Gender and Sexuality in Batman

Introduction to Gender and Sexuality 

Throughout watching the Batman films, it was easy to see how little women were included compared to male characters. There was never an even ratio of women to men, and the ways in which women presented were completely different. This is evident in all of the films, and although representation gets better throughout time, women still fit into a very minimal amount of roles. This often includes that of love interest, villain and damsel in distress. Furthermore, when looking at gender in Batman, it is important to think of the binary opposition of masculinity and femininity throughout the films, and how explicitly it is presented. This is evident throughout the many different incarnations of Batman in various ways. 

Masculinity vs Femininity 

With the exception of Batman (1966), there is an obvious difference between the costumes worn by male and female characters. Masculine outfits often tend to be heavily armoured and fully protective of the body, often featuring a mask. However, feminine outfits are usually much more skintight, and often cover less surface area of the body. For example, in the sequel to Burton’s Batman (1989), Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman is known for the latex suit that clings tightly to her figure. This would not be the most practical costume for someone to fight in, and she is largely sexualised throughout the film, often needlessly, due to this suit. Although Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, the final film in the The Dark Knight trilogy, is less sexualised, her costume is still very tight to her figure. This is especially obvious compared to Batman’s outfit, which is padded out with faux muscles and obvious weaponry. Finally, in 2016’s Batman vs Superman, Wonder Woman’s outfit consists of a top and a skirt, with her arms and legs fully exposed. This is completely impractical in a fight, even if Wonder Woman does have superhuman strength. This again contrasts the outfits of the two main male characters, who are again made to look stereotypically masculine with muscles on the suits. The reason that I haven’t included the 1966 Batman film in this analysis is because although Catwoman’s outfit is again skintight latex, there is no padding or muscular additions to Batman’s outfit. In fact, he wears shorts over tights, and his whole outfit is also tight to his body. This is still not as overtly sexual as Catwoman’s costume, however there is no patent masculinity as there is in the other incarnations of Batman. 

The Roles of Women

Another way in which masculinity and femininity are presented as opposites is the roles that men play in opposition to women. As I mentioned earlier, women are confined to only a few roles, such as that of a love interest, damsel in distress or villain, or sometimes more than one of these at once. These roles often involve a woman’s sexuality, especially when the women are all lusted after by Batman. In the various films, Batman is never seen without a love interest, and him being a 'womaniser'  is a large part of his character. This presents women as the submissive gender, as they are often expendable to Bruce Wayne. The women we see throughout the films are often overtly sexualised, whether it is a main character or a background actress. Although it can definitely be argued that Batman is also sexualised due to various training scenes, especially in the most recent films, he is never made to use his looks or his sexuality in lieu of his intelligence or other skills. This is in contrast to Catwoman (in all 3 formations), Vicki Vale, Talia al Ghul and Wonder Woman. An overwhelming amount of their screentime is taken up by their alter ego’s/disguises using their sexuality to get information or to seduce Bruce Wayne. The character Vicki Vale, who appears in Batman (1989), is not a villain or hero like the others. She is a photographic journalist who has an interest in Batman, and then develops one with Bruce Wayne once she attends a gala at his manor. Although her job is a big part of her character overview, the main way in which she drives the plot is by being Wayne’s love interest, and becoming a damsel in distress that needs to be saved. This contrasts slightly to the presence of the other female characters in the various franchises, who use their sexuality to trick or deceive Batman.  

Catwoman 

In Batman (1966), Catwoman is asked by the other villains to seduce Batman whilst using her disguise as a Russian journalist. She then brings Batman back to her apartment, when she goes to ‘slip into something more comfortable.’ This is what keeps Bruce Wayne in place whilst the apartment is filled with enemies to kidnap him. By using her sexuality rather than intelligence, this element of her personality is presented as the most important factor, reducing her to her body rather than her mind. This is not to say that feminine sexuality is a bad thing, or should be kept taboo, but to use it alongside men that all have obvious intelligence and other skills is reducing women to just their sexual persona. This portrayal of Catwoman does change in the later films, with Pfieffer’s Catwoman using both her intellect and physicality throughout the film. However, at the end of the movie she kisses Christoph Waltz’ character in order to distract him, and it is this act of sexuality that allows her to defeat him. Although you can’t deny that being randomly kissed would be distracting, when placed alongside the actions of the male characters and Catwoman’s own throughout the film it seems to be a strangely sexual act for such a violent end. 

