I'm rereading the novel over Christmas break, and I'm wondering who (actor-wise) would make the best Brandon? I don't have any huge problems with either David Morrissey or Alan Rickman, but there seems to be something lacking in both of them that I'm getting from Colonel Brandon in the novel. Any thoughts? Of course it's an incredibly subjective question because even if someone looks the part, their interpretation might ruin everything.
shareFrom the book, I always assumed that Jane Austen intended her readers to see Brandon as the good, stable, socially conventional man who will be faithful to, provide for, and care for his wife, but who will not -- and cannot -- be the "romantic hero" of the 1995 and 2008 adaptations. For that reason, I think the actor playing him should be sufficiently ordinary in voice and appearance so as not to stand out, and he should have a bit of an Everyman quality. Neither Alan Rickman nor David Morrissey has these traits; both are too charismatic and far above average, so a lot of the genuine mystery of the character is gone. It's just too obvious that these Brandons have interesting pasts and secrets to reveal, which is a problem.
My point makes sense when you consider the degree to which Willoughby and Brandon are painted as opposites in the novel: Willoughby is the handsome man with an abundance of natural talents and personal charm, who is, underneath, coldhearted and unworthy, whereas Brandon is the plain man of no exceptional talents (unless you count the ability to run an estate đ), who nonetheless possesses a great deal of kindness, humility, and most of the other virtues Austen champions in her novels. Among other things, the subplot emphasizes the dangers of valuing appearances over real substance.
In the book, it isnât Brandon who has an instantly appealing, mellifluous voice; itâs Willoughby. Brandon doesnât play or even demonstrate knowledge of music (perish the thought!); he listens attentively to Marianneâs music without knowing or caring anything about the finer points, just as he later admires Elinorâs painted firescreen while protesting against connoisseurship. Willoughby is the one who understands music and actively encourages Marianneâs musical pursuits, even singing along with her in an unacceptably flirtatious manner. Willoughby is described as a remarkably bold rider; Brandon rides, but apparently not as well as Willoughby. Brandon doesnât read poetry aloud, nor does he show any particular interest in it -- that is Willoughbyâs forte.
I like Alan Rickman very much, and I think heâs brilliant in this role, yet I see a very clear distinction between Brandon in the novel and Brandon in this film. The Brandon of the novel is a guy who competently manages his estate, cares for his ward (who usually lives elsewhere), hunts with his friend, socializes with the local gentry (and presumably some subset of the London one), and -- I assume -- stays abreast of relevant political and social developments. He probably reads a fair amount in his spare time, but I doubt that he reads much poetry, and if he does, then it is most likely not the sort that enthralled Marianne. A typical evening after dinner at the Brandonsâ home, I imagine that Brandon would be relaxing in an armchair, perhaps scanning the newspaper, and listening to his wife playing the piano. âThat was lovely, dear. And what piece was it?â Marianne would tell him, he might allude (delicately! đ) to her pregnancy and gently suggest that she not over-exert herself, and she might reassure him that all was well. Eventually, they would retire to bed.
Iâm not arguing that it is completely successful with all viewers, but this film clearly aims to show more common interests, and thus more of a connection, between Marianne and Brandon. In the book, their connection lies primarily in their vaguely similar experiences with lost love. Beyond that, Brandon is good, if unexciting, which makes him an unquestionably better option than the bad but thrilling Willoughby. The film stays relatively faithful to most of this, I think, except that it transfers to Brandon some of the talents and characteristics that, in the book, were Willoughbyâs alone. And it doesn't help that Rickman in this film has -- as Emma Thompson says in the commentary -- such an air of mystery and romance. Greg Wise has a very nice voice, which pales in comparison with the lovely intonation and expressiveness of Alan Rickmanâs. Sorry, but I think the majority of people would have to agree with this. đ
This film's Brandon is musical, too, while Willoughby is not. Aside from his brief query about Brandonâs pianoforte, Willoughby is not in any way associated with music in the film. Brandon, on the other hand, is said to be a decent performer (though we donât see him play, it is true), and evidently very discriminating in selecting instruments and knowledgeable enough to choose songs appropriate to Marianneâs taste and skill level. Even his very first scene subtly links him to Marianne through music. And, of course, he reads poetry to Marianne as she is recovering. Willoughby is a reader of poetry, too, so at least the film kept this detail. It wouldnât do to strip away or water down all of his abilities.
