I just watched the 2005 film version of Pride & Prejudice. It’s the one with Keira Knightley. When it comes to filmed versions, most people mention the 1995 BBC version with Colin Firth. And I agree that it is quite a good version. But although it is well done, it is still typical of such versions: too much talking and rather too faithful a rendering of the book. The 2005 film breaks with such conventions, telling Jane Austen’s story the way it ought to be told on the screen.

A good example of this comes near the end when Lydia comes home with her Mr. Wickham. In the book, this requires a whole conversation between Elizabeth and Wickham where she makes it clear to him that she knows who he really is. This is all unnecessary. It seems to be in the book so that Austen can show that Wickham is not only a libertine, but a moron as well. Can Wickham really be so stupid as to think that Elizabeth would still admire him given what he did to the Lydia and the family? What’s more, could he reasonably think that all his other lies have not been revealed? In the movie, anything that needs to be said in this regard is done with Wickham trying to catch Elizabeth’s eye, and her turning sharply away. That’s the kind of thing that film can do and this version does an excellent job of this again and again.

One down side of the film is that it underplays just how horrible Darcy’s family and friends are. It isn’t completely absent, of course. There is plenty of Caroline and most especially Lady Catherine. What’s more, the film does a good job of contrasting Catherine with Mrs. Bennet. Neither is in an objective sense worse; they are just horrible in different ways. The Bennets may be silly and uncouth, but they are not silly and snooty. The book clearly does a better job. In fact, so good a job that I often think that Jane Austen was not a very nice person: she thought pretty much everyone was horrible. (Not that I disagree.)

The producers of Pride & Prejudice have also worked very hard to make the characters more sympathetic. Mrs. Bennet is still a ridiculous character, but she’s portrayed as a woman who is trying to do her best in a bad situation. There is one scene at the end of the book where Mr. Bennet tells Jane, “You are each of you so complying, that nothing will ever be resolved on; so easy, that every servant will cheat you; and so generous, that you will always exceed your income.” To this, Mrs. Bennet replies, “Exceed their income! My dear Mr. Bennet, what are you talking of? Why, he has four or five thousand a-year, and very likely more.” It is played for pure comedy: the silly Mrs. Bennet. But in the movie, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are in bed and he tells her this referring to Jane. Mrs. Bennet replies as in the book, but it is said playfully and then he reaches to kiss her. I really like that because it shows why Mr. Bennet might have married Mrs. Bennet in the first place and it shows that they do not have an entirely dysfunctional relationship.

This version is also by far the best cast version of the book. I’m not a big fan of Keira Knightley, but she is wonderful as Elizabeth. I particularly like her easy laugh, and this goes right along with her character in the book. In one of her first conversations with Darcy, she says, “I dearly love a laugh.” And then they go on to discuss the difference between (for example) the silliness of her family and her intelligent wit. Knightley brings that off brilliantly. Similarly, Matthew Macfadyen is perfect as Mr. Darcy. In fact, he embodies the character so perfectly that I’m not sure how well their marriage will work out. There is no question but that he needs her more than she him.

The supporting cast is equally strong. Judi Dench as Lady Catherine is wonderfully horrible. Tom Hollander perfectly captures the servile yet self-important Mr. Collins. Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn add depth to the elder Bennets that isn’t even in the book. Rosamund Pike as Jane is two things that we almost never get from screen Janes. First, she’s gorgeous. This is often a problem because she isn’t the lead. But in her case, she is actually better looking than Knightley. Second, she isn’t just a quiet beauty. She has lots of depth and her intelligence comes across on the screen. I could go on about the rest of the cast. There isn’t a single bad performance in the whole film.

Perhaps most important of all, the film makes a lot of very good assumptions based upon the novel. The most important of these is how Elizabeth and Darcy have a connection from the start. He loves her despite all of the objections of her family. And she loves him despite the fact that intellectually she’s sure she should hate him. This continues throughout the film. The following is my favorite scene. I think it is the most romantic of things when Elizabeth says she is rather fond of walking and Darcy says, “Yes. Yes, I know.” And that dates back to when they had only just met. And he remembered. Also note how after she leaves, the camera dollies back to a close-up of his hand.

