MovieChat Forums > Sense and Sensibility (1996) Discussion > If you loved THIS FILM...

If you loved THIS FILM...

posted 11 years ago by webrowser
256 replies | jump to latest

Please feel free to discuss it here! I for one loved it! It's one of my favorite Austen-based films. (I've pretty much watched them all) I found the settings, costumes, and landscapes breath-taking. Simply gorgeous. I never tire of watching it - I even own it on blu-ray. I also thought ALL the actors did superb jobs with their characters. I found myself pulled into their struggles, relating to them, cheering for some, booing others (lol), and enjoying their journeys! Top-notch IMO.

If you spend any time at all on this board you'll see several very negative posts and threads from certain other poster(s) that do not like this film, along with all the reasons it is an epic failure, and how it does not faithfully represent the book. Unfortunately, there can also be some fairly rude responses to perfectly pleasant posts that you wouldn't expect.

Please, if you enjoyed this film, don't let the negative posts dissuade you from your enjoyment, and sharing your positive thoughts. It's OK to love it!! There are many other posters, myself included, who LOVE this film (regardless of the differences with the book) and welcome fun, friendly, and enjoyable discussion.

Thankfully, not everyone on this board is interested in debating, or bashing positive opinions.

If you find a particular poster rude, or irritating - just mouse over the "flag" button at the top right-hand corner of one of their posts. A drop down menu will appear. Click "ignore user" and you'll no longer see the content of any of their posts - all you will see is "Post Ignored - This message has been hidden because the poster is in your ignore list: (user name)". You'll still be able see everyone else's posts - even if they reply to a hidden one. It's an easy way to avoid unpleasant interactions.

So, does anyone who enjoyed this film have any thoughts to share? Please discuss, and more importantly, have fun!

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Hello- I absolutely love this movie, have loved it ever since it premiered on our German screens ages ago.

I think it`s one of the few movies that I would call absolutely "perfect", meaning that there isn´t a single perfomance, scene or tiny little bit in it that I would change, given the chance.

I have read all of Jane Austen`s novels (it seems to be a given that one has to state one`s relations to the novels on these threads) and enjoyed most of them, but I always thought that while being great in depicting female characters, she was a bit weak in depicting males. And to my mind, that "weakness" was most obvious in Sense and Sensibility- that`s why I enjoy the movie and Emma Thompson`s script so very much, I think she really fleshed out those male characters. In fact, although it might be heresy to say that, I actually think that she improved on the original novel. But that`s only my opinion and of course, everyone is entitled to his/ hers.

Oh, and for the ongoing debate about Alan Rickman`s take on Col. Brandon- I adored him, found him very emotional (though in a not overly showy manner- the face says it all) and not at all cold. I was about Marianne Dashwood`s age when I first saw the movie and I had no problem at all in accepting that she married the Col at the end of the movie. I was just wondering why she fell for Willoughby at all when there was this gorgeous, interesting man standing next to him.

I`m actually
It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Hi wimseymanic, welcome! Thanks so much for posting.

I'm so glad you enjoyed the movie as much as I did. That's interesting that you found her depiction of males to be weak. Next time I read one of her novels, I'll see if I can pick up on what you noticed. Thanks for the intriguing insight.

I too think Emma Thompson did a good job of fleshing out her characters. I imagine that's very challenging for the limited amount of time in a film.

I'm glad to hear that you also adored Alan Rickman's portrayal of Col. Brandon. I loved him in the role, and enjoyed the understated manner of his character. His quiet maturity, his reserve, was a perfect foil for Willoughby's impetuousness. It compared in the much the same way Elinor's reserve was contrasted with Marianne's impulsiveness IMO. Very much Sense vs. Sensibility.

Thank you again for your thoughts, and I'm glad you felt like sharing.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

It`s interesting, when you think about it, that you almost always have this contrast between Sense and Sensibility in her books- Darcy compared to Wickham, Knightley compared to Churchill, the Tilney brothers... I guess it must be due to the time she was writing in, coming hard upon the Age of Enlightenment.
As for Rickman`s portrayal- I always thought that he was a perfect example of Sensibility controlled by Sense, in a word, the ideal man. Rather like Mr Knightley. Do you know, by the way, which "hero" Jane Austen liked most? Reading your post and thinking about it made me wonder which one she herself liked best. One knows about her love for Emma and Elizabeth, but I can`t recall any comment on the men. Will have to search for it- otherwise I guess I might see it as a tiny proof for my thesis that she didn`t really care about her male characters that much.

Thank you very much for opening up this post- hope it will work the way you wanted it to work!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Agree with you on Elinor- she is a very passionate woman indeed! I found her internal struggles much more moving than the more obvious external ones of Marianne. That isn`t so say that hers are less believable, but when I read the book, I always thought of her with the sort of pity that you have for someone very young who finds out for the first time that not all heroes on a white horse are truly heroes when off the horse... whereas Elinor`s suffering seemed the kind that we all of us might go through in our life, repeatedly, because it isn`t just Edward that she looses, he symbolizes so much more, the kind of life that she would have had if her father hadn`t died or the estate hadn`t been entailed like that. So her pain at losing him is something that I can relate to very much as it seems to stand in a bigger context- at least for me it does.

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

It`s interesting, when you think about it, that you almost always have this contrast between Sense and Sensibility in her books- Darcy compared to Wickham, Knightley compared to Churchill, the Tilney brothers

So very true! I'd never thought of that. Good point. Also between Elizabeth/Jane and Lydia in P&P. Lord, Lydia. I wanted to shake her silly 90% of the time!! Almost a bit of a moral lesson - restraint and wisdom being the best choice over impulsiveness and folly.

Do you know, by the way, which "hero" Jane Austen liked most?

I do not, that would be interesting to know. I know my personal favorite is Mr. Darcy, and my personal "heroine" is Elizabeth Bennett. No surprise as P&P is my favorite novel and the 1995 film (with Firth & Ehle) is my favorite Austen adaptation. How about yours?

Thank you very much for opening up this post- hope it will work the way you wanted it to work!

You're very welcome! I thought this board needed a friendly, welcoming thread for those who enjoyed this film. I hoped to create this thread for cordial discussion, minus the threat of intense debate that may not be wanted or welcome. I know I'm certainly not a fan of debate, intense or otherwise!! I thought there might be others here that feel the same way. I hope that anyone here, who merely wishes to have pleasant discussions, will feel comfortable posting their enjoyment of this film here as well.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Hm, difficult to say which Austen male I like best... I have to confess that it actually is a bit influenced by the movie or tv adaptions that I have seen!
Purely going by the books, it would have to be either Henry Tilney or Mr Knightley, but obviously, one cannot have this discussion without at least mentioning Mr Darcy- he has become such a cultural icon and a yardstick by which all other "heroes" of fiction are to be measured.
As for favourite books and heroines, here I have to agree with you, it`s P&P and Lizzie Bennet without a shadow of a doubt, they`re both IMO Jane Austen`s finest creations. My favourite version of P&P is actually the one from 1980 as I find that it has my favourite Lizzie and Mr Darcy. I like the 1995 version as well, but tend to view it less and less as I find Mrs Bennet and Lydia too over the top for my liking. Apart from that, I have a bit of a problem with Colin Firth in general... I think he is a fine actor and truly deserved his Academy Award for "The King´s Speech", but whenenever I see him, I suspect he has trouble with constipation and so I don`t really buy into his pride and arrogance.
As for the movie version of 2005, I really like Keira, but thought that the Mr Darcy there suffered less from pride than from an almost crippling sort of shyness. And although I`m not a book purist, I thought that they took at least two very big liberties with the original book which I found hard to forgive.

As for the rather more superficial liking according to the movie or tv versions, I just adore the Mr Knightley of both Jeremy Northam and Johnny Lee Miller! But I guess my favourite will always be Alan Rickman`s Col Brandon as I fell pretty heavily for him back in 1995...!

I quite like debating, but it depends on what people understand by debating- when someone says he likes an actor`s performance and another buts in, telling the first one that he cannot like the actor`s performance, then that`s not debating, but plainly silly because one simply cannot debate personal preferences. I have a problem with Colin Firth, but it`s perfectly fine by me that he represents the perfect Mr Darcy for countless other people. Besides, I personally think that I can never have too many different versions of my favourite novels- each one brings something different to my appreciation of the novel and that`s fine. And a great excuse for spending hours in front of the tv with a book in my hand!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

I have to confess that it actually is a bit influenced by the movie or tv adaptions that I have seen!

That is very much the same for me wimseymaniac! My favortie Knightly is Jeremy Northam, hands down. I pretty much love JN in ANYTHING. My favorite Tilney is JJ Field. And I'm also a fan of Hinds' Wentworth.

as I find Mrs Bennet and Lydia too over the top for my liking

Oh yes, they play silly to the hilt, in the 1995 version, there's no doubt about that! I preferred Mrs. Bennet and Lydia in the Keira Knightly version of P&P. But the 1995 P&P was the first Austen adaptation I ever saw, so that is probably why it's my favorite and so close to my heart.

I have a bit of a problem with Colin Firth in general... I think he is a fine actor and truly deserved his Academy Award for "The King´s Speech", but whenenever I see him, I suspect he has trouble with constipation and so I don`t really buy into his pride and arrogance.

Haha! The constipation comment made me laugh. Poor Colin! LOL I fell in love with Colin Firth the first time I watched the 1995 version P&P. I will happily watch the man read aloud from a phone book!

As for the movie version of 2005, I really like Keira, but thought that the Mr Darcy there suffered less from pride than from an almost crippling sort of shyness.

The first time I viewed that film, I went in with the thinking that I might not like it because of how much I loved the 1995 version. I'm happy to say that I was pleasantly surprise at how much I enjoyed it. I still prefer Firth's Darcy, and probably always will - but though I found McFadden's portrayal of Darcy different, I still felt it was well-done. I enjoyed the 2005 film enough to add it to my Austen blu-ray collection.

I just adore the Mr Knightley of both Jeremy Northam and Johnny Lee Miller!

Same here! Though I'm partial to Northam's Knightly. I loved JLM's portrayal of Edmund in Mansfield Park. Then again, I love him in Elementary too. He's a fine actor.

I quite like debating, but it depends on what people understand by debating-

I'm glad you enjoy debate, I know lots of people do. I know that many people can remain very civil in debate. I'm not one of those people. I've never liked debate. In my experience, it usually becomes a scenario where one person thinks their opinion or choice is superior to another person's different opinion or choice. And in most cases, neither person will change their position regardless of how much back and forth goes on. So in my mind it's a pointless waste of time, and I tend to get irritated with the entire thing. That's why I make every effort to avoid getting into debates. I also don't enjoy watching or listening to debates that get heated...it becomes too much like fighting and it grates on my nerves. Certainly not my personal idea of entertainment.

when someone says he likes an actor`s performance and another buts in, telling the first one that he cannot like the actor`s performance, then that`s not debating, but plainly silly because one simply cannot debate personal preferences.

YES!! Thank you, thank you!! That is EXACTLY how I feel. That's like a person saying their favorite color is pink, and another person coming along and saying "How can you possibly like PINK??!! Pink is such an insipid and boring color!" Uh huh.

One person's love of pink is no one else's business or concern. Hammering on someone about their personal preference (of pink OR of actors/films) is pretty obnoxious. A better way to protest disagreement IMO - Don't wear pink, don't paint your house pink. Don't watch the actors/films you dislike - no one is forcing anyone to do either.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Glad we agree on such a lot of things... my favourite Tilney is JJ Feild as well. As for Jeremy Northam- I`d gladly watch him read the London telephone book any time... Have you ever seen him in "The Winslow Boy"? It`s probably my favourite movie of his- and it doesn`t have Gwyneth Paltrow who quite annoyed me in "Emma"!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

As for Jeremy Northam- I`d gladly watch him read the London telephone book any time... Have you ever seen him in "The Winslow Boy"?

I'd gladly watch him along w/you. I've not seen "The Winslow Boy", thank you for recc'ing it. I'll have to see if I can get it on Netflix.

I've read where other's weren't fond of Gwyneth Paltrow's portrayal of Emma. I didn't have any problem with it, that version of Emma is my favorite...though I did wonder why they choose an American actress for an English role.

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

Oh I've seen the Winslow Boy and JN is really good. I believe it's a remake or just a different version. I've seen too versions for sure.

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

There`s an old version from 1948, starring Robert Donat. It`s very good, too- I like both versions equally.

Did you see JJ Feild in "Poirot- Murder on the Nile?" Very good!He was also fine in "To the Ends of the Earth" with Benedict Cumberbatch!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

"To the Ends of the Earth" with Benedict Cumberbatch!

JJ Feild & Benedict Cumberbatch? I'm intrigued!! Another rec I need to check out. I'm on a roll.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Can`t really say why she annoys me that much... I think her beautiful (well... some of the hairdos in "Emma" were definitely not very flattering on her) and quite like her as an actress. I loved "Emma" when I first saw it, but repeated viewing made me quite wary of Gwyneth and I now prefer Romola Garai as Emma.

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Wimsey,

I also enjoyed the Romola Garai 2009 version of Emma. It's a beautiful adaptation! Plus, Jonny Lee Miller!

I think as far as hairdos go in the Austen adaptations that I've seen...Sally Hawkins, as Anne Elliot, in 2007 Persuasion was the worst IMO. I don't know if it's because she may have thinner textured hair, but it was scraped back so severely...it looked almost painful to me, and it was quite unflattering. But the worst of it, it looked *greasy* most of the time. Yuck! Honestly, hair that isn't clean has always grossed me out, so it was very difficult for me to overlook that - even though she did a fine job in the role. Other than that one sticking point, I enjoyed that version.

My favorite version of Persuasion is the 1995 version with Amanda Root as Anne Elliot. I love how she looks almost mousy in the beginning, and as she goes through the film, she begins to blossom - and her capability, kindness, intelligence and beauty shines through. Wonderful!

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

Aw I love Mr. Tilney (JJ Feild) too. How could I forget him. But I think it's just JJ I love, lol.
"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

I think it's just JJ I love, lol.

He's very pretty. Makes him so easy to watch. lol

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Interesting that you join Colonel Brandon and Mr, Knightley. I have just been doing a compare and contrast of three versions of "Emma," and have been thinking what a marvelous Mr. Knightley Alan Rickman would have made. Have you ever seen him on stage? I saw him with Lindsay Duncan in "Private Lives," on Broadway, a dozen years ago, and I can still close my eyes and see (and hear!) much of it.

