This version opens a can of a million worms with a single egregious misstep - at Cleveland Park, Brandon, in a state of partial undress as considered at that time, goes to Marianne's bedroom (apparently at her request!), closes the door upon them and sits on her bed, placing his hand over hers, which are clasped upon her abdomen.
Marianne's reputation, the book gives us to understand, is a little tarnished by her innocent and relatively mild indiscretions with Willoughby. Following such an incident, it would be vaporized to nothing. No respectable man would marry a girl who has conducted a tete-a-tete with a man while in her bed and behind closed doors.
Can you imagine the servants' gossip?
"In his shirtsleeves, Mrs. Bunting, as I live! I declare, I was that ashamed, I didn't know where to look. And the poor young lady not out of her sickbed, too. Such a pity, poor lass. No-one will have her, now. I wonder Miss Dashwood allowed such a thing. But, there, she's been that put-about, she can't have thought what it would mean for poor Miss Marianne."
Marianne, weak from illness and heartbreak (since neither seems to afflict her for any significant time, we must hand-wave this for the moment), may perhaps be excused - for the sake of argument only, since of course no decent young lady of Austen's time would have permitted such a thing, she'd probably have screamed for help when Brandon shuts the door - but Brandon cannot be excused for the unforgivable impropriety.
Brandon, supposedly, cares deeply for Marianne, he has challenged Willoughby almost openly, ostensibly to protect Marianne's reputation. If that is what we are to assume, how are we to take his own thorough obliteration of that reputation?
Is it perhaps deliberate, to limit her respectable marriage choices to himself alone? That would certainly be the effect.
Is Brandon Machiavellian here? We are surely justified in asking.
ETA: Hat-tip to summeriris from reminding me of this Davies invention.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I've only watched the 2008 mini-series a couple of times, (not nearly as often as I've watched my favorite adaptation, S&S 95) but I do own the DVD.
Your point is very interesting! I can't believe I don't remember the scene you mention. My modern sensibilities obviously weren't tweaked the first two viewings.
I now want to watch 2008 again to see how Morrissey's Brandon comes across to me, bearing in mind the strict rules of propriety of the time. Thank you for pointing this out!
webrowser, thank summeriris - I had forgotten, too, or blocked it, until she brought it up. I'd only seen it twice myself, and years ago; I had to go and check my copy, before commenting - and the scene is appalling. Austen would have conniptions.
I often try to forgive things in viewing a new Austen adaptation, especially when there is an existing version I love; I will bend over backwards, at least initially, not to be over-severe.
You've made a note here and there about on reaping what one sows - I used to like the memory of the 2008 S&S very much - I like it much less now, having examined a number of scenes much more closely, and thought with less charity on its shortcomings. And that is entirely due to Sass' repetitive, ranting tirades against the version I prefer.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I really liked the 2008 version on first viewing it. And it was indeed Sassy's constant barrage of praise for it and David Morrisey in particular that made me sit down and rewatch it again. I then rewatched the film after reading her constant barrage of complaints about it. Needless to say, IMO the film comes out streets ahead of the 2008 production. In the film attention was paid to the details and as the saying goes, the devils in the details. I am amazed at how much of a botch up job Davies did on Brandon and Edward. Well truth to tell it was only one ridiculous scene with Edward, and another with Elinor. Chopping wood and beating carpets.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
I think, I could be wrong about this, but looking at the top of this page that this is the S&S board. And yes, P&P 2005 and S&S 1995 are feature films. P&P 1995 and S&S 208 are TV series. And they were TV series that were produced with excellent production values. And Sassy, you are trying to insult the S&S 1995 film again. It's not working. The film had an excellent cast. The fact thaty you can't stand to admit this is your problem. I think you have this idea that if you admit just what a great film it is, that then you will have to say that the TV series suffers in comparison. Well the series does suffer in comparison, but you don't have to acknowledge that. You can just enjoy it for what it is.
S&S 1995 already seems very dated
ROTFL
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply share
Please supply specific reference for Ang Lee's "not being fond of" Sense & Sensibility.