There is no doubt that the 2005 version of Pride & Prejudice is not terribly accurate to the exact plotting of the book. But more than any other version, it brings the book to life as it was in my head. If you love the book, read it again. I think I have read Pride and Prejudice more than any other book. But if you want to watch it, this is the version to watch.

On this day back in 1865, the great poet William Butler Yeats was born. I’ve never taken the time to really appreciate him. Perhaps someday. With all due respect (not much) to Robert Downey Jr, the ultimate and forever screen Sherlock Holmes, Basil Rathbone was born in 1892.

A whole bunch of actors have birthdays today. Malcolm McDowell is 70. It always amazes me how badly attractive men age. Both Richard Thomas and Stellan Skarsgard are 62. Tim Allen is 60. And crush of my youth, Ally Sheedy is 51. Finally, a musician, David Gray is 45. And because I’m suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning and thus just going through the motions, here’s one of his songs:

There are three great physicists who stand distinctly above all others. They are Newton, Einstein, and the guy normal people have never heard of: James Clerk Maxwell. And it is to him, born in 1831 that this day belongs. His work in color analysis alone was enough to make him famous in this own time. His work in statistical mechanics alone was enough to make him one of the most important physicists of all time. But it is for his work on electromagnetism that makes him as a scientist of unsurpassed importance.

He took the fields of electricity, magnetism, and optics and combined them into one consistent theory: Maxwell’s Equations. You may have seen t-shirts or (in this case) a mug with the following very nerdy physics joke:

Happy birthday James Clerk Maxwell!

I am deeply confused about the Israel-Palestine conflict. I feel for both groups of people and I truly feel that other than the extremists on each side, the people just want to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, one side of extremists have an incredibly powerful and effective military at its disposal. But regular readers will know that I tend to sympathize more with the Palestinians at this point because they have little power and die in far greater numbers. Although I understand why a Palestinian would become a terrorist, it should be clear at this point that their efforts are only giving Israel a compelling excuse for killing thousands of their countrymen. I’m not sure if a lack of Palestinian terrorism would do much, however. The current regime seems happy enough to allow illegal Israeli settlement to grow, even (especially?) at the risk of destroying any possible two-state solution. Regardless, none of this makes me against Israel, much less against Judaism.

So it should be pretty clear: I’m conflicted on this issue. But the following video from Eye on the UN doesn’t help; it hurts. The argument is one I am beyond tired of. It is, “If you say anything against Israel, you are antisemitic!” Roger Waters went to the UN and talked about the Plight of the Palestinians. The good thing is that one would have to be a true believer to watch this video and think it anything but a hatchet job. Waters provides an apologia of sorts for Palestinian terrorism by noting that occupied people usually push back. He says, “History tells us that the invasion and occupation of a land and the subjugation of its people almost always creates a resistance. Ask the French or the Dutch or the Poles or the Czechs.” The narrator claims that in saying that, Waters analogized the Israelis to the Nazis. Well, actually, he didn’t. But if the shoe fits… The Nazis did invade these countries and occupy them. That did create a backlash. I think we can all agree that as far as that goes, it is accurate. It is not at all the same as saying that the Israelis are involved in a genocide.

Speaking of genocide, the video deceptively cuts to imply that Waters says Israel is guilty of “ethnic cleansing.” He may have actually implied that, but then why the jump cuts? There are other similar edits. If I felt more up on the issues involved here, I would go and find the original video. But it is clear that this bit of video is highly deceptive. What’s more, its purpose is to stop anyone anywhere from complaining about the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. And that is totally unacceptable.

Before we get to the birthdays, we need to discuss a death. Early in the morning 50 years ago today, civil rights leader Medgar Evers was assassinated by white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith. But that was not the first attempt on his life. Others had tried to run him over and fire bomb him. It is shocking that to this day he isn’t widely known outside the civil rights movement. In fact, Emmett Till is far better than known than he is, even though Evers was so important in getting out the story of Till’s torture and murder. But there can be no doubt of just how important and effective Medgar Evers was. Just look at the reaction he got from the Mississippi bigots.

