Sense and Sensibility

[damemaggiescurledupperlip]

Not sure about this one. Ravishingly shot, but …

Elinor and Edward were true to the book, but Marianne appeared to have morphed into Cathy from Wuthering Heights, Sir John Middleton into Sir John Falstaff, Lady Middleton into Mary Bennett, and the Colonel into Professor Bhaer

The never brushed hair was very distracting

And stunning and brave, I assume 😅

The 2008 miniseries comes much closer to the ages, and I think nails Marianne particular. I know it's sacrilege in some circles not to have Kate Winslet as your fave, but 2008 Marianne feels like a teenager and is far closer to how I envisioned the character when I read the book. Dominic Cooper is a great Willoughby against her too. You can see the whole thing is a bit of a doomed teenage infatuation, but you understand why they both get swept up in it. The series does a good job of not mocking their feelings, but not making it seem like a great doomed love either.

1995 Willoughby is great too, but he's a bit too mature and dignified to be what I personally perceive Willoughby to have been: a stupid fuckboy knocked for six by falling in love, and ultimately not mature enough to handle it.

Plot change - that Edward was engaged to Lucy from being very young when she was going to become very rich but somehow she lost her money - brothers getting it or something, so she then wouldn't do for Mrs. Ferrars, but it made Edward not responsible for anything. He's in a mess when we first meet him in the book but it's through his own action of having become engaged to Lucy of his own volition. That's ONE plot change. Load of old rubbish.

@DorotheaShottery
@SnoopyPajamas

I mean film spoilers not book spoilers! Assume everyone has read the book and if you haven't well it serves you right

The plot changes were:

• completely rewriting the circumstances in which Edward and Lucy got engaged; in the film he says the marriage was arranged by their mothers when they were children and he wanted to honour the arrangement even after Lucy lost her fortune, and his mother didn't want him to marry her any more. Bizarre and unnecessary
• a scene in which Edward calls on Elinor and tells her the above story - effectively declaring his love for her while he explains that he is engaged to someone else. Ofc this does not exist in the book and completely changes everything about Elinor's emotional journey from that point, making what follows very anticlimactic
• Brandon is at the ball where Willoughby snubs Marianne (minor but pointless)
• When Marianne is ill, Willoughby turns up drunk wanting to find out that she's out of danger, then refuses to leave, wants to tell her he loves her (despite still being engaged to rich girl), and... wait for it... Brandon kicks him out, Willoughby challenges him to a duel and they actually go full pistols at dawn! It was so ridiculous we just had to laugh.
• After everyone finds out that Edward is engaged to Lucy and his mother disinherits him, there is a scene between Edward and Elinor in which he tells her he will break off the engagement with Lucy if she wants him to, but she tells him to honour it. This scene wasn't funny, it gave me the rage.

Didn’t dislike it overall but what on earth was the duel with pistols all about? And Mr Palmer was awful- Hugh Laurie left big shoes to fill with his droll delivery that managed to be on the ride side of affectionate to his wife (the brilliant Imelda Staunton in the 1995) this Mr P (gender aside) came across as abusive with that terribly delivered line about the newspaper. As well as Eliot Sumner, I looked up the actress playing Marianne- she is also a nepo baby, being the daughter of Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles. Her hair was awful. I agree about the ages from the 1995 version skewing what you expect for this one- the widowed Mrs Dashwood in this one looks the same age if not younger than Elinor in the 90s one (Emma T was 36, the Mrs D actress is 46). Fiona Shaw was good as Mrs Jennings, but it was a similar sort of performance to the previous. Fanny not as good as Harriet Walter’s portrayal. Disappointed we didn’t get the double wedding at the end! I haven’t seen the 2008 BBC mini series but see there’s some love for it here so might give it a try.

Disappointed we didn’t get the double wedding at the end!

I know! We sat through the bloody credits in hope!

I think there is mention of a duel between Brandon and Willoughby in Jane Austen's original book? I haven't read it in years so happy to be corrected

There is a definitely a duel in the book. It’s handled very subtly with almost a one-line mention of a “challenge”, iirc.

And I think Willoughby does visit, drunk, while Marianne is ill and explains to Elinor that he did love her, and would have married her had he not been disinherited.

I think there is a dual - but not over Marianne. It’s over Brandon’s ward Eliza (who Willoughby previously seduced & abandoned) & it’s only briefly alluded to. Willoughby does turn up when M is ill - but only sees Elinor.