Catwoman does again become stronger in The Dark Knight Rises, and her suit is seemingly less influenced by bondage and more by practicality. Considering this is the most recent incarnation of Catwoman, it does seem to be in standing with the speculated ‘third wave of feminism’ that was, and still is, taking place. People wanted a character that was strong whilst also feminine, and able to hold her own alongside the male heroes. This was mostly delivered in Nolan’s 2012 film, when Anne Hathaway portrayed Catwoman as a lady who used her femininity and skills rather than her sexuality to get what she wanted, although the two are quite possibly linked. There is an absence of her being a love interest in this film right until the very end, however this may be because Bruce Wayne is instead infatuated with Talia Al Ghul, a woman who lures Wayne into a false sense of security before revealing herself to be the daughter of Ra’s Al Ghul, the villain of Batman Begins. Talia, like the 1966 Catwoman, uses her sexuality in order to trick Batman. However, the difference is that she does this for herself (and arguably for her father’s memory), and uses her knowledge gained by infiltrating Bruce Wayne’s personal life to invoke havoc on Gotham towards the end of the movie. However, this does still portray women as sly and not to be trusted, especially when combined with the betrayal of Catwoman at some points in the film. Overall, the portrayal of Catwoman throughout the film series has become increasingly more positive due to changing ideas of women in society. Although Catwoman is always seen as a strong female character, that also has quite complex sides in the later movies, she has become increasingly iconic for more than her looks. Due to the most recent wave of feminism, and the calling for more positive female representation in both comic book films and films in general, Nolan’s Catwoman is the most emotionally complex and least sexualised of the three. However, although Nolan’s representation of Catwoman is the best of the three, his other female characters are slightly lacking. For example, Rachel, who appears as a love interest in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, is killed off in order for Batman’s plot and persona to evolve. Although she presents herself as an independent  and intelligent woman throughout Batman Begins, Rachel then needs to be rescued by Batman multiple times throughout the film as she is not able to save herself. She is also sexualised much less compared to the other characters. She takes on a borderline maternal role, looking after Bruce Wayne and leading him towards good. Along with being a love interest, these two roles are very stereotypical of a man's expectations towards women. This, combined with Rachel’s fridging (the practice of killing women to further the male's storyline) in The Dark Knight meant that many female fans were not impressed with Nolan’s take on writing female characters, especially since Rachel was not adapted from the canon.

Modern Day Heroines

This may be why female characters were slightly reinvented for Batman V Superman (2016). This is the first time in many years that Wonder Woman has appeared on the big screen, and she definitely holds true as a feminist icon. She doesn’t have much screen time actually as Wonder Woman, and a lot of her prior appearances are as her alter ego, Diana Prince. Although Batman is shown as lusting after her, he is also shown as respecting her for her intelligence. In the fight scene at the end she doesn’t rely on the two men in order to fight, nor does she need to be rescued at any point. This is in contrast, however, to Amy Adams’ character Lois Lane. Throughout the film she needs to be rescued by Superman, and she is often used as bait and a damsel in distress to help the plot move forward. This is the same for the brief times we see Superman’s mother, who is eventually used in the climax of the film to make the two male leads fight each other. This recurring use of women to further ‘man pain’ is common throughout the films I have looked at, with women often dying  or becoming endangered in order for a man’s plot to advance.

