Complete Jane Austen News Roundup: Last Gasps Edition
The Complete Jane Austen begins to wrap up tonight with a two-part presentation of the new-to-us Sense and Sensibility. PBS’ Remotely Connected blog has a review from Laurie Viera Rigler:
Anyway, after I stopped turning cartwheels, a mild feeling of apprehension set in. As an Austen addict whose obsession exceeds even that of the protagonist of my novel, my mind is so full of the text that often I must watch a new film adaptation twice just to see if I like it or not. The first time I watch, my mind is buzzing: Did the screenwriter/director stay true to text? Why did they add this scene or cut that one? Not exactly the uncluttered frame of mind one needs in order to sit back and enjoy the story unfolding on the screen.
But this new Sense and Sensibility? That called for three viewings before I could even see it as a film unto itself. Not only was the novel echoing in my head, but the Oscar-winning Ang Lee/Emma Thompson movie, which is perhaps my favorite of all the Austen-related films, demanded comparisons at every turn.
Nevertheless, I’m happy to report that I find myself in a state of admiration for the new Sense and Sensibility. A review by Amazon UK’s editorial staff addresses the inevitable comparisons to the Ang Lee/Emma Thompson film by suggesting that “it’s perhaps best [to] see them as companion pieces.” I agree. The luxury of this particular film’s nearly three hours of screen time provides more opportunities to stay true to text, which we devotees of text certainly appreciate. However, this film, like most adaptations, includes expanded and even invented scenes, something I have no objection to, as long as they serve the story and character development.
And the Editrix also had her share in the conversation. Well, actually we had some help from perhaps unexpected sources. 
(If you haven’t seen the new film yet, the review might make much more sense after you do.)
PBS also has a minisite dedicated to the film, including some behind the scenes videos.
There are lots of media reviews as well, which is to be expected. The New York Times review by Ginia Bellafante takes an interesting view of the pasted-on “seduction” scene at the beginning.
The PBS adaptations of Austen’s novels have been infused with a certain eroticism, and it should be said that “Sense and Sensibility” introduces itself with a bedroom scene that seems to exist as an admonition against incautious sex. Flesh is anathema to Austen purists, but the murkily filmed scene (baffling until you figure out who the players are much later) animates what is implied if not stated in Austen: that in mindless passion there is no substance at all.
Has someone told Andrew Davies?
The reviews are overwhelmingly positive: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Los Angeles Times, Cleveland.com, USAToday, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette all have rave reviews. Maureen Ryan at the Chicago Tribune thinks Willoughby is too obviously a cad for belief, the Mercury News thinks it’s a little slow, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram thinks it’s not lively enough for Jane Austen.
What did we think? We thought it quite good, definitely the best of the latest set of adaptations, though not quite as good as the 1995 film, although at times we felt more like we were watching a remake of that film than a new adaptation of the novel. We particularly enjoyed Daisy Haggard’s turn as Miss Steele (quel surprise) and thought Hattie Morahan as Elinor was a real bright spot in the production, very much the emotional center of the film and a very strong performance. We liked Dan Stevens a lot as well, though he reminded us more of Henry Tilney than of Edward Ferrars. We found the story rushed and a trifle sloppy in places–why in the world did Marianne call Fanny Dashwood “Aunt?” And then how does Edward, Fanny’s brother, become Elinor’s cousin? We don’t mean to nitpick, but we find such changes confusing, distracting, and most of all unnecessary. And see if you can spot all the lines stolen from P&P, because Jane knows we can’t have an adaptation that doesn’t reference P&P.
That being said, we think our readers will, for the most part, be very pleased with the new series. Let us know what you think.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Another positive review comes from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2008/03/29/latest_sense_and_sensibility_is_captivating_addition_to_canon/
I quite agree with that review’s conclusion
March 30th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Well I already gave a mini review when this aired in the UK but just to summarise, I agree whole-heartedly with a lot of what you said. Hattie Morahan was amazing, I was really surprised. Henry Dashwood and Miss Steele stole the show. Dan Stevens was a nice piece of eye candy, and I really liked David Morissey’s portrayal of Colonel Brandon, dare I say even more so than Alan Rickman *ducks*.
But I feel Charity Wakefield deserves special mention for being the worst aspect of this adaptation. IMO, she brought the whole thing down, and if they’d cast a better actress, the adaptation could have been so much better. I never felt her emotional journey, which is pretty bad considering the wide range of emotions Marianne goes through.
On the good side, I was glad to see characters missing from Lee’s adaptation, mainly Anne Steele and Lady Middleton.
All in all it was a good effort, and the best of the recent crop of Austen adaptations, but it could have been better.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Fanny Dashwood is called “aunt” the same way that in P&P95, Jane Bennet refers to her cousins as her “nephews and nieces.” Davies screwed up.
But I really liked this. I like it better than S&S95. I vacillate between this and S&S71 (affectionately known by some as the “Poldark S&S”) as my favorites.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Although I would happily watch Alan Rickman mow the lawn and consider myself extraordinarily lucky, I am in very great danger of falling in love with David Morissey’s Brandon also. What riches–two dueling Brandon’s in my imagination!
