So this is a four-part mini-series from 1971 that opens with a long shot of lilies on a river that you think is stock footage but then it pans up to show a big country house and you realise that, no, they had some poor bugger pointing a camera at a river for three minutes until they had enough lily footage to put the credits over.
Before I get into the weeds of what I thought about this adaptation, I’ve got a couple of slightly finicky meta observations to make. The intimidating thing about this project was that there’ve been quite a lot of Jane Austen adaptations over the years, but I think it’s notable that they’ve been fairly even spaced apart from the weird thirty-year gap between the 1940s Pride and Prejudice and this BBC mini-series. I suppose that might be because of the rise of television but a cursory Wikipedia-ing reveals that there was actually a genuine shift towards this kind of drama on the BBC at least during the 70s and 80s. So in a way this is quite a trail-blazing piece.
My other meta observation is that, and maybe I’m projecting, it feels like we’re still early enough in the development of TV that people haven’t worked out that TV-acting and stage-acting are different beasts. Like this version of Sense and Sensibility has a genuine air of filmed theatre which usually you only get when something’s actually based on a play and people have been too literal translating the script and staging. Marianne, in particular, comes across like she’s trying to be heard in the back row and I know that’s partly her character but it’s also a bit jarring, especially at the beginning. Like, it’s all filmed in these small intimate rooms, usually with one or two cameras at most, and you’ll have people having a conversation, standing three feet apart, and there’s Marianne belting it out like Adele. Although I’ll admit I updated my assessment here from bug to feature when I decided that it was probably fitting for the character. Like this version of Marianne is so extra she can’t even modulate the tone of her voice unless she’s literally dying.
And, actually, after four episodes I was on hundred team Marianne Up To Eleven. Like, I don’t think she’s as great as Adorkable Mary Bennet but I think she’s close. And while it’s not the most subtle or the most nuanced performance, I really respect how—for want of a better term—unrepentant it is. Because the thing about Marianne in a lot of adaptations, and for that matter the book, is that there’s sometimes a bit of … a punishy vibe to her character. One of the things that’s belatedly dawning me on about this project relative to the Grantathon is that it’s probably going to do a lot more re-visiting of similar themes because, well, instead of lots of different films with one guy in them it’s lots of different versions of essentially the same six (ish) stories. And one of the themes I suspect I’m going to come back to a lot is the uneasy relationship between Austen, the context in which she was writing, and the very different context in which the books are adapted.
Something I personally read into a lot of Austen’s book is a profound sense of compromise for basically all the characters (well, all the women, but they’re kind of the people the books are about). While the question of whether Jane Austen can be considered to have written “romance” in the genre sense is a thorny one (my take very roughly is if science fiction can have 1984, then romance can bloody well have Pride and Prejudice) but what she definitely wasn’t writing was historical romance. If I had to retroject a modern genre classification onto a woman who wrote more than a hundred years before modern genres were a remotely useful thing to think about I think I’d probably say she was writing women’s fiction adjacent contemporary romance. Which is to say, she’s interested in the social situation and interior lives of women, with romance as a part of that because romance is a part of life (particularly if you were a woman in the early 19th century and marriage was kind of your main route to financial and social stability).
All of which makes Marianne a particularly complex character to interpret. In a weird way she’s sort of more and less sympathetic to modern readers than I suspect she was written to be. On the one hand, we are very very primed in our post-modern individualistic society to champion people who pursue their own goals and reject social norms and express their feelings strongly (although admittedly we’re mostly inclined to champion those people when they’re men). On the other hand, we’re also (and this goes to some problematic places) somewhat inclined to look down on women who are more interested in love affairs and poetry than in leaning in and being a girlboss. So what that leaves you with for Marianne is kind of a lose/lose in that you either get a story about a silly girl who is punished for being silly and learns that she was silly to be silly. Or else a story about a bold, free-spirit who is broken by reality and then doomed to spend the rest of her life with a man who wears flannel waistcoats.
To be fair, you can mildly ameliorate the latter problem by making the man wearing flannel waistcoats Alan Rickman. But only mildly.