Conclusion

Although there are slight exceptions, women being presented as damsels in distress alongside female sexuality are the dominant features of female characters throughout the various Batman franchises. Furthermore, none of the films fully pass the Bechdel test, as the last segment is to for the two (named) women to talk to each other about something other than a man. This is never fulfilled in the movies I have watched, and so they fail the very basic standards of female characterisation in films. Alongside the blatant sexualisation of all female characters,  it is appropriate to say that women are not well represented in the Batman movies. This is surprising due to the context at the times the films were made. I expected to see an increase in the amount of female characters occurring in films, and a decrease in the sexual aspects of their characters. However, in reality it seemed that no matter who the character was, she would always be presented in one of few ways. This is disappointing to see, as is the continuation of damaging ideals about masculinity that are present with the changes in the Batsuit and the need for Batman to always be in charge. There needs to be a new measure of equality present in the Batman films, from outfits to roles, as it is no longer acceptable for women to be shown in such a subordinate way.

Class in Batman

Introduction 

Class is often a more subtly addressed in films than issues of gender and race, as it is a form of discrimination that is often scapegoated onto the lower classes. This is prevalent in all Batman films, where Gotham is presented in a negative light due to the many members of the lower class living there who have turned to crime. Especially in the first two Batman films, there is no reasoning given to this issue in society. It is all shown as being the fault of the criminals, rather than of a corrupt societal hierarchy. Throughout the films this becomes much less explicit, and Batman begins to help the underclass rather than attack them without cause as he does in the earlier films. Although this gives a more well rounded view of poverty in society, especially in the modern era, it also plays into the stereotype that the only way for the underclass to thrive is by being helped by a richer participant. Despite the fact that this is somewhat true, it places a white, rich male as the saviour of many, continuing elitist values. Furthermore, it is also important to mention that the only reason Bruce Wayne is able to become Batman is due to his parents fortune. This is something he takes for granted throughout the films, and often makes jokes about his wealth, showing he is content taking it for granted. However, in the final instalment of the The Dark Knight trilogy, Bruce Wayne loses his fortunes and begins to live a new life, perhaps conveying the message that social status isn’t important compared to happiness. A victimised view of the homeless and others that suffer from poverty is consistent throughout the films, and this is due to the continuous scapegoating of the working class in society. 

Class in Batman: The Movie (1966)

Batman (1966) has the most demonisation of the working class. This was expected, as although there was a focus on feminism, civil rights and LGBT rights in the 60’s, there was not as much of an emphasis on working class rights. People had become disillusioned with the American Dream, but their anger had turned to those at the bottom of society rather than those at the top. In the film, there is not much emphasis on Batman’s wealth further than his Manor and Bat-Cave. His status is just a part of his character, and although this is the reason as to why he gets kidnapped in the film, it is never made as explicit as in the later movies. The main element of class warfare is shown when Batman and Robin are disapproving of the drunks in the tavern which the main villains use as a hideout. There is a lot of derogatory language used to describe these people, and this is epitomised when Robin suggests Batman shouldn’t have bothered saving their lives in the whole bomb debacle. Batman then states that 'although they may be drinkers, and might still be salvaged.' This summarises the ideas people had of the working class in the 60's, showing that they were not respected or considered as the same level of humanity.  

Class in Batman (1989)

In Burton’s 1989 film, there is more emphasis on the corruptness of the higher classes than in any other film. Characters such as Jack Napier and Alexander Knox are shown to be wealthy but through corrupt means, and are characters that get their comeuppance. However, this does not mean that blue collar criminals are seen as less dangerous or given more sympathy. The opening scene of the film is two criminals getting punished by Batman, a recurring act throughout the movie. There is a lot of discussion of the criminal underbelly of Gotham, however there is never a solution suggested by Gordon or Dent, and so Batman is shown attacking the homeless for criminal behaviour. This is all whilst Batman’s true self, Bruce Wayne, is living in a manor with countless amounts of money. In one scene, he jokes about how he has never been in a certain room of the manor before. These kind of comments throughout the film show how elitist society was then, and how people are much happier ignoring social issues and focusing on the elite. 

