It was, I acknowledge, a rather soaring flight of fancy . . . of course, we are not meant to see the Brandon-Marianne pairing as detrimental to either.
We seem to agree, though, that there is little change in either Marianne or Brandon - and I wholly agree with you, upon deeper reflection, that the introduction of mitigation, interest, complication to the 2008 Brandon's overweening, all-conquering magnificence must have been all Morrissey's own - I am persuaded to a moral near-certainty that Andrew Davies did not intend anything of the kind.
Yes, I found I objected to being pounded over the head at every turn with characters telling me how wonderful Colonel Brandon was. I have compared it with Arlo Guthrie's "8 x 10 color glossy photos, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, explaining what each one was," in "Alice's Restaurant."
And Mrs. Dashwood, promoting the reasonableness of the match - the only mention, in Austen's novel, at that stage, of the age difference in connection with Marianne and Brandon comes as Marianne says that
thirty-five has nothing to do with matrimony
To which Elinor responds
Perhaps, thirty-five and seventeen had better not have any thing to do with matrimony together.
Which, particularly as it is said by Elinor, lends some legitimacy to Marianne's objection to Brandon as a suitor, rather than wholly de-legitimizing her feelings, as the 2008 certainly does.
I rather think Edward
is a bit unworthy of Elinor - in the novel, and in all adaptations I have seen. He is her reward because he is the reward she wants. It is very interesting to me that Austen gives Elinor what Marianne assumed was her own particular birthright - a life-long happy marriage with her first and only love.
ETA: It occurs to me that Elinor tends to like and sympathize with, generally if not romantically, by rather sad men, crossed either in, or by, love - Edward, of course, was "crossed" early in his love for Lucy, and becomes crossed
by her. Brandon, obviously, Willoughby at his confession, even Mr. Palmer to an extent. Am I wrong, or is this a subtle pattern?
Yes, I have read that Davies comment, and come down squarely in the "ludicrous effect" camp.
I agree, and it's been much discussed, that the 1995 film does, somewhat, romanticize both Edward and Brandon - they didn't need to do much beyond casting Hugh Grant for Edward. And, really, Rickman, either - he is, and was objected to in some quarters at the time, as being far too sexy (indeed, I thought him so radiantly attractive, I looked him up to be sure he was old enough for Brandon!). But, as you note, they stray far, far less from Austen's descriptions in their demeanor - particularly Rickman. And the scenes invented for them are far more consonant with Austen's tenor.
I love the film showing (again, not telling!) Marianne's maturation, her more sober thoughtfulness, contrasted with Brandon's enlivening, his developing a touch, even, of insouciance. They grow closer, the roles change - Brandon has spent the narrative desiring Marianne's happiness - which was not in his gift. The novel tells us that Marianne's initial marital happiness is predicated upon the happiness
she gives Brandon.
Marianne's illness - the 1995 film certainly puts it more
drastically before us than the novel - but, although Marianne, at first, and Elinor and the apothecary for a greater time, are sanguine, Marianne does, indeed, become delirious, her fever is unabated for a protracted interval, which could result of itself in bran-damage, and Elinor does fear that either Marianne's life or her sanity will be ended before Mrs. Dashwood can reach them.
In the 2008 mini-series, yes, I agree that creating a growing relationship between Marianne and Brandon, which is to be ended by Marianne's (in this adaptation) wholly irrational objections to his suit (which has not been pressed at this point in any other adaptation - and Brandon's gift of flowers to Marianne while she is invalided has always looked more like "flowers to a sickroom" than courtship to me), creates problems of narrative coherence. Again we agree - Marianne looks like a ninny! Of course no rational human, not even Austen's Marianne, would act so toward someone for whom she had a "great regard." In the 1995 film, Marianne
is rude to Brandon, but only after Willoughby's advent, and only due to her mind's complete occupation with the latter. Not that that is any excuse - but it stems from a coherent character-take.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
reply
share
Raincrow11
8 years ago
Yes, Davies is extremely unsubtle about his love of Brandon. It would be entertaining to make a list of all the times that he has the other characters praising Brandon or invents scenes to highlight Brandon’s numerous virtues. Granted, I still think that a few of these scenes are true to the spirit of the novel, if not precisely the letter. For example, I have no particular problem with the emphasis on Brandon’s greenhouse peaches and strawberries. My only objections are that it seems silly to have a giant bowl of fruit in the library, and that Marianne should not be at Brandon’s house by herself. If she was wrong to tour Allenham without a chaperone, then why is it suddenly acceptable for her to spend time at Delaford with no one present but Brandon? It’s a major inconsistency.
