|
|
Rating:  - good way to enjoy the day
I really hoped this would be a good adaptation of Jane Austen's story. I watched both movies on Masterpiece Theater, and was delighted to buy the set. For me, some movies are just the best thing for a weekend to myself or with the neighborhood ladies.
Rating:  - Fair, but definitely inferior to 1995 version
This adaptation isn't terrible by any means, but there is nothing here that wasn't done far better in the 1995 version (with Emma Thompson/Kate Winslet.) I did like this Elinor better as far as age (she is supposed to be 20, and Emma Thompson was a bit too mature) but this Elinor lacked the sense of humor that Thompson brought to the role. Indeed, the whole film lacks any sense of humor. Not that it isn't true to the book, but the story is so dark in places that the one-liners and quips in the 1995 version were a very welcome balance. Also, I thought some really important scenes- such as Elinor's plea at Marianne's sickbed and the supposed camaraderie between Edward and Margaret were comparatively flat. Speaking of flat, I was disappointed with this Edward Ferrars. He was more handsome (sorry, Hugh Grant) but lacked likability. We never saw him but he was brooding. And this Willoughby is totally miscast! Who thought Dominic Cooper could pass as a womanizer? No way. And, personally I thought this Col. Brandon was just creepy. If you didn't already know the story you'd think he was the bad guy. A terrible injustice to the warm character Brandon ought to be, as Alan Rickman did so well in the 1995. I couldn't picture Marianne with him at ALL; in fact it seemed just wrong. Ick. He seemed a much more likely match for their mother, Mrs. Dashwood! Anyway the locations are quite beautiful, the cinematography impressive, and the score decent enough. However, even with all these to its credit, this adaptation is lacking the charm and heart of its predecessor and I don't think has any superior qualities that would make watching, or owning, both versions worthwhile. I enjoyed it okay, but it make me appreciate the quality of the 1995 version even more.
Rating:  - Almost completely wholesome
I highly suggest fast forwarding through the first minute. The producers added a scene that was completely unnecessary. We don't really need to see Willoughby seduce a girl. Otherwise this movie would be completely family friendly. A great Jane Austen film. I liked it better than Emma T, Hugh Grant, & Kate Winslet's version.
Rating: - Excellent film interpretation
The Emma Thompson/Kate Winslet version of this Jane Austen classic was so wonderful, I was not sure I could like anything as well. However, Andrew Davies has made this adaptation with a modernized interpretation that meets the Masterpiece Theatre standards of excellence. Austen's characters come alive with new insight. Some of the scenes do not follow historic etiquettes or patterns of behavior for 18th and early 19th Century gentry, but the whole effect communicates to a 21st Century audience, and I enjoyed it very much. Hattie Morahan does Elinor exquisitely. In addition, the scenic backgrounds and musical themes were breath-taking and came together to make this a beautiful film.
Rating: - Brandon-Marianne, Edward-Elinor: Odd Love
While this (fairly) faithful adaptation is to be recommended to Austen loyalists/enthusiasts, one cannot help but wonder aloud about the peculiarity of Austen's plot and the characters that drive it.
Women are not powerless in Austen's world, for money, marriage, and attraction are the forces that govern it and everyone is captive to these interests, even the most sensible.
Young women are, however, prevented from acquiring experience (and property) in Austen's post-romantic world and so they are always a bit more vulnerable than the love struck men. Of course one cannot control who one falls in love with, but what one can control is how one chooses to manage those emotions when one has them. Sense must always come to the aid of sensibility. This, in Austen, is everything.
But what counts as "sense" in this book? It's not as clear as you might think.
