Villainous behavior
Alert Janeite Diane gave us a heads-up about a recent article in the Times that had a tidbit about Sense and Sensibility 2007:
Andrew Davies is to start his BBC1 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility with a bonk. Why begin the drama, to be screened later this year, with an encounter between Willoughby and Eliza, when it is mentioned only briefly in chapter 31 of Jane Austen’s novel? Gratuitous?
Before you go ballistic, Gentle Readers, read on:
No, Davies argues. He is doing it because Willoughby is a nasty psychopath who gets the young girl pregnant, then dumps her. “I got annoyed with the film version, where Willoughby was swooned over by women. They actually found him likeable.”
He has a point!
Maybe that is because Ang Lee cast the hunky Greg Wise as Willoughby and skirted round the novel’s dark underbelly.
We would argue that Willoughby should be hunky and swoony and a real teenage dream, because he has to be for Marianne to fall in love with him.
While we have some sympathy for Mr. Davies’ contention, we would argue that to telegraph Willoughby’s villainy in the opening scene is much too early. The reader/viewer should fall in love with Willoughby. He should be swoony and played by a swoony actor. That is the way that Jane Austen plotted the story. Certainly there are hints in the text that Willoughby is not all he appears, but they are delivered with Jane Austen’s trademark subtlety. It is unfortunate that so many adaptors feel it necessary to bludgeon viewers with the Obvious Stick rather than trusting us to get it.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I think it will be all right. P&P2 showed Darcy’s search for Lydia and Wickham which we don’t find out in the book until Elizabeth finds out. I liked finding out early and watching Elizabeth’s reaction when she found out. The same is with us seeing Darcy arrive at Pemberley before Elizabeth does. We pay attention more to Elizabeth’s reaction when we have already gotten over the surprise. We are waiting to see what she does or says. I am really looking forward to this. Andrew Davies did a wonderful job on P&P2 and E3 imo so I expect this one and NA to be just as great!
February 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Well I’d rather have that scene later on, but I think it’s a good idea to include it. It’s entirely possible that it could be filmed in such a way as to leave us in some doubt as to who the young man is. And only when it comes up later will the audience realize “That was HIM?!”
Those of us who already know the story won’t get any shock value from it, but overall it could be a nice touch.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
But in P&P2, we already knew that Wickham was scum when Darcy went searching for him, so it didn’t ruin anything. If someone is unfamiliar with S&S, knowing that Willoughby is a villain from the beginning will ruin something, IMO. We’re supposed to like Willoughby–even Elinor likes him, for Pete’s sake! We’re supposed to be surprised when he leaves instead of proposing, and shocked to learn about Eliza. If we know about her from the beginning, not only is the element of surprise removed, but we’ll never like him. We’ll be yelling at Marianne to run away from him–kind of like watching a horror movie when you yell at the screen, “Don’t open that door, what are you, an idiot, don’t open it, don’t open it…!”
Having said all that, if AD can resist his desire to have people naked, I’m sure I’ll like the adaptation.
If he really wants to have unseen scenes from S&S on film, I wish he’d put the duel in the movie. Now, that’s something I’d like to see on screen!
To be fair to AD, I can understand his point about S&S2–at the end when Willoughby’s on his horse watching Marianne’s wedding from a distance, if you don’t know better you’ll feel sorry for him–and from the movie itself, you won’t know better. You have to read the scene in the book where he hopes Marianne dies instead of marrying someone else, then you’ll know better.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Good points, Amy P, and I agree with all of them. But as you said, I can definitely see the other side as well. The advantage of AD’s approach, as I see it, is that we DO realize the real danger Marianne is in. Even though Elinor likes Willoughby at first, she comes to be very concerned about the state of their relationship, which will be easier to understand if you already know that Willoughby is a cad. This way we’ll sympathize with Elinor’s sense and restraint more.
Ideally, I’d rather everyone have read the book first anyway, but for non-Austen fans I think such a scene could have a major impact in their understanding of the characters’ motivations.