Yes, he was extraordinary as Colonel Brandon. Did you read Emma Thompson's production diary? They wavered on how to present "Beth's" story - flashback, etc., but decided that Rickman's simply telling it would be the most effective. I wholly agree.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Oh dear- I`m quite envious to hear that you actually saw Alan Rickman live on stage! You see, I`m from Germany so when I want to see my favourite actors live, I rely on their performing in London as Broadway`s way too expensive for me. Still missed the last production of "Private Lives", though, but would have loved to have seen it as it starred one of my faves, Toby Stephens. I`m not at all astonished to hear that you can still hear Rickman`s marvellous voice in your inner ear- it`s one of the main attractions about the man for me!

Yep, come to think of it, he might have made a fine Knightley, but then again... you know, I always think that there is something quite melancholical, mysterious about Alan Rickman that fits Brandon quite well, but that I don`t see in Knightley at all. He`s such a down-to-earth person! Which of the Knightleys do you like best? I guess Jeremy Northam wins by a hair`s breath for me because he`s such a gorgeous man and he has this wicked grin... sigh. Mark Strong is totally out of the question for me as this version of "Emma" nearly put me off the novel for all ages- I was so amazed to see him in other movies and actually like him quite a lot!

And I did read Emma Thompson`s diary- hilarious reading! It also made me realize how much thinking and effort has gone into the movie which is why I`m quite annoyed with people saying that they made a mess of the movie because they didn`t understand the novel, didn`t care about it... I think the script they finally came up with is the most logical to my thinking, the scene with Brandon talking about Beth makes total sense. It not only tells her story, but also chacterizes the Col and why he acts the way he does... much more effective than a flashback, I completely agree with you on that!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Ah, I wish I could see actors in London!

We are not going to agree, I think, about various Messrs. Knightley, I think, because, while I have seen three version of "Emma," (both 1996 versions and the 2009 mini series,), I think the Kate Beckinsale is the truest to Austen, and most respects the source material.

I do think you are, for the most part, right about Alan Rickman as Mr. Knightley, but I think his performance in any role he takes would be interesting to watch, and his gravitas, if not his every quality, would be highly appropriate.

Actually, I rate Jeremy Northam, Mark Strong, and Jonny Lee Miller about the same, although they are all very different. I think all are, in fact, excellent takes - but not perfect. Northam is over-genial - Austen's Mr. Knightley would NEVER have passed Emma's injuring an animal with a joke. I don't die at his feet, and I die at Jeremy Northam's feet always, even in the awful "Singing Detective." Strong is a bit too much the stern headmaster figure, although his profound affection for Emma is quite clear. Jonny Lee Miller is a bit citified in his nervous intelligence of manner. The first and last takes emphasize the romance, but I do think Emma's own happiness is at last in rejection of romance - romance is what she spins in her head for Harriet, and her projections about Jane Fairfax and Mr. Dixon. Emma finds her heart's desire in family, stability and continuity - she loves the man who changes the daily workings of her life the least, but affects her inner life the most profoundly.

The Gwwyneth Paltrow version is too much a frothy romantic comedy for fidelity to Austen (this is a witty and satirical novel, as all Austen is, but "Emma" is really a serious story with elements of humour, not a comedy - again, like much of Austen).

The 2009 is highly illuminating as an exploration of character and theme, but not a faithful adaptation, despite Romola Garai's brilliancy, which shines past her excesses.

I am in the process right now of re-reading the novel and visiting (or re-visiting) all the renditions and writing up "compare and contrast" pieces for pleasure and discussion. I will admit the 1972 mini-series, which I've just begun watching, is very heavy going, and it took three abortive attempts before I was able to sit through the Paltrow; its pretty artifice does not engage me and I find it an effort to keep awake through the end if I watch it in the evening.

Thank you for your input!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

On a slightly different subject, I am curious to read your thoughts about some of my recent messages to you in one of the other threads on this board. []

Sorry - the short explanation is that I am at present so wrapped up in my "Emma" project that I cannot change horses to go in-depth on anything else without destructive consequences to my focus - although a few minor posts here and there provide welcome refreshment.

I do find that even flawed adaptations/interpretations can sometimes be illuminating, FWIW.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

I do find that even flawed adaptations/interpretations can sometimes be illuminating, FWIW.

I love that you said this. I'm a very "glass half-full" sort of person as well in most cases.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Insofar as I can give my sensibilities expression, I find I extend leeway to those productions that I feel were made with respect for the tenor of the original work, its themes, its essential meaning; I suspect Sassafras feels at least somewhat the same. Where we differ, I imagine, is the ways in which we determine that such essential respect is present, or not, and in the particular areas each of us requires.

Not a case of who is right and who is wrong, merely a difference of sensibility and emphasis.

I love the 1995 S&S; for me, it does meet that criterion, for her, it does not.

While I would agree that it would be much preferable for the director to have read the book, I do note Ang Lee's ability to point up both the beauty and the absurdity of the physical expressions of courtesy. As one of Shaw's characters notes in "Misalliance," of accepted social forms and norms, they are like a corset; they provide a support, a framework, even if they are constricting.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Not a case of who is right and who is wrong, merely a difference of sensibility and emphasis.

I completely agree, it is a matter of personal perspective and tastes, and therefore deserving of respect, and courtesy, as you have so gracefully demonstrated. Thank you.

I do note Ang Lee's ability to point up both the beauty and the absurdity of the physical expressions of courtesy

I found his POV regarding this interesting as well, even if he did not read the book.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I appear, in my brevity, to have given at least one poster (not you, obviously, and via PM) the impression that I was praising Lee for making his actors and their characters ridiculous, so I have been pondering how to expand.

The ceremonial physical courtesies of the time are absurd to modern eyes in their unnaturalness, their seeming un-necessity. They are beautiful in the grace and measure of the ceremony itself, and beautiful also in utility.

We see, time and again in this film, how taking the time to observe these courtesies gives those in distress a moment - and, in the physical motion, a touchstone - to compose themselves, to anchor themselves to sanity and civility, before actually conducting a conversation which will be painful, awkward, etc.

Those who take these moments don't go adrift. Only Marianne, whom we see hold these courtesies cheaply when she is in extreme emotion, loses her mooring.

While Austen never explicitly says any of this, I do not believe it an offense in Lee, but an insight, to point it up. He acknowledges the modern view, and provides a different vantage as well - and very nicely - in the Austenian sense, IMO.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

How funny to go back and see this older post from before we knew each other locus. Months and many discussions have passed between us, and I feel such a kinship with you now.

You're going to laugh, but I'm watching S&S 95 RIGHT NOW. For the second time in a week.

I'm going to bask in glory of Rickman's Brandon to my heart's content.

I adore this film!

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

It has been wonderful to discover so many, shall I say, explanatory details in the film which support our initial emotional responses - the "oh, see this here - that is why I felt "X,"" with you and summeriris.

One of the great things the internet generally, and these discussions, offers, is the occasional genuine connection one can be lucky enough to discover and establish. I am so grateful to have made one of these with you.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

It has been wonderful to discover so many, shall I say, explanatory details in the film which support our initial emotional responses

Yes!! It's amazing to me how much I've learned - and how many small things I'd not noticed about the film, until you, summer, and I began to brainstorm a bit together. It's been wonderful, and so much fun!

the occasional genuine connection one can be lucky enough to discover and establish. I am so grateful to have made one of these with you.

Thank you. I am also very glad to have made a new friend in you too.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Hi locus,

I know you're busy, but I wanted to put these thoughts down while they were fresh in my mind. Please don't feel any concern about responding unless you're inclined and have the time.

I watched the film with Emma Thompson's commentary last night for the first time. How fun to hear the various tidbits, and other details regarding different scenes.

One thing I found very interesting was her reference to Elinor being thrust into having to bear the mantel of family responsibility after her father died.

That was a topic that I'd discussed in my contrasts thread on the 2008 board. And I think I'd seen you mention something about it as well somewhere on the boards.

It's clear that Elinor is the "sense" to Marianne's "sensibility". And despite feeling emotions as deeply as Marianne or anyone else, she had an appropriate application of sense to keep them well-tempered from the start. However, I think her emotional control had to be increased beyond her normal standard because of the familial responsibility she had to bear after her father's death. Her mother's nature is more like Marianne's, and therefore she was not able to have the stoicism necessary to be the family anchor. Elinor's natural ways of sense better equipped her to handle the stressful situations with a seemingly more calm and controlled exterior - and therefore her family naturally turned to her for support and guidance. I think that she did not trust her family to handle a showing of her emotional struggles, not because she found them unworthy of her trust, but because she felt she needed to be strong for them. After all, if the person that is looked at as the guiding force panics, or loses control - it creates even more distress, and throws everything into chaos. This responsibility to be the steadfast anchor of the Dashwood family keeps Elinor from being able to reveal her inner turmoil to her family - and when Lucy presses her into secrecy, that's one more reason she cannot reveal her heartache and deep disappointment.

I truly feel for Elinor, because she felt very alone and had no one to comfort her, as she often comforted others. What a toll it must have taken on her!

Once she knew her family was more secure in their new circumstances, and once Lucy and Edward's secret engagement was revealed - she was finally able to release all those tightly controlled emotions in her confession to Marianne. Only then could she let her family see how unhappy she was, and how difficult it had been for her.

Then when she's made aware that Edward did not marry Lucy and is indeed in love with her, she's able to release all the love she'd felt for him, but until that point, had to keep tightly contained.

Those releases allowed Elinor to return to her natural balance of sense & sensibility IMO - without being afraid of distressing her family in an already stressful situation. And in that way, she was able to take a few steps towards sensibility, and to once again trust her family with her inner feelings. Elinor's journey back to a balanced state of sense and sensibility was not so much a lesson learned as it was the familial burden being shifted off her shoulders. Whereas Marianne had a long journey on the road to maturity and understanding the wisdom of sense. A major factor of her journey was the hard lesson of how foolish and selfish she'd been in allowing her sensibilities to be her only guide.

And I think S&S 95 did an outstanding job of showing us how these two sisters came to understand themselves, and each other so well! It's a beautiful coming of age film - that I think many people can deeply relate to, despite being set in Austen's time. Truly wonderful IMO!

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I must try to find a DVD - I bought an electronic copy of the film, but i doesn't have Thompson's commentary, and I'd love to hear that.

Yes, indeed, you mentioned, and Sass and I did discourse upon, Elinor's assumption, of necessity, of the role of "father" to the family. This absolutely does interfere with her normal and natural relations with her family, because it is an abnormal and unnatural position for a daughter to be placed in. I don't actually think "stoicism" is apt, because that philosophy requires full internal acceptance of, and alignment with, any and all happenstance. Elinor may try for this, but it isn't in her, her natural feelings are too strong. What the situation does, though, IMO, is artificially inflate, even distort, her reserve, distrust of emotionality, as she sees in both her mother and Marianne tendencies that can undermine their already precarious position, financially and, in the case of Marianne's indiscretion with Willoughby, socially.

Yes, the family does come to turn to her, look to her, rely on her - and partly this is because she, wittingly or not, sets this up. You know how it is - take on a job once, and that job is not only yours in perpetuity, but the next job of that sort will be yours, as well. Everyone knows it - as we have noted, the whole world applies to Elinor first of the family, on serious matters.

And of course, yes, Lucy's securing of Elinor's promise of secrecy adds a terrible new element of estrangement from those to whom Elinor should, naturally, be able to turn in confidence. This may include herself, in fact. Elinor may well be unable to allow herself to really feel her own feelings, fully, though she is not deceived as to what they are.

She does, as you say, open up more after the return to Barton Cottage from Cleveland, and this does have to do with the family being safe from losing Marianne to death, safe from Willoughby, safe from reputational ruin (at least, in the novel and this adaptation, no Brandon interview with Marianne in bed to wreck that), and that she need no longer keep Lucy's secret.

I agree that the prior outbursts are salutary - Elinor has been pushed, twice, to extreme emotional expression. The first time to Marianne, after the initial brouhaha over Edward's engagement, and then, at what she fears is Marianne's deathbed. The facade has cracked, irreparably. Elinor has had to acknowledge - to herself - her own inadequacy to wholly cope with the entire world, alone, and must trust herself to trust in her family - and in their love for her, which she has taken as given, but not - quite - fully honored.

Which does set up the third outpouring, at Edward's safety from Lucy, and unmarried state. She breaks before he declares his love, though she must know that is his purpose in coming to them.

ETA: I just found another parallel! Issue has been taken with Elinor's sobbing uncontrollably without leaving the room, but this sets up an instance of Marianne as the one who guides the family - she takes the lead in shepherding them out of the room. Which also harks back to Marianne dragging Margaret out for a walk to leave Elinor in privacy with their mother to assimilate her disappointment when Edward has sent, not brought, the Norland atlas to Margaret. But in this second instance, Marianne guides Mrs. Dashwood, and this is enormously significant. Mrs. Dashwood will not change, but Marianne has changed.

Elinor's balance must be, and is, restored; Marianne must, and does, create a balance for herself that has never existed; though she has all the tools and materials to build it, it's a far greater job, and journey, as you note.

I agree the 1995 film does far and away the best job of making Elinor and Marianne the central "love story." We see the love, the disharmony, the widening breach, the crises of emotion and health, and, at last, the reconciliation into harmonious, happy natural and confiding love. All the necessary dramatic elements.

I do not tire of saying I think this not only a great adaptation, but a great film in its own right.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Elinor is not sobbing when Edward comes upon her listening to Marianne, she is weeping, yes, but there is not a sob to be seen or heard. She is shedding quiet tears for her late father, and her assumption of the family burdens has only just begun. It is not by any stretch of the word describable as an outburst.

When Edward confirms that he is not married, Marianne gives a slight movement of her head, the family rises, and leaves. I am afraid you miss this film's subtleties quite often.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Not everyone finds subtlety obscure. To some it speaks with eloquence. You have made it quite apparent you have neither taste not appreciation for subtlety; I am sure you are not alone, but there are those of us who appreciate the combined richness and economy And Lee brings. It's perfectly clear to me, and others.