Evers was shockingly young when he died: just under 38 years old. To provide a little context, his older brother (Republican civil rights spokesman) Charles Evers is soon to turn 91. So it is very possible that Medgar would still be with us. Meanwhile, his murderer, Beckwith, lived to be 80. He only spent 6 years in jail for the crime because it took 31 years to convict him when he was already 73 years old. Before that, he had been caught trying to plant a bomb at the home of a leader of the Anti-Defamation League. He was convicted of “transporting explosives without a permit.” What a justice system we have!

Here is this morning’s Democracy Now! segment on Medgar Evers:

On this day in 1929, Anne Frank was born. I think the enduring appeal of her diary is that it shows that life will go on regardless. There is a similar scene in Schindler’s List where a couple are getting married in the camp. Even when suffocated by evil, people still manage to hope.

The chess player Donald Byrne was born in 1930. He is best known for losing the so called “game of the century” to Bobby Fischer. I’ve always thought he showed very good sportsmanship for playing the game through long after he knew he had lost. Mostly, he underestimated the 13-year-old chess genius. The game is known for an amazing queen sacrifice by Fischer, but other than that, it isn’t that interesting a game. Fischer conspicuously ignored it in his My 60 Memorable Games. Byrne was a Master level player—one of the best Americans during his peak. In 1955, for example, while playing black, he beat one of the chess icons of the 20th century Efim Geller. Byrne was also an English professor. He died of lupus at the age of 45.

Geroge H. W. Bush is 89 today. I give him another year to live. He doesn’t look too good, but I figure he will make it to 90 and then move on to the undiscovered country. I think the same thing about Bob Dole. But he hits 90 next month, so don’t be surprised if he soon decides it’s just too embarrassing to continue to be a Republican icon in the modern world.

Jim Nabors is 83 today. I hope that married life is working out for him. I suspect that it is. Musician Chick Corea is 72. And John Linnell, of They Might Be Giants fame, and Scott Thompson, of Kids in the Hall fame, are both 54 today.

Out of respect for Medgar Evers, no one “wins” today.

This morning at the Plum Line (which is no longer free), Greg Sargent reported on Holding Dems Who Vote Wrong Way on Guns Accountable. It explained that Michael Bloomberg has sent out a letter to Wall Street fat cats telling them not to give money to four red state Democratic Senators who voted against the Manchin-Toomey background check bill. It is not altogether clear where Sargent stands on this move by Bloomberg, but he provided only the last paragraph to argue against the move and then pretty weakly.

To a large extent, this makes me angry because of my priorities. Economics is what most matters to me and Michael Bloomberg is very much the enemy. And this little move of his might please a very small part of me, but its bigger effect will be to help Republicans win. And on economic issues, those Republicans agree with Michael Bloomberg. I doubt that is his specific intent. But it certainly doesn’t hurt that he will be switching out a Democrat who disagrees with him on guns and the economy for a Republican who only disagrees about guns. Why New Yorkers think that Bloomberg is on their side, I will never know. I also don’t know why he calls himself an “independent.” He is a typical blue state Republican: liberalish on social issues and that is all.

Just on the merits, this “kill off the conservative Democrats” is a bad strategy. It does nothing to increase the pro-gun reform movement. In fact, it may do the opposite. By lowering the competitiveness of Democrats in red states, it weakens the environment in which people can discuss gun law reform.

What we all need to remember is that gun reform is a single issue. Michael Bloomberg is not a Democrat. Other than a couple of issues, he is very much against the liberal project. There are plenty of gun reform groups one could support that don’t have a vested interest in getting Republicans elected by default. Look, I have no love for blue state Democrats either. But the truth is that on the vast majority of issues, they go along with the party. If voting against largely symbolic gun reform bills is what it takes for them to stay in office, I’m all for it. And so should be any Democrat, or even any left-leaning person.

And there is another part of the whole Michael Bloomberg circus that I hate. It shows that just because he has a lot of money, he can cause great harm to the democratic process. He doesn’t care if he destroys the Democratic Party or even the whole country as long as he gets his way on his pet issue. Sargent wrote, “They view this as a battle that could take many years to win and will require a major shift in basic thinking about gun politics among many top Democrats.” Why the focus on Democrats? This reminds me of David Frum’s ridiculous argument that we should vote for Romney because the Republicans would just continue to misbehave if Obama were re-elected. In this case, Bloomberg is saying that the Republicans are just wacko. So let’s reward them by attacking Democrats.