This adaptation, however, does a really good job of ameliorating that problem by kind of having Marianne not change at all. I mean, yes, she gets her heart broken and has a near death experience, and afterwards she’s slightly kinder to people (but only slightly because she’s still deeply catty about Robert Ferrars and Lucy Steele) but she remains, on a fundamental level, extra as fuck. Like the book, she commits to a course of self-improvement as exaggerated and unfulfillable as everything else she’s ever tried to do in her life, but she doesn’t seem even a little bit subdued about it. This is a slightly dated reference but, in this adaptation, the self-improving version of Marianne is very much “CLEAN ALL THE THINGS!” whereas the book version is a bit more “clean all the things?” Plus she just expands her taste in literature to include extra poets from the 17th century as well extra poets from the 18th. Indeed, her late series characterisation is so consistent with her early series characterisation that in the first episodes she complains that Edward doesn’t like Ann Radcliffe (while mistakenly asserting that she wrote The Castle of Otranto, although I can’t tell if that was a Marianne error or a script error) and in the final episode Brandon is adoringly bringing her a copy of The Mysteries of Udolpho from his own library.
So basically instead of starting out extra, and then getting sensible and marrying a boring man with boring tastes, Marianne instead starts out extra, stays extra, and marries a man who is secretly more extra than he admits. Then again you’d have to be extra with these eyebrows:
Anyway, it’s been over a thousand words and I should probably point out that there are other characters in this adaptation. For example, there’s Mrs Dashwood who is, um, amazingly hot?
Also there’s Mrs Jennings who is played by Patricia Routledge. American readers probably won’t know who this is, but she was very famous for being in 1990s British sitcom called Keeping Up Appearances in which she plays a working-class woman called Hyacinth Bucket who pretends to be a very upper class woman called Hyacinthe Bouquet as a kind of a satire of British manners and social expectations. And it’s really weird to see her playing someone who kind of actually is the kind of person Hyacinth Bucket pretends to be. She’s an excellent Mrs Jennings though, striking just the right note of infuriating, slightly vulgar, but also deeply kind and a little vulnerable. I should also add, as a minor point of interest, the actor playing Elinor Dashwood goes on to play Mrs Gardiner in the BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice. As an even more minor point of interest, the guy who plays Willoughby went on to be moderately famous for being in a mid-70s adaptation of Poldark, although I believe it involved fewer shirtless scything scenes than we would now consider appropriate.
Speaking of Willoughby, he was probably the weak link of the whole adaptation. I mean, he has very silly hair (even compared to the general silliness of the hair in the rest of the production) and is doing a kind of weird, sneery voice—at least in his early scenes. And while it’s a mini-series so they have a bit more time/space than a movie one of the areas they do—strangely—choose to compress is Willoughby’s early relationship with Marianne. He sort of scoops her off the ground in the ground (while Elinor holds his enormous gun) in the world’s least dramatic falling over scene, then they kind of have like, two or three, conversations, in which she’s extra and he’s a bit creepy, and then he’s off to London. And while I get that part of the idea is that Marianne is as much in love with the idea of love as anything else, other adaptations do a much better job of selling her perspective.
I feel a bit bad that I’ve gone this far without meaning Elinor more than in passing, but that’s kind of Elinor’s whole deal. I mean … she’s fine? More naturalistic than Marianne, but it’s kind of hard to make an impression when your sister is doing a full-on emo flop in the background or interrupting an entire social gathering to aggressively show people your embroidered fire screen. Their Brandon suffers from not being Alan Rickman (although it does kind of make it easier to understand why Marianne isn’t into him) but I ended up really liking their Edward Ferrars. They gave him an actual stammer to accompany his general diffidence and awkwardness. But there is amazing scene where Elinor bursts in upon him in his London residence to tell him that Brandon is just, like, going to give him a vicarage (seriously, the British classy system is fucked) and he’s sitting there reading in his shirt-sleeves, looking weirdly dissolute. Like debauched emotional reading is the 70s equivalent of Colin Firth jumping in a lake. And, I won’t lie, I am kind of here for it.
