Theater Review: The heart of the novel is all there in TheatreWorks’ ‘Pride and Prejudice’
In the pantheon of the world’s most beloved novels, a haloed corner most surely is occupied by “Pride and Prejudice,” Jane Austen’s 1813 masterpiece of misunderstandings and love nearly lost.
Janeites, as fans are called, are so devoted that multiple big screen films and TV miniseries have been made. Plays have been produced. Spin-off novels have even ended up on best-seller lists. All to rekindle that inexplicable something at the novel’s heart. TheatreWorks’ production of “Pride and Prejudice” runs through May 7.
And it’s all there. Mr. Darcy and Miss Elizabeth Bennet parry and spar. Jane Bennet yearns for the love of Mr. Bingley. Mrs. Bennet tries to marry off her daughters, while her husband quips knowingly. Mr. Wickham plots. Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Charlotte Lucas and all the others take their proper places.
It’ll likely tickle fans, as it often did me. But taken for anything more than a diverting postcard from Austen’s world, and you may be disappointed in some important ways, chiefly by failing to create fresh connections between the audience and Austen’s characters and situations.
Instead, Marcus Goodwin’s adaptation – which he wrote for a Seattle rep company that specializes in translating literature to the stage – depends on the audience’s familiarity with the story to fill in the storytelling and emotional gaps. Some created by director Kelly Kitchens’ breathless pacing and others by Goodwin’s high-concept dramatic conceits. The latter, while stylish and even interesting, were also pretty confusing.
I am a fan of “Pride and Prejudice,” but there were times during the preview when I was baffled.
Cases in point: The unnecessary doubling of minor roles, balletic blocking to no apparent end, the extremely minimalist set and the actor’s practice of breaking the fourth wall to narrate their character’s actions and feelings. The latter was probably the most distracting because the distinction between the dialogue and the immediate delivery of the narration was often quite blurry.
Goodwin, I think, was trying to create a poetic and whimsical reinvention of “Pride and Prejudice,” but with so many flourishes, it’s hard to see how it could hit that mark, especially in under three hours. What’s left so boils down Austen’s story that virtually only the costumes (lovely ones by Betty Ross), fussy hair and happy endings remain.
The performances were fine, but unsurprisingly insubstantial – especially in Act I when actors flew from exchange to exchange like they were being paid by the word.
At the play’s center, Jen Taylor instilled charm and a clear intelligence in Elizabeth, and while Trevor Young Marston was stiff enough for Darcy, more moody arrogance is in order. Sadly, their chemistry – and our investment to their love – was hardly given a chance to flourish in the almost telegraphic rendering of this story.
Some of the cast of TheatreWorks’ “Pride and Prejudice.”
Tracy Mobley-Matinez Saturday December 13, 2014. Photo by Jeff Kearney
Some of the cast of TheatreWorks’ “Pride and Prejudice.” (Photo by: Judith Kimbrell)
The poster for TheatreWorks’ “Pride and Prejudice.”
Some of the cast of TheatreWorks’ “Pride and Prejudice.”
The poster for TheatreWorks’ “Pride and Prejudice.”
Some of the cast of TheatreWorks’ “Pride and Prejudice.” (Photo by: Judith Kimbrell)
Tracy Mobley-Matinez Saturday December 13, 2014. Photo by Jeff Kearney