You’re also correct that, in the book, Mrs. Dashwood and Elinor don’t begin promoting the Marianne-Brandon match until much later. And, yes, Marianne’s feelings in the 2008 version are delegitimized because the other characters (and Davies) can’t comprehend how anyone could fail to fully appreciate Brandon. Even Marianne seems to know that she is wrong (why else would Davies have her repeatedly claim that she actually likes Brandon?), but why she willfully continues being wrong, I have no idea.
As a side note, it’s interesting to me that Davies wrote Brandon this way when he has commented that he finds the character of Mr. Knightley in Emma to be rather odd, if not a little creepy, and wrote his adaptation of that novel as almost a deconstruction of the Emma-Knightley relationship (I don’t think he was successful in this, but it appears to have been his intent, regardless). I’m not sure what to make of this discrepancy.
My one major objection to Edward Ferrars is his failure to tell Elinor of his engagement to Lucy. In the 1995 film, at least, this is the only behavior of his that I feel Elinor has a right to be upset about, given that she herself points out several times that he hasn’t made her any promises. In the book, I also blame him for spending so much additional time with the Dashwoods (I’m referring to his Barton visit) and for lying about the ring Lucy gave him (I think he should either tell the truth about it or simply not wear it in front of the Dashwoods). I actually have a great deal of respect for him for his decision -- a terribly stupid and bizarre decision, by modern standards -- to stay engaged to Lucy. I think it makes him genuinely heroic, since he is well aware that he is sacrificing his own happiness for the sake of someone he doesn’t even like.
That said, if Lucy didn’t end up breaking her engagement to go after Robert Ferrars, I would almost certainly feel a lot of sympathy for her, as well. I tend to view most of her behavior toward Elinor as rather annoying but understandable. She is poor and (in the book, at least) undereducated, so she has to be extremely vigilant about protecting her own interests. Unfortunately, she also happens to be unscrupulous. 😉
You make a good point about Elinor’s sympathy for sad men. Being much less forgiving than Elinor, I personally have no sympathy for Willoughby and very little for Mr. Palmer. I assume that no explanation is needed for my dislike of the former, but in my opinion, Mr. Palmer isn’t really a good guy, either. In many ways, he’s basically a much less witty version of Mr. Bennet in P&P. Now, I like Mr. Bennet as a character and adore his sense of humor, but I’m well aware that his behavior toward his wife counts as a form of emotional abuse. Mr. Palmer’s nastiness isn’t much better, though; the biggest difference is simply that his wife takes it all in stride, laughing instead of getting upset. Yes, he sends for a doctor for Marianne when she falls ill at Cleveland and offers to stay with Elinor afterward, but since the Dashwood sisters are his guests at this time, these actions are merely common decency.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by your remark that Marianne’s happiness in the film “was not in [Brandon’s] gift,” unless you’re suggesting that Marianne becomes something of a martyr and finds her happiness in submitting to Brandon’s desires (and I very much doubt that you are). In the book, yes, Austen tells us that Marianne’s happiness in marriage (at first) is based solely on her forming Brandon’s happiness. Frankly, though, I don’t see this at all in the film, which I think presents a far more equal relationship between the two.
