Hollywood’s first real stab at Jane Austen wasn't exactly a lesson in historical accuracy. If you're looking for Regency bonnets and empire waists, you're going to be pretty confused by the pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast strutting around in massive Victorian hoop skirts. MGM basically looked at the 1810s and said, "Nah, let's do the 1830s because the costumes look cooler." It’s weird. It’s loud. It’s incredibly charming.
The 1940 adaptation is a time capsule of a specific kind of studio-era ego. You have Laurence Olivier, fresh off Wuthering Heights, trying to be a brooding Darcy while Greer Garson plays an Elizabeth Bennet who feels more like a sophisticated 1940s socialite than a country squire’s daughter. But here’s the thing: it works. Even with the historical inaccuracies—and there are tons—the chemistry between the pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast members is what keeps this version in the conversation eight decades later.
The Power Couple: Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier
Greer Garson wasn't the first choice. Actually, Norma Shearer was supposed to play Elizabeth, but that fell through. Thank goodness. Garson brings a certain sparkle that feels very "Old Hollywood." She’s sharp. Her Elizabeth isn’t just witty; she’s practically a stand-up comedian compared to the more reserved versions we saw later with Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightley. Garson’s Elizabeth is older than the book suggests, but she carries the film with a level of confidence that makes the romance feel like a battle of equals.
Then there’s Laurence Olivier. Honestly, he didn't even want to be there at first. He wanted Vivien Leigh to play Elizabeth, but the studio insisted on Garson. You can almost see that initial grumpiness in his portrayal of Darcy. It fits. He plays the "haughty aristocrat" better than almost anyone in history. It’s a very theatrical performance. He uses his height and that stiff posture to make everyone else in the room look like they’re beneath him.
The weirdest part? The script was co-written by Aldous Huxley. Yes, the Brave New World guy. He and Jane Murfin took the stage play by Helen Jerome and turned it into a romantic comedy that feels more like a screwball flick from the era than a dusty period piece. This influenced how the pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast interacted. The dialogue is fast. The insults fly. It’s less about social commentary and more about the "will-they-won't-they" tension.
💡 You might also like: Greatest Rock and Roll Singers of All Time: Why the Legends Still Own the Mic
Supporting Players Who Stole the Show
While the leads get the posters, the supporting pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast is where the real comedy lives. Mary Boland as Mrs. Bennet is a force of nature. She’s flighty, shrill, and perfectly captures the desperation of a mother trying to marry off five daughters in a world where women couldn't inherit property. She doesn't just play the role; she vibrates with anxiety.
Edmund Gwenn plays Mr. Bennet. You probably know him as Kris Kringle from Miracle on 34th Street. Here, he’s the ultimate exhausted dad. His dry delivery provides the perfect anchor for Boland’s over-the-top energy.
The villains are equally iconic. Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine de Bourgh is a masterpiece of casting. She looks like she’s perpetually smelling something bad. However, the 1940 version makes a controversial choice with her character near the end. Instead of being the ultimate obstacle to Darcy and Elizabeth's marriage, the film turns her into a secret ally. It’s a massive departure from the book. Purists hate it. But Edna May Oliver plays it with such conviction that you almost buy the change.
And we can't forget Melville Cooper as Mr. Collins. He’s not the creepy, slimy Collins from the 1995 BBC version. He’s more of a bumbling, pompous idiot. It makes the character less threatening and more of a punchline. This was a deliberate choice by director Robert Z. Leonard to keep the mood light during a time when the world was spiraling into World War II.
📖 Related: Ted Nugent State of Shock: Why This 1979 Album Divides Fans Today
Why the Costumes Changed Everything
You can't talk about the pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast without talking about the dresses. Producer Hunt Stromberg reportedly wanted the film to look more "lavish" than the Regency era allowed. The result? Huge sleeves and crinolines that look like they belong in Gone with the Wind.
This changed the physicality of the actors. Greer Garson had to navigate these massive skirts while trying to look spirited and athletic. It forced the cast to move in a more formal, exaggerated way. If you look closely at the ballroom scenes, the choreography is dictated by the sheer volume of the fabric. It turns the movie into a visual spectacle that distracted audiences from the grim reality of 1940.
- Production Fact: The film won an Oscar for Best Art Direction (Black-and-White).
- Budget Reality: MGM spent a fortune on those costumes, which is why they moved the setting to the 1830s to justify the expenditure.
- The Olivier Factor: Olivier later admitted in his autobiography that he was "unhappy" during filming because of the casting of Garson over Leigh, but he eventually grew to respect Garson's talent.
The Script's Weird Deviation from Austen
Aldous Huxley’s involvement is still one of the strangest footnotes in film history. Why would a philosophical giant write a romantic comedy? Money, mostly. He needed the paycheck. But he brought a certain biting wit to the script that suits the pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast.
However, the Hollywood "Happy Ending" treatment is everywhere. The stakes feel lower because the movie leans so hard into comedy. The subplot with Lydia and Wickham—played by Ann Rutherford and Edward Ashley—is treated more like a scandalous prank than a family-destroying catastrophe. In the book, Lydia’s elopement is a tragedy that nearly ruins her sisters’ lives. In the 1940 film, it’s just another hurdle for Elizabeth and Darcy to hop over.
👉 See also: Mike Judge Presents: Tales from the Tour Bus Explained (Simply)
Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane Bennet is another interesting casting choice. She was already famous as Jane in the Tarzan movies. She plays Jane with a sweetness that is almost too much to handle, but she serves as a great foil to Garson’s more cynical Elizabeth.
Legacy and Where to Watch
Is this the most "accurate" version? Absolutely not. If you want accuracy, go watch the 1995 miniseries. But the 1940 version is a reminder of what Hollywood used to be. It’s a star vehicle. It’s about glamour. It’s about seeing two of the biggest stars in the world trade barbs in fancy outfits.
The pride and prejudice movie 1940 cast successfully translated British literature into an American cinematic language. It proved that Austen’s themes of pride, social standing, and first impressions were universal—even if you dressed them up in 1830s hoop skirts and gave them a Hollywood makeover.
If you want to experience this piece of cinema history, here’s how to handle it:
- Stop looking for the book. If you try to compare the dialogue line-for-line with Austen's prose, you’ll get a headache. Enjoy it as its own entity.
- Focus on the character actors. The leads are great, but the real magic is in the supporting cast like Mary Boland and Edna May Oliver.
- Check the streaming platforms. It’s frequently available on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) or for rent on Amazon and Apple TV.
- Observe the lighting. This was shot during the peak of black-and-white cinematography. The way they light Greer Garson to make her eyes pop is a masterclass in studio technique.
The 1940 version isn't just a movie; it’s an artifact. It shows how the film industry viewed high art during the Golden Age. It’s breezy, it’s funny, and honestly, Laurence Olivier in a top hat is never a bad way to spend two hours.
To truly understand the evolution of Jane Austen on screen, your next step should be to watch the 1940 version back-to-back with the 1995 BBC adaptation. You'll notice how the 1940 film prioritizes "The Movie Star" while later versions prioritize "The Author." Compare the garden scenes specifically; the 1940 version uses them for theatrical blocking, while the 1995 version uses them to show the isolation of the characters. Observing these differences will give you a much deeper appreciation for how cinematic language changed over fifty years of filmmaking.