Colonel Brandon has first-hand knowledge of Willoughby's womanizing ways, so what exactly is it that prevents him from warning the Dashwoods about Willoughby? Is it the colonel's stoic reserve? Well, Brandon is certainly not stoic. He is obviously in love with Marianne and he is motivated by the desire to win her love. Were his interests selfless he would warn Marianne and her family but his interests are not selfless and his silence upon the matter of Willoughby's "intentions" is a strategic silence. It is his method of seduction. Brandon and Willoughby are rivals for Marianne's affections, and the 35 year old Brandon knows that next to the much younger Willoughby he is the less attractive romantic option, and he also knows that Marianne's first love must run its course before she will be receptive to the less exciting variety of companionship that he has to offer. If he tells her all that he knows about Willoughby too soon, Marianne might be grateful but her romantic notions might not have ripened enough to the point of spoiling. The problem is bringing Marianne around at just the right time and to do this he must keep quiet about Willoughby and wait in the wings until she has committed herself fully to Willoughby and has reached the point where she has risked everything for and received nothing from Willoughby. Only then will she be disillusioned with her romanticism and ripe for reform. And this is what Brandon does. He waits & watches from the wings even while Marianne risks her reputation and the harsh judgment of society to be with a man who, according to Brandon, does not deserve her. Behind the scenes Brandon calls Willoughby out (and in this BBC version, the two even fight a duel) but it is only when Marianne attempts suicide that Brandon comes to the rescue. There is nothing particularly noble or sensible about this. It is selfish and reckless of Brandon not to have stepped in sooner. Brandon's plan might be an effective one but its not a sensible one. And to complicate matters, just when it seems that Willoughby is out of the picture and Marianne has finally settled on Brandon, Willoughby comes round with a new post-duel protestation of love for her. This makes viewers question whether Willoughby was all bad after all or whether he too was just another victim of a social system where patriarchs and matriarchs enforce their will upon the powerless young, determining their lives by placing conditions upon their inheritance. Certainly in this world, love is never allowed to run a natural course because money and/or social standing and/or social convention are the real determinants. What counts as sensible in such a world?
That Marianne needs to mature from a romantic youth too easily swayed by youthful emotions into a responsible & sensible young adult governed more by sense than sensibility is not in question. What is in question is the method by which that education is brought about. Also in question is the matter of whose interests are really being served by the kind of social education that she receives.
Oddly and ironically enough, Brandon needs Willoughby to secure Marianne. Because without Willoughby to spoil her romantic notions about life, Marianne will remain blind to Brandon's more sensible set of virtues. And Brandon is well aware of this fact. But there is a great amount of risk involved in allowing the Marianne-Willoughby romance to run its course. Marianne's reputation is compromised and her future prospects are diminished by her continued contact with Willoughby. The nobler thing to do, the more sensibile thing to do, would have been for Brandon to have stepped in and counseled young Marianne about the ways of certain unsettled young men and why to be leary of them BEFORE the romance reached a crisis. In this way he would have assured her safety and provided her with fatherly advice and saved her a lot of undue suffering, which is what this 17 year old girl really needs from a man like Coln. Brandon. But Brandon is not interested in educating Marianne or allowing her the freedom to explore her own singular nature. Brandon simply wants a wife.
This production of Sense & Sensibility does not quite know what to do with Marianne's romantic sensibility, nor with Willoughby. So, it simply dismisses both of them from view. After rescuing Marianne from her romantic agony, sensible Brandon eclipses romantic Willoughby completely. It's as if Marianne's romanticism (both her emotional sensibility and her ongoing social critique) is something that must be purged before she can mature and enjoy adult love. But is it that romantic love & social critique (both aspects of Marianne's romanticism) have no place in the world, or that they simply have no place in this particular social arrangement?
Love conquers all, or is it social norms that conquer all?
And then there's the Edward Ferrars character. Even though he is engaged to another it is obvious to everyone that he is in love with Elinor. Even though he keeps his feelings to himself, Edward wears his heart on his sleeve every second he is with Elinor and never mentions the fact of his engagement to Lucy. Elinor only learns of the engagement when she runs into Lucy at a family gathering. Even though everyone can guess so much, Edward also fails to mentions that he loves Elinor until the very end of the film when Lucy has chosen his brother instead of him. It could be argued that Edward did not share his feelings with Elinor out of respect for his fiance Lucy but if that is so then why did he carry on with Elinor in the first place? Edward's awkward year-long reticence/indecision cause Elinor a years worth of unimaginable grief. And yet she forgives him the moment he awakens from his year-long emotional daze/lapse of judgment. Edward Ferrars is one of the most helpless & depressive & pathetic creatures to appear in a BBC production. Elinor deserves better. Sadly, though, she has no other options.
|
|