Jennifer Ehle, hubba-hubba!

Mike, pray tell us more. How did she light up the screen for you? It is natural for us to dwell on our favorite character, but we could certainly use some discussion of this young, and very talented actress, who was in almost every scene, whose story this is, after all.

Careful Mike.

I completely agree with Mike. To me, the skill, vivacity, and physical perfection of JE made the show as much as Colin Firth. And I am a very straight woman, let me not hesitate to add! JE is the discovery of the year, along with Renee' Zellwegger (JERRY MAGUIRE).

Second on that amy2, let's not forget on how many of us see ourselves in our beloved heroine. She does epitomized the intelligent and independant woman of her time. ---If not for her the series would have died.--- Must say an outstanding cast and a production of this quality is not standing only on one's performance, rather the full contribution of all actors/script/director whom envision it all. ---Although I have received some crude and unwelcome comments for my portrail of Lizzie's character...--- We do much prefer gentlemanlike manners, Mr. Mike. Hopefully our first disagreeable impression of your arrogance and conceit will prove to be wrong. Beware of the Thorpe's virus or the Wickham flu. Abominable symptoms. If you prefer reading to cards or simply take pleasure in many things, this dispositions are vastely welcomed. Shall we say the improvement of a mind by extensive reading will certainly further your appreciation of this great tale Come, Mr. Mike, we are fellow P&P2 lovers, you know. Do not let us quarrel about this incident. In the future, I hope we shall be always of one mind.

Hubba-hubba? What a babe? Sounds from the jungle, the locker room, or bordering on the boorish or cretinous are depressing anywhere, but here they really make the speaker seem like a baboon trying to play with the violin section. Demonstrate your intellect, please, with sufficient textual reference and pleasantry. Otherwise, we'll all be shaking our heads if you reaffirm our "first impressions are never wrong."

For some reason, Jennifer Ehle does not strike me as being outstandingly beautiful; Gwyneth Paltrow is perhaps the prettiest in the recent adaptations...

]The Mysterious H.C.: For some reason, Jennifer Ehle does not strike me as being outstandingly beautiful... Ahh, but she does have a lively, intelligent expression in her eyes. The description of her from one or two critics was "porcelain beauty," and I could see that especially in the Pemberley piana room scene (her portion of the LOOK). I do agree that Gwyneth Paltrow is very pretty, however.

] I do agree that Gwyneth Paltrow is very pretty, however. __ She smiles too much.

Part of why I love P&P2 is the fact that these characters seem to be in the 7-8 range (on the meat-market scale of 0-10) of human attractiveness. Very pretty when they are "in their best looks". Rather ordinary looking at times. This makes them more true to JA's character development. It take physical beauty and charm and intelligence and energy and character all working together to produce JA's standard of beauty and these actors gave it to us!!!!!

G.Paltrow is okay ,but nothing compared to JE. End of story!

Gwyneth Paltrow is perhaps the prettiest but too thin to be considered the picture of adult health , even by todays standards (her bmi must be way below 20), let alone those of the Regency period. As she looks very thin even on the screen, she must be almost gaunt in the flesh.

Katy, i agree.It also amazes me how they managed to tone down the brilliance of some of those beauties. Julia Sawalha, for one is actually a stunner, nothing like the chubby,spoilt brat she plays.And Lucy Briers, bless her, is very pretty too.

It seems that most young American actresses are breathtakingly beautiful, but not particularly talented (Sandra Bullock; Julia Roberts). Whereas English actresses, though perhaps not so flawless, can actually _act._

A taste of the real stuff instead of plastic (plastic nose, plastic acting, ...)

Have you ever noticed how British productions cast people -- especially extras in crowd scenes, etc. -- who have the most interesting, lived-in and real faces? Most unlike American plastic (I agree, Johanne...)

And the Brits even cast people with bad teeth. Sometimes. For certain purposes.

Uh-oh you are casting aspersions on American movie casting. England and American are very different countries. When comparing their cultures, you must take into account many differences between the two nations. England is not much bigger than the average American state. Probably anyone in England of even modest means can find opportunities to enjoy live performances by their major actors and actresses. Acclaimed acting ability alone could guarantee a "nation-wide" following. A film could be "distrubuted" with fewer than 100 copies and "marketed" with much less effort and expense than in the states. In America, a movie (expensive to make and market to such a large country) must make money and the stars must have a box-office following to support the effort. Most of us never hear of stage actors unless they also make names for themselves in films. Hence casting a great stage actor in a film might do nothing to give it box-office appeal. Actually we are making progress. Thirty years ago, Hollywood was afraid to cast Julie Andrews in My Fair lady - afraid the camera would not like her face. And this particular stage star had a national following in this country.