Of course Mrs. Dashwood couldn't possibly know Marianne's meaning, could she? She's only raised the girl and lived with her for about 18 years, after all. If I could, I would expect her mother to. Sheesh.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Sass, I do not believe the 1995 "Persuasion is a subtle film. Merriam Webster online provides these as the first two definitions of "subtle:"

: hard to notice or see

: clever and indirect

The 1995 "Persuasion" is understated, yes, and adapted with remarkable - and admirable - sensitivity and delicacy. However, like most adaptations of Austen's work, it is presented with immediate clarity; it is straightforward, nothing is indirect. Among feature-length adaptations of Austen, it is probably the most closely faithful in detail to the novel it transposes (despite the elimination of any mention of "poor" Dick Musgrove).

The beauty of this film, IMO, is particularly in its simplicity and clarity, informed by the sensitivity and delicacy of approach. It is a great adaptation, and a lovely film.

The 1995 S&S, on the other hand is subtle, by the above definitions. The indirect contrasts and parallels, not immediately obvious to the viewer, bypass the rational brain, and speak to our direct perceptions. We analyze later, and find "that is why I feel this."

You may feel that the simpler, clearer approach is more appropriate, possibly more respectful. While I would not agree, I can admire and enjoy both approaches, when done with skill and, especially, love, which I believe applies to both these 1995 films.

I also think there is not a wrong note struck by any actor in either production. As much as I love the ITV 1996 "Emma," I do not believe it is as fine a work as either the 1995 S&S or the 1995 "Persuasion."

I go back to the 1995 "Persuasion," and love it every time. But I do not find much I didn't notice on first viewing. This is not a criticism - I both love and admire the film.

As a stand-alone work of art, though, I think Ang Lee's direction of Thompson's screenplay, with its rich, intricate tapestry of truly subtle detail, each carefully thought out, sensitively realized, all supporting the over-arc, which the repeat viewer, if alert, may tease - or winkle - out eventually, is a greater achievement.

I also think it a great adaptation; however, there is a case to be made that the 1995 "Persuasion" is an even better one. I won't go further into that; I acknowledge it, and am done.

I strongly suspect I am more than twice your age. I am several years past 50; it is very possible I have been an adult longer than you have been alive. Generally speaking, even self-focused adults are sensitive and observing, where they love, if they are not true narcissists, which I do not believe Mrs. Dashwood ever is made to appear to be. It just happens.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Apparently many people do not understand what "subtle" really means. There is a very sad, longstanding trend toward careless and uninformed use of the English language. Words, more and more, are used by people who apparently share Humpty Dumpty's approach - that any word they use means what they mean it to mean.

Since the 1995 S&S grossed over $134 million in theatrical release on a budget of $16 million (which of course does not account for sales of VHS tapes, DVDs, and electronic purchases, nor rental figures), and garnered mountains of awards and critical accolades, I suspect those disliking it are in the minority, and many of those perhaps prefer having things spelled out for them, rather than being content to welcome a work's conveying its essence through their psycho-spiritual pores.

Many love the film's depth of subtlety. Numerous articles and essays by Austen scholars have praised it highly.

You don't have to like it, no-one says you do. But I would think it would be simple honesty on your part to acknowledge that the film, by empirical measures, has proved highly successful, not only with the public in general, but with a variety of audiences who have earned the right to have their opinions given weight.

ETA: As I have stated before, there are well-informed readers who feel Austen's novel makes Willoughby too sympathetic, and feel Marianne's end story is not the one they would prefer. The celebrated author Margaret Drabble is one. I disagree with Ms. Drabble on this (I also prefer her sister's novels to hers), but I don't have those feelings about the film's take, which IMO is very much Austen's, either.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

As to the 2005 P&P, it made less profit, on a larger budget, than the 1995 S&S; the 1995 "Persuasion" had limited theatrical release, and therefore should not be brought into play.

There will always be an audience for silly, Harlequinized romances, whatever the source material.

Just as so many who think of Jane Austen as a more "high-brow" version of Georgette Heyer love the 2008 S&S, with its forcing to center stage a Brandon-Marianne romance owing more to Barbara Cartland than Jane Austen.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

And not to nitpick I suspect that the 2008 box office was not adjusted for inflation. And I agree with you, there always will be an audience for the less subtle. Look at the figures for 'The Tranformer' movies. It makes one want to weep for the male youth of the world.

My mother introduced me to Georgette Heyer and I really love her novels. They are like the lightest and fluffiest of meringues. Not an easy thing to bake, I know. And I think her 'An Infamous Army' one of the best novels on Waterloo I ever read. It has more depth and historical accuracy than you would think. But I agree entirely with your assessment of 2008 S&S being more Barbara Cartland than Jane Austen.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Surely it would be the 1995 S&S box office which would need to be inflation-adjusted to match the 2005 P&P's? Which would increase, not decrease the difference, no?

It's a very long time since I read Georgette Heyer - my mother (a very literate lady) read her, too (she also introduced me to the "Harry Potter" books, though, alas, she didn't live to read the third). And I didn't mean to disparage Heyer - but I do think there are those who don't differentiate - much - between Heyer and Austen, and the two are very different authors. One is very light, as you say, (though not at all badly written, I agree), one much less so, IMO, and the story arcs are constructed very differently, as well, if memory serves. Austen is much more complex. I meant to suggest that for some, "period" books are necessarily romances first.

I make rather decent meringues . . . you're right, not the easiest, I wish mine were superb, perhaps someday.

Cartland is another matter, which was why I used that reference where I did, not Heyer. I don't think the "Cartland" applies to the entire 2008 S&S, but to the Brandon-Marianne romance, it does quite well.

Madly dashing hero, older, with a P-A-S-T, initially repellent as a suitor to the youthful heroine, etc., etc., by the end she's mad for him. Formulaic, so tiresome as applied to Austen's individuated people.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Did I mistakenly reply to you? I apologize. I thought I was responding to summeriris.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I think you must have replied to Sassy. Anyway I looked up the Box Office for this film. The budget was set at $16 million which adjusted for inflation makes it in today's figures $27 million. The Box Office was;
US
$43 million 1995, adjusted for inflation $72.5 million
Overseas
$91,400,000 1995, adjusted for inflation $142 million
Rental income approx $19 million. It's safe to say it made it's money back and then some.

The BBC has not released the figures for profits on S&S 2008, typical of them.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

So fond of your posts you make them twice?

1. Ang Lee was a director who had a body of work combining family interactions with social satire; Joe Wright had never directed a feature film.

2. P&P 2005 was wholly unrestricted by period consistency; S&S 1995 was obsessively focused on maintaining that consistency; costuming, dialogue, and comportment were deliberately off in the P&P, but adhered to in the S&S.

3. The P&P 2005 stresses romantic aspects everywhere it can - Austen scholars have noted it is more like Emily Bronte than Austen. S&S 1995, Austen-like, retains a tarter approach.

If you want a parallel with the 2005 P&P, it should be the 1996 Douglas McGrath "Emma;" that is a much better analogue than S&S 1995.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I think you are right - S&S 1995 was, speaking of profit margin, a very successful film.

To compare with the 2008, we'd have to confine ourselves to rental figures, I think; and the greater length the 1995 has been available would color that. I suspect, though, that ultimately, the 2008 will be more or less a footnote, treasured by some fans of the minutia of Austenian adaptations, as most of the 1970s and 1980s adaptive minis are. I do think the 1995 P&P will stand, in the end, above all the other Austen minis to date.

As will the 1995 S&S film stand.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I sincerely believe that comparing P&P 2005 with S&S 1995 is really a waste of time. P&P 2005 took more liberties with the story than S&S 1995 did. And of course S&S 1995 was a masterpiece. P&P 2005 was entertaining enough in it's own way but it wasn't Austen really.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

1. It is a pity that Joe Wright simply did not really get family interactions as well as Ang Lee. I think Wright proved this with 'Atonement' which again is a family drama. That film simply had a great deal of 'lack' in it. But Ang Lee proved that he is a genius when it comes to films that have at their core explorations of relationships. Think of the English language films Lee has directed, most of them is a work of towering genius. And even the ones that did not garner bouquets of nominations and awards have moments of profound beauty.

2. The costuming in P&P 2005 was a distraction. The costumes ran the gamut between Georgian and Regency. Now it's all very well saying that of course peopl just didn't throw out old clothes because fashion changed, they didn't. The old clothes got packed up and sent to the attic. This was a big failing in the film because it caused a disconnect with the period. Also he made the Bennet household too much like a farming household. The Bennetts would never have had pigs running in and out of their kitchen.

3. Your third point made me laugh. Yes, the romance did overflow a lot. This happens when the scriptwriters forget Austen's wit and comedy. She really isn't that romantic. She is concerned about love being the best basis for a happy marriage, but paper hearts and flowers don't come into to it much for her.

1996 'Emma' is a very romantic film, but I don't think it is as sickly sweet, over the top romantic as Wright's P&P or 2008 S&S for instance. But I would have liked a harder edge to it.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

he made the Bennet household too much like a farming household. The Bennetts would never have had pigs running in and out of their kitchen.

I've always thought that scene was strange too, summer. I never understood the purpose of showing a pig in the house! Gross!

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I think it was to show how earthy the household was, Brenda Blethyn's very pointed look at certain parts of the animals anatomy was there for a purpose.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

You have admitted in the past that you do not know, with any certainty, what lines in the 2005 P&P were actually penned by Thompson, with the exception of the sometimes there, sometimes not, coda.

It is also impossible to tell what strictures she was working under, tweaking a line or two in another's screenplay, for a film she was otherwise wholly uninvolved with.

We do know that Thompson eschewed both fee and screen credit, so it is reasonable to suppose she either contributed so little she felt it was not merited, or was so dissatisfied with the result she wished no association with the project.

Yes, the 1995 S&S was meant to make Austen appealing to a wide audience. Unlike the 2005 P&P, it managed to do so without rewriting Austen's viewpoint to sugarcoated Emily Bronte.

ETA: It has struck my memory that the Paltrow "Emma" was marketed with the tag line, "If you liked "Clueless," you'll love "Emma."" And of course used many sight gags referent to a more "modern" comedic sensibility than Austen's - of course, McGrath had been a "Saturday Night Live" writer.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

The emphasis of Mrs. Bennet's attention on the pig's, uh...parts, was really strange to me. It stuck out like sore thumb. I remember thinking, why in the heck is she staring, and was a close up really necessary?! Gah. Weird scene!!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

And S&S 1995 has multiple closeups of horse manure (in the scenes when Marianne, Elinor, Mrs. Jennings, and Lucy are making their way to the London assembly, and later when Mrs. Jennings is running to her house).

So freaking what. I was talking to Summer about what bothered me about the pig. Which, of course has no bearing on S&S 95, but once again if there is any possible way for you to inject a negative observation of S&S 95 you're going to find a way to shoe horn it in. Watch it, you may get a sprain from the effort.

but why is it always singled out as "inappropriate" when these equally weird and rather improper scenes in other adaptations are given a pass?

Because 1.) I don't think it's unrealistic to see horse manure where horses are walking. I've been to a few rodeo parades. 2.) Lydia running around in her underwear between her bedroom, and her sister's bedroom in her own house makes sense to me. Mr. Collins shouldn't have been up there in the first place, but he's a buffoon, so I guess that explains it sufficiently for me. 3.) Darcy in a wet shirt? I don't give a flying fig if it was necessary or not, I liked it.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

I don't intend to start a fight. I just feel that it's a bit hypocritical to bash P&P 2005 - or any other adaptations - in a thread that was started specifically as a place to praise S&S 1995.

Then you need to back off. I'm not BASHING. I simply DON'T LIKE THE SCENE WITH THE PIG. I happen to really like P&P 2005, so don't you dare say I'm being hypocritical or bashing it.

ETA: I see you've deleted all your comments Sass. Despite that, I'm going to clarify things for the record here.

You accused me of bashing P&P 2005, and that is an absolutely untrue, and unfounded claim. I mentioned that I dislike the pig scene, ONE SCENE, in P&P 2005. ONE. And you call that "bashing". That is completely ridiculous, and a completely FALSE accusation. You should get your facts straight, because you have no idea what you're talking about. I really like P&P 2005, and I always have. I gave it a 9 star rating, for heavens sake, and I've commented on my enjoyment of it on it's message board. So much for accusing me of "bashing" it.

You also said it was hypocritical of me to "bash" another adaptation (WHICH I'VE NEVER DONE). I'll tell you what's hypocritical. You, Sass, The Queen Bee of Bashing, accusing me of bashing. That's the EPITOME of hypocrisy.

For you to compare your REPEATED, NUMEROUS, scathing comments on virtually every freaking aspect of S&S 95 to my comment about disliking ONE SCENE in P&P 2005 is LAUGHABLE.

I don't appreciate S&S 95 being bashed, and that's exactly what you've done here on this board. Time, and time again. I find it incredibly unnecessary, and incredibly excessive. It's long past the point of merely expressing "dislike", it's practically become a smear campaign. You frequently inject negative comments regarding S&S 95 into discussions that don't involve you, or S&S 95. It gives the distinct appearance of being done purposefully to offend, and annoy. Not a very flattering impression.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I think it meant something all right, but what it meant is a bit obscure. I just laughed and then scratched my head.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Madly dashing hero, older, with a P-A-S-T, initially repellent as a suitor to the youthful heroine, etc., etc., by the end she's mad for him. Formulaic, so tiresome as applied to Austen's individuated people.

Dear locus, I must confess, I fall for this scenario every. single. time. Guilty, guilty, guilty! Think Han Solo and Princess Leia. Oh, did my little teen heart swoon. Bad boy, meets girl, they dislike each other, but can't help but be attracted to each other. I'm hooked. Then if you throw in redemption for the bad boy, I'm beyond hooked...I'm OBSESSED. Case in point? Jamie/Brienne in Game of Thrones. Lord help me, I follow their story line like a deranged stalker. I love it, no matter how many times I see it or read it. I'm so easy! Haha

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Question, with Jamie raping Cersei at their son's tomb, is he really wholly redeemed, yet? I admit to having a soft spot for the Jamie/Brienne thing, but that's because I like Brienne, and would like her to be happy . . .

I confess, I almost stopped watching this season (done it before, actually), but then with my husband here, I eventually watched the season finale, and cursed them for making it great. I'll be back, like Charlie Brown with the football . . .

