Streaming the new Pride and Prejudice musical

Streaming the new Pride and Prejudice musical

It is a time to count blessings. I am fortunate to have an abundance. The lockdown has provided my family and I with hitherto unfathomable quantities of bonding time. My husband can work almost seamlessly from home. We are not dependant on my meagre earnings, so it was an angst-free decision to not even try to work and just take care of the kids. I am so fortunate, in so many, many ways. What I don’t have is much downtime. Others are using this as an opportunity to learn a new language or conquer their TBR pile. The little free time I have is needed for showering and sleep. But every mom I know is in the same boat, and it is far from my intention to complain. Quite the opposite. This post is an excellent excuse to take a few hours to myself, indulge my interests, and nourish my somewhat atrophied brain. Yet another blessing! And I’ve leveraged it for all it is worth, using it as my excuse to watch the Pride and Prejudice musical, a product of Tony nominee Paul Gordon, directed by Robert Kelley of TheatreWorks. The 20 euros I spent to buy the production (you can rent it for 5) I thought a great bargain. I’m thankful for the opportunity to see it at all, as I suffer from a dearth of english language theater here in Switzerland. Furthermore, this is a pretty well filmed play. Not all of them are. It takes a lot to overcome the limitations of the lense and replicate a theatrical experience. I was pleased by the result. Check out this gorgeous promo video:

Mary Mattison as Elizabeth Bennet, in funny hoody thing (is that a zipper?!?!)

I really liked the show, but I’m unfortunately the only one in my family who did. My daughter proclaimed it unbearable and abandoned me within ten minutes. My husband thought that sufficient justification to also bow out. So I got to watch the bulk of it from my bathtub (can’t do that during a live performance!), and while I thought the beginning was a bit weak, it grew on me as the story progressed. The music was good, if not particularly memorable. It very much reminded me of something else, and I couldn’t decide if it was more Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat or Disney’s Descendants, oddly enough. I very much enjoyed the lyrics, and the dialogue, of course, was at its best when pure Austen. There are a few historical inaccuracies, but they are not the sort that would bother most viewers. I imagine a British audience might find the accents challenging, but from an American perspective, they are believable. The set also seems well-done, but I’m afraid this is one of the aspects of the theater that really suffers on film. It’s nearly impossible for the sets to achieve their full effect.

Justin Mortellitit and Mary Mattison as Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet.

Before delving a bit into the individual performances, I must comment on the costuming. While I love everything about the theater (and have been known to force my family to sit through truly awful productions, just so I can soak in the atmosphere), my particular interest has always been costuming. It can make or break a show for me, and maybe the best part of streaming a production is being able to see the details in the garments all the better (why I usually spring for premium seats and bring opera glasses). I thought this production, in many ways, did a lovely job. With a period piece, costuming is pretty straightforward, or at least it should be. A thoughtful designer will either opt for historical accuracy or stylization. For the most part, costume director Jill Bowers and designer Fumiko Bielefeldt, adhere to the former aesthetic. Some of the designs are quite

Regency lady or college student?

stunning, and bodices, sashes, and spencers are effectively utilized to alter looks between scenes. However, I did not like how they dressed Elizabeth (Mary Mattison). Her performance was great, and the costuming undermined it. It’s my biggest complaint about the show. I understand the desire for a designer to try and highlight their main character by using distinct colors and lines, thereby making them stand out from the rest of the cast, but the effect here, for me as a Janeite, was jarring. While everyone else is clothed in proper period prints and fabrics, Elizabeth’s two gowns both feature geometric designs, far more Art Deco than Georgian. The cut of her gowns is also strange, particularly the one from the first act, which has these very modern, unsupported panniers built into the sides. Oh, they bother me (you can see them much better in the video above than in my cruddy screenshots). I like the gown from act two much better, in no small part because it resembles a dress I have long owned and loved (not a costume, mind you – wouldn’t be caught dead trying to pass it off as period piece). I also adore the “cloak” she wears when walking to Neatherfield. It’s some kind of a cross between a redingote and a hoodie sweatshirt, and it’s AWESOME, just not on Lizzy Bennet. I attribute some of the responsibility to the 2005 film, which made similar mistakes.

Mrs. Bennet and her daughters, from left to right: Sharon Rietkerk, Mary Mattison, Melissa WolfKlain, Chanel Tilghman, Tara Kostmayer, and Heather Orth.
Mary Mattison and Sharon Rietkerk as Elizabeth and Jane Bennet.

Most of the characters, particularly Elizabeth, are modernized, again in a manor somewhat resembling the 2005 film. I have mixed feelings about it, even as I understand the choice. The goal is to make the character more relatable, but for me, it’s just a ruder version of Austen’s original. Like her costumes, I found these interludes distracting from Mattison’s excellent performance. I also did not like the first solo song she sings, in which she repeatedly celebrates “I’m headstrong!” It’s better later in the show, reprised after Elizabeth learns that it’s not always such a great quality. Jane is also mouthier than her original, but I still thought Sharon Rietkerk captured the spirit of the character beautifully.

Justin Mortellitit as Mr. Darcy.