PS–loved the review Mags!
March 30th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I loved your review too Mags!
And I like this version of S&S enormously. I have enjoyed it several times since my DVD arrived from Ireland a couple of months ago. It’s inspired me to re-watch the other two versions I have - the Ang Lee one and the 1981 BBC version (I am eagerly awaiting Poldark S&S to arrive from Belgium this week too) - and I find that this new version is my equal favourite with the 1995 version. Neither are perfect, but both have much to recommend them. Both manage to capture something of JA’s humour, and not just the chocolate-box quality that some producers of JA adaptations fall for. And there is brilliant casting in both versions.
There were things that annoyed me in the 1995 one, mainly a seriously miscast Hugh Grant and their constant curtseying, which I found distracting. As for this latest version, I didn’t immediately warm to Charity Wakefield’s Marianne (although she has grown on me), and the Willoughby here just isn’t dashing or dangerous enough. I didn’t feel that Marianne was seriously ill either; you really do need to feel she might die.
But that said, I think this is easily in my top 6 favourite JA adaptations … which is most amusing, as I now find I have two S&S in the list, and it’s not my favourite JA. (My most favourite JA adaptation is Persuasion 95, which I have also re-watched recently to cleanse myself from the horror of the latest Persuasion …)
March 30th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I have to say that I really like Charity Wakefield because she is less OTT than other Mariannes. Yes, I know that Marianne is supposed to be OTT, but I find I prefer adaptations that don’t include Marianne saying goodbye to the trees and grass at Norland (Tracey Childs in 1981) or to the drapes (Ciaran Madden in 1971).
I guess what I’m saying is that, in this version, I can actually see why Brandon falls for her. As much as I like Kate Winslet, I never felt convinced about her and Alan Rickman. But the David Morrissey/Charity Wakefield pairing really works for me. Speaking of David Morrissey, he was fantabulous in State of Play (also stars John Simm, Bill Nighy, James McAvoy, Polly Walker and Kelly McDonald). I highly recommend it for anyone who hasn’t seen it.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Great reviews - especially witty and clever one, Mags.
Now, just to get this off my chest:
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It’s finally here! And they don’t seem to have cut anything out!
1. The theme was even more beautiful than I remember - I was almost in tears from the moment it concluded, and Mr. Dashwood lay there dying. Also, found the first sequence much more moving that I remembered - the acting and camerawork (the blacks against the stark stone) were very sad.
2. Elinor and Edward are so wonderful - quiet, calm, cheerful, but passionate (well, mostly Elinor this time). Little touches like Elinor’s going through her father’s things, and hitting the rug, show that Marianne’s view of her as emotionless are furthest from the truth.
3. Margaret - so cute, and such a natural actress. I have to think that Andrew Davies really likes adding kids to his adaptations - in P&P, he has the Gardiner’s children, in Emma the Knightley’s little ones, in Northanger Abbey Catherine’s siblings, and in this Margaret and little Henry. I like the touches of innocence they add.
4. The inclusion of subtle details, like Elinor’s drawing, are fantastic.
5. Sir John Middleton - so funny and down to earth. Really reminds me of another Davies stock - the cheerfully earthy plain guy, like Sir William Lucas in P&P, Mr. Weston in Emma, Mr. Allen in Northanger Abbey, and now Sir John. Very warm and welcoming - not to bright, but always well intentioned.
Can’t wait for part 2!
March 30th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
It was so much better than I expected… I still prefer the 95 one for the humor and Kate Winslet, but I have to agree that Elinor and Edward really anchor this one. It’s beautifully done. I like thinking of the two films as companion pieces.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I’m very pleased with this adaptation. I was a bit worried, especially in regards to the first scene. I still prefer the Ang Lee version, however, there are parts I appreciate more in this version as well, in particular that it showed more of how Elinor and Edward came to care for one another. I loved the introduction of the Middleton family at home — it looked just like some of the paintings at the Tate Gallery!
As for David Morrisey, my heart is won over. I believe that even at 17 I would have appreciated such a man.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“Tail and Entailment”…that’s what I thought I thought I would be watching when I saw the original credits.
But I was gradually won over by the first installment. I appreciated the elegance of Mrs. Dashwood, and I felt that for the first time, I had some sense of the connection between Elinor and Edward, who up until now I felt was the lamest of all the Austen heroes.
It’s hard to get past the sublime Ang Lee version, but what I enjoyed in Part I was the more definite way that the entailment issue was shown as impacting the way that the men treated the Dashwood sisters. I enjoyed Mr. Weasley as Sir John. I liked the incidental music, too.
Elinor is finely drawn. I must admit I like this actress and would enjoy seeing her in other projects. Edward isn’t a stammering lamer, he’s lovable and constrained.
When I first read the novel, years ago, I admit I was rather put off by Brandon’s interest in Marianne. I found it creepy. She was too young, and him too much a man of the world. Then, I saw the Ang Lee movie and was caught up like most of the rest in the onscreen charisma of Alan Rickman, and I disregarded all that, but in this version, I felt it much more keenly how weird and even repulsive his interest must have seemed to such a very young and romantic girl.