Since I made such a big deal about the costumes in the 1940s version of Pride and Prejudice, I should confess that we’ve now got the era where my level of expertise is such that I honestly can’t tell whether particular decisions are a period thing that they’re doing despite it looking odd to a modern audience. Or, um, just a bit rando. Basically, the clothes in this look more Regency than the 1940s version but also … are quite strange. I think they do a decent job of conveying character, in the sense that Mrs Jennings wears noticeably richer fabrics and brighter colours, and Marianne has at least one ballgown with super extra sleeves. But there’s always a slight … and again this might be projecting … 70s vibe? Like, all the men have hair that makes it look like they were in the Bee Gees and there’s kind of nylon-ey air to a lot of the dresses. But since nobody is actually dressed as Scarlett O’Hara I’m giving it a pass.
Basically, I think I enjoyed this more than I expected, and perhaps more it deserved. Just Extremely Extra Marianne was an endless delight. Her face is unbelievably gif-able, pretty much constantly and every time she bust up a social situation by loudly saying the first thing that came into her head I was kind of living for.
Sooo…I am belatedly worried that I skewed my extremely scientific zero to twelve rating system by giving the 1940s movie a six thousand a year when I’m not totally convinced I expect much to be worse. Although, thinking about it, even if six thousand a year winds up being the bottom that still winds up giving me more room to play around than a 1-5 scale would. Anyway: since the 1940s movie only got a six for the sheer audacity of the title drop, I think I’m going to cautiously rate this one at seven thousand a year.
Which is a very decent living, although not so decent that one can afford to share it with one’s half-sisters.
First of all:
HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY EVERYONE!!!!!!<3
The most important for me in this adaptation was that they totally cut out Margaret of the story – I always liked this sweet girl.
Are you kidding me, Mr. Hall?!!!! I am indeed living in US and not only know who Patricia Routledge is but absolutely adore her! I had never seen this adaptation before and was very happy to see this actress as Mrs. Jennings – my favorite performer of this movie actually.
The dresses. They seem to show status of the women, which is not correct historically, but great idea for a movie – easier to see who stands higher in hierarchy. Also there was probably to much of the see-through fabrics which would not be allowed back days. I loved all the dresses – they were very pretty.
The outdoor scenes were very poorly done, though.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie – probably because I am fan of the theatre ;). Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention.
Have a lovely Valentine's Day Mr. Hall!
OK. So I was wrong about the dresses. I did more research on it and they were actually made very often of thin (some of them see-through) fabrics like muslin. I really loved the dresses in this adaptation and I am happy there were so many of them to look at 🙂
I also find stammering Edward Ferrars very adorable.
I actually like their Fanny Dashwood – she is absolutely perfect as mean sister in law.
As far as I remember, extremely thin and transparent fabrics were used in French fashion (Empire). The British offshoot of this fashion (the Regency) was more conservative and practical.
French fashion (of course, for rich ladies) preferred to get by with very thin and even transparent fabrics, and the almost complete absence of underwear. And even emphasized this (to which there are many paintings and miniatures). It seems that this was even mentioned in Gone with the Wind: Scarlett had a noble French grandmother who liked to wet her dress so that her figure was even better visible.
British fashion (as far as I know) required at first a cotton shirt, thin but not transparent. And a thin muslin dress could be worn over the shirt.
Although, of course, for countries with cold winters, both options are very exotic fashion. I read somewhere that in Russia this fashion took more than one young girl to the grave from a cold.
You are absolutely right! The dresses are more correct in adaptation of Persuasion 1971′. I’ve just seen this movie and the dresses are totally contrasting with the ones from Pride and Prejudice – they lots of more sturdier and thicker and the thin fabrics are very minimal in use.
I know thin fabrics were in vogue because there’s all those cartoons of, err, women with their dresses plastered to their bodies in extremely revealing ways: but I also felt they were probably more the provenance of the hyper rich and fashionable? Maybe that’s wrong? But I assumed that Jane Austen’s middle class characters would be more reliant on ‘sturdier’ fabrics, not least because they needed their clothing to last.
