S&S08, Part One
Greetings to our British friends–please tell us what you think about the new production!
The Jane Austen Society (the British one) is apparently not real happy with Andrew Davies and his big mouth.
Mr Davies said sex was in all Austen’s novels and he had no apologies to make for his raunchy version of Sense and Sensibility being screened on BBC1 tomorrow.
Mr Davies was speaking after being accused by Patrick Stokes, chairman of the Jane Austen Society and a relative of the author, of “degrading fine English literature” through including sex scenes in his new version
[. . .]
Mr Stokes, the author’s great- great-nephew, believes making the story so racy detracts from Austen’s main theme – the fact that women of the time depended on marriage for social and economic security.
“Sexing this story up says more about the BBC than Jane Austen,” Mr Stokes was reported as saying.
“It is lowering itself by degrading fine English literature in the battle for ratings.
“While it is good that it draws people’s attention to her works, there is not a lot you can do if someone makes a hash of it.”
Isn’t that the truth. But we still think (and hope!) that Mr. Davies’ comments were mostly marketing; but we agree that even his comments do a disservice to Jane Austen.
The Miami Herald has an interview with Andrew Davies.
Martyn Drake complains about the new adaptation on his blog.
There’s yet another bloody Jane Austen remake! I give up! Just how many ways can you film Sense and Sensability? I mean, REALLY? I’m so fed up that I’m intending to write my own adaptation called Sensors and Sensorbility which is set in the year 300,000 on board a spaceship. Virtually all characters are androids. It’ll be a costume drama with a difference AND will have expensive Visual Effects!
Amusing, but we have some issues with his math.
I’ve decided to put this point across to Broadcast’s letter page. It’s getting on my nerves that we’re getting the fourth or fifth TV adaptation of this book. There’s only so much you do with it for crying out loud!
We only count three in the last thirty years, unless you count Kandukondain Kandukondain–which wasn’t a TV adaptation–and come to think of it, neither was the Ang Lee film. Uh…he does realize all these Jane Austen adaptations are of different books, right?
In other news (and breaking our no-six-degrees-of-Jane-Austen-rule) Mr. Wisley married Fanny Price, and our head just exploded from the meta-ness of it all (though they are an adorable couple and we wish them much joy).
Happy New Year to all!
January 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I liked it! I had misgivings after reading the marketing blurb but I thought the first episode surprisingly good!
January 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I’m an engineer. We tend not to get credited as there is a particular allocation of credits per film. Even some of artists aren’t credited due to this rule.
And you’re right - my math(s) isn’t correct - although I could swear I picked up on a 1995 TV adaptation, but obviously not. My point is still valid - there appears to have been decent adaptions in the past - what does Andrew Davies got to offer that the films and TV adaptations are missing?
January 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
We wonder the same thing from time to time. But in general we don’t complain about more Jane Austen adaptations, because we are Jane Austen fans! Though of course the books are still the best.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
One word: depressed.
I’m afraid I am in complete agreement with Patrick Stokes (not least because I could have sworn that AD had said that the Austen Society were sympathetic!).
With regard to whether the BBC’s drama productions are better, the productions of ITV are certainly inferior, and Cranford was indeed first class, but AD is not only just out of order with the way he carries on, but appears to have just ‘lost it’!
Have ranted further on my blog.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I didn’t much like the very beginning of S&S ‘08. It had a very short clip of Willoughby seducing Brandon’s ward (random bits of flesh on screen), it was no more than giving a general feeling that he slept with her and then left (to return “soon”). With no apparent explaination as to who either of these two people are, it promptly moves on to the Dashwood family… Now, I know there will be some form of explaining done probably by the end of Part II, but for anyone who doesn’t know the story, that would just have been a totally bizarre moment.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I for one am glad there’s a new, long version of S&S. The 1995 one was all right, but too many characters were left, I didn’t like Hugh Grant as Edward and Emma Thompson was way too old to play Elinor. I like the 1980 version pretty well, except I have never been able to warm up to that Col. Brandon and the ending is very abrupt. That being said I am looking forward to this adaptation very much.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I have a question. Why do people keep comparing this to other versions? Shouldn’t this new version be only held up against the book?