I appreciate Part I of this remake for reminding me of my initial reaction to the novel and giving it a decent visual. It is not that the actor who is playing Brandon is repulsive to me NOW (I am 46), but looking at him through my remembered 17 year old eyes, I feel what she felt and that’s nothing that I ever got from Ang Lee and certainly NOT from Alan Rickman, who is sexy at any age.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
p.s. LOVE the editrix’ review!!! LOL!
And I think Lucy Steele needs a permanent gig.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
OOP…MISS Steele, I mean.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Brilliant review, Mags!
My biggest objection to this adaptation is that John and Henry Dashwood have red hair. Why must only ridiculous characters have red hair? Why are the English so mean to us gingers? Besides, Sir John Weasley is the one who should have red hair.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:08 am
I was five minutes late getting home tonight and I missed the infamous opening scene! I’m so devastated that I missed a moment to snark!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:39 am
I liked this adaptation too. While I adore the 95 Ang Lee film, and use Kate as Marianne as my avatar, there were relatively few points I disliked about this movie, such as the miscasting of Dominic Cooper. Charity Wakefield’s performance as Marianne has grown on me. Hattie Morahan IS Elinor, and she is perfectly cast opposite Dan Stevens as Edward. Janet McTeer, that wonderful, talented actress, just isn’t given enough of a role to play, but I am glad to see her in this production. I rather liked Claire Skinner as Fanny Dashwood as well.As for David Morissey as Colonel Brandon - hubba, hubba, hubba.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:25 am
S & S is my favorite book. The first JA story I fell in love with so many years ago when I was just a young girl myself. I was concerned that this latest adaptation would disappoint and that my beloved story would be wrecked to pieces.
I have only seen the first part, and so far I am pleased. I certainly do like this Marianne and Elinor. And this col Brandon is growing on me.
I could have done without the opening scene. But it wasn’t as horrid as I had been reading in other’s complaints on various blogs. So far I am loving the Barton Cottage used here, and the ocean scenes. Simply gorgeous. (I apologize for not knowing all of the actresses/actors names yet.)
I can’t wait until next week. I’m so happy with the music score too. If anyone knows where this could be found, please link me. Thank you!
March 31st, 2008 at 7:40 am
I was not displeased, but felt that this movie owes some copyright monies to the Thompson/Lee film: some of the camera angles & dialogue (Thompson’s, not Austen’s) seem to have been lifted directly from it.
Also, I didn’t care for the fact that the cottage was set in such Romantic Scenery, with the crashing waves o’er the gloomy rocks, etc. To me, part of the humor of Austen’s S&S is Marianne’s longing to indeed live in such a Romantic Place, when she is faced with the dreary and comfortable reality of a contented peasantry, tidy fields and pleasant–but not dramatic–views.
Also, accordions weren’t invented until after the 1840s, so that lovely Irish-style button accordion music for the dancing shown in this half was wrong wrong wrong. But do movie makers want to get period details right? The evidence speaks for itself.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:34 am
I think Hattie Morahan is just wonderful in this production. Getting to spend more time with her Elinor, I am struck by just how strong a moral compass she is for this story and how much the whole lot of them depend upon Elinor’s quiet strength, her humor and her dignity. Of all of Austen’s heroines, I’ve thought that Elizabeth might be the most fun to hang out with, but Elinor would be a true friend of the heart.
Since I “cheated” this is my second go-around watching. Last time, I had to spend some time getting over the fact that Charity Wakefield wasn’t Kate Winslet. But by the end, she convinced me. This time watching I feel that she really brings out the “teenager” in Marianne, though I agree that it makes the Brandon/Marianne age difference even more pronounced.
I’m still working out my feelings about this Willoughby. Not at all sure yet. And it’s always a bit of a shock to see Ron Weasley’s dad show up in Austenland!
I do agree also that there are times when you think you are watching a longer, more developed Ang Lee S&S, but that is such a beautiful film that I don’t mind the”borrowing.”
Overall, I think I’m going to have two favorite S&S’s, though anything with Alan Rickman in it will always have a slight edge.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:28 am
I’m still dealing with the problem of Edward and Brandon being far more attractive than Willoughby. I generally did not think back to S&S2, except during the Willoughby scenes. Paging Greg Wise….
March 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Mags, I just wanted to tell you that a colleague has recently returned from the Public Library Association conference and brought me the beautiful “The Complete Guide to Teaching Jane Austen” put forth by PBS. I’ve just drooled over the pictures and flipped through casually so far but was very pleased to see in the ‘Selected Resources’ section that this Very Fine Website is the first thing listed (before the Jane Austen Centre, even!) Mollands.net is there as well.
Well done, indeed!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Glad you liked it Mags!! Should we start an AD-special drinking game? Everyone have their glasses charged for next week: “I’m very happy to see you again.” “And I you.” Last heard in Northanger Abbey.
In some cultures, family members in the same generation refer each other as ‘cousins,’ who must all refer to older-generation relatives as ‘aunt’ and ‘uncle’ as a mark of respect. It’s true amongst the Vietnamese, and I’m assuming AD’s idea of Georgian English? It’s not a mistake. Just a decision to simplify (sort of like explaining that ’sons are always heirs’, I guess).
