Click here to enter my other blog: Jane Austen's World.
Showing posts with label PBS Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PBS Movie Review. Show all posts

Thursday, February 19

The Women of Oliver Twist

The second installment of Oliver Twist will air on PBS Masterpiece Classic this Sunday at 9:00 PM EST. While most of the tale centers on the male of the species - Oliver, the Artful Dodger, Bill Sikes, Fagin, Mr. Brumble, and Mr. Monks - the women also play a prominent role. They are in no order of importance:

Mrs. Corney, Sarah Lancashire

You last saw her as the never aging Nelly Dean in Wuthering Heights, and now as the coldly calculating and unfeeling Mrs. Corney in Oliver Twist. Her portrayal as the avaricious workhouse matron who looks out for her own benefit is spot on. Born in 1964, Sarah shot to stardom as Coronation Street's popular Raquel Watts. After leaving the role in 1996, she starred in Clocking Off, Rose and Maloney, the BBC TWO drama The Rotters' Club and as a guest star in the fourth series of Doctor Who.

Learn more about Sarah at this link.


Nancy, Sophie Okonedo

Sophie was unforgettable in Hotel Rwanda and won an Oscar nomination for her portrayal as Tatiana. In Oliver Twist she plays Nancy with an unromantic and realistic bent. The prostitute with a heart of gold, she is conflicted between her loyalty/love for Bill Sikes and her sympathy for Oliver, which puts her life in danger. Nigerian-Jewish actress Sophie Okonedo has enjoyed a splendid and versatile career. Born in 1969, she trained at RADA after attending Cambridge. Her most recent theatrical films were The Secret Life of Bees, Skin, and Father and Son. Read about her career in IMBd and more about her in aProfile and Interview with Sophie


Rose Maylie, Morven Christie

Morven Christie made a big splash as Jane Bennet in Lost in Austen. She was born in 1979 in Glasgow and trained at the Drama Centre in London, where she graduated in 2003. Morven's career is so new, very little information about her sits online. After working as a ski instructor, her work on stage, and in film and television drama since 2003 has become more varied, and has included an increasing number of leading roles. She will play the lead in ITV's Monday Monday, and a supporting role in The Young Victoria. Morven is currently part of the first Bridge Project company, playing Anya in Tom Stoppard's new adaptation of The Cherry Orchard, and Perdita in Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale. The productions will play in repertory at The Old Vic in London from June 2009, after an international tour. Her movies include The Flying Scotsman and House of 9.


Mrs. Bedwin, Anna Massey

We last saw Anna Massey's familiar face in Tess of the D'Urbervilles as Mrs. D'Urbervilles, the blind woman who loved her canaries more than her son. It was a minor role, as is her role as Mrs. Bedwin. One of Britain's most respected actresses, Anna has been in the business for over 50 years. She has won an Olivier award, a Bafta, two RTS awards and she is also a CBE. It is too bad that actresses of her age are given such short shrift in films. This role as Mr. Brownlow's housekeeper is almost non existent and does little to move the story forward. Nevertheless, she plays the part beautifully. Anna is the daughter of famed actor Raymond Massey. She made her film debut in 1958, appearing in Michael Powell's Peeping Tom in 1959 and in Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy in 1972. Read more about her in this link.
Posted by Vic, Jane Austen's World

Friday, April 25

Cranford

The highest rated BBC show last season was Cranford, written by Elisabeth Gaskell. With so many close degrees of separation from Jane Austen that we can't count them, we plan to review this series, to be show on PBS's Masterpiece Classic on May 4, 11, and 18th. The cast is sterling. Eileen Atkins (at right on left) received a BAFTA last week for her performance of Miss Deborah Jenkyns. Other notable actors include Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton, Julia Sawalha, Francesca Annis, Simon Woods, and Philip Glenister.

Mrs. Gaskell's tale is radically different from a typical Jane Austen plot, for in Cranford men are looked upon with suspicion and are generally regarded a nuisance. This premise sets up one situation after another among the town spinsters, or Amazons as Elisabeth described them. Some of the scenes are comical, as with the cat who swallowed the lace, while some are heartbreaking, as with Matty Jenkyns's love story. There are a host of coincidences and improbable plot twists in this sweetly told Victorian tale, but by the time we realize we are being manipulated, we don't care, for Elisabeth Gaskell and screenwriter Heidi Thomas have totally won us over with their unforgettable characters.

Cranford celebrates the strength of female bonds and loyalty to each other and family. Oh, some men are considered useful: the doctor, for instance, and the estate manager, but overall this is a film that celebrates women in a positive and heartfelt way. The female characters remind me of the strong, smart, non-simpering women portrayed by actresses in Hollywood during the 1930's and 1940's, such as Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Marlene Dietrich, Mary Astor, Barbara Stanwyck, and Greta Garbo.

If you haven't read the novel, which is actually a compilation of stories that Elisabeth wrote for Household Words, a magazine written by Charles Dickens, click on the following link. You will find a lovely edition of Cranford, illustrated by Hugh Thompson, online. Better yet, run to your local bookstore and purchase a copy to read before the series begins. In order to truly prepare for this special event, you would have to read two other Elisabeth Haskell books: My Lady Ludlow, the story of Lady Ludlow played by Francesca Annis, and Mr. Harrison's Confessions, the story of the young doctor played by Simon Woods.
Posted by Ms. Place

Sunday, April 20

Rudyard Kipling, My Boy Jack, and the Janeite Connection

Spoiler alert. Plot discussed.

