Jump to content
SueJo

92 posts in this topic

Just in case the Link To Her Spotlight CV does stop working in the future, here is the information.

SAMANTHA BLOOM

Spotlight Actresses 2004/2005

Page 816

I C M

Oxford House, 76 Oxford Street, London W1D 1BS

Phone: 020-7636 6565

Fax: 020-7323 0101

E-mail: casting@icmlondon.co.uk

Location: London

Height: 5'4" (162cm)

Weight: 8st. 10lb. (55kg)

Playing Age: 21 - 30 years

Unions: Equity

Role Types: White

Eye Colour: Brown

Hair Colour: Light/Mid Brown

Hair Length: Mid Length

Voice Quality: Bright

Voice Character: Engaging

Credits:

2005, Music Video, Roots Manuva - Too Cold, Colonel Blimp, Alistair Siddons

2004, Feature Film, Clare, Rabbit Fever, Ian Drury

2004, Feature Film, Governess, Pride & Predujice, Working Title, Joe Wright

2004, Stage, Mrs Trevis, Afore Night Come, Joe Blatchely

2004, Stage, Helene, An Italian Straw Hat, Christopher G. Sandford

2004, Stage, Juliet, Measure For Measure

2003, Musical, Mum/Mamma, The Kiss of the Spiderwoman, Guildhall School, Wendy Allnutt

2003, Stage, Judith, Ghetto, Guildhall School, Christian Burgess

2003, Stage, Chorus Leader, Oedipus, Guildhall School, Patsey Rodenburg

2003, Stage, Richard II, Richard II, Guildhall School, Wyn Jones

2003, Stage, Abbess, The Comedy of Errors, Guildhall School, Peter Clough

2003, Stage, Vi, The Memory of Water, Guildhall School, Edward Dick

2003, Stage, Miranda, The Recruiting Officer, Mathew Smith

2002, Stage, Jill, The Skin Game, Guildhall School, Janet Suzman

Skills:

Accents & Dialects:(* = native)

Australian, Cockney, French, Kent*, Northern, RP*, Southern Irish, Standard American, Standard Scots, West Country

Languages:(* = mother tongue)

English*, French

Music & Dance:(* = highly skilled)

Period Dancing, Soprano

Sports:(* = highly skilled)

Football, Horse-riding, Skiing, Swimming, Yoga

Vehicle Licences: Car

Other Skills: Improvisation

Training:

Guildhall School of Music and Drama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SPOTLIGHT • 7 Leicester Place, London, WC2H 7RJ • Tel: 020-7437 7631 • Fax: 020-7437 5881 • www.spotlight.com

Spotlight Casting Live: Copyright © The Spotlight 1997-2005.

The information in this CV has been provided by or on behalf of the client concerned. Every effort has been made to make sure that the information contained in this page is correct and The Spotlight can accept no responsibility for its accuracy.

Dairwendan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one thinking she looks a bit like their cousin Sebastian? :huh: The nose and eyes. And she surely looks like their mom!

It's great to hear of the role. I wish all the best luck to her! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is strikingly beautiful, as her brother is handsome. I have to agree with what someone posted earlier, (Cayenne, I think) they both smile with their eyes. I think their eyes both have some kind of piercing quality.

Luv ya, :heart:

Cherie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Meleth

Is this the Pride and Predjudice film set in Bollywood, "Bride and Prejudice"? I read about it just the other day, it's meant to open this summer. It's the same story as the original Jane Austen but set in a Bollywood enviroment and made by the same people who made "Bend it like Beckham".

Edit: Just checked and Samantha Bloom's name's not on the cast list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Meleth

So they're actually making two Pride and Prejudice remakes this year? I wonder why.

But anyhow, best of luck to Samantha Bloom, hope I get to see the film at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bride and Prejudice" (the Bollywood-style version) was made a while ago and has already screened, and is available on DVD, in some parts of the world.

