I must first confess that I am a confirmed "Austenite," which is to say that I am a lover of all things by the English novelist, Jane Austen (1775 - 1817). There is a timeless quality to her novels because she was such an astute observer of human character in both its high points and its low points and also because she wrote about universal themes with which we can all identify and understand.

Her books are great "reads" and her characterizations to this day remain as sharp and as witty and as prescient as ever. I have read most of her novels at least once and "Pride and Prejudice" several times. While I have found "Northanger Abbey" to be tough going and "Mansfield Park" only slightly less so, I adore "Emma," "Persuasion," and "Sense and Sensibility" and consider them to be only slightly less inspired by her genius than her "P & P" masterpiece.

In a phenomenal display of her maturity and understanding of character and relationships, Jane Austen actually wrote her first novel when she was only fourteen years of age and she followed that up with her writing of "Pride and Prejudice," initially titled as "First Impressions," in 1797 when she was barely 21 years of age.

This was in an era when women were not supposed to write and any books written by them were either published anonymously or published under a male pseudonym. Her first novel, "Susan," later renamed as "Northanger Abbey," was sold for a scant ten pounds in 1803 but remained unpublished until after her death in 1817. All of Austen's novels were published anonymously beginning with "Sense and Sensibility," which was published to great commercial success in 1811.

The success of "Sense and Sensibility" caused her to reach back and revise "First Impressions" and resubmit it for publication in 1813 under its present title of "Pride and Prejudice." "Mansfield Park" and "Emma," quickly followed before she died in 1817 from Addison's Disease. "Persuasion" and "Northanger Abbey" were posthumously published while her final novel, "Sanditon," remained incomplete at her death at only 41 years of age.

Needless to say, the critical success of so many works did not leave Austen anonymous for very long in spite of the lack of published recognition. Her popularity at her death is shown by the fact that she is interred in Winchester Cathedral in Hampshire not far from the very London that she had so little use for while she was alive.

A lively and well read girl, Jane Austen is thought to have been much like her heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, in "Pride and Prejudice." In any event, her novels evidence an astonishing level of maturity and intellect with her keen understanding of the societal mechanics and social chemistry of her milieu. She was born the seventh child in a family of eight to a country cleric. She never married and lived with her beloved older sister, Cassandra, for much of her life. Like all of her heroines, country life was vastly preferred to the busy social jungle in London.

While living in Bath she enjoyed the one certain romance of her life with a young man, but it ended badly when he suddenly died. Fans of her books will be reminded that the unexpected death of a lover forms the powerful subtext of her novel, "Persuasion," where the constancy of love is the overriding theme of the story.

I have to admit that I was surprised when I first heard that "Pride and Prejudice" was again being made into a movie until I was reminded that this is only the second version in 65 years.

Unfortunately, the 1940 black and white version scripted by Aldous Huxley makes a mess of the story besides starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, both of whom were in their mid thirties at the time and thus at least 15 years too old for their roles. In addition, the costuming and the staging of this work place it in the Victorian Era which is almost a century after the time during which it should have been staged.

So, in actuality, this movie is long overdue when you consider that it is only the second time that Jane Austen's classic tale about love, sexual politics, and class consciousness as lived by women 200 years ago has been made into a movie. It is also faithful to its origins with its staging in the late Eighteenth Century rather than almost 100 years later as was the case with the 1940 version.

The main reason why this novel has so rarely been made into a movie is because it is such a complex tale of societal mores that it does not condense well into the time constraints of a two hour format without losing a lot of the luster of the story.

Relationships are everything in the novel, and even this fine version gives short shrift to the relationships between Darcy and Bingley, between Elizabeth and her sister, Jane, and between Elizabeth and her father. Several other relationships are either deleted entirely or only briefly hinted at. The result is that many of the relationships that were more clearly developed in the wondrous 1995 five hour BBC version are not in evidence here.

However, to meet the time constraints of a two hour movie, the decision was made to tell this story mostly from the eyes of the heroine, Elizabeth Bennet. As a result, Keira Knightley is on the screen in most of the scenes and since she is not only lovely to look at but also because she makes this role her own, this was clearly the right decision to make.

For Austenites like myself who will watch anything by her whenever it is shown on television, I am familiar with other versions of "Pride and Prejudice" besides that lamentable 1940 production. There are also a few which I haven't seen, chief among them the early television versions as broadcast in 1938, 1952 and 1967. The 1952 version starred Peter Cushing as Fitzwilliam Darcy. He is the only actor still known today from any of those three early versions.

The British, of course, rightfully consider Jane Austen to be their own and it is the British to whom we are indebted for the two previous very fine versions as presented in the television mini series format.

The 1980 BBC version stars a properly plain Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet acting opposite David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy. This is a lovely version well worth seeing for its attention to period detail if you can get past some of Garvie's annoying acting mannerisms and Rintoul's somewhat foppish presentation as Darcy.

Bennet's aunt and uncle are beautifully cast in this film and her sister Jane, played by Sabina Franklin, is still my favorite Jane of all of the productions. She is sweetness and perfection personified, although I must admit that Rosamund Pike in this new film does come very close to her ethereal level of beauty.

