Have you seen this version? What did you think?

Last night, I rewatched the 1940 Pride and Prejudice, starring Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson – the very first big Hollywood adaptation of Austen's novel. And goodness, what a curious experience it is!

It is fascinating because it feels so very un-Austen. Instead of the subtle irony and sharp class critique of the book, MGM turned the story into a glamorous romantic comedy – all sweeping gowns, witty banter, and dramatic reconciliations.

The costumes alone make me laugh every time. Forget Regency muslins and Empire waistlines – here we are in full-blown Victorian crinolines, because MGM recycled costumes from Gone With the Wind. It is Austen by way of Scarlett O'Hara! The voluminous crinolines, puffed sleeves, and ornate gowns have nothing to do with Jane Austen's era, but they signal "old-fashioned" to a 1940 audience and add a theatrical grandeur.

Olivier's Darcy is darkly brooding and handsome – very much in the mould of Hollywood's leading men rather than the more awkward, proud, and restrained Austen creation. His Darcy is less socially stiff and more melodramatic, a Byronic figure softened by romance. For many, Olivier's Darcy was the archetype of the "handsome rescuer" rather than the socially clumsy aristocrat Austen originally penned. And Greer Garson's Elizabeth is witty, yes, but also a little too polished and mature to really capture Lizzy's youthful spark. The actress was in her early 30s when filming.

The biggest shock comes at the end: Lady Catherine's terrifying confrontation with Elizabeth – one of Austen's great moments of defiance – is rewritten so that Lady Catherine is actually testing Elizabeth, and then smiles and gives her blessing. That alone tells you everything about how Hollywood softened Austen's bite into a fairytale ending.

Yet… I cannot help but love it in its own way. It is camp, it is charming, it is pure 1940s escapism. Made in 1940, the adaptation reflects American values of individual choice and romantic triumph over social hierarchy. Class concerns and financial realities are softened; the Bennets' relative poverty feels more like gentle comedy than a genuine threat. The film reassures audiences that love can conquer social divisions – a message that resonates strongly with democratic American ideals on the eve of WWII.

So no, it is not Austen. But as a cultural artefact, as a glimpse of how America once imagined Pride and Prejudice, it is irresistible.

Although it is not the most faithful adaptation, the 1940 film played a significant role in popularising Austen for a mass audience outside Britain. It shaped early cinematic "expectations" of what a Pride and Prejudice film should be – romantic, glamorous, witty, and visually lush – even if it strayed far from the ironic, socially observant tone of the novel.

....................

Opening scene with archery – Instead of starting with the Meryton ball, the film opens with the Bennet sisters shooting arrows, immediately setting a comic tone.

The Bennets as broad comedy – Mrs. Bennet becomes almost cartoonishly shrill, while Mr. Bennet is portrayed as bumbling rather than witty.

Elizabeth's banter – Her sparring with Darcy feels more like a Hollywood screwball comedy than Austen's subtle irony.

Wickham sidelined – His role is cut down, and Lydia's elopement scandal becomes far less threatening, played more for laughs.

Ending with spectacle – Instead of Austen's quiet resolution, we get swelling music and a dramatic public reconciliation.

Kinga Brady