MovieChat Forums > Sense & Sensibility (2008) Discussion > Elinor is Pathetic....

Elinor is Pathetic....

posted 14 years ago by KCentra
149 replies | jump to latest

Sorry I just finished watching this... never read the book so I don't know how closely related this is... but initially I LOVED Elinor all the way to the last 5 min of the TV show

How could Elinor say yes after being used, tossed away, getting engaged over (I mean Edward made it clearly to his mom he wanted to get engaged to Lucy) and then finally when Lucy decides "oh no I don't want Edward" he comes back to the 2nd woman who had feelings to him (almost like she's second hand). He even wore Lucy's hair in his ring. This issue so much above pride. To me it almost made it seem like Elinor has no self-worth. If she were "sensibility" I could imagine her say yes... but man!

This is probably my least favorite Jane Austen story (if this show is faithful to the book)

[–] btrfly6499 11 years ago

I agree totally with what Roostercharmer says below. But another thing to add in...I think that in the book, Edward is written as being not the most handsome man in the world....I don't think he's supposed to be ugly, but just ordinary. He's charming, kind-hearted, friendly, and honorable. So, I think that with his relationship with Elinor that he really does think she only would view him as a friend...that he thinks so much of her that he doesn't assume someone like her would automatically feel the say way. Given his family's standing/wealth I'm sure he's experienced woman coming on to him because of the money...but how he meets Elinor is very different. I dunno. I really don't think he leads her on intentionally at all. I also think he's honorable and she is very sensible and a realist. She knows how her society works. Also, Willoughby has just been totally unhonorable with her sister. Seeing Edward being willing to stand-by Lucy based on giving his word to her years before is such a 180. I don't see Elinor as pathetic at all. This is actually my favorite Austin story.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

This is late I know but I would like to comment on your post. I do think that Edward is weak, very weak. He could have broken off his engagement to Lucy, in fact it could be argued that his engagement to Lucy was not legal as he would have needed his mother's permission to propose. But he stays engaged to her and he continues to visit her for years. We're not talking a few weeks here. It's been dragged out for four years. How old would Lucy have been when they got engaged anyway? Then he meets Elinor and he does get close to her, and he still doesn't even try to talk to Lucy about this engagement? As for his much vaunted honour, what is honourable about marrying a woman you will be miserable with? And you will probably make miserable in turn. It doesn't make sense, it didn't in the 19th Century and it doesn't now. It's like Edward has painted himself into a corner and we are supposed to feel sorry for him. I can't, if you paint yourself into a corner then you bite the bullet and walk over the wet paint to get out. Instead he seems to be waiting pathetically for someone to open a window so he can jump out of it. It doesn't help much that he's played by Dan Stevens, the wimpiest of wimpy actors IMO.

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

[–] Julie-30 11 years ago

If he had broken his engagement to Lucy, she could have brought him up on charges of breach of promise. Engagements were extremely difficult to get out of, and the man had a more difficult time of it than the woman.

Yes, he may have been too young to get engaged but, once the engagement became public knowledge, Edward dumping Lucy would have caused a scandal that could have damaged Lucy's reputation. And Edward is far too honorable to do that. He made a promise, and he intends to keep it. Why is that weak? It's similar to what happens in Persuasion when Wentworth realizes that people expect him to propose to Louisa Musgrove. He doesn't want to, but he knows he just may have to. That is what being honorable is all about.

I'm betting you think Fanny Price is a weakling too. I happen to disagree. That girl has a spine of stainless steel, and is a better judge of character than the much-loved Elizabeth Bennet.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

He could only have been brought up on charges of Breach of Promise if he had not been a minor when he asked her. As he was young in the book and he had been engaged for over 4 years there is no way he was old enough to ask anyone to marry him, so that doesn't wash. And the engagement was not public knowledge. Public knowledge meant an announcement in the papers, there was no such announcement, so that doesn't wash either. He made a promise and made no move to fulfill it...ever. He never went to his mother and told her he wanted to marry. He never mentioned that he knew a Steele family and he was interested in the younger daughter...ever. He kept the girl on a string for over four years and in that entire time he never mentioned her existence to anyone...yes I do think he was a pitiful excuse for a man. TYhe fact that Lucy Steele was a manipulative young madam isn't an excuse either. Whatever she was she didn't ask him, he asked her.

And I rather like Fanny Price but she has nothing to do with Edward Ferrers. And give Lizzie Bennett her due, she didn't take any c**p from Lady Catherine.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

He stood up for Lucy when he couldn't do anything else. The cat was out of the four year old bag.

And why is Fanny and Lizzie even being mentioned? They never, either of them were in a secret four year old engagement, When you find the relevant passages in P&P or Mansfield Park let me know, otherwise don't drag them into the discussion.