I'll confess, I prefer a gentled older hero - wounded, interesting - Rickman, not Morrissey. I could never really feel Morrissey's Brandon as having truly suffered damage from his early tragedy. This, to me, is necessary as corollary to Marianne's damage at Willoughby's hands, and her own.

Dull world it would be, if we all saw everything the same, no?

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Question, with Jamie raping Cersei at their son's tomb, is he really wholly redeemed, yet?

I've not seen that scene yet - I'm watching via Netflix discs so I don't get to see the seasons till way after they've aired - but I've read about it. I am incensed about that scene as are many other fans. That scene is consensual in the book, so they completely changed it for the show. And yes...it throws a huge wrench in Jaime's redemption arc. So incredibly frustrating. Still, I'm chomping at the bit to see that season. I hope it's out soon!!

I couldn't stand Jaime at first. But when Brienne's influence made him want to be a better man, I thawed. When he saw Brienne's amazing value when no one else did, I melted like proverbial butter. I desperately want for him to be redeemed, and to love Brienne. I want him to deserve her. And I root for Brienne so, so much. She truly is pure in heart. Loyal, strong, courageous, intelligent, and so deeply wounded. She deserves to be happy, to be loved, to be treasured. Oh, I could wax poetic about them for days. Don't encourage me.

I'll confess, I prefer a gentled older hero - wounded, interesting - Rickman, not Morrissey.

Now when it comes to Brandon, I'm right there with you. Morrisey's Brandon just didn't fit my vision of him. I'm so drawn to Rickman's Brandon, and will always think of him as perfect.

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Frankly, I cannot see Jamie as redeemed until I see him suffer, in his own soul, until it wracks him with pain, that he carelessly, casually, attempted to murder a child while a guest under the roof of that child's father.

Yes, he saw Brienne's worth (and, of course, as you say, her worth is great). The Lannisters are a clever, canny, bunch. They can tell gold from dross. And I actually like Jamie. To a point. Except for Tyrion, and possibly Tommyn, if he stays on his current track, they're a bad lot. Jamie's the least bad, of he rest, and potentially redeemable, but, as I say, I don't forgive him for crippling Bran Stark.

I like fey, blood-lusting Arya (she's plenty of excuse for what she's done thus far, at least), I rather like Sansa at present, though she was a drip to begin with. I like Bran, of course, I rather liked the Stark clan generally. Now they are all but gone, and I don't like it. I liked Prince Oberyn. I like Tyrion best, the clever, sensitive, outcast oddity, maybe he can save the world.

Oh, Alan Rickman's Brandon is one of my enshrined heroes. It's an odd bunch - includes Peter O'Toole's Eli Cross in "The Stuntman." But I don't think I've ever seen a more truly romantic male performance than Rickman's Brandon. Sigh, melt.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Frankly, I cannot see Jamie as redeemed until I see him suffer, in his own soul, until it wracks him with pain, that he carelessly, casually, attempted to murder a child while a guest under the roof of that child's father.

I completely understand. In my mind, he too became a cripple when he lost his sword hand. I guess I felt that he reaped what he sowed there. I know that the main reason I have such a soft spot for him, is that he fits my favorite "bad boy with possible redemption" formula. Jaime's redemption is definitely a work in progress. I hope he achieves it, and in some glorious sin-absolving way. So many of my "bad boy heroes" don't quite reach redemption. But I still love them, and avidly follow their journeys. I'm a sucker for that story-line every time. Gisbourne in BBC's Robin Hood series, Han in Star Wars, Sawyer in Lost, Thornton in North & South. Yep, such a sucker!

I like Tyrion best, the clever, sensitive, outcast oddity, maybe he can save the world.

I adore Tyrion. He is amazing. Dinklage does such a wonderful job with that role. Such a talent.

Oh, I meant to tell you...I watched The Fall. You were right, it is a visually gorgeous film! Absolutely stunning to the eye. I can tell it was a labor of love. And I adore Lee Pace. His interactions with the little girl were so sweet, and real. Thank you for recommending it.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

Before reading some of the posts over here, it never even occurred to me to doubt Marianne’s love for Brandon. I have always thought it’s obvious that she grows to love him. How romantic is it to sit out-of-doors, reading poetry together? She looks like she’s really pondering the verses he reads, making new discoveries in her mind and heart. She seeks an emotional connection with Brandon on her own volition, and if she seems to have changed, it’s because she is no longer acting like a silly, lovesick young girl. The piano -- and the accompanying song on the theme of love -- is a generous, thoughtful present, something a woman typically appreciates from her S.O. Brandon is not the handsomest of the male characters, but his loyalty, compassion, and gentleness make him attractive. He and Marianne develop a warm relationship and don’t need to throw themselves at each other to show affection.

Both of the main romances in this film are beautifully restrained, achingly so at times. I’ve watched the deleted Edward/Elinor kiss scene on the DVD version, and I am so thankful someone had the sense to edit it out; it’s goofy, pointless, and completely at odds with the tone of the film. As it is, this movie captures the propriety of the era better than most films depicting this period, which don’t always leave much to the imagination -- the nigh-unbearable gooeyness of the Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice being but one example.

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

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Hi Raincrow11. Welcome!

I have always thought it’s obvious that she grows to love him. How romantic is it to sit out-of-doors, reading poetry together? She looks like she’s really pondering the verses he reads, making new discoveries in her mind and heart. She seeks an emotional connection with Brandon on her own volition, and if she seems to have changed, it’s because she is no longer acting like a silly, lovesick young girl.

I've always felt the same exact way. I love that scene, and to me it perfectly conveys her growing attachment to him. The moments they share in that scene indicate, IMO, a quiet understanding of one another, and a deep friendship developing between them. It's very intimate, IMO, and they never even touch each other. So lovely.

Both of the main romances in this film are beautifully restrained, achingly so at times.

Yes, very much so. Especially Edward and Elinor. That scene where she shares Brandon's offer of his parish to Edward. So close physically, yet forever (at that point) parted. I love the emphasis on that structured formality, when it's clear so many emotions are under the surface.

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Jamie losing his sword-hand serves as cosmic payback, true. But for redemption, I need to see genuine repentance. And an attempt at atonement, though Bran cannot be made whole, alas.

I do understand the appeal of a dashing villain - I always thought Basil Rathbone hotter than Errol Flynn - I like a fine profile, and, of course, I find good acting sexy. And, then, there is the writing - Jean Kerr wrote, long ago, of her little son being cast in a "Garden of Eden" school play as Adam, announcing it sadly, with "but the Snake has all the lines!"

I never thought Han Solo had real bad-boy chops, he was just a bit rebellious. Actually, I fell for Obi-Wan. Old or not, Guinness was magnificent, so much more authority and grace than the youngsters. Yes, I am odd . . .

I am so glad you enjoyed "The Fall," I thought your eye would appreciate the sheer beauty of the film. And I do agree, Lee Pace was wonderful, as was little Catinca Untaru. Loved the end! Like you, I prefer a happy ending, given my druthers. And yes, the love that went into it is palpable. Which makes it wholesome and nourishing to the soul, as the artistic achievement does also, from another spiritual food-group. Thank you for watching on my recommendation, and sharing your impressions.

I must read, and see, "North and South;" there are at least two versions - Patrick Stewart is Thornton in an earlier one, and we have summeriris' praise of David Morrissey in the more recent. So many treats ahead, so little time . . .

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Jamie losing his sword-hand serves as cosmic payback, true. But for redemption, I need to see genuine repentance. And an attempt at atonement, though Bran cannot be made whole, alas.

I completely understand. I hope we both get to see genuine repentance, and a real attempt at atonement from Jaime. That would be wonderful.

Actually, I fell for Obi-Wan. Old or not, Guinness was magnificent, so much more authority and grace than the youngsters. Yes, I am odd . . .

You're not odd, Jedi powers are hot!

I must read, and see, "North and South;" there are at least two versions - Patrick Stewart is Thornton in an earlier one, and we have summeriris' praise of David Morrissey in the more recent.

I think that Morrissey is in "Our Mutual Friend" - I have that in my Netflix queue on Summer's recommendation - unfortunately there seems to be a long wait for it. The more recent version of North & South that you mentioned actually has Richard Armitage as Thornton. He is amazing in the role, IMO. I think you'll really enjoy it. It's a wonderful adaptation. It's beautifully shot, with wonderful actors, and lovely writing. I hope you are able to see it soon. I've not seen Patrick Stewart's version.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

May the Force be with you . . .

And, valar morghulis, just for kicks!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

The Force is strong in this one...

Ha! Valar dohaeris.

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

I really, really must read the books - I'm such a believer in being acquainted with the original source.

I have to admit, I was almost mortally distressed by the Red Wedding, and again by the destruction of Prince Oberyn. That was the first male character I liked almost without reserve since Robb Stark's slaughter.

Villains are so often charming, even swoony, but good men make a better life (see S&S!). And how clever that Ang Lee brought an actor to the pivotal role of Colonel Brandon already accomplished at playing compelling villains, and brought out such sweetness, such pervasive, understated yet profound emotion.

What do you think of the new Daario Naharis? I have very mixed feelings - the actor is wonderful, as a rule, I loved him in "Treme," "Nashville," and "Orphan Black," but I find him a bit modern in manner here - his voice is also pleasant, but undeveloped in terms of classic training. Not quite in keeping with the other actors and overall style. I do think he's dead sexy. But I'm still not sure he's quite right here.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

I've read the books, and they're wonderful - but so vast in scope. I don't know how he'll manage to wrap all those story lines up!

The Red Wedding was terrible. So upsetting. Very difficult to watch!

Villains are so often charming, even swoony, but good men make a better life (see S&S!). And how clever that Ang Lee brought an actor to the pivotal role of Colonel Brandon already accomplished at playing compelling villains, and brought out such sweetness, such pervasive, understated yet profound emotion.

So very true! Villains can make for great entertainment on the screen or on the page, but in real life - the good guys are definitely the way to go. The fact that Rickman can play such a great range is a testament to his immense talent. He brought such a tenderness, and depth to his role of Brandon. It will always be one of my favorites.

What do you think of the new Daario Naharis?

I've not seen him yet! I'm hopelessly behind as I wait for Netflix to release season 4. *sigh* I hope I like him. I certainly liked the first one, he was gorgeous.

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

I don't know how he'll manage to wrap all those story lines up!

In a pinch, there's always the Shakespeare comedy formula for endings- "Jack shall have Jill, nought shall go ill, the man shall have his mare again, and all will be well." It's tried and true, and satisfying to the audience . . .

If you liked the first Daario much, you may not like the new - each has what the other lacks. The first was very stylish and striking, but not much of an actor, the second a very largely wasted good actor, and also hot (much more so, for me, but mostly due to having seen him elsewhere) but lacking in the period-epic style.

ETA: He has one unequivocal swoon moment, though - and Daario is greatly rewarded.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

ETA: He has one unequivocal swoon moment, though - and Daario is greatly rewarded.

Oooo. I'm looking forward to seeing that.

I think I'm going to burst in anticipation of seeing GoT season 4!! Hopefully, it will be released soon!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

Next March I think. A long, long time to wait.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Locus checked, it won't be released until the end of Feb. But because Locus is an absolute dear, she has offered to share her dvr'ed eps with me. Before long, I'll be caught up, thanks to her exceptional kindness!

I'll tell you what else is a long wait, Our Mutual Friend! It's been in my Netflix queue for a many weeks now, and it's status still reads "long wait". I don't know what the hold up is, but they've sent several discs ahead of it already. I may end up having to buy it, just so I can see it.

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

You can buy an electronic version at Amazon, but it's $9.99 for SD, no HD available.

You may do better to buy the DVD in HD. I bought it, too, and plan to watch it very soon.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

I found the DVD of Our Mutual Friend on Amazon for only $7.49! Great price, I've decided to go ahead and buy it.

Plus my copy of Austenland, and the Lizzie Bennet Diaries arrived today. I've got a lot of fun watching to do! Wheee!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I'm so sorry to hear of the holdup, it`s a pain. It's such a good series. David Morrissey was chilling in it. He is such a good actor, S&S 2008 was a real waste of his talents.

Like you I am really looking forward to GOT, but in the meantime Downton started last Sunday. Strictly starts on Saturday. I'll be in TV heaven. All my favourite shows in the run up to Christmas and afterwards GOT.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

I found the DVD of Our Mutual Friend on Amazon for a steal, and ordered it tonight. No more waiting on Netflix. I'll probably have it by Sat or Mon.

I adore Downton! I'm looking forward to seeing where the story heads after the last finale. I'm going to have plenty to keep me occupied as far as entertainment goes. Just today I received the Lizzie Bennet Diaries, and Austenland. I've already seen Austenland - it was quite fun IMO! (Locus just watched it on my rec, and she really enjoyed it too), but the Diaries will be a totally new one for me - it's quite long apparently...5 discs in the set. It was highly rec'ed by a good friend of mine, so I'm looking forward to it.

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I watch 'Our Mutual Friend' on YouTube as my ISP package includes unlimited usage. I watched 'Austenland' on Netflix direct streaming. If I ever get the ISP service working correctly again I will be very happy. My new modem should be arriving soon. I really didn't fancy 'The Lizzie Bennet Diaries' but I did get 'The Georgiana Darcy Diaries' for my Kindle at the great price of £00.00. I quite like that price and must check out the Free Offers for the Kindle more often.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

Hi Raincrow11. Welcome!

Hello!

I think you're right. Taking things slowly, building a solid relationship on the basis of friendship and camaraderie, is exactly what Marianne needs, especially after the disastrous relationship with Willoughby. The scene shows Brandon and Marianne’s affectionate friendship, and the verse Brandon reads -- along with Marianne’s immediate reaction to it -- hints very strongly of something more: “For there is nothing lost that may be found if sought.” What exactly is it that Marianne feels she has lost, and what might she be seeking? As the final word of the stanza leaves his lips, she turns her head and her gaze fixes on him. Isn't that also what the verses of the song she learns -- “Love in a subtle dream disguised has both my heart and me surprised,” etc. -- are meant to evoke? At the wedding, she looks so happy and confident; it's Brandon who looks nervous for a fleeting moment as they leave the church. Typical man, eh? Some things never change.

Although I think Marianne is more compelling, Elinor and Edward are interesting characters in their own right. I never was a huge Hugh Grant fan, but the man is a better actor than he’s given credit for. I like that his Edward is anything but a traditional romantic hero. He’s no dashing social butterfly, nor a brooding, smoldering Byronic type; instead, he’s thoughtful, awkward, and painfully shy.

