MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice (1996) Discussion > Did the Jennifer Ehle look too old for h...

Did the Jennifer Ehle look too old for her role?

posted 7 years ago by Moviefan225 (253)
10 replies | jump to latest

Elizabeth is 20 years old and I did not mind a woman who is 25-26 (Jennifer Ehle at the time) taking on such role, but I frequently found it hard to believe that she is 20 years old. I can't say why. She acted really well though.

As for the woman who played Jane, she is supposed to be a stunningly beautiful woman, but I did not even find her close to beautiful. Can standards of beauty be so drastically different across cultures? I would say the too women in the Pride and Prejudice movie (2004) were much more suited to their roles. Jennifer acted better than Keira I think (who was also excellent) but I could buy them as Elizabeth and Jane.

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

I'm okay with Lizzie being cast a little bit older. To us twenty is barely old enough to marry, but back then it meant she was getting too old to find a good husband, so the actress who plays Lizzie has to project a bit of maturity. Ehle did that and a lot more, so I'm fine with her.

As for Rosamund Pike, well, I've always thought she was beautiful, but of course beauty is subjective. And I don't think Jane has to be a knock-your-socks-off beauty, just noticeably good-looking. If she's the loveliest girl Lizzie knows, well, the they all live in a small village and dine with four-and-twenty families.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Rosamund Pike was Jane in the movie version (with Keira Knightly) and is a knock-your-socks-off beauty in any culture. As far as the Jane is this miniseries goes, I agree with moviefan25. It was hard to see her as the beauty everyone was touting her to be. I think Jennifer Ehle is very pretty, but in this role she looked matronly and frumpy. Regency era fashions were not flattering, but they could have picked a better hairstyle for her.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Regency hairstyles were pretty dreadful in general, anything at all accurate is going to be unflattering to an actress at the very least. Hair scraped up to the top of the head and a few random ringlets is accurate to the period, and doesn't look good on anyone.

I really don't understand why some people go nuts over Regency fashions. IMHO the 1820s to the 1840s were one of the worst eras in the history of fashion, for both men and women!

[–] Stratego (29255) 7 years ago

I thought everybody looked too old for their roles, but I didn't really mind it it. They were all well cast.

[–] hoosiergirl (210) 5 years ago

The actress who played Jane had a quiet grace and charm, but I wouldn't call her an extraordinary beauty. She was actually a little plain.

[–] huwdj (4562) 5 years ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Never occured to me that Jennifer Ehle looked too old and I always thought Susannah Harker very beautiful.

[–] Furienna (3322) 3 years ago

Yes, I agree.
Jennifer was only a few years older than her character anyway, and I thought that Susannah was beautiful enough.

[–] Who (5146) 3 years ago

Everybody looked so plain to outright ugly except for Colin Firth.

[–] Moviefan225 (253) 3 years ago

That was because of the Regency era styles.

[–] Techto (1070) 8 months ago

I thought both actresses looked too old for the roles and, yes, a bit plain.