Class in Batman Begins (2005)

From the beginning of the 2005 adaptation of Batman, it is clear that Bruce Wayne wants to reject his elitist familial ties and to learn to survive for himself. He does this by running away from Gotham and learning various skills and tactics. This was bought on by Rachel’s introduction of  Gotham’s underclass to Wayne, who tells him that he can’t just act on criminals when they’ve been caught, but he has to tackle the causes that make people into criminals. She states that they act of desperation rather than want to commit crimes, and that the people at the top should be taken down first. This is what Bruce Wayne, as Batman, strategically does throughout the film, busting drug lords and other such villains. The motif of the train that runs around the city is symbolic of the increasingly impoverished state that becomes Gotham, as at the beginning of the film it runs perfectly. The Wayne’s are said to have built the train in order to help those struggling, and throughout the film Bruce Wayne’s parents are shown as generous philanthropists. After they have died, and Bruce Wayne has returned, the train is vandalised and no longer running as well. It is also once she has got off the train that Rachel almost gets attacked, if not for the intervention of Batman. This film has the most emphasis on helping the underclass, as unlike the other incarnations of Batman he does not focus upon petty criminals but rather those at the top of the criminal chain. 

Class in Batman vs Superman (2016)

There is the least emphasis on class in the 2016 Batman v Superman. This may be because class is now becoming more of a social issue, and so representing Batman as an enemy to the underclasses would be detrimental to the films profits. There are references to Gotham’s crime problems, however due to the different subject matter it is not as explicit as in other films. The focus is less on protecting Gotham’s civilians from a villain and more about Batman’s own fight against Superman.  There is a class contrast between Batman and Superman themselves, however. Batman is still the billionaire that he has been throughout the other film series, and this is shown by his mansion and references to wealth. Superman, however, lives in a small apartment and has a job as a journalist, where he is nowhere near the top of the hierarchy. Despite his otherworldly powers, Superman is shown as relatively average when appearing as Clark Kent. However, there is also an issue of superiority with Superman, which is a theme throughout the film. When rescuing Lois Lane at the beginning of the movie, Superman causes destruction to many innocent people. One of these women is questioned during a court case held to make Superman responsible for his actions. Innocent people are often collateral damage throughout the Batman films, and they are often places in these positions due to being working class. It is this view of the lower classes being expendable that fuels much of the Batman films, and although there are instances of the bourgeoisie being reprimanded, this is not as often as criminals from the underclass are punished. 

Conclusion

Out of the three sub topics I have evaluated over the course of this investigation, class is the one to have changed most over time. It is clear to see where the influence of modern day has come into the production of the most recent Batman remakes, as opposed to the 'traditional' values of the earlier ones. As people have become more aware of social issues in society, the representation of the lower classes has changed, and so we get a more well rounded view of what causes crime. There is less scapegoating of issues onto the lower class, and more blame placed on the people at the top who are well protected at the top of criminal rings. This contrasts to the blame placed on petty criminals in Batman (1966), in which they are more persecuted than the actual villains. It is good to see that the working class are becoming less victimised in films, which will hopefully  lead to a change for the better in society itself. 

Race and Ethnicity in Batman

Summary of Race in Batman

When looking at race and ethnicity in the Batman films, it is important to keep in mind the context at the time. Due to the four films being made in different decades, there were changing ideas about race, and the impact of this is shown in the films. It is important to note that in no films are any of the leads played by people of colour, and there are only two black actors in prominent supporting roles - Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. There is also a black supporting character in Batman vs Superman, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, however he is from the universe of Superman, and never meets Batman. There are very little supporting roles taken by actors of colour, and although the first scenes of Batman Begins take place in a Nepalese jail, very few of the prisoners have a speaking role. It is as though they are there to highlight Bruce Wayne’s whiteness and difference. One thing I noticed whilst watching the films was that many villains are foreign, whereas the heroes are always, if not American, then Western. Catwoman has a Russian alter ego in the 1966 Batman, and this nationality is significant. This is because the film was made during the Cold War, and so it was important to paint Americans as positive and Russians as negative. The 1989 Batman is an exception, as the villains are all American. In fact, the only non American character is Bruce Wayne’s servant, Alfred. The most recent two Batman films have been made after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and during the growing threat of ISIS. This might possibly be the reason for the opening threat of 2016’s Batman v Superman taking place in a Middle Eastern country that attempts to hold Amy Adams’ journalist character hostage. This mimics real life occurrences, and is a more real threat than the Russians of the earlier films. In both The Dark Knight Rises and Batman vs Superman, there is an emphasis on fear of things we don’t understand. In The Dark Knight Rises this is Bane, as his accent is never specified and his origins are never fully revealed. There is a fear of Superman throughout the 2016 movie, and this is one of the key elements of the plot. This plays into the public’s fear of the unknown, but is less explicitly political than Batman (1966). 

