Greer Garson wearing a hoop skirt in a movie based on a Regency novel is just wrong. Honestly, if you’re a Jane Austen purist, the 1940 Pride and Prejudice is probably your worst nightmare, or maybe your favorite "what if" scenario. It’s weird. It’s loud. It’s Hollywood’s Golden Age trying to squeeze a satirical British masterpiece into a screwball comedy mold. It works, but not in the way you’d expect.
What Hollywood Got Wrong (and Right) About the 1940 Pride and Prejudice
Most people forget that movies in 1940 weren’t trying to be "accurate." They were trying to sell tickets during a war. When Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) decided to adapt Jane Austen, they didn't look at fashion plates from 1813. They looked at what was popular. That’s why we ended up with 1830s-style "Gone with the Wind" costumes in a story that takes place twenty years earlier. It's a mess of lace and giant sleeves.
The casting, though? That’s where it gets interesting.
Sir Laurence Olivier played Mr. Darcy. He was fresh off Wuthering Heights and basically the biggest heartthrob on the planet. He didn't want to be there, though. He wanted Vivien Leigh to play Elizabeth Bennet. Instead, he got Greer Garson. Garson was thirty-five at the time. Elizabeth Bennet is twenty. Does it matter? Kinda. But she has this sharp, intelligent energy that actually captures the spirit of the character better than some younger actresses have in more "accurate" versions.
The Aldous Huxley Connection
Did you know Aldous Huxley wrote the script? Yes, the Brave New World guy. It sounds like a fever dream. You’d expect something high-brow or maybe even dystopian, but Huxley—along with Jane Murfin—turned it into a fast-paced comedy. They stripped away the subtle social commentary and replaced it with sharp one-liners. It’s punchy.
The dialogue moves at a breakneck speed.
The Lady Catherine de Bourgh Problem
If you’ve read the book, you know Lady Catherine is the villain. She’s the gatekeeper of the old guard. She’s arrogant. She’s mean. In the 1940 Pride and Prejudice, they did something that still makes scholars scream into their pillows.
📖 Related: Big Brother 27 Morgan: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes
They made her nice.
Well, they made her "secretly" nice. In the film’s climax, Edna May Oliver’s Lady Catherine visits Elizabeth not to ruin her, but to test her. She’s basically a secret matchmaker. It’s a massive departure from Austen’s intent. It changes the entire theme of the story from a critique of class rigidity to a "grandma just wants you to be happy" trope. It’s bizarre, but for a 1940s audience looking for an escape, it worked.
Production Design as a Character
The sets were massive. MGM spent a fortune. You can see the "more is more" philosophy in every frame. The gardens look like they belong in a palace, not a modest country estate like Longbourn. But that was the studio system. Everything had to be bigger than life.
- Costumes: Designed by Adrian, the man who did The Wizard of Oz.
- Budget: Over $1.4 million—a huge sum back then.
- Tone: Much closer to a theatrical play than a cinematic epic.
The film actually won an Oscar for Best Art Direction. It looked expensive because it was. Even if the dresses were from the wrong decade, they were meticulously crafted pieces of art.
Why We Still Talk About It in 2026
You might wonder why we care about an eighty-year-old movie when we have the 1995 BBC miniseries or the 2005 Keira Knightley version. It’s because the 1940 Pride and Prejudice represents the first time Austen went mainstream globally. Before this, she was a "literary" author. After this, she was a cinematic brand.
Olivier’s Darcy is the blueprint. He’s more "brooding stage actor" than "repressed gentleman," but he set the tone. Every Darcy since—from Colin Firth to Matthew Macfadyen—is reacting to what Olivier did here. They either lean into the arrogance or try to soften it. Olivier just leaned into the smolder. It’s a very specific type of acting that doesn't really exist anymore. It’s performative and grand.
👉 See also: The Lil Wayne Tracklist for Tha Carter 3: What Most People Get Wrong
The Critics vs. The Public
Critics at the time loved it. The New York Times called it "the most delicious comedy of manners." Modern critics are a bit harsher. They point out the erasure of the Bennet family's financial desperation. In the book, if the girls don't marry, they literally starve or become governesses. In the movie, they just seem like they're having a slightly stressful party.
The stakes feel lower.
But honestly? Sometimes that's okay. It’s a "comfort food" movie. It lacks the damp, muddy realism of modern period pieces. Everything is clean. Everyone is wearing perfect makeup. It’s a fantasy version of England created on a backlot in Culver City.
Breaking Down the Narrative Changes
The film cuts a lot. Wickham’s backstory is trimmed down significantly. The whole subplot with Lydia’s disgrace is handled with a lot less gravity than it deserves. In 1940, the Hays Code (censorship) was in full swing. You couldn't talk too much about "ruined" women or the sordid details of a scandal.
So, they focused on the romance.
The chemistry between Garson and Olivier is what carries the whole thing. Even if they don't look like the characters you imagined while reading, they feel like people who are actually falling in love. It’s charming. It’s witty. It makes you realize that Austen’s bones are so strong that even a weird Hollywood makeover can’t break the story.
✨ Don't miss: Songs by Tyler Childers: What Most People Get Wrong
Key Differences to Note:
- The ending: As mentioned, Lady Catherine’s "test" is the biggest deviation.
- The humor: It leans heavily into slapstick, especially with Mary and Mr. Collins.
- The era: The 1830s aesthetic vs. the 1810s reality.
- The pacing: It’s only 118 minutes. The book is dense; the movie is a sprint.
Actionable Steps for the Modern Viewer
If you want to actually appreciate this film without getting a headache over the inaccuracies, you have to change your mindset. Don't look at it as an adaptation of a book. Look at it as a piece of 1940s history.
Watch it for the technical skill. Look at the lighting. MGM was the king of high-key lighting, making everyone look like they were glowing. It’s beautiful to watch if you like cinematography.
Compare the dialogue. Read the "proposal scene" in the book and then watch Olivier and Garson do it. You’ll see exactly where Huxley kept Austen’s words and where he injected his own 20th-century wit. It’s a great exercise for anyone interested in screenwriting.
Check out the supporting cast. Mary Boland as Mrs. Bennet is a masterclass in "annoying mother" acting. She’s frantic and hilarious. Ann Rutherford (who played Carreen O'Hara in Gone with the Wind) as Lydia brings a certain bratty energy that actually fits the character perfectly.
Host a "Darcy Evolution" night. Watch the 1940 version, then the 1995 version, then the 2005 version. Seeing how the portrayal of Darcy changes from a "theatrical lead" to a "vulnerable man" tells you everything you need to know about how our culture’s view of masculinity has shifted over the last century.
The 1940 Pride and Prejudice isn't the "best" version. It’s not even the most faithful. But it is a fascinating artifact of a time when Hollywood thought they could improve on Jane Austen by adding more lace and a happier ending. It’s worth your time, even if just to see Laurence Olivier try to navigate a room while wearing a coat that looks like it weighs fifty pounds.