The film Ms Bloom is in is, I understand, a more traditional version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The version of Pride and Prejudice that Samantha Bloom will be in is the one that has Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet. Keira just took a break from PotC shooting to return to England for some reshoots. The movie is scheduled for release this September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've checked Pride and Prejudice's page on imdb, and Samantha, nor any of the little roles are posted. And all the secondary roles discussed in this thread aren't played by her. Maybe Mrs. Hurst (Bingley's sister)?

I finished the book two days ago and can't wait for the movie. :)

Laia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guitarchick

Not the correct place to post this, I know, but I didn't want to create a new forum so. I decided just to post it here. It's another photo I found of Sam whilst Googling.

sam.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a beautiful smile she has. She is the picture of her brother when she smiles. B)

Thanks, Anna. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trailer is now exclusively available at Yahoo! Movies.

Looks yummy. Matthew McFayden, that is. :drool:

No definite sighting of Samantha, but then again, she has a very small part.

And lots of familiar dialogue - for those of us who have the A&E/BBC/COLIN FIRTH version practically memorized. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And lots of familiar dialogue - for those of us who have the A&E/BBC/COLIN FIRTH version practically memorized. :lol:

Oh, so that's where I've heard it before. I thought it sounded familiar. :lol:

Love,

Vendelle (who has read p&p 15 times and watched the series with Colin Firth 'only' 10 times)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" this weekend (much better than I thought it would be!) and one of the previews was P & P. It was rather lengthy and even had some interviews with the cast about making the film. I did my best not to blink to see if I could spot Samantha, but I'm not sure I did. Either way, I can't wait to see this movie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pride and Prejudice is premiering at the Toronto International Film Festival as a Gala Presentation: TIFF News Release

World Premiere of Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice A Gala Presentation at the Festival

Toronto – PRIDE & PREJUDICE, the first movie version of Jane Austen's classic tale in 65 years, receives its world premiere as a Gala Presentation at the 30th Toronto International Film Festival®. The glorious world of the author is at last brought back to the big screen in all its romance, wit, and emotional force. Faithful to the setting and period of the beloved novel and filmed entirely on location in the U.K, the film is directed by Joe Wright and stars Keira Knightley.

The story unfolds in class-conscious England near the close of the 18th century. The five Bennet sisters have been raised well aware of their mother's (Brenda Blethyn) fixation on finding them husbands and securing set futures. The spirited and intelligent Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), however, strives to live her life with a broader perspective, as encouraged by her doting father (Donald Sutherland). When wealthy bachelor Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) takes up residence in a nearby mansion, the Bennets are abuzz. Amongst the man's sophisticated circle of London friends and the influx of young militia officers, surely there will be no shortage of suitors for the Bennet sisters. Lizzie meets with the handsome and – it would seem – snobbish Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), and the battle of the sexes is joined. But Lizzie finds herself even less inclined to accept a marriage proposal from a distant cousin, Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander), and – supported by her father – stuns her mother and Mr. Collins by declining. When the heretofore good-natured Mr. Bingley abruptly departs for London, devastating eldest sister Jane (Rosamund Pike), Lizzie holds Mr. Darcy culpable for contributing to the heartbreak. But a crisis involving youngest sister Lydia (Jena Malone) soon opens Lizzie's eyes to the true nature of her relationship with Mr. Darcy. The ensuing rush of feelings leaves no one unchanged, and inspires the Bennets and everyone around them to reaffirm what is most important in life.

Wonder if Samantha will come? Maybe not, if it's a small part and she just started shooting something else. Still, can't help also wondering if Elizabethtown will premiere at the TIFF too and we'll get to see brother and sister support each other at their films?! :w00t:

Jules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what they have to say at Austen Blog:

From the February 4, 2005 entry:  We just received news that Samantha Bloom IS in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE after all. She plays “the Rosings Governess” (Mrs. Jenkinson? Isn’t she full young? Of course I don’t think her age is ever given).

http://www.austenblog.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read this article in today's UK Sunday Times. (No mention of Sam, of course.) This P&P is going to be quite different from its predecessors. I'm really looking forward to it.

