Love & Friendship: Yeah, It’s the Hair


I’m probably the only person in the Frock Flicks community who cares that the newest Jane Austen adaptation — Love & Friendship (2016) — was directed by Whit Stillman. Stillman is a comedic-arty director who created a number of modern-set films that I adore, including Metropolitan, Barcelona, and The Last Days of Disco. Each of these films are dry, funny, sarcastic, and super talky (in an intellectualish way) look at the somewhat upper crust.* So it makes Stillman perfect, in my opinion, to adapt Jane Austen’s lesser known novella, Lady Susan — given Austen’s focus on the somewhat upper crust and a brainy, talky approach to plot and character.

Note: if you’re going to watch any of these, note they’re VERY talky. After seeing Barcelona, my mother famously said, “Well, THAT’S not going to win any Oscars!”

Although I’m an Austen fan, I admit I’ve never read Lady Susan — apparently not the same thing as Love and Freindship [sic], a juvenile story also written by Austen and, confusingly, the source of this film’s title. Don’t ask me.

What’s fun about Love & Friendship the movie is that the main character — Lady Susan, played by Kate Beckinsale — is actually a pretty horrible person. Oh, she follows social niceties to a T, but she’s a bitch who’s looking out only for herself, a social climber, a temptress of men, and happy to throw her daughter under the bus. It’s like getting to watch 2 hours of Fanny Dashwood or Caroline Bingley or another of Austen’s bitchy minor characters, without wasting your time on the sweet and moral heroine. I mean, I would SO get drunk with Lady Susan. (Okay, then she’d say something bitchy in a kind, compassionate tone, and I’d only realize the next morning that she totally cut me, but whatever).

Beckinsale (Much Ado About NothingCold Comfort FarmEmmaThe Golden BowlPearl HarborVan Helsing) is great in the role, and she really carries the film, although the rest of the supporting cast does a great job. The only slightly-off note for me was Chloe Sevigny as Susan’s American friend Alicia, but that’s just because hearing an American accent in the midst of an Austen adaptation is jarring.

I will offer one hot tip, and that is, don’t space out during the first 10 minutes of the movie, as all the plot that follows hinges on understanding what’s just happened before the movie begins. I did, and was confused about certain plot points throughout the film. I thought I’d better rewatch the movie before I reviewed it, and I found that simply through the magic of paying attention. all my confusion was cleared up. Yeah. So I’m not always brilliant, sue me!

Costumes in Love & Friendship

The costumes were designed by Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh (Becoming JaneBrideshead Revisited [2008]). The source novel was published in 1794, and the filmmakers were clearly aiming for around that era, which makes me happy because in my world, late 18th century > Regency. That being said, it’s a transitional era in fashion (okay, so most eras are) and not one that’s seen a lot on film, so let’s take a look at the real history before we get into the film.

Fashion plates, 1786-1798

Fashion plates, 1786-1798

From 1785ish to 1790ish, women were wearing the classic late 18th-century silhouette: gowns with V waistlines but otherwise at the natural waist, cone-shaped stays, 3/4 or long sleeves relatively close to the arm, and full skirts open over a petticoat.

By the late 1780s/early 1790s, that silhouette had streamlined. Waistlines might be a teensy bit above the natural waistline, but more often they weren’t. Skirt silhouettes were much narrower, though.

By 1794, waistlines were rising. This doesn’t mean they went full “Regency/Empire,” but rather that they were anywhere from about 2″ above the natural waist to just under the bust, and you see a lot of variety. You also start getting more gowns with closed-front skirts, as well as cross-over gowns.

This is a good example of a high waistline that's not totally under the bust. Gown, 1790-95, Victoria & Albert Museum.

This is a good example of a high waistline that’s not totally under the bust. Gown, 1790-95, Victoria & Albert Museum.

By 1798, the waistline was pretty much right under the bust in the classical “Regency/Empire” look. The main difference from your usual Austen adaptation look is that the skirts are waaaay fuller than you’re used to seeing.

So where does Love & Friendship fall in this timeline? I’d say around 1790, with the long bodices and open overskirts, but narrower silhouettes. There’s no closed-front gowns, higher waistlines, or cross-over gowns that would push it to 1794. So the era is a few years earlier than Lady Susan‘s publication date, but it probably made sense in terms of finding rental costumes (c. 1794 not being seen on screen very often).

