How well do YOU think Elizabeth Bennet played piano?
DiscussieI Love Jane Austen
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1JoannaON
Ha! A pet topic of mine, this one!
There are pros and cons about every dramatisation I think, and lots and lots of pros and cons about the 2005 film with Keira Knightley as Lizzie BUT in one respect it scored over everything I can remember... Lizzie couldn't play.
And Mary could.
In the book it is made absolutely clear that Mary practises hard, plays well (if without enormous sensitivity): "Elizabeth, easy and unaffected, had been listened to with much more pleasure, though not playing half so well" (as Mary). Then in the famous scene at Rosings, the books says that Elizabeth started talking to the men "at the first convenient pause" - in other words, she stops playing to do so.
In the Andrew Davies version, Elizabeth plays like a dream, and what's more, plays like a dream all through the ensuing conversation, where she is parrying and thrusting wittily. No way - no way does a so-so pianist manage that. In the film version she plays in a delightfully clunky, Grade 3 way and the moment the men arrive and talk at her she loses it and stops. Well, ok, the real Elizabeth should be able to play better than that, but it makes the point for even non-musically sensitive ears. Made me laugh with delight, anyway.
I'll just add a postscript here: that film is also one of the very few where Jane is definitely prettier than Lizzie, as she should be. In the Andrew Davies version the poor actress (Suzannah Harker) is given a neckline and hair-do that make her look like a horse. Keira Knightley, though charming and attractive, is really not the beauty that Rosamund Pike is.
Nothing to do with piano playing, I admit.
There are pros and cons about every dramatisation I think, and lots and lots of pros and cons about the 2005 film with Keira Knightley as Lizzie BUT in one respect it scored over everything I can remember... Lizzie couldn't play.
And Mary could.
In the book it is made absolutely clear that Mary practises hard, plays well (if without enormous sensitivity): "Elizabeth, easy and unaffected, had been listened to with much more pleasure, though not playing half so well" (as Mary). Then in the famous scene at Rosings, the books says that Elizabeth started talking to the men "at the first convenient pause" - in other words, she stops playing to do so.
In the Andrew Davies version, Elizabeth plays like a dream, and what's more, plays like a dream all through the ensuing conversation, where she is parrying and thrusting wittily. No way - no way does a so-so pianist manage that. In the film version she plays in a delightfully clunky, Grade 3 way and the moment the men arrive and talk at her she loses it and stops. Well, ok, the real Elizabeth should be able to play better than that, but it makes the point for even non-musically sensitive ears. Made me laugh with delight, anyway.
I'll just add a postscript here: that film is also one of the very few where Jane is definitely prettier than Lizzie, as she should be. In the Andrew Davies version the poor actress (Suzannah Harker) is given a neckline and hair-do that make her look like a horse. Keira Knightley, though charming and attractive, is really not the beauty that Rosamund Pike is.
Nothing to do with piano playing, I admit.
2Caramellunacy
I remember finding the piano thing in the Keira Knightley version really charming as well. It was nice after the point was made that she was NOT declining out of false modesty. Plus, it just made Darcy coming to hear her play that much more a mark of his regard for her. Yay!
3atimco
In the Andrew Davies version the poor actress (Suzannah Harker) is given a neckline and hair-do that make her look like a horse.
One thing to keep in mind is that Susannah Harker has a more Greek classical style of beauty, which was considered the standard in those times, while Jennifer Ehle has a more piquant, irregular prettiness that we find more attractive nowadays. I agree that some of Harker's hairstyles were a bit unfortunate, but her beauty is certainly more classical and that has helped me appreciate the casting more in the '95 P&P.
One thing to keep in mind is that Susannah Harker has a more Greek classical style of beauty, which was considered the standard in those times, while Jennifer Ehle has a more piquant, irregular prettiness that we find more attractive nowadays. I agree that some of Harker's hairstyles were a bit unfortunate, but her beauty is certainly more classical and that has helped me appreciate the casting more in the '95 P&P.
4JoannaON
That is a very good point, wisewoman! Hadn't thought of it that way. On balance I'm still inclined to think it would be best to cast a dramatisation for modern sensibilities, so that we as an audience agree that Jane is the beauty and Lizzie fab and attractive but not so perfect. Susannah Harker is lovely looking, I know - I saw her in a contemporary drama - but I still think she was done no favours at all in that adaptation!
We seem to have a lot of books in common! I paused while waiting for my CueCat to arrive, and have the feeling some more more arise in due course. Are you British or American?
We seem to have a lot of books in common! I paused while waiting for my CueCat to arrive, and have the feeling some more more arise in due course. Are you British or American?
5atimco
Joanna, I can't take credit for that; I was complaining about that very same thing on another board a few years ago and someone stepped in with that new perspective. I think she had a great point, and I love sharing it with other fans, because it helped me appreciate that casting choice more. And yeah, I think I agree that a more generically beautiful woman would be good in that role. But it is what it is, and Susannah Harker is not unattractive. She just pales a little next to Ehle.
It's a huge compliment that you almost think I might be British! No, I'm American — but I am a total literary Anglophile :). I'll have to check out your library and see where we intersect!
It's a huge compliment that you almost think I might be British! No, I'm American — but I am a total literary Anglophile :). I'll have to check out your library and see where we intersect!
6ncgraham
In response to the opening question, and to paraphrase a certain gentleman: She probably played tolerably well, but not handsomely enough to tempt me.
I like Harker as Jane, but yes, Rosamund Pike is beautiful and easily outshines Knightley is all particulars.
I like Harker as Jane, but yes, Rosamund Pike is beautiful and easily outshines Knightley is all particulars.
7LibrarianBarb
I read somewhere that Harker was a few months pregnant when the '95 film was made and the dresses disguised her figure but her face and neck looked very full. And she is beautiful in the way people in Jane Austens day would have admired - if you look at their old portraits the standard of beauty was a little different.
As for Elizabeth playing - remember she tells Lady Catherine that she didnt go to town to work with masters because her father hated London so unless there was a sort of traveling music master to give her a few lessons she was self taught and worked at it as much as she wanted to - like she says to Lady Catherine the ones who wanted to be idle certainly might be. it is clear that she does not play as well as Caroline Bingley or Georgianna Darcy.
As for Elizabeth playing - remember she tells Lady Catherine that she didnt go to town to work with masters because her father hated London so unless there was a sort of traveling music master to give her a few lessons she was self taught and worked at it as much as she wanted to - like she says to Lady Catherine the ones who wanted to be idle certainly might be. it is clear that she does not play as well as Caroline Bingley or Georgianna Darcy.