Article at Sunday Times Online It's a long one.

Austin Antics

What? No sewing, no simpering, no empire-line frocks? A new film of Pride & Prejudice is Austen with grit, says Joanna Briscoe

 

In the popular imagination, there have been countless film adaptations of that all-time classic Pride and Prejudice. Yet this is far from the truth. The 1995 BBC series, featuring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, was so dominant, so universally adored, it has lingered in the public consciousness as a cinematic standard. But this year’s Pride & Prejudice, released in September, is actually the first serious film version for 65 years — only the famed, but oddly flawed, black-and-white 1940 adaptation, starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, preceded it.

Jane Austen, like Dickens, is slotted automatically into a clichéd visual groove. The traditional Austen adaptation is Regency-lite: a painterly tableau of empire-line dresses, sotto voce ballroom chatter, squeals and high-ceilinged elegance. The great directorial challenge is to surpass the conventions of the chamber piece — often literally — by taking the action outside. But Austen was a novelist for whom the Napoleonic wars were merely glimpsed through the drawing- room window, whose female protagonists were bound by convention to follow highly formalised codes of behaviour, so the text itself dictates many of its own constraints.

As with contemporary biographers who feel obliged to conjure up a surprise approach to a tried-and-tested subject, there is pressure on film-makers to fashion difference for its own sake. Working Title’s Pride & Prejudice combines that mandatory quest for originality with a genuine desire to take a fresh look at a period that has been subject to chocolate-box inanities like no other. The tale of five sisters who face penury unless their mother can marry them off is so iconic that bringing it to the screen at all is daring.

The first advantage lies in the leftfield choice of director. Joe Wright is a 33-year-old with a background in social-realist television drama such as the gritty-but-moving Bob & Rose, and the Bafta-winning mini-series Charles II, which was shot partly in documentary style. Wright claims to have approached the project having neither read Pride and Prejudice, nor seen a screen version of Austen other than Sense & Sensibility. Having since acquainted himself with the oeuvre, he calls Austen “one of the first British realists” — a searing social commentator working at a time of romanticism and gothic artifice. Wright was never likely to adhere to the traditional costume-drama route of luvvie performances and mindless dancing.

“I read the script in the pub one afternoon, and I wept bitterly,” he says. “So then I went and read the novel, and I was really shocked by it, because it exploded all my preconceptions of what Austen was. I had imagined it all to be in the picturesque tradition of the painting of that time, yet here was someone who was writing very acute character observation. So, in a sense, she seemed to me to be a realist more than anything else. I’m a huge fan of British realism, and I think it’s probably one of the best things that we’ve done, in terms of cinema, especially. So I decided that that was the tack to take. Since then, I’ve watched the adaptations, and I think that people have looked at the painting of the period and tried to reproduce that cinematically. What we tried to do was completely ignore the painting. We tried to get an aesthetic sense from the writing.”

Wright’s Pride & Prejudice is truly Austen with a difference — but not the kind of difference that will scare the horses. Catering to market demands, Elizabeth Bennet is played by Keira Knightley, who, despite her Austen-esque surname, is no natural Austen heroine. Striding about playing what is probably the juiciest female role in English literature, she is still redolent of a skinny London schoolgirl, all contemporary vernacular and aesthetic.

The Vogue-model presence of Knightley aside, this is an undeniably grittier, more socially profound and simply more human version of Austen. The one exception in the history of Austen adaptations that is frequently cited by the team behind Pride & Prejudice is Roger Michell’s 1995 BBC drama, Persuasion, a contemplatively moody take on an intrinsically darker work.

With characteristic audacity, Wright yanked the setting of Pride & Prejudice backwards by more than a decade to 1797. Jane Austen wrote an earlier, rejected version of the novel, then entitled First Impressions, when she was 21; the version as we know it was published in 1813.