I'm not interested in strawman arguments, Edward was the one who asked Lucy to marry him and then avoided mentioning it to anyone for four years. He was the one who visited Barton and never mentioned his past to a soul. He behaved like a jerk, a cowardly one at that. A man doesn't ask someone to marry him and then keep the girl hanging for years on end. I don't blame Lucy in a way for trying to push him, it was a ridiculous situation.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Oh, I think he probably could have done something else, without too much trouble, but being an honorable man, he decided to stand up for Lucy in spite of his family's disapproval.

What exactly? Sputter ineffectually maybe?

I agree that it would have been better if Edward had told Elinor about his engagement from the very first. He is only human, and he made an unfortunate mistake.

It is amazing how understanding you become about the players in this adaptation.

Engagements could be long, and Lucy was well aware that Edward's family would disapprove of his marrying her. Under the circumstances, keeping the engagement a secret from Edward's family was the best option. Again, though, I agree that Edward should have informed Elinor, who would have had no difficultly in keeping quiet about it. Lucy is a gold-digger, and I think her mercenary nature would have eventually come out, sooner or later.

Oh by all means lets blame the girl. Lucy's faults have nothing to do with Edward's actions. See I don't think he is excused because the girl he was engaged to for four long years was less than charming. Her nature does not act as an excuse for his behavior. That stands and falls on what he did, or rather what he didn't do. He was a fool and Elinor should have kicked him to the kerb. The fact that he made no verbal promises does not excuse his cowardly actions.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Edward stood by his engagement to Lucy by hiding it from every one of his family and friends. For four years she was the secret in his closet and he didn't do much standing by her at all. And the 'breach of promise' is a red herring. Edward was underage when he got engaged, it wasn't binding on anything without his mother's permission. It wasn't announced because nobody knew about it and as the lady's family did the announcing it's pretty clear her family were not pushing it. Probably because they knew there wasn't a leg to stand on regarding 'breach of promise'. These are facts from the book. A four year top secret engagement is not standing by the girl, it's hiding her existence. Sure he stood by her, when he didn't have any other choice.

I admit it, Dan Stevens is not my cup of tea or anything else. I think he is wimpy because he is so pale he fades into the background and his version of showing a backbone is to look petulant. AND NO Amount of swing that ax succeeds in making him look anything else but petulant.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Oh boo hoo, poor Edward. I could buy that pathetic excuse if the engagement had not dragged on for 4 years. In that length of time he should have grown a bit of a backbone. Either deal with the engagement or deal with the mother. He did neither, he kept visiting Lucy and he kept the darn thing going. I daresay if he had told his mother that he had got entangled with a girl in Plymouth she would have sorted it out quickly enough. But he didn't, he kept mum about it and that is why I feel like he is a wimp. Honour doesn't come into it. He didn't behave hobourably to Lucy, he bahaved shoddily to her. Sure she was a conniving little gold digger but that doesn't excuse his actions.

And you can say till the cows come home that poor Edward was frustrated, he still presented himself to the world as a single man. I'm quite sure he was frustrated. That's what happens when you paint yourself into a corner and don't have the backbone to face the fact you have to get your feet dirty to get out of it.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

But, realistically, what else could he have done? If he had told his mother about the engagement, and she had, to use your words, "sorted it out," where would that have left Lucy? I really do think that Edward felt responsible for Lucy, because he had been engaged to her for so many years and he realized that, being poor, she needed to make a good marriage. His sense of obligation ultimately got him into trouble, and, as I said before, I do think that he should have told the Dashwoods about the engagement and he should have avoided spending time with Elinor, but I do not think that telling his mother would have benefited either him or Lucy.

It would have left Lucy free to hunt another rich man,. Something she was quite capable of doing. So no he wasn't responsible for Lucy's future, he was responsible for his own. And yes, he should have never presented himself as being free to form an attachment. And as in the novel his mother does relent enough to give him ten thousand pounds, well over a two hundred thousand dollars in today's money, I don't feel inclined to blame his mother for his lack of a backbone.

I guess that this is where we disagree. While I agree that Edward should have told the Dashwoods, or at least Elinor, I don't see him as a wimp for not telling Mrs. Ferrars about the engagement. Even though he was no longer in love with Lucy, it is pretty obvious that Lucy was still interested in marrying him (although certainly not for the right reasons), so, IMO, he felt obligated to marry her at some point in the future. He was all too aware of what was likely to happen if his mother found out about the engagement.

This is just repeating what you posted before, and it still doesn't work.
And I don't like a lot of Brandon's actions in the book. I've posted that before. I just don't think because one character in a book is a wimp it's an excuse for another one to be a bigger wimp.

Yes, and I feel that he should have informed Elinor of the engagement. She undoubtedly would have greatly preferred that to spending months not knowing if he had an attachment to someone else.

My point exactly. And while Elinor might have forgiven him, I don't.

