We attended a preview performance of Pride & Prejudice by the PlayMakers Repertory Company at UNC last night. All in all, I would say it was a decent performance, but its main flaw was one that was hard to ignore — several major characters whom I felt were miscast:
- Elizabeth Bennett: The heroin of the novel is supposed to be strong in will and spirit, a tad snarky, and full of spunk. Those qualities didn’t really come through in the play, and part of it was because the actress who played Lizzie was the shortest one in the cast — a good foot and a half shorter than many of the other actors. They did some smart staging to minimize that obvious difference, such as having Lizzie on a higher step than her companion whenever she was taking a stroll around the stage with someone. However, it’s hard for her to hold her own in witty repartee when she spends the bulk of the time staring up at everyone else.
- George Wickham: The villain of the novel is supposed to be a playboy, a handsome heartthrob who can steal a lady’s heart at first sight and charm her into scandalous behavior. In the play, however, the character looks more like a slightly chubby frat boy, and it was kind of strange watching the young ladies swoon over him. This isn’t a slam on the actor. The problem is that the role is so clearly defined, and it’s one he’s suited for.
- Charlotte Lucas: In the novel, Charlotte is supposed to be rather plain, with poor prospects of marriage (which is why she ended up with intolerable Mr. Collins). Charlotte in the play, however, seems much flashier and in fact probably overshadows some of the other girls who are supposed to be greater beauties. If you didn’t read the novel and saw the play, you would be wondering why Charlotte isn’t the one soaking up the attention from the gentlemen and why in the world she would settle for Collins.
Despite the miscasting, there were some aspects of the play that I liked:
- The adaptation of the novel for the stage: The novel consisted mainly of three things — narration, heavy dialogues, and lengthy letters. I thought the play stayed true to the book and did a terrific job incorporating the narration and the letters into the performance through the script, the staging, and the lighting in a way that made them feel natural. It was immediately clear to the audience when they were hearing a narration or a letter, and the transition did not feel abrupt or out of place.
- The choreography: In both the novel and the movie adaptations, one of the highlights were the balls marked by large group dances. I thought the play replicated this quite well with a relatively small cast. The scenes were also complemented well by the accompaniment.
- The costumes: If PlayMakers finds its wardrobe raided sometime in the next week or two, the investigation should probably start at our house, where Courtney will likely be parading around in a regency gown and bonnet. Of course, now she’s itching to go to the Jane Austen Festival in Bath, England, next year. Anybody know someone who makes regency outfits?