Omg, I forgot to mention the absence of Margaret! Like, she’s a bit of cipher in the book, I seem to recall, I mean, unsurprisingly because she’s a literal child. But at least movie version re-integrates her!
Also I’m delighted Patricia Routledge is known beyond this island; I adore her and she’s probably the best Mrs Jennings? I mean so far. Without really remembering the others too clearly.
I do like how expressive the costumes are: like Mrs Jennings is clearly rich and vulgar, Fanny Dashwood is clearly rich and a prig, the Steeles are dressed really aspirationally and the Dashwood sisters very plainly. I think it’s just some of the fabric choices looked very 70s to me – it’s not a serious complaint, it was just a bit jarring 😉
Already the fact that you do not remember other Mrs. Jennings actresses proves that Patricia Routledge is the best of them without the question mark 🙂
Mirabella, if you’re a similar age to me (later Gen X/ early Millennial) you might also have watched Keeping Up Appearances late Saturday nights on PBS? Along with As Time Goes By and sometimes One Foot in the Grave. Which is actually a really weird lineup for Saturday midnights when I think about it.
Viola, you are correct about my age and the shows. I was not a fan of the other ones, but Keeping Up Appearances was my regular show on PBS (my absolutely favorite US station – I have a T-shirt to prove it :)) – it was hilarious!
My take is that Marianne was written as initially selfish rather than silly. Austen knew that reality often f***s with one’s plans for happiness. But how you handled it is what interested her.
Marianne isn’t blamed for falling for Willoughby, but she is selfish about not considering consequences: she exposes herself (and hence her family) to ridicule by canoodling with him; she lets passion decide her (presumed) marriage partner before she knows his character; when she’s grieving she thinks of nobody’s feelings but her own.
I like to think Marianne really did fall in love with Brandon. *And* she gets to be rich like she always wanted!
That’s interesting. This might be a distinction so fine as to meaningless but I guess I’m inclined to see Marianne as self-absorbed rather than selfish: I think to me, selfishness implies intent and lack of care. Whereas it feels super clear that Marianne loves her family as sincerely and passionately as she does anyone else in the text.
I agree she’s reckless with Willoughby and indulgent with her own pain when he jilts her (although I think there’s a line in Pride and Prejudice, that is half-sarcastic, half not that goes something like: is not general incivility the very essence of love) but while she can’t read a room to save her life Elinor is always central to Marianne’s thinking and behaviour. She doesn’t fully understand Elinor, and she’s guilty of assuming that what will make Elinor happy are the same things that will make her happy (I mean, aren’t we all guilty of that) but she’s *so willing* to accept Edward into the family, for all his crappy poetry reading, simply because Elinor loves him.
Similarly I kind of love the scene where Marianne yells at her rich relations for dissing Elinor’s firescreen: yes you can read that as selfish because she cares more her own feelings that Elinor is being dismissed rather than Elinor’s actual embarrassment. But, like, there’s some very brave and very pure about Marianne’s absolute refusal to submit herself to the social hierarchy because it’s Elinor she loves.
On top of which, Elinor’s behaviour isn’t beyond question either. I know she gives her word to Lucy Steele she won’t reveal her secret to anyone (but how much is honour worth to a dishonourable person?) but the fact she keeps this even from Marianne puts Marianne in several really embarrassing situations with Edward: at that point isn’t Elinor putting her self-perception of herself as a moral person above her sister’s comfort?
You’re absolutely right. Self-absorbed, not selfish. Lydia, on the other hand is selfish.
A toast to extremely extra women and the people who love them!! *clinks glass*
It’s been approximately 84 years since I read Sense and Sensibility, or watched the film, and most of the details have been tossed into the absolute dumpster that is my memory. I guess what sticks most in my brain is that it was originally published By A Lady. I am probably way too overwhelmed with things to watch right now to ever do the full mini-series version of this, so I appreciate getting the bite-sized version from you, and of course find your POV a very charming lens to read through!