My Boy Jack is a powerful film that touched my heart in a way that no movie has in a long while. When I learned that this story about Rudyard Kipling’s son was true, my emotional reaction to the film felt all the more poignant. After the last credits rolled I sat in silence, contemplating the horrors of war and the sacrifices that are still being made by our soldiers and their families today. Tears rolled down my cheeks.

The cast of this film is sterling. David Haig, a character actor whose face was more familiar to me than his name, IS Rudyard Kipling. Not only is his resemblance to the author uncanny, but he worked for twenty-two years to adapt Kipling’s story to stage and screen. David plays Kipling with a fierce patriotic fervor that is both unlikeable (for the author places his son in harm’s way) and believable. The movie is a tragedy in a mythic sense: Kipling’s actions to help his son enlist despite the boy’s poor eyesight ended in Jack's death and haunted the author for the rest of his life.

The love Kipling felt for his son did not deter him from influencing Jack to join the army (images of Rudyard Kipling and Jack at left). This irony was not lost on David Haig, who described the author in this ITV interview:…on one side you had the magical, inventive father, creator of the Just So Stories and The Jungle Books, providing a wonderful environment for a child to grow up in. And on the other side you had the apologist for the British Empire who tyrannically pursued his son’s joining of the army and his involvement in the fighting of the First World War.”

Young Daniel Radcliffe is outstanding as Jack, Kipling’s myopic 17-year old son. As this young actor matures, I hope he will succeed in breaking free from his Harry Potter persona to become an adult actor. His performance as young Jack Kipling is so believable, that one screams
internally “No!” when he leads the charge during battle. Daniel brings both strength and vulnerability to the role, especially in the scene in which, as Jack, he speaks for the last time to his father. Carrie Mulligan, whose acting career began in 2005, continues to grow and impress me as an actress (read her biography in the post below). She holds her own in this ensemble cast as Kipling’s independent daughter, Elsie. The only one of Kipling’s three children to live past the age of eighteen, Elsie, who married George Bambridge, died childless in 1976.

Kim Cattrall delivers a surprisingly restrained performance as Kipling’s American-born wife, Carrie (Caroline Balestier.) Better known for fluffier sex-kitten roles, Kim had to convince director Brian Kirk to consider her to play Kipling’s wife. After the series Sex in the City ended, Kim, who was born in Liverpool, moved to London to play a quadriplegic in the West End revival of Whose Life Is It Anyway? She followed this performance with a role in David Mamet's The Cryptogram. After Brian Kirk saw her serious work and awarded her the role as Carrie, Kim researched the part intensively. Carrie was neither liked by the public nor her in-laws, but Kim found a strength and quiet reserve that lent dignity to the part of the worried mother. She portrays Carrie as a strong person who fought the press and public so that Kipling could have the privacy he needed to write. Yet, despite her bold character, she was a woman of her time, deferring to her husband's wishes.

I’ve read several reviews in which potshots were taken at Kim’s portrayal of Carrie. However, I think it takes courage for an actress aged 50 - one who is known for her beauty and sensuality - to play a stodgy middle-aged Edwardian wife. In real life Carrie was in her 30’s before giving birth to Jack. Thus the 50-year-old Kim is not too old to play 17-year-old Jack’s mother, as some naysayers have suggested. (Image of the real Carrie at right.)




We now come to the Kipling/Janeite Connection. Rudyard Kipling’s admiration for Jane Austen is well documented.

In March 1915, the Kiplings had visited Bath and he re-read the works of Jane Austen there. He wrote to a friend that “the more I read the more I admire and respect and do reverence… When she looks straight at a man or a woman she is greater than those who were alive with her - by a whole head… with a more delicate hand and a keener scalpel.”

In 1923, the author had completed writing The Janeites. The short story, begun the year before, was completed after Kipling’s discussion with critic George Saintsbury, who is credited with first using the term in an introduction to Pride and Prejudice.

However, it was Rudyard Kipling's story 'The Janeites' which made the name famous. The story concerns a simple and uneducated soldier and mess waiter in the trenches who reads Jane Austen's novels so that he can join the 'secret society' of officers who read her. At first Humberst doesn't like her novels, but eventually he becomes a big fan. Ironically, after the war is over, reading Jane Austen reminds him of the comradeship and camaraderie that he found in the trenches. Humberst praises this soothing quality of JA: "There's no one to match Jane when you're in a tight place."”

In an interesting aside, after the first World War, shell shocked veterans were encouraged to read Jane’s novels to help them overcome the horrors they witnessed. After their son disappeared in battle, Rudyard Kipling and Carrie would read Jane’s words together, feeling some solace afterwards.

The fact that Kipling was instrumental in urging his son to fight despite his bad eyesight took its toll on him. Jack went to war in 1915, and was reported missing in the Battle of Loos a mere seven months later. After the war Kipling became obsessed with finding Jack’s remains. For years the author tried to trace him - interviewing survivors and carrying a description of the spectacles John wore on the battlefield. (Jack's grave.)