As long as it’s not gratuitous. Of course.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
One of the things I really dislike about P&P2 is the fact that Andrew Davies took it upon himself to tell us certain things before Jane Austen wanted us to know them. I find that the story is changed materially. I read the book many, many times before seeing P&P2 and each time, I enjoyed the surprise. But P&P2 takes that away from us, and I don’t like it one bit.
I continue to be grateful that he had nothing to do with Persuasion. I cannot imagine how he’d sully that beautiful story.
February 7th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Having Willoughby introduced as a bad apple, is certainly a mistake and totally un-austenish. Why, her novels deal a lot with the process of getting to know people by experience! She’s creating suspense and surprise out of it; and many of her not-so-good characters are presented at first as likable and trustworthy. Jane Austen is all about “show, don’t tell”. Apparently, Andrew Davies doesn’t put as much trust in the public as she did. Sad. Though I’m very much looking forward to this adaptation, I can’t help hoping that they cut that superfluous background tale out of the film, before it hits the screen!
February 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“I continue to be grateful that he had nothing to do with Persuasion. I cannot imagine how he’d sully that beautiful story.”
Probably he’d say us from the beggining that Frederick is not thinking what Anne (want to) believes. Or he’d put a major emphasis on Mrs. Clay and Mr. Elliot scenes. I mean, it doesn’t matter the original spirit of the books? Where’s the sorprise or the speculation? I believe his modifications on P&P2 are not ‘dangerous’ and the story stills have the strong that Jane Austen puts on it, but I still don’t like his attitude. “Look him, he’s going home earlier, can you believe it?!” IT IS NOT the same as “And… what if he show up earlier than expected?”. And I suppose Willoughby’s thing is similar.
(Please forget my mistakes, my english isn’t good, but I still want to comment :D)
February 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I think the inclusion of Willoughby’s bad behaviour is a good thing - but LATER. I agree with those who think we would know too much about Willoughby too soon. And yes, we too are meant to like Willoughby, feel attracted to him … but increasingly harbour doubts. It’s all part of Austen’s brilliantly ludic construction.
Of course it will be very interesting to see the real effects of Willougby’s destructive behaviour, and it is high time Eliza was given form (and possibly voice), as she really does haunt the original text, even if we never actually meet her. But it would be best-placed as the major ‘reveal’ later on. We need to have our favourable impressions of Willoughby rapidly overturned for best impact.
February 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
You should think about it this way: who is the intended audience? Haven’t you ever noticed that most British films (adaptations, I should say) are written and shot assuming that a British audience has read Austen (Dickens, Bronte, Gaskill, etc.) at school and therefore knows the plot, whereas films for a mainly American audience tends to omit things or just gives us falsehoods because it’s assumed we don’t know any better?
February 7th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
“The stories are absolutely contemporary. They are about sex and they are about money.” -Andrew Davies
“People too often think Austen’s books are about social conventions and niceties, when they’re really about money and sex. And was Austen such an innocent?” -Richard Brooks
I am a little nonplussed by this assessment of Jane Austen’s writing being about sex and money. I mean, I get it, she was not a prude, and she was practical, but it seems to simplistic to me. Opening with Eliza’s seduction certainly brings the sex component to the fore. Anyone else?
February 7th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Oh, and he’s better not leave out the scene where Willoughby comes to the house where Marianne is sick and explains himself to Elinore. I was so mad that was left out of the Emma T version.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I would say that Jane’s books are about life–and money and sex are a part of life. There’s a fine distinction between that and “the books are about money and sex,” though.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Nat, your English is fine. I’m not sure I would use the word “dangerous” to describe what Davies did to P&P2, but I would use the word “disappointing.” I was very disappointed to see that he had spoiled the surprises for those who had never read the book.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
When I point out the differences between P&P2 and the book, my mother says “Well they improved on it.” Times like that I think she’ll never get it. Overall Davies did a good job translating the book to the screen. He took some liberties but it was much better than the 1940 version. The main points of the story stayed intact. And since it was a miniseries, they didn’t have to hack the story down to two hours.