It is true that he had not read her work before he was hired to direct the film, but I find no reference other than that. You have postulated that, since you do not know for a fact that he did read the book, you feel safe in assuming he never did so.
I postulate that it would be an unusual thing if Lee had NOT made a point of reading the book, and that, therefore, it is more likely that it would have been specifically noted if he had NEVER done so. Since his reading the book would have been the natural thing, what is remarked is that he had not done so before receiving the screenplay.
If that is unclear, the gist is this - if Ang Lee had never read the novel, I think that would be easily verified. Since it is not, I think it more likely that he did read before filming.
Lee has also spoken of his having been "doing Jane Austen without realizing it" pretty much his whole career to that point, since his works tended to combine elements of family drama with a satiric societal outlook. So he noted an affinity for the source author, quite specifically.
Willoughby is no tragic hero in the 1995 film, he is a man who behaves abominably, with hideous consequences to Marianne. He is unforgivable, and most of the audience (at least, that part past the age of 12) is likely to find it very satisfactory that he looks longingly at Marianne's wedding, shut out forever from the life and joy he sees.
And, since Marianne does, indeed, suffer severely, life-and world-view-changingly, and we see this very clearly shown, I disagree wholly that S&S 1995 downplays the "darker" aspects. Colonel Brandon, himself, is, as Austen wrote him, a shadowed, deeply wounded man.
Much darker than the 2008, which presents a Marianne bounding back like a rubber ball from illness, switching affections in a heartbeat, and a dashing Brandon whom it seems an impertinence to consider lacking in any way, let alone in need of Marianne's active healing attention. The 2008 Willoughby is significantly more unpleasant than the 1995, but, since his actions have far more limited consequences, both in nature and in time, to Marianne, he cannot be considered more villainous.
ETA: the 2008 S&S has PLENTY of non-Austen dialogue. When Thompson said "5 lines" of Austen remained, she was being modest as to how much she worked in. Maybe only 5 lines of unedited Austen remain, but a good many of the lines are at least edited versions of Austen. And I think her feel for Austen's style of diction and sentence structure are better than Davies' in the S&S mini-series, though I think he showed a much, much better feel in his P&P and Emma scripts.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
Rubbish again. He was every inch the gentleman. At least he didn't drag fellow guests at a party aside to interrogate them about things that were none of his business.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
No you haven't. All those posts are incomprehensible. It's like you have no idea of what a gentleman is. You really should try and learn the facts of how a gentleman would behave in Regency England. It's not hard, Rickman's Brandon was everything a gentleman should be, Morrisey's Brandon was everything a gentleman was not. Well how could he be? He was Regency Action Man, forever poking his nose into other people's business. That didn't leave much time to act the gentleman. Also he had to train Marianne in how he wanted her to act. Break her to his bit so to speak. _____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
Well, apparently you are still refusing to explain why you think that I am wrong. You may disagree with my opinions, but at least I explain them.
No you don't 'explain' your position. You simply and very stridently state your opinion like it was carved on the Mount and not to be questions. I am still waiting for a coherent, fair and unbiased opinion from you on anything. until you can deliver that you can't expect a coherent, fair, and unbiased response. Please provide something substantive for your opinion. Apart from that is, "I didn't like it." Now that can be an opinion, but it isn't a really informed way of stating your opinion as there is nothing there but 'opinion'.
Before the duel (which is in the novel), Morrissey's Brandon confronts Willoughby one time. That doesn't count as "forever poking his nose into other people's business." Should he confront Willoughby at Barton Park in the first place? Probably not. However, it is clear that he is concerned about Marianne's welfare, a fact that is confirmed in a later scene where he is conversing with Sir John.
There is one line referencing the duel, one line. Just how many times were we supposed to be inflicted with the sight of Brandon being the Regency Action Man butting into what wasn't his business. Wasn't one such stupid scene enough for anyone? Oh wait, we do get another one. There's the time he strides into the Palmer's drawing room acting like he was Lord Of All He Surveys. So that was twice.