Elinor is less interesting than her sister because she is firmly in that category of Jane Austen characters that seem just a little too well behaved: Anne Elliot, Fanny Price, Jane Bennet, etc. Yep, I really love a Marianne Dashwood or an Emma Woodhouse -- even when she is behaving obnoxiously (I value well-defined characterization over how likeable a character would be in real life). Elinor simply changes less than Marianne, has a less interesting arc, even though she, too, is a very well-drawn character.

I had another chance to watch the miniseries adaptation recently, and while I think it's enjoyable, I don't understand the arguments on this board that Marianne and Brandon have "better chemistry" in that version. They don't. They have more scenes together, sure, but it's a longer film. Does the script have Marianne say "I love him, Elinor" and ramble on about how happy she is because the audience wouldn't be able to figure it out otherwise? I kid. But I could figure it out without those lines. Emma Thompson's character never says she loves Edward, yet it's obvious that she does, right? Not everything needs to be spelled out with Kate Winslet's Marianne, either. Simply stating it wouldn't make it any truer, and Marianne's declarations can be horribly inaccurate; for example, before she learns better, she says that Willoughby loved her as she loved him -- but that can't be right. She would never have left a penniless man she loved for someone with, say, twenty-five hundred pounds a year

Funnily enough, my dear younger sister, who is pursuing a B.A. in theatre, is a bigger fan of this movie than even I am, but she actually thinks the Brandon poetry scene is not very Austen-esque: "I know they had to write Brandon and Marianne doing something together, but this is cheesy." Different strokes.

So close physically, yet forever (at that point) parted. I love the emphasis on that structured formality, when it's clear so many emotions are under the surface.

Oh, yes, that's nicely stated. I am also in awe of how well this highly formal approach works in Sense and Sensibility; one consequence is that close-ups are fairly scarce because they just aren't essential here. In film, it is wise to dispense with anything extraneous to the main story. A few years ago, I watched an interview with Alan Rickman where he discussed his work in this movie and Ang Lee’s “less is more” philosophy. Lee's approach to directing sounds like something Rickman -- and most everyone else -- struggled with initially but gradually came to admire. On that note, sorry for the long message; I was too lazy to make it shorter.

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

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Raincrow11,

the verse Brandon reads -- along with Marianne’s immediate reaction to it -- hints very strongly of something more: “For there is nothing lost that may be found if sought.” What exactly is it that Marianne feels she has lost, and what might she be seeking? As the final word of the stanza leaves his lips, she turns her head and her gaze fixes on him. Isn't that also what the verses of the song she learns -- “Love in a subtle dream disguised has both my heart and me surprised,” etc. -- are meant to evoke?

Exactly! I've always felt that last line Brandon reads meant that Marianne thinks she's lost love, and happiness in love - but that she's in the process of seeking, and finding them both in Brandon. I didn't realize that was a line in the song. What a perfect description of how Marianne slowly grows to care for Brandon - subtle dream disguised - only to lead to whole hearted love that she thought she'd lost with Willoughby - a very pleasant surprise for
herself and her heart. Thank you for sharing!

I had another chance to watch the miniseries adaptation recently, and while I think it's enjoyable, I don't understand the arguments on this board that Marianne and Brandon have "better chemistry" in that version.

I found it enjoyable as well, but S&S 95 will always be my favorite. I've always thought that Winslet and Rickman had wonderful chemistry. I simply don't find any aspect of this film lacking. It's truly a gem IMO.

Funnily enough, my dear younger sister, who is pursuing a B.A. in theatre, is a bigger fan of this movie than even I am, but she actually thinks the Brandon poetry scene is not very Austen-esque:

Oh how funny! I'm so glad she enjoyed the film, though she didn't care for that scene. I have to admit - it's one of my favorites though! It's funny how that can work.

Oh, yes, that's nicely stated.

Thank you, you're so kind.

I am also in awe of how well this highly formal approach works in Sense and Sensibility; one consequence is that close-ups are fairly scarce because they just aren't essential here. In film, it is wise to dispense with anything extraneous to the main story.

Yes, Lee has a knack for letting the entirety of the setting tell the story. He loved to frame shots from a distance so we, the audience, could see everything that was happening. Those fleeting facial expressions or glances in response to something else being said or going on. I love how he did that, I think that's one reason, among many, that I enjoy watching this film so much. There's so much there, but it's mostly unspoken. Brilliant.

Thank you again for your thoughts, and insights! I'm so pleased you returned to the discussion.

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I enjoyed Downton on Sunday, my lips are sealed as to what happened. You will enjoy 'Our Mutual Friend', it's such a compelling story. Lots and lots of characters to keep track of and two romances for the price of one. I love Dickens' plots, if not the amount of words you have to get through when reading him. I think that's why I think a good adaptation of his work is great.

I saw 'Austenland', I will confess I found it rather bland, but it could be I watched it late at night. Bad idea for me. I've never read The Diaries', I'll check them out for the Kindle. I'm not fond of what I call The FanFiction Rip-Offs' though. OK, I'll confess...by and large I detest them. It's one of the reasons I can't bring myself to like Jackson'd fil;ms based on 'The Hobbit'. There is a little too much Jackson and not enough Tolkien for me.

I had lunch in 'The Eagle and Child' pub in Oxford, I can't tell you how thrilling that was. I sat in the little nook where The Inklings met and ate a great lunch. I was dancing on air when I came out. Bath was different, there it was a great cream tea in The Pump Room and then a stroll to Gay St, no waters though. I loved the experience but not enough to try the Waters. The Circus waas just as beautiful as I imagined as was the Cresent and we saw so many people in costume. I rather felt left out because my costume was never really started. I could have worn my bonnet, they're easy to make.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Sass,

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries was very highly rated.

My friend, who teaches writing at a university, raved about it. She's the reason I bought the discs. It will be interesting to see how I like the vlog (video blog) format.

I have yet to see Austenland, and to be honest, it does not look like the sort of film that I would care for. I have been proven wrong before, however.

It's not meant to be approached with a serious mind, that's for certain. But I felt the two main characters - Keri Russell and JJ Feild had wonderful chemistry. It was fun to watch them together, and I enjoyed the silliness and fluff too. It made me laugh, and it kept me entertained, and that's more than enough reason to watch it again - so I bought the blu ray on Amazon.

Locus was leery of my description of "fluffy-silliness" but reconsidered when I mentioned Russell and Feild - she truly enjoyed their work in it - solid acting she said. I was happy to hear she liked it.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

My sister really does love the film. I’m convinced that she loves Brandon’s reading, too, and it’s only her purist tendencies that compel her to call it a misstep. Of the two of us, I’m generally the one more lenient toward artistic license. That wasn’t always true; as a teenager and LotR fan, I eagerly anticipated the The Two Towers and The Return of the King and had a great time seeing them in theaters, but I couldn't help feeling that some of the changes Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens had made were an outright betrayal of Tolkien. For whatever reason, The Fellowship of the Ring was always less of an affront to my purist sensibilities.

Anyway, I’ve long since made peace with the changes and Jackson’s vision. The LotR movies are among my all-time favorite films. Alas, 👅 Jackson’s work on The Hobbit has disappointed me so far, but I think my frustration has less to do with the liberal helping of creative license than it does with the films' significant plot and pacing issues. I feel that they are artistically inferior to LotR. As a standalone film, Sense and Sensibility is one heck of a work of art, in spite of its few missteps.

The words we clearly hear Marianne sing fit my interpretation, if I say so myself, but I have no idea if it is what Ang Lee or Patrick Doyle intended. I also don’t know whether the complete poem is supposed to be significant, or only the few verses that the writers chose to emphasize. Whatever the case, Kate Winslet's sensitive performance never fails to impress me here.

My sister and I both enjoy Alan Rickman’s Colonel Brandon. He’s attentive and caring, and looks great on that lovely black horse. 😀 We are Alan Rickman fans, though that sometimes leads to slightly awkward emotions; as my sister said once, “It sounds so weird that I have a crush on an old man.” Well, no, maybe not -- it’s Alan Rickman. Appreciation of that voice is probably encoded in your DNA.

Huh... I wonder what was wrong with the original emoticons. Bad move, IMDb.

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

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Funnily enough, my dear younger sister, who is pursuing a B.A. in theatre, is a bigger fan of this movie than even I am, but she actually thinks the Brandon poetry scene is not very Austen-esque: "I know they had to write Brandon and Marianne doing something together, but this is cheesy." [bounce] Different strokes.

Actually, I think a case could be made that this scene is Austenian; Austen used "coming together over poetry" for Louisa Musgrove and Captain Benwick in "Persuasion," as Louisa recovered from a near-fatal injury; here we see the same for Brandon and Marianne, as the latter recovers from near-deathly illness.

I think the film, of all the adaptations, therefore, uses a specifically Austenian dramatic device, and I think deserves credit for doing so.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

I like your ideas. I had missed the connection to Persuasion, but you're right that both Louisa and Marianne find emotional support and consolation in poetry. Hmm... Looks like I will have to tell my sister the next time I get a chance to talk with her. 😉 Unlike Louisa, though, Marianne remains her old self -- only finally, finally grown up -- after her recuperation. Louisa's post-accident behavior is in a wholly different category and leads me to wonder if her head injury caused a permanent personality change.

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

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

And, and!! Both Colonel Brandon and Captain Benwick had lost their first loves.

I don't really know what head injuries may have done back then; Louisa must have been very severely concussed, to the point of coma, and there was little treatment but time and hope. How much did the brain and skull heal, and how fast, on their own? Will Louisa eventually regain her high spirits? Or is the change permanent? Austen doesn't tell us . . .

Marianne remains her old self -- only finally, finally grown up

Yes, yes, yes! There was a thread I started a while back in which I noted that one excellent facet of Kate Winslet's performance is how exasperating it is, watching her hang back in adolescence, when we can see from the start the lovely woman in her, waiting to be grown into.

Cheers!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

Ah… Capt. Benwick. That opens up a can of worms. I’ve debated with my sisters over whether Benwick is a self-absorbed, inconstant jerk or just a shy, desperately lonely guy who makes some mistakes. I don’t hate him. I think he’s someone who needs people. I fault him only for sending Capt. Harville to have Fanny’s picture of him reframed -- that was insensitive. He isn’t a bad guy on the whole, though. Honestly, his predilection for poetry and obsessing over his own feelings reminds me of Marianne. As for Louisa, well… let’s be optimistic that her skittishness will disappear with time. Before the advent of modern medicine, a major injury or illness could have had more serious repercussions for a person’s long-term health than even today, when treatment for brain injuries and mental illnesses is still fraught with uncertainties.

No mention is made in the book of Marianne helping her recovery along by reading poetry with Brandon, so far as I can recall. It’s a conventionally romantic trope, like being rescued and carried in the arms of a man 😝, which means that the film kind-of-sort-of allows Marianne to have her cake and eat it, too; she gets her crucial life lesson without having to completely renounce her romantic dreams. It might’ve raised Jane Austen’s ire, but it doesn’t make me like the film any less. I first saw this movie when I was about eleven, so everyone looked old(er) to me, and I remember being surprised years later when I learned that Kate Winslet had been only nineteen. She held her own amongst highly experienced actors.

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

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I fault him only for sending Capt. Harville to have Fanny’s picture of him reframed -- that was insensitive.

I thought that was crass to say the least. But I also thought Capt. Harville a little harsh for feeling that Benwick was being unfaithful to his sister's memory. How long are you supposed to be faithful to a love that is lost forever? But this is a discussion for the 'Persuasion' board.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

The way I see it, everyone grieves differently, so it’s not up to me to tell someone else when it’s appropriate or not to move on with their life. 😃

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

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

I think Captain Benwick was ready to fall in love again; he seems almost ready to fall for Anne, before Louisa's accident. I agree, though, he should have had another miniature done, or should at least have had the grace not to give Captain Harville the commission.

No, there is no mention of poetry-reading by Brandon and Marianne together in the novel, but we do need some mechanism to show us what the book only narrates in very general terms. And of romantic tropes, is it not commendable of the film to employ one used in a similar situation by Austen? It is true, as you say, Marianne does get a romantically-oriented husband, but Colonel Brandon is that, even in the novel - faithful to his lost love for so many years, and all. As for the carrying in from the rain, I've postulated that we are shown this to contrast Brandon with Willoughby - the latter has carried Marianne easily, as if she were "no more than a dried leaf," Brandon extends himself beyond his strength in her service. And, after Marianne is out of danger, and Brandon has brought her mother to her, Marianne breathes her thanks, forcing the words from her weak lungs, doing right by him to the limit of her own strength. Showing their spiritual kinship.

Indeed, Winslet's Marianne is a remarkable characterization, she was accomplished well beyond her years at the time.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

No, you and I agree, I think, on the necessity of expanding on the book’s ending. For me, the rainstorm and poetry scenes in the film come perilously close to being too romantically gooey, though they don’t quite cross over that line. I think they're a little too much for my younger sister to take, but over the years, I’ve become far less of a purist than she, so no surprise there. 😉 I’d also concur that the film uses these scenes to emphasize Marianne’s and Brandon’s “spiritual kinship” -- apt term, by the way -- and the lines Brandon reads to Marianne have a particular thematic significance.

Adaptations of Jane Austen’s books seem to be increasingly ditching restraint to rely more on melodramatic romantic tropes, and I consider this a most unfortunate trend. Case in point: I can enjoy the Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice for the acting, music, and gorgeous production design, but not a whole lot else. The soppiness just becomes too much to take. I had a similar reaction to a lot of scenes in that recent Sense & Sensibility miniseries, which was pretty decent overall.

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

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

My own feeling is that the poetry scene escapes being over-the-top romantic due to the care and restraint with which it is treated, in the scripting and the direction, as well as the acting. The situation is romantic, but Brandon's and Marianne's relationship is very much still a work in progress, nothing overtly romantic (apart from Spenser's lines) is uttered, all is friendly, even gently playful, yet we see the promise that this tender green shoot will blossom into a fine, strong, flowering tree.