Speaking of decisions - considering how studiously everyone in the current production avoided watching S&S 95, isn’t it funny how people keep claiming the two are so similar? (An opinion I do not share. As much as I love S&S 95, S&S 08 actually uses a good amount of JA’s text. Yes, yes, Mr. Impudence!) S&S must just inspire stormy skies and drooping shawls.
Three cheers for the production designer! I am now a huge fan.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I was doubtful when we hit the opening scene, but by the end of this first installment of S&S, I believe I have been won over and it has me wanting to read the book again (which I will do between now and next Sunday’s installment). I find so far that I like Charity Wakefield’s take on Marianne. Kate Winslet’s (and Ang Lee’s) portrayal of her made much of her emotional turmoil seem like drama for drama’s sake. Wakefield’s performance so far feels more natural and grounded. But that’s not to say I find one superior to the other; I am happy just to see Marianne through a different lens. And I’m glad to see that this Col. Brandon fits my imagined version of him much better than Alan Rickman’s, who I felt was too reserved and brooding to truly capture Marianne’s affection. In the Ang Lee film, I felt their personalities were SO far apart that the final pairing was just too unlikely. In this version, there is less extremism on both sides, which makes the eventual match feel like less of a stretch.
Hattie Morahan is just brilliant, though. And Claire Skinner … well, she’s the finest self-absorbed bustling perky little pinched-off charming mean Fanny Dashwood there could ever be, I’m very impressed!
I am looking forward to Part 2; a lot of the quality here has to do with actually having enough time in which to tell the story, I think.
(I do always now skip Agent Skully’s “Masterpiece” introductions, though. They seem always to annoy me.)
March 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I also like this adaptation. It was helpful to get used to the idea of seeing some one other than Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon ahead of time. David Morissey is good in the part, handsome, manly and mature. But he does not have the same depth of character and passion. I have to agree with surreyhill, in this version of S&S Colonel Brandon’s interest in Marianne does seem off.He seems to fixate on her quite suddenly. In the scene where Mrs. Dashwood is commenting on his age and her own age I did wonder if she where a more appropriate love interst for him. Where 40 year old widows sought after romantically at that time, especially if they were beautiful and elegant, but poor?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I am not that keen on S&S and one reason is that 5 year difference between Mrs. Dashwood and Brandon. It always bothers me that a 35 year old man will go for the silly 17 year old, and not her mother.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Elinor and Marianne are charming, of course, but I find myself more captivated by the marvelous Janet McTeer as Mrs. Dashwood and adorable Lucy Boynton as Margaret (always looking out the window to see which man is riding into view). I keep wishing this adaptation would turn into the story of the little adventures Meg and Mrs. D. have while taking long walks to avoid the suitors who keep descending on Barton Cottage. A kind of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead version of Sense and Sensibility.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’ve only seen the first installment, and just about everything about it is good and accurate, yet for some reason it is not catching me emotionally the way the Ang Lee version does. For example, Elinor is presented very well and closely to the character in the book, yet I am not as engaged in her emotionally. Maybe the second installment, or a second viewing, will change this. As regards Col. Brandon and Mrs. Dashwood, I suspect that she is both too shocked and grief-stricken, and too focused on finding husbands for her daughters, to be able to share her own personality with him — she is not giving him any chance to get an idea of what she is like, both because she is too troubled to be able to, and even if she were able to, she would not want to compete with her daughters. And also, perhaps she is in a period of mourning in which socially it would not be acceptable for him to attempt to find out what she is like or to possibly form an attachment (now that I think of this, I regret not remembering whether she is always dressed in mourning-type clothes).
March 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I don’t find it at all remarkable that Brandon wouldn’t be attracted to Mrs. Dashwood. He wasn’t on the catch for a wife, Mrs. Jennings’ attempts at matchmaking notwithstanding. He was attracted to Marianne because she reminded him of Eliza, the love of his life, at the time that he fell in love with her. (In other words, as a young woman, not when she was dying in the spunging-house.) Marianne is the same age as was Eliza when Brandon “lost” her (when she married his brother). Jane Austen’s use of psychology is quite masterful there. Brandon is picking up where he left off–and getting a second chance, if not with Eliza then with someone very much like her. That’s also why I’ve never understood why anyone thinks Brandon needs sexing up. He’s got an amazing backstory, and it’s all right there in the novel for those who are paying attention. Maybe a tad melodramatic, but not so much compared to other novels written around that time that rather obviously influenced it (like Fanny Burney’s novels) and it actually contributes to the plot rather than being just a sort of sideshow.
Jen K.–don’t go spreading that sort of thing around, we’ll get a bunch of fanfics and published sequels in which Jane Bingley calls Darcy “Uncle Fitz.”
Sandra–thanks! I am glad that Janeites find AustenBlog and Molland’s to be useful resources. That has always been my intention.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
A kind of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead version of Sense and Sensibility.