"Tonie Holt described how the author carried out hundreds of interviews with his late son's comrades, building up a detailed picture of his last moments. He believes that it is through this research that the claim that John's remains are in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission can be disproved. Not only is the rank on the gravestone wrong - Kipling's promotion to Lieutenant had yet to be announced in the London Gazette - but the remains were found some two miles from where he fell, at a feature called Chalk-Pit Wood.

The devastated father threw himself into his work, becoming a prominent member of the commission. He took part in the creation of the pristine rows of Portland stone graveyards, which now honour Britain's fallen, selecting the Biblical phrase "Their Name Liveth For Evermore" as a fitting epitaph." (My Boy Jack? The Search for Kipling's Only Son, A New 3rd Edition - 2007)

The tragic irony of Kipling's search for Jack was that by this time his career was in decline. “His work failed to strike a chord with a generation traumatised by the memory of the slaughter of the trenches.” He died in 1937, twenty-two years after Jack disappeared.

Watch My Boy Jack, Sunday, April 20th on Masterpiece Classic at 9:00 p.m. Click here for details.

“Have you news of my boy Jack?”

Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind—
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

Update: This link leads to an MP3 file of a song recorded in 1917 and based on the poem.

Sources for this review:


Six Degree of Austen Adaptation Separation

David Haig as Rudyard Kipling enjoys several degrees of Austen adaptation separation:
  • Two Degrees: Played as Bernard the Groom in Four Weddings and a Funeral, and as Sophie Thomspon’s (One Degree) husband. Sophie played Miss Bates and Maria Rushworth. Other actors included Anna Chancellor (One Degree, Caroline Bingley) andHugh Grant (One degree, Edward Ferrars)
  • Three Degrees: David Haig played with Aileen Atkins (Two Degrees) in the Sea; she played opposite Kate Beckinsale in Cold Comfort Farm, and Kate played Emma (One degree). Aileen also costarred in Cranford with Judy Dench (One Degree, Lady Catherine de Bourgh.)

Kim Cattrall, Carrie Kipling
  • Two Degrees: Stars with Carrie Mulligan who played Isabella Thorpe in Northanger Abbey.
  • Three Degrees: Stars with Daniel Haig (see above) and Daniel Radcliffe, (see below.)
  • Four Degrees: Starred with Cynthia Nixon in Sex and the City. Cynthia played a maid of all work for Mozart in Amadeus, and costarred with Simon Callow, Emanuel Shikaneder in the film. Simon played Mr. Beebe in 1986’s A Room With A View, costarring Maggie Smith(one degree); Gareth in Four Weddings and a Funeral, costarring David Haig and Sophie Thompson; and in Charles Dickens, costarring Kate Winslet.

Daniel Radcliffe, John Kipling
  • Two Degrees: Through his Harry Potter costars - Emma Thompson, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Daisy Haggard, Robert Hardy - all of whom played Austen characters.
  • Three Degrees: Costarred with Geoffrey Rush in the Tailor of Panama; Geoffrey costarred in Shakespeare in Love (two degrees) with Gwyneth Paltrow (Emma, One degree.)

Carrie Mulligan, Elsie Kipling
  • One degree, as Isabella Thorpe in Northanger Abbey. For other suggestions, read the post by Laurel Anne below.


  • Posted by Ms. Place

Saturday, April 12

A Room With a View: The Beige Version

Inquiring readers: This blog will continue to review Masterpiece Classic films as long as the movies demonstrate some connection to Jane Austen. Therefore, these reviews come under the heading: Six Degrees of Austen Adaptation Separation. For a fuller explanation, please scroll to the bottom of this post.

A young Englishwoman falls in love but doesn't realize it, in E.M. Forster's gently satirical romance set in Italy and England in the early twentieth century. Originally published in 1908, A Room With a View is a lighthearted tribute to all that Forster loved about Italy and family life in England, with the less cherished aspects of English society veiled in parody, much in the spirit of Jane Austen. Masterpiece Classic presents A Room with a View, airing Sunday, April 13, 2008, 9-10:30 pm ET on PBS.

Oh, no, I said to myself, when I saw that Masterpiece Classic was showcasing a new version of A Room With A View. Every movie loving cell in my brain rebelled at the thought. You must understand, gentle reader, that Merchant and Ivory’s production of A Room With a View with Helena Bonham Carter and Julian Sands was one of my favorite movie from the 80’s. I have seen it numerous times. I own the VHS tape. I have the DVD. I even bought the book by E.M. Forster.

Then I learned that Andrew Davies was having a go at another film adaptation of this little piece of cinematic perfection. Sacrilege! I literally slammed the DVD into my player and sat (with a surly expression) to view this upstart movie.