Unlike the book, the film does not show Marianne expressing an interest in horseback riding. However, if it did, then she would surely find much to admire in Brandonâs riding as well as Willoughbyâs. The scenes of Willoughby riding his beautiful, pale gray horse are very gorgeously shot, but -- nicely done or not -- there are only two of them in the film. Brandon, being less handsome and riding a less showy (but still gorgeous! đ) black horse, doesnât cut quite as dashing a figure as Willoughby, but he rides very well, nonetheless (there are two instances of him dramatically galloping away, one of which could not possibly be in the book -- when Brandon travels to Barton to fetch Mrs. Dashwood, he goes by carriage), and there are actually more scenes of him on horseback. Make of these changes what you will, but they turn Brandon into more of a desirable figure than he is in the book. A more literally faithful script would stress his outward ordinariness, and forgo these sorts of dramatics.
So what current actor would I like to see as Brandon? I don't know. All of the British actors of the appropriate age that I can think of at the moment are either too attractive, too charismatic, or too well-known to be Austen's Brandon. A relative unknown might well be the best bet. Good luck on finding anyone willing to write the sort of screenplay I've proposed, however.
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
Raincrow, I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts. This one gave me much to chew on. It's been far too long since I read the novel -- I had forgotten about much of the detail you mention in your description of the character Austen created. I find it interesting that Emma Thompson transferred many of Willoughby's interests/abilities to Brandon in the film. It almost seems as though Rickman's Brandon serves as a bridge between Elinor and Marianne in Thompson's creation. He has a good dose of sense, but also some romantic sensibilities that he lacked in the novel. My recollection of my reaction to Brandon as I read the novel was that he was a nice guy but just kind of floating around in the background. There was nothing particularly compelling about him or his story, and while it's nice that Marianne found she could be happy with him at the end of the novel -- to borrow Marianne's own lines from the movie -- something was "wanting."
I tend to think that part of Thompson's motive was to make the end less jarring than it would have been had the novel been followed more closely. I love the way the movie ends, and I adore the pairing of Kate Winslet and Alan Rickman, but I'll grant it is much more "Hollywood" than Austen's ending.
You mentioned Emma Thompson's comment that Alan Rickman had/has a mysterious quality. That triggered a thought related to one of my posts in a previous thread about Marianne's initial feelings for Brandon. While I agree that Marianne is not attracted to him at that point, I felt there was some kind of interest that I could not put my finger on. After reading Emma's comment, I wonder if it would be more appropriate to say that Marianne is intrigued by Brandon at the beginning of the film. There is an air of mystery about him and I'd think the romantic in her might be curious about him. At least up until Mrs. Jennings starts trying to pair them up.
The question posed by the OP got me thinking about who I might cast as Brandon that would be more accurate. I am not sure I am completely comfortable with either of these options, but they are two actors who came to mind. First would be the actor who played Colonel Fitzwilliam in the 1995 P&P. Second suggestion is the actor who plays Mr. Bates in Downton Abbey. Even though Alan Rickman is not the Colonel Brandon of the novel, I have a hard time imagining anyone else in the role. :)
Thanks, gallentx. đ I actually think that Colonel Brandonâs backstory in the book is interesting; it explains a great deal about his current disposition, and demonstrates that he is capable of passion and willing to make sacrifices for love. (I donât know why the story was changed it for the film, but at least the key elements remain: Brandon and Eliza loved each other, their love led to a tragedy, and Brandon still mourns for her and takes care of her daughter. Come to think of it, Iâm pretty sure that Andrew Daviesâ version doesnât make any mention of Brandonâs attempted elopement, either, so itâs not just Emma Thompson whoâs at fault here.) The backstory would probably make a reasonably entertaining tragic romance on its own.
Still, even though Brandon has a history that indicates he might have been closer to a conventional âromantic heroâ as a very young man than he is as an older one, his on-the-wrong-side-of-five-and-thirty-year-old self is repeatedly described by Jane Austen as rather ordinary and practical. A lot of people see his duel (in the book) as further evidence of his romantic side, but Iâm unconvinced by that argument. If Iâm not mistaken, duels were basically the customary method of dealing with perceived affronts to oneâs honor, and even if they were falling out of favor among the general population in Jane Austenâs day (Iâm remembering that hilarious section in Pride and Prejudice where everyone views Mrs. Bennet as out of her mind for claiming that Mr. Bennet and Wickham will fight a duel), they were still de rigueur in the military, at least -- and Brandon is an officer. So I doubt that Austen intended to award him any âromantic hero pointsâ for it. That said, I guess itâs perfectly natural for 21st-century readers to view it as a romantic action, and it suggests strong, turbulent emotion, if nothing else.