You have all persuaded me to avoid the new version particularly due to the changes in the Lucy plot.

Oh dear I’m going tomorrow but at least I’ll be with friends and will be nice to see them.

Linking the other (shorter) thread as I can’t be bothered to repeat what I said there.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/films/5582330-sense-sensibility?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Something else to add to my rant. The actor who played Brandon was awful, so wooden and unexpressive. I mean, Alan Rickman is a hard act to follow, but still!

Yes to both, but the duel is elsewhere and earlier and Willoughby's always full of the talk.

Enjoy it. There are good parts.

I am maybe one of only a few people who was pleased not to see a double wedding at the end. Both couples were sorted and that was quite enough.

I liked the 2008 version for many things but not particularly Brandon gooing at Marianne and carrying her - all too twee. So I was glad to be spared that.

Elinor and Edward were nicely sorted so I didn't need to see them married but I would have liked to see them at home in the Delaford parsonage getting ready for Marianne's wedding. One short scene, a very few words - just enough.

Marianne was married later than Elinor was.

Nodding along to much of this having seen it yesterday but I still loved every minute. It’s Austen. It’s a period drama.
Thought the Eleanor and Marianne and Margaret casting was great
Loved Fiona Shaw. So dreadful she was brilliant.
Sumner was badly cast as she seems to be in everything I’ve seen her in. If she’s non binary that’s nice dear but please stop casting her as men when she’s so unconvincing. Her wife played for laughs and it worked.
The duel 😂
Why were the two romantic interests so unattractive? (Subjective I know).
Costumes and settings were great.

I always wonder how that worked -- two sisters, who have always been very close though with entirely different personalities, now living very close to one another after their respective marriages, but though both sisters have only £1k apiece of their own, Marianne is marrying a rich man with a comfortable annual income of £2,000 from his large estate and Elinor, marrying on only £850 a year, including her own money, is marrying the clergyman Brandon has offered the small parish living to, and who will be essentially his employee, living in a parsonage tied to his job.

Once you add in the fact that Elinor married for love, and Marianne, given to tempestuous romantic passions, married on the rebound at 19 'with no sentiment superior to strong esteem and lively friendship', it all sounds like a potential soap opera to me!

I am glad that it wasn't just me who had some questions about this film. I find Jane Austen's books very difficult to get into (perhaps as a result of having studied Pride and Prejudice to death for GCSE English), so thought that this film might be a way into another one of hers. However, the hair, Mr Palmer, the dancing and so on... and would respectable women of that era have been likely to ride astride? I appreciate the practicalities, but thought that side-saddle would have been more likely at that time, given the obsession with modesty and virginity of women in previous generations.

Lovely scenery, though.

@Yello24
"It's Austen. It's a period drama."

I respectfully disagree. I don't think this film is Austen. Austen is light and funny; this was dark and downcast and dull. Austen is nuanced and subtle; but the scenes and plot points they added in removed all the nuance and subtlety. It's not period drama either, when there is very little attempt to depict the actual styles of the period (hair etc), when they make it "modern" at the expense of fidelity to the text and the era it's set in. One of the pleasures of watching period dramas on screen is the aesthetics; the beautiful costumes, sets and music - none of this was aesthetically pleasing. The music in particular was miserable, such a contrast to the gorgeous music in the 1995 film.

I enjoyed it. It's good to have a balanced input rather. Mark Kermode is full of praise for it.

The dancing was strange. Are they real dances from the period or an anachronism?

I do understand why Mr. Palmer had the voice of a girl and I'll be in trouble for saying it, but I could have done without it.

The girls loved one another. Elinor and Edward were happy with their financial lot. Marianne got money but she hadn't hankered for money.
Marianne came to love Brandon. She couldn't do anything by halves. JA says so. The husbands absolutely liked and respected one another.
Mama would be nicely looked after, between the kindness of Sir John and Colonel Brandon.

What would’ve happened to Margaret, I wonder

I think the dances were choreographed specifically for the film and that they didn't use dances from the period.

upinaballoon: 'I do understand why Mr. Palmer had the voice of a girl and I'll be in trouble for saying it, but I could have done without it.'

No one should be in trouble for speaking the truth. It was bad casting done for ideological reasons and it didn't work. Compare to Meryl Streep in Albert Nobbs (I wonder if that film could be made now?).