In fact, the film’s presentation strikes me as somewhat “modern,” in the sense that the filmmakers seem to have been influenced by certain current societal expectations which I’m pretty sure did not exist during Austen’s lifetime (the 2008 version is also guilty of this). It’s more or less expected these days that a man in a relationship will spend a lot of what I will just call “quality time” with his significant other (which explains the poetry-reading scene in the film) and that meaningful presents will be given (which explains the rather unAustenian pianoforte scene -- as is made clear in Emma, these kinds of surprise gifts weren’t exactly appropriate). In Austen’s day, men’s and women’s social spheres overlapped considerably less than they do now, and rules regarding courtship were much stricter. It’s very common, however, for adaptations of Austen’s works to use artistic license.
I think that Marianne in the film doesn’t merely accept attentions from Brandon, but genuinely enjoys them and works to protect her own happiness and emotional health. She is certainly no martyr. Even during her “Colonel Brandon... thank you” scene at Cleveland, she is relieving her own heart about as much as Brandon’s. She has a commendable but also very impulsive emotional need to thank him right at that moment (rather than waiting until proper arrangements can be made for him to visit her, as in the book and the 1971 version).
The poetry scene illustrates this, as well. Marianne enjoys Brandon’s company and goes from feeling a bit dismayed that he will be away from Barton for a while (“Away? Where?”) to seeking reassurance that he will be back soon (“You will not stay away long?”). She has matured, so she doesn’t make a fuss the way she might have done in the early scenes of the film, but she wants Brandon to spend time with her and is visibly disappointed when he can’t.
You’ll hear no disagreement from me, however, that Rickman and Grant were too appealing for the characters they played. 😀 I have never thought that Rickman looks too young in the film, though. To me, he looks like a fairly typical 40-something-year-old. Still, he gives such an excellent performance that I don’t have any problem with his age. I’ve noticed that some fans of period drama seem a bit preoccupied with the precise ages of the actors involved, but my view is that the performances matter more.
As for the reason Brandon brings flowers for Marianne in the 1995 film -- I’ve pretty much always seen it as a combination of “flowers to a sickroom” and fairly clear-cut, if tentative, courtship. Marianne’s injury provides a good excuse for the filmmakers to have Brandon give a small present, of course, but I would argue that Rickman does a very good job of looking crestfallen and embarrassed when Winslet as Marianne immediately hands the flowers off to Elinor, and I think this reaction would make considerably less sense if Brandon merely intended the flowers as a “get well” gift. After all, Marianne does verbally thank him (twice, actually -- once of her own volition, and once after Elinor reminds her to do so). He also seems rather upset to hear that Willoughby is in the country (although he has enough presence of mind to maintain his poise, for the most part), which makes a lot of sense to me if he’s thinking romantically about Marianne, but not so much if he is merely being neighborly. Your mileage may vary.
In the book, of course, Brandon doesn’t fall for Marianne at all until well after Willoughby begins to court her (in Chapter 10), so both this film and the 2008 version are inaccurate in that respect. The 2008 version just makes Brandon far too aggressive in expressing his feelings.
By the way, do any male characters in Austen’s novels ever give flowers to women? I can’t think of any, although I don’t find it too difficult to imagine Mr. Knightley bringing some to the Bateses and Jane Fairfax (he doesn’t, I’m pretty sure, but it still seems like something that would be in character for him). The closest things to it that I can think of right now are Mr. Knightley’s various small gifts (not to Emma, though) and Robert Martin (who possibly doesn’t count, since he isn’t a “gentleman”) fetching walnuts for Harriet Smith. Well, at least walnuts, like flowers, are plant parts. 😉
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share
locusnola
8 years ago
That would indeed be entertaining - I might just take that up this long winter. One could even make a drinking game out of it 😄
I believe that the principal issue taken by Elinor with the Allenham visit (despite the 2008 adaptation indicating otherwise) was the impropriety of the visit while Mrs. Smith was in residence, as Marianne had no acquaintance with her, rather than the lack of chaperone. That particular breach of propriety would not be repeated at Delaford, although, I agree that the lack of chaperone is questionable. Particularly with so very virile a Brandon, surely?