Michael Bloomberg is an evil and dangerous man.

This morning, Dylan Matthews at Wonk Blog (which is no longer free) explained, No, Edward Snowden Probably Didn’t Commit Treason. You see, Dianne Feinstein isn’t the only high profile idiot saying—based upon no evidence, I might add—that Snowden is a traitor. But it turns out that treason is a very specific legal construct that is hard to meet.

Basically, in order to commit treason, an individual must either go to war against the United States or must help a country that is at war with the United States. That clearly doesn’t include Snowden. In fact, it didn’t even include Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. We weren’t at war with the Soviet Union, so no treason for them.

There is even a question as to whether we are at war with al Qaeda. Of course, there is no question that our lapdog judiciary would see it that way. And that is what most concerns me about all this talk of treason. Even under the worst case scenario, Snowden is not a traitor. But as we’ve seen time and time again, the government has no problem stretching the law to unbelievable lengths in order to justify all of its vile acts. Just look at how the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act of 1917 to go after leakers. John Kiriakou was charged with three counts of violating it because he blew the whistle on our torture program. Go team!

In the end, I’m sure the government will go after Snowden under the Espionage Act too. But the truth is that it could go after him under the treason clause of the Constitution. And that should really concern us. At this point, the law is just a play thing for the government. If the government doesn’t like what you’ve done or what you’re doing, it will come after you. And there is nothing you can do about it. Kiriakou is a good example. In the end, all of the threats of the Espionage Act and even “making false statements” were dropped. But they still got him. He’s still going to spend two and a half years in jail.

So I don’t think Feinstein and friends really think that Edward Snowden is guilty of treason, except maybe in the colloquial sense (although that’s bad enough). They are just laying more of a foundation for further destruction of our civil rights. King George III: 1; American Revolutionaries: 0.

Italian Baroque composer Giovanni Antonio Giay was born on this day in 1690. And Portuguese Baroque composer Carlos Seixas was born in 1704. English Romantic painter John Constable was born in 1776. Photographic innovator Julia Margaret Cameron was born in 1815. Refrigeration technology inventor Carl von Linde was born in 1842.

On this day in 1864, the great composer Richard Strauss was born. Since I was a kid, I’ve been most interested in him not for his music but for his life. His only son Franz married a Jewish woman. He spent much of the late 30s and early 40s trying to protect his daughter-in-law and grandsons. And he was successful. But it did require him to associate with the Nazi regime in ways that disgusted him. Here is Also sprach Zarathustra, which Joseph Goebbels thought decadent, performed by the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra:

The man who moved his family’s textile company into automobiles, Kiichiro Toyoda was born in 1894. Jacques Cousteau was born in 1910. And one of the few football coaches I could name, Vince Lombardi was born in 1913.

Gene Wilder is 80 today. I doubt that Mel Brooks should have gotten screenwriting credit for Young Frankenstein. As far as I can tell, Wilder conceived and wrote the whole thing and Brooks acted the way directors normally do in the development of scripts. Much the same thing can be said of Blazing Saddles, where Brooks took top credit for screenwriting and put “Story by Andrew Bergman” in tiny letters. I think everyone knows that Bergman is a comic genius because of his later career, but few even know that Wilder wrote Young Frankenstein and is singularly responsible for its best scene:[1]

One of the few football players I could name, Joe Montana is 57. The great comedian Hugh Laurie is 54. Here he is with Stephen Fry doing their brilliant skit about the privatization of the police force:

And actor Peter Dinklage is 44.

The day, however, belongs to the great magician Dai Vernon who was born on this day in 1894. He had an enormous influence on close-up magic over the last century (he lived to be 98). But unlike too much of the magic fraternity, he wasn’t obsessed with getting credit for ever little thing he did. Magic, I’m afraid, is like academic politics: fierce because the stakes are so low. So in that environment, Vernon was refreshingly pleasant. And brilliant. Here is something amazing: 26 seconds of him doing the slow motion card vanish as a young man:

Happy birthday Dai Vernon!

[1] Yes, I really do hate Mel Brooks. I think he’s an awful human being. But if he had done any decent work after Young Frankenstein, I would be more forgiving.