The Role That Race Plays

In modern times, we often see black people being portrayed as criminals in the media. This is due to the scapegoating of issues in society onto vulnerable classes, this often being ethnic minorities and lower classes. However, this does not seem to be present in the Batman films. There are a few criminals of colour, but this seems to be purely for tokenism, as there are also minorities in the background of many scenes. Although it could be seen as 'progressive' to have many different types of criminal shown, it is rather the opposite. Having a majority of white criminals both victimises the working class, as I have stated in my 'Class' section, and also indicates to the audience that ethnic minorities only need to be included for tokenism. There are only three supporting black characters throughout the films, and no asian characters of note. This completely portrays the film industries problem with casting ethnic minorities, and shows how little thought is being put into changing this problem.

Conclusion

Overwhelmingly white casts are commonplace in the media, and having a person of colour cast as a leading role in a franchise such as Batman would do a lot to spark a change in this. This is not acted upon, however, and so there is still a lack of people of colour in all the Batman movies. There is very little effort put into enhancing visibility of minority groups, no matter what race this is, and it is shocking that this is the case both in 1966 and 2016, 50 years on. So much has changed for the better in society, even though we still have a long way to go, and this is most definitely not reflected in the Batman franchises. 

Introduction to Pride and Prejudice

Jane Austen’s most popular work, Pride and Prejudice, was published in 1813 and over two hundred years later, it is still a big fixture in popular culture with over a dozen movie and television adaptations, the most recent being released this year. 

The iconic story is set in Regency England and follows Elizabeth Bennet, her parents and her four sisters, Jane, Kitty, Lydia, and Mary. The Bennet family lives on an estate that is not to be inherited by any of the sisters upon their father’s death because it has been entailed away to the closest male heir, Mr. Collins. Upon finding out Mr. Bingley, a rich, single man, is moving into the neighbourhood, Mrs. Bennet sets it upon herself to marry one of her daughters to him. She hopes that this favourable connection will allow her other daughters to improve their connections and marry rich as well, thus making the inevitable loss of the estate less of a problem. Mrs. Bennet also tries to make Elizabeth marry Mr. Collins to keep the estate in the Bennet family, but upon her refusal, Mr. Collins marries Charlotte Lucas, Elizabeth’s closest friend. Upon his first meeting the Bennets, Mr. Bingley immediately takes an interest in the eldest daughter, Jane. During their first meeting, Elizabeth also becomes acquainted with Mr. Bingley’s friend, Mr. Darcy, whom she dislikes almost immediately. Her dislike of him is later fuelled by the deceptive Mr. Wickham, an estranged childhood friend of Mr. Darcy’s. He only helps her confirm her perception of him as a proud and angry man with many faults. She eventually learns of Mr. Wickham’s deception and Darcy’s true character comes to light. By the conclusion of the novel, her feelings for Mr. Darcy have completely reversed and she falls in love with him. 

I will be looking at Robert Z. Leonard’s Pride and Prejudice (1940), the BBC television series Pride and Prejudice (1995), and Joe Wright’s Pride & Prejudice (2005), which are more direct adaptations, taking place in or around the Regency era. The other works are Gurinder Chadha's Bride & Prejudice (2004), a Bollywood film that transplants the story into modern-day India, and The Lizzie Bennet Diaries (2012), an online vlog adaptation of the novel that also takes place in the present day. Though aspects of gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality are heavily influenced by the source material, the time in which these adaptations were produced also has a strong influence on how these aspects are portrayed. 