Morrissey's Brandon doesn't "train" Wakefield's Marianne to do anything. He leaves her to explore his library (and play the piano), and when she later comes outside, she is obviously interested in spending time with him and curious to see the falcon.
And we just heard Elinor say that the Great Trainers leave their subjects alone as part of their training regime. Try again to say that Marianne wasn't being trained. We see it right there on screen. I can't help it you don't want anyone to mention it. It's right there on screen and audio.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply share
My dear summeriris, I must protest. Brandon also, immediately upon making the Dashwoods' acquaintance, barges into their home uninvited, thrusting music upon Marianne.
So it is at least three times he officiously shoves himself in where he has no business.
I don't believe for one second Andrew Davies didn't know what he was about, creating a Brandon who invites the words "pushing," "thrusting." "inserting." Especially with the bedroom tete-a-tete. I don't think so meanly of his canniness. . .
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
Dear Locus, I apologise. I admit it, I didn't include his intrusion while the Dashwoods were trying to get their home in some kind of shape. Who the heck goes visiting when the people you are visiting have just moved in? Well Regency Action Man, that's who.
Oh Andrew Davies has a lot to answer for with this 'adaptation'. What was he adapting, his ego?
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
With respect to Brandon - and, aside from the Brandon-Marianne arc, this is really a quite nice adaptation in most respects - I fear Davies may have been focused on a more, shall we say, external organ than ego . . .
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
Too many little things drive me crazy about it. Like Margaret talking like a fan of Germaine Greer. Not that it's wrong to be a fan of Germaine Greer, it's just she's about 150 years too early.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
I agree - I rather thought the 1995 film, while it did give a nod to current consciousness on that score, did a more subtly worked-in job of it. Margaret's outburst was more glaring, it brought me up shorter, as it were, in the 2008 than the 1995's bits did.
I think, after the recent re-viewing and thought, there seems to be a difference in the level of attention Davies gave to some aspects of the story than others. I really don't get the feeling of consistently focused attention to each aspect and detail that seems to me so present in the 1995 P&P and his 1996 "Emma."
He's done a great many adaptations I've not seen, including "Northanger Abbey," and I don't speak to any of those, but Davies did so very well by P&P and "Emma," so faithful to character (even the Mr. Knightley is a quite defensible interpretation, it is certainly textually suportable). But in S&S, he went very far afield - miles and miles from Austen - with Brandon, and the Margaret bits you note just don't seem well thought through to me.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I think it's really strange. He did 'Little Dorrit' the same year as he did S&S and 'Little Dorrit' is great. Atmospheric and faithful. 'South Riding' got great reviews but I never watched it. I have watched a couple of episodes of 'Mr Selfridge' but I don't care for it. I think it has to be faced, he is not going to get everything right and maybe he stretched himself too thin. He's not exactly a spring chicken anymore.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
I know what you think, Sass, you don't have to repeat yourself upon every possible occasion.
The 2008 also has a "sons are always heirs" scene, the line is also uttered by Elinor. Toss-up. Not in the novel. I like the 1995 better, but the 2008 is well-handled.
Margaret in 1995 wants to be a pirate, Margaret in the 2008 wants to be a man and kill Willoughby. Margaret is in both versions the voice of at least nascent feminism. I think the 1995 does it a bit more naturally, with less forcing, and I find Emilie Francois much more appealing, as well as funnier, than Lucy Boynton (BTW, Margaret in the 1995 is supposed to be a teenager, according to Emma Thompson's diaries, which means she is not 11), but in this case, and the above, I'll accede it is YVMV.
And I can say that without trashing either version.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I have provided much more than that. What do you want me to do, quote from Regency era conduct books?
No you haven't. All you have done is post your opinion of things that have never happened on screen.
But it's still part of the story.
A tiny, unimportant part of the novel. Blink and you would miss it.
Morrissey's Brandon is concerned about Wakefield's Marianne, so he asks if anyone knows where she has gone. It seems fairly reasonable to me. No one else seems to have missed her at that point.
