I agree that he is less villainous than the Willoughby in the novel, but he is at least more of a villain than Greg Wise's Willoughby.
Again that is subjective, but both actors do a pretty poor job. But then maybe they do as good a job as the respective scripts allow. After all Austen herself lets Willoughby off pretty easy.
In what way did Austen get the duel wrong? She never specifies the kinds of weapons that were used, so it is easy to assume that they must have been pistols, particularly since Brandon says that he and Willoughby were unwounded, which would have been quite difficult to accomplish in a sword duel, but VERY easy to accomplish in a duel in which notoriously inaccurate, Regency era pistols were used. Antique pistols are far less reliable than modern ones.
OK two points.
1. A gentleman would never mention a duel to a lady, it just wasn't done. Austen knew this but she puts it in the book anyway.
2. Regency era gunsmiths produced some of the finest one shot pistols ever made. They were deadly and they were accurate within 20 yards. There was a reason that the men paced ten steps away from each other and that reason was accuracy in firing the pistols.
How do you know that Austen wouldn't have been aware of this? I am not saying that she would have known every detail of how a duel should be fought, but considering that she was born in 1775 and grew up in an era when duels were not uncommon (although they were beginning to fall out of favor), I think that she must had had at least SOME idea of what was involved. In one of her letters, she does allude to duels when she discusses an accident that happened to a man named Earle Harwood:
I think you just proved my point. And I'm quite sure that Austen's brothers did know a lot more about duels than she did, they would never have discussed such a thing with their sister though.
It is true that Austen didn't write any conversations between Brandon and Marianne, but it is NOT accurate to say that she never mentioned or described any conversations between them. It is a screenwriter's job to interpret and expand upon parts of the story that are given short shrift in the novel. Do you think it would have been acceptable for Brandon and Marianne to NEVER speak to each other in S&S 2008? I don't. There are numerous other examples of this in Austen's works. For instance, in P&P, Darcy's second proposal to Elizabeth in Chapter 48 is only described by Austen; we do not know the exact words that Darcy uses here:
But we don't get a description of any conversation between Brandon and Marianne. He certainly talks to Elinor, but never to Marianne on page.
And that passage is a pretty good description of a conversation between two people. Now I'm nor saying that Davies or Thompson is wrong to put in conversations between them, but strictly speaking it's not being faithful to book canon. I do understand that people today expect some conversation though.
I don't think that S&S 2008 skips over Marianne's illness at all. And if we are going to get into a discussion about the use of Austen's dialogue, I feel it is worth mentioning that Emma Thompson has repeatedly joked that S&S 1995 contains only about five lines of Austen. Yes, this is an exaggeration, but not by much.
It certainly does skip over Marianne's illness. It has her out of her bed when she would not have been able to stand. What is that if not skipping over her illness. And you are right, both films skimp on the Austen dialogue. Why is that an excuse for the 2008 production? Is it to be excused because Thompson did it? Not much of an excuse IMO. The 1995 production's failure is not a reason for 2008 to do the same thing.
And it's wrong to say that I don't like the productions. I like them a great deal. I like them for what they are...adaptations. I can look at them clearly and critique them without hating them. Could I wish for them to be better, sure I can. Can I appreciate David Morrisey's shoulders and tight derriere, sure I can. Can I appreciate the subtlety in Alan Rickman's performance, of course. I see it even if you don't. I like the films, I just don't think that they are perfect. And I think I've seen every one of the BBC and ITV productions at one time or another. Austen, Gaskell, Dickens, Thackeray and the Brontes plus so many more. It's one thing that we do very well on this side of the pond. Well it helps that most of the building are still standing. Have you seen 'Our Mutual Friend', David Morrisey is in that and gives a very good performance indeed?
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
summeriris
11 years ago
IMO, Dominic Cooper does a very good job with what he is given to work with, and, fortunately, what he has to work with is much better than what Greg Wise is given.
Well since there isn't that much difference in what they are given, that's not really saying much. They are both IMO pretty forgettable.
In the novel, Elinor asks Brandon if he has met Willoughby since the scandal with Eliza. I don't think that Brandon would have mentioned the duel if he had not been asked this question. I am not sure how socially inappropriate it would have been to discuss such things with a lady, though. If, as you say, this was something that Austen would have known, then why did she include it in the novel? Austen was a keen observer and generally very particular about accuracy in her novels.
Yes she was but this was her first novel so I think she hadn't sharpened her talent to her usual standard yet. I know it wasn't the first published but it was the first one she wrote. Cut the lady some slack. She didn't know that 200 years later her every word was going to be dissected.