January 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Actually, it seems to be the people involved in the film who keep comparing the films. I guess they are trying to get across why they felt a new version was necessary. Maybe? Don’t know. I agree, it should only be compared to the book.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 am
The worst part about this new sexification of S&S is that it doesn’t seem, er, sexy. It’s actually more embarrassing than your average half-hour of MTV or any random scene from a Bertolucci movie because it feels so contrived and so– er, like an uncool person’s idea of what cool is.
Plus Davies has this GIMLET EYE and when he talks, all excitedly, in the video interviews about about butching up Austen heroes–! OH MAN. He’s like an Austen character himself.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 am
I liked it very much.
I don’t think it was really that sexed up either. Still having doubts about the opening scene (which was in fact not really something you’d call a ’sex scene’). I thought it was tastefully done, and didn’t show Willoughby’s face yet. On the other hand, the scene doesn’t make sense at this point of the series (yet). Things I liked less were the characters of Elinor (not being reserved enough), Marianne (not showing enough emotion) and Edward Ferrars, who is not supposed to be this charming. This Edward seems like a guy who can read poetry very well! So why should Marianne doubt that? And Mrs Jennings is too quiet, she should be more noisy, chattering, and being all over the room.
). I also like the way Margaret is portrayed. And the music and cinematography were wonderful!
But there were also lots of things about this production that I did like. Colonel Brandon is very likeable, showing he knows a lot about music and literature at this point of the story already. Also, there are small signs that Willoughby isn’t as genuinely as the Dashwood girls think (and I don’t mean the opening scene
I hope there will be more humour in the next episodes though. Oh, and now I almost forgot to mention a very important thing: why do you trim the dialogue from the novel so much, Mr Davies? In some cases, all you have to do is take the most excellent pieces of dialogue from the novel, and literally put them in the screenplay. The scene where Elinor and Marianne talk about Elinor’s feelings for Edward has been changed so much, but for what reason?
I’ve been complaining a lot now, even though I didn’t intend to, because I really really liked it, despite the things mentioned above. I have high expectations of the other episodes, and am really looking forward to them!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 am
The popularity of Cranford, which apparently surprised the BBC, illustrates very strongly that sex is not a necessary component in a series to make it appealing. I love Jane Austen and Dickens, but feel that they are done to death. With the wealth of fine, modern novelists that are writing today, why on earth don’t the directors use their imagination and try something different, other than the safe old options. If you want riveting storylines, try one of Barara Erskine’s novels. Some of the greatest writers have been produced by Ireland, but when did we ever see Edna O’ Brien serialised?
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 am
I agree that some novels are done to death. Personally, I’m not anxious to see another adaptation of Bleak House or Vanity Fair any time soon (esp. not if they are casting someone like Reese Witherspoon). But I don’t read historical fiction–I’d much rather read the classics and watch their adaptations. There are still many classic works of fiction that have yet to be adapted or are due for a new one.
As for modernism, I gladly left that behind after doing my English degree. (Not my cup of tea.) Besides, stream of consciousness doesn’t translate to the screen very well, in my opinion.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 am
Even one of the UK newspapers (the London Metro) remarks (jokingly) on the number of times that Sense and Sensibility has been adapted for film or television (which was kind of my point which I mucked up a bit on my blog). The point that I’m trying to make is that unless the filmmakers can bring something new to the table, what IS the point in remaking something over and over again.
I remember sitting down over the holiday period with my family to watch Annie, the John Houston classic musical. It was advertised in all the newspapers as being the John Houston version. So imagine my surprise to find that (a) not only was it NOT the John Houston film, but (b) somebody had decided to remake it for the TV and do it with such sloppy handedness that the budget feels as though it was made of short change from out of work film makers. It was terrible!
So that’s what I’m trying to say. Unless Jane herself comes back from the dead to write a definitive screenplay, I guess we can expect more adaptations down the road - whether it be TV, film, or maybe even the video game?
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
I think (well, it’s my opinion), it doesn’t matter how adaptation there is. The most important thing is the quality. If it’s good, who cares? I will watch it! I will always watch it!
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
The first seduction scene made me want to gauge my eyes out…and thats no over-exaggeration. I almost turned off!
But I was surprised as it went on, it’s not being as bad as the first scene sets it up. D did make some appalling changes though, the main ones being:
-Edward Ferrars is WAY too sociable. Edward is meant to quite shy, and only becomes interesting on further acquintance, and yet he seems charming off the bat, so to speak.