Turning to Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh’s work, she hasn’t discussed the time period so much as color and character, which we’ll get into as I talk about specific characters. She did mention that “All of Kate Beckinsale’s costumes and the majority of Chloë Sevigny’s were custom-designed; certain pieces for the men’s looks were bespoke as well” (Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh on Costuming Jane Austen Film ‘Love & Friendship’). In terms of budget, it’s unclear exactly where they hit on the spectrum, but director Stilman said, “I have to say we kept increasing the costume budget because we were so thrilled with what Eimer was doing” (Love & Friendship’s Whit Stillman admits discovery of Austen story accidental).

Lady Susan’s Wardrobe in Love & Friendship

Lady Susan is played by Kate Beckinsale. She’s middle-aged but that doesn’t mean she’s not a hottie — she’s known for being a flirt and charmer. She’s a widow and doesn’t have a lot of money, but she clearly sponges off of friends and acquaintances and is able to dress herself well.

The Hollywood Reporter discusses how Susan’s wardrobe changes over the film in terms of color, from a widow’s black to cheerful colors: “Mhaoldomhnaigh helped elevate Lady Susan’s fearless behavior through a series of costume changes, starting with an all-black ensemble that revealed her as a mourning widow. But as the film progresses, Lady Susan starts shedding off her grief. ‘If you actually laid out the costumes, it goes from black to black and grey to mauve, more of the mourning colors for the time, and every time she’s in the country she’s affecting the widow and trying to be discreet,’ says Mhaoldomhnaigh, who designed all of Beckinsale’s wardrobe. ‘But when she goes to London, the colors change … she’s a social butterfly. She starts to wear colors and is back on the scene'” (Kate Beckinsale’s ‘Love & Friendship’ Wardrobe Brings Color to 18th-Century Widow).

Looking beyond color, Susan tends to be the most chic character in that she wears dramatic but streamlined silhouettes.

Kate Beckinsale in Love & Friendship (2016)

The fur, wide hat, and veil all serve to make Susan look cosmopolitan, grand, and dramatic.

2016 Love and Friendship

The purple around the hat, and the purple gloves, are the one touch of color (and tie in to friend Alicia’s wardrobe).

2016 Love and Friendship

They frequently put Susan into gowns that used a sheer black net or lace as the “overgown.” Sometimes I didn’t mind it (like in this briefly glimpsed ball gown), although it’s not something I’ve EVER seen in the period.

2016 Love and Friendship

The same dress on display. What really annoyed me, and this is a total nitpick, is that they did a lot of “zone” front gowns (where the overgown bodice is cut into an inverted V shape) but didn’t line up the waistline points on the bodice and skirt. See how the skirt extends forward of the bodice at the front? Very much not done in the period. Yes, again, TOTAL nitpick.

Love & Friendship (2016)

They really liked “zone” front gowns. This one has that rounded line that I’ve seen on about 1% of gowns in the period, but that everyone loves to recreate. The obviously machine-embroidered fabric annoys me, but it’s more subtle for being tone-on-tone.

Robe à l'anglaise, 1780, Kyoto Costume Institute.

Although I have seen a FEW others, I am convinced that this particular dress has spawned a thousand knock-offs (at least in terms of the bodice line). Robe à l’anglaise, 1780, Kyoto Costume Institute.

2016 Love and Friendship

Anyway, back to Love & Friendship

2016 Love and Friendship

Here’s another example of the overgown being made in a sheer fabric — this time lace. I do like the color combination, but more from a costumey/modern perspective.

Love & Friendship (2016)

But I don’t know, I just think it looks stupid in close-up. Note same issue with the skirt waistline not matching the bodice.

2016 Love and Friendship

Here Susan is in London and lightening up, color-wise. This dress is very “late 18th century,” although the lace ruffle at the waistline is SO “Victorian fancy dress” and I question the general aesthetics here (quoting Nina Garcia from Project Runway: “I question her taste level”).

2016 Love and Friendship

I think this is supposed to be a redingote (suity-travely outfit), but it just looks 19th-century bustle-era to me in terms of the bodice.

Love & Friendship (2016)

I actually quite liked this dress, because you can’t go wrong with ruby-colored satin — although there’s that same “zone” line, and the pulled-up overskirt is much more 1775-85 than 1790-5.

