早先去IMDB，才知道有如许多的傲慢与偏见，甚至还有宝莱坞的。看来我还不够铁杆，统共看过三种版本而已。
平心而论，劳伦斯奥利佛（Laurence Oliver）是我所见达西中最英俊、气质上的高贵淡定也最接近原著的。不过无奈我很饭费雯丽（Vivien Leigh），所以我没有办法喜欢令她破碎的劳伦斯。
在看05电影版傲慢与偏见以前，我对Colin Firth（以下简称科林）所担纲的95 BBC剧集达西也并不十分入眼。大部分原因还是出自我不喜欢伊丽莎白，或者更直白一点，戏里面她太胖了。05版我看了好几遍，当日我也承认，凯拉奈特莉的容姿足矣让人忍受两个钟点的故事蔓延，便是我这样爱打压，只肯拿莉齐作背景的挑剔客，也还不怎么呛声。更为重要的是，Mattheu Macfadyen（以下简称马修）的达西深得我心，我只怪导演给他的戏份太少，于是我写了这样的话：
......Matthew Macfadyen is every thing Mr Darcy should be: “fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien”, plus reserved, determined, yet attractive voice. If Firth Colins had set a milestone for Darcy, Macfayen went further. He incarnated him. Thus it is quite a pity that he shouldn’t have had oftener occasions to show his ardent love for Elizabeth.
我引了一句奥斯丁的原文对他大加赞赏。马修的外形比较有时代感，带着达西式的严谨拘束，嗓音低沉浑厚，当然也就愈发迷人。可是不久以后，我就把关于他和科林的比较调了个，亦即，他的达西马马虎虎，科林才是那个真命天子。
当然我这么说也欠厚道，因为对比电视剧和电影里的同一人物本身就不怎么公允。前者的时限约束远远不及后者敏感，因而电视剧对人物的塑形往往更加丰富立体。科林的场次比马修多，相同场次的挥洒程度亦不可同日而语，比如BBC立意改动而深得女观众尖叫的那段达西和伊丽莎白在彭伯利庄园重逢的场景，科林刚刚游泳，湿答答地自湖边走来，仪容不似平常那么隆重，显得草率不羁（据说也异常性感 -- 嘻哈粉丝小说如：Bridget Jones 和Me and Mr Darcy 一致吹捧）；而在电影版，马修更像一个抓小偷的管家似地冲进画面。
然而达西的深沉压抑，以及与其地位身份相匹配的贵族乃至迫人的霸气，透过科林的演绎表露无余。我很喜欢他第一次向伊丽莎白求婚遭拒的段落，瞬间的冲击过后，你看他强压怒气、转而冷淡地反讽伊丽莎白是否因他坦率地蔑视她的家境远远不及格而不接受他。这一层心理转折十分自然，是奥斯丁做的精细揣摩，而科林则是达西“高贵的蒙羞”的视觉具化。相比起来，马修那段就太上气不接下气，而对手他的凯拉又太跋扈，面露凶光，白齿森森，仿佛一个莽小子与一个原形毕露的女魔头。在气势上，他矮了太多。
可以说，马修深得达西之壳面，而其性情内在还研修不够，或者把责任推到导演身上吧，他给马修发挥的自由度尚缺。科林却称得上形神兼备，气宇轩昂。当然，他的架势做得太足，以至于到了二度求爱那场，你会觉得他有矜持得近乎冷感，嘴里说着“...it was all for you”你也感觉不到任何情话应当有的温度。科林的激情，似乎是等到Helen Fielding为其打造了Marc Darcy这个摩登版的达西，才得以自如挥霍。
相比之下，马修就不那么高高在上，他似乎一直在强调达西人性化情绪化的一面。往往是他被凯拉牵引着，而并非反过来或至少火力均等。在一定程度上，他弱化了达西的尊严。当然，在爱的方程式里，追求的一方总是最早低头的，但也大可不必，在晨雾里徒步远来，哆哆嗦嗦地告白：“...you’ve bewitched me, body and soul, and I love, love, and love you...”简直琼瑶小生的翻版。每每至此，我就忍不住发笑了。
我喜爱的达西先生，在这两种版本里，兼而有之吧。无法得兼也好，动动脑筋，自己还留着念想。
附：
我对凯拉马修版《傲慢与偏见》的评论，供参考：
Compared to the inoxidized and perhaps the most popular work of Jane Austen’s, the latest Pride and Prejudice in film is, in my observation, what Mr Darcy remarked on Elizabeth at the first sight: barely tolerable. Granted, in the perspective of grand paysages, of music, and of etiquettes at table and in balls, indeed, it is a very British film which surely has much credit to take. But in the name of the Pride and Prejudice of Jane Austen, for a person who found utter fun in reading every of its words, even those of the loathful personages as Miss Bingley, Mr Wickham, this film could not be more than mediocre.
Take the main characters first. Matthew Macfadyen is every thing Mr Darcy should be: “fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien”, plus reserved, determined, yet attractive voice. If Firth Colins had set a milestone for Darcy, Macfayen went further. He incarnated him. Thus it is quite a pity that he shouldn’t have had oftener occasions to show his ardent love for Elizabeth. On the side of Keira Knightley, she is uncommonly pretty as Elizabeth, but her disposition or what she appeared to have as, is so “lively and playful”, that at her senseless but seemingly indispensable “playful” chuckles （to hide her disconcertedness or dissatisfaction sometimes）, I could not help murmuring, what a silly girl! Though, absolutely probably, her inferiority could be imputed to a not-very-witty screenplay. And that turned us to my second observation.
A picture oddly lost in over-scrupulous background scenes (just count the minutes the camera shot and re-shot in ball halls) and in over carelessly-treated and therefore blurry subject: the love story itself. For example, please give a second thought, could you believe at their first rencontre, Elizabeth, after overhearing Darcy’s negative remark of her, would answer his attentive question instants afterwards “What do you recommend, for encouraging affection?” by saying: “Dancing, even one’s partner is barely tolerable.”? This is not an amiable and decisive Elizabeth, but a nobody with very inappropriate manners. Could you imagine, equally during her very first conversation with Mr Wickham, Elizabeth would have strong confidence in whatever he said, including distortions about Darcy’s uprightness? Were Elizabeth so, she is even shallower than nobody.
Besides, in book, after Darcy’s declaration of love and her refusal, Elizabeth spent very long to change her mind, through talks, pensées, letters, and then her short trip at Pemberley. But in film we saw her stand still atop a certain cliff overlooking the vast English green land, her cloak flying in tender wind; we saw her on carriage, silhouettes of trees on her beautiful face, and she opened her eyes, thinking. Indeed, just and always thinking. But how, a film spectator could have detected her minds if he/she happened to be unfamiliar with Austin’s work? So the case may be, very likely so, that one was startled at Elizabeth’s attitude towards Darcy, “the last man in the world that she will be prevailed upon to marry”, turned sharply! All of a sudden, with no touching particulars. Evidently, these are not Miss Knightley’s faults but the director’s.
In brief, the film galloped in haste when it should have paused and evolved elegantly in love, and in the opposite rhythm when definitely not necessary. But still, I have to say, worse is better than not at all, isn’t it?
