Opinions of Willoughby

I have always thought that Willoughby’s confession at Cleveland is a major turning point in the novel, not so much because it showcases Willoughby’s selfishness (it does, I suppose, but considering the fact that we already know by this point that Willoughby callously abandoned Marianne, seduced and abandoned Eliza, and married a rich heiress for her money, I fail to see how the speech provides any truly new insight into that aspect of his character), but because it demonstrates that, in his own self-absorbed and childish way, he does truly regret how he has treated Marianne. Tragically for him, he is far too foolish, selfish, and weak to even begin to make amends for his behavior, but I think Austen meant for his confession of affection for Marianne to be somewhat redemptive on some level. If not, then why did she write this speech in the first place? We already know that Willoughby is a monster. The only genuinely “new” piece of information we glean from the confession is that, although Willoughby began his relationship with Marianne with the intention of simply amusing himself, he eventually developed real feelings for her and intended to propose marriage.

Obviously, a confession of love from Willoughby does not excuse his past actions. Frankly, I find it a bit absurd that Elinor is so emotionally unsettled by Willoughby’s visit that, in Chapter 45, she thinks of him with “...tenderness, a regret, rather in proportion, as she soon acknowledged within herself—to his wishes than to his merits,” and “...would not but have heard his vindication for the world, and now blamed, now acquitted herself for having judged him so harshly before.” She “for a moment wished Willoughby a widower.” What the heck? Elinor is supposed to be a very rational, thoughtful person. Why, then, does she have to practically force herself to acknowledge what should be obvious: that Willoughby is a selfish man who has done nothing to deserve Marianne’s affection? And later, in Chapter 47, she explains to Marianne that all of Willoughby’s behavior “has been grounded on selfishness.” Well, duh, Elinor.  Congratulations for reaching the same conclusion that the vast majority of readers over the age of, say, 16 reached over a dozen chapters ago.

Despite my frustration with Elinor’s uncharacteristic slowness in these chapters, I can see that Marianne feels relief upon learning that Willoughby was not simply toying with her feelings for the entirety of their relationship. For whatever reason, it seems that Austen wanted us to understand that this piece of information was essential to her emotional recovery. I think that the 1971 and 1981 adaptations convey that plot element much more accurately than the later versions, which I will discuss below.

In the 2008 adaptation, after Marianne has learned about Willoughby’s seduction and abandonment of Eliza, she seems upset and disillusioned, just as she is in the novel. However, in the scenes of her walking out in the rain at Cleveland, obviously emotionally unsettled, she looks up at the sky, and there is a flashback of her kissing Willoughby at Allenham. It seems that, by going into the storm, she is grieving and trying to mentally relive these experiences she had with Willoughby. When Willoughby shows up later at Cleveland, she seems more disgusted by him than anything else (not that I blame her, but that is quite different from the book). It isn’t particularly important to her to hear that he felt affection for her; instead, this version implies that she doesn’t fully comprehend the depth of his callousness until she hears all of his selfish justifications for his behavior. In this adaptation, that is the impetus for her decision to finally “get over” him and grow closer to Brandon.

The 1995 adaptation also changes the plot of the book, but in a different way. As in the 2008 version, Marianne in the 1995 film learns about Willoughby’s seduction of Brandon’s ward, and later walks through the rain at Cleveland in a state of emotional turmoil, lamenting her loss. In this film, though, she does this by going to look at Willoughby’s house. Since Willoughby in this version does not show up later at Cleveland, and Marianne already knows that he once planned to propose to her (since Brandon mentions this to Elinor), it seems that her problem is not so much that she needs to “get over” Willoughby as it is that she needs someone else (in this case, Brandon) to emotionally fill his place for her.

Actually, I think that that is the main point of the “rescue” scenes in both the 1995 film and the 2008 miniseries: showing Brandon beginning to replace Willoughby in Marianne’s heart. The filmmakers apparently felt that Marianne needed to be a traditional damsel in distress here, falling in love with the man who physically saves her.  In the novel, Austen describes how Marianne's change of heart happened later instead of showing it so early and in such an overdramatic manner. It's just one more reason why Marianne's emotional journey in the 1995 and 2008 adaptations feels quite a bit different from how Austen wrote it.



"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Say what you want about Willoughby but Greg Wiser certainly made an impression on Emma Thompson! 😍

Back to the subject though, and I have not actually read the book, I only have the '95 movie to go on, but from the word "go" I honestly did not like the character at all. I do feel he was a rogue, I wanted to smack him when he made fun of Colonel Brandon after he had to leave the Delaford picnic so quickly, and I partially blame his deceit of the Dashwood family for Marian's brush with death. I find it very hard to not point and laugh when the end of the film shows the wedding of Marian and Brandon, and he's just watching it all from the hilltop, looking very pissed off at life in general. Funny...on the DVD commentary, Emma Thompson said that she had gone to a showing of the film I think in Detroit, or Chicago, or one of the stereotypical "tough" cities in the US, and for that final scene of Willoughby, the entire audience stood up and cheered seeing him completely alone, on his horse, unable to really so anything but sulk and ride away.