-Brandon seemed to recognise Willoughby on first sight, and vice-versa. Now I know its been a while since I’ve read S&S but I swear Brandon only finds out about Willoughby and Eliza later on, and that the only reason he doesn’t like him in the beginning is because he’s a rival for Marianne’s affections
However, I did like the characterisation of Margaret, the Middletons and John & Fanny Dashwood.
All in all, not terrible considering it’s from AD, but nothing special. In general it is somewhat faithful to the book but in parts it is truly horrendous. Leaves me rather curious as to what he shall do with the rest of the book.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
I’ve just read a magazine interview discussing the ‘classics,’ in which our [Minneapolis, MN, USA] Guthrie Theater director, Minnesota Symphony director and Loft Literary Center former director have a conversation about interpreting classic works, what you leave the same, what you can lift up with new ‘notes.’ It is interesting in light of our discussions here about the Jane adaptations. They seemed to say that classics live for us because of the human condition we can identify in them even after all the years since these classic works were written or performed. Many of you are saying this in what you write. We want the original themes to shine through in what we see. Otherwise the films have wasted what was Jane’s original intent.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Yes, it’s not bad, but not P&P95 kind of impressive either. It’s far better than the ITV adaptations though.
Scenery is breathtaking especially the pounding see.Music is quite good.
The location of Barton college is quite like the book with the high rising hills behind - and a back door.
Too many shades of S&S95. Edward Ferrars looks like Hugh Grant (especially the eyes).
Col Brandon and James Dashwood look like brothers. Margaret continues from S&S95 into this one.
Witty dialogue is glaringly absent and not one humourous incidence yet.
Marianne thinks Brandon is critical of *everyone and everything* and Willoughby has *fine eyes*.
She rresponds to Barton Cottage quite happily. It is Mrs Dashwood who seems unhappy about it.
In fact Mrs Dashwood till now is shown as the one who misses Norland. I was waiting for her to break into a poem about dead leaves of the trees of Norland.
This Willoghby is after all not that hot. Maybe its just me and my taste. Col Brandon is the hottie of this adaptation
After Alan Rickman I didn’t think I would settle for another Brandon, but this one holds his own.
I like the one in S&S1 too, but less than these two.
So the Brandon’s have all been very satisfactory.
Don’t like this lot at Barton Park. Not ridiculously funny. Sir John is rather wierd looking and keeps repeating how lovely the girls are.
He reminded me of a tamer version of Sir Thomas of MP2 (the horrible adaptation))
I really don’t mind as many adaptations of all JA novels.
S&S has been the lucky one with all the former adaptations fairly to very good ones, and I think this will join as a fourth fairly good adaptation - with the witty dialogue missing in episode one.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Well, overall I thought it was a bit boring. My main concern is that there is not one single joke in the whole episode whereas it’s one of Jane’s funniest novels. It was SO dramatic.
Also, I couldn’t warm up to Charity’s Marianne, and what is that ridiculous costume she’s wearing near the sea ?
The first scene was good on its own although very disconnected from the story, but the whole thing lacks vitality. I’m disappointed, I expected better from it : I’ll watch the second episode but really because of the gorgeous landscapes and the lovely score by our very own Martin Phipps. Next week looks better, though.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Just popping in to see you, my dear. I had but to read about the sexing up, and now feel that I know all that I need to about this adaptation. Sad, really. I will probably still watch it, but I have to agree heartily with Mr. Stokes.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Sibylle, I was thinking the exact same thing about Marianne’s outfit near the sea. I mean it looked gorgeous, but sooooo not regency. And there definately was a distinct lack of humour…well there was the scene where Sir. John visits the cottage for the first time and suggests they marry off poor Margaret, but that wasn’t really laughter-inducing, more of a chuckle moment.
And Reeba, I have to agree with you on the whole Willoughby issue. I just don’t find the actor cute at all, but Brandon on the other hand….;)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Yes, only three adaptations of S&S in the last thirty years; but there were a couple earlier than that, which may be where Martyn Drake got his estimate that the new production was the fourth or fifth.
On June 4 1950, NBC’s Philco Television Playhouse had a production of Sense & Sensibility, directed by Delbert Mann. “Madge Evans … both looked and acted her role as the reserved older sister, with Clovis (sic) Leachman dittoing as the less repressed younger girl.” - Variety, June 7, 1950. (Interesting; according to IMDB, Madge Evans (Elinor,) was 41 years old at the time.)
Then, the BBC did S&S in 1971, in addition to the more familiar 1981 version starring Bosco Hogan as Edward.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I have this version (1971) of S&S.