Yes, on the topic of Mr. Rickman, Emma Thompson said, if I recall correctly, âHe would be mysterious playing a milkman.â đ Sheesh, as if the world needed any more milkman jokes...
All joking aside, one thing that I really like about Rickmanâs performance -- and that I think keeps it grounded -- is its relative unobtrusiveness; this Brandon is quiet, hesitant, and diffident, so it feels believable that he manages to linger in the background -- more or less -- for a substantial portion of the film.
Brendan Coyle and Anthony Calf are a little too old now, arenât they? Of course, so was Alan Rickman -- and though some people object to his age, not everyone does. On a different note, Colonel Fitzwilliam is another character that I actually find more appealing in the adaptation than in the book. The 1995 miniseries Pride and Prejudice omits his comment that he plans to marry into wealth, and makes him more physically attractive than he probably should be. Heâs nothing to Colin Firthâs Darcy, however. đ
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
Great post, I really enjoyed reading, esp the discussion about Thompson infusing some of Willoughby's characteristics into Brandon to create a more romantic hero of him.
All three leading men were enhanced in this production to make them seem more romantic than they were in the novel. Edward was given all those scenes with Margaret, and the clues to Willoughby's insincerity were left out. E.g. Willoughby carries a pocket size book of Marianne's favorite poems (Cowper in the novel, rather than Shakespeare's sonnets in the film). Also in the novel, Willoughby takes up Marianne's favorite poems only after she reveals them to him, which is quite different from how he is portrayed in the film.
Now for suggestions of a current actor to portray Brandon, A few years ago, before he became so famous (and turned into a sex god) I would have said someone like Cumberbatch was plain enough. Stephen Campbell Moore is the right kind of actor, but too conventially handsome. Richard Harrington? Oliver Dimmsdale? Burn Gorman?
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. One other detail worth mentioning -- which I noticed after I reread the book just last month -- is that, in the book, Brandon doesn't actually develop romantic feelings for Marianne until after Marianne falls in love with Willoughby:
Colonel Brandon's partiality for Marianne, which had so early been discovered by his friends, now first became perceptible to Elinor, when it ceased to be noticed by them. Their attention and wit were drawn off to his more fortunate rival; and the raillery which the other had incurred before any partiality arose, was removed when his feelings began really to call for the ridicule so justly annexed to sensibility. Elinor was obliged, though unwillingly, to believe that the sentiments which Mrs. Jennings had assigned him for her own satisfaction, were now actually excited by her sister; . . . (ch. 10, S&S)
"As you point out, Willoughby in the 1995 film clearly enjoys Shakespeare's sonnets and has at least one of them memorized (or nearly memorized), which definitely does not line up with what we know from the novel."
Of course I don't know what Thompson had in mind, but I rather thought it was intended to show just how manipulative Willoughby was. It seemed that poem might have been a favorite of many young girls and if his goal was to make himself presentable to young ladies to selfishly win their favor for his personal pleasure, what better way than to carry a well known little booklet of poems around and have a handful of poems (that were popular with the ladies) memorized and even have a presentation prepared to swoon them? Who knows how many little poem booklets a man like that might have had stashed in this or that pocket to "just happen to have" the one that the young lady de jour mentions and enjoys? IOW, I thought it was among the things that made Wise's Wiloughby that much more dangerous...he was not only charming but conniving.
That's interesting, but I don't think Thompson's script supports it. îč There's nothing on screen that suggests Willoughby's pockets are filled with miniature volumes of verse. Unfortunately, Thompson seems determined throughout the script to portray Willoughby as the perfect romantic hero, and this scene is one of the worst culprits. It is contrary to Austen's Willoughby, and responsible for many viewers of this film being convinced Willoughby wasn't a cad, he just made a mistake.
Reading Thompson's script book for S&S convinced me years ago that Thompson's intentions were as I described above. îč
That's an interesting point. One detail that I have known about for a long time is that Willoughby remembers the poem almost correctly, but not quite (he says "storms" in place of "tempests"), which might indicate that perhaps he isn't as passionately fond of it as he's letting on, but it's hard to say for certain.