“If I had to retroject a modern genre classification onto a woman who wrote more than a hundred years before modern genres were a remotely useful thing to think about I think I’d probably say she was writing women’s fiction adjacent contemporary romance.” Oh my gosh, yes, I hadn’t thought about it, but I feel that is exactly right for all the reasons you said. And I still think “CLEAN ALL THE THINGS!” to myself, quite a lot, actually, which I guess, as it is indeed dated, is just another tally in the “you are a dinosaur” column for me. YAY! But I always do get a smile when I see someone mention Allie Brosh.
Thank you for sharing this post today, AJH. It’s always a pleasure to read your blog!! <3
PS (and totally off-topic & I do hope this is okay to share here): Happy Valentine's Day. This is for anyone who might need to hear this today? I once upon a time never gave much thought to V-Day as a person who was partnered for most of her adult life because, for me, hey, it's really fucking weird to have ONE DAY where you're supposed to go all gooey and grateful for your love instead of, you know, making that something to strive to think about every day? But in the modern times of my ever-lasting spinsterhood, the day gives me much more thought and pause–about feeling desirable & loved, and the societal importance that can sometimes be placed on romantic love over all other kinds, and how there is a sort of idea that if you are not in a romantic relationship (whether by choice or situation), something is def wrong with you. And I guess I just want to say that I recognize anyone out there who might be feeling alone today? There's this poem by Aracelis Girmay called "On Kindness" and it's about the way that even as strangers we can all recognize each other, love each other, and not feel entirely alone. R.A. Villanueva does a great reading of this, starting out by sharing that the poem is one "which I think about often as a kind of inoculation against sadness and anger and cynicism." You can listen to it here, if you want, with CW that there are mentions of suicide– https://youtu.be/_UtE2WBbuJk
"I mean to tell you. Everywhere I go I hear us singing to each other. This way. I love you. It's okay." <3 <3
I am always going to be both on Team Extra and, err, Team Dinosaur. And thank you so much for your kind about the post!
And for the story, and the poem, which were both lovely. Thank you.
Even as a “likely gone past the point I can ever leave the person I’m with” person I find Valentine’s day messy and unpleasant for all the reasons you mention.
As someone who stays up way late on the west coast of the USA, it is extra fun to get a comment this late from the other side of the pond, so thank you!!
Definitely not on a personal note, but just in general, I don’t think it’s ever too late to leave the person you’re with. Just wanted to say that. HOWEVER. As a singleton who has navigated the waters of middle-aged dating, OMG STAY WITH YOUR PARTNER, EVERYONE, AS LONG AS YOU CAN, IN A NON-TOXIC FASHION, IT’S BANANAS OUT HERE. That is all. I’m glad you liked the poem. It’s genuinely comforting to me. <3
Oh no! You’re too fast! I watched far too much of the Olympics this weekend to squeeze in a 4-hour miniseries! But I love your interpretation of Marianne as a manic pixie dream girl. (my words, not yours, but seems like it fits?) Can’t wait to see for myself. And from my childhood recollections of watching Poldark with my mother, he was very fine indeed, even without shirtless scything, so looking forward to that. I’ll try to catch up to you this week…although I’m also supposed to read Gogol’s Dead Souls for a book club this Saturday. Surprisingly funny so far, but it’s sooooo long! What’s a girl to do?
In what language do you read Gogol? 🙂
To be honest, I never bothered to read Dead Souls. I haven’t seen any of the movies based on this novel.
This book, although masterfully written, is terribly boring. Well, I think so.
For me, if Gogol has something that I want to re-read, it is his wonderful Ukrainian fairy tales.
Oh, definitely in English, in the lovely Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation. One of our book club members is Russian, so it will be interesting to hear from her about it. I’m 30% done. It’s very funny, and also a bit boring, but I’m liking it so far. I love Gogol’s The Nose, especially the Shostakovich opera of it. Never read the fairy tales. Here’s a fun bit:
“A knowledge of hearts and a wise comprehension of life resound in the word of the Briton; like a nimble fop the short-lived word of the Frenchman flashes and scatters; whimsically does the German contrive his lean, intelligent word, not accessible to all; but there is no word so sweeping, so pert, so bursting from beneath the very heart, so ebullient and vibrant with life, as an aptly spoken Russian word.”