In Chapter 32, Marianne speaks to Brandon occasionally, and it must be assumed that he responds to her:
Miss Dashwood is Elinor, not Marianne. Marianne as the younger sister is referred to by her first name or Miss Marianne Dashwood. This was the common way of distinguishing the elder in families. This might be a rather obscure point in the US but not in the UK. And their interaction in Ch 46 is hardly an intimate conversation between two people contemplating marriage or even friendship. As for borrowing a book she could have overheard someone say he had it. It's speculative at best.
I see nothing wrong with trying to expand upon various sections of the novel. S&S doesn't have as much dialogue as some of Austen's other novels, so I can appreciate how difficult it must be to adapt.
Ity is and some leeway must be given to the adaptors. I am puzzled as to your disparagement of Thompson's adaptation in this matter though. I know she didn't stress the same points as Davies did but she did not create a fiction that had nothing to do with the novel.
Is it not possible to be very ill and still be able to stand? I don't really understand your point. It's not like we see Wakefield's Marianne running and skipping around Cleveland.
You just quoted the passage where she can't even hold someone's hand without effort. Please be consistent.
It's not an excuse, but S&S 2008 does contain more Austen dialogue than S&S 1995.
Again, that's not saying much. It's got a line or two more so that makes it OK?
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
summeriris
11 years ago
As I agree more or less with your first points I'll open with this one;
If Davies's script is merely a fiction that has nothing to do with the novel, then so is Thompson's. In a earlier post, you mentioned that the "rain scene" at Cleveland, with Marianne wandering into a storm and having to be rescued, does not happen in the book. I also mentioned that Thompson, for some reason, felt it necessary to give Brandon a first name, and you referred to this addition as fan-fiction. Thompson's screenplay changes huge portions of the original story, omits key characters, and, at least IMO, badly misrepresents what Austen was trying to do. Regardless of the arguably nit-picky details that he changed, Davies retained far more of the original plot and did NOT omit characters, so I would say that his adaptation has more to do with the novel than Thompson's version.
I know I might seem a little inconsistent in this but I'll try to explain. Giving Brandon a first name is what I consider Fan Fiction because truthfully, it adds nothing to the plot. The other changes etc made by
both screenwriters are adaptations for dramatic reasons. I understand why both authors gave Brandon some things extra to do, because it's boring just to have him stand around being tragic. I may not like how they did it especially, but I know it was necessary to have him do something. I hope that makes sense.
It doesn't say that it requires a lot of effort for her to hold someone's hand. It does mention her "weakness," but that is a somewhat subjective term.
Sassafras I've had pneumonia, believe me it is outside of the realms of possibility to get out of the bed by yourself the next day. I had to be supported to the toilet and that was next door to the bedroom. There is also the matter of Marianne hearing Willoughby and Elinor from a floor away, but then those houses do echo sound. I'm still a bit puzzled by that. Maybe her hearing was very good.
It's NOT OK, but I am willing to cut Davies some slack because, as I already mentioned, he retained most of the plot and did not omit any of the characters. Much of the dialogue in S&S 2008 is, at least, very similar to what Austen wrote; Davies may have changed the wording in many places, but he kept the original meaning.
That's fine, I think Thompson kept the spirit of the book as well. In fact for a first time at adapting a book I think she did it very well. Davies has adapted more books than I've had hot breakfasts, he is very experienced at it. I expect a quality product from him, I was surprised by how well Thompson did. In case you haven't noticed I really like Austen's work.
To help explain what I mean, there is a miniseries adaptation of Jane Eyre that was produced in 2006, and although it contains surprisingly little of the dialogue that Charlotte Brontë wrote, many fans of the novel still love it, partly because they feel that the new dialogue retains the meaning of those original words, if not the words themselves. That's close to how I feel about S&S 2008. It doesn't adapt the book word-for-word, scene-by-scene, but it captures the essence of the story.
That's the one with Toby Stephens isn't it. That's my daughter's favourite Jane Eyre. I'm going to be a bit controversial here and tell the truth. I have a soft spot in my heart for the MGM 1943 one with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. I know it's not the most faithful one by a long shot, but I love the film. The 2006 and 2011 Jane Eyres were much more faithful to the novel but I will always love the 1943 version. Maybe it's because I never got over the sight of Jane and Helen trudging through the rain with those damn flat irons.
This will lead to my final word in this post. We have to remember that what these films are is entertainment, and one person's entertainment is another person's borefest.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
summeriris
11 years ago
Marianne becomes dangerously ill, but does she have pneumonia?
Believe, what is described in the book is as close to pneumonia as it's possible to get. Even with antibiotics I was off work for over a month. It effected my immune system, well I still am prone to bad flus and colds. My immune system hasn't been the same since.