Who could top Maggie Smith as Cousin Charlotte in the 1985 film adaptation, I asked myself? Or Simon Callow as Mr. Beebe? Judy Dench played the definitive Eleanor Lavish, a novelist with many fixed opinions but very small talent. The two Miss Alens were adorable elderly ladies who I wanted as my own aunts. And Daniel Day-Lewis as foppy, effeminate Cecil Vyse not only created an unforgettable character, but successfully hid his sexy, masculine side (Think Last of the Mohicans.) Rupert Graves has caught my attention ever since his wonderful turn as Freddy, Lucy's brother. I last saw him as a Hollywood playboy in Death at a Funeral, with Darcy-hottie Matthew Macfadyen. Well I could go on. To my way of thinking, no movie ending could be more glorious than seeing a young and luscious Lucy/Helena, her thick dark hair flowing down her back, sitting in a window being showered with kisses by a delectable man. With the Duomo as a backdrop and the strains of an unforgettable soundtrack reaching a crescendo, how more romantic could a film ending get? Mr. Davies, on the other hand, confuses nudity with romanticism and sexuality, and although this scene was in the novel, he missed the mark entirely.


I watched this 2007 ITV movie adaptation twice. I had to. Lucy's hair started out short, then it became long, then it was short again. Oh, I said, finally getting it, Andrew Davies is using flashbacks. It seems he found a reference written by E.M. Forster: “Forster himself wrote a little postscript in 1958, 50 years after writing the book, imagining what might have happened to the characters. He imagined George Emerson visiting Florence after the Second World War, looking for the Bertolini boarding house". I won't give away the plot, but the ending of this movie is nowhere near anything that E.M. Forster had in mind for George.

My muted impression of this film is echoed by the color palette. The feeling of beige predominates, from the settings to the costumes to the musical score. Even the lush Tuscan countryside seems tepid. How this was accomplished puzzles me, for my recollections of Italy are of a country filled with riotous sights, sounds, smells, and colors, and people filled with passion and a zest for life. If Nicholas Renton, the director, and Andrew Davies wanted to depict the beigeness of Lucy's life before she found her passion, then color and sound should have predominated towards the end of the film. However, not all is lost. The film was shot entirely on location in Florence and Rome, and for this backdrop alone it is worth watching.

Be that as it may, on second viewing I started to appreciate this movie for some of its good qualities. In fact, had Merchant and Ivory not produced their gem twenty years ago, this new adaptation would stand up very well, and Mr. Davies would probably not have been prompted to alter the script in order to make his version stand out. Young Elaine Cassidy, though not beautiful, plays the role of Lucy convincingly. Miss Honeychurch's small rebellion against strict convention, and her restlessness and desire to break free from the mold and find her passion are paralleled by the setting of Florence, which represents the epitome of art, culture, and civilization in the Italian Renaissance. With this phrase - "We're here to see Italy, not meet Italians" - Cousin Charlotte echoes the thoughts of the other English tourists in the boarding house: that the Italians who live amongst all this splendor and were its creators, are uncouth and uncivilized. The British Empire, at the height of its power before WWI began to sap it of its economic strength, is represented by this snobbish group, who feels superior and entitled, and justified in imposing their values upon others, even the occupants of a foreign land.

The script also (rightly) points to the huge disparity in social class between the boarders, who represent the strictures of society, and Mr. Emerson and his son George, (Timothy Spall and Rafe Spall) who represent a free-wheeling, more open minded but vulgar, socialist class of people. Lucy is not only trapped between convention and her desire to break free, but she is sexually awakened by an uncouth young man. Any time Lucy's emotions get the better of her, she plays the piano with such passion, that one needs to use very little imagination to guess her internal state of mind.

By and large the actor Laurence Fox as Cecil Vyse fought an uphill battle and lost. He is too handsome and masculine to play Cecil; and his portrayal of this effete, effeminate snob did not oust my memory of Daniel Day-Lewis's comical yet sensitive interpretation of a man who, as Mr. Beebe described in veiled homosexual reference, "like me, [is] not the sort of man who should marry." The lovable Freddy is reduced to a mere cypher, and I don't recall that the camera ever lingered on Mrs. Honeychurch's face. If it had, I would have recognized Elizabeth McGovern playing the part sooner.The Miss Alens, too, were given short shrift. Having said that, I was pleased with the overall quality of the acting, for as I watched this production for the second time, I became engrossed in the story.

Sometimes, first impressions (as Elizabeth Bennet discovered all too well) are not what they seem. And so, I give this film a positive wave with my regency fan. However, this adaptation of A Room With a View is to the Merchant and Ivory production what the mini-series Scarlett was to the 1939 adaptation of Gone With the Wind: a pale imitation, or beige in this instance.

Six Degrees of Austen Adaptation Separation:
E.M. Forster, an unabashed Jane Austen fan, wrote
: "Shut up in measureless content, I greet her by the name of most kind hostess, while criticism slumbers". Thus we have a close connection between Jane and the author. In addition:


Sophie Thompson
(Cousin Charlotte) enjoys several degrees of Austen adaptation separation:

One Degree: She performed as Miss Bates in Emma,1996, and Mary Musgrove in Persuasion, 1995.

