Comments on: P&P95 Part 2 Postshow Open Thread

By: Julie P.

Julie P. — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:11 +0000

I know — I’ve seen him on the streets of Manhattan, and he definitely is even nicer looking in person. My AP English teacher showed us Much Ado and Glass Menagerie (which were only 3 or 4 years old at that point) and I was hooked. I’ve loved him ever since.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:28:26 +0000

No, sadly, they didn’t tape this version. I did see Sam Waterston in another play, Travesties, by Tom Stoppard. Another comedy, if rather tongue in cheek. If you ever get the chance to see Sam Waterston on stage, GO! He is so much more than Jack McCoy. And, he’s very nice, he’ll stop and talk to fans, give autographs, etc. He’s also much nicer looking in person!

By: Julie P.

Julie P. — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:39:48 +0000

I’d heard about this version, but I never managed to see it. I wonder if it’s available for rent or sale.

By: Karen

Karen — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:56:32 +0000

I remember seeing Much Ado About Nothing on tv years ago, and a few years back, when the Public Theater did it again at the Delacourt Theater in Central Park, I and a friend went to see it. Julie P, you would have loved it-I hope you were able to see it! Sam Waterston played Leonato this time, and his daughter Elisabeth played Hero. Jimmy Smits played Benedick, and Kristen Johnston played Beatrice. Waterston and Smits should do a LOT more comedy-both were very funny! But the highlight was seeing how they played the scene where Hero gets left at the altar. Every time I’ve seen this play, its done with Hero “saying,” “I’m not the town tramp, but if my fiancee says I am, and my father beleives it, I guess I had better go hide in shame for the rest of my life.” Hero and Leonato SCREAMED at each other, and after the priest comes up with the “have her play dead and see what happens,” idea, and Leonato goes for it, Hero sees she has no choice, is outruled by the men in her life, and has to go along with it. Still, she’s so angry at her father, who by now is treating her as his poor maligned little girl, both for believing the lie in the first place, then going along with a cockamamie scheme, instead of defending her honor, that she won’t even leave the church through the same door as he, and she slams out another door. The looks on father and daughter’s faces are priceless at the end of this scene.
I kept thinking…”Boy, bet Elisabeth Waterston’s teen years made life around that house interesting!” as father and daughter were yelling at each other as if they’d done so a lot of times before!

By: Julie P.

Julie P. — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:40:45 +0000

But Suzanne, if Julius Caesar or Antony and Cleopatra are done in "full-on Elizabethan" then they are, by definition, modernized. Personally, my favorite Shakespeare adaptation was Much Ado About Nothing with Sam Waterston as Benedick. It takes place in the late 19th century and features Keystone Kops. It's really well done.

By: Maria L.

Maria L. — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:07:57 +0000

What P&P95 gave us that no recent Austen adaptation has, is the gift of time–time to “live” with Austen’s characters, time to “live” in Austen’s world, time to savor so many little moments of her wonderful story. Austen can be hyperanalyzed to the point that people forget just what a wonderful storyteller she is. And while no adaptation will ever be perfect, this one at least, was not in a hurry! The 95 P&P let her story play out, I think, as she intended.

There are many things I love about the Garvie/Rintoul version of P&P (Garvie being one of them) but the Ehle/Firth version still remains my very favorite.

By: Ally

Ally — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:03:39 +0000

Sandra, I agree with you entirely on your views about P&P3. I’d prefer writers of novel adaptations to go one way or the other, not linger in between. I, for instance, really like Fielding’s take on P&P in Bridget Jone’s…in my opinion that really highlights how Jane’s themes are still relative in a 21st century society. Or Fowler’s JABC, which again picks up on Jane’s themes and relates them to a modern group of people. Like you pointed out, Wright set his adaptation in the 19th century and thus it should represent the sensibilities of that era, not the modern one. That said I do feel some of the actors and actresses gave good turns in the film…personally I feel it is the background characters that shine in the 2005 version, as opposed to the popular view of the leads being the best performances. To me, the 2005 version lost a lot of the subtlety of the characters, and made each of them extreme versions of the ones I envisioned from the book, rather like caricatures (I just KNOW I spelt that wrong!).
But this thread is about the 1995 version, sorry for digressing. I haven’t actually seen either of the earlier P&P adaptations, but I have been looking forward to seeing the 1940 version, as I have heard so many good things. However I think the 1995 version will always be close to my heart, being the first adaptation of Austen’s works I ever saw. I think Ehle was amazing as Lizzie, just as I imagined, and I think she managed to portray the right balance between a fiesty nature and decorum. Firth was not as I imagined Darcy but I have yet to see a better portrayal. And I have so many views on this, but I don’t have anything new to add so I shall leave it there.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:59 +0000

Hi Julie,

Actually some people *do* care about Shakespeare adaptations. Me, for instance. I love the full-on Elizabethan performances. Or the Actors From the London Stage series where 5 actors play all the roles with a bare stage, minimal props and neutral costumes. I do like some Austen adaptations, such as Bride and Prejudice. The difference, I think, is that the story is set in the modern era and thus it is appropriate to display modern sensibilities. Since Wright chose to set his production in the Regency era, it’s rather jarring to have 21st century behavior. Pick one and stick with it, I sez.

And of course you’re entitled to your own opinion. It would be a dull world if we were all alike. I just wanted to know *why* you think as you do. An occupational hazard of mine.

By: Elaina

Elaina — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:10:49 +0000

For some reason I’m just not that big on Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth. It’s not that she’s a bad actress, but she’s just too smiley and bosomy for Elizabeth. (To quote Darcy, “She smiles too much.”) And Firth doesn’t make me swoon as Darcy. Richard Armitage’s performance as Thornton in N&S affected me much more than Firth’s as Darcy.

By: Julie P.

Julie P. — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:42:35 +0000

To #26 — I think Jane would have approved because I do think she’d be thrilled that, 200 years after her books were written, people still loved and cared about them enough to see how they’d translate to a different place and time. Nobody seems to care that Shakespeare’s plays are tweaked for modern audiences; why should Austen’s works be immune? To me, it shows that her themes are universal and that people in any time and any place can appreciate them.

To #26 — I have a right to my opinion, just as you do to yours. Thanks for adding your two cents to the discussion.