I will not be analysing certain adaptations, such as Bridget Jones’ Diary (2001) and Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016), because they are both adaptations of novels that are adaptations of  Jane Austen’s work. I chose to look specifically at adaptations that are more directly connected to the original novel to see exactly how they interpret the source material. 

Gender and Sexuality in Pride and Prejudice

Gender plays an important role in Jane Austen’s novel. In Regency England, women had few rights when it came to owning land. This is portrayed in the novel as well as in the three historical adaptations as the Bennet sisters not being able to inherit their father’s estate because the house has been entailed to be passed down to a male family member. The only hope for the Bennet sisters is to marry and be provided for by a man, which is an endeavour pursued tirelessly by Mrs. Bennet. 

In the modern adaptations though, there is less focus on the sisters’ gender as a reason for their financial problems, though it is still their mother’s goal to have them married off to wealthy, respectable men. In Bride & Prejudice, Lalita's mother wants her daughters to marry rich men, while Lalita talks about getting her own job and marrying for love. Lalita's mother instead believes that securing a marriage is most important and love will come afterwards. Her ideals are portrayed as outdated in the modern day where woman have more freedom and opportunities than in the Regency Era. In the case of The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, Lizzie Bennet's mom works equally hard at getting her daughters married and at trying to get them jobs. In this version, Mr. Collins is a childhood friend who is running a media company and he offers Lizzie a job. Lizzie refuses because she wants to finish her masters and her mother becomes absolutely furious. Though Lizzie's mother is represented as old-fashioned, she is also portrayed as a mother who cares for her daughters greatly and wants them to succeed in life. She is an updated version of Regency Era Mrs. Bennet, though she is still a little behind the times in 2012.   

While clothing is not mentioned often in the story, it is quite clear from the time period in which the book was written that men and women wore Regency Era fashions. In Pride and Prejudice (1940) though, the women wear victorian fashion, including puffy sleeves and hoop skirts. This historical inaccuracy was a conscious decision because of the popularity of Gone With the Wind (1939). The style of dress was thought to cut a better silhouette than an empire waist gown, and was the ideal of feminine beauty at the time. The other two historical adaptations keep the empire waist gowns, choosing to be historically accurate. Clothes don’t play a big role in the modern adaptations.

Pride and Prejudice (1940) 

One particular scene from the novel has made it almost verbatim into each and every one of the adaptations. In this specific scene, Mr. Bingley voices his astonishment on how many women are so talented and accomplished and, in response, Mr. Darcy and Caroline Bingley list out everything a woman must achieve in order for her to be considered an accomplished woman. The lists for the historical and modern adaptations are practically identical. In both, women are supposed to be well-read, intelligent, speak more than one language, and have a special talent. Some of the more intangible traits, such as how a woman walks and how she projects herself, are translated into beauty and confidence in the modern adaptations. Elizabeth scoffs at this list in every one of the adaptations because she doesn’t believe that many, if any, women could live up to all these expectations. Something inherent in how society views women has not changed in two hundred years. Women are still expected to possess an incredible number of talents while men aren’t expected to have half of the same expectations. This is exhibited through Mr. Bingley’s commentary on how impressive it is that a woman can possess to many talents.  

