Thursday, September 22, 2005

The new "Pride and Prejudice", eh? It's not half-bad.



I was about fourteen when the BBC Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version was first aired and I was smitten, I have to admit. I read the book on the strength of it (and that led on to me reading the rest of Austen's novels and scoping out any other BBC adaptations that were floating around. None of them lived up to that first viewing of "Pride and Prejudice".). It was going to take some beating, especially when taking into account the time limitations of a feature film as opposed to a television serial.



When I heard that Matthew McFadyen was to play Mr Darcy, I was quietly confident despite the initial "He's no Colin Firth" sentiment. Do we all remember him in "The Way We Live Now"? Which also starred such luminaries as David Suchet not to mention a couple of bright young things - Cillian Murphy, Miranda Otto, Shirley Henderson, anyone? There was "Spooks", of course; yet another decent BBC drama (that cuts rather close to the bone these days and is the better for it) which starred McFadyen as pseudo-Bond, Tom.



As for Keira Knightley? Well, we know she can do period (Elizabeth Swann in "Pirate of the Caribbean") and we know she can do strong (Guenevere in "King Arthur"). Perhaps a little too pretty to be Lizzie Bennet but she's a good enough actress to overcome such a disadvantage. (I will dislodge my tongue from my cheek any day now).




Rosamund Pike was certainly going to be pretty enough to play Jane and Jena Malone as Lydia seemed to be a good call, 'despite' her being American. Brenda Blethyn as Mrs Bennet and Dame Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh was really dream-team casting, wasn't it? Tom Hollander, Simon Woods and the wonderful Donald Sutherland provided strong male support, as expected from the boys.




I really, really enjoyed it. Not just the acting but the scenery. Honestly, it made England seem positively idyllic, even when knee deep in pig shit. Pemberley was stunning while Longbourn was more rustic than in the BBC version but none the weaker for it.



Some of the dialogue did jar a little; I can't quite imagine Jane telling Lizzie that she was 'over' Mr Bingley in quite those words or Mr Bingley telling Jane that he had been an ass but I did enjoy the ever-present eaves-dropping sisters toppling in through the door. There was some touches that were maybe not Austenesque but were far too touching to omit. Mr Bennet seeking out Mary to give her a hug having embarrassed her and her piano-playing at the Netherfield Ball? Priceless. Who didn't want Donald Sutherland as their father in that scene?




The characters omitted weren't too conspicuous in their absence; various siblings from what I could gather. There was no Mariah Lucas, no Mrs Phillips and no Mrs Hurst but it didn't matter. I think the screen would have been crowded if they had been included.




To be fair, the concluding scene, with Mr Darcy walking through the mist was possibly a tiny bit contrived but I'm sure as hell not going to grudge Lizzie and Darcy that scene! The chemistry (damn, I hate that phrase) between them had been simmering along nicely throughout the film and it was wonderful to see it come to fruition.




Now. Did anyone else think that the chap playing Mr Wickham was a sort of Orlando Boom Lite?


Disclaimer: Any errors in reference to the book are all my fault. I haven't actually read it in years...

Monday, September 12, 2005


And into that gate they shall enter, and in that house they shall dwell, where there shall be no cloud nor sun, no darkness nor dazzling, but one equal light, no noise nor silence, but one equal music, no fears nor hopes, but one equal possession, no foes nor friends but one equal communion and identity, no ends nor beginnings, but one equal eternity.
-Sermon, John Donne, 1572-1631



This evening, while studying, I was reminded how much I love Schubert's Trout Quintet. Pretentious, moi? That'll be a hell, yeah.




Vikram Seth's An Equal Music has got to be one of the best books written about music. Not that I have much experience in the area - and I am not particularly musical, beyond the obligatory childhood piano lessons and the occasional foray into choral music. Nevertheless, when I read An Equal Music (in Ghana, last summer), I was utterly absorbed. I do not have a very wide knowledge of classical music but the descriptions of the Maggiore String Quartet and the running theme of love-lost - and love-found and love-lost again - really drew me in. The Trout is one of the central compositions mentioned in the book and it was only after I returned home that I listened to it for the first time. It might be stretching it to say that that single book made me appreciate classical music all the more but, then again, perhaps it is not so far from the truth (even if it is a too-broad truth).





It is the sort of book that makes me wish I had talent enough to play the piano if not well, at least better. I suppose I'd like to be proficient with any musical instrument, really. Yes, even the triangle. I could cope with that. It is also the sort of book that makes me wish I could talk about classical music with some kind of intelligence that passes beyond "I like it" or "I want to hear that again". I don't suppose that is such a bad thing though; to know what you like even if you cannot identify the technical skill or merit involved in composing or playing such music. I doubt that I, for one, will ever really grow much beyond the six-year old girl who asked her father to play that music from Charlie Brown when Linus lost his blanket.




"That music?" The second movement of Beethoven's Sonata Pathétique.