The Other Bennet Sister starts tonight on BBC1 8pm

[IwantToRetire]

Seemingly unremarkable and often overlooked, Mary Bennet longs to win her family’s approval.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002qkp3

Is this going to be a spoof or some sort of spin off ?

2nd episode tonight at 8:30

Couldn't see a thread so hope this isn't a duplicate!

The worst example for me was the green dress with pink roses. I thought it very badly fitting at the front, and yet it was one of her ‘new’ ones so you would think it should be meant to look perfect.

I’m inclined to think the utterly horrendous red and green dresses whose material Mary chose were a rogue idea from the costume people that just did not land. They made no sense at all to viewers in the given context.

The dresses were supposed to be very "her". So Caroline Bingley still looks down on her because even though they're new, and bright, they're not fashionable. But Mary isn't fashionable! She's clever, she's kind and she's finding out what she likes.

Though I will allow, her aunt's dresses were stunning in comparison.

I’ve now watched it all and am particularly pleased that my prediction of soggy smock scenes came true. Two drenched men coming out of a lake. These knowing nods to the 1995 adaption have really made me smile!

Where the plot was altered from the book I didn’t think it hampered it but I did feel some scenes were oddly filmed - there was loads of discontinuity on the top of Scafell over whether there were or weren’t rocks behind Mary, for example.

That a(n inheriting) nephew of Lady Catherine de Bourgh wasn’t known to the Darcys (another nephew of CdB) was a glaring plot hole.

but on the whole it was lovely indulgent viewing.

I haven't got time this evening to hop over to I Player yet again, but next time i do, I'll have a look at that front😃.

I suppose it would be impossible to counteract with our modern eyes - i.e. we see 15 year old and see a child whereas in 1810 a 15 year old could legally marry/work full time etc. So aging them up a bit to Carey Mulligan/Jena Malone age makes sense as they are a compromise on what we see 15 year olds as and how they would be seen in 1810s. If they were so young it feels 'uncomfortable', while factually correct it wouldn't be a thematically accurate interpretation, as it wouldn't have been uncomfortable to contemporaneous readers, IYSWIM.

Plus it also works the other way - some people said RJ was too young to play Mrs Bennett but she is 59! If Mrs Bennett married the same age as Lydia (I can't remember if it is explicitly stated she married young or just implied that she was youthful and pretty which briefly entranced Mr Bennet) she could conceivably be 36-37 at the start of P&P, and is unlikely to be older than her early 40s, max!

That’s an interesting point about the character ages vs the actors’ ages. I’m rewatching the 1995 P&P now, and was struck by the way that Georgiana Darcy (played by Emilia Fox), who is 15 or 16, looks much younger than Lydia who is supposed to be the same age. Emilia Fox was born in 1974 so was around 20-21 when it was filmed. They are presented differently as well - Lydia is shown as being ‘out in society’ while Georgiana appears not to be (just watched episode 4, so she’s only been in a few scenes). I found myself agreeing with Lady CdB that younger sisters should not be out in society until their older sisters are married - might have put a stop to some of Lydia’s poor behaviour in public!

This is how I took it too.
I think it also showed her aunt's kindness; her own dresses were beautiful and she clearly had good taste, but she didn't pooh-pooh Mary's choices or impose her own style on her, just supported her to buy and wear what she liked.

She isnt the original Mary
There was a superior BBC version in the 80s which was much truer to the book.

I wish I could see it that way, @ConstanzeMozart - just like current parents keeping their mouths zipped while their teens go out looking like frights.

But somehow, in the very narrow context of the show, it made her look neglected. Seamstresses take pride in their work and would not willingly have produced lumpen, ugly clothing when the rest of their clients were beautifully dressed.

(I was angry enough when her own parents didn’t supply her with jewellery for dances.)

I didn’t pay enough attention to see that her clothes were lumpy or badly made. If she used her aunt’s seamstress then yes, that is surprising.

They were lumpen and ugly - and way out of line with the styles and shapes of clothing worn by every other woman of her class. It wasn’t just exercising a bit of individuality. Any seamstress who sent out clothes like that would have lost all her reputation and clients.

Small aside, but, amongst all the other references to other series, did anyone else notice, in the scene where Mary and Tom are comparing drawings and remarking on his inaccurate dog, that it had « too many legs »?

Am I the only one remembering a priceless episode of Coupling with one of Richard Coyle’s immortal lines?

I'm wondering if the priceless episode is the one I'm thinking of, but I don't remember the immortal line. I'm not asking you to reveal any spoilers. I think I might find it on YouTube.

It's not a spoiler when the show is over 20 years old!

I thought Mary’s clothes were alright, the whole point was she was trying to find her own look and individuality.

Just finished watching it and loved it!

And it especially annoyed me because, in the book she chooses lovely fabrics in soft blues and greens, cream and gold. She finds her style, her Aunt Gardner encourages her to wear her hair in a plain chignon and she begins to feel comfortable in her own skin.
I was 100% rooting for Mary but that red horror looked like fancy dress and she would have been seen as 'a quiz' in it!

This afternoon on the BAFTA red carpet.

❤️

She looks fabulous there

Love the fact this is in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/arts/television/the-other-bennet-sister-bbc-britbox.html?unlocked_article_code=1.iFA.zwYB.J5cCpbxBhc-E&smid=nytcore-ios-share

But... so what?

You say you don't object to POC in period dramas with anachronistic music etc., and you don't object to seeing POC in period settings where they were more likely to appear.

And you don't quite say you object to POC in this, so what's the problem? It's a 21st century TV show. It's not real.

You're right, I don't object to any of those things, "quite" or not. I just object to people completely making stuff up. The truth matters!

Mixed casting for whatever reason - widen audience, increase diversity, modernise, make a point, is one thing.
Completely bullshitting that actually there were loads of people of all different ethnicities wandering around rural Hertfordshire in 1810 and nobody would have batted an eyelid is another, completely separate thing.

TV shows aren't real but racism is. If people start completely misrepresenting the truth it;
a) diminishes the actions of people who fought and in some cases died for better rights and representation
b) suggests to people who don't have wider historic knowledge that actually things weren't that bad - and that's a very slippery slope

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." How are people supposed to learn from history if people lie about what history was?

tl;dr I wasn't commenting on the representation of colour in the show, I was solely responding to the quoted poster's comment, which, in my view, consisted of two statements that were both inaccurate and, in terms of minimising lived experience of POC, borderline offensive (because while I don't know what the poster meant by "rabid" racism, to pretend someone of asian heritage living in the UK in the early 19th century wouldn't have faced what we consider to be significant racism is insulting).

I would have made exactly the same point if the poster had significantly misrepresented the reality of women, gay people, people with disabilities, etc. in the same time period.

I have just started watching this.
Delighted there is a thread on it and will read all the posts when I am finished it.

On episode 6 and mostly enjoying it.

But why does Mary have to be introduced to her cousins, the Gardiner children. Has she never met them? That seems very odd. Similarly when Mr Ryder arrives at Pemberley and says he is visiting his aunt it's weird that Lizzie doesn't seem surprised her husband has a cousin she has not only never met but apparently never heard of.