Mr. Darcy (Justin Mortellitit) is more at ease than one might expect, and we hear his internal narrative, which is probably the play’s biggest deviation from the novel. Although his early revelations regarding his feelings for Elizabeth changes the story quite a bit, I must suppose most of the audience is familiar with the story, so it doesn’t prove much a spoiler. It also makes the character warmer, particularly in contrast to Wickham (Taylor Crousore), who is very handsome but not so charming or charismatic as the character in the book. While I thought Mortellitit an effective if not canonical Darcy (and much more my type than Crousore), I think a more boyishly roguish casting of Wickham would have made this dynamic work better. I even wonder if it might have been better with the casting reversed, at least visually. As it is, I was left wondering what Elizabeth ever saw in Wickham.

I get the impression that Paul Gordon has a pretty personal connection to Darcy. This is where his voice, rather than Austen’s, breaks through. Darcy’s role is much larger in this production than it is in the book, and Gordon clearly has a strong notion of who and what Mr. Darcy should be, all of which I find believable and supported by Austen’s text. This interpretive characterization is probably the most interesting part of the play.

Monique Hafen Adams and Travis Leland as Caroline and Charles Bingley. My favorite gown in the show!
Melissa WolfKlain as Mary Bennet, in fabulous day dress.

Mr. Bingley is very well captured by Travis Leland. He is portrayed as tongue-tied and shy, which threw me off at first, but it comes together in the end, setting up his proposal scene to be one of the best moments in the play (as it should be). I also thought that Monique Hafen Adams as quite convincing as Caroline Bingley (as is so often the case, poor Mrs. Hurst and her husband were cut from the tale). Of the Bennet sister’s, I especially liked Mary (Melissa WolfKlain), who helped maintain a comic atmosphere, which was much needed, as I thought all the humor entirely sapped from Mr. Collins (Brian Herndon) and Lady Catherine’s (Lucinda Hitchcock Cone) characters. The former came off as predatory (maybe this is another nod to the contemporary world?), and the latter rather like Cruella De Vil. Maybe it was the jazzy song she sang. She did nail the imperiousness, but the comedy was missing from the script.

I think the very last line of the play, spoken by Elizabeth, reveals a lot about the spirit of this adaptation: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. Still not true!”


Overall, I really enjoyed escaping into this version of Pride and Prejudice. also has the company’s earlier production of Gordon’s Emma available. Maybe that will be the subject of my next post. They are staging his new Sense and Sensibility in December. I could get hooked.

Here is a clip featuring some of the songs from the show and a few more screenshots (with commentary). Enjoy!

I adore Miss Bingley’s gown. My feelings about Miss Bennet’s I won’t repeat.



Taylor Crousore and Mary Mattison, reading Darcy’s letter
Gotta swoon for a great coat.
Lucinda Hitchcock Cone as Lady Catherine and company
Brian Herndon, Lucinda Hitchcock Cone, and Christopher Vettel as Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner and Mrs. Reynolds, apparently.
Taylor Crousore as Mr. Wickham.

15 Responses to Streaming the new Pride and Prejudice musical

  1. I doubt I will watch it. I’m not much on musicals and nearly had a headache just listening to them sing. I don’t think I could take it for an extended time. I could always mute it and enjoy that beautiful garden. I loved that part. Thank you for the in-depth explanation and description of this work. I enjoyed it. Blessings as you shelter with your family. Stay safe as this too shall pass.

    • Best to you as we continue to hunker down. We just got the word on Friday – they hope to reopen schools on May 11. One can only hope. So glad you enjoyed the post.

  2. I watched the free streaming version on April 11, and then bought it. I guess I am not as picky as others, because I loved it. 🙂 While I agree on the costumes, I found myself humming a few of the songs the next day, which led to my decision to purchase it. Yes, they expanded Darcy’s role, but I prefer that in a 2-hour production. If the version follows canon too closely, the love story can seem forced. Even Andrew Davies showed more in his 6-hour treatment than you see in the book. One of the touching parts was Jane’s song about Bingley’s departure. When she sings the song, “A Man of my Acquaintance,” the light changes when she sings about her heartbreak. If you haven’t watched Paul Gordon’s musical, I recommend it.

    • I agree it was well done, but I am a bit spoiled when it comes to theater. I’ve had easy access to some of the best in the world for most of my life. This was very good, and as noted above, the introspection of Darcy’s character is the most interesting part of the adaptation. I’m thrilled you love it. Stay well.

  3. I’ll have to try and watch it! It Sounds Interesting and I love musicals! I agree with some of the clothes choices like you said judging from the pics.

    • I just watched the video and listened to the music! I love the video and the music is good what a lot of talent!

      • Yay! I’m so glad it proved a solid recommendation. I’m trying to find the time to stream the Emma musical, which I suspect will be better. Emma almost always interprets well.

  4. I think my thoughts pretty much aligned with yours – overall charming but there were some peculiar choices in the costuming in particular! I really enjoyed the expansion of Darcy’s role and thought the actor playing him was excellent.

    • So glad we agree! It’s always validating. Charming is the perfect adjective. I’d be interested in seeing how a different theater group interprets the play. The bones are strong.

Comments are precious!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.