Oh, isn't it a shame that adapters less and less seem to trust Austen's lemon-curd, and give us sugar syrup instead? I can't say I am much of a fan of most of the 1970s and 80s BBC mini-series adaptations; I dislike the flat lighting, the acting is usually much stagier than it ought to be (I adore stage acting - on stage! And have done a good bit of it, but different media require different techniques), and the dialogue often re-written with little savor. There are exceptions, but the production values are always minimal. They are, however, in many ways preferable to giving us "Pride and Prejudice by Emily Bronte." I don't recall the music, the acting did end up winning me - enough - the single time I watched it through, a feat I have been unable to duplicate. And the photography was gorgeous, yes. The 2008 S&S, like the 2005 P&P, IMO, suffers from serious hubris - the writers apparently think they know better than Jane Austen what her characters (some, at least) are "really like." So we get an entirely re-written Mr. & Mrs. Bennet, a Colonel Brandon altogether contrary to Austen's presentation, etc. Both these adaptations, too, are irredeemably careless (or uncaring) as to maintaining their characters' behavior in period manners, and even those characters whose propriety Austen stresses are guilty of minor to egregious offenses against that propriety (Jane and Elizabeth are not shown, here, as much regarding propriety, rushing about gossiping at the Netherfield ball, a scene where Bingley visits Jane's sickroom, etc.)

The 2008 S&S "borrows" the rescue of Marianne from the rain by Brandon, but it isn't used to demonstrate character contrast between Brandon and Willoughby - Marianne's weight cannot but be an easier burden for David Morrissey's Brandon than for Dominic Cooper's Willoughby - Brandon has half a foot of height over Willoughby, here, he rushes up the stairs with her in his arms, unwinded, and begins to undress her (which is sooo unnecessary, and so very late-Davies-prurient). Indeed, the 2008 Colonel Brandon closes the door on a tete-a-tete with Marianne in bed, and himself half-dressed (without his coat), with him clasping his hand over hers, which are folded on her abdomen. This would have been a huge scandal, and would have ruined Marianne - it would render Brandon the only respectable man who would have her.

ETA: Indeed, if there is - perhaps - a hint of Marianne's having her cake and eating it in the 1995, in the 2008, it is much more than a hint - Marianne gets everything she ever wanted in a man, except for his being older, and in much greater measure than Willoughby is ever seen to possess - and the 2008 Brandon sets propriety lower than even Willoughby - he disdains manners when it suits him, challengingly accosting a fellow guest in another man's home, demanding questions posed to his own host on another occasion, and more. This is very unfortunate, IMO, as Marianne's arc of growth is very much minimalized by this take, and the adaptation, generally. She seems to get a very bad cold, from which she recovers rapidly - we do not see her waxen-pale, hair matted with sweat, dealthlike. Her heart, too, bounces back like a rubber ball as she falls immediately in love with her new hero. She certainly realizes she has behaved badly, but there isn't the meditation on the failures of her understanding in creating her former outlook on life that is so evident (at least, to me), though largely unspoken, in the 1995.

This mid-90s, for me, saw four outstanding adaptations - this film, the 1995 P&P, the 1995 "Persuasion," and the 1996 "Emma." These, IMO, are the finest of the Austen adaptations I've seen, and the truest to Austen's spirit.

And thank you for the nod. I do like the term for these two; it is pleasure and satisfaction to see Marianne discover where her heart may truly, safely, confide, and to see Brandon's good heart gratified at last.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I agree with you in this and I also agree it was crass of Benwick to ask Harville to have his portrait re framed in Bath. On the whole though I do like Harville better than Benwick.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] gallentx 10 years ago

I have enjoyed the discussion about the poetry scene at the end of the movie. We really don't have any information about their courtship since Austen covered it so perfunctorily in the novel, and I am satisfied with the production on this point. I thought the scene was well done, and sweet without being syrupy. There is much meaning in the lines Brandon is reading, and I like the way Lee set up the shot with Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood looking out the window at Marianne and Brandon. It gives the whole scene a feeling of comfortableness and home that I have always found moving. I also want to commend you, Locus, for making the connection with Persuasion. I'd never thought of that, but it's a perfectly good "Austen-approved" way to dramatize what we need to see before we reach the conclusion of the movie.

I think there are many times in this movie where Lee manages to make a sentimental point without going over the top. A good example of this is found immediately after Brandon and Sir John have the discussion about Marianne while cleaning their guns. The screenplay reads as follows:

EXT. POND NEAR BARTON PARK - ANOTHER DAY

BRANDON strides along in hunting gear, a gun slung under one
arm, his dog trotting behind him with a duck clamped between
its jaws. The bulrushes catch his eye and he slows, then
stops. He stands for a moment deep in thought. Then he takes
his hunting knife, cuts one and walks off contemplatively.

In the movie, Brandon is walking with the dog, but instead of looking at the reed and cutting it, Lee changes the direction and has Brandon already carrying the reeds. Honestly, I never even made the connection to the earlier scene with Marianne until I read the screen play. This subtle change is preferable because it is not so obvious. I have always liked the feel of that scene.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gallentx 10 years ago

Fair question, Sassafras. I was actually thinking about that as I typed it. I think it's just a small detail that I did not think about specifically, but perhaps it subconsciously added to the feel of the scene in my mind. Sort of like I had not really noticed the changes we see in Barton Cottage when I initially viewed the film, but upon viewing after several years, realized that they contributed to the feel/mood at the end of the movie. Little things you don't think about or particularly notice that add to the depth (and enjoyment) of the film.

I think I would not have liked that short scene with Brandon if it had been as scripted. It might have made him look a little too lovelorn and pathetic. :)

And maybe that is really the point of the change in direction. Maybe it came across as too sugary when filmed and they opted to go for something more subtle, recognizing the possibility that they might be sacrificing the certainty that the audience would see the connection.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

Well, who doesn't prefer Harville? Benwick would really get on my nerves after a while. I just think he shouldn't be judged for getting over Fanny and moving on with his life.

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

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

Cheap old BBC television productions are an acquired taste, aren't they? I, too, find it hard to get used to the videotape and the university theatre department-style staging. Lately, I make a couple of exceptions for Jane Eyre with Timothy Dalton, which I recently watched and enjoyed, and The Barchester Chronicles, which I've seen a couple of times, primarily for all those great British character actors: Alan Rickman, Angela Pleasence, Geraldine McEwan, Nigel Hawthorne, and so on. It’s worth checking out if you like that sort of thing. A quick disclaimer: I've never read the Anthony Trollope novels it’s based on, so I have nothing to say about its accuracy.

As to the film, I agree that the Spenser scene shows Marianne and Brandon’s relationship as a developing one. The scene is peaceful and calm, and they speak very softly -- but clearly -- to each other, yet there is (I think, anyway) great depth of feeling. Marianne is absorbed in Brandon’s reading. She seems to be soul-searching. Her intensity and passion are still there, expressed in a quiet way. I’m very much of two minds about this scene. The only reason I feel that it skirts (but doesn't cross) the line of sentimental fluff is its completely sincere use of flowery poetry. On the other hand, I’d argue that it was clever of the filmmakers to simply let the words of Spenser (and, later, Jonson, in Marianne’s song) say what needed to be said. This couldn't have been an arbitrary decision; they're in the movie for a reason, and I think that reason was to avoid shoehorning in lots of made-up flowery dialogue. What a travesty that would have been in an Austen story!

When I said that the film sort of seems to let Marianne have her cake and eat it, I had in mind the many small changes that I assume are there to flesh out Brandon's character. I’d agree with Mrs. Dashwood that he’s not as dashing as Willoughby, being older, quieter, more serious, and not exactly handsome, but I also think the film gives Brandon enough traditional romantic traits that it renders this unimportant in the end. Willoughby likes to read poetry; we hear Brandon read it too, and because he has Alan Rickman's voice, he does it with more style. 👅 Willoughby's a bold rider; Brandon’s riding is also good, and we see a lot more of it. Willoughby rescues Marianne; so does Brandon (who is, as you point out, less strong than Willoughby, but willing to push himself to his limit). Brandon understands Marianne’s taste in music and has the knowledge to select a good instrument, while Willoughby's musicality -- very strongly emphasized in the book -- is barely alluded to in the film. Lastly, what director would cast someone like Alan Rickman in a role like this and not expect to cash in on his sex appeal?

No, Alan Rickman’s Brandon doesn’t behave ridiculously like the character does in the 2008 BBC version, and for that I’m grateful, as I am that our popular culture hasn't, thank heavens, run with Rickman as Brandon and turned him into a sex symbol like it did with Colin Firth’s Darcy (whom I love, by the way, even as I feel a bit sorry for Firth that he has to put up with such silliness 😉).

Let me just say that I don't have a problem with Alan Rickman's being a more conventionally romantic Brandon than Jane Austen envisioned. If I did not keep an open mind, I would never be able to enjoy many outstanding performances. For instance, I love George C. Scott's work in the 1984 A Christmas Carol, even as I can enumerate the many ways the portrayal is different from Charles Dickens' conception of the character. When I was a teen, I used to dislike Peter Jackson & crew's interpretation of Faramir in LotR, but I can now appreciate it as its own separate entity -- different from J.R.R. Tolkien's Faramir, but compelling in its own right, and supported by a very strong performance from David Wenham.

As for Andrew Davies and his... er, prurience, I have to wonder if he watched the 1995 Sense and Sensibility and came to the conclusion that he needed to outdo it with more melodrama and sexiness. 😉 If so, he was greatly mistaken. He should have had confidence in the material, as he did in creating the near-perfect Pride and Prejudice miniseries two decades ago. Creative liberties, in and of themselves, don’t bother me; it’s how writers and directors use them that matters, and the 1995 film is head and shoulders above the 2008 in that respect.

Your list of favorite Austen adaptations is almost the same as mine, except that I've never seen the 1996 Emma. I have fond memories of my first times watching the 1995 Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility with my mother in 1998. She had them on VHS, and at some point I guess she decided it was time to show them to my sisters and me. With Sense and Sensibility, there was a lot of “Just so you know, this doesn't happen in the book,” from my mom. 😉 I recall thinking, at age eleven, that Pride and Prejudice was just plain awesome, and I liked Sense and Sensibility, too, even though it seemed so much darker and not as funny. Still, I was hooked. I ended up reading all six of Austen’s novels by my mid-teens. I first saw the Persuasion film adaptation in 2002 or 2003, I think, and I love it to this day.

One final observation: I sometimes regret that the 1995 Sense and Sensibility doesn't have a similar visual grittiness and realism to that of Persuasion; it’s almost too pretty and glamorized. The Pride and Prejudice miniseries is fairly sanitized, too. This degree of glamorization is entirely appropriate for a comedy, which Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion really are not. On the other hand, maybe there’s justification for it in that Sense and Sensibility reflects the mind of a teenage Austen, while Persuasion is the mature Austen. From that standpoint, it makes sense that the film adaptation of the former is a little idealized.

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

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I don't judge him at all. But I do think that Austen through Harville does judge him. Perhaps she thought a longer mourning period was the proper thing to do. That could well have been it. I felt sorry for Benwick, Harville was really stupid there.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Hi Summer, and Raincrow11,

In regards to the discussion of Persuasion's Benwick and Harville...I wasn't upset with Benwick for moving on with Louisa. He seemed to have been lingering in grief for quite a while - his hopelessness was deep enough to trouble Anne. I was glad that he was able to once again find happiness.

But, I did think it inconsiderate of him to task Harville with framing the same picture that had been meant for his deceased sister. It clearly pained Harville.

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Hi Raincrow11,

I replied to one of Summer's posts on this discussion, but I wanted to include you in my response as well.

Hi Summer, and Raincrow11,

In regards to the discussion of Persuasion's Benwick and Harville...I wasn't upset with Benwick for moving on with Louisa. He seemed to have been lingering in grief for quite a while - his hopelessness was deep enough to trouble Anne. I was glad that he was able to once again find happiness.

But, I did think it inconsiderate of him to task Harville with framing the same picture that had been meant for his deceased sister. It clearly pained Harville.

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

Gee, thanks. 😀

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

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Raincrow11 10 years ago

This film is among my three favorite Austen adaptations. Sense and Sensibility is less detailed and period-correct than the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, and considerably less realistic and visually interesting than the same year’s film of Persuasion, but its cinematography has a notable artistic quality that both of these other adaptations lack -- at times, it looks almost like a moving pastel or oil painting. Therefore, even though I generally prefer my period dramas with a dose of realism (love the grittiness of Persuasion, and the crazy attention to all period detail in Pride and Prejudice), S&S’s sheer beauty impels me to forgive its inaccuracies. 😀

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

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

This is something that I have noticed in another Ang Lee film. In 'Lust, Caution' there is a scene where a character is shot with a tear just rolling down their face. I won't say more in case you want to watch the film. Again as in all Lee's films, more is shown with less.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Again as in all Lee's films, more is shown with less.

Which is such a great asset in adapting and condensing a long, complex novel into a feature-length film. One shot of Colonel Brandon's face, supported by every input into and influence on that superb performance, conveys paragraphs of narration.

And all the rest of the lovely colors, shades, overtones, undercurrents, tenors, in the film's rich tapestry.

Yes, I need to see more of Lee's work. I really do.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

I must try to find a DVD - I bought an electronic copy of the film, but i doesn't have Thompson's commentary, and I'd love to hear that.

It's wonderful locus, I think you'd enjoy it as much as I did. Her comments give great insights throughout, and interestingly enough, confirmed several of my own thoughts regarding various scenes. Great fun!

I don't actually think "stoicism" is apt, because that philosophy requires full internal acceptance of, and alignment with, any and all happenstance. Elinor may try for this, but it isn't in her, her natural feelings are too strong.

When I mentioned stoicism, I was thinking that Elinor was the only one in her family that had the inner strength to attempt it. I agree that she's never completely stoic. She gives a good show of it, good enough to convince her family. But it's clear to us, the viewers, that she's struggling. Only Elinor, and the viewers, know how difficult these burdens are for her. It almost like wearing shoes that are one size too small. People around you may not notice, but you are very aware of the restrictive discomfort. The ill-fit takes a toll on your natural gait, posture, and your mood. One can soldier on for a while, but eventually the pressure becomes too great. The ill-fitting shoes must be removed (kicked off with a vengeance!) and replaced with a properly fitted pair.

I agree the 1995 film does far and away the best job of making Elinor and Marianne the central "love story." We see the love, the disharmony, the widening breach, the crises of emotion and health, and, at last, the reconciliation into harmonious, happy natural and confiding love. All the necessary dramatic elements.

