Well, I have a little free time, and I'm lonely and bored. So I thought I'd share some of thoughts on P&P. I liked it a lot, though I think I'll like it a little better when I'm not surrounded by teens and pre-teens loudly sighing, gasping, and cheering for every little moment in the film. I'm also intrigued by the way this film is being advertised. On one level, the preview audience and the word of mouth thingy makes a lot of sense considering the lack of budget for advertising. Since most of you have seen the trailer for this film, though, you would probably agree that if there was any way they could scrape up money for a few well placed TV spots, this film would do very well in the theatre. The trailer alone is fun, and the movie would cross just fine into any teenage/college co-ed audience, regardless of religion. Alas, I understand that we are talking about lots and lots of money for TV spots, so I hope this word of mouth thing works well. (Or I hope I'm wrong, and they do have the budget for TV).

Back to the women in it: I thought they were great. It was a nice cast, and Kam Heskin was particularly fun. I still don't think her hair should've been done the way it was. (I know, who cares about hair, but...) She was supposed to be attractive and nicely groomed but not overdone, and, I'm sorry, but I've never, not once in my short 29 years, met a woman whose hair naturally curls that way. Those are sponge curler, hot roller, or curling iron curls, not natural ones. The closest I've seen natural curls to that is an old YA acquaintance who would majorly gel and hairspray her hair before blow drying it each day, and her hair was still really different.(Fun anecdote: One day in Hong Kong, as that YA friend had just started her hair dryer and was about to dry her hair, she looked over and realized that the blow dryer was shooting out flames. I guess she hadn't adjusted her hairdryer to the different electrical output yet. Thank goodness she had not yet put her hair in it's path. So we all were able to laugh at the event and not look back on it as the tragic loss of a beautiful head of hair). My point is, it takes a good deal of work to make curls like that, and yet it was clear that we were suppose to believe that Elizabeth was pretty low maintenance and those curls were natural. I didn't believe it for one second, and Kam Heskins looks great with straight or wavy hair and did not need the fake hair-style.

Speaking of low maintenance, my first perception from the trailer, which actually had more to do with the website pictures with the porcelain skin and the hot roller curls, was completely off. My perception at this point might be a little askew because bad traffic and a late arrival for my guest landed us three rows from the front. Just the same, while I was watching and enjoying this nice film with these nice, attractive actors, I kept thinking for everyone but Lydia and Kitty, "Please mask now." Hello pores!!

Boy was I wrong, and I felt like Lydia watching the film. Foundation and powder! Please, Ladies! But seriously, I had slightly mixed feelings about the lack of primpage that went into prepping these stars for the camera.

Was it lighting that left them looking like the surface of the moon? Was it the old Scera theatre screen? I don't think so. Lydia looked really nice. I mean, big pores and overly sweaty faces during a jogging scene is one thing, but most of the other scenes? Sheesh! There was also an abundance of very dark lipstick that didn't always flatter the way it needed to.

Of course, 90% percent of the shots used in the cut I saw (and I'm not exaggerating) were either mediums or close-ups. Is that normal? If so, why did it feel so funny? I felt a little frustrated for Anne, who did a terrific job with the Production Design (in the house in particular), and very little of it was featured at all. I'm not asking for a still shot of every room or anything. I just felt at times like we were watching the story from a perspective of a drunk, where everything is just a little fuzzy and people seem to really be in your face all of the time.

My husband asked me about the plot and the script, and I, with my amateur eye and perception, responded, "Well, they took the Pride and Prejudice out of it." What I meant is not that they were completely unfaithful to the book or anything. They did a lot of fun things with it, and I really enjoyed a few of the plot changes in it. But, like Jacob, I didn't see much of an arch for Darcy, and I kind of missed the whole "he's proud, she's prejudice" thing. He seemed proud for about ten seconds, and then suddenly, he was enraptured with her singing "Bring Back My Bonnie to Me." I also missed the crafty deception of Jack Wickham and Elizabeth's fascination with him. You pretty much knew from the first moment on that he was sleazy walking testosterone. It was impossible to figure out why Elizabeth would hang out with him, unless we were supposed to think she was just walking on the wild side a little. He was kind of cute, though.

All of the above said, I look forward to seeing it again. It was very fun, and there were a lot of great things about it. Besides, the projector went out about 60 seconds before the end, just as they were showing the exterior of... (Wait, would that be a spoiler?? I'll refrain.) Anyway, I have a theory that it was planned so that no one who saw the film at a preview could feel satisfied without paying and seeing it again. Maybe I'm just paranoid, though.

Two thoughts have really stuck in my mind since the viewing. First, I know that Film Directing majors at BYU have a lot on their plate, but I really think they need to have a few more acting classes in their curriculum. They got a really nice, talented cast that delivered pretty well in this film, but the first ten minutes were really shaky to me. I noticed it when I was at the Y, and I notice it now. BYU film majors and grads are not usually very good judges of acting, and I don't know if a majority of them understand at all how to cast or work with actors. After the first ten minutes, things seemed to improve for me. I may have just gotten used to it, though. No wonder one of my all time favorite director's is Sydney Pollack. It helped me see a little more why I prefer Richard's films the other LDS films.

My second thought is basically this. No more ending narration to tie up the film! It made more sense to me in this film than it has in any of the other LDS made films, largely because Austen herself tied up the various plots in her book with a paragraph or two about the characters. It requires too little craft, however, and it's just a cheap way for the writer to finish a story. It made me think about how my much father-in-law, a wonderful musician, absolutely loathes a popular 80's music trend to fade out songs instead of writing actual endings. As one of my favorite vampires from an alternate reality would say, "Bored now."

Dianna Graham