Since you apparently missed it in my post, I will say again that I think Davies' P&P95 admirable. I am not crazy about the Darcy beefcake, but the characters whom Austen tells us behaved with propriety do so; the most egregious offender, appropriately, is Lydia.
I don't object to showing Lydia, or Marianne and Willoughby, behaving with some impropriety, but Brandon should not be so out-of-sight of Austen's delineation. Nor should Elinor, nor Edward.
Really, the Brandon, and, consequently, the entire Marianne arc, in the 2008 is altered so as to be almost unrecognizable, were it not for the proper names.
Brandon and Marianne, when they marry, are not a Regency Romance, at least, in the novel and the 1995. There is great love on his side, great esteem and affection on hers. I think the 1995 gives us, wordlessly, the assurance that she will love as she is loved, but not - quite - yet. The 2008 shows hearts & flowers, the Colonel and his child-bride. The 1995 shows us a rejuvenated Colonel, and a sobered, matured, but happy young woman - Marianne has grown up. I do not see that in the 2008, and I recall similar feelings regarding both the 1971 and the 1981 (I think that was the year).
I really feel that only the 1995 adaptation gives us a Marianne of real dimension, stature of character, mind and spirit. Which makes her errors the less excusable. IIRC, in the earlier mini-series, and certainly in the 2008, Marianne's principal failing seems to be only her lack of age and experience. Austen, and the 1995 film, do not make that excuse. Marianne is young, but that is not the issue - she is wrong in her self-centeredness, not merely youthful, but making grave errors, and they must exact a grave price. As she comes to realize.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
reply
share
Julie-30
10 years ago
I am not going to rehash everything I've already written about how P&P95 is just not as faithful as some think. You can read it here -- a post written within less than 2 weeks after a re-(re-re-re-...)read of the book:
https://currentscene.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/2010-a-jane-austen-odyssey-13/
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
reply
share
locusnola
10 years ago
Oh, it's not perfectly faithful, I didn't say it was. I don't know any perfectly faithful adaptation of any original taken from a different medium.
But it is far, far, closer to Austen's novel than the 2008 S&S is to its source material, in character take, as well as in language. I'd say it gets about 90% right.
And yes, I've watched and re-read. There are changes, some lines I miss. But the overall work is, for a filmed adaptation, notably faithful, comparatively speaking.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
reply
share
Raincrow11
10 years ago
Really? Compared to the book, this film is positively melodramatic (although compared to the 2008 version, the script is a model of restraint).
Itβs interesting that so few people, apart from Austen scholars, apparently, seem to take issue with the fact that more than a few of the qualities given to Willoughby in the novel -- a mellifluous voice, dashing horsemanship, aptitude for music, competence at reading poetry, and more -- are also bestowed upon Brandon in the 1995 film. Actually, in the film, Willoughby is no longer musical at all; that quality is Brandonβs alone -- a huge departure from the book, in which Willoughby appears to be the embodiment of all of Marianneβs romantic ideals, whereas Brandon has strength of character but, like Edward Ferrars, no special talents. Fanny Price in Mansfield Park is basically the female version of that sort of character; her cousins and Mary Crawford have considerable talent and beauty, but -- at least in Austenβs opinion -- they are inferior to Fanny because they lack a strong moral core.
All that aside, one of the things that I think the 1995 version does better than the miniseries -- although it, too, presents Col. Brandon as far more of a dashing romantic figure than he is in the book (due to Alan Rickmanβs riveting screen presence as well as a script that puts rather too much emphasis on conventional romantic tropes) -- is that it doesnβt neglect his more melancholy, restrained, retiring qualities. Rickmanβs Col. Brandon is soft-spoken, very reserved, and often hesitant and cautious. That works better for me than the very self-assured Brandon in the 2008 version.
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share
fatalframe80
10 years ago
I always loved Emma Thompson's comment that Alan Rickman could be mysterious playing the milkman, lol. But I always thought he was a good Brandon. He plays the role quietly, the only really dashing thing he does is carry her home through the rain. I always wondered what the problem with the '95 P&P's Darcy. He's described in the book as being tall and dark haired and austere. I think Colin Firth fits the part. But yeah, the wet-shirt scene is very not Austen. To me it's the equivalent of throwing a bikini on a girl in the Regency period to get some male viewers.
reply
share
Raincrow11
10 years ago
Well, I don't know that I would call Alan Rickman's Col. Brandon particularly "dashing," either -- he is too quiet and reserved for that. I just meant that he is more outwardly emotional and conventionally romantic than the book's Brandon. Brandon in the book doesn't go galloping about on horseback nearly to the extent that the character does in the movie; he doesn't languish outside Marianne's sickroom door, desperate for a job to do; and he certainly doesn't woo Marianne by reading poetry and sending music. π I suppose that most filmmakers absolutely cannot resist adding their little "enhancements" to these stories.
I love Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy. Oddly enough, I've always found the wet shirt scene amusing rather than sexy, and if it had been filmed realistically, with Darcy covered in little pieces of scum and algae from that suspiciously greenish pond, it would have been even more hilarious and cringe-inducing. π I think he looks much better when he's fully dressed, preferably in an outfit that includes the green coat and cream-colored cravat. As I recall, Darcy is described in the book as being taller than Bingley, and I'd say he is also meant to seem a little austere, at least to Elizabeth, but his hair color is never mentioned. It appears that most people envision him as dark-haired. A blond Darcy seems somehow wrong, I guess.
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share
fatalframe80
10 years ago
I always found the Darcy scene more hilarious than sexy also. They both look so uncomfortable and it always makes me laugh to see them both squirm, lol. It actually took me a while to figure out that it was that scene that people were referring to when they talk about the male eye candy. I could have sworn he's described as dark but I could be remembering wrong. The 'dark' also could have meant complexion and I just assumed hair color.