Exactly. Wonderfully put locus. Thank you for this beautiful description.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

I didn't make a list, but here are a few that I remember...

Elinor having to bear the mantel of family responsibility after her father died, and that creating the situation where she felt she couldn't show her feelings.

Edward's picking up Elinor's shawl meaning to convey how comfortable Edward has become with Elinor.

Elinor's notice of Brandon's reaction when he comes in while Marianne is playing.

The rudeness of Marianne standing suddenly and asking to play Sir John's piano, to stop the discomfort of the conversation for Elinor.

Marianne and Margaret's relationship meant to show that they are actually closer in maturity than Elinor and Marianne.

Marianne's overly familiar behavior with Willoughby being inappropriate when he shows up for the picnic.

The moment that Marianne cries out to Willoughby at the ball, she doesn't care about the total lack of propriety.

That many people make the same mistake I did in thinking the final scene is a double wedding, when it wasn't intended to be.

Many over-the-top behaviors, or situations were purposefully done to create humor.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I am sure I'd love Thompson's commentary. How much is new, compared with the diary? What a lovely acceptance speech she gave at the Academy Awards, all props to Austen's genius, self-deprecation, bless her, and funny as all get out to boot.

I still have problems with "stoicism." To me, it seems Elinor tries to shoulder her burdens (so many of which should, by right, be assumed bu others), accept them, and bear them with as little outward show as possible, but that isn't quite the same as the grim negation of personal happiness as a factor that stoicism requires. I am afraid I am not explaining myself well, and I apologize. I think I understand the way you are using the word, and in that light, if I do not mistake you, I would agree; it doesn't jive, though, with my college readings on Greco-Roman philosophic systems.

I very much like your "shoes" metaphor, though I would say Elinor is wearing a size or two larger than she should be asked to fill. Does that make sense?

ETA: I do understand the constriction you are indicating with the "too small," though, and that, of course, is apt. Elinor is constrained, personally, by the need to expand her familial responsibilities.

The ill-fitting shoes must be removed (kicked off with a vengeance!) and replaced with a properly fitted pair.

That's gorgeous! What a pleasure to read - thank you! And perfectly succinct, as well (or should I say, "to boot?" ).

Exactly. Wonderfully put locus. Thank you for this beautiful description.

More than welcome, and thank you so much for the compliment.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

How much is new, compared with the diary?

I'm afraid I've not read her diary of the production, so I don't know if the commentary covers anything new.

I think I understand the way you are using the word, and in that light, if I do not mistake you, I would agree; it doesn't jive, though, with my college readings on Greco-Roman philosophic systems.

I understand. Technically it sounds like the wrong word, but it was the closest I could think of to describe Elinor's attempt to - which some in the south would describe as - "cowboy up".
ETA: Perhaps "forbearance" is a better choice.

I very much like your "shoes" metaphor, though I would say Elinor is wearing a size or two larger than she should be asked to fill. Does that make sense?

Thank you. Yes, when I first wrote it, I'd stated that Elinor assuming the family mantel was like a young woman stepping into her father's too large boots.

ETA: I do understand the constriction you are indicating with the "too small," though, and that, of course, is apt. Elinor is constrained, personally, by the need to expand her familial responsibilities.

That's exactly why I changed my description of "filling" her father's shoes, to how confining too small shoes feel. I thought that described the "restriction" Elinor had to employ with her inner feelings better.

That's gorgeous! What a pleasure to read - thank you! And perfectly succinct, as well (or should I say, "to boot?").

Thank you!! And yes - "to boot" is very apt! I'm glad you "got a kick" out of it. Oh my, we're on a roll aren't we?

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

The paradox of Elinor's need to expand unnaturally into taking responsibilities that are not properly hers being a constrictive factor is interesting, isn't it?

If the shoe DOESN'T fit, but you have to wear it anyway, what does a girl do? Oh, BTW, loved "cowboy up." I'd say, "be a good soldier." Same difference, or very nearly so.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

The paradox of Elinor's need to expand unnaturally into taking responsibilities that are not properly hers being a constrictive factor is interesting, isn't it?

It really is!

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Locus,

I forgot to mention an important point in the S&S commentary with Emma Thompson, and the producer Lindsay Doran.

I remember reading you mentioning that this cinematography of S&S 95 makes you think of the paintings of Vermeer. I hadn't thought of that before you mentioned it, and I must say I agree with you completely. IMO, this film is one of the most gorgeous visual adaptations I've ever seen.

If you recall, there is a beautiful scene at Norland where Marianne is playing the piano mournfully. It's during this scene that Doran and Thompson mention they specifically studied Vermeer paintings in composing the visual effects of that scene and some other's as well. The soft light from the window falls on Marianne's face much in the style of a Vermeer. Stunning. Your very astute observation was spot on! Kudos on your keen eye! I'm glad I remembered to share this fascinating tidbit with you.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

For the record, although this film has nice cinematography, the 1995 Persuasion earns my vote for the most artistically lovely Austen film.

Persuasion is beautiful too, It's one of my favorites as well. However, there is something about S&S 95 that appealed to me more visually - and I work with graphics and design so I know what I like when I see it.

I highly doubt that Thompson (screenwriter) and Doran (producer) did anything of the sort. I think Michael Coulter (cinematographer) and Ang Lee (director) are the people you should be crediting for this.

For heavens sake. You're (again) taking my comment too literally sass. When I say "they" I'm referring the production as a whole. I'm not saying that Thompson and Doran were taking all credit, and I wasn't giving them all the credit. I really don't understand why you have to have these minute details explained to you. If you have trouble seeing the basic nuances of these kinds of comments, then it doesn't surprise me that there are so many things that happen in S&S 95 that you don't see as well. And having to go back and explain to you in detail simple comments that are not complex at all, really sucks the fun out of the discussion for me. Your love for splitting hairs like this comes across as an attempt to make certain no compliment or praise accidentally falls on Thompson - I've felt much the same way about anything positive I say that could be taken as a compliment to Rickmans' Brandon too. I'm trying to have a pleasant conversation - with locus, none the less - and you pop in like over-zealous goalie trying to block any positive comment that might be seen as (God forbid) giving Thompson praise. It's tiresome and annoying, whether you realize it or not. I'm not popping up to deflect something you've said that intentionally or unintentionally compliments Davies or Morrissey. Bench yourself already.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

ETA: I just found another parallel! Issue has been taken with Elinor's sobbing uncontrollably without leaving the room, but this sets up an instance of Marianne as the one who guides the family - she takes the lead in shepherding them out of the room.

You are so correct locus! You've unearthed another! As you and summer discussed, you're horribly good at winkling!
It's a nice nod to Marianne displaying her ability to "think on her feet" out of courtesy for Elinor and Edward. And in guiding not only Margaret, but also her mother, it is another signal of her new maturity.

I must add, when Margaret turns around to continue to watch Elinor and Edward as she's dragged from the room, practically backwards, I have to laugh. She tried to be courteous when the silence was a bit awkward by blurting out "We're enjoying very fine weather" followed by a quick elbow to her from Marianne. A comical moment that I very much enjoyed. That moment shows that Margaret is trying to follow her mother's instruction to "please restrict your remarks to the weather" after her hand in the Mr. F debacle. Though Margaret is trying to be more proper, it's clear she's loathe to leave as this amazing moment unfolds between Edward and Elinor. It's quite comical.

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Yes, yes, Margaret's "weather" remark does so many GOOD things. And Marianne's leading the family away to give Elinor and Edward privacy also harks back to the moment at which (in the film, not the novel) Marianne drags Margaret for a walk to leave Elinor with their mother over her disappointment over Edward not coming.

Marianne is now able to lead the family (and she has thereby reduced Elinor's burden - as much as by her understanding of its reality as her assumption of a share of its duties), but her instincts - especially with regard to her beloved sister in need of privacy - have always been delicate and fine.

And I do like Margaret's perpetual passion - so true of children and young adolescents - not to be excluded from whatever is happening. I's funny, it's real, it helps bring the audience in from a different perspective.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

And I do like Margaret's perpetual passion - so true of children and young adolescents - not to be excluded from whatever is happening. I's funny, it's real, it helps bring the audience in from a different perspective.

Exactly locus! In the commentary it was mentioned that Margaret was used to ask questions that the audience might be thinking. I like that they used her character in that way.

[–] Julie-30 11 years ago

I also got to see Alan Rickman in Private Lives in London. He was excellent. I went with 2 female friends, and we joked about needing to put towels around us to catch the drool.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Lord, I'd kill for a DVD of that production.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 11 years ago

I didn't see the show on Broadway. I saw it in London's West End. BEFORE it arrived on Broadway.

I did manage to see Ciaran Hinds on Broadway. Twice, in fact. [biggin]

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

How wonderful Julie-30! I'm quite jealous. I ADORE Ciaran Hinds. You're very fortunate to have such lovely experiences under your belt.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Ciaran Hinds is superb. [] I particularly love his portrayal of Captain Wentworth

Sass, I completely agree. Hinds' portrayal of Wentworth was WONDERFUL. He did an amazing job in that role, indeed. He is a large part of why that adaptation of Persuasion is my favorite.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

he may not be conventionally handsome, he actually LOOKS rugged and experienced, so he is very believable in the role of a sailor.

Yes! That is exactly how I feel! His rugged looks were very appropriate for his character having been at sea. And I agree he's not conventionally handsome, but he has a wonderful presence, and charisma that makes him quite attractive IMO.

Incidentally, Amanda Root has similarly large, expressive eyes

Yes she does. I love her in this adaptation as well. I think she does a marvelous job of expressing her growing confidence as her romance with Wentworth begins to once again come to life. She appears quite mousy at the beginning of the film, but as it progresses, she literally becomes radiant and confident. Lovely.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

wimseymaniac, I'm delighted to see you and other's enjoying pleasant, lively discussion! I'm so glad that this thread has become a positive place for poster's to discuss not only their love of this film, but other works and adaptations of Jane Austen. Thank you for your lovely input, and friendly manner!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jlprizm86 10 years ago

I loved this film as well. I've seen it many times and I just watched it again on Netflix after a while and I still adore it. But I agree with you about Col. Brandon and Willoughby..how in the world did she ignore Brandon and get smitten with Willoughby?? I thought W. was trying way too hard to be a charmer as soon as he comes back to visit the family after "saving Marianne" and I could sense he was trouble right away. Col. Brandon on the other hand seems like a "real man"..he was sensitive but strong and had life experience and that made him very attractive. I guess Marianne at that point was into excitement and false romance but at the end of the film she realizes that he cares about her and is really a sweet man even though he isn't like Willoughby and never will be. This made me love the end of the movie even more. Of course I loved High and Emma's characters getting together as well but Brandon and Marianne was my perfect ending.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

I certainly like this version...not to the exclusion of other versions, but it's the one I go to most often. It contains one of my favorite songs..."Father's Favorite." I downloaded it from Amazon and listen to it often, a beautiful piece of music.

I also think Winslet is the best Marianne of the three, but that's just me.

At first I didn't like Rickman's Brandon so much, but with repeated viewings, I've come to appreciate the quality of his performance.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

That song is beautiful rizdek. I felt very moved by that piece being played during that scene.

I've never thought about it, but now that I do...I think I prefer Winslet's Marianne over Wakefield's by a hair. Both very good portrayals, but Winslet's was more vibrant IMO. I've not seen the 1980 and 1971 versions of S&S - I watched the 1987 adaptation of Northanger Abbey and felt that some of the hairstyles/makeup hinted a bit too much to styles around the time of filming. So I'm leery of older versions of Austen's adaptations. I don't want to be reminded of the 70's and 80's when I'm supposed to be transported back to Austen's era. (kind of like Christopher Reeve finding that darn penny in Somewhere In Time) LOL

I can say that I enjoyed Rickman's and Morrissey's Brandons about equally. Both did fine jobs. I'm glad that you grew to enjoy Rickman's performance as well.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

I tend to disagree with this, webrowser, because it seems to me that virtually ALL period dramas - including adaptations of Austen's novels - reflect the times in which they were produced.

Sass, there's nothing for you disagree with. I personally find 70's and 80's period films to often have hairstyle/makeup issues that throw me out of the story. Dracula movies from the 70's/80's drive me insane for the same reason. I mentioned only Austen adaptations because that was the current topic.

For some reason, I find it difficult to get past any hint of bouffant 70's hair, 70's false eyelashes, or any remote hint to the dreaded "chick mullet" of the 80's showing up in period films.

I don't have the same problem with period films in the 1990's and up, Austen or otherwise. They don't bother me - whether they have hints of current time hairstyle/makeup or not. It's just my personal taste.

You have different taste. It's nothing we need to agree or disagree on.

I do agree that Charity Wakefield's hair was lovely in the 2008 S&S adaptation. I also had no problem with Kate Winslet's "do". I thought it was equally nice.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

It`s definitely true that all period adaptions are influenced by the time in which they were produced which is actually quite fine by me as it adds another layer of history to the historical context.
I`m quite intrigued by your comment about the hairstyle of women in the late eighteenth century- where did you find this? As far as I know, this was the period when, following the French Revolution, the big wigs and their elaborate hairstyle were on the way out, but still very much in evidence at least in the circles that the Dashwood sisters moved in. Long, flowing locks were only worn by women who were either so young that they were not really on the marriage market (doing up one`s hair was a clear signal that one was out of the nursery and on the market)or by women who wanted to project a certain image of them. A young girl such as Marianne would have to be quite careful with the kind of look she presented to the world.
The quotation from the book that you cite is, in my opinion, more a kind of characterization of Marianne- "for it was all tumbled down her back" seems to me to signal that in her outgoing, very passionate way she tends to be so active during the day that she loses the pins in her hair and it tumbles down without her caring much about it. If it had been her customary hairstyle, Margaret needn`t have mentioned it because everyone would have known about it.
But I`d really love for you to tell me where you found this about the hairstyle in the Regency. Some pictures of typical hairdos are in the behind-the-Scenes-book of the filming of P&P 1995, but I don`t think there were any of the kind of free-flowing locks that, say, the ladies wore to the Academy Awards this Monday.

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Thank you very much for all the links you`ve provided here- I´m quite busy at the moment so don`t have the time to really go into this right now, but once things have calmed down workwise, I`ll certainly look into it with proper care and thought.