I really hope they have the scene where Willoughby shows up while Marianne is sick. It shows just how very much we should dislike the cad.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Depending on how the scene is shot and included in the film, I think it’s a great idea. For example: if the scene serves as a prologue while the titles are playing, and is shot in such a way as to not completely make clear who the involved parties are, but is referenced later on when the whole affair between Eliza and W. is revealed to Elinor later on it would work rather well, I think, and suit the tastes of a more “average” audience without being gratuitous. We would be shocked and appalled and the truth of W. character would be better conveyed to a modern audience. I imagine that revelations regarding his character would have deeply shocked the contemporary reader, much more than it would have any 20th Century reader…
Alas, if only they made film adaptations of Ms. Austen’s books tailored exactly to the tastes of her most devout fans, we would all be well pleased. While the “dumbed down” films may have dissappointed me in the past, they’ve served me well in luring friends into reading her books… North American audiences are sadly not as familiar with her work as they could be.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I think Ina in comment 2 has a very good suggestion - include the scene upfront as a “hook” for the modern audience, but leave who it is (or why it is villainous) ambiguous.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Would a modern audience get the point about the correlation between character and the success of relationships? Can the lessons of Austen be made intelligible to an audience without dumbing them down?
February 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Well T. Chan, that depends on the audience. If you’ve ever seen Jay Walking (a frightening Jay Leno feature) you would swear the answer is yes.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I mean no. Sorry, I got mixed up there. Based on Jay Walking, American audiences need it dumbed down. It really is scary. Not only are these people allowed to vote, they’re roaming the streets too!
February 9th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
It’s not just Americans. Your average Brit doesn’t know his posterior from his elbow either. Don’t let the plummy accents fool you.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I think that’s a huge mistake to have Willoughby revealed right off the bat. Besides, i despised willoughby enough in the Sense & Sensibility 1994 after he deserted Marianne. I agree that the audience should like him at first. Plus, it would be too easy to get frustrated that Marianne isn’t figuring it out if you know from the beginning that he’s a villain.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Comment 3: “You have to read the scene in the book where he hopes Marianne dies instead of marrying someone else, then you’ll know better.”
Which scene is that? I reread the Willoughby explanation scene in Vol. III, Chapter VIII and found the exact opposite; he ponders something happening (perhaps death) to his own wife, not Marianne: “Were I even by any blessed chance at liberty again–”
The conversation with Elinor about Marianne marrying:
“I shall now go away and live in dread of one event.”
“What do you mean?”
“Your sister’s marriage.”
“You are very wrong. She can never be more lost to you than she is now.”
“But she will be gained by some one else. And if that some one should be the very he whom, of all others, I could least bear–But I will not stay to rob myself of all your compassionate good-will, by showing that where I have most injured I can least forgive.”
Elinor certainly did not interpret this to mean that Willoughby hoped Marianne would die. She thinks better of him for his explanation as far as Marianne is concerned (though not about his treatment of Eliza). At the beginning of the next chapter, Elinor reflects on “that still ardent love for Marianne” which he revealed in that conversation. I could not find anything later in the book either to suggest that Willoughby ever wished anything ill for Marianne. Even in the last chapter of the book, “he always retained that decided regard which interested him in everything that befell her, and made her his secret standard of perfection in woman”.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Yes, and he deserved to suffer pining for her for the rest of his life. The rat.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Mags, I totally agree. Willoughby has to first appear ‘almost perfect’ to Marianne, her family AND the audience. We all have to first fall in love with this handsome and charming young man and THEN find out later in the story (either through flashbacks as Col. Brandon unfolds the story to Elinor) that he is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Showing all this to the audience as the story opens is very anti-climactic.
Just like Wickham, we all first have to like Willoughby and then find out he is a rogue a little later on.