P&P95’s Mrs Gardiner makes a very lovely Barbie like Elinor.
I liked this one, it was fairly good.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
So far I’m unimpressed. I will be tuning in on Sunday, hoping it’ll be better, but right now it’s not exactly my favourite adaptation. Gimme Cranford any day (yep, stil mourning my favourite characters who ALL DIED.)
Bad points:
(Even though I kept reminding myself not to compare them.)
- Edward was DASHING. :O In a bad way! He’s not supposed to be DASHING! He’s supposed to be awkward and shy!
- Marianne’s face annoyed me. Somehow… too young and brattish, and very sharp. But then again she had to endure comparison with Kate Winslet.
- Sir John Middleton (Mr Weasley!) was lecherous, how he kept mentioning that they were very lovely girls and staring at them with that stupid look on his face. Eergh.
- Willougby has ‘evil!!!’ written all over him. And what the hell was he doing on that hill when Marianne fell? He appeared out of nowhere!
- I thought the cottage was waaaayyy too much of a downgrade. And not even sensible Elinor remembered to at least send one servant ahead to prepare the house??
- I was unimpressed with Brandon, who seemed dull (… alright, in character then) and I got annoyed with his rather odd way of speaking. I dunno.
- Poor fishies!
Good points:
- Lovely scenery, Norland was beautiful and I loved the shots of the sea.
- Lovely costumes. I loved the mourning gowns on the girls and Mrs Dashwood. Fanny’s hairdo was absolutely awesome (the little curls!) and little Harry Dashwood was adorable in his little suit. The only two costumes that made me frown were Marianne’s candy-pink gown with yellow jacket (… seriously?) and Edward’s too-dashing boots.
- I was unimpressed with Elinor at first but she really grew on me. I like that she’s actually Elinor’s age in the book.
- Margaret was (again) spunkified but I liked that. Although what is it with people wanting to put Margaret under tables and beds??
- I LOVED HARRY DASHWOOD! Where DID they find that kid?? The red curls! The little glasses! He was awesome!!
Let’s see whether Episode 2 tips the scales in SS08’s favour…
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
S&S 1971 was awesome!!! I liked it better than the 1981 version.
Isn’t it funny how no one ever complains how many times Hamlet is done?
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Well, Hamlet (and all of Shakespeare) is meant to be performed.
Though some will say that Jane Austen’s books are meant to be read aloud! But still, it’s not the quantity, it’s the quality! I still think Martyn’s little rant was less about S&S than about too many Jane Austen adaptations in general, and he might get girl cooties from having them on his teevee. But I’m probably overreacting. And the thing is, in some ways I agree with him. It’s obvious that the latest set were not made from any desire to do better than the past efforts, it’s because the producers saw the possibility to cash in on the Jane Austen Phenomenon. The reviews we’ve seen here so far are interesting. I have to run out, but will post newspaper reviews later. They are mostly positive but not as positive as I expected.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Where can you get the 1971 version? I did not realise (until today) that it was available.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
In quite a perverse way, I am also kind of looking forward to the next one on Sunday night - and not just so I can hate it! I *hope* as ‘the plot thickens’ that it gets better. Also, the wood-chopping scene is in the next episode I believe, and as this was the thing that was used to sell the production (oooh, another Colin Firth…), I am curious to know if it does do what ‘it says on the tin’. I am sceptical that it will remedy something that is otherwise lacklustre and spiritless, and against the background of everything else, may just stand out as being a bit weird!
I don’t know why they didn’t get better actors/actresses for this - it is not as if the BBC can’t afford it. We pay enough in our licence fee! After the first episode of Cranford, I was completely hooked, so it wasn’t as if they couldn’t push the boat out…
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
As an Austen fanatic, my dream would be to have classic films for the novels–six great English novels, six classic movies. Movies that will be watched, appreciated, and enjoyed for generations to come. Movies that conform to the highest standards of the art.
But, then again, part of me (only a small part, LOL) thinks that maybe there should be no movies. We all know that much is lost in transcribing Austen’s novels to film, and what is lost most of all is Austen’s beautiful narrative voice which, I think, is what really draws me in. And, unless somebody figures out how to artfully and effectively narrate chunks of the novels in film, it would be quite impossible to transcribe those words into celluloid (or digital bits and bytes).
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I don’t have a Region 2 player and I can’t speak Dutch, but I do know that S&S 1971 is available here: http://www.nl.bol.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/nl/-/EUR/BOL_DisplayProductInformation-Start?BOL_OWNER_ID=1002004005538308&Section=VIDEO&lgl=1&plid=3LaR5JsZXQIAAAEVWXBJWxk7&lgl_BOL_OWNER_ID=1&lgl_Section=1 Hopefully the penny will drop at the BBC so I don’t have to learn how to hack my DVD player. Put it out in Region 1 people!!! (And yes I e-mailed them about it.)
While I am appalled at most of MP 2007 and a bit of NA 2007 and P 2007, I am still glad they were made. The more adaptations they do, even the crap ones, the fewer articles we will have to put up with like “Can you believe they’re doing Jane Austen AGAIN? WHY is she so popular?” I want to see it get to the point where JA adaptations are made with the same regularity as Shakespeare. Today it’s ‘which Hamlet did you prefer? Mel Gibson or Kenneth Branagh?’ and perhaps one day it could be Daniel Radcliffe’s Darcy vs. Rupert Grint’s Knightley. I dare to dream! (But not, er, particularly about those two young men.)
Both are compromises - Shakespeare is meant to be performed on stage, in a theater, and Austen either read alone or aloud to friends and loved ones. Anyone who expects a film version of a novel to conform to their personal expectations deserves disappointment (and should really start accumulating those millions). This trend, if it keeps up, really is a win-win for everybody: those of us who love to see our favorite new actors in new productions of our favorite author get our happiness renewed, however imperfectly; those who live to criticize have their happiness renewed in abundance!
Sorry, I have to give up on being any more coherent right now. I am at work, without my headphones, and there is a shift-long gabfest going on. Grr!
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Hi Jen,
That link is for S&S 1981 judging by the cast list (Irene Richard, Tracey Childs, Diana Fairfax & Donald Douglas)
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 am
About the Dutch DVD of S&S1971, the bol.com link is the right DVD. I own it, and it has that same cover, and it’s definitely the 1971 version (I also own the 80s version, which is in a box, and not available seperately). They just mention the wrong actors, which is a very stupid mistake!
You might also try this link: http://www.justwebshop.nl/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=sense+and+sensibility
This series is really worth watching, in my opinion.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 am
Yes, they do have the wrong names, but the right DVD.
I bought it from bol.com
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 am
Franka, S&S 1981 is available separately for region 1 dvd
http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Sensibility-1981-Irene-Richard/dp/B000244FF0/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1199360319&sr=1-4
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Getting back to the Dutch DVD of the BBC 1971 version of S&S, here is a good image of the cover -
http://images.frs.nl/f/68/e6e/8717344729512_13.jpg
The picture is definitely of Joanna David and Robin Ellis (I watched A LOT of television in the 60s and 70s and know all the BBC stalwarts of the period…!) and Franka and others assure us the DVD is indeed of the 1971 version. How odd that the BBC mis-marked the box with the names of the cast from 1981. I don’t think this has been released in the UK; am I right? I only find links from Netherlands, Belgium and Germany when I search by the EAN (European Article Number)8717344729512.
Presumably, this is in English with optional subtitles? And, does it have any added features?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Thanks Jen, Franka, Reeba, and Robin.
It’s time for me to go shopping again
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Robin,
My version of the DVD is in English, with Dutch subtitles which I think you can turn off. There are no added features on the DVD, unfortunately. Hope that helps!
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Franka, thanks!
I could watch it with the Dutch subtitles, might be a good way to learn the language…
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
S&S 1971 wasn’t released by the BBC - that’s why they’re not concerned with Region 1. If anyone wants to add to my request to the BBC to release it in Region 1, I’d certainly be grateful! It’s worth it.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I’ve only seen the first part so far but I must say that the cast in the 1995 version was so good that I miss them all terribly. The cast here doesn’t look bad but they’re not *them*. And much as I try to forget them and focus on this production - I can’t do so entirely.
I must say, Willoughby looks awful to me - more like a buffoon than a heartbreaker.
I love the Dashwoods’ little son though. And I also liked the fact that they’ve kept Sir John Middleton’s wife and children, which in the novel are hilarious.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:56 am
For what it’s worth, Broadcast IS going to be publishing my letter about Sense and Sensibility and remakes. I’d be interested to see what feedback (if any) it gets from the Beeb and/or Andrew Davies.