S&S review

I didn't love Sense & Sensibility.  Ugh.  I mean, I enjoyed it as a casual tv viewer, but not as an Austen fan.  I got this email from a friend yesterday which summarized my thoughts exactly:

We only watched part of S&S, and it was okay. I was disappointed in Edward (too self-assured), Willoughby (not good-looking enough and slightly creepy) and Col. Brandon (definitely creepy). And I feel like Andrew Davies is losing his touch -- he stole so many things from Emma Thompson's version (including Fanny's weird hair).

Edward was energetic and enthusiastic and confident -- I think he could have easily read poetry in such a way that pleased Marianne.  Willoughby was creepy.  I thought the scene at the beginning was unnecessary and actually confusing, because you didn't know who it was.  Mrs. Dashwood is not nearly emotional enough -- according to the book, Marianne gets her emotional tendencies from her mom.  And Davies seemed to steal an awful lot from Emma Thompson!  Like Margaret in the library on the floor, and playing outside with Edward while Elinor watches.  And why, oh why, change the story so that Marianne actually likes Brandon a bit at the beginning?  That changes everything.  I also thought Austen's language had been deliberately dumbed down.

I'm looking forward to Sunday night, but to me this feels like a lesser adaptation of Emma Thompson's wonderful version.

Comments

[Molly]

Blech! That's all I can say is blech! I found it very difficult to like this movie. Granted, Emma Thompson's adaptation is my all time favorite but even still, I just couldn't get into the groove of it. The opening scene was apalling, I mean come on! I pretty much agree with your entire review of S&S. Marianne was lacking the spunk I loved, Elinor was ok, Mrs. Dashwood was so blah! Willoughby was certainly not anywhere near dashing enough of a villan and Colonel Brandon was boring. Edward, dear Edward, where was the sweet honesty that we love about him that makes us forgive his ill treatment of Elinor?? Augh. Honestly, why did Andrew Davies even attempt this movie? Like you said, there were many scenes that were like Emma Thompson's that had me cringing in my seat with annoyance! Talk about deja vue! This is one of my very favorite novels, my favorite movie and it was a hard pill to swallow. I plan to watch tonight's conclusion but I don't hold out much hope of liking it. So, there's my 2 cents worth (: Take care!

Molly

[Barbara H.]

I agree with your assessment. The opening scene of part 1 was unnecessary and would have been confusing to those who didn't know the story. In fact, I found a lot of the story choppy, and, if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't have know what was going on, like the segue in part 2 from Elinor being told Col. Brandon has come to visit to her immediately telling Edward the results of the visit.

I didn't think any of the main characters were cast well except maybe Marianne and Margaret. Though I liked Edward here, he came across as more amiable and self-assured than I think Edward is supposed to. I found Elinor and Willoughby both unattractive.

It's hard to believe the man who made this is the same man who made the quintessential film version of P&P.

[Pam]

I couldn't agree with you more. It was an ok movie as far as movies go, but it was a pitiful adaptation of an awesome book. I was incredibly disappointed. What were the director/producers thinking? And the script was childish. The few times that they actually used Austen's words were even then often out of context. Badly done.

Thanks for writing such an accurate review, and thanks for giving me a place to vent my disappointment! Love your blog.

[Laurel Ann]

Hi Lori, I am in complete agreement on all of your points! Wow, that's a first. Things I did like; Hattie Morahan as Einor, Daisy Haggardy as Anne Steele, and Leo Bill as Robert Ferrars. The 1995 version still reigns with me!

Take care, Laurel Ann

[Stacy Price]

I absolutely LOVED it! I thought the music score was divine. The cinematography was breath taking as well. As a professional musician myself it inspired me to expand the current music style that I write in and try something totally new.

Though I didn't think Mr. Palmer was as convincing to me as the Mr. Palmer of the earlier version. Also, I whole-heartedly agree that Willoughby was more than a little creepy!