You have said before that you dislike Morrissey's Brandon going out into the rain to search for Marianne, because the Palmers' servants should have done that, instead. But you have no problem with Rickman's Brandon doing much the same thing in S&S 1995.
Horse puckey, he strides into that room demanding information. His manner is domineering and rude. It doesn't matter what his character is supposed to be feeling, it's bad characterisation.
And no I don't defend the scene in 1995. You keep saying I am defending it when I have repeatedly said it simply isn't as bad as the 2008 version. In the 1995 film Brandon doesn't act like a boor, he just goes out to see if he can see anything. But as I have said before it's still a bit over the top. It just doesn't take a leap off the nearest cliff of cliche like the 2008 version. _____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
reply share
Sassy you can try and dream up any number of reasons for the training scenes. It doesn't change the fact that they are training scenes. And the reason you are desperately scrambling for a logical explanation is because you don't like it being pointed out.
But that's hilarious. Not only is Brandon butting into other people's business in their homes, and grounds...he's now butting into how Marianne's non existent inability to ride a horse should be remedied. That's a good one. Have you ever considered not trying to explain away what's up there on screen and avoid those deep holes you are digging for yourself. _____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
I apologise for misreading your post. I still think your excuse is thin. Willoughby wasn't thinking about anything but ingratiating himself with Marianne. And despicable he might be, but he seems to love Marianne for herself...not for what he wants her to be. He isn't the one shown doing the training, Morrisey's Brandon is. Willoughby doesn't tell Marianne what music to play or what books to read.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
And he falls in love in spite of himself. Sure he's a callous and selfish man. But even callous and selfish men can fall in love. And he never tried to change her. Give him the virtue of his sins, training her to obey him wasn't one. That sin belonged to the man she ended up in this adaptation, marrying without knowing. The gifting of the horse to Marianne was one of the few things that Davies didn't change for the worse.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
Sassy, he is training her right before our eyes. Now you may see being trained to obey a man as personal growth, I don't. It's a form of abuse and I found it offensive to say the least.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
Are you really unaware that riding side-saddle required, for most ladies, a docile horse? Have you ever tried it? Have you ever ridden a horse at all? Your amusingly wild flights of fanciful speculation appear to be based upon a combination of stubbornly unrealistic wishful thinking and a laughable ignorance.
There is not an iota of indication that Willoughby's giving Marianne a horse is anything more than a highly improper and misguided attention. Oh, except that it is an indication that Willoughby's intentions toward Marianne, insofar as they are gelled for him, are honorable by this point. As he says later, he knew his honor was engaged by his attentions to Marianne.
I see nothing to convince me that Brandon int he 2008 looks upon Marianne as anything more than his desire and his intended possession, right from the get-go. Respect for her would be evinced by allowing her musical development to proceed as she chooses, not attempting to push her in any particular direction according to his own views as to what she should do to improve, and with what focus.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
It was a comment on the emotional immaturity of some people. I don't think Locus meant to insult to anybody. Her comment did however acknowledge that some people are very immature. And immature people can make judgments based on their imaginations instead of facts. Not all of them, it's true. But quite a lot. And only immature people would take offense at a very innocuous comment. Most adults would recognise that and they would not take offense.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
and the scene is appalling. Austen would have conniptions.
My recent re-viewing was an eye-opener. You're absolutely right. Elinor tells Brandon that Marianne has asked to see him. He goes up to her bedroom with no jacket or neck cloth, and closes the door behind him. He then sits on the bed next to her - she's in a nightgown, and her clasped hands are resting on her stomach. He places his hand over hers. She then places one of her hands over his. They are completely alone, on a bed together, both not completely dressed, and holding hands on her stomach. This would be all good and fine in our time, but back then? Oh my stars!
You've made a note here and there about on reaping what one sows - I used to like the memory of the 2008 S&S very much - I like it much less now, having examined a number of scenes much more closely, and thought with less charity on its shortcomings. And that is entirely due to Sass' repetitive, ranting tirades against the version I prefer.