I see what you're saying about Brandon. He does have more of an active role in the movie while book Brandon is way more passive and reserved. But then movies are so much more physical than books so maybe that was the only way they could express his emotions was by actions. I love Brandon in the book and movie. He always seems so much sweeter than Willoughby ever did.
reply
share
Raincrow11
10 years ago
To be fair, Brandon does experience much anxiety over Marianne's health in the book. I just feel that it was exaggerated a bit in the film -- which is understandable given the two-hour running time. Everything must be presented as clearly and efficiently as possible in the limited time available, and showing Brandon fidgeting and pacing outside Marianne's room, obviously in a state of distress, certainly does the trick. Alan Rickman's Brandon is very quiet, reserved, and restrained, but his emotions are intense, and sometimes -- as in the aforementioned scene at Cleveland, and the scene where he reveals what he knows of Willoughby, among others -- he is barely able to contain them. I like how he moves his hands in these scenes.
As far as Darcy's hair color is concerned, I think it's never mentioned in the book. I did a quick search for it in the Project Gutenberg online text, and found nothing, but it's possible that I may have searched for the wrong words and overlooked something important.
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share
fatalframe80
10 years ago
I did a quick look too and didn't see anything so I'm most likely mistaken.
I kind of wonder if, in Rickman's portrayal, they weren't trying to create a stronger link between him and Marianne. In the book it is hinted that he does have deep passion for things but is more restrained and gloomy because of circumstance and that with Marianne as his wife he becomes more happy and lighter of heart. So I was kind of thinking that some of what they show is to make them seem more compatible with the more intense emotions and the reading to her since it was such a big thing with her. The part with the pianoforte always kind of bugged me though. Since in the book she already had one (which makes more sense, with how devoted to music she is) and also, it's such an inappropriate gift for a man to make a woman whom he is not engaged to. In fact, as you probably already know :), it's a huge point in Emma.
I also have to say this has been by far one of the most interesting (and mature,lol) conversations I've ever had on imdb!
reply
share
Raincrow11
10 years ago
Yep, references to hair color are generally few and far between in an Austen novel. Eye color isn't mentioned particularly often, either -- even Elizabeth Bennet is referred to only once as having "dark eyes." Jane Fairfax in Emma is one of the few characters I can think of who gets a fairly detailed description of her physical appearance.
And on the subject of colors and appearance, I also notice that Mr. Bingley rides a black horse in the novel. In both the 1995 and 2005 Pride and Prejudice adaptations, it's a gray (not technically white, though -- not like the Lone Ranger's Silver π) horse.
I think you're right about Rickman's portrayal. I like him very much as Brandon, but although he plays the role gently and quietly, he still seems more demonstrative than Brandon is in the novel. Additionally, I have to admit that I've always imagined Austen's Brandon as somewhat awkward and clumsy when speaking -- note how many times he hesitates, pauses, or corrects himself. Thankfully, Rickman does some of that, but overall, the impression he gives is of someone who carefully considers each word, and his pauses give the lines proper dramatic weight. To be fair, much of this is probably beyond his control; the famous Rickman voice lends gravitas to nearly any role. This is just my opinion, however -- I'm sure other people have different interpretations of Brandon's speaking style.
The pianoforte bit is pretty silly. I can't seriously attempt to defend it any more than I can defend Mr. Darcy's dive into the pond. π All I can say is that neither scene offends me, although I'm sure that both would have annoyed Jane Austen.
I've enjoyed this conversation, too. π
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share
fatalframe80
10 years ago
I believe in Emma, Emma is also described as having the 'true hazel eye' but those are the only examples I can thing of. It usually seems to be light, dark, bright, soft, etc. That is one of the things I like about Austen, is that she actually let's the reader imagine it for themselves rather than hold our hand and describe every single detail.
I have to say that I find Rickman's voice to be very sexy, πΈ. I actually could never figure out if his speech is supposed to be halting because he's a bit socially awkward or if it's because a lot of the times when he's speaking the most it's generally on topics that men were reluctant to talk about with women. He's not shown much in just a general chat session, really, although he and Elinor converse quite a bit. Most of his longest speeches are about adultery, illegitimate children and so on, all topics men would not usually discuss before ladies.
reply
share
Raincrow11
10 years ago
That is one of the things I like about Austen, is that she actually let's the reader imagine it for themselves rather than hold our hand and describe every single detail.
Same here. The lack of detailed physical descriptions in Austen novels doesn't bother me at all. I always have my own versions of her characters -- not any of the various movie versions -- in my head when I'm reading the stories. I think that readers can all recognize many of the
personalities she depicts so well, but the rest isn't particularly relevant. It also gives filmmakers a lot of leeway in their casting decisions.
It's true that Brandon's conversations in the book are mostly on subjects that would have been considered awkward to mention in front of the "ladies" π (and on that note, I think Austen might've been poking a little fun at this social convention -- after all, Elinor listens to Brandon without getting the vapors), so that definitely accounts for some of the halting quality of his speech. The issue I have is that Willoughby is clearly the outgoing, suave, smooth-talking, handsome guy with a good voice (and a good
singing voice, to boot), and I have always assumed that Edward and Brandon are intended to be the complete opposite of that: quiet, reserved, a bit awkward, and not very good-looking -- though possessing good hearts. I think that they are meant to be outwardly ordinary men. As I mentioned earlier, Rickman portrays Brandon as reserved, quiet, and self-effacing. Additionally, he is by no means a conventionally attractive man. So far, that seems perfectly in line with what Austen wrote. The trouble is that Rickman's voice, screen presence, and charisma prevent me from seeing him as "ordinary" in other ways. YMMV. π
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~
The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
reply
share