“I thought that the earlier age was more interesting; the world was more in a state of flux. And also, on a purely aesthetic level, I hate empire-line dresses — I think people look like balloons in them,” says Wright. “There’s a lot of post-rationalisation in it. Some ideas come through research, and some ideas are justified through research.”

“This is the muddy-hem version,” says Deborah Moggach, the screenwriter. “This isn’t just a frothy comedy. I think the comedy comes out of real pain and turmoil, and then, of course, it’s funnier. I wanted to be truthful to the core of the book.” Here, the thin-frocked Bennets have to clamber past chickens and livestock to enter an unmanicured Georgian landscape, its shafts of sun thick with feathers and flies. A pig crashes through the kitchen, sizeable testicles on display; the mess of a family of seven clutters surfaces as a giggling gaggle of plain teenage girls squabble beside smeared windows; and a truly surly Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen) watches the locals sweat, shout and spill drinks as they stomp and trip their way through the commotion of an Assembly Rooms dance that couldn’t be more removed from the customary Regency bowing and simpering.

But how does a big-budget, star-studded movie tread the middle ground between the stains and shadows of art-house realism and our requirement for a well-loved romance to look easy on the eye? “I always said I wanted it to be beautiful, but not pretty,” says Wright. “One’s natural inclination as an artist is to make things beautiful. I also wanted it to be provincial, and I wanted them to have a laugh.”

The lowing, clucking, hazy beauty of Pride & Prejudice is reminiscent at times of Polanski’s Tess, just as the clamour and dirt are often more characteristic of the cinematic style generally deemed suitable for a rowdy Victorian adaptation, rather than a stiffer Regency period piece. Similarly, the scenery is often more Wuthering Heights than an English Heritage vision of parks, hat shops and soldiers.

Socio-economic realities are not skimmed over: the financial stakes are made clear for a modern audience, and for the first time, the predicament of the matchmaking Mrs Bennet (Brenda Blethyn), a character usually played as a twittering idiot, is comprehensible.

“What is difficult for us to understand now,” says Moggach, “is exactly what is in store for those girls if they don’t get married.”

The team assembled to create these differences includes the costume designer Jacqueline Durran, whose work with Mike Leigh on Vera Drake won a Bafta. “I think Joe employed me because he wanted a fresh look on it, so he didn’t get someone who had done a Regency adaptation before,” says Durran. “He wanted it to have a strong provincial theme, and that was the touchstone. Because it was set earlier, we could drop the waistline, and it was altogether a bit scruffier.”

The Bennets’ looser clothes are echoed by their unadorned complexions and more natural hairstyles. “We made them old-fashioned,” says Moggach. “So you can understand why Darcy might look on them as rather hoydenish and country bumpkin.”

With the exception of a lip-glossed and inevitably Hollywood-pleasing Lizzie Bennet, freckles and even slightly discoloured teeth are visible. “Powder was banned. I don’t think I used a powder puff during the whole filming,” says the hair and make-up designer, Fae Hammond. “Hairwise, we just added pieces, rather than using wigs. We didn’t use a make-up base, just a correction palette for continuity purposes, and absolutely nothing was used on the skin of the younger girls. I hope people can relate much more to them, as they’re just young, fresh girls.”

The production designer, Sarah Greenwood, worked with Wright on Charles II. “Setting it earlier made it less hidebound and tight,” she says. “I often feel that productions are sanitised in a way that takes away from them. In the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, it felt like the family lived in a very glossed-over world. Joe and I followed our hearts — we were allowed to create our own world. The one thing we consciously didn’t want to happen was that the girls spent the whole time sitting around sewing.”

Cinematically, contemporary social realism has its own trademark style, one increasingly used in television docu-drama. Pride & Prejudice, all shot on location in the UK, plunges down corridors and pulls the viewer into the room with a fly-on-the-wall proximity to the action.

“It’s the idea of making it less formal and shooting it in the tradition of British realism,” says Wright. “If something is contemporary, people shoot it with zoom lenses and handheld cameras, and if something is period, then they want to shoot it with a static, formal composition. But, actually, zoom lenses are incredibly exciting, because they mean you can move with the moment and improvise. To shoot Pride & Prejudice in a so-called contemporary style brings it into fresh relief.”