I confess, the sheer amount of her tirades, and the mean-spirited vitriol within them is beyond distasteful. I'm at a loss as to why she's not able to love one version without out bashing the other. I've never felt the need to pick apart the 2008 mini-series, simply because I enjoyed S&S 95 better. But, yes - the bias that Sass shows has made me revisit S&S 2008, and S&S 95 and I simply can't agree with her assertions that 2008 is a triumph, and 95 is an epic fail. They are both good productions, they BOTH have merit. And I can't find any logic, in how incredibly difficult it is for her to acknowledge that though the 95 film is not her preferred version - it is NOT a dismal flop as she likes to claim. And I'm a fairly empathetic person. I can usually see why someone has a different point of view, but the depth of her dislike is beyond what would make any logical sense to me. Her repeated assertions that S&S 95's directing, writing, and acting were awful, horrible, etc. do not match reality. A dismal flop is not going to be nominated for cinematic awards, and it's certainly not going to win them - and S&S 95 did both quite handily. Those are cold, hard, FACTS - and when personal tastes make it impossible for a person to see and give weight to what they *know* are facts...they've lost all credibility and objectivity - and they are no longer a critic...they're a hater. Goodness.
reply share
I listed out, a bit ago, the awards won )12 of them!) by Thompson's so-terrible screenplay. Even Sassy-girl had to back track a bit, at least as to general approbation among those who make a living at, or are in the regular way of, evaluating such things as screenplays.
BTW, I have read that Lee's not being nominated by the Academy was widely considered to be the result of anti-Chinese (and yes, I know he is Taiwanese) sentiment, and the Chinese government considered filing a formal protest, only Lee dissuaded them.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I never understood why Lee wasn't nominated, it really was unbelievable. I don't understand why Sassy hates the film so much. I can understand if a person simply doesn't like it. It doesn't have much action, there are no big dramatic displays of villainy causing mass murder. It is a shining, golden film that explores the human heart. And it is so beautifully done.
_____________ I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
The exact same thing? It isn't at all - comparing apples and polar bears.
Rickman's Brandon, accompanied by Sir John, months into being acquainted with the Dashwoods, brings flowers to Marianne who is confined indoors. Then, as now, visiting even a temporary invalid is an act of kindness.
Morrissey's Brandon, seemingly the day after meeting the Dashwoods, while they are still unpacking, thrusts himself upon the disordered household of people he apparently met less than 24 hours before.
I have said this before - the length of the acquaintance, and the occasion of the attention, are miles apart, which affects the propriety of the action - also, the 1995 Brandon does not propose that Marianne take any action upon the gift, which is also a great difference, given the other differences, to the propriety of the action.
You have a poor memory, or else you either cannot or refuse to understand that, then as now, time passage, length of acquaintance, and the circumstances of the visit MAKE A BLOODY GREAT DIFFERENCE!!!
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
We know the season has changed since the Dashwoods' arrival at Barton Cottage, because of the landscapes and quality of light. And out of doors, the Dashwoods and Mrs. Jennings are more warmly dressed in the earlier scene than the later, when they sit outdoors in frocks without coats, which were worn in the earlier scene. That indicates a passage of at least more than a few weeks' time. Ang lee paid attention to that, and so did I.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
And, since Mrs. Dashwood's supposed invitation to Brandon in the 2008 miniseries does not actually happen, nor is it referred to, and therefore IS NOT IN THE ADAPTATION, must we not assume there never was such an invitation?
You are incredibly inconsistent.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
In the 1995 film, Brandon accompanies Sir John, the Dashwoods' relation, in paying a call of sympathy - a perfectly proper, indeed kindly, action, for an acquaintance, and it was generally understood that calls of that nature would be paid.
If the 2008 had shows this as Brandon's first visit to the Dashwoods without invitation, I would never have objected, since it is an appropriate action for any gentleman of the family's acquaintance, and consistent with the character of Colonel Brandon as originally written - he is a reticent, but a kind, man.
Which I, and many, many others, believe Rickman portrays with exquisite effectiveness.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
It is extremely pushy, and indelicate, of Brandon to insert himself into Marianne's music upon immediate acquaintance. Later on, it might not be, but right away, it is.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.