Alicia’s Wardrobe in Love & Friendship

Played by Chloë Sevigny, she’s kind of the Greek chorus of the story. “‘Chloe’s character is an American city girl, she doesn’t know much about the country life, which was totally important if you were an English woman at the time, and I just wanted her to really look like somebody who looked like they lived in the city.’ To capture that, Mhaoldomhnaigh wanted ‘her to look quite ornamental and that she spends a lot of time on what she wore.’ That includes large corseted gowns with ruche shawl necklines and oversized cloaks” (Kate Beckinsale’s ‘Love & Friendship’ Wardrobe Brings Color to 18th Century Widow).

Love & Friendship (2016)

I hated this dress. HATED IT. The huge fucking damask motifs (printed? machine embroidered? whatever!). The unnecessarily long cuffs. UGGGGHHHH. At least they got the line of the “zone” bodice and overskirt to match up!

Love & Friendship (2016)

Same dress on display. Ew.

2016 Love and Friendship

Now THIS outfit looked great on screen. It’s an adventurous color choice, even if it’s awfully bright for this era.

2016 Love and Friendship

It looks a little tacky in real life (again, sleeve length issues!) but it worked on screen.

2016 Love and Friendship

WTF was going on with this outfit? Her skirt was so full it looked like she was wearing a hoop. The collar that only stands in back confuses me. And I dislike how they lifted up the overskirt — it made it look like not-a-jacket, not-a-dress.

Love & Friendship (2016)

I guess it’s okay if I ignore all those flaws.


Everyone Else’s Wardrobes in Love & Friendship

Love & Friendship (2016)

Susan’s daughter Frederica (SUCH an unfortunate name). The trimming on this was clunky.

Boy-costume wise: “The idea of the dandy also started taking root in England around the late 1700s, and the men in the film carry that refined look on screen. ‘The men, they’re not wearing corsets, but the clothing is cut so tightly and so fitted it makes them stand very erect and straight,’ Mhaoldomhnaigh says (Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh on Costuming Jane Austen Film ‘Love & Friendship’).

2016 Love and Friendship

Most of the supporting characters. The elder gent is the father, the seated gent the son. Compare Dad’s kind of loose outfit with the son (photo below), whose ensemble is much tighter. On the far right is Mrs. Vernon, the lady of the house at which Susan is visiting for most of the film. I liked this dress! The white color is VERY 1790s, and the two rows of buttons on the front of the gown are a nice touch. Also note fully-long sleeves, which were very fashionable.

Love & Friendship (2016)

Frederica’s (second from left) brown dress…

2014 Beloved Sisters

…is a rewear of this costume from Beloved Sisters.

2016 Love and Friendship

Mrs. Vernon again in the grey redingote. These grey redingotes just ping my “where have I seen that before??!!” button, but just like in Beloved Sisters, I can’t figure it out. I like it! Nice layered colors with scalloped edges.

2016 Love and Friendship

This jacket/gown confuses me, mostly for the center front trim, the patterned sash (sashes, yes — patterned sashes, no), and the cuffs.

2016 Love and Friendship

Lady Lucy Manwaring (center) is the aggrieved wife of Lady Susan’s married paramour.

2016 Love and Friendship

I thought this dress was a good choice for the era — sheer cottons were very fashionable in the 1790s. It’s a rewear…

2015 Poldark

…from Poldark.

2016 Love and Friendship

And they’re minor characters, but, kids in cute outfits!

Hair in Love & Friendship

Reader/friend Amy O. has been bugging me to review this film, and she keeps saying that she can’t figure out why the costumes annoy her, and she thinks it’s the hair but she’s not sure. So, Amy, this is for you!

Yeah. I think it might be the hair! I actually quite like the women’s, except that it all seems too solid. I feel like it should be a bit looser, and tousled, and airy. The general silhouette looks okay to me to me if a bit high, but it just feels like they plopped some heavy, solid hairpieces on their heads. Meanwhile the gents are all in 1810s at the earliest.

Let’s start by looking at real women’s hairstyles from the mid-1780s through 1800:

English women's hairstyles, 1786-1800

English women’s hairstyles, 1786-1800 (all culled from Wikimedia Commons).