LOL, only hopefully with a somewhat less “final” ending … (R & G Are Dead being my favorite play, and Tom Stoppard a great favorite generally …)
March 31st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Shockingly, I am not a fan of S&S the book, so I approach the adaptations carefully. I have always found Marianne annoying (calm down, girlfriend!) and found Edward mopey and Col. Brandon dull. I notice that the adaptations I have seen always make Edward more lively and Brandon more romantic. I don’t like messing with Jane, but it feels necessary with these two gents. I was happy to see Marianne toned down, although it seems that most comments show dislike of this actress - I think maybe because she is not really true to the Austen character. But that’s not her fault if the script and direction call for her to be less emotional. And I agree with all who liked Mrs. Dashwood - she is attractive and mature in this version, although she is still allowed to have her meltdowns.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
This “new” version is not bad, but I’ve seen it before! I seem to be more struck than most of the rest of you in the similarities between this and Emma Thompson’s adaptation. It looked like a remake, like a carbon copy to me. Regardless of what the actors were doing, it LOOKED exactly the same. The sets–the interiors of Norland and Barton Cottage–looked identical to me. The costuming looked identical. The HAIR was even identical: John and Fanny Dashwood, Elinor and Marianne, Mrs. Jennings. I did quite like Janet McTeer as Mrs. Dashwood. She’s the only one I think is doing something different than the actors in Thompson’s version did. But Sir John Weasley and Mrs. Jennings seemed to have been told to think of their loved ones being dismembered just before the cameras rolled. I don’t know why all the humor was removed from their parts. I was so glad to see Lady Middleton, but not much fun was made of her. I hope the Misses Steele and the Palmers will actually make the story funny when they roll around next week.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I forgot to ask - did anyone notice that the actress who plays Elinor sounds remarkably like Emma Thompson? I wondered if I imagined it, but I seemed to pick up on it several times last night.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I ordered the DVD from amazon.uk weeks ago. I really, really like this version. Since I watch the Austen movies with my children, I could have done without the opening scene. I wish Davies would stop trying to sex up Jane Austen. I guess he thinks poor Miss Austen was repressed and if she were alive today, she would have written in all that panting and moaning. Please.
That said, I loved the cast, particularly Hattie Morahan as Elinor. I’ve only seen David Morrissey in Our Mutual Friend, so it was nice to see him in a role where he was not a foaming-at-the-mouth, love-crazed manic. My only criticism is that he seemed too old and it sometimes felt a little creepy for me—but again, that could be the fact that I still think of him as Bradley Headstone. My husband yelling, “Mr. Weasley!!” when Sir John Middleton came on screen did take me out of the movie for a moment, but all in all, I think I liked it even more than the ’95 version, although Hugh Laurie was sorely missed. I also loved Dan Stevens as Edward. He was so much better than Hugh Grant who looked strangely constipated and confused in the ’95 movie. I also thought that this Mr. Willoughby was a little closer to the book, charming yet sinister.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Mags, you make a good point about the Eliza - Marianne connection. Never thought about it that way.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I enjoyed the new version, though it did remind me strongly of the Lee film. Since Elinor is the heart of it, to me, I did find it superior in this respect–I didn’t care for Emma T’s performance. I thought this Willoughby is kinda funny looking rather than handsome–out of costume he could easily be a geek in something else.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
The whole Marianne/Eliza thing has always bothered me a little–actually it creeps me out a bit. Reminds me of Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak in Vertigo!
My 13 year old daughter who is a big S&S95 fan watched this with me last night. While she thinks this Col Brandon is “okay” she said that this Willoughby “looks like a frog.”
Teenagers can be ruthless no matter the time period!
March 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I’ve been impatiently awaiting for this DVD to arrive from the UK so I can see it again (it’s LATE - *glowers*) and all your comments are making me even more eager to! I already posted extensive comments in another thread when it was first broadcast on the BBC, so shan’t repeat them ad nauseum, but will recap imo the best, the worst, and the simply puzzling…
THE BEST:
Elinor and Mrs Dashwood: Perfect! Elinor so very clearly - as someone so aptly described - the ‘moral compass’ of the story, and so courageous in her attempt to hide her own unhappiness. “I’m sure I could light a fire.. (brief hesitation).. if I tried”. Didn’t your heart just go out to her then? And with this Mrs Dashwood, you really suffer with this elegant gentlewoman (Gemma Jones was very good too, but somehow more motherly and, somehow, more ‘at home’ in a cottage already) who’s in a situation she’d never dreamed she’d find herself in. I just felt the desperate straits these women were suddenly confronted with - and touched by their attempts to deal with it - much more than I had in Ang Lee’s version.
Marianne & Brandon: It took a while to warm to this Marianne - Winslet was a hard act to follow - but I eventually did. I am a Rickman fan through and through, but I thought Brandon also ended up filling his shoes very well. And I love the extra little touches (some of the best are in part two) which emphasize his strong and manly, yet protective and caring (= SEX-XY!) nature. I loved it how at the very beginning there’s already a frisson of interest (if not necessarily attraction) on her side due to his genuine and perceptive comments on her playing. Combined with a few lovely scenes towards the end, their pairing seems a lot less unlikely in this version.