Katy, I have to disagree with you. English movies are not made for English consumption alone - they couldn't afford to do that nowadays, although it might have been true in the "good old days" of the Ealing comedies. But I do think the English or European movies are more concerned with the right look and the right talent rather than the "name" of the star. For instance, leaving CF aside, look at "Cold Comfort Farm", "Secrets and Lies", or (Australian)"Shine". They don't really have "name" stars but ar excellent movies - much better, IMHO than "Terminator" or "Mission Impossible"!

Or the best of the recent examples: Chrissy Rock in Ladybird Ladybird. If the Oscars went strickly on acting ability and performance, she should have won.

Jennifer Ehle can be considered beautiful because she exudes confidence, sweetness, and maturity all at the same time...her portrayal of Lizzie was right on, and she's very pretty to boot! I liked Gwyneth Paltrow as well, for similar reasons...she's kind of an odd-looking girl with a long nose and a painfully thin body, but her happy aura and poise make her very attractive. I think perhaps it is the character of Emma which I appreciate more, but a skillful portrayal will always reflect well upon the actress, allowing us to appreciate in living form the qualities we so admire in the character. Looks are important, but acting ability and personality (isn't all acting method-acting, to a point?) are absolutely vital. We love these characters not for what they look like (after all, JA tells us very little about the physical appearances of her heroines...or anyone else, for that matter!), but for who they ARE!

But I do think the English or European movies are more concerned with the right look and the right talent rather than the "name" of the star. For instance, leaving CF aside, look at "Cold Comfort Farm", "Secrets and Lies", or (Australian)"Shine". They don't really have "name" stars but are excellent movies - much better, IMHO than "Terminator" or "Mission Impossible"! Inko, I think we have to be careful of over-generalizing here. "Terminator" and "Mission Impossible" are not what American movies are all about. There is a vigorous independent cinema in the U.S. that produces serious, thoughtful films of real integrity. Think of Welcome to the Dollhouse, Lone Star and (a favorite of mine) Big Night, to name just three released last year. By the same token, other countries produce their share of commercial trash, although their lack of Hollywood budgets (among ther things) prevents these pictures from becoming blockbusters of the Terminator variety. There will always be a market for exploding car movies and there will always be one for the serious kind, and both the producers and the audience will come from all over the world.

Anne3, Of course, you're right! Actually, it's probably just my preference for independent movies coming to the fore, rather than an indictment of American movies. Loved "Big Night"; and what about "Fargo", just to think of the last year's crop. I think what I was really railing against is all the "hype" on such shows as Entertainment Tonight, who seem to cover only the really big name stars and their shenanigans, and hardly ever cover any of the smaller, independent, "art house" type films. Enough ra ting for now! :-)

When we talk American films we(I) think Hollywood with its image, greed and money and consumption as the purpose and goal. A definite package as emerge from there, serving us similar plots, scripts, role model, images of heros/heroines. Not to mention a certain lack of ingenuity, more recently during the lasts decades, it has demonstrated by redoing numerous good european films (True Lies, same plot but it had to be a lot bigger � la Hollywood; Bird Cage, somewhat a bit tame down and thus less percussion) However, you do have to differentiate Hollywood from an other way to american movie making, a more underground one which gives us films like Fargo, less mass oriented and in my view, closer to the reality of human nature. And the public, I beleive is responding more and more to it. In this world of ecclectic taste, where underground is fashionable and mainstream, it is bound to have its toll on Hollywood and for it has adapt. This big dinosaur has its moguls holding on to the power and control. The US is a big country an there is still a vast audience for film relying on a more esthetic facade (showing-off/effects) rather than a more substancialy driven base. And this is the biggest difference with European market. The latter as a more subtle, down to earth, closer to real life or a more natural feel to it. Less obvious, and reaching you inside for a deeper question or view of the world. And it says a lot on how each culture sees and deals with the world. We could easely to the same with music. Still indulge myself in a very predictive love story and I like it, I usualy now what I'll be getting. Not always the case with the european market, although it has its own different commercial lines of products depending on regional culture. I like to be challenge with a Truffaut or entertained with classics of Litterature the like of Cyrano.

And BTW, to these generalities there is always exception to the rules :)

Anybody seen The Player?

Loved it. Marvoouuloouus :)

Most people go to the movies to "Escape" the real world. They want to be entertained. The suspense and the music of "Mission Impossible" put together on a big screen was terrific. I went to see MI not "Terminator" rented that one. I still liked the special effects.

