like diary entries) as he goes through his freshman year, including his newfound friendships with Patrick and Patrick’s stepsister Sam, his experiences with drugs and alcohol, and his journey to find his place in this world while also trying to deal with his past. Charlie is dealing with the suicide of his friend Michael the previous year along with the death of his aunt when he was a child. The novel is set in a suburb of Pittsburgh in the 1990’s.

The 2012 film starred Logan Lerman as the protagonist, Emma Watson as Sam, Ezra Miller as Patrick, and Paul Rudd as Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson is Charlie’s English teacher who becomes a mentor figure for him. The film was well-received by critics, particularly the performances of the three main actors. The Perks of Being a Wallflower fandom reacted well to the movie. In my own group of friends, people liked the movie or thought that it did an adequate job with the book. There weren’t any huge glaring errors, but it’s not one of those must-see movies of the year and there is a general agreement that the movie did not do the book justice. To be fair, I think that the Perks of Being a Wallflower movie was highly anticipated and the fans of the book had high expectations for the movie (similar to the effect of The Hunger Games)

There are some noticeable differences between the movie in the book. In my opinion, the most noticeable one is how little the movie pays attention to the list of books that Mr. Anderson gives Charlie to read. Books like  Peter Pan and Catcher in The Rye change Charlie’s perspective on the world and people around him, it was kind of frustrating to me that we didn’t really see that in the movie. Charlie’s sister is not as major of a character in the movie and her subplots are minimized (the same is true of Charlie’s older brother). His family in the movie is fiercely Catholic, whereas they are not religious in the book. The book mentions the suicide of Michael almost immediately, whereas it is not mentioned in the film until Charlie tells Sam at a party. All in all, the movie stayed very loyal to the book. The author of the book actually directed the movie, so perhaps any differences were done on purpose.

I read the book about two years before I saw the movie. I really liked the book, I loved the way it was written. It’s a page-turner and really easy to get through. I think that many people, teenagers especially can relate to the feeling of being lost and trying to find yourself. I’m content but not crazy about the movie. I really liked Emma Watson as Sam and I liked how the movie was directed by the author. I would recommend it to people, even if they have not read the book. I just did not connect as strongly with the movie as I did with the book. The book is a must-read, the movie is not a must-see. I was not wow-ed by the movie, it’s not the type of movie I want to watch a dozen times more. Did anyone else feel the same way?

Fun Fact:

The character Sam dreams of going to Penn State (movie only)

The movie was filmed mostly in Pittsburgh and the surrounding suburbs