Marianne and Willougby: Although I did not think Willoughby was well or convincingly cast (see below), what I did appreciate was the true danger this version made you feel Marianne was in. You see him seduce one young girl at the beginning. You see Marianne utterly falling for him (although I could not really see why), but once you make a leap of faith and accept that, you’re holding on to your heart (at least I was) when they are alone at Allenham. And, this also, I found a stroke of genius. You get the feeling he may well have brought her there with another seduction in mind. But when she looks up at him after he kisses her for the first time with so much love in her eyes, and you see his reaction, you realise this is when something stirs within the reprobate’s breast that he has never felt before - THIS is when he actually ‘falls in love’ (or whatever passes for it with him) for the first time. And it’s what made him hesitate, stop, and and say, “I think I should take you home.” It establishes the fact that Willoughby is capable of caring, but, of course - as we later discover - only so much.
And I said I was just going to ‘recap’ - *grins* - ha!
Miss Steele: A character of comic genius. Didn’t necessarily miss her in Ang Lee’s version, but she’s fantastic here!
Fanny Dashwood: Although I utterly loved Harriet Walter, I really liked this one too, especially because of a completely new insight she gave me (although this is probably an Andrew Davies touch - still, she pulled it off perfectly) into why she can so easily manipulate her husband into doing exaclty what she wants. Do you remember the line she delivers after she’s beaten him down from 10,000 pounds to just helping move the furniture? As he climbs into bed, she gives this little sideways smile and flutter of the lashes and says, “blow out the candle, dear”, and you see this glaze spread over his face as he immediately hurries to do so: He’s pussy whipped! LOL!
THE WORST:
Willoughby: OK, smooth and plausible, but in an oily way - like a snake - and with a small, black, stunted air to him, to boot. I just cannot see our Marianne with her stereotypical romantic ideals falling for this. He is simply not dashing enough.
Lucy Steele: Where’s my favourite nasty, sniping, cunning, manupulative little bitch
?
The Middletons: Although I thought, er, Arthur Weasely, did a good job in the role (you did get a better feeling of why he and Brandon would be friends), I missed the vulgar but warm, open-hearted humour of both him and Mrs Jennings in this film version which was so wonderful in the last. In the book, Mrs Middleton was a cold, elegant cipher who added nothing to the proceedings. I don’t think her inclusion added much to this production either.
This is actually tied in with humour in general, which Sir John and Mrs Jennings supplied so much of in the books. There is less humour in S&S than there is in Austen’s later works anyway, but the more subdued way they are portrayed here generally left out what there WAS (aside from Miss Steele).
THE PUZZLING:
What is pastoral Barton Cottage doing on the edge of the cliffs and raging seaside. Not that I did not think it was beautiful, but I found it rather disorienting.
The ‘Aunt Fanny’ actually made me spit out some popcorn, but someone here says that the use of relationship terms was looser back then, so I’ll take that with a grain of salt until I hear otherwise.
And there really, really were, as a number of other people have remarked, quite a number of scenes that were not only played out in the same spaces, but the exact same camera angles as the Ang Lee version. Not that this really bothered me either, but it gave me a wierd sense of deja vu. As if they’d gone back to those exact same places with completely different actors and said, “OK, let’s try this again.” They are, indeed, in more ways than one ‘companion pieces’.
I can’t wait to hear what those who haven’t seen the rest yet have to say about it. For those who are still uncertain, the rest is every bit - if not more - as good as the first. Am so looking forward to your comments on the next part!
March 31st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I think there is a lot of fruitful ground for discussion with this adaptation. I’m not nearly as appalled by Dominic Cooper as many of you for the role of Willoughby. He was supposed to be very attractive to a 17 year old, but come on…look at what we fancied when we were 17 vs. what we appreciate now and I think he’s not so miscast. He has all the superficial romantic trappings.
David Morrissey looks just fine–very eligible–to my mature eye, but when I look at him with my inner 17 year old, he seems bland and chartered-accountantlike. The kind of guy your mom thinks you should date, but you want the cool rocker dude with the guitar and the beater van. But cool rocker dude has an expensive habit and no matter how much you might think he’s singing to you, he’s not going to be the guy who pays the utility bill on time, puts aside money for your children’s college education, and makes sure that you are going to have enough to live on in retirement. Brandon is that guy and that’s why S&S is a very insightful commentary on the nature of youthful vs. mature relationships.
And I agree with Kathleen–Brandon’s immediate spark of interest in her in this version did seem creepy. For me, this improved my opinion of Marianne, who I felt was reacting very naturally for a young girl, and it’s up to Brandon to prove that he sees her as the real person she is instead of an echo from his past he wants to relive in a different way.
They’ve certainly made Barton Cottage a bit too romantic on the outside, but I do think that having it a bit bleaker on the inside drives home the point about how very far down the economic realities facing Mrs. Dashwood and her girls have sunk them. It’s overkill perhaps, but it’s overkill that modern viewing audiences need in order to get the point. The Dashwood sisters in secure tenure at Norlands with their father still living would never be trifled with, but in Barton Cottage, they are flirtations if that’s how you want to treat them.