We are Mods! We are Mods! We are, we are, we are Mods!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And even that scene at the end was made up for the movie. The book's Willoughby does not appear anywhere near Marianne's wedding.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No, I never have. Why?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Both the 2008 and 1995 adaptations expand the role of Margaret. They also turn her into a tomboy who runs outside, climbs trees, and likes to imagine herself as a man (2008) or a pirate (1995). In the book, Margaret is just an ordinary, somewhat gossipy girl who, according to Austen, has a lot of sensibility but not very much sense.

Both adaptations have Elinor saying to Margaret that sons always inherit. I don’t think that I even need to explain that this is, at best, a gross oversimplification of the inheritance laws of the period.

In both adaptations, Edward Ferrars earns Elinor’s approbation in part by playing with Margaret. In the book, he earns it without needing to demonstrate his playfulness. 😝

Both adaptations have scenes in which Edward speaks with Elinor before she and her family leave for Barton Cottage, and he can’t quite bring himself to fully explain his situation. This never happens in the book.

In both adaptations, when the Dashwoods move to Barton Cottage, they take two servants with them. In the book, they have three.

Both adaptations show that the sea (2008) or at least an estuary (1995) is right next to Barton Cottage. In the book, there is no mention of this whatsoever. Instead, Austen says that Barton is “well wooded, and rich in pasture” (Chapter 6).

When they are living at Barton Park, the Dashwoods complain about not being able to afford (1995) or barely being able to afford (2008) beef and sugar. Those lines are nowhere to be found in the novel, where the Dashwoods are actually living pretty well on their 500 pounds a year.

Colonel Brandon is musically competent in both the 2008 and 1995 adaptations, and actively encourages Marianne in her efforts, giving her sheet music to play. In the 1995 film, he also gives her a piano. While I admit that the piano gift is a particularly egregious deviation from Austen’s story, neither brand of musical knowledge has anything to do with the character of Brandon as written by Austen.

In both adaptations, Brandon invites the Dashwoods to visit his home, Delaford. In the book, he and Sir John arrange an expedition to Whitwell, which is the property of Brandon’s brother-in-law.

Both the 1995 and the 2008 versions have Brandon carrying Marianne inside from the rain. This never happens in the book.

In the book, Mrs. Jennings is a major help and comfort to Elinor during Marianne’s illness at Cleveland. This isn’t the case in the 1995 and 2008 adaptations.

This last one is a very minor criticism, but in the book, Brandon’s journey from Cleveland to Barton to fetch Mrs. Dashwood is conducted in a carriage. In the 1995 and 2008 adaptations, Brandon is shown galloping away from Cleveland on horseback. More dramatic, perhaps?

Anyway, I agree completely that the 2008 adaptation contains more of the plot of the novel than the 1995 adaptation. I am just very confused as to why John Alexander and Andrew Davies couldn’t have made it more faithful in other ways. And, for the record, I am not at all claiming that the 2008 version “copies” the 1995 version -- I’m only pointing out that it deviates from the novel in many of the same ways that the 1995 version does. In other ways, such as its inclusion of Anne Steele, Lady Middleton, and Edward’s Barton visit, it is far more faithful than the 1995. But it also makes some changes of its own, including making the Dashwoods live on 400 a year instead of 500; showing Marianne, of all people, comforting her mother both after finding out about John and Fanny's intended arrival at Norland (where she tells her mother not to cry) and after Willoughby leaves Barton for London -- I simply don't see Marianne having the self-control to be able to do this; and having Brandon warn Willoughby off at a party given by Sir John.

I watched the 2008 movie recently, and it seems like the screenwriter from 2008 took almost whole scenes from the 1995 that weren't in the book. Also, a lot of the stage direction seemed very similar and the "seaside" house was very similar. It seemed like he might have read the book, and just tacked on a few scenes from the book from the 1995 movie.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Oh, certainly, there is some measure of good in Willoughby. He's weak, expensive and weak. Austen is harder on Fanny Dashwood and Mrs. Ferrars - indeed, she is harder on Lucy Steel and Robert Ferrars than on Willoughy.

But his behavior to Marianne is simply unforgivable. His behavior to the family who has welcomed him is unforgivable. He flings himself from their presence with "I will not torment myself further," knowing full well he leaves torment for all the family in his wake. He'd have to go far, after that, for me, to redeem himself. And he does not, in fact, redeem himself. He is on the way to being a tragic character, really, as his happiness is undone by his own flaws.

Austen wrote a few near-monsters, yes, but she writes human beings, not whole-monsters. So we agree, there.

reply share

add reply

formatting help