Two Degrees:
  • Sophie played Dorothy, the maid in Gosford Park. Maggie Smith, Sophie's costar, played Charlotte Trentham in Gosford Park. Maggie also played Cousin Charlotte in 1985's Room With a View, and Lady Gresham in Becoming Jane;
  • Emma Thompson, Sophie's sister, played Elinor Dashwood in 96's Sense and Sensbility;
  • Phyllida Law, Sophie's mother, played Mrs. Bates in Emma, 1996 and Mrs. George Austen in Miss Austen Regrets, 2007;
  • As Lydia, the bride in Four Weddings and a Funeral, Sophie costarred with Hugh Grant, who played Edward Ferrars in Sense & Sensibility, 1995 and Daniel Cleaver in the Bridget Jones's Diary movies;
  • Anna Chancellor (Four Weddings and a Funeral) played Caroline Bingley in Pride and Prejudice, 1995; and as Jane Austen's descendant, she also hosted The Real Jane Austen, BBC, 2002.
Three Degrees:
  • Hugh Grant (Sense and Sensibility) played opposite Frances O'Connor in the Importance of Being Earnest. Frances starred as Fanny Price in 1999's Mansfield park;
  • Maggie Smith and Dame Judy Dench performed together in Ladies in Lavender. Judy Dench played Lady Catherine de Bourgh in Pride and Prejudice, 2005, and as Eleanor Lavish in Room With a View, 1985. Maggie played Lady Gresham in Becoming Jane.

Mark Williams (Mr. Beebe)

One Degree: Played Sir John Middleton in Sense and Sensibility, 2007;

Two Degrees: He played Wabash, the stutterer in Shakespeare in Love. Gwyneth Paltrow, the star of that movie, played the title role in Emma 1996;

Three Degrees: As Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter films, Mark enjoys three degrees of separation from Emma Thompson, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman(Colonel Brandon, Sense and Sensibility, 96), Daisy Haggard (Anne Steele, Sense and Sensibility, 2007); and Imelda Staunton, (Mrs. Palmer, Sense and Sensiblity, 96.)

More about A Room With a View:

Thursday, April 3

Sense & Sensibility: A Head to Head Comparison

Gentle Reader, When Kaye Dacus agreed to write one of her wonderful posts comparing two Jane Austen film adaptations, we rejoiced. In this instance, Kaye compared Sense and Sensibility, 1995 to the latest adaptation of S&S that is currently being aired on Masterpiece Classic. Watch Part II this Sunday at 9 p.m. on your local PBS station. Meanwhile, enjoy Kaye's take on both films:

When new film adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels are made, there is no sense in pretending we don’t compare the actors and actresses from the various versions. Since Barbara Larochelle did such a good job of reviewing the new adaptation concerning the story and the setting, I thought I’d just do what I do best: compare the actors and actresses head-to-head.

I thought about including the 1981 BBC miniseries, but since I’ve had the DVD of it for a few years (purchased as part of a set) and have never watched it, this will focus on just the 1995 Emma Thompson version in comparison to the new Andrew Davies version.

Elinor Dashwood: Emma Thompson vs. Hattie Morahan

In looks, Emma Thompson has Hattie Morahan beaten, hands-down. It has been quite a while since I’ve read the book, but I don’t remember Jane Austen specifying that Elinor is so plain as to be nearly homely. In speaking ability, Emma also has the edge---Hattie has a bit of a lisp at times that makes her sound a bit less refined and intelligent than Elinor is supposed to be. However, in all other respects, I’m going to have to give this one to Hattie Morahan, mainly because of her age---because she was only twenty-eight when filming this, while Emma Thompson was thirty-six. Neither were very close to Elinor’s nineteen when the story begins, but Hattie does look much younger when seen on the screen. Hattie also brings a little less maturity and assuredness to the role. Why is that a good thing? Because in the novel, Elinor is only nineteen years old. She doesn’t know everything, the way Emma Thompson portrayed her. Hattie also has a quietness about her that Emma Thompson tried to adopt but didn’t always manage. Winner: Hattie Morahan.

Marianne Dashwood: Kate Winslet vs. Charity Wakefield

While Charity looks younger, she is actually several years older than Kate during filming (KW was eighteen or nineteen). But age isn't really the issue here. The better portrayal of this character is soundly Kate Winslet’s. Kate Winslet brought so much more heart and intensity and, dare I say, sensibility to the role. (She weeps better too.) She also seemed much more comfortable with the lines that are straight out of the novel, whereas Charity was much more believable with the dialogue written by Andrew Davies (not that his dialogue was bad, just not what Jane penned). But I do have to say, I like the warmth that Charity as Marianne initially shows toward Colonel Brandon---the smiles when he’s turning the pages of the music for her, and thinking him the only person in the neighborhood one could have an intelligent conversation with. And I know that tumbled, curly hair is supposed to be a “sign” of the wild, carefree character, but poor Charity’s hair tends to look more frizzy (especially around her face) than a wild tumble of curls. I know that’s probably more true-to-life, but with as refined as everything else is in this film version, it’s somewhat distracting to me to see a close-up of her and have her look like she just woke up and hasn’t styled her hair yet. Winner: Kate Winslet.