And that is the fun of it, different cultures, different products and we can choose depending on what we want to feel/see. What disturbs me is the amount of information/advertisement (and the catalyst effect) of a particular type (blockbuster mainstream) of entertainment we are bombarded with. And the vast public is relying/receiving only on it (and that includes Entertainment tonight). Not to mention the protectionnism of the movie market. In France, more cinemas are controled by Hollywood Studios then any other and less and less French film are being shown and thus being made.

I just wanted to put in my two-cents's worth.In Britain, and I believe in France, the emphasis on acting and theatrical opportunity is different altogether- there is much less of a "star" system, the pay for "big " actors is much lower, and despite the small size of the population,possibly much more emphasis on the stage. An actor is judged much more on his/her past performances in total, the Variety of his/her skills, rather than on looks.An actor is seen much more as a working person than as a god, is m re able to live a normal life than a Hollywood star.There exists a very snide, and ,I hasten to add,not really justifed attitude in U.K. that if you've got looks but cannot act, you don't work in Briain but you can do well in Hollywood.I believe it has been used in connection with Finola Hughes and Marina Sirtis.And Hugh Grant!

Well, I am the enemy, as I work in the Hollywood film business. And I too am saddened by the pathetic state of American film in the 90's. Whereas directors were allowed to make truly great, personal "mainstream" films in the 70's -- TAXI DRIVER; THE GODFATHER; BREAKING AWAY, etc. -- the drive these days is toward so-called "event films" like ID4, TWISTER, and DANTE'S PEAK (one of the two volcano pics). Studios are terrifed of originality; they are going for ludicrous high-concepts like AVON LADIES OF T E AMAZON (no, I am not making this up); and production costs are soaring, so that a "small" studio film now costs $25 million. And BTW, _what_ independents? Keep in mind that Miramax is owned by Disney; New Line by Turner, in turn owned by Time Warner, etc. The era of the true independent is over. They've all gone out of business, & I've worked for most of them. '97 promises to be another bleak, CGI-dominated year.

Amy2, What about Robert Redford's Sundance? Is that an independent? I know I enjoyed "A River Runs Through It", but I'm not sure whether it was truly independent or not. And sometimes, don't independent films use big studios to release the film after it's made; I'm specifically thinking of The English Patient being released by Miramax, but they didn't produce it. Sounds like a dismal year coming up - but there's always video-tape, especially P&P2!!;-)

Well, I am the enemy . . . Oh, Amy, never. Not here. I'm certain that all your screenplays are ones we'd all rush to see. No, we were casting aspersions on your, ahem, unfortunate relations . . .

Amy2, What do you do in the industry? And can you tell me what a foley editor does? My cousin's husband does that in L.A. Jane

Amy2 - what does the best boy do? thanks Jane - I have often watched the credits and wondered about some of these job titles. I just never thought to ask our dear Amy2!

Foley editor! Watch Remember WENN. The character Mr. Foley does the foleying, and that's all he does. The poor man is never allowed to speak! Foley is the sound effects: like the sound of people walking, doors opening and closing--with their completely improvised equiptment (light sabers are the sound of a guy wire on a telephone pole beiing hit) and the timing required, foleying is a true art form!

You guys are baaaaad! ;)

OK -- I have had to walk Foley myself, so I can tell you: Foley Artists are usually dancers who create live sound effects onstage. For example, they will walk through cornflakes to simulate the sound of snow. The Foley Editor is a Sound editor who cuts these FX into a reel for the final mix. The Best Boy is the #1 lighting guy on the set. Most are not boys. As to what I do: I've primarily worked in feature film advertising at the studios for many years. I've also been a Script Reader, and managed post-production Sound Studio. As for Sundance -- this is a Film Festival held in Utah by Robert Redford's company. They showcase indies, but they don't release them. Whew! Hope that answers everyone's question!

Thanks, Amy2. We're getting an education! It sounds like you have a diverse and interesting career---very glamourous compared to the work I am about to do in the laboratory, sloshing around some reagents. Although, if I am lucky, no one will ask me to walk through cornflakes. Jane

Despite its crazy nature, I do like working in the film business. You have to have a certain mindset to survive though -- kind of like winding your way through the politics of D.C.

Amy2, Even if you need a certain mindset, which I'm sure you have, I'd think a lot more fun than anything to do with politics in D.C.!!;-)

Now, now, Inko...;)

What I meant was that only the strong survive.