The smallest indiscretion acted upon by a women in the Regency Era could lead to her and her family’s ruin. This is especially true with Lydia Bennet’s case when she runs off with Mr. Wickham and almost ruins he sisters’ chances of marrying respectable gentlemen. Mr. Collins says that it would be better if Lydia had died than run away with Mr. Wickham because of the shame she has brought onto her family. In the story and subsequent historical adaptations, Lydia’s only option for salvation is to marry Mr. Wickham. This is completely changed in the modern adaptations. In Bride & Prejudice, Lakhi runs away with Johnny Wickham, only to be caught by Lalita and Will Darcy. Upon realising that Wickham is just using her, she punches him and heads home with Lalita. In The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, Lizzie finds out that Wickham plans on releasing a sex tape of him and Lydia on the internet, and when she confronts Lydia about the tape, Lydia has no idea what she is talking about. Lydia is heartbroken over Wickham’s betrayal and eventually comes to terms with the fact that he never loved her. In the modern adaptations, Lakhi and Lydia aren’t bound by society to get married to Wickham because the blame is no longer just placed on women. Neither girl is blamed for Wickham's deceptive and destructive behaviour.  

Jane Austen’s setting for the novel gives an impression of an era of correctness and refinement that leads to a certain amount of sexual repression. Women are expected to be passive and not to show too much interest so as not to be thought of negatively. Lydia and Kitty are perfect examples of this repression. They flirt openly with members of the militia and their behaviour is consequently viewed as inappropriate. Another example is the lack of any writing about the attraction that might have accompanied the love that Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy felt for each other. The adaptations take more  liberties with this aspect. In the 1940s movie, there are many scenes in which Mr. Darcy gravitates towards Elizabeth and gets intimately close to her, which is something that would not have been deemed appropriate in early nineteenth century England. In the movie, when Elizabeth accepts Mr. Darcy’s proposal, he kisses her in true old Hollywood fashion, which would also have been very inappropriate to do at the time. In the other two historical adaptations, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth do not kiss until after they have been married. This is more accurate to the time period. In the 1995 television series, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy do not show their attraction through any form of physical contact, but rather through their expressions. The only time the two come into physical contact with each other before they are married is when they are dancing. The 2005 historical adaptation portrays their attraction in a more modern way through sexual tension. Certain scenes, such as Mr. Darcy helping Elizabeth into her carriage and the two coming dangerously close to kissing after Elizabeth rejects his first marriage proposal, are rife with a sexual tension that is not found in the other two historical adaptations. 

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Bride & Prejudice is also an interesting example of sexuality. Lalita and Will Darcy do on many occasions come into physical contact with each other-even embracing-but they never actually kiss. It is actually quite uncommon for there to be kissing scenes in Bollywood films. Though there are Bollywood films with kissing scenes, kissing is not as ubiquitous as it is in Hollywood films. This manifests itself in the rather modern adaptation as still having some of the same social expectations as of the Regency Era. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries takes a completely modern approach to sexuality. Sexuality, though, can be hard to express in a video blog format due to the content’s creator having full control of what is disclosed to the audience. Lydia is portrayed as very sexually active and Lizzie takes to calling her actions ‘slutty,’ which creates a lot of friction between the two sisters. Their argument hits its climax when Lizzie thinks that Lydia is going along with George Wickham in posting their sex tape online, though it soon becomes obvious that Lydia had no idea of his intentions. While Lizzie and Jane are more subdued in their sexuality, they both share kisses on screen with their respective love interests and while marriage is discussed by the mother, the daughters aren’t quite there yet. It is implied through the show that they will go on to have healthy, modern relationships before even considering getting married.  

Race and Ethnicity in Pride and Prejudice

In the novel, there are absolutely no mentions of people of colour. In the english countryside during the Regency Era, there was little to no diversity. While it is possible that any of the families could have owned slaves, there is never any mention of it. In all of Jane Austen’s novels, there is only one that even mentions slavery-which is Mansfield Park. Consequently, the casts for all three historical adaptations of the novel are completely white. In the Bollywood production, the majority of the cast is indian, which makes perfect sense since the majority of the movie takes place in India. In The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, the Bingleys (aka Bing and Caroline Lee) and Ms. Lucas (aka Charlotte Lu) are asian and Colonel Fitzwilliams (aka Fitz) is african american, making it a more diverse cast as a way to modernise the story. Present-day California- where the adaptation takes place- is much more diverse than Regency Era England and the show makes sure to portray that more accurately. Though both adaptations boast diverse casts, there are two characters that continue to be played by white men- Darcy and Wickham. Wealthy, privileged Darcy is always played by a white man because in the past two hundred years, white men have continued to be the most privileged group. Wickham, though not wealthy and not as privileged, he is still used as a stereotype of the deceptive and greedy white man who indulges in gambling and excessive spending. Both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham are roles more suited to be played by white men.    