I like the shells on the strings. I think it’s symbolic of how ephemeral and cast-off and at the mercy of the tides and storms unattached women of no fortune were in those times if they had no family who would support and treat them as valued. All one could hope is that one were pretty enough that someone would desire to pick them up and give them a home.
Karen
March 31st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
One more thing to add to the discussion of why Colonel Brandon would not consider Mrs. Dashwood as wife material. One of the main reasons for marrying at that time was to produce an heir. At 40, Mrs. Dashwood is unlikely to be fertile.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Well, no.
But she’s unlikely to be fertile repeatedly.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hard for me to believe Sir John would have offered a cowshed with a horseshoe nailed over the door to his cousins. And the absurdity of the Dashwoods not having a cook. Does anyone REALLY believe that JA (or her heroines) ever cooked or did the wash?
March 31st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Sue - I agree with you. I noticed that, at least to me, this Elinor sounded like Emma T. vocally.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Note to the Editrix: I read a bit further in the PBS Teaching Guide and The Jane Austen Handbook is included among the ‘Jane Austen and Her World’ resources. You’re recommended reading in the curriculum now!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I wonder if Colonel Brandon was interested in producing an heir. If he was, it seems he would have been married before Marianne came along.
It may seem romantic to have a back story about a lost love who seems to reappear in the form of Marianne, but I am still uncomfortable with the attraction. Who would want to enter into a relationship when the first attraction is based on a memory of someone else?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 am
I’m with you, Kathleen. It’s not romantic; it’s creepy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I’m also with Kathleen in that if all he was interested in was producing an heir, he would have been married long since. But I don’t think it’s really creepy if you happen to meet someone who reminded you of someone you had once deeply loved and lost, and because of that, immediately felt attracted to them. It’s only creepy if you’re thereafter incapable of - or don’t want to separate the two (Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’ anyone?). I don’t think that was the case with Brandon and Marianne.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
…and if a guy starts suggesting you color your hair a very specific color, stay away from high places and RUN!!!!!
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
LOLOL!!!
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I’m very much a newbie here - and a newbie who until now has mostly just lurked - but I feel compelled to ask this, even if it makes me the Fanny Price (cringe) of Austenblog.
Some of the language in #36 - one word in particular - is that… normal around here? It’s the first time I’ve seen such a thing in my admittedly short time here, and I have to admit I’m a bit taken aback. I only wish to know if that sort of thing is common, because if it is, then I will respectfully - and without rancor - leave quietly and go elsewhere.
Thanks, and I hope I did not offend,
Danielle
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Oh, look, our Concern Troll is back! Hello, Concern Troll! How are you? Sorry you can’t stay. Have a nice trip!
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I think Col. Brandon is attracted to Marianne for the same reasons he’s attracted to Eliza, but that doesn’t mean that he’s attracted to Marianne because she reminds him of Eliza. I think he’s interested in Marianne and cares about her in her own right and not because he’s reliving his feelings for Eliza.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:16 am
The DVD was finally delivered yesterday and I immediately popped it in and watched the whole thing from beginning to end. Still have some quibbles, but I loved it even more this time around. I thought the Ang Lee movie was absolutely brilliant – one of my top 3 Austen adaptations. But the quality of the acting, cinematography, production values, music etc being the same, there is so much to be said in having a whole three hours to tell the story. After first seeing this one earlier this year, I watched S&S ’95 again, and its truncated nature hit me a bit more forcefully. Each has different things going for it, but I’m starting to think S&S ’07 may end up being my favourite of the two by a hair.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
One of the essentially unique and appealing aspects of Jane Austen is that the hallmark of a good person is constant awareness of the feelings others are experiencing, and the desire never to cause those feelings to be painful or embarrassing. Part I of this new “Sense and Sensibility” was on again last night and I now recognize why, as I posted above, I do find it appealing: there are several instances in which each of the good characters are profoundly insensitive to the feelings they or others are triggering in others.
The first is the abortive “non-proposal” scene. In this scene, Edward clearly creates a moment in which he must know will cause Elinor to feel she is about to receive a proposal — and yet he disappoints her. The key to all this is that Margaret is in the room when he enters, and she scoots out when it appears he has come to propose. The fact that Edward lets her leave without stopping her is what ruins it: by so doing he allows not only Elinor, but also Margaret to think a proposal is coming, and by letting Margaret think this, it is inevitable that Marianne and Mrs. Dashwood will know, because Edward has made it impossible for Elinor to decide to keep the entire encounter a secret.
In the book there is no such scene at all, and in the 1995 film the analogous scene occurs as Edward approaches Elinor in the stable, where she is saying goodby to a favorite horse. In that scene, just at the moment where he might be expected to indicate he is about to propose, he instead raises the subject of his education in Plymouth — baffling, but very clearly not the beginning of a proposal.