I´ll have to wait for the 2008 version to be aired on German television again to have another look at Charity Wakefield as this version left me quite cold when I saw it and so I didn`t buy the DVD. At least she looked a lot better than Gwyneth Paltrow did in "Emma"- I really hated her hair for most of the time!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Talking about different hairstyles- what did you make of Darcy`s hairstyle in P&P 2005? I thought it all wrong- reminded me more of the young Napoleon and I don`t suppose a British gentleman such as Darcy would have copied it.

By the way- I didn`t think you tried to push the 2008 version of S&S on me, but your post made me think that I should give it another try, even if only for looking at Marianne`s hair. I`m glad you like it- and I must say, I like the relationship between Edward and Elinor in this adaptation very much, they really made a very likeable Edward.

You`re certainly right about the different ways of dressing one´s hair during the Regency- let´s not forget about Lady Caroline Lamb who cut her hair of! But that would definitely be wrong on Marianne- she might have been a bit of a rebel, but a very romantic one and therefore needs long, flowing locks.

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Hm, maybe you`re right- it`s probably that I don`t expect any different hair from Hugh Grant and approached that movie without any preconceived notions of what Brandon or Edward´s hair should look like, whereas I had already seen several versions of P&P and as soon as Darcy came on, I thought"???" because I had just been to an exhibiton on Bonaparte and he definitely had that sort of hairstyle in most of the pictures of him as a younger man.

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Doesn`t apply to me- I`m neither a big enough fan of P&P95 nor of Colin Firth`s Mr Darcy to expect all other actors playing Darcy to look like him.

Still I fail to see that Brandon 1995 and Darcy 2005 look much alike- I certainly wasn`t reminded of young Boney when watching Alan Rickman!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Re the 1981 version, I thoroughly enjoyed Irene Richard's Elinor. Maybe I just like her mannerisms etc. Also liked her as Charlotte in PnP.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Loved her as Charlotte!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Hello there- you should try to download the whole soundtrack as it is really one of the finest out there. Patrick Doyle is quite underrated as a composer, but he also did some great stuff for Branagh`s Shakespeare adaptions.

Winslet is my favourite Marianne, too. I can`t say anything on Charity Wakefield as I`ve only seen the version once, but the Marianne in the BBC version from the Eighties grated a bit on the nerves as she was too hysterical.

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Well, I can't say I much enjoy Childs in that older version either.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Hello Sassafras9000, I certainly don`t think that Jane Austen`s men are personally weak- rather the opposite. I very much agree with you that Col Brandon and Edmund Ferrars are excellent gentlemen and I believe that there is quite a lot of emotional depth hidden in them (and also in the rest of the Austen males, maybe even in Wickham), but somehow for me, I never thought she really brought all this emotional depth to the surface, they always seemed quite two-dimensional for me. I guess I have to second Andrew Davies`s opinion that the characters are underwritten, especially the ones in S&S. It used to be one of my favourite novels, but whenever I thought about it, I always thought about Elinor and Marianne first. Of course, they are the main characters, but the men just never really sprang to life for me. The main relationship in S&S is the one between the sisters and the men seemed more or less there as a foil for the sisters` different characters and takes on life.
I don`t find that so very much the case in Jane Austen`s other novels, even though Mr Darcy is also an enigma for most of the time- you never really come to see him as a fully-fleshed person. The only Jane Austen male I feel different about is Mr Knightley whom I can feel breathing on the page.
To show you where I come from, I have to say that my favourite classic novel
is Charlotte Bronte`s "Jane Eyre", one of the reasons for my love being the fact that although Jane Eyre is the main character and the book is told from her PoV, I have always felt that Rochester is tremdendously alive on the pages. Of course, one cannot really compare Austen and Bronte, coming from different types of style in literature, but still I always feel a bit short-changed when it comes to the typical Austen male.
By the way- I knew you would bring in the BBC miniseries. I`m glad you enjoy and love it so much, but it didn`t work for me that way. I saw it once on tv and had quite an enjoyable afternoon, but it didn`t make me want to buy the DVD or read the book again. S&S 95 made me buy the DVD, watch it repeatedly and resort occasionally to the book again to compare the two.
I cannot find fault with Ang Lee´s version, even though most of the main actors were wrong age-wise. But age isn´t everything. If it was, we´d hardly see any version of "Romeo and Juliet" at all or no decent Hamlet because all the juvenile actors would simply lack the necessary acting skills. I`m therefore more than willing to forgive and forget about the discrepancies in age as I think that both Thompson and Rickman are excellent actors who bring Austen`s characters alive for me- in Rickman´s case, adding the depth that Brandon lacks for me on the page.
It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

Great post! Very truthful yet polite. I love this film as well and don't mind saying so. I'm just glad people are actually coming out to discuss it.

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Thank you Ilario1! I appreciate you posting. I am glad to see people enjoying friendly discussion too.

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

No problem webrowser! This is such a lovely film. I especially loved Hugh Grant in this for some reason and the tension between he and Elinor, Emma Thompson.

And poor Colonel Brandon. :( I thought Alan Rickman was superb.

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

This is such a lovely film. I especially loved Hugh Grant in this for some reason and the tension between he and Elinor, Emma Thompson.

It is a lovely film, Ilario1. I completely agree. I too enjoyed Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson's romantic journey!

And poor Colonel Brandon. :( I thought Alan Rickman was superb.

Yes, I rooted for him to find happiness the whole way through. Alan Rickman did a fine job of gaining my sympathy!

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

Okay since everyone has chimed in about their favorite Austen men I'll have to add mine. From the books it's definitely Captain Wentworth. I saw both movies before I even read the book and I wasn't all that thrilled because the movie versions I was focussed on the heroines. But when I read the book and reading the words to that letter brought tears to my eyes. It was so beautiful.

As far as the movies go, I like all of the versions of P&P that I have seen so far including that old one with the wrong costumes. I love them all for different reasons. Colin Firth is my first choice for D'Arcy. Then all of the others. And to my surprise, I think the best version overall is the one from the 80s?. I don't know any of the actors or actresses names though. Matthew MacFadyen (as much as I adore him) looked like farmer and just didn't fit the bill of a gentlemen like D'Arcy was supposed to be.

I love the 2009 Emma. I've seen 3 versions with JLM, JN and Mark Strong. I used to think no one could be a better Knightley than JN. But I love the 2009 Emma so much I've watched it so many times. JLM's knightley began to grow on me.
And then I was able to appreciate his subtle approach to the character. He reminded me so much of Elinor (suffering in silence somewhat) with his love for Emma. When I think about it I get misty eyed because it's so touching to me.

Now back to this movie. That's what I love about Colonel Brandon. He loves Marianne so much and it hurts him to see her suffer because of Willoughby.

I felt so bad for him when he came to London only to be greeted with Marianne's "Oh it's you". Poor guy.
"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Colin Firth is my first choice for D'Arcy.

Mine too Ilario1. I love him as Darcy!

Now back to this movie. That's what I love about Colonel Brandon. He loves Marianne so much and it hurts him to see her suffer because of Willoughby.

I felt so bad for him when he came to London only to be greeted with Marianne's "Oh it's you". Poor guy.

I know what you mean. He wants her to be happy, even if she doesn't want to be with him. To me that's real love...when it's unselfish.

I too felt bad for Brandon when Marianne said that to him in that scene. He looked so sad.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Sass,

Now that I think about it, she doesn't say it, but it's clear that she's very disappointed that it's him - and not Willoughby as she had hoped. She's very excited until she see's it's Brandon, and her face falls. Then she quickly leaves the room - think there might have been a hasty "excuse me", or something to that effect, from her. He knows she was not glad to see him, and that is sad.

Oh, and Sass, if I don't remember it completely correctly, please don't feel the need to come back and correct me again. As I've tried to explain to you, this sort of hair-splitting is NOT something I'm interested in doing with you.

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

webrowser no matter! Even if she didn't say those exact words or any words it's how she felt and it was pretty clear that she felt that way to me.
I'm glad you know what part I meant. This is fun!

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Even if she didn't say those exact words or any words it's how she felt and it was pretty clear that she felt that way to me.

Thank you. That's exactly how I see it.

This is fun!

Yes it is! Glad you're enjoying yourself too Ilario1!

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Good grief- don`t remind me of Mark Strong`s Mr Knightley- he gave me nightmares, I certainly couldn`t have married him!

My favourite "Emma" is definitely the 2009 one, not only for JLM, but also for Romola Garai- she made me LIKE Emma which neither Kate Beckinsale nor Gwyneth Paltrow ever managed. I`d say it`s the most balanced version of the three, not as sugary as the Hollywood version, not as stark as the old one. It charted Emma`s way from young girl to sensible woman much better- not to harp on Gwyneth (I loved her in "Shakespeare in Love"), but that script gave us an Emma that didn`t really change over the course of the movie, she was grown-up at the beginning and stayed that way. Jeremy Northam, at least to my eyes, never seemed that much older than her, more like "the boy next door" who criticized her some, but all in good humour. It was only at the picnic that he seemed really angry and pissed with her, all the other times there was that twinkle in his eyes... still, to have Northam look at me with that twinkle and that grin... oh well, a girl can dream.

Glad you like the 1980s version of P&P- and I know what you mean, I`ve never yet seen any version of the novel that I didn`t like. Even the old one with Laurence Olivier- I guess that´s the one you referred to as "that old one with the wrong costumes". Being somewhat romantical, I liked the twist at the end, with Lady Catherine being Darcy`s help in getting him together with Lizzie. And Mary and Lydia getting their men as well. Nice touch, that one!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

I know I've posted here already, but I just finished watching this version for the umpteenth time. I just noticed how much fun it is to watch. Robert Hardy and Elizabeth Spriggs play off one another so well. Hugh Grant does awkward so well. The "awkward" scene with him coming to see Elinor and Lucy is there...delightful. Margaret is used to good effect to add humor. The Fanny/Lucy scene is great, if not canon.

The other versions are good, but with them [edit] I don't get the delight...the laughs that I do with this one.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

The other versions are good, but with I don't get the delight...the laughs that I do with this one.

I feel exactly the same way rizdek. The touches of humor are so much fun in this version.

[–] Ilario1 11 years ago

Robert Hardy and Elizabeth Spriggs play off one another so well

Yes. Another thing that I love. The actors even the supporting ones. They all did their jobs very well.

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

[–] wimseymaniac 11 years ago

Robert Hardy is terrific in every movie he is in! I also love the scene between Fanny and Lucy- it might not be in the book, but it certainly gets their characters... I love the sly glance that Fanny gives Lucy before she`s about to divulge her secret... Harriet Walter is wonderfully awful as Fanny.

Another scene I love is the one with Alan Rickman, Hugh Laurie and the baby... the look the men are exchanging gets me every time I watch it!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Another scene I love is the one with Alan Rickman, Hugh Laurie and the baby... the look the men are exchanging gets me every time I watch it!

I love the humor of that scene too! Another bit that makes it that much funnier, IMO, is how clueless Charlotte is - crooning about how Mr. Palmer has such a "way" with the baby - while said wailing baby is being held at LONG arms length by his father. Then the nursemaid in obvious distress in the background, fighting the urge to snatch the wailing baby away from Mr. Palmer. SO FUNNY!

[–] phasersonfunky 11 years ago

Another scene I love is the one with Alan Rickman, Hugh Laurie and the baby... the look the men are exchanging gets me every time I watch it!

I love that scene! It's such a fantastic example of well-done physical comedy. No matter how many times I've seen this film, it cracks me up every time.

- Tari

----------
'I am what I am. Someone has to be.'

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Yes. Another thing that I love. The actors even the supporting ones. They all did their jobs very well.

I completely agree!

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

No, Jane Austen did not write the scene as a flashback. I was pointing out that different ideas were seriously considered, and that I agree with the decision made. Yes, in all four cases. Isn't this thread supposed to be a tiny haven to talk about what one LIKES about the film? There are many others in which to jump on it . . .

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Yes, but there are so many other posts on this thread that have virtually nothing to do with the original topic. In my defense, at least I was directly responding to a couple of your comments about this film.

Sass, regardless of whether or not comments on this thread are off topic, locusnola is quite right...I started this thread as haven for those that enjoy/appreciate this adaptation. If discussions happen to veer off topic that's fine with me, what's important is that discussions on this thread remain positive, pleasant and enjoyable for all involved.

I don't want anyone to be feel they have to defend, or explain their positive opinions of this film to you ON THIS THREAD. I started it specifically to give posters a debate-free area. There are plenty of other threads where opinions that you don't agree with can be questioned, debated, or disagreed upon. I greatly appreciate the friendlier manner that you've employed - and I think it's added nicely to the discussion - but please don't fall back into the pattern of questioning other poster's positive comments on the aspects of this film. Thank you for respecting the purpose of this thread.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Isn't this thread supposed to be a tiny haven to talk about what one LIKES about the film? There are many others in which to jump on it . . .

Yes, you're quite right locusnola. I started this thread is a haven for pleasant discussion for those that view this film in a positive light - and if conversation veers off topic, that's fine with me! As long as everyone is having a good time! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I hope you continue to add your interesting insights to the discussion.

[–] Tomatish 11 years ago

I love this film most dearly and have always loved it. It introduced me to Jane Austen, and moreover to three of my very favourite actors, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman and Kate Winslet.

Emma Thompson did Austen's novel justice. The comedy, the romance, the character development, and the social criticism, every aspect of the novel was translated perfectly to the big screen.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Emma Thompson did Austen's novel justice.

I feel the same way Tomatish! I think it's a lovely adaptation, and I never tire of it.

Thank you for commenting, and sharing your S&S 95 love!

[–] Tomatish 11 years ago

Thank YOU for bringing back the S&S 95 love to this board!

You know, I have a rule about Jane Austen adaptations. If it doesn't make me laugh, then it's a definitely a bad adaptation. I laugh so much when I read Sense and Sensibility or listen to the audio-book, and I feel that Emma Thompson really gets Jane Austen's sense of humor as evident by the brilliant comedy in this movie and by her Golden Globe speech.

[–] webrowser 11 years ago

Thank YOU for bringing back the S&S 95 love to this board!

You're very welcome! I'm so glad that others are enjoying this thread!

Austen's humor is one of the best things about her storytelling, IMO! I agree with you, and feel that adaptations should include the same playful spirit she crafted into her novels, in order to truly shine.