Mrs. Dashwood: Gemma Jones vs. Janet McTeer

Though Gemma Jones was only fifty-three when filming the 1995 version of S&S, Janet McTeer, at forty-six, possesses the looks of the early-forties that Mrs. Dashwood is supposed to be. However, Gemma Jones’s portrayal edges her out for me. Janet McTeer towers over the actresses playing Elinor and Marianne, and comes across as very robust. Gemma Jones brought a palpable sadness and fragility to the role, fitting for a woman newly widowed---and also something that points to the same fragility that Marianne shows later in the story after her heart is broken. Winner: Gemma Jones.

Edward Ferrars: Hugh Grant vs. Dan Stevens

He didn’t have to have piercing blue eyes, a mellow baritone voice, and a nice substance to his carriage for Dan Stevens to edge out Hugh Grant in this comparison for me. (And can I just admit that until I put these two images side by side, I didn’t realize how much Dan Stevens favors Hugh Grant?) Yes, Jane describes Edward as plain, with not much grace---and Dan Stevens is far from plain---but she also described Edward as solemn and somber, not comical and flirtatious, which is how Hugh Grant’s bumbling, stuttering portrayal comes across. Winner: Dan Stevens.

Colonel Brandon: Alan Rickman vs. David Morrissey

I know there are some people out there who feel as adamantly about Alan Rickman in the role of Colonel Brandon as they do about Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. So, since I’m 100 percent in favor of equal opportunity, I’ll go ahead and offend the Alan Rickman lovers to say I feel he was completely miscast as Colonel Brandon. (Side note trivia: the first name Christoper was made up for that version of the movie.) Yes, he’s a wonderful actor, and did a good job in the role. But he wasn’t the Colonel Brandon who appears in the book. The biggest problem is that Colonel Brandon is meant to be thirty-five years old. Though David Morrissey (forty-three) is close to the age Alan Rickman was when he filmed the role (forty-nine), the difference of eight years to fourteen definitely shows in their faces---David Morrissey is mature without looking old. Alan Rickman just looked old, not to mention the fact that to me, Alan Rickman sounds like he just came from the dentist and the Novocaine hasn’t worn off yet---and he might still have some cotton stuffed up in his mouth. One of the strange things for me watching David Morrissey is how much he reminds me of a young Liam Neeson---both in looks and voice. Winner: David Morrissey.

Mr. Willoughby: Greg Wise vs. Dominic Cooper

Aside from the fact that Marianne is sixteen or seventeen years old and susceptible to an unexplainable infatuation with a dashing young man, in the new adaptation I cannot understand how she could possibly choose Willoughby over Brandon. Because the film is much more drawn out, we see Willoughby in more scenes, but rather than seeing his humor and charm, he just comes across as sinister and conniving. He rarely smiles; and lines that Greg Wise spoke with a lilt and a bit of a laugh in his voice Dominic Cooper speaks with a petulance that makes him come across as rude. And, personally, I just think Greg Wise is better looking. Winner: Greg Wise.

Head to head, there are no actors that are truly just awful in their roles. But I do have my favorites. I hope you do too, and I hope you’re looking forward to the second part as much as I am!

About the Author:
Romance novelist Kaye Dacus has been a Jane Austen lover since first reading Pride and Prejudice in high school. In college, her senior thesis focused on themes of wealth and social status in Jane Austen’s work. She blogs about the craft of fiction writing---and Jane Austen film adaptations---at www.kayedacus.com. Her debut novel, Stand-In Groom, hits shelves in January 2009.

Thursday, March 27

Andrew Davies Adapts Austen: Sensibility Crashing Against Sense

Gentle Reader, Barbara Larochelle, our second guest blogger for the Complete Jane Austen series, has sent in her thoughts about Sense and Sensibility, to be shown on Masterpiece Classic this weekend. Barbara has been moderating the Sense and Sensibility discussion board at the Republic of Pemberley for the past nine years. Here are her thoughts about this new adaptation of Jane Austen's novel:

I was invited to blog on the new Andrew Davies-scripted adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, but first I should be forthright about one thing. This will come as no shock to anyone with whom I have ever had a Jane Austen-related conversation online or in person: I love Colonel Brandon. I love him just the way Jane Austen wrote him, and I have since my first reading of Sense and Sensibility, long before I ever saw an adaptation of the novel.
It is a necessary admission, for the portrayal of my favourite Austen hero can heavily influence my ability to enjoy any adaptation. More times than I would care to count, Colonel Brandon is described by various writers of introductions to the novel as impossibly dull, dour, dry, and worse. Some see his marriage to Marianne a 'punishment' for her and the ending to this story as a dark and unhappy one, for her, at least. Despite my conviction that they could not possibly have read the same novel I did, I am always left to wonder how anyone could fail to see Brandon as the man of sensibility he is and as I believe Jane Austen intended him to be. I require so much! I could never be happy with any portrayal of Colonel Brandon on film that did not match up to my ideal of him.

So it was not without a little trepidation that I approached my first viewing of this adaptation, particularly after reading and viewing interviews with Davies that Austen "didn't draw out her male characters enough" and that he didn't think she really understood them. Worse, he stated that " you can’t help feeling that the guys who get the girls just aren’t good enough in the book" and that "Colonel Brandon just seems old, serious, and not very glamorous. Jane Austen doesn’t really convince us that Marianne would move from being so crazy about the young Willoughby to suddenly being in love with Brandon."