The second is the loss of an opportunity to show that Marianne is sensitive to the feelings of Elinor. This is done in the 1995 film at the dinner at the Middletons, in which Sir John and his mother-in-law are teasing Elinor over having a beau whose name begins with F. In the film Marianne is acutely sensitive to Elinor’s discomfort, and defuses the situation by abruptly offering play music. This scene has the slenderest foundation in the book, a mere line or two in chapter 7, but it works well in the 1995 film. The Marianne in this version never shows such concern, nor demonstrates an appropriate and mature way of protecting Elinor’s feelings, as does the Marianne in the 1995 film.
The third, and by far the worst, incident, is where the Dashwoods are at their cottage and Col. Brandon is seen coming up to the house. Marianne jumps up, drags Margaret out, and goes for a long walk, leaving Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood to cover for her. We are shown Col. Brandon sitting for what appears to be hours, waiting for Marianne to return, while Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood presumably tell white lies about her absence. Brandon is thus subjected to embarrassment and disrespect as it must be very clear to him that he is being snubbed, and the other women are all dragged into aiding this. Eventually Brandon gives up and leaves. We might expect that on Marianne’s return, Elinor would reprove her — as, in Emma, Mr. Knightly reproves Emma for her insult to Mrs. Bates. But in this version, Marianne’s twisted ankle, and the appearance of Willoughby, are tacked onto the end of this episode, so that Marianne re-enters the cottage in Willoughby’s arms, and all the focus is on the new romantic young man. Marianne’s mis-conduct to Brandon never gets reproved by Elinor or by Mrs. Dashwood, nor do either of them complain that Marianne has not only treated Brandon badly, but also themselves, by putting them in a position where they had to pretend, falsely, that her absence was merely a coincidence.
Finally, as regards the character of Edward, the version presented here (excepting the non-proposal scene) is pretty much the character Austen wrote; but I have to say, that the character as presented in the 1995 film is far superior to the one in the book and in this version. In the 1995 film, Edward is acutely aware that the Dashwood girls have lost their father and must be grieving, and he is also aware of his sister’s character and does what he can to make amends for it, by such actions (which are not in the book) of declining to take a room that is one of the girls’, and by helping to restore the spirits of Margaret.
What this version does, judging from Part I only, is take characters that are genuinely concerned for the feelings of others, and reduce them to people who pretty much just care for themselves, with perhaps an overlay of thinking that good manners must be performed because, well, that is the done thing. I hope that things improve in Part I but I doubt they will.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I left out the “not” — I meant to write, “do not find it appealing.” Sorry for the typo.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ooops, another typo — in the last sentence I meant Part II, not Part I.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I thought that Elinor was unfailingly attent to the feelings of others.
Although essentially sweet, loving and warm-hearted, this is something Marianne still has to learn. It’s part of the development of her character in the story. Although I myself DO seem to remember her leaping up and asking to play to protect Elinor at the Middletoon dinner, but I’ll have to watch it again to be sure.
As far as Edward goes - yep. I was also thinking, c’mon you git! Quit looking at her like that, drawing this out and leading her on! The ‘real’ Edward would have been more sensitive. But, ah me - those directors must create their dramatic moments, must they not? Even the ‘95 version had a bit of a tease, when he started off in the stables, “Miss Dashwood… Elinor… I must talk to you - something of great importance.” And you saw Elinor’s eyes go wide and saw her nervously pressing her lips together.
So no, it’s definitely not perfect, but in order to enjoy what is right about it, I think I’ll just assume Edward acted like that just because he’s so in love and so miserable. There are so many things he wants to say to her except goodbye, that he doesn’t know *what* to say, maybe..
April 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Thanks — FYI, I corrected a few more typos (Miss Bates not Mrs., for example) and posted the corrected comment at IMDb (internet movie database).
April 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
As far as Edward goes, I think you’ve got to give adapters a little slack, especially early on. The guy doesn’t even speak until Chapter 5–and then that’s only one little line about the Dashwoods moving to Devonshire–and then he disappears again until Chapter 16! At least in the first part of the story, we know more from his absence than we do from his presence.
When it comes to a film adaptation, it seems to me that the writer and director have to create a little dramatic tension somehow, or Edward would be a very boring screen character indeed–and Elinor’s feelings would remain a complete enigma to the audience. I think both Davies and Thompson have taken a similar approach to EF and it is fairly successful IMO. I think I even like this EF better than Hugh Grant’s.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Some interesting bits and bobs about the cast that I picked up digging through the Masterpiece Theater website:
Hattie Morahan is engaged to Blake Ritson, who played the Lord High Mayor of… er, I mean, Edmund Bertram in the latest Mansfield Park.
Lucy Boynton (Margaret Dashwood) played Posy Fossil in the recent (fantastic) adaptation of Ballet Shoes, alongside Emma Watson. I knew I recognised her from somewhere. She was brilliant in that too!
David Morrissey is married to Sigmund Freud’s great-grandaughter!
Mark Gatiss (John Dashwood) is an author and playwright as well as an actor. A lot of his recent writing has been for the television series Doctor Who.
Daisy Haggard - I knew I recognised Miss Steele from somewhere too, even if it was a teeny, tiny excerpt from a popular UK series. This is hilarious.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Oops, the link in above post leads you to a Google Search page instead of the video itself. It’s the top one (Man Cold).