These start with the typical curly halo around the face, usually wider than tall, with long hair in the back. The halo gets smaller  around 1789-90ish (although you still see the wider style for a few years). By 1794-95, it’s all about long ringlets, although what you might not be able to see is that it’s still shorter ringlets around the face. By 1797ish, you’re starting to see “up” hairstyles that we might associate with “Regency” (but note that the 1800 image shows one of those short on top, long in back earlier cuts).

And boys?

English men's hairstyles, 1786-1824

English men’s hairstyles, 1786-1824 (all culled from Wikimedia Commons).

English men’s hairstyles about 1786 are generally in the short on top, long in the back style that we associate with “18th-century wigs,” although powder and more formal side rolls are going out of fashion. By 1790, they’re still doing short on top and sides, long in back, but the side rolls are usually gone. About 1795 the boys start going long or short and shaggy/windswept. By the early 1800s, there’s this huge trend for cropped, forward-brushed hair. And by the 1810s, we start getting the cropped, falling naturally look we often associate with the Regency era.

Now let’s look at the film:

Love & Friendship (2016)

Lady Susan has the shorter ringlets around the face, longer in back (coming forward over the shoulder) — but then she has this big mass of hair on the crown of her head. Meanwhile, young Reginald is sporting side parted, cropped hair that is VERY 1810s at a minimum — which is the style worn by pretty much all the guys, young and old, in the film.

2016 Love and Friendship

More giant, solid masses o’ curls.

2016 Love and Friendship

I did like that Lady DeCourcy (left/facing), Catherine’s mother, wears her hair in a more mid-1780s style that was pretty spot-on.


What did you think of Love & Friendship? Was it, indeed, the hair?


About the author



Kendra has been a fixture in the online costuming world since the late 1990s. Her website, Démodé Couture, is one of the most well-known online resources for historical costumers. In the summer of 2014, she published a book on 18th-century wig and hair styling. Kendra is a librarian at a university, specializing in history and fashion. She’s also an academic, with several articles on fashion history published in research journals.

32 Responses

  1. Cheryl

    Yahoo! Thanks for the review. It’s not often I see a movie *before* you review it, so I’ve been anxiously awaiting this post! I was soooo looking forward to this movie, and perhaps because of my high expectations, I was a bit disappointed. It was definitely pretty, and lively, but not quite as amazing as I had hoped. Ah well, still a fun watch. And yeah, Alicia was annoying… she just didn’t make any sense. I couldn’t figure out her friendship with Lady Susan, she seemed way too dull for Susan to really like her, it would only make sense if Lady Susan was using her… but was she? For her money? Blah maybe I missed something. So glad you reviewed the hair too, since Mrs. Vernon’s hair was really confusing me throughout. It was pretty… but so high!

    Thanks for the review!!

    • Cheryl

      PS. I see what you mean about the men’s hair… but isn’t 1810s hair oh so much more dreamy than late 1790s? I’m okay with the choice ;)

  2. SusanH

    I love Whit Stillman, so you’re not alone there. I think his Metropolitan is still the best Mansfield Park adaptation I’ve ever seen (obviously, it’s more inspired by than adapted from, but all of the Mansfields I’ve seen are awful, so it wins by default). I love Austen’s Lady Susan (and also her Love and Freindship) for sheer comic value. This version was very entertaining, but the costumes were a little less than inspiring. I really liked reading this analysis of why they felt off to me, because I just don’t know the time period well enough to judge for myself.

  3. Kay

    The ribbons/headbands right at the hairline killed me. It reminded far too much of the stretchy headbands everyone wore in the 1990s and always looked like they were bandaging a forehead wound. The stiffness of the hair was very weird to me too. It looked like we’re trying to adapt hair from old Roman sculptures rather than images from the period the story was set in.

    I thought the necklines of the gowns seemed oddly high for the period. Especially for Lady Susan because she didn’t strike me as one inclined to dressing modestly.

    I was pretty bored through most of the movie except when the complete idiot suitor is saying something ridiculous. The pea thing made me laugh far more than it should have.

  4. D.B.

    I HAVE read the novella, and Alicia in the novella is not specified as American, so it was probably Stillman’s call. (Didn’t quite play for me either.)

    I followed some media coverage of this movie after I saw it–Stillman switched the name with L&F because “Jane Austen uses such fabulous two-part thematic titles” or something along those lines, which, I think he KNOWS, he name-dropped Mansfield Park, is not the case for MOST of her published works. But whatever.

