Over the past decades, Hollywood’s creativity has dwindled. From the now-notorious Disney live-action remakes to soulless cash grabs that lack originality, audiences increasingly feel that ingenuity is a secondary consideration for producers.
Fans were underwhelmed at the announcement of a new Netflix adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice,” the iconic romantic novel by Jane Austen, prominent author of the Regency era, as it stands as an excellent example of a director lacking creative inspiration. The film is set to be directed by Euros Lyn, known for his work on Netflix’s popular queer series “Heartstopper.”
This is not Netflix’s first attempt at adapting an Austen novel for modern audiences. In 2022, Dakota Johnson starred in an abysmal reimagining of the author’s final book, “Persuasion.” The film deviates significantly from the poignant source material of the book, incorporating modern music and cringeworthy moments where the protagonist, Anne, breaks the fourth wall, addressing the viewer. Audiences and critics alike were disappointed by the film, giving it an embarrassing 5.8 out of 10 stars on IMDb and widespread disdain.
Considering the blatant criticism of this unfaithful adaptation, I was surprised when Netflix announced its decision to reimagine Austen’s most famous novel. “Pride and Prejudice” already has two well-loved adaptations, the 1995 BBC mini-series and the gorgeous 2004 version of the story, starring Keira Knightley. While viewers disagree on what is the superior imagining of the source material, they are united in their understanding that both afford faithful renditions of the classic story.
Adapting a well-loved story is always a dangerous feat, especially when two excellent versions already exist and the company already produced a widely hated representation of one of Austen’s novels. Considering the failure of “Persuasion,” my expectations for the upcoming “Pride and Prejudice” were never high; after the cast was announced in July, they dwindled exponentially.
The director’s perspective and their ability to grasp the source material significantly alter the final product of any film. The 2026 Netflix release will be the third time that Austen’s most iconic novel has been adapted by a male director. I would understand the reasoning for an alternative perspective to have a chance at rendering the author’s vision, but it seems repetitive to keep giving white male directors the chance to adapt this women-centered work.
The most evident error made thus far is the creative team’s failure to cast actors who are of a similar age to their characters.
Emma Corrin will lead the film as Elizabeth Bennet. A talented and beautiful actress, Corrin proved her talent in her performance in the gay romance “My Policeman” and more recently in the sensational horror film “Nosferatu.” Corrin is 29 years old and set to play 20-year-old Lizzy. Jack Lowden, set to play the swoon-worthy Mr. Darcy, is 35, another prominent contrast to Mr. Darcy’s 28 years of age. While I normally would not have a problem with the studio ignoring age in favor of talent, it is vital to contrast this decision with the ages of the other members of the cast.
The problem with the film’s casting lies in the decision to have Louis Partridge portray George Wickham in the upcoming adaptation. Most famous for his role in “Enola Holmes” and his high-profile relationship with singer and songwriter Olivia Rodrigo, the actor is only 22 years old. In the novel, Wickham’s character is supposed to be 28, like Mr. Darcy. Partridge’s young age, in contrast to other characters’ older status, is the root of my main issue with the adaptation.
The age difference between Wickham and the women he preys upon is a harmful feature of this adaptation. While his actions remain predatory despite his age, this change dispels the poignant point that Austen pushes through his character. Similar pursuits of younger women were commonplace at Austen’s time, and through the character of Mr. Wickham, she highlights the evil intent that accompanied this practice.
By casting a younger Wickham, the director is already inviting audiences to misunderstand the core intentions of the original work. While Wickham is meant to be handsome and charming, his proximity in age to Darcy is vital to the plot of the story. Young women just being introduced to the source material could misinterpret it and romanticize the dashing Partridge, despite his sinister role. I find it hard to think that the director garners a deep understanding of the source material if he has already made such a glaring deviation that will significantly alter the audience’s perception of the story.
As an artistic medium, movies are able to render new and exciting stories to audiences that would otherwise be unable to access them. They are able to bring an author’s pages to life in vivid detail. But there is no need to continuously reimagine already well-portrayed materials. Instead, directors should explore new novels and craft original stories to enrapture audiences rather than relying on the crutch of nostalgia or the promise of title recognition.