Oh no. Old? He was thirty-five. Not glamourous? As opposed to, say, Willoughby who had to make a mercenary marriage because his glamourous lifestyle put him so far in debt? Suddenly? It took Marianne two years in the book to fully wake up to her future husband's merits.

And, of course, no matter how much I might dwell upon injustices, perceived or otherwise, to my favourite hero, it cannot be all about Colonel Brandon, who, in fact, does not even appear until more than halfway into the first of the three episodes that originally aired. He must also later disappear to attend to mysterious and urgent personal business, just as Jane Austen decreed that he should.

There was also much talk prior to the first broadcast episode that it would all begin with a scene of Willoughby seducing the young Eliza Williams. Chronologically, this would, of course, occur at about the same time as the opening of the book and when Mr. Dashwood is dying. I made no secret of the fact that I did not agree with this choice. In interviews, Davies calls Willoughby a 'sociopath' (plus a few more colourful adjectives). He wanted to put the story up front. However, I think it is important that the reader (or viewer) be swept up in Marianne's infatuation with Willoughby, and think him equal to what our " fancy had ever drawn for the hero of a favourite story ".

I worried that this, perhaps as much as any of my misgivings about how Colonel Brandon might be depicted, would spoil the viewing experience for me. Still, I didn't want to pass judgment, sight unseen, so I quelled my concerns as best I could before watching.

So. First impressions. The seduction scene is, indeed, up first, but you really can't tell it's Willoughby. Because of this, it seems oddly disconnected to the rest of the adaptation, especially since Eliza is not seen again until the third of the originally broadcast episodes.

The settings in any adaptation always draw a viewer's attention, and this is no exception. Norland, to me seemed very grand—much grander and more imposing than I had ever imagined it to be. When the avaricious Fanny Dashwood exults "At last!" as she first enters her new home as its mistress, one can almost imagine the degree to which she had been salivating at the very prospect. It does, however, serve to underline just how far down in the world Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters were cast by the death of their husband and father.

People who know a great deal more about this than I do did not care for the Barton-by-the-seaside setting. The visits I have made to England do not give me enough of a sense of geographical accuracy to object on such a point.

Once the Dashwood ladies are settled at Barton cottage, frequent scenes are intercut of angular, craggy, jagged rocks jutting up at angles through turbulent crashing waves. There seems to be something wildly romantic about it; sensibility crashing up against sense, over and over again, if you will. It seems almost Turneresque, and this certainly seems deliberate when you think of Turner's famous painting of Tintern Abbey only to have Willoughby later reciting lines from Wordsworth's Lines written a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey.

I have felt

A presence that disturbs me with the joy

Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime

Of something far more deeply interfused,

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,

And the round ocean and the living air…
The Barton Cottage of this adaptation does not seem to answer the book's description of a tile-roofed house that "had not been built many years and was in good repair", nor does it seem that it ought to elicit Marianne's exclamation of "How romantic!" However, it does suit Austen's observation that "In comparison of Norland, it was poor and small indeed!" and Mr. Palmer's that the cottage is low-pitched with a crooked ceiling.

Allenham, on the inside at least, is appropriately "shockingly neglected". It suggests the appearance of wealth, grandeur and respectability on the outside that is in reality concealing something quite different—not unlike its heir apparent. On the other hand, we are left in anticipation of seeing Delaford until near the end, only to see that it is everything it is promised to be and more, just like its master.

But—enough about the settings. The cast, of course, is the more important part of an adaptation. Comparisons between this and the much-loved 1995 film are inescapable, and this group of actors seems, on the whole, younger and closer in age to Austen's characters. My admiration for Emma Thompson as an actress and as a screenwriter knows no bounds, but I knew as soon as I saw this that Hattie Morahan is the Elinor of my imagination. She is able to convey so much wordlessly, whether it is the expectation that Edward means to propose to her, confusion at his real intentions, devastation at Lucy Steele's revelation about their engagement, her longing for Edward, her distress at hearing Colonel Brandon's revelations about Willoughby and his ward or being stung with the injustice of Marianne's accusation "Happy Elinor! You have no idea of what I suffer!" This Elinor is composure on the outside, and yet the feelings that are quite as strong as Marianne's are right there too—governed, but nonetheless deeply felt.

Charity Wakefield's take on Marianne somehow made the character much more endearing to me than she has been before. I am not certain that Marianne would have been the one to utter lines such as "Oh Mother! Don't cry, dear!" or, after Willoughby leaves, "Forgive me, Mama—it was the sudden shock!" but her earnestness and her sweetness somehow make it all convincing. This Marianne is sure of her opinions, but full of contradictions. She is sincere when she laments to her mother "I am sure [Edward] only praises Elinor's drawings because they are hers!" and yet is just as obviously piqued when Colonel Brandon, admiring as a connoisseur and not a lover, makes a discerning observation about her pianoforte performance. She declares the colonel is "the only person in the neighbourhood with whom one can have an intelligent conversation", but, mortified by the speculation that Brandon is in love with her, runs out the back door of the cottage when he stops by to visit.
At times it seemed that this was an adaptation of the 1995 adaptation, particularly with respect to Margaret. As in the feature film, this Margaret seems younger than age thirteen and has a proclivity for lurking under furniture, or popping out of a perch on a tree or from behind stacks of books to deliver ingenuous comments about the unfairness of primogeniture and to express a wish to run off with gypsies or fight duels. Also like the film version, she says what the others cannot: telling Fanny that is she is so envious of their cottage that she should go there herself and let them stay at Norland, or pressing Edward to promise to come and see them soon.