Class and Cultural Relations in Pride and Prejudice

A large part of the plot of Pride and Prejudice has to do with class distinction. Mr. Darcy and the Bingleys are landed gentry, meaning they have large amounts of property and wealth. They are distinctively above the Bennet family, who own a small estate and can only provide a small amount of money for the daughters when they all get married. A lot of emphasis is placed on the people they are connected with. One of the reasons why Mrs. Bennet is so adamant about having Jane marry Mr. Bingley is to allow her daughters to enter into higher society to make better connections-to hopefully marry rich. There is a certain hyperawareness in the novels and historical adaptations about the differences in class between the Bennets and Mr. Bingley and his party. Mr. Darcy and Caroline especially note it in their initial interactions with the Bennet family. Mr. Darcy is more apparent about his dislike being in ‘inferior’ company, while Caroline Bingley is more polite at first, but her distaste for her company becomes evident the longer she stays. Her distaste for the lower class is best exemplified when she tries to warn Elizabeth about Mr. Wickham, saying he cannot be trusted because he is a servant’s son. Mr. Darcy’s awareness of class distinction is at the forefront during his first proposal in which he admits to loving Elizabeth against his better judgement because she does not come from the same social sphere as the woman he should marry would come from.  

Scene from Pride and Prejudice (1995)

In The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, the Bennet family is part of the american middle class and Lizzie, Jane, and Lydia all still live at home, even though they are adults, due to crippling student debt and not many good job prospects. Darcy is the CEO of a large multimedia corporation, Bing Lee is studying to be a doctor, and Caroline Lee’s work is unspecified, but all three are supported by rich families. This again places the Bennets and Bing Lee and company in two different social spheres. Darcy again alludes to the difference in social status based on wealth when declaring his love for Lizzie. Though he is no longer landed gentry, he still runs in different social circles than Lizzie. She does not have the same connections as him due to her lack of wealth. Another example of this gap in wealth occurs when Lizzie is talking with Bing Lee and Darcy's sister, Gigi, and they mention almost offhand about their        

The ideas of class are a bit more layered in Bride & Prejudice. Lalita’s family owns farmland in Amritsar, a poorer city in India, while Balraj is a wealthy barrister and Will Darcy is an international hotel mogul. Not only is there a disparity in wealth between the two parties, but there’s also a large gap in their culture and lifestyle. Darcy and Balraj are from America and England respectively, which is known as the West to many indians. It is believed that all the wealth lies in the West, which is one of the reasons why Lalita’s mother wants her daughters to marry westerners. Will Darcy suspects that Jaya’s interest in Balraj is based on her mother’s obsession with her daughters marrying for money, not love. Though Will Darcy pulls Balraj and Jaya apart for this reason, his mother expects him to marry for wealth and connections rather than love. He admits as much when he first professes his love for Lalita, who calls him out on this irony and turns him down. Another aspect of class is the clash of eastern and western cultures, which is brought up many times throughout the movie. When Mr. Kohli, a character based on Mr. Collins, says that India will never become wealthier country, Mr. Bakshi reminds him that they are still a relatively new independent country that could still prove to have a thriving economy. Will Darcy’s ignorance of indian traditions causes him to come off as arrogant, which is one of the major reasons fuelling Lalita’s dislike for the man. One example is when Lalita and Will Darcy get into a heated argument about whether Darcy should buy an indian hotel, which he argues will bring more jobs to the area, but Lalita argues that he will be taking away all the aspects of indian culture that make India such an amazing place to visit, effectively creating something toned down that is closer to what Americans expect India to be. These clashes over culture eventually lead to them having a better understanding of each other, which in turn strengthens their love.