The promotional material featuring Knightley, complete with 21st-century eyebrows, is subtly misleading. Pride & Prejudice is, in many ways, a labour of love. It may even change the way in which Austen is filmed and perceived. As Greenwood says: “It’s not to say that you can’t do something with Austen that is very arch and very pure. Who’s to say what is right and wrong? There are different ways of approaching it. I think there will be purists who say, ‘She didn’t mean this,’ but we don’t know what she meant. We can only go back to history and take it from there.”

Pride & Prejudice opens in cinemas on September 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exciting news. :cheer:

I like things done slightly unconventional way every once in a while. Having read the book countless of times and seen the BBC's tv-series version dozens of times (when pressed, I could recite lengths of the dialogue off by heart), I love it till all eternity, it's going to be interesting to see another point of view. Maybe when all the frothy visual romanticism has been taken away, the text will stand out more, and so it should.

And again, I must wait seeing this film until the DVD comes out, for I refuseto listen to Austen's brilliance translated to any language.

Thanks for this, MM. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article has just absolutely turned me off seeing this film - even more so than I was before.

It's always a bad sign when film adaptations start playing around with elements of the book - such as the settings, and the characters. Austen wrote a contemporary romance for her time, so it should not be set back in the past, she wrote about a constrained mannered society, where ettiquette was extremely important, and of a certain social class. I know that there was a lot more going on socially and politically than what she writes about in her novels at that time - she doesn't mention it for a reason! It's not about that!

:rolleyes: I'll stick with the BBC adaptation, I think.

Kathryn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that article, Jackie.

I have a particular 'soft spot' for P&P; it was the first 'grown-up' novel I ever read, from a copy my mother had.

I pretty much have the Colin Firth version committed to memory (having burned my way through 2 sets of VHS tapes and finally buying it on DVD). But as much as I love it, one of the things that I've often wondered about was, for all of Darcy's despisement of their 'simple ways' and 'country manners' - they never seemed that much removed from the upper class, other than their simpler clothing.

What I've seen from the trailer, they are sticking to much of the dialogue we're familiar with, but I think it will be fun to see a different perspective of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that there was a lot more going on socially and politically than what she writes about in her novels at that time - she doesn't mention it for a reason! It's not about that!

I see your point completely Kathryn, and I do think that the BBC version was perfect for the true Austen perspective of the times. Jane Austen would have been as limited in her knowledge of contemporary events as any of her peers, and wrote of the life of her times as she saw it, rather than as we view it, with perspective we have from the multitude of historical resources we have access to.

On the other hand I do think it will be good to see an interpretation of the story which shows all the realities of the time. I particularly like the idea that Mrs Bennet was not just the ditsy feather-brained social climber she is invariably portrayed as, but had real worries for her family's future in a time when females were effectively an underclass unless they were born wealthy.

I'm looking forward to the film more now than before I read the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I particularly like the idea that Mrs Bennet was not just the ditsy feather-brained social climber she is invariably portrayed as, but had real worries for her family's future in a time when females were effectively an underclass unless they were born wealthy.

I know what you mean, Jaks - of course in reality girls in the same position as the Miss Bennets would never turn down any eligible marriage, since their future lives would have depended entirely on their husbands.

However, that is why the book is a romantic fantasy, rather than a realistic description of the regency marraige market. It was written as escapism because the reality was very different for young ladies at the time. In that way it is a reflection of its time.

And Mrs Bennet as a silly, ditsy woman is central to the book - she and Mr Bennet are the example of a bad marriage, between partners of unequal dispositions formed merely on the first impressions of youth and looks. She is precisely what Mr Darcy wants to avoid connection with - all the family's shortcomings spring from her. If the film does not feature a silly Mrs Bennet then it will lose one of the central aspects of the book.

Kathryn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...