That's what I have always assumed. It does seem that voices would echo in that house, and Cooper's Willoughby is speaking rather loudly in that scene.
Hence my complaint about the noise values in the production, also why would they have been having that conversation in the hallway with the servants eavesdropping rather than a closed room? That entire scene was off to me. Not the script but the staging of it.
Viewing Emma Thompson's work objectively (or at least, as objectively as possible), I don't think that it is anything particularly special. It certainly did not deserve to win any awards, although, as I have said before, I DO think it is somewhat above average. However, considering how much absolute rubbish there is that somehow gets made into movies, that isn't necessarily saying much. Believe it or not, I am not a huge fan of Andrew Davies in general, but being rather blasé about his work merely because he is experienced and you EXPECT quality seems a bit strange to me. I may not always agree with some of the decisions he makes (particularly some of the ones in P&P 1995 and the 2007 Northanger Abbey), but I think he respects Austen's work very much and has a remarkably good ear for dialogue. S&S 2008 is my clear favorite of the Austen adaptations that he has written.
Maybe it's my familiarity with Davies' work and quite a lot of what he adapts that makes me a little picky about it. I expect quality and a good adaptation and when something strikes me as not quite right it hits like a sour note in an otherwise great performance.
I enjoy Jane Eyre (both the book and some of the adaptations), but I wouldn't call myself a major fan of the Brontës in general. That being said, I think Toby Stephens is a very good Rochester. Actually, he seems quite a bit nicer than the Rochester of the novel, and, as someone who is seriously turned off by much of Rochester's dialogue (not to mention a number of his actions, but those are harder to alter for an adaptation without changing the entire point of the story) in the novel, I can't say that I mind. The 1983 miniseries adaptation seems to be the most faithful to the novel, though. It follows the book practically word-for-word. I have yet to see the 1943 film, shame on me.
My niece, the one I'm going with this autumn is a major Bronte fan, she has dragged me to that damn parsonage in Haworth three times. Haworth doesn't have that much that is interesting except she can drool over the desk where Charlotte did her writing and weep over the couch that Emily died on. Then she will want to go walking over the moor to the farmhouse that Emily based Wuthering Heights on. Her sons don't care much for it either, the last time they flatly refused to go. Instead they went with their Dad to a theme park, I wish I could have gone with them. I really like 'Jane Eyre' but I'm quite content to reread the book.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
summeriris
11 years ago
Pneumonia was a killer before antibiotics. It has a very severe effect on the immune system and yes, it probably took Marianne about a year to fully recover her health. I don't think 1995 overplayed it at all, and I do think 2008 underplayed it.
How would I have staged that scene???? I think I would have had Willoughby and Elinor in a room with a door, and the door closed. For two reasons, privacy and drama. In a house with a lot of servants you did not have private conversations where the downstairs maid could hear it unless you wanted the entire county to know what was said before lunchtime. Drama because I could just see Willoughby slamming out of the room like a spoilt child. Elinor told Marianne what he said, that was always a given.
I like Davies adaptations on the whole. He is very popular this side of the pond.
I don't think Thompson has really written that much apart from S&S. She wrote the Nanny McPhee scripts, the first one was better than the second. She has two films coming out soon where she wrote the scripts. If my experience is anythng to go by, writing just takes some people longer than others. Take GRR Martin for instance. He had better get a move on, I want to read 'The Winds of Winter' before I am too old to hold the book.
I was being hard on Haworth, it is a pretty village and the walk is really rather nice, but once would have been more than enough. It does aggravate me that she won't go to Apsley House with me though. She's a single mum and I go with her to help with the kids. But those kids are growing up, time to leave them with their dad.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
summeriris
11 years ago
Well, I don't deny that pneumonia would have killed a lot of people in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it can certainly kill people even today. Part of my response to your post was to ask whether what Marianne has in S&S 1995 even IS pneumonia.
She had a very high fever and was rambling in her speech. That was serious, especially if the fever could not be brought down. In today's world with modern medicine a fever like this can be controlled, but before the 20th Century it had to run it course. With all the consequences a high fever can bring on. These included convulsions, brain damge and of course death. Marianne has all these symptoms in the book (see Ch43), I think it's safe to say her illness conld not be over-dramatised. As for the bleeding, that was the universal remedy for everything. That practice killed more people than the disease, but strangely enough in heart conditions it can be very helpful. If the body has less blood to pump, the heart doesn't have to work as hard.
I don't know... it still works pretty well for me, even though I like your idea better. The 1981 BBC miniseries gets this scene far closer to the novel than S&S 2008. Have you seen that older adaptation? It is pretty good, even with the shoddy production values.