Oh, he was VERY talented!
With a special, Ukrainian sense of humor, in which there is a lot of mockery, wisdom and always a little sadness ..
He was Ukrainian by origin, but at that time Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the official language was Russian. Therefore, he became a classic of Russian literature.
Wikipedia has a good list of his books. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gogol_bibliography
What I called “fairy tales” is in the “Fiction” section.
Now, if there are “urban legends” in Western culture, then in Gogol these are “rural legends” – fairy tales associated with Ukrainian villages. Witches, devils, terrible monsters, country fairs and holidays, and all that
It’s actually slightly less than four hours because the episodes are about 40 minutes each – so it’s technically about movie length? But, yes, still takes a bit of commitment. If it’s any consolation, I haven’t started the next one yet!
I can already tell you re going to have Thoughts about Lydia in “The Lizzie Bennet Diaries.” And rightly so.
I can’t remember, are you doing books or just media? If you’re doing books, you must include _Longbourn_.
There are so many Austen-themed books I would literally be here until I died if I tried to do them all, so I’m basically doing just doing filmed media.
I’ve actually been independently meaning to read Longbourn forever though. *eyes tbr*
Wow! This mini-series was really delightful, not least because of the abundance of very 70s hair and some definitely very 70s interpretations of regency fashion. It’s very apt to note the made for stage rather than TV vibes, which also definitely up the charm of this adaptation.
I second everyone who noted that Patricia Routledge is well known here in the US! Keeping Up Appearances was on PBS for years and was a staple in my house. Seeing Mrs. Bucket here as Mrs. Jennings was definitely a welcome surprise.
I don’t think I’ve ever watched an adaptation of Sense and Sensibility and am looking forward to the upcoming foray into more of them. It was interesting returning to this story after many years. When I read the book I was probably about Marianne’s age and am now closer in age to Colonel Brandon (not to mention currently in grad school making a career shift to be teaching kids Marianne’s age…). While I hesitate to look at these stories through a contemporary lens, I do find the age difference a bit disturbing. I was doing my best to suspend disbelief, but Colonel Brandon saying Marianne reminded him of his ward/niece reallllyy didn’t help (and referring to Marianne as a ‘child’ on the regular…cringe). I did like that they finally connected over books, and – as you pointed out – this portrayal of Marianne leaves her still essentially herself even after the Willoughby debacle. So I did end up shipping Brandon and Marianne…a bit…and enjoying their chemistry at the end. This might not have been as easy if the actor hadn’t looked quite a bit older than Marianne’s supposed age. Actually, that was a bit jarring for me at times, though. Her portrayal of Marianne was so perfect in its extreme teenage-ness, but looked a little ridiculous on someone who clearly wasn’t a teenager. I still loved all the extra-ness, though! But my 2022 brain can’t help but worry about power dynamics in relationships and Colonel Brandon’s kind of positioning himself as this caretaker-y, indulgent person who smiles at Marianne’s youthfulness (and teenage bod) didn’t quite sit right with me/feel like a truly equal relationship. I’m kind of repeating myself, but their bonding over books was the one space that sort of put them on equal (intellectual) footing – at least in my interpretation of it? it was a really short scene or two so we maybe didn’t fully get what that dynamic between them was really like – and was maybe the only thing that made me comfortable with/gave me more hope for their relationship.
Which brings me to the thought that all three romantic relationships felt a bit compressed – as you pointed out Willoughby and Marianne’s felt a bit truncated, but I felt the same was true of the development of Elinor and Edward’s relationship (plus Marianne falling deeeeply in ‘love’ over almost nothing is pretty in character, but I don’t think it would be for Elinor). In a book/mini-series where the women spend a looot of time away from the men pining for them, it’s hard to be fully on board with all the pining with the initial connections being compressed. It ended up feeling a bit insta-love-y, which is not my favorite.