    I’ve been looking forward to this review for a while–something seemed off to me overall, too! But two things not covered here I’d like to ask about: first of all (thanks to the FF squad’s guidance and care) I noticed that most of the men, except Sir James Martin and Alicia’s husband, were wearing boots inside 95% of the time. Is this an exception we might see in the era, or another misguided attempt to make shoes+stockings look foppish, and boots the choice of Manly Men Everywhere?

    The second thing I don’t really have a question about so much as a deep desire to point and yodel–can we talk about Lady Susan’s SMOKY EYE

    • Anneke Oosterink

      I’m not sure about the truth of this (ie I haven’t googled it myself, but have been told by someone who usually knows what’s up) but the novella Lady Susan had no name, Jane Austen didn’t name it. I mean, sure, but still confusing. :)

      • Rosanna

        I think you’re right, I remember it being described as ‘titeleless’ in the foreword of the novella when I read it.

  5. hsc

    “The source novel was published in 1794…”

    “Lady Susan” is believed to have been written around 1794, but it wasn’t published until 1871.

    And it’s been “reconstructed” by several people– including Whit Stillman himself– in more recent times to take it from rough epistolary style to Austen’s more “mature” novel form.

    I do wish Stillman had kept the title “Lady Susan,” though. “Love and Freindship” is one of my favorite Austen works, and when I saw the title announced, I fainted, even though I should have known better.

    • hsc

      FTA: “Susan’s daughter Frederica (SUCH an unfortunate name).”

      IMO it’s better than “Morfydd”, the name of the actress playing her. (I’m sure it’s a perfectly lovely name in Wales, but elsewhere, probably not so much…)

    • SusanH

      You fainted? Surely you learned the moral of Love and Freindship: “Run mad as often as you chuse; but do not faint.”

      I would love to see an adaptation of Love and Freindship.

  6. Mr Elton

    Great review! I couldn’t agree more. The film is witty and the cast is spot on. I especially like Kate Beckinsale, James Fleet, Frederica, and Stephen Fry (surprisingly handsome in his costume!). I also like the small vignettes and the music. However, there is something about the costumes and hair, and you are spot on. I am partial to the 1790’s, so I was looking forward to this film…. Very heavy hairstyles and some weird costume choices for Lady Susan and Chloe’s character. Too compact and heavy, lacking a certain je ne sais quoi…

  7. lesartsdecoratifs

    Is there a reason why all of Beckinsale’s gown have a way too high neckline? Everyone else’s necklines end at the upper edge of their stays but Beckinsale’s look like they got crossbred with a turtleneck sweater.

    That really annoyed me more than anything else because that made all her gowns look instantly like a Victorian costume party version of the 18th century.

  8. Cassidy

    Clearly, I’m not the only person who’s noticed – what is the deal with the necklines? Poldark has the same problem.

  9. caroline

    The first two and the colors of all the Beckinsale feel very late 19thc to me. Am I wrong to think those dyes are off?

    • Nicole

      Totally agree with you! I could be wrong, but the purple dress in particular screams artificial dyes to me (which weren’t invented until the mid-late 1800s). I mean, I guess you could get purple that vibrant by dyeing fabric a number of times with indigo and then overdyeing with madder root, but that’s going to be costly and you probably still won’t end up with something like that purple dress.

  10. Jay

    “…and the pulled-up overskirt is much more 1775-85 than 1790-5”
    Can I just say how much I love you guys??!? My SO gets annoyed when we’re watching movies together because I have a tendency to say things like: “This movie is set in 1965, but that young women’s hair is from 1961 and that man’s jacket is from 1967.”

  11. Susan Pola

    How could I miss this? I love Jane Austen. Will have to see it on DVD. Costumes look good at first glance, but seeing the photos you uploaded, you can see the historical misses and WTF is with the men’s hair? Women’s is somewhat better.

  12. brocadegoddess

    I really enjoyed this movie and thought (most of) the performances were fantastic with Kate Beckinsale and the guy who played Sir James Martin being my faves, although I admit I haven’t read the novella (bad Jane Austen fan!). I actually didn’t mind Alicia’s presence that much though I know what you mean about the American accent being jarring. I actually found the actress who played Mrs Vernon more irritating. There was just something about the way her mouth often moved, as if she was having real trouble getting it around the language of the script, I dunno.