Fifteen years later the BBC gave us another production in 1995 and it is this lush and romantic version starring a luminous Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet acting opposite a tortured but testosterone charged Colin Firth as Darcy that fired on all cylinders. This five hour version gave full measure to this beloved novel which has assumed iconic status in the two centuries since it was first published.

Purists were initially aghast by the raw masculine power exhibited by Colin Firth in the 1995 BBC version in this lavish spectacle. Mr. Darcy taking a bath! Egads! "This wasn't in the book," they exclaimed, as if people didn't bathe in those days or at least weren't shown as doing this. Well, the very least that can be said is that Colin Firth is certainly the antithesis of David Rintoul in the earlier 1980 production on a scale of masculinity.

Since then, however, Austenites have declared this 1995 version starring Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Miss Elizabeth Bennet to be the definitive production, as well it should be since it is five glorious hours in length with no worthwhile detail left untouched. In addition, all of the leads were cast with consummate care and pitch perfection.

As far as I am concerned, however, they can keep remaking "Pride and Prejudice" as often as they want (as long as they do it as well as this!). Using a culinary analogy, if I should desire to dine on Oriental cuisine, I might not want my diet limited to Husan or Mandarin or even Thai food. After all, each has its merits and its subtlety of sensory phrasing and all are to be enjoyed in their place and in their time. So it is with each version of "Pride and Prejudice" as they all offer something special to savor.

To state it another way: If baseball fans can watch the Chicago Cubs play the New York Yankees (and lose) year after year, then I can certainly be allowed to watch a new version of "Pride and Prejudice" once every 10 or 20 years or so. It's only fair.

And this version of "Pride and Prejudice" which stars Keira Knightley as Miss Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew MacFadyen as Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy is surely a keeper.

For those purists who think that the 1995 BBC version cannot be improved upon, it should be pointed out that this two hour film gives us the flavor of Jane Austen without our having to devote the time necessary to see the entire five hours of that version. Like seeing the BBC production instead of reading the book, this film serves the admirable purpose of giving us "Pride and Prejudice" light, and that's just fine in my book.

The swan-necked beauty, Keira Knightley, presents us with a smart, witty, and passionate Elizabeth Bennet, the second of five sisters of a genteel family in the late Seventeenth Century England. At only nineteen years of age when this movie was made, she is actually one year younger than the heroine of the novel. It must also be pointed out that Knightley is far more beautiful than Elizabeth Bennet is supposed to have been, but on this point I will gladly allow some tampering with the Austen tradition.

Matthew MacFadyen gives us a Mr. Darcy who is shy and sensitive but is also equally as proud and as honorable as Colin Firth in his portrayal in the BBC version. In addition, since he wears his heart more on his sleeve, MacFadyen's Darcy is less of an enigma during the movie with the wonderful result that his personal chemistry when combined with that of Knightley's Elizabeth heats up the screen whenever they are together.

From the moment that the first assembly dance started I was caught up in the enthusiasm of all of the dancers, including all of the five Bennet sisters, as I thrilled to the music and the sheer joy of their dancing. Everyone packed together and just decided to "go for it." I was hooked from the moment I sat through these first joyous scenes.

My first Zapffe corollary about fine movies, which says that "It is all in the writing," is closely followed by my second Zapffe corollary, which states that "Every film would be enhanced by well thought out and well fleshed out secondary roles."

Needless to say, adding great luster to this film is the "A" list of actors filling out the secondary roles including Donald Sutherland as Elizabeth's father and Brenda Blethyn as her mother.

Both add luster and character to their roles, but it is Blethyn's portrayal that offers relief as well, since screenwriter Deborah Moggach scripted Blethyn's role as Lizzy's mother with much softer edges than is presented in the 1995 BBC version. In that version Alison Steadman played a Mrs. Bennet with so many hysterical tantrums as to approach the level of annoyance. Thankfully, that is not the case here.

Finally, Judi Dench creates a role similar to her short role as Queen Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" with another delicious but belated appearance in this film as the ignorant and bigoted Lady Catherine de Bourg who is aghast that her rich nephew will not be marrying her own sickly and thoroughly unappealing daughter.

Another point that is made far more forcefully in this movie is the seriousness of the marriage business to women, who were decidedly second class citizens of that era. While the Mr. Collins character makes this point in all filmed versions of the story, it is in this version which makes the additional point that daughters of gentlemen who do not marry usually remain at home as a burden on their parents.

They had but two choices in life: Marry well (hopefully) to improve their station in life or leave their comfortable home to start a new life in the employ of a new master as a governess to his children, which implied a drop in their station in life and a relegation to a career of service with but small chance for a home of their own.

For many it must have been a Hobson's Choice if the first proposal happened to come from someone as unappealing as the Mr. Collins in this story.

This film deserves additional commendation as well. The music scored by Dario Marianelli ("The Brothers Grimm," 2005, and "I Capture the Castle," 2003) and the lush cinematography by Roman Osin greatly complement the overall character of this film. Osin has a short résumé as a cinematographer, but he will be sure to be hired for future movies with a film as capably done as this.

It is my firm conviction that this 2005 version of "Pride and Prejudice" will most likely be hereafter crowned as the Knightley version in honor of Keira Knightley's consummate portrayal of one of the favorite heroines in all of literature. May she wear her crown comfortably as it is an honor richly deserved.

Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland)