S&S News Roundup: Middle Child Edition
Don’t forget, UK folks–the second of three parts of Sense and Sensibility will be broadcast tonight on BBC One at 21.00. We’d love to hear what you thought about it.
Lots of S&S08 in the news, especially since we’ve been slacking the last couple of days about posting it. Thanks to all who sent in links and stuff, apparently laboring under the impression we were wallowing in ignorance rather than sloth here at AustenBlog World Headquarters. 
The ratings are in, and the first part came in second behind Midsomer Murders with 5.3 million viewers.
The Telegraph profiles Andrew Davies, because nobody has ever done that before.
He dismisses his success as a “pretty good run” and is described by friends, especially when inebriated down the pub, as mischievous and good-natured with a twinkle in his eye.
No comment. No comment. No, none at all. None.
The rate-payers have their say. We like Nick R.’s comment:
What else is in that “dark underbelly”- I want to know? Are there some Tory MPs in the family? Is the favourite pastime of the English Labouring Classes - incest, also a favourite hobby of the upper classes? Is there a relative who works for The East India Company coming home as “his ship has come in” and it is loaded up to the gunwales with opium? Is the local C of E Rector about to defect to the Roman Catholic church? Are all the impoverished country folk just New Age Travellers who have dropped out of middle class homes, unhappy with their privileged status in society? Is the leading man actually an extra terrestrial? Should I now start to watch it? Why wasn’t the script written by Quentin Tarrantino?Is there a soundtrack with groovy hits? Do they show needles breaking the skin?
Heh. Groovy hits, indeed!
Weren’t we just talking about this?
Discussing the project, Dominic Cooper, who plays the dashing Willoughby commented: “I think there is a belief it has been adapted more times than it has.”
If you really want to get away from it all, Barton Cottage is available to rent for your holidays. However, the the cottage, which dates from Tudor times, was improved somewhat for the film–as the AD said, “although Mrs Dashwood had fallen on hard times, she hadn’t fallen on such hard times.”
The pundits are holding forth, with naysayers complaining about Another Bloody Costume Drama That Has No Relevance Or Interest To Modern People (obviously the 5.3 million viewers are fictional constructs).
Nobody with a surname in Austen country has ever had a job.
John Knightley–attorney
Mr. Philips–attorney
Mr. Shepherd–attorney
William Larkins–bailiff
Mr. Collins–priest
Henry Tilney–priest
Edmund Bertram–priest
Dr. Grant–priest
Robert Martin–farmer
Captain Wentworth–Navy officer
Captain Harville–Navy officer
Captain Benwick–Navy officer
Admiral Croft–Navy officer
Colonel Fitzwilliam–Army officer
Captain Frederick Tilney–Army officer
Colonel Brandon–Army officer, ret’d
We’ve made our point, we think. We understand the writer’s, but he or she is showing his or her ignorance of the time in which the story takes place. Yes, women can hold jobs now and support themselves, and it’s a good thing. We know, and we agree, and we think Jane Austen would have agreed. That doesn’t change things 200 years ago.
Viv Groskop in The Observer says, we keep adapting classics in the hope of making them better. (We Janeites keep hoping too, but find it’s a hopeless business in general.)
This, of course, is the quality which made these books into enduring classics in the first place. People are surprised by the fact that there is always something new to be found in TV adaptations, but we don’t ask, ‘Why are you bothering to read Pride and Prejudice again?’ We recognise that there is no definitive reading of a book. Indeed, we expect them to tell us something different about life each time we read them.
Re-reading classics 10 years on can be one of the most intellectually and emotionally challenging experiences in life: you realise that you saw things completely differently the first time around, misunderstood parts of the story, ascribed the wrong motives to the wrong characters. You see that your view of human nature has altered completely since a previous reading.
Ceri Radford sympathizes with the Dashwood ladies:
If I was going to be poor, I’d like to be poor in the style of a Jane Austen heroine…But their poverty is of the shabbily genteel kind – scaling back the number of servants, learning how to light a fire. It’s not as if they have to sell adorable little Maggie into prostitution to keep themselves in stale crusts.
Glenda Cooper informs us that it’s all horrider than anything Mrs. Radcliffe ever wrote.
Yet I can never read Sense and Sensibility without it sending a shiver down my spine. I don’t recognise this as a “wonderfully entertaining tale of flirtation and folly”, as one edition bills it.
Instead absent fathers, inadequate mothers, ambitious women on the make, financial insecurity, near-fatal illness and abandonment stalk this book. It should be taken only with a large glass of whisky on a stormy night, when Dostoevsky seems too much of a giggle.
Of course, Sense and Sensibility can be very funny: Marianne’s conviction that her would-be suitor Col Brandon, a flannel- waistcoat-wearing 35-year-old, is ancient and decrepit skewers the workings of the 17-year-old mind exactly - Austen began a version of this novel in 1795, at just 20. But from the beginning, poverty, desertion and grief lurk darkly at the edges.
She must not have read much of 18th century literature–that sort of thing was stock in trade. Either the heroines are rich heiresses or poor orphans. There’s little room for anything in-between, at least not till Emma Woodhouse started matchmaking.
Lastly, we got a kick out of Phil Hogan’s recap of the first episode in The Guardian.
So it was off to the wilds of Devon for the sisters, thanks to distant ‘bumpkin’ cousin Sir John (played with admirable restraint by Mark ’suits you, sir’ Williams), who offered the women a remote cottage with views of bad weather and crashing waves. ‘How romantic!’ cried Marianne (the romantic one), turning a deaf ear to the distress of her mother, who had no more considered life in a house where you might bang your head on the ceilings than a trip to Venus. But if you couldn’t meet someone dark, brooding and intense on a craggy windswept hill, you might as well give up, and sure enough, after a day or two with the well-meaning but vulgar relatives, here was a frowning Colonel Brandon (played by a frowning David Morrissey) bringing wild flowers and an aficionado’s appreciation of Marianne’s piano playing. The colonel had everything - good looks, wealth, a fine steed, some dark misery in his past, and at a youthful 35 he was barely twice her age. Marianne demurred. It was almost as if she knew that in this particular bit of the middle of nowhere there’d be another one along in a minute - perhaps someone a little less grown-up or even just a bit more cheerful.
And so there was. Enter the dashing and charismatic Willoughby of Allenham, who scooped Marianne into his arms (as luck would have it she’d just that second rolled over a cliff and sprained her ankle) and carried her home in the drizzle. It was all a bit irregular, Mrs Dashwood thought, but as Marianne said: ‘Truly good manners have nothing to do with convention.’ Willoughby was not only young and charming but ticked the box of preferring Byron to analytical old Enlightenment farts like Pope with their neat couplets and everything put away in the proper drawers. Blissful sighs ensued. With two impetuous hearts beating as one, what could possibly go wrong? You had to watch Bonnie and Clyde on the other side (ITV1) to find out. That was excellent too.
Many thanks to Alert Janeites Lisa, Maria, Belle de Jure, and Lorien for the links!
January 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Just seen Part 2…and needed a vent! Andrew Davies seems to enjoy pillaging Austen…taking what he likes and discarding what he can’t ’spice up’….
And Charity Wakefield seems to simply be imitating and yet never quite matching Kate Winslet’s Marianne.
And for God’s sake, where is the humour?!?!
January 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I’m beginning to think that Davies is truly a busted flush. He excelled with Bleak House in 2005 but has never recovered.
I’m trying to like this production, I really am, but it’s coming off as a poor pastiche of the glorious Ang Lee version in 1995, and somehow seems ‘rushed’ in comparison. How can this be? I don’t think I ever realized how truly iconic and stunning that film was until now.
As for comparing this series to Austen’s original, I agree with the above poster - where is the humour? This is dull as ditchwater. I had hoped that the inclusion of Edward’s visit to Barton Cottage might brighten proceedings. Or at least build a more engaging narrative for us. But no. The entire sequence was strained and messy, with Edward a little too over-wrought and needing to ‘vent’ himself in a manly fashion. Very “Daviesian’. It was all horribly telegraphed and far too obvious.
As for Charity Wakefield. She’s not even good enough to be described as a poor man’s Kate Winslet. And Willoughby has all the allure of a pudgy-faced elf.
Oh boy. There’s so much wrong here, and a little bit right, but I’d best not clog up your comments page with too much vitriole, however tempting.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
…ticked the box of preferring Byron to analytical old Enlightenment farts like Pope…
Best. Description of Willoughby. EVAH!! *dies*
January 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I just don’t like this…want to…can’t!
I won’t take up any more space with my moans apart from the fact that I can’t stand Charity Wakefield either.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
It was better than last week (have just posted on it on my blog). The wood chopping scene was (as one might expect) way over hyped, but David Morrissey in particular is getting better in his portrayal of Brandon.
@ Gallivant, I so agree about AD!
The humour is still lacking, and the liberties are still being taken…
January 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
So far I think Brandon is the only good thing…actually no, I must confess, so far I like Hattie Morahan’s portrayal of Elinor.
‘Willoughby has all the allure of a pudgy-faced elf.’<— ha! love it…and totally agree. I canNOT for the life of me see why Marianne would fall so passionately in love with this Willoughby, he’s charmless and altogether too slimy: one could tell he’s a villain before he’s even uttered a syllable!
Grr…I had set myself up to like this….I was prepared to put up with some liberties, but this is almost indetectable as an Austen story….
January 7th, 2008 at 3:35 am
I think I liked this episode better than last week’s. I’m not about to buy the DVD anytime soon but I thought the pace was a bit quicker, and I could feel a bit more for Marianne. Andrew Davies’ choice to erase all humour is annoying, he built a complete drama and I keep thinking about all the scenes that I thought were hilarious in the book.
Lucy Steele is not portrayed very well : she’s much more aware of the real situation than what is shown, and she takes advantage of it to torture Elinor whereas here she looks like she doesn’t even know what’s going on. Colonel Brandon should be more reserved in my opinion. The kiss and the visit to Allenham were very unnecessary, as was Edward’s ” wood scene ” but I understand why Davies thought they would be a good idea.
I have yet to understand the apparently very profound meaning of seashells.
I’m not very convinced by this adaptation, I don’t think it adds anything to the 95 version and it certainly forgets an important aspect of the book ( humour, again ).
January 7th, 2008 at 4:43 am
I liked yesterday’s episode. So far I think the series itself, as a period drama, is very good, although not the perfect adaptation. Somehow I don’t think Andrew Davies manages to find the right ’spirit’ of the book. I remember the book being very funny too, and this series is a bit too dramatic, in my opinion. All the funny characters have very small parts, like the Palmers, Nancy Steele, Mrs Jennings, just to name a few.
Also, I like the scenes that Davies added to the production, but it’s shame that so many excellent pieces of dialogue from the book are left out. The wood chopping scene didn’t do anything for me, by the way, I kept thinking ’so this is what all the fuss was about’? Don’t get me wrong, I like Dan Stevens as Edward (although I prefer Hugh Grant, because DS is too charming for the part) but I don’t think he needed a wet shirt scene to make him sexy at all!
Dominic Cooper is a great Willoughby, I think. Not being handsome enough being his only ‘fault’. I saw in the preview that the scene in which he visits Elinor when Marianne is ill will be in it. It’s one of my favourite scenes from the book, so I have high expectations of it.
And oh dear, if looks could kill Willoughby would be dead by now, after that evil look Brandon gave him at the end… Very well done!
About Lucy Steele: Anna Madeley looks like a good Lucy, but she’s been given too little screen time. And she’s not evil enough! She should be teasing Elinor all the time, making clear that she very well knows that Elinor loves Edward, but not saying it with so many words at the same time.
And what about the ridiculous amount of sea shells all over the place?! If only they cut all the shots of shells, it would save some minutes to put in other scenes (from the book, that is).
January 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
It’s Sue Birtwistle’s fault. She was the producer with Andrew Davies as writer on P&P, Emma, and W&D. She also helped out on Cranford. Look at the beautiful results of all four of those films. I can almost guarantee that if she would have helped out on NA and S&S we would have had quite a different adaptation of both.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I must say that I liked this episode much better than the first one. I suddenly realised how incredibly smouldering hot Colonel Brandon was, which helped improve it a GREAT deal.
(And I liked how he is a little more active than in the ‘95 version. I actually can’t see Alan Rickman seriously duelling Greg Wise.) I really like this Elinor, too. She’s unimpressive at first but she really grows on you.
On the other hand, Marianne is getting on my nerves! She’s way too much ’stupid teen who falls for the emo bad boy before learning better’ instead of ‘oversensitive girls who falls for the guy who appears to be the embodiment of her romantic ideals’. Besides, she’s not half as pretty as Kate Winslet…
And the Palmers were a HUGE disappointment! But then again can you really top Imelda Staunton and Hugh Laurie playing a comedic, silly couple? :p
January 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hugh Laurie was good, but Imelda Staunton was too old and just didn’t strike me as Charlotte Palmer at all. I prefer the Charlotte Palmer from the 1981 version. She laughs all the time and is a little more the right age. I just looked up their ages. Imelda Staunton was 49 when she played Mrs. Palmer! Her older sister, Lady Middleton is only supposed to be 27! Hetty Baynes was about 34 which is too old, but not almost 50!
January 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’ve only seen the first episode,(which I liked somewhat. Colonel Brandon is the best part of it) thanks to the link to that chinese site in the first episodes comments. If it gets uploaded somewhere, can those gracious persons who know please post the link? Thank you much!
January 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
On the other hand, Marianne is getting on my nerves! She’s way too much ’stupid teen who falls for the emo bad boy before learning better’ instead of ‘oversensitive girls who falls for the guy who appears to be the embodiment of her romantic ideals’. Besides, she’s not half as pretty as Kate Winslet…
I kind of agree about her being the typical teen that falls for the bad-boy in this version, but she’s not getting on my nerves. You wouldn’t believe the number of people I’ve heard that said when they read the book Marianne got on their nerves, she was a brat, they wanted to shake her etc. I’m guessing this is Andrew Davies’ perception of her too and that after her illness she’ll mature. There are so many varied opinions of Emma Woodhouse’s personality that I suppose it’s the same way with Marianne.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I personally really don’t care about the age of an actor compared to the character in the book, as long as the portrayal is convincing - which is very much the case with Imelda Staunton and Emma Thompson in the 95 version. There’s no hint in the *film* itself how old these characters are supposed to be and so they fit in perfectly as they are.
(Interestingly no one is/was complaining about Hugh Grant’s being to old for Edward - which he in fact defenitely was, taken in that light.)
January 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I found the links for the episode on C19…
part1
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/LyJlRxf-MBc/
part 2
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/pTlaIw5fxM4/
Thanks anyways!
January 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Episode 2
Part 1 : http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/LyJlRxf-MBc/
Part 2 : http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/pTlaIw5fxM4/
January 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Sorry ! We typed at the same time, apparently :p
January 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Thanks anyways! If you could post episode three after it airs that would be awesome! Thank you!
January 7th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The most astonishing point about this adaption so far is that somebody appearently worked very hard to eliminate every bit of humor and wit from the book. (I don’t consider a fat, cakemunching child as “humor” …)
January 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I thought Miss Steele was quite humerous as well as some of Margaret’s comments.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
IMO Miss Steele was more ridiculous than humourous and though Margaret provided very very slight amusement, this adaptation so far has nowhere near matched up to Austen’s humour. A point of much sadness, for there is so much humour in S&S
January 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Thanks Anna and Sibylle for the links! Someone on C19 posted a link for the first episode, but I’m glad you both posted the links since I couldn’t find it elsewhere…uploading them now
January 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well, just finished viewing it. In agreement with everyone’s thoughts, especially that Charity Wakefield just doesn’t seem to be the right fit for Marianne. With all of AD’s additions, couldn’t he have included more scenes between Marianne and Brandon? They are a bit lacking in the book, but I was happy that he included Marianne saying that she cared for Brandon also.
Loved the music - I thought certain parts were really fantastic, and I certainly wouldn’t mind vacationing at “barton cottage”! Those views are incredible!!
I do have to say that I must have re-watched the ending scene with Brandon catching Marianne about 10 times - looooved that
I almost wish that I hadn’t been spoiled about it from all the previews that included the “look” he vehemently throws at Willoubhgy. Is it a bit sacrilegious to say that I am actually liking DM’s interpretation of Brandon more than AR?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I really liked this scene too, Ela ! And I also wish I hadn’t been spoiled by the trailer, it was quite intense.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Thanks for the links!!!
I didn’t hate it. As excited as I was about Morrissey as Brandon I’m more impressed with Hattie Morahan as Elinor. Mwah! Which brings up what I missed most about this one - one of my favorite things about the book is the friendship between Elinor and Col. Brandon. The oasis that is a valuable companion amongst so much intellectual poverty. But that’s probably a tiny b*tch in this forest of kvetching (am I waxing poetic or what?).
If anything this is the one adaptation that will send me fastest back to the book. Because I’m sitting here going, “oh, they left that great bit out about ****!” Not to say that they didn’t keep some great things in (I require so much!) or add some fun ones (crooked ceiling!) but overall I’m just wondering, “is S&S my favorite story? eh”
I do love me some Elinor & Edward though. Looking very much forward to the conclusion and some more of that hot Dan Stevens
January 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Quite disappointing as I thought the first episode showed some hope. Elinor and Brandon are definitely the best (although Brandon seems too confrontational at times and a bit too pervy). Willoughby is terrible- Greg Wise had CHARM whereas Dominic Cooper acts out a 2D character and is so openly slimy- he’s not the man Greg was!- sorry to be vain but he just looks like a little boy without the dashing looks Willoughby has - he’s meant to be a romantic beaux!
Edward’s log chopping scene was equally irritating - AD’s desperation to show ‘men as men’, doing “manly activities” is strained and has to be spelled out on the simplest level; to quote Edward’s reason “A man can relieve his feelings” - I can’t see Austen writing that.
As for the girls Marriane is often lacking the energy and emotion needed for her romantic spirit and you can’t beat Margaret from the film - so natural and funny.
Everything just seems disjointed and forced, lacking the beauty of the film (I long for the other Mrs Jennings SO much). AD has simplified the characters and plot a tad too much, losing the depth and humor of the book and instead is trying to turn it all into a ’sensual piece for the eyes’. I knew I shouldn’t have re-read the book right before watching this series! ooops
January 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
There are so many things in the adaptation that are good, but it’s so uneven that I can’t like it as a whole. Dan and Hattie are great. I actually rather liked Edward’s visit to Barton Cottage. I spent the whole episode waiting for it (since I was bored to tears by Willoughby and his so obvious sliminess) and while it certainly wasn’t the exactly what I’d hoped for, it was nice to have him back on screen and interesting to see him in his “dark moods”.
Brandon continues to be one of the best parts of this whole adaptation so far. Different, but not inferior to Rickman. That is how I feel about Elinor as well. With two such good performances, I can ignore Charity and Dominic and still find much to enjoy in this version.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:08 am
What I do like about this S&S is unfortunately not even true to the book.
I love this Brandon (as much as AR) and Edward, but both are not as they should be.
In spite of Hugh Grant being equally handsome at least he played his role as an unassuming, person lacking in self confidence and given to ‘being quiet’, reserved, as Mariann describes him.
Yes!! What is with those shells????
I think in the first episode when Edward gives Elinor a book as a gift - he was encouraging her. Very wrong of him.
Though I like this Elinor she’s prone to showing sensibility quite a few times and not just when alone.
Her scene with her mother when she wanted to write an invitation to Edward - she all anger and loud.
So Edward, Brandon, Elinor - all very good - but not at all as they are supposed to be.
I’m not even going to say anything about the rest of the cast, especially Mariann and Willoughby.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I’ve been delighted with recent spate of JA adaptions and have tried, as Mags advised in another thread, to be simply thankful that they have been done, and ‘eat the plate’ that has been put in front of us. I have, however, been seriously disappointed in a number of ways with most of them. Until now, Northanger Abbey was the only one that came anywhere close to consolidating the key things that were -in my experience - the essence of the story. I think I may be unpopular here for saying this, but after viewing episodes 1 and 2, I think S&S 2008 may be well on its way to doing that for me as well.
Not to say that I don’t have any criticisms. The first and foremost of which is that Willoughby is supposed to be an incredibly dashing, handsome and charismatic character. Yes, he becomes a wee bit more appealing when he walks and talks, but otherwise he reminds me of nothing more than the first descripion of Mr Crawford in Mansfield Park: “Black, black and plain”. He’s almost half a head shorter than Marianne. Put hair on his feet, and he could be a Hobbit. That’s the most serious drawback for me in this adapatation.Willoughby is not sexy whatsoever.
There are a couple others, but they are relatively minor.
MORE EMO: Mrs Dashwood is supposed to be almost as ‘delicately’ sentimental and emotional as Marianne - but isn’t! She’s the one who starts puzzling over why they have not yet announced their engagement). I was also surprised to see Marianne come back into the kitchen after Willoughby’s departure and apologize for her outburst and being all pragmatic about being sure of him coming back soon. Surely the younger Miss Dashwood – at this point – would have kept indulging herself and wallowing in her tears?
EDWARD: He is much too handsome, charming and ‘easy’. He does his best to ‘act’ shy in the second episode, but I actually think he and the actor who played Willougby should have exchanged roles.
SIR JOHN & MRS JENNINGS: I much preferred the louder, more noisy and boistrous versions in Ang Lee’s adaptation.
But I must say that I think the rest of it is very well done indeed. Some people have complained about Austen’s humour not coming through. The problem is, Austen’s humour is a very problematic thing in a film adatation. In her books, it is almost never directly delivered through the mouths of her characters. Her incredible wit and insight comes through in the way she describes people reacting to things. “Nay, two dead young ladies, it was twice as fine as the first report!. How in the world can you deliver something like that in dialogue? I thought Davies at least attempted it in the scene where Elinor and Marianne are inspectng their apartments in London, and Mrs Jennins indicates something over the mantlepiece and says, “Seven years at a great school in town and that’s all we’ve got to show for it.”
I am no ‘fan’ of Andrew Davies, but I don’t think he’s done all too bad a job. The area the Dashwood women have moved to is apparently bordering on the sea, so I can accept all the crashing waves, seashells, etc. But there are still certain things I want explaining after epidose 1&2. WHY is Brandon already acting so antagonistically towards Willougby, for instance?
I’m wondering if it could tie in with a difference of perspective that - I think - he might be trying to achieve. It ties in with “why is he making it clear that Willoughby is such a creep” early in the story. It also meshes in with the scene that he chose to open the story. Even I, who know the tale by heart, was holding my breath when he took Marianne to Allenham. Was he planning on trying to seduce her there as well? Possibly. But when she put the shawl around her and looked trustfully up into his eyes, you saw him melting - the vicious ranconteur fell in love, for perhaps the first and only time in his life. Instead of proceeding further, he said “I think I should take you home”.
I can’rt make any final judgement until I’ve seen the last episode, but until then a few comments and thoughts@
Anne Steele has the same extremely wierd, almost Yankee-sounding English accent that Mrs Elton had in the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma. Can any of our British readers here tell us if there is any place in England where people really talk this way?
January 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Uh… I typed and posted the above message in an extremely quick and hurried way. There are a number of mistakes and jumps of subject that I hope everyone can navigate their way around with relative ease.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I’ve been delighted with recent spate of JA adaptions and have tried, as Mags advised in another thread, to be simply thankful that they have been done, and ‘eat the plate’ that has been put in front of us.
Just for the record, I was being extremely sarcastic there. I don’t think that for a minute–and I’ve found the latest group disappointing, too (including, and in some ways especially, NA). I’m turning over my thoughts about this and may post it, later. And I’ve said before that as long as Jane Austen movies keep making money, and as long as we, as Janeites, support them by going to the movies and buying DVDs and by turning the other cheek and saying, “It’s not THAT bad” and “they captured the spirit of the thing” then we’ll keep getting “not good enough.” We’ve shown that we accept and support it. Why should The Powers That Be spend money and resources to give us anything better?
January 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Yeah, me again. I do think that both actresses are quite fine Eleanor’s and Marianne’s, and that Davies does a relatively good job in illustrating their characters. I especially like the one scene where you see Eleanor seeking the sanctuary of a seaside cave to ponder and grieve in solitude. It says everything about her.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You were being sarcastic there? Well, I guess I am ever so dim - as always. But I do maintain, judging as far as episode 2, that this - in MY opintion - is one of the better Austen adaptations that I have seen.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
For those of us who wonder at the casting of Dominic Cooper as a ‘pudgy-faced elf’ [like it!], this article makes astounding reading. DC is apparently being hailed as the new Colin Firth!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html
?in_article_id=507470&in_page_id=1773
[Note that I had to put a space before the question mark to get all of the web site address in. It should go next to 'html'.]
January 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I feel I must say something, or rather some things, here. Everyone is entitled to their own reactions to the series,of course, and if you are disappointed or delighted that’s okay by me. However, there’s some ‘complaints’ here which have a very shaky foundation, and maybe a few facts should be thrown in to balance things a bit.
First- Anne Steele’s accent:
It’s perfectly legitimate- a gentle, country-bumpkin, west-country accent that one can find all over Devon and Cornwall. It’s completely apt, IMO. Also, it’s actually totally different from Mrs Elton’s attempt at refined Bristolese in Emma3, but I guess you have to grow up with these things to recognise them. Sorry if you don’t like Anne Steele- I thought she wsa rather good, myself.
Second- Andrew Davies’s script:
Mr Davies wrote a script. That doesn’t mean that the director and the producer used it all, exactly as written; in fact the normality is for the writer to expect to have their work altered(butchered?). Complaints about pacing, scene cutting, and humour, or lack of it, may well be legitimate grumbles, but it’s not fair to assume that Mr Davies is to blame for all of it.
Myself, I rather like what I see so far. I agree Willoughby isn’t handsome enough. I am a bit perturbed by the cottage which is definitely not four miles northward of Exeter but perilously close to the wrecking rocks on the Noth Devon Coast. I do hope the Dashwoods are not swept away by cliff subsidence before we reach the happy ending! I do like the very understated visual humour that does exist in this production. Watching Willoughby nad Marianne at teh dining table was a hoot; and Sir John’s eating habits- well!
January 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Mags is right that as long as women see these adaptations as surrogate romance novels (pure fantasy fodder), the industry will continue. Yet…yet…yet…there are some things to love in each of the adaptations, as well as things to deplore. Elinor, Edward and Brandon, thumbs up, Marianne and Willoughby, thumbs down. I’ve seen Janet McTeer in too many great stage roles (Nora e.g. in A Doll’s House) to see her as anything but a superstrong woman. She’s 6′1″ for heaven’s sake! What is most to be applauded about the adaptations is that it sends so many of us back to the books. No matter how many times we read them, they yield up more gifts each time. And S&S on this 4th reading is much funnier than I remembered it. So I’m of two minds: Joe Wright is Mr. Wrong for me. Andrew Davies is Mr. Almost-Gets-It-Right but no cigar. But as long as viewers become readers, this English teacher rejoices. (Alas, after reading P&P and reveling in the romance novel aspects, the students are disappointed in the others.) It’s a hopeless case.