    However, I was quite disappointed in the costumes, I thought they really wasted a great opportunity here, although I was prepared for it having seen some images prior to seeing the movie. I agree with all of your criticisms and have a few additional ones of my own!

    I think you’re right that they were going for a date of c.1790 (or early 1790s) and although it was a little tamer then than mid-1780s there was still so much wonderful fluffiness to women’s dresses, hats, hair, other accessories that the women’s costumes in the movie just looked really *limp* and “meh” to me. I did kind of like how they put Fredericka in slightly more fashion forward styles – higher waistlines, proto-neoclassical hairstyles – but still kinda “meh.” Lady Susan wore several *nearly* lovely outfits but I often thought the neckline awkwardly high. For example, the red satin dress, which is nearly *fabulous* has a too-high neckline not only for the period but for the style of stays underneath it. Bodice fronts that contour over the bust are just not right for the corsetry silhouette of this period and makes the dresses look oddly frumpy. The mis-matching bodice/skirt waistlines on the “zone-front” gowns is just wrong and looks like a mistake rather than a design choice.

    I think you’re being a little generous about the women’s hair – but then you are more the expert in this than I! It looked like just-slightly-more-complex-than-generic-“18th century” hair to me. Again, needed, to my eye, much more lightness and floofiness (technical term).

    As for Alicia’s costumes, all I can say is a big fat W-T-F!?

    However, none of this will stop me from watching it repeatedly and probably getting the DVD.

  13. Sharon

    I have very noticeable stretch marks on my chest and so does Kate Beckinsale,(she has been very candid about them in the past) it could be that she didn’t want to draw attention to them, hence the awkward neckline?

    • brocadegoddess

      Ah, that would certainly be a reason. Although, there is a period solution – fichus.

  14. Abigail Tyrrell

    I … went to Avon to see some great performances. The Barbican, The Globe, watched and collected every Austin – even Austin Land. Austin Land was better. it was like they learned the lines 10 minutes – no had them FED to them off camera. AND THE HAIR!

    You know… I saved this for a day when I needed the lift only Austin could give me. I think I peed myself laughing.

    Only better game in town is BACKSCABBARD!

  15. MrsC (Maryanne)

    I hated these costumes so much! It looked like the costumier went to a cheap curtain fabric clearance sale and bought up all the taffetas and sheers and made stuff out of them. Gah.

  16. Grace

    McCall’s put out a pattern clearly influenced by this movie – what does the Frock Flick team think of it? It looks like it has that issue with the zone front and the skirt not meeting, but that could be fairly easily adjusted, right?

    • Trystan L. Bass

      The thing that stands out to me in that pattern is a big princess seam in the front that extends across the whole bodice, including the faux “zone/cutaway” section. That makes it look modernized, imo.

      • Grace

        Hmm, you’re right- I didn’t notice that at first. I wonder if it could be taken out somehow….From the sketches/photo, it looks like it’s mostly on the main bodice – the line drawing looks misleading.

        • Trystan L. Bass

          So hard to tell without seeing the actual pattern pieces – maybe open the envelope in the store & look at the pattern diagram? That’s the only way to tell for sure.

  17. Janine BB

    This is my process: (1) Watch movie. (2) Have cringy-something’s-not-quite-right-here feelings. (3) Rush to Frock Flicks to see what “the girls” have to say about it. (4) Shout, “Yes! I know! I know!” as feelings stated in point “(2)” are confirmed and new points brought to my attention. (5) Feelings of well-being ensue because of new knowledge and perspectives, as well as the feeling of sartorial solidarity.

  18. Damnitz

    When I saw it in theater I asked myself, why the designer had the idea to put the men and women in a different period.

  19. hadabuck (@hadabuck)

    I just watched this wonderful film last weekend, and loved it so much. I enjoyed the way Lady Susan’s costumes went from full mourning to half, and then on, except when she was in London, getting ready to meet her lover, and then she was in RED. So good. Kate Beckinsale was perfect for the role. And Tom Bennett as Sir James Martin- so, so good. Absolutely believably silly and vapid. The American character was a bit jarring, I have to agree with you there, that low, purring American voice in amongst all the crisp British posh accents. I had to come and see what you had to say about it! I just loved it so much, because it made me laugh and laugh, and it’s always fun when the main character is such a horrible person.