Davies' take on Mr. Knightley was odd - but his take on Frank Churchill - as a genuine villain, who has seduced Jane Fairfax before his advent in and her return to Highbury - even odder. I agree with you that his intent was not successfully achieved, and am grateful - I think that, though flawed, his, Sue Birtwistle's, and Diarmuid Lawrence's "Emma" is an excellent adaptation overall. But I wouldn't take what he says without a shaker or two of salt - I think he is a mischief-maker, as I've said.
Edward Ferrars is more appealing in the 1995 film than the novel as a character - and partly due to omission of some of the novel's circumstances you note. As much, of course, because Hugh Grant is very appealing himself, and dryly funny.
I have little sympathy for Lucy - her unscrupulousness is distasteful, to say the least, and she deliberately torments Elinor; she need not have been gratuitously cruel.
I'm with you on Willoughby; no sympathy from me, either. He loses me with the line, as he leaves the Dashwoods - "I will not torment myself further," as he leaves the Dashwood ladies all in torment. And Mr. Palmer, alike, has made his bed, which could be a LOT less comfortable than it is - he has a kind, cheerful and pretty wife - he is no Mr. Bennet.
I will answer more on Marianne and Brandon at another time, but what I meant was that he has been on the sidelines of Marianne's life - and has wanted her happiness, but has no ability to much affect it. No, I do not mean that Marianne is a martyr, nor that she does not, indeed, draw both comfort and pleasure from his company and attention - much later, nearing the end of the story. Most of the narrative, Brandon is not a factor in her interests. And I do note, and like, that the 1995 film does show us a bit more of Marianne's power, as well as her agency. We do see, clearly, that she has made Brandon radiantly happy, and that her own quite real happiness is a little soberer than his. The 2008 Marianne, with respect to Brandon, is more acted-upon than acting - she is more subordinated to him, as we have discussed.
But I am delighted to have been misunderstood, as it gives me your lovely disquisition, upon which more to come.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
reply
share
Raincrow11
8 years ago
That’s a good point about the Allenham tour. You’re right that, in the book, the main problem was that it was inappropriate for Marianne to visit while Mrs. Smith was there. Hmm... I went back to check the miniseries, and during that particular scene, Willoughby says of Mrs. Smith, “She is away on a short visit,” and then mentions chaperones to Marianne, so those lines must have been in the back of my mind when I wrote my earlier post.
Oh, yes, I remember Davies’s strange interpretation of Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax’s relationship! I can see where he got the idea that Jane was seduced, but I’m glad that it does not really come across in the Emma television film.
What I mean about Lucy is not that I do sympathize with her, but that she is in a bad situation that most likely would make me feel some sympathy for her if she were a better person and not so mercenary. Throwing off Edward and marrying Robert is simply despicable. I also agree that she is needlessly unpleasant to Elinor, who tolerates her for far longer than I think I would be able to.
As for the misunderstanding -- I am so embarrassed to have missed your point to such an extent. Sorry about that! Somehow, I was under the impression that you were referring to Marianne and Brandon at the end of the film only, not to their interactions with each other in earlier scenes. I absolutely agree that Brandon fails to contribute much to Marianne’s happiness for most of the 1995 film.
Although I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m biased, I know I got carried away, in that last post, expressing my enjoyment of the film’s version of Marianne and Brandon’s relationship. I definitely agree, though, about the stronger focus on Marianne’s agency than is seen in some versions; that’s one of my main reasons for liking it. And while I wouldn’t say that Austen completely denies Marianne any agency at the end of the novel, I do think that she treats it flippantly. Tongue-in-cheek or not, that passage feels a little depressing. The 2008 version allows Marianne more agency than that, I think, but Brandon’s dominance and power tend to overshadow it. Again, it’s as if the 2008 filmmakers (especially Davies) couldn’t fathom any reasonable person not immediately falling for this character. And on that note, proceed with caution on that drinking game. 😁
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share