Still, Margaret had been excluded from previous S&S adaptations, so her presence is welcome, as is that of a number of the other characters who were excluded from the 1995 film, including Lady Middleton and her children, young Henry Dashwood, Edward and Fanny's harridan of a mother Mrs. Ferrars, and especially Anne Steele. Granted, Lady Middleton here is even more insipid than she is in the book and is given very little to do or say, and much of the humour provided by Sir John, Mrs. Jennings and the Palmers is sadly lacking in this adaptation. Anne Steele (on left in image below) is the standout here, and made me laugh out loud more than once as she prattled on about smart beaux or delighted in how they "preened and ogled" at the assembly.

And now for the men. The first thing that struck me was that both Edward and Colonel Brandon were far better-looking than they ought to be, considering that Jane Austen described them both as being "not handsome". On the other hand Willoughby, that "person of uncommon attraction" whose "manly beauty and more than common gracefulness" inspired such general admiration in the book was not nearly attractive enough, in my opinion. For me, at least, it was something of a problem when Colonel Brandon was so clearly superior to Willoughby in every way, that you would wonder why Marianne would even give Willoughby a second glance. Even allowing for the possibility that my personal prejudices in favour of the colonel were colouring my opinion, I could not get over this impression.

True to his word, Andrew Davies did indeed do his best to make them more present and more alluring, and so we have a wet-shirted Edward chopping wood in the rain to vent his feelings, and Colonel Brandon at first riding over to Barton Cottage with gifts of music and books for Marianne, then shooting things to vent his own feelings. Colonel Brandon dances at parties. He grills Willoughby on whether his intentions towards Marianne are honourable. With a heartfelt "Allow me!" he catches Marianne as she faints after Willoughby jilts her, then levels a potent death stare at his rival.

Then they duel. The timing of the duel in the adaptation has been altered to make at seem as though it is over Willoughby's treatment of Marianne and not to punish Willoughby's conduct in the matter of getting Eliza pregnant and then abandoning her and their child. In the book, the duel took place months before Elinor and Marianne came to London. This duel is with swords and Colonel Brandon is formidable. At the end, Brandon holds his sword to Willoughby's throat as his rival cower, then shoves him away in disgust.

His voice breaks as he recounts his tragic romantic history to Elinor and confesses "I believe we were everything to each other" as he speaks of his lost love. This Brandon rides about in the rain searching for Marianne at the Palmers' estate, and is soldierly as he barks out orders to the servants to remove her clothing and warm her up.

All in all, by the time Marianne observes "he is the true romantic, I think!" we believe it. I always believed it in the book, but I must admit this is not something that everyone takes away from the novel. It was more than enough to satisfy the way I wished to see the colonel portrayed. Even though Marianne never did declare herself in love with him before their wedding in the book, I felt that it worked here.

This adaptation also includes other scenes that were missing from the 1995 film, most notably Willoughby's 'confession' to Elinor while Marianne convalesces at Cleveland. He comes off very badly indeed here, as he ought to, and while Marianne certainly never eavesdropped on the conversation in the book, we can well believe that she might have had the same combination of disillusionment and disgust on her face if she had done.

The dialogue, while not as funny as in the book, is clever. There are several scenes with subtext running through them. Sir John, who in the novel observes that there is no persuading his old friend, once he has put his mind to something instead remarks, " I don't think I've ever seen you aim a gun and miss." The metaphor is extended as they discuss how Willoughby is now a good shot, too, and when Sir John himself misses a shot, just before suggesting to the colonel that he set his sights on Elinor instead of Marianne.

Another example of subtext is when Mrs. Dashwood laments that Brandon would leave just when Marianne was beginning to take interest in him, to which Elinor observes that men who tame wild horses achieve this by being gentle, then walking away. We soon see Brandon with a falcon, the perfect combination of gentleness and strength. He is willing to let a wild thing go free and trust that it will fly to his arm when it is ready. Marianne, observing this, is suitably impressed. Now, perhaps, she understands that when the colonel earlier said her passionate pianoforte performance was 'original', it was truly meant as a compliment.

There is also an ongoing fruit motif, introduced when Willoughby presents Marianne with a handful of tiny wild strawberries, and extended when Margaret anticipates sampling Delaford's prized strawberries and peaches on the picnic. At last, when Marianne visits her future home, there are bowls overflowing with an abundance of ripe fruit. Everything at Delaford is welcoming and wonderful. There is no sign of neglect there, not even a speck of dust. When the colonel carries his smiling bride toward the flower-garlanded entrance of their home, we can well imagine that they will make each other happy there.

I have watched this through several times already, and I notice more to like about it with each subsequent viewing. I plan to watch it again this weekend. And again!

Watch Part One of Sense & Sensibility 2008 this Sunday on your local PBS station at 9 p.m.