Lisa,
Re your comments below:
> I know I am in the minority with this view, but I
> was unimpressed with Colin Firth's performance in
> PP 2. My impression was that he never read the
> book. I thought his performance was devoid of any
> subtlety -- he played haughty throughout without
> conveying any of the hints Darcy actually gave of
> his interest in Elizabeth.
Different strokes and all that, but come on!
To me it was clear that he was trying to portray Darcy as Austen had written him for more that Matthew MacFayden, who admitted he avoided reading the book, and, based on the script alone, decided to play Darcy as uncomfortably bashful. I don't say that it was an invalid interpretation, and I understand trying to make his version of the character different from Firth's, but I think there's a difference between reserved, and uncomfortable around strangers, and just plain shy. Firth caught that difference; Macfayden didn't.
Let's also remember that, in the book, Darcy's not really on stage all that much. The '95 version, filling out 6 hours, gave him more to do. We saw him practicing his fencing at the gym, riding horses, swimming, all giving a sense of the character's athleticism and physicality, something Austen barely hints at. We see him on-screen tracking down Wickham and Lydia, while that's completely off-stage in the book. So, to a degree, Firth, while remaining true to the character Austen wrote, has to do some creating of his own.
As for whether he gave any hints of his attraction to Jennifer Ehle, and her two fine . . . uh . . . eyes. Yeah, that's right. Eyes. To me that was manifestly obvious. Believe me, they cooked on-screen together as much as Tracy and Hepburn, Bogie and Bacall, Powell and Loy, Olivier and Leigh, or Wayne and O'Hara ever did, and more than Astaire/Rogers, Rooney/Garland, or Hudson/Day or many of the other classic romantic pairings you can think of.
How could you miss the look of pain he gets when Lizzy turns him down, and sets him down, at Hunsford. Or the look of fear as he proposes the second time, almost certain he's gonna get another refusal, or the look of sheer relief when she accepts. I recognized everyone of the feelings his expressions conveyed because I went through 'em myself when I proposed (I got accepted, but believe me when I tell you my only proposal was almost as lame as Darcy's first one). When an actor makes you recognize something you've experienced yourself through his performance, he's doing a hell of a job!
Firth did a hell of job.
> My greatest objections, aside from CF, were the
> casting of Jane, who was no beauty, . . .
Again different strokes, but here I think I'm better qualified to judge and, from a male perspective, take it from me, not only was Susanna Harker a first-round, full-count knockout, but she put across Jane's serene nature, as well as her inherent goodness and kindness.
Rosamund Pike was lovely, but seemed to animated and vivacious to me.
> , , , and Miss Bingley. The actress who played her made her into
> a caricature -- she was comic relief but not at
> all realistic.
It's a film. A visual medium. They had to exaggerate to make the differences between her and Lizzy evident.
> I understand that Jennifer
> Ehle wore a wig; if true, they should have tried
> harder to get her a more flattering one.
Here, I have to agree. Not only that, but her hair should have been styled differently for different occasions. She looked at her best when she was getting ready for bed, and her hair was worn loose.
By contrast, when Keira Knightley walked into Netherfield, with her hair having come loose from its pins after her long walk, the effect was much more flattering than the tight, school-marmish style the Jennifer Ehle was stuck with through most of the '95 film. Fortunately, in Miss Ehel's case, the staircase was so great, I found I didn't mind too much once I got to the top and found it a tad lacking.
JIM D.
Re your comments below:
> I know I am in the minority with this view, but I
> was unimpressed with Colin Firth's performance in
> PP 2. My impression was that he never read the
> book. I thought his performance was devoid of any
> subtlety -- he played haughty throughout without
> conveying any of the hints Darcy actually gave of
> his interest in Elizabeth.
Different strokes and all that, but come on!
To me it was clear that he was trying to portray Darcy as Austen had written him for more that Matthew MacFayden, who admitted he avoided reading the book, and, based on the script alone, decided to play Darcy as uncomfortably bashful. I don't say that it was an invalid interpretation, and I understand trying to make his version of the character different from Firth's, but I think there's a difference between reserved, and uncomfortable around strangers, and just plain shy. Firth caught that difference; Macfayden didn't.
Let's also remember that, in the book, Darcy's not really on stage all that much. The '95 version, filling out 6 hours, gave him more to do. We saw him practicing his fencing at the gym, riding horses, swimming, all giving a sense of the character's athleticism and physicality, something Austen barely hints at. We see him on-screen tracking down Wickham and Lydia, while that's completely off-stage in the book. So, to a degree, Firth, while remaining true to the character Austen wrote, has to do some creating of his own.
As for whether he gave any hints of his attraction to Jennifer Ehle, and her two fine . . . uh . . . eyes. Yeah, that's right. Eyes. To me that was manifestly obvious. Believe me, they cooked on-screen together as much as Tracy and Hepburn, Bogie and Bacall, Powell and Loy, Olivier and Leigh, or Wayne and O'Hara ever did, and more than Astaire/Rogers, Rooney/Garland, or Hudson/Day or many of the other classic romantic pairings you can think of.
How could you miss the look of pain he gets when Lizzy turns him down, and sets him down, at Hunsford. Or the look of fear as he proposes the second time, almost certain he's gonna get another refusal, or the look of sheer relief when she accepts. I recognized everyone of the feelings his expressions conveyed because I went through 'em myself when I proposed (I got accepted, but believe me when I tell you my only proposal was almost as lame as Darcy's first one). When an actor makes you recognize something you've experienced yourself through his performance, he's doing a hell of a job!
Firth did a hell of job.
> My greatest objections, aside from CF, were the
> casting of Jane, who was no beauty, . . .
Again different strokes, but here I think I'm better qualified to judge and, from a male perspective, take it from me, not only was Susanna Harker a first-round, full-count knockout, but she put across Jane's serene nature, as well as her inherent goodness and kindness.
Rosamund Pike was lovely, but seemed to animated and vivacious to me.
> , , , and Miss Bingley. The actress who played her made her into
> a caricature -- she was comic relief but not at
> all realistic.
It's a film. A visual medium. They had to exaggerate to make the differences between her and Lizzy evident.
> I understand that Jennifer
> Ehle wore a wig; if true, they should have tried
> harder to get her a more flattering one.
Here, I have to agree. Not only that, but her hair should have been styled differently for different occasions. She looked at her best when she was getting ready for bed, and her hair was worn loose.
By contrast, when Keira Knightley walked into Netherfield, with her hair having come loose from its pins after her long walk, the effect was much more flattering than the tight, school-marmish style the Jennifer Ehle was stuck with through most of the '95 film. Fortunately, in Miss Ehel's case, the staircase was so great, I found I didn't mind too much once I got to the top and found it a tad lacking.
JIM D.