The Contamination of Mr. Darcy

Photo by flickr user nicogenin

Cognizant of the danger upon which I place myself in asserting the following declaration, I will nonetheless state it: I cannot stand Colin Firth. For those of you who dwell outside the realm of predictable “chick-flicks” and vacuous dialogue, I will enlighten you by disclosing that Colin Firth is a British actor, commonly cast as the cute, considerate, complicated and endearingly clumsy love interest to the female protagonist in films such as “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” “Love Actually” and “Mamma Mia.” Typically (read: in “Bridget Jones,” for I cannot rid myself of the image of his character in that movie), the heroine initially overlooks Darcy, Firth’s character, as a potential lover because his shy, reserved nature registers as snobbish. Furthermore, a gallant, glowing gentleman (i.e., Hugh Grant) who turns out to be a rake, is usually in the way of Firth’s conquest. The playboy woos the painfully insecure woman, uninspired dialogue ensues, the lover is exposed as a cheater, the woman is in throes, but—alas—Colin resurfaces and heals the wounded heart.

Don’t misapprehend me; I am a sucker for inane romantic comedies, yet my irritation with Colin Firth originates from the broody, slightly pathetic characters he portrays in these movies.

The paramount motive for my aversion to Firth is in the fact that he has forever tainted my perception of Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy.

Admittedly, I actually like Firth’s rendering of Austen’s irresistible—albeit fictional—creation. The actor portrays the original Mr. Darcy (not the gloomy, feeble one in “Bridget Jones”) with much devotion to the original text—therefore leaving very little to criticize—in the 1995 A&E miniseries production of “Pride and Prejudice.” Nevertheless, I will never forgive Firth for playing such an admirable personage as Darcy, only to pollute the character’s image with his subsequent movie choices.

How could he? Is Firth truly so insensible as not to foresee the injurious consequences that would plague his audience by succeeding Mr. Darcy with such unremarkable characters? I will never again be able to read the scene in “Pride and Prejudice” in which Darcy indignantly proposes to Elizabeth and she rejects his offer, without picturing the “Bridget Jones” Mr. Darcy bursting into tears.

I suppose my qualm with the poor Mr. Firth is rooted in a vaster dominion than this particular actor’s movies, and I might just possibly be projecting my anger towards the most salient exemplar of my frustration. The bigger picture is in fact the following: movies based on books are always disappointing, and more importantly, they very often cloud the reader’s imaginative powers and subject them to a particular perspective of the work from which it is very difficult to detach oneself.

It is not the actors’ fault per se, but thespians certainly carry a portion of the blame when they choose to partake in the cinematographic rendition of a literary work that doesn’t do justice to the original text. Arguably, a film will never be able to equal a book in its ability to inspire, stimulate, question and enlighten; as the medium itself lacks the faculty to depict the subtleties that are presented in the written word—that is, unless the screenplay follows the original text verbatim. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a movie based on a Henry James novel; it is actually painful for me to do so. I refuse to believe that the brilliant Isabel Archer from “The Portrait of a Lady” can be in any way emulated by Nicole Kidman.

It is precisely for this reason that I do estimate the 1953 film version of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” as a fine representation, for the movie stays very true to the author, and when it digresses, it doesn’t offend by attempting to surpass Shakespeare’s rhetorical genius. The most memorable scene in the movie is, ironically, one in which Marlon Brando, who plays Mark Antony, stands before the Roman people and silently gestures—doesn’t modify—the notorious “Friends, Romans, countrymen” speech.

Only films that are based on mediocre books have the capacity to convey new meaning to the text. My first encounter with Nicholas Sparks’ “The Notebook” was through the movie version, which I, like every other teenage girl in the country, quite thoroughly enjoyed. Such was my emotional attachment to the story that I decided to read the novel, which was, in hindsight, quite an absurd idea. Not only did the book disappoint my expectation that the written version would provide a deeper identification with the characters, but it actually ruined the movie for me by exposing the whole narrative for what it really is: a clichéd love story.

It might not be evident from this post, but I am actually quite a filmophile (so much so that I venture to define it in a term that doesn’t exist). However, I am not an advocate of merging literature and film. There are some brilliant screenwriters out there, I am sure (though most of them are currently in hiding, in my opinion), just as there are gifted novelists. Nevertheless, each of them should strive to improve their respective mediums, and if possible, refrain from interfering with the other, because if I happen to see a preview of Colin Firth playing Don Quixote, windmills will be the least of his worries.

Patricia Ball

Patricia Ball (CAS '11) is a literature writer for the Quad.

22 thoughts on “The Contamination of Mr. Darcy

  • March 30, 2010 at 1:53 am

    I won’t name his movies over again except to ask if you ever saw Valmont or A Single Man? That was great acting! Firth has often said he takes a role for various reasons, such as it appears to be fun or he wants the experience of working with certain actors, etc.

    I like that he doesn’t promote himself like most of the vain Hollywood actors do. He lives quietly with his family, does charity work without letting everyone know how generous and compassionate he is, treats his fans very well, and I could go on and on. He stands far above most actors with his endearing character, and with his acting. I suggest this author learn more about the man before she slams him. She might just be surprised, and she might learn why his fans are so faithful.

  • March 30, 2010 at 1:58 am

    AnaT – have you seen everything he has ever been in? I mean all 61 of his released films? I have. People who base an actor’s career (and disparage them) over one, or a few, role(s) would be better served to not comment at all. Such is the case with this article. I mean, seriously, if you can’t stand him, why bother in the first place? And, as I said, if you have only seen a few, or the rom-coms, you have no leg to stand on, as far as commenting on his career.
    “Loved Colin Firth in Pride and Prejudice and hated him in subsequent rolls!”
    He has been in 37 movies since P&P and you hate them all? How sad for you. You are missing some excellent work. (Including 2 Oscar winners)Plus several with several nominations 🙁

  • March 30, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Yeah, because there’s no way you can judge anything unless you have PERFECT knowledge of it, obviously. So all of you Firthers who haven’t seen every single role he’s ever been in, you can’t judge him as a good actor, either. Case closed.

  • March 30, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    I love Colin Firth. Loved him the first time I laid eyes on him. He is a wonderful actor and any actor that can make you “hate” him in a role, then he has accomplished what the role has called for!! I’ve seen many of his movie roles, bad guy, good guy, etc…I just love him, he is so appealing. You can tell a good actor by the way they express themselves with their eyes. He has beautiful eyes, so dark and expressive. Has anyone seen “The Girl With The Pearl Earring”? I can watch that over and over again, whew!!!!!! I love the British anyway, some of the most talanted actors are from the UK p.s he can put his shoes under my bed any day!!!!!!!!!! Linma

  • March 31, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Gabe Stein: I HAVE seen every role he’s ever been in, TV, film, stage and radio play (heard). I’m a very lucky person.

  • March 31, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Fair enough Diane, but although your devotion is admirable (scary?), it doesn’t really address my argument, which is that it’s still incredibly unreasonable to demand of someone complete knowledge of anything – be it Colin Firth or I dunno, string beans – before they can judge it. It’s just not the way humans work. We take a sample, then we judge.

  • April 2, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Just to clarify, the object of this post was not to criticize or even comment on Colin Firth’s abilities as an actor. Instead, I was using him as an example for the effects that watching a movie that is based on a book have on me.


Leave a Reply