[ms. place]

I liked the movie, but only after a second and third viewing. The first time around I disliked it intensely, and was unable to get the 1995 version out of my mind. But then the movie grew on me, and I began to see how in this particular adaptation, certain elements fell into place. Dominic Cooper as Willoughby is a huge weak link, and Edward and Colonel Brandon are too handsome, but I like how Charity Wakefield and Hattie Morahan played off each other. In fact, Hattie IS Elinor, as far as I am concerned. The fact that so much of this movie was lifted off the 1995 film puzzles me: I would rather follow in Jane Austen's footsteps than Emma Thompson's. Sorry, Emma, but Jane's words and plot will continue to inspire people, whereas your reworking of her plot will start to look contrived and very 90's in a few decades.

[Lori Smith]

I deleted it last night off my Tivo, because I really didn't like it, and now I'm thinking perhaps I should have at least given it one more shot. Appreciate your perspective, Ms. Place.

[Susanna Crain]

Sense and Sensibility is my least favorite Jane Austen book. I did, however, love the 1995 film. Since it has been many years since I read the book (and I was never previously inclined to reread it), I feel as if most of my response to this current adaptation is in comparing it to the 1995 film. A couple of comparisons to the book, however--the character of Edward is different. He is much too self assured and confident in the film. I read an interview with Andrew Davies in which he said he felt he had to beef Edward up a bit to make him appealing. I agree that the Edward in the book isn't very appealing (at least he wasn't to me), but Emma Thompson seemed to be able to keep Edward more the way Austen wrote him and at the same time make him appealing. The age of Elinor in the current adaptation is better. Emma Thompson was much too old to play Elinor. I was, however, able to feel Elinor's pain in losing Edward with a much greater intensity when Emma Thompson played Elinor. Particularly in the first half of the new adaptation, Elinor seemed to not mind the loss of Edward that much. In the new adaptation, I missed the magnificent music, and Sir John and Mrs. Jennings, Charlotte and Mr. Palmer-in the 1995 version, they were all played by such wonderful, natural British actors. In the current version, Willoughby isn't dashing at all. The word that came to mind when I saw him was "dweeb". Marianne didn't have the mourning over Willoughby in this version either--Kate Winslet had a tired, pale, "I've cried until I can cry no more" look about her that made her loss so heartwrenching. In the current version, Marianne seemed to bounce back quickly and it was like, "oh well, if I can't have Willoughby, I guess Colonel Brandon will do" Also, in the new film, Mrs. Dashwood wasn't as silly as she needed to be. I did like the wicked Fanny Dashwood and enjoyed getting to see Mrs. Ferrars and Anne Steele as well. Overall, a good movie as movies go now days, but a faithful adaptation? Probably not. It may cause me to read the novel again just to see.

[Natalie]

I actually loved this version and am surprised to see so many negative reviews! The second half really sealed it for me-- a beautiful adaptation! A few small roles were miscast in my opinion but Hattie Morahan will always be Elinor for me from now on. And this is coming from someone who regards the '95 version as one of her favorite movies!

[Susanna Crain]

I posted a previous comment after viewing the film one time. I watched it again because my daughter wanted to see it and I enjoyed it immensely. Elinor is wonderful--she really captivated me, and even Willoughby seemed a bit more handsome. I would encourage others to view it again if they had a disappointed reaction the first time.

[Jemima-p]

I'm surprised and a bit dismayed with the negative reviews but, fortunately, we each have a right to our opinions. :) I just wanted to say how well done I thought the film was. And, in some ways, it was quite realistic. Everyone has had the experience in life of having a friend who is infatuated with a man and thinks him handsome, when really there's not a whole lot (we think) to recommend him. Since S&S takes place in a completely different time, a different place than most of us and with characters that have their own unique tastes, it is entirely conceivable that Marianne may have found Willoughby quite charming. I actually appreciate that the producers did not cast conventionally attractive actors in all the roles. It's more realistic and makes for a deeper film, I feel. Thanks!

[Jemima-p]

Oh dear. I am late to the party, aren't I? Didn't realize this was last year's post. My apologies. J