Thank you, your question really made me think about it. No, I haven't seen the 1981 production and I'm trying to remember why. I think it was because at that time I was living in Michigan and working two jobs. It's on YouTube, I might take a look.
That was basically my point. She hasn't done very much, and what little she HAS done has not been of particularly high quality. Maybe her schedule as an actress keeps her from writing as much as she otherwise would. Regardless, I still think that she got lucky with her S&S script. There were several films in 1995 that, IMO, have better writing.
I do think she did a pretty good job on the whole, her adaptation is not...for lack of a better word I'll say sexy like Davies' script, but I do think she did a great job on it. The only nomination I think was her best competition was 'Apollo 13' and the Academy always loves a classic better than a modern story. I did think that 'Babe' was charming though. I thought and still think that 'Braveheart' should be buried in the deepest landfill you can find.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
summeriris
11 years ago
In these chapters, she is struggling to hold herself together, but at no point does she have the sort of complete emotional breakdown that Thompson's Elinor has in the film. Also, in the book, Mrs. Jennings is at Cleveland at the time, which is yet another detail that S&S 1995 fails to include.
I don't know how you came by this conclusion. Ch.43 is filled with references to Elinor's 'terror', her 'cruel anxiety',
Elinor, who, reproaching herself for having trifled with so many days of illness, and wretched for some immediate relief
,
medicines had failed; -- the fever was unabated; and Marianne only more quiet -- not more herself -- remained in an heavy stupor.
.
Now I didn't see anything in Thompson's performance that contradicted what Elinor did in the book. In the book she is trying to keep it together but her sister seems to be dying in front of her eyes. The book has ner displaying these fears to Brandon. What do you think that means.? That Elinor, calmed controlled Elinor succeeded in terrifying Brandon with the thought that Marianne was dying. You don't think that that would cause any loving sister to break down in tears? As for the presence of Mrs Jenning's, true the book has her there and the film doesn't. But you know the 2008 production compresses Marianne's illness to a couple of days instead of nearly a week. And we never see anything of Mrs Jennings or the Palmers. Elinor spends the night weeping besides Marianne's bed. So there is emotional breakdowns in the 2008 production and the lack of Mrs Jennings as well. What both productions do well is showing how emotional Elinor is during this time and how hard it is to sit beside an invalid's bed and be helpless. I think you are not being fair to the 1995 production and too eager to praise the 2008 one.
I agree that many remedies would not have been terribly helpful, if at all, during that era.
The main remedy for fever in the early 19th Century was willow bark tea and sponging down. That method is still used today...aspirin and cool compresses. But this would not tackle the cause of the fever, just like it doesn't today.
Well, sometimes the films that REALLY have the best writing are not among the nominees. I agree that S&S 1995 is the sort of thing that the Academy tends to recognize, often to the exclusion of far better films.
I think for the most part the Academy does get the nominations right, it's the Awards I worry about.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply
share
locusnola
11 years ago
It is funny to me that Emma Thompson has only ever won that one Academy Award for screenwriting, and that was all the way back in 1996.
Thompson's 2001 adaptation (co-written with Mike Nichols, who may be assumed to have known what he was about in choosing to write with her) of "Wit" for television was nominated for an Emmy (the adaptation did win for "Outstanding Made-for-Television Movie"). The production team as a whole, including Thompson for her writing, won the Christopher Award; she and Nichols shared the Humanitas Prize. There were quite a few other awards for the production, to which her writing contributed.
Besides that and the snips of dialogue for the 2005P&P, Thompson has only written the two "Nanny McPhee" films since S&S1995. I don't imagine she or anyone else expected Oscar consideration for that material.
Which means, in plain terms, that the ONLY screenplay she has written which could reasonably have been considered by the Academy won the award.
"Effie Gray" will be released soon; we will see how that is received.
I am glad she is writing more, but also glad she hasn't focused on it at the expense of performing.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
reply
share
locusnola
11 years ago
Viewing Emma Thompson's work objectively (or at least, as objectively as possible), I don't think that it is anything particularly special. It certainly did not deserve to win any awards
Since a contrary view, to the extent of awarding the actual accolade, not merely a nomination, of Thompson's screenplay was held by (in alphabetical order):
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
The Boston Society of Film Critics
The Broadcast Film Critics Association (Critics' Choice Awards)
The Evening Standard
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (Golden Globe Awards)
The London Critics Circle
The Los Angeles Film Critics Association
The New York Film Critics Circle
The Society of Texas Film Critics
The University of Southern California
The Writers Guild of America
The Writers Guild of Great Britain
I would have to say that your use of "certainly" is questionable, to say the least. As to the use of "objectively," at least on the subject of this film, it might be advisable for you to consider avoiding it altogether. The qualification does not sufficiently answer.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
reply
share