IDK, like Edward was probably the hottest to me, just as a matter of personal preference, but aside from the intensity of the Debauched Emotional Reading scene (who knew a couple buttons being undone could make that much of a difference…😍)his chemistry with Elinor fell a bit flat for me. Is it weird that I was kind of feeling Colonel Brandon and Elinor as a thing? Their ability to be open with each other and communicate just seemed more like people actually connecting than what we saw of Elinor and Edward bumbling around each other in the first episode…Even Willoughby and Elinor almost seemed to have more chemistry when he showed up in the middle of the night during Marianne’s illness…which is sad because the Edward/Elinor relationship is the one I want to be shipping super hard throughout.
Maybe I’m being overly harsh? Edward felt a bit over-acted to me, but I loved this portrayal of Elinor, so I don’t mean to disparage her acting. Overall, I just find her quiet suffering very compelling. That sort of subdued strength and conviction, as well as her putting her needs second to take care of those around her is what I am really drawn to about her. I also loved the moment when she tells Marianne, “I can’t fight his[Edward’s] battles for him.” A cursory ctrl-f-ing in a virtual copy of the book didn’t turn up that line (which I kind of suspected, since it doesn’t sound very Austenian) and I can’t remember if there is a similar/parallel moment in the original, but regardless, I liked this move a lot. Elinor is hurt, but she doesn’t blame herself or wonder about her own worth. While it wouldn’t have hurt her to be a bit more proactive, I like this locating of responsibility for Edward’s actions on him and him alone. This also sidesteps blaming Lucy Steele for Edward’s poor choices and the sort of sexist caricature of the Evil Other Woman manipulating the poor, helpless, blameless man. Also, I have to shout out this portrayal of Lucy Steele for being just as odious as she needs to be…which is very odious indeed.
I think I’ve rambled on long enough/for far too long, but that pretty much sums up my many thoughts. Engaging with this was, if nothing else, very soothing and a lot of fun 🙂
P.S. I’ve moved in with my parents for the time being since they are the sort ill that makes people say, “Oh, I’m soo sorry” when you tell them, and it is soooo hard to find anything we can agree upon to watch, so my truly heartfelt thanks for this suggestion. My mom and I really enjoyed this one/making fun of the general 70s-ness and I haven’t seen my dad laugh as hard as he did at Wellington Paranormal in a while (the toke he had before watching may have helped tho…). I lovvvveeeed What We Do in the Shadows so though maybe this is the wrong place to say it *insert gushing about how amazing and hilarious Wellington Paranormal is here.* And just my heartfelt thanks for giving us some levity and connection in a difficult time.
I’m so glad to hear you enjoyed it – I had a lot of fun with it, early TV jankiness aside. I suppose one of the advantages of being a very early adaptation and access to only limited resources is that you don’t feel like you have to do something ground-breaking with the text. I mean, I definitely don’t think fidelity to the source material is what makes a good adaptation but there can be something comforting and satisfying about a solid interpretation that doesn’t feel too compressed (as sometimes a film can).
In terms of Brandon and Marianne, I do agree the age difference is a bit … uncomfortable making in contemporary terms. Especially because in the book Marianne is about 16—and while the actor portraying her looked young, she didn’t look 16 young (thank God). I think it also helped that they hinted at togetherness, with Brandon fervently kissing Marianne’s hand, rather than elbowing a second proposal in before the credits ran. The book kind of indicates there’s a substantial passage of time before Marianne finally accepts Brandon’s proposal but because it’s epilogue-time it doesn’t feel real when you read it: at least in this case there’s a strong implication she can have as long as she likes to come round to the idea and, because she hasn’t changed in the slightest, when she does come round it’ll be on her own terms. Not because she’s been horribly broken by her experiences and has put the needs of her family above her personal dreams.
I loved the book scene between them—for exactly the reasons you describe. It made me believe there could actual be a real connection them based on equal and shared passions. Instead of Marianne sort of being Brandon’s consolation prize for being a good person and Brandon being hers for accepting a life lesson. I kind of wish there’d been more hints of that Brandon throughout—not just at the end. I don’t want to spoil anything for you but I think the Ang Lee film does a better job of that, not just because Brandon is played by Alan Rickman, but he has moments of hinting at hidden depths and a very passionate temperament. Whereas this Brandon, at least until the end, when Willoughby is all “Brandon is exactly the sort of man that everyone speaks well of and nobody remembers to talk to” I was like … yeah, that seems accurate.