When I explained that the wood-cutting scene in S&S 2008 is intended to show Edward's frustration, I meant exactly that. I was not trying to explain WHY he was frustrated, but only that this is how he was feeling. While it is true that there is no wood-chopping scene in the novel, Edward DOES feel frustrated, and this scene in S&S 2008 was simply a way to illustrate that, IMO.

And like I said before; Boo Bl**dy Hoo, poor Edward's frustrated, tough. I can't work up much sympathy for a character who is to blame for the tight corner he painted himself into. And I think that scene was a stupid attempt to make him look manly because he was swinging an ax. Like the correct way to chop wood was included in his education at Plymouth, I don't think.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Yes, but Edward didn't KNOW that Lucy was a gold-digger. IMO, he was unaware of her worst character defects, and simply assumed that she genuinely wanted to marry him and that it would hurt her to be set free. I believe that he was also thinking about Lucy's lack of fortune, and how it would be his duty to provide for her after their marriage, which he could NOT do if he lost his own fortune.

He was engaged to her for four long years, she probably got a bit frustrated in her turn. Just as he wasn't fair to the people he knew and met (the Dashwoods) he wasn't fair to Lucy. I don't care if she was the biggest gold digger on the planet, after all it wasn't like she could go out and get a job. If men are allowed to want money so are women, it's just that in the 19th Century the only way they could do it was through a man. No, I don't blame Lucy for wanting money, the Dashwoods would not have said no if John had settled some money on them.

I feel inclined to blame his mother for being unreasonable and domineering. This is a woman who plays favorites with her children, and she never had much use for Edward. That being said, I suppose that she deserves some credit for giving Edward the ten thousand pounds.

I don't blame his mother for domineering him because in the book once he stand up to her and she gets over it she does do right for him. True he didn't get the big fortune but enough id as good as a feast. If he had stood up to her earlier he probably would have inherited the lot.

Like I said, I was merely explaining the purpose of the scene, not how I personally feel about Edward's frustration. As a matter of fact, I really do think that he should have informed Elinor about Lucy, and I do NOT excuse him for failing to do so, but that does not mean that I can't feel any sympathy for him. It is perfectly natural that he would feel frustrated and a bit insecure.

Oh I know I'm hard on him, I just don't think he was worth one tear that Elinor shed. Frustrated, insecure???? I imagine Elinor felt very frustrated and Lucy felt very insecure. See I don't blame Lucy. She is what she is just as he was and she was entitled to think about her furure as much as Edward was. He didn't act honourably to either of them. And that can't be blamed on his mother, she didn't know about either of them.

Well, yes, it does make him look very masculine. Dan Stevens is an attractive man, and Andrew Davies does love inserting "wet shirt" scenes into his adaptations. That being said, I find this particular "wet shirt" moment to be more believable and far less silly than Colin Firth's dive into the filthy pond in P&P 1995. There is no reason for Darcy to go about in a wet shirt, except that Davies wanted a titillating scene, so we are "treated" to the sight of Firth's Darcy swimming in a pond while still wearing his shirt, trousers, and boots

You couldn't make Dan Stevens look masculine and 'manly' with a hundred axes. And no it's not near the level of Darcy's scene. (Why do you constantly drag in other productions?) And no, no pond on an estate like Pemberly could ever be described as being filthy. That's why they had hundreds of ground staff, to keep the grounds in pristine shape and the ponds clean. And Davies actually wanted Darcy to be nude in that scene, Firth and the crew misunderstood it. The ax scene fails, the 'shirt' scene succeeded. You can't bottle the same lightning twice. It was a stupid scene. You could see a gentleman going swimming on a hot day, no gentleman would ever dream of picking up an ax. Not in England. Work like that was for servants. You might as well have him scrubbing a floor, it was regarded the same way.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I don't see Edward as being particularly "unfair" to the Dashwoods. I've said this so often that it's starting to sound like a broken record, but, yes, he should have told Elinor about his engagement. However, it wasn't as if he had ever made any promises to her, and she was well aware that he had not.

Lucy may have been frustrated, but after four years, she was certainly far more interested in staying engaged than Edward was. The engagement was, of course, valuable to her in a way that it no longer was to Edward, and although Edward knew that he wasn't in love with her anymore, he also IMO would have been very reluctant to break it off and put Lucy in an uncomfortable situation. I think Lucy was planning on a secure future with Edward.

Yes, he was very unfair. He presented himself as a single man and he visited them. At that period in history that was a declaration of interest. He was not related to them and he made a move. A move only an unattached man should have made. It's no use saying he didn't behave badly in doing this, because of the social mores of the time, it was. It would be like someone that you met at a party barging into your home and eating from your refrigerator without asking. Somethings you don't do because you know they are wrong.

