Thursday, August 25, 2005

Skip if sensitive

Well, there have been worse, but this Guardian Series review of The Philadelphia Story is particularly...targeted. Let's just say it's titled "Lord, it's an Ehle of a shame". There's another owchy review at 50 connect too. A nicer one can be found at Kat's blog.

Jennifer Ehle is also mentioned in this snarky Age article about the excessive prettiness of Austen heroines onscreen.

Twinkly, bosomy Jennifer Ehle looked as if English cream ran in her veins in the celebrated 1995 BBC miniseries...

There's an interesting photo comparison of actresses who have played Elizabeth at Secondat.

[edit: bah, the Age article might require registration; try BugMeNot if you can't be bothered registering]

4 comments:

Chelsea said...

Rude, rude people.
And with reference to the "pretty jane austen heroines" articles- Elizabeth wasn't stunning but was a reputed beauty. Why do people have to pick things to death?

No modern day actresses could play Elizabeth or Tracy as well as JE, so they should just get off her back.

Chelsea said...

Besides, what the hell does "Lord, it's an Ehle of a shame" mean anyway?! Stupid journalists trying to be witty and funny.

Jennite said...

Yeah, the Age article quotes Mrs Hurst's description of Lizzy- hardly unbiased. It reflects more on her character's cattiness than Lizzy's actual appearance. Very silly.

I think it's meant to be a very loose pun on "hell of a shame". Lame.

Tine said...

That's something that bothers me too, the way so many keep thinking Lizzie is supposed to be plain. If they read the book properly they'd discover countless mentions of Lizzie being very pretty, only eclipsed in beauty by Jane. The Bennets were reputed as a family of beauties, with only Mary being somewhat plain.