MovieChat Forums > Death Comes to Pemberley (2014) Discussion > Elizabeth - Almost a Decade Older Than 2...

Elizabeth - Almost a Decade Older Than 27!!

posted 10 years ago by highpriestess32
20 replies | jump to latest

Before Elizabeth marries Mr Darcy she declares to Lady DeBurgh when questioned that she "is not one and twenty". She married not long after this and Death Comes to Pemberley is merely six years on making her still in her late twenties.

The actress was 35 but sadly, could not pull off even a 35 year-old in this drama but looked in her mid-forties, to me at least. As has been duly noted in other threads she looked exceptionally drab and has ageing, unsightly bags under her eyes. She had none of that twinkle/sparkle in her eyes that Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth boasted.

I'm not saying it is an easy feat to try to replicate the characters from the TV series - for all we know they may have been focusing more on the remake with Keira Knightly. But the real P&P for me will always be the TV adaptation with Firth and Ehle. And as Lizzie is such a pivotal character I feel they could have cast someone a lot more like Ehle. Her figure, her hair, her complexion - everything is just too pale and mousey.

The stark contrast was evident when they recreated the scene from said TV series whereby Wickham and Elizabeth were slating Darcy at that gathering. That was painful for a staunch fan of the series!

Has anyone seen my wife? - Columbo

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

The 2005 version of P&P is not a remake of anything. You could as easily call the 1995 version a remake of the 1980 version. Which it's patently not. They are all stand-alone adaptations of the same source material, the novel Pride and Prejudice.

And, while we're on the subject of people who are too old for their characters, Julia Sawalha, who played Lydia in the 1995 version of P&P was at least 10 years too old for that character. Lydia is 16 at the end of the book. Sawalha was around 25 during filming. She could not pass for a 16-year-old at all.

As for Ehle's Elizabeth, while Austen's Elizabeth is far from mousy, she is also not smug or b!tchy. Ehle's Elizabeth is, IMNSHO, both, which is why I much prefer Elizabeth Garvie and Greer Garson in the role. And, yes, even Keira Knightley.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] supergran 10 years ago

Julie, I was just about to reply in a similar vein, but you beat me to it! Lol.

Why on earth would the makers of DCtP be trying to replicate the characters from the (P&P)TV series! And, likewise, why would they want to recreate the Elizabeth and Wickham scene from that series? Presumably, they are reproducing the characters and scenes from the novel of Pride and Prejudice!

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

[–] highpriestess32 10 years ago

Novels in reality can't be compared to films or series made from them - they are more often than not tweaked greatly - even in such greats as Gone With the Wind which omitted some pretty important elements of the book so I generally take the novel and the screen adaptation as separate entities.

Sawahla was indeed older but the difference is, she looked much younger than her true age and this is not the case here with Elizabeth. I refer only to the screen presentations of which I believe there are three including the TV adaptation but I would venture a guess that this was loosely based on the TV series.

Has anyone seen my wife? - Columbo

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

I disagree completely. I don't think that JS looked young enough to pass for 15/16 at all. I also didn't like that they had her flinging herself around the room and snorting in an attempt to make her appear immature.

It's just about as bad as the idea of that matronly, mature Elizabeth (Ehle was a good 4 or 5 years older than her character) trying to look young and carefree by scampering around the countryside and playing with the dog. I cringed for her when I saw that scene.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

The more I watch the 95 version, the more both of those things irritate me.

I do think there's a lot to enjoy about it, but for two decades now people have been calling it perfect - and it isn't.

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

Here's what I wrote about it after having finished reading the book for the umpteenth time:

https://currentscene.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/2010-a-jane-austen-odyss ey-13/

As you can see, I agree with you pretty much across the board.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] netherfield2000 10 years ago

By J.S. is assume you mean Julia Swahalla. She was actually the oldest actress playing the youngest sister. In the awesome parody, Lost in Austen, they cast an actress obviously way to old to play Lydia on purpose as a kind of inside joke reference to p&p 2005

[–] Julie-30 10 years ago

Why would it be a reference to P&P05? Jena Malone was 18 or 19 when she played Lydia. So that's only a 3-or-so-year difference from the character's age. That's a far cry from being 10 years older than the character.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

Elizabeth Garvie is just wonderful in the role. Unlike Ehle, you can see her character grow, learn and change. The production values are a bit stagey and dated in the 1980 version, but it's still the closest to the characters of the book.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SnapCrackledThePop 10 years ago

Let be real. People aged much differently 200 years ago. She did fine.

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

An excuse that comes up a lot. People didn't age THAT MUCH and THAT FAST in the past. Particularly when living in a stately home like that one!

[–] mastersslave74 10 years ago

yes they did.. the average lifespan was only 45 in 1910, so what do you think it was in 1810? Medicine was not advance, food preparation (even in the great houses) was poorly prepared. Don't you think bacteria covered their food? They prepared with no gloves, in open flames with wood chips fluttering around. I'm sure mice and rats trampled the kitchens.

Even kings and queens got smallpox.. so yeah.. i believe a 35 yrs old woman could look ... OLD.

[–] supergran 10 years ago

the average lifespan was only 45 in 1910, so what do you think it was in 1810?

Just want to correct a popular misconception. You're talking about life expectancy at birth. If a person survived childhood (which many didn't), there was no reason why they shouldn't live for two or three decades beyond 40.

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

[–] SnapCrackledThePop 10 years ago

Yes, they did. Times were a lot different without the benefits of modern medicine. Even those who were afforded a nice living could easily appear 10 years older than they would today.

[–] erichill22 10 years ago

I noticed this immediately. According to the book Elizabeth is a reputed beauty and Darcy states that Elizabeth is one of the handsomest women of his acquaintance. Not only is the actress to old to play Elizabeth she is also to plain.

[–] Annabelle2918 10 years ago

I think she would have looked too old for Elizabeth when she was twenty-six (which is not one and twenty plus six!).

She played a low class factory worker in North and South, and that's a role that suited her very well. She just doesn't have that aristocratic look about her. Her appalling posture and modern mannerisms didn't help one bit.

[–] klorentz 10 years ago

Since when is Elizabeth supposed to be an aristocrat?

[–] SrEditor 10 years ago

Oh, THANK YOU, for mentioning the posture and physical mannerisms! Every time they showed her walking . . . that's what would spoil my suspension of disbelief.

Actors and actresses used to study movement as part of their roles!

WHAT happened here?

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 10 years ago

Not only was the actress old or looked old (she looked middle aged, not even 30s), let's be honest, she's ugly whereas Elizabeth is supposed to be pretty.