And Lucy had every right to be frustrated. She had four years invested in this man. Her future was at stake and he would neither speak to his mother nor would he ask her to break the engagement. He vacillated and she got older with every day that passed. I would have hit him up the side of the head with a frying pan. Edward is excused his bad behavior to Lucy because she had her eye on the main chance. I say, why the heck shouldn't she have her eye on it. Who was going to do it for her? Yes she was ruthless. In a man this is a quality that's admired, Edward could have done with a good shot of it. In a woman it's condemned because female characters who don't want to be the 'noble poor' are not seen as decent. Well as the saying goes, 'I've been poor and now I'm not. Not being poor is better.'

Yes, but how was Edward to have known that? Mrs. Ferrars is obviously an extremely unreasonable person, and it would have been impossible for Edward to have known how long it would take her to "get over it," or, indeed, whether she would get over it at all. Edward appears to be a victim of a sort of emotional abuse, and expecting someone in that situation to be able to anticipate the abuser's whims just doesn't work.

Nobody has a crystal ball that tells us the future. You take your chances is all. Edward didn't do anything but get frustrated with his inability to do anything. Mrs Ferrers might have done a lot of things but it all boils down to the fact that Edward couldn't bring himself to do anything...so she didn't either. I would rather have lived knowing than not knowing, wouldn't you.

Dan Stevens is quite good-looking, and I see nothing unmanly about him. And you're right - it's not anywhere near the level of Darcy's scene, because Darcy diving into an algae-filled pond while still wearing his boots, trousers, and shirt is absurd. And then he changes into fresh clothes impossibly quickly. In P&P 1995, Elizabeth is not so much embarrassed to meet him on his estate when she wasn't expecting him - rather, she seems embarrassed primarily by the fact that he is dripping wet and in a state of undress. Edward chopping wood is a little silly, but I still don't think it is as un-Austen as the P&P 1995 pond scene.

Darcy had his boots and breeches off and for the last time it was not a filthy algae filled pond. Even if you don't know what the groundsmen at an estate does, please believe me...I do. There is more than one large estate where I live and I visit them. Haddo House is lovely and I have been there many times. Lovely grounds and a very nice family. I live very near the Castle Trail in Grampian and I tour the properties a lot. My grandsons love the castles.

Darcy might well have gone swimming on his estate, but, IMO, he would NOT have gone swimming with most of his clothes still on.

He didn't, he was in his shirt, drawers and stockings. He didn't have a swimsuit because there were no swimsuits then. And he would have had help getting dressed.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

The pond has water lilies but the water is clear enough. People did swim in the ponds on the estates. Water effect ware very popular. At Chatsworth House the water features are famous, you should check out the images on Google sometime. I loved Chatsworth, we visited right after 'The Duchess' was released and they had the costumes from the film on display. A great day out, but I got lost in the maze.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

It is a beautiful production. I wanted to live at Longbourne for the longest time. Not Pemberly, that was too big.

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

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

It may be worth noting that, in the novel at least (I haven't revisited this mini-series in a couple of years), when Edward is disinherited, he offers to release Lucy from their engagement, and she refuses - until she has hooked Robert.

It can be hard for us to judge behavior which was postulated under social rules so very different from our own, but certainly Jane Austen meant to show Edward as honorable and stalwart, even if that meant standing by a very poor decision on his part.

As for his secrecy, I would speculate that Edward came to hope that time's effect on Lucy's affections or self-interest would lead to HER breaking off the engagement - the consequences to a lady breaking from an engagement, and to the rejected (male) suitor's reputation, were significantly less than the reverse engendered.

FWIW, I admit to liking Dan Stevens very much, and do not think him either wimpy or petulant. It is true that in the mini-series generally, as in Austen's novel, Edward is often deeply melancholy, conflicted, and unable for quite a few reasons to articulate his state of mind and the reasons for it to anyone he truly cares for or respects. He is looking forward to a future, if nothing changes, of honorable misery or a dishonor he couldn't live with - so, misery either way. While I do enjoy Hugh Grant's performance a great deal in the 1995 film, Dan Stevens is undeniably closer to Austen's view of Edward Farrars.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Furienna (3377) 5 years ago

Okay, this is really six years too late. But allow me to say that I agree with you on every word, Summeriris. Yeah, Edward is meant to be seen as an "honorable man" for keeping his promise to Lucy. But it seems so very stupid that he would stick to his engagement to a girl, whom he didn't care for anymore, even after he fell in love with another girl, and his mother threatened to disinherit him. How does it make any sense at all?

If I was Edward, I would have talked to Lucy and broken off the engagement in private. She would be free then to find a new man to marry, and he could start a new life with Elinor. And I'm pretty sure that his mother would even be willing to compensate Lucy with a sum of money, as long as she kept quiet about what was going on. But no, he had to make the most stupid possible choice...