Ah, Pride and Prejudice, the timeless story of the intersection of money, class, and love. Written by the legendary Jane Austen over 200 years ago, it still holds fascination today for its exploration of human vanity, cultural snobbery, and social climbing.
To try to list all of the various adaptations would take far too much space - that’s what Wikipedia is for anyway. However, I do want to note that I have seen two screen versions: the 1940 version starring Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, which inexplicably won an Oscar despite its butchery of the plot and generic characters; and the gold standard, the 1995 A&E series starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, among others.
No, I haven’t seen the new Kiera Knightly one. The A&E version will always be the gold standard for its faithfulness to the book, its attention to period detail, its understated vibe, and of course the fact that the musicians are actually playing their instruments! Including a serpent, which is super cool. (Also brilliant is that the gauche country folk are still playing last generation’s music, while the cosmopolitan Bingleys and Darcys are up with the latest from Mozart.)
That said, while I generally believe the book will always be better than the movie or other adaptation, I am not such a snob that I cannot enjoy what is essentially a different work of art.
A great example of this is the Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman book, Good Omens, and its television series. Both are good, but very different works of art.
This play also falls into that category. Because it needs to fit into about two hours of stage time, it of necessity will need to make decisions about what to omit and what to keep. In addition, any modern adaptation needs to decide how much of Austen’s lovely and witty, but archaic language to keep. It will always be a compromise of some sort.
As long as you go into the play without expecting it to duplicate Austen, it is enjoyable. It keeps the bones of the story without adding extra plots (all too common, unfortunately), preserves many of the best lines, even if it was impossible to preserve all of them, and largely keeps the feel of the characters the same.
There are some definite changes. Unsurprisingly, characters had to be cut. The most unexpected here was the paring down of the daughters to four. Poor Kitty. Nobody ever respected her anyway. Also gone are Mrs. Bennett’s brother and his family, the other soldiers, and several of the local neighbors. All of the cuts are defensible, given the time limits.
The one character which felt most changed was Mary, who became far more dramatic while also becoming more of the butt of the family jokes. I think this was a bit much, and I felt sorry for Mary. In the book, she gets to be more of an asexual nerd and dour religious fanatic - in other words, Mr. Collins should have married her. It would have been a perfect match.
It feels a bit unnecessary to recount the plot, as it should by now be familiar to anyone who has seen any other version. I suspect Austen fans are likely the core audience anyway. But if not, well, go see the play if you can, and definitely read the book. Trust me, it’s very much worth it.
The vibe of this play, particularly as performed, was definitely less restrained and more over-the-top. The updated script contains a certain amount of mild innuendo, which Austen would never have stated outright. (Her era certainly had plenty of bawdy talk, but not among genteel women. And before her, Shakespeare was…well, you know.) Your mileage may vary on this. Some will hate it, others will find it hilarious.
I would also call the vibe a bit irreverent. Not only does the play retain the social satire of the original, it also pokes a good bit of fun at period dramas themselves.
As usual, The Empty Space found a way to put their own twist on the production, from the “put a flower on it” aesthetic - Portlandia would approve - to the particular twists on the personalities of the characters.
And the costumes. Particularly that pink and plaid ensemble on Mr. Collins and the unique suit on Mr. Bennett.
As with so many local productions, I had friends in this one, including both of the Gradowitz girls. Or, well, women these days. They are all grown up and killing it on stage.
Let me mention some specific actors. First up, Alex Mitts as Mr. Darcy, which is a truly difficult part to pull off, particularly in this version, where he has to be the straight man in the chaos all around him. I always love seeing Alex on stage - he’s versatile and believable and likeable. Well, mostly. Darcy isn’t supposed to be likeable at first. And, well, he does come off as appropriately snobbish and proud.
Andrea Vega, a young up-and-coming actor, shined in the role of Lizzie, and had good chemistry with Darcy.
The secondary couple, Jane and Bingley, were played by Ruth Luna and Chayce Perlis, respectively. Luna was appropriately shy yet smitten, while Perlis was a kind of overeager puppy dog. Which, well, that actually is Bingley, after all. (In the book, Lizzie predicts that they will be mercilessly cheated by their servants, yet be absurdly happy with each other.)
Mary was played by Grace Piercy, who has been ensemble on a few plays I have seen, but never this major of a part. As I noted, I thought the character was a bit over-the-top, but given the part, Piercy did a good job of acting it.
The fourth daughter, Lydia, was given the full ditz treatment by our friend Marina. And, well, she stole every scene. Which we knew she would. Her seducer and eventual husband, Wickham, was played with appropriate lugubriousness by Josh Carruthers, who has been killing it on stage lately, from Agatha Christie to Tennessee Williams.
Mr. and Mrs. Bennett were portrayed by local stage veterans Ronnie Warren and Kayleigh Peaker. Again, excellent chemistry between the feuding couple, who respond to the unjust entailment of their estate with denial and avoidance on the one hand, and panic and scheming on the other.
Outside the family are a few other characters. Charlotte Lucas, played by Clarianne Righetti, daughter of family friends, had the other straight man character. The always-excellent Petra Carter played the snobbish Miss Bingley to perfection.
Mr. Collins has long been one of my favorite characters, because he is so devoid of sense or likeability. Jesus Fidel just nailed this part. It’s a bit different than other versions, but he made it his own, and made it work. And that pink suit.
Finally, the eminent, respectable, and thoroughly condescending Lady Catherine de Bourgh. If you have seen the A&E version you know.
So, when I heard that Selah would be playing the part - she’s all of 20 years old, and like Marina, rather more “fun-size” than imposing, I was curious to see how she pulled it off.
I was pleasantly surprised in every way. She had serious gravitas, and a sneer you could feel all the way to the back row. (After the show, she said her face hurt from having to hold that sneer the whole time.)
Also fun here is that Selah, the younger sibling, played the old lady, while Marina, the older one, played the 14 year old Lydia. And both totally worked.
In fact, I think the strength of this production was in the full ensemble. Top to bottom, everyone brought themselves to the characters, and the chemistry was solid throughout. Every part was sold well, and felt real. Our local theater people really bring it to every stage.
Pride and Prejudice runs the next two weekends, and I recommend getting tickets in advance, as it has been selling out.
No comments:
Post a Comment