In the book, it's pretty clear that Willoughby only pretends to be a Romantic who holds the exact same opinions as Marianne, and I'm not sure that I can see him carrying an entire book of poems around on the off chance that some young woman he wants to seduce would appreciate them! đ As I mentioned previously, the 2008 BBC miniseries might be better, by just a hair, at getting this aspect of his character across than the Ang Lee film, but I'd argue that, on the whole, the difference is negligible. The miniseries does have Willoughby immediately agreeing with Marianne's opinion of Pope, but it also shows Marianne being introduced to Byron's work through Willoughby and, later, reciting some Wordsworth before saying, "Willoughby taught me that." Maybe the creators of these adaptations feel that an audience would not accept an intelligent young woman falling in love with a man who parrots her opinions in an attempt to gain her favor. Still, that is what Jane Austen wrote.
@magpieskye: While I don't entirely hold with the "Death of the Author" concept, I do think that Emma Thompson's intentions for this film aren't necessarily important, or at least I would say that they aren't necessarily more important than any of the other filmmakers' intentions, particularly those of producer Lindsay Doran and director Ang Lee. Thompson wasn't the only person involved, and I think that the direction and editing of the film give it a lot of subtlety, elegance, and naturalism, which are sometimes lacking in the script itself. That statement is not meant to minimize Thompson's contributions, by the way -- I'm just pointing out that she isn't the subtlest of writers. đ The completed film, on the other hand, does seem subtler than most Austen adaptations, at least in my opinion. I suspect that Lee's contributions had a great deal to do with that.
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
However, we have a published Script by Thompson, with Thompson's insights, which is why my comments were about her intentions rather than anyone else's. îč
Nice yellow-billed cuckoo, btw.
Fair enough. I admit that I didn't know whether Emma Thompson actually considered Willoughby to be some kind of hero. If she did, then I would like to ask her why she did, because it seems to me that she didn't write him that way. Carrying an injured Marianne back to Barton Cottage is his sole heroic deed, if you want to call it that. I suppose that some people might choose not to count that incident as an example of heroism because of Willoughby's ulterior motives, and I think that they would have a valid point. That particular incident could be interpreted either way, really, but the main argument I wanted to make is that, at least in my opinion, Willoughbyâs many dishonorable and cruel actions in this film prevent me from seeing him as a âperfect romantic hero,â and, for that reason, I do not feel obligated to agree with Thompsonâs opinion of his character.
I feel much the same way about some of J. K. Rowlingâs interpretations of her Harry Potter characters. For example, she seems to view Dumbledore and Harry as far more noble and heroic than I do (I recall that, in one interview, she referred to Dumbledore as "innately good," and Harry is praised numerous times within the series -- and especially in the seventh book -- for his supposed virtue and selflessness). I donât think that Harry and Dumbledore are bad people, necessarily, but I do find that Rowling tends to ignore or, at best, gloss over some of the morally questionable actions that she has them take. Of course, her readers are not required to agree with her opinions, either.
I think practically everyone should like Yellow-billed Cuckoos. đ I like magpies, too, although they don't occur where I live.
đ To tie this into the original thread topic, let me just reiterate that I believe Alan Rickman and David Morrissey are more attractive and charismatic than Brandon seems to be in the novel, but even so, most of the âinaccuraciesâ in the portrayals of Brandon in this film and the 2008 adaptation have more to do with the writing than with the particular actors chosen. Iâd be curious to see how a different writer known for period drama -- Sandy Welch, for example -- might interpret the characters.
"Courage is found in unlikely places." ~ The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
This post was done in the good old IMDb days when people would write long, thoughtful, analytical posts like this. Bravo to the author of this one wherever you are. Well-done.
shareI think the trouble with adapting a novel for the screen is that whoever you cast will not appeal to everyone who has read the book. Personally I think Alan is fantastic as the Colonel, yes I can see that to some people his Brandon is hotter and more interesting than he might be in the novel but he has the qualities of Brandon. He is gentle, quiet and reserved and in the film is pushed into the background when Willoughby comes onto the scene.
I also think that it seems that when romance novels are adapted for the screen often a character like Brandon has to be made more attractive in some way, otherwise some people might not accept the romance between two characters. I think many people have come to expect period drama men to be smouldering, young hunks so the people adapting these novels keep casting men like that. Look at the differences between the new and old Poldark for example, in the new one he is a hunk in the old one he is more like a man of that period(I think Robin Ellis is very good looking though personally but his looks are not so in your face).
My favourite version of Emma is the 1972 miniseries. I love John Carson as Mr Knightley and I think he would have made a good Brandon. Later versions of this story have made Knightley more attractive (Jeremy Northam for example).
Go to bed Frank or this is going to get ugly .