I think that movie also does a better job creating more of an Elinor/Edward connection too: you’re right that Elinor pines after him for such a long time, and is so very self-sacrificial for his happiness, I kind of wish we’d got more grounded in what exactly she was pining *for*. Something I do like about the book in general is the fact that both future partners for the Dashwood independently form strong relationships with the other sister: like Edward and Marianne clearly have a big brother/little sister vibe going on with her teasing and his indulgent, and Elinor and Brandon just sort of ‘get’ each other in terms of their intellectual and moral understanding of the world.
I think there’s something oddly and unusually romantic in that in a way: like because the Elinor and Marianne’s relationship with each other is the most important and significant in the book, more important is given to shown that Edward and Brandon recognise that and forming their own filial-esque relationship with the Dashwood sister they’re not courting than, err, is given to the actual relationships between the couples.
I loved your pointed about the non-book line Elinor and Edward’s choices: I didn’t think this felt Austeny either but I think gave Elinor a bit more backbone than she has in the book which I appreciated. And, yes, Lucy Steele is a grim little social climber but Edward made choices too there. She was almost a touch *too* evil in this version for me: it kind of made Edward look a bit of a fool for being at all into her at any point. I believe she’s played by Imogen Stubbs in the Ang Lee movie, who brings sort of a very genteel, big-eyed slyness to her, which makes it easier to understand why you’d propose in a fit of infatuation.
I’m so glad my viewing recs have gone down well with your family. Sending you and them all my best thoughts at a difficult time.
You’re making me realize I’m probably way too invested in the faithfulness of adaptations. I think a few formative experiences with horrific film adaptations (i.e. Ella Enchanted, The Princess Diaries and a longstanding resentment of Anne Hathaway that took years to overcome…if I can truly claim to have overcome it…😅) have made me overly obsessed with the faithfulness of adaptations. Maybe this is something I need to work on letting go of….
This, then, makes me wonder what to look for and evaluate instead.
In line with the above, I value a faithfulness to the themes and characterization of the original, but maybe this remains too narrow minded?? Now I’m getting really off topic and thinking about how rearranging music can do so much to enrich it and maybe I need to start thinking of adaptations along those lines? I’ll be interested to keep examining this going forward and engaging with a range of adaptations…
In a more on topic note, is it too cheesy and stupid to label this performance as Colonel “Bland-on?” Because I agree; he was extremely bland, aside from the book scene. And I definitely agree that it would have been nice to have more bonding moments that illuminate his character and connection with Marianne in addition to just that one scene. I’m repeating myself, but this is kind of where both relationships fell flat for me – we needed more little moments of connection to believe both Brandon and Edward’s relationships with the sisters.
I’m looking forward to the Ang Lee adaptation!! Especially for Emma Thompson! Sadly, I’ve never found Alan Rickman attractive???? Though maybe that’s because I first saw him in Love Actually when I was about 13, so he was too firmly in the ‘old’ category? Hopefully his performance will win me over because when I originally read the book I found Colonel Brandon very appealing in his sort of melancholy steadfastness.
Also, that’s a great point about the men creating connections with the sisters. I love the idea that the men recognize the importance of the sisters’ relationship and not to imply that it’s like faked, but that they genuinely value what’s important to their respective love interests and therefore are driven to create meaningful relationships with…wow pronouns etc. are failing me rn, but…you know…the sister they’re not in love with.
I agree Lucy Steele was probably a bit too OTT in her odiousness.
I’m looking forward to a more nuanced portrayal of her, though I had fun hating her in this one haha😅
Thank you very much for your kind words~
I’m really looking forward to engaging with more of these adaptations, though I will sadly be skipping Persuasion. In high school I was devouring the books when I realized I’d have no new Austen for the rest of my life if I kept it up. Now I’ve hit 30 I think I’ll finally read Emma (just got it from the library), but I want to save one last book for future enjoyment😊
OK, finally watched this weekend, and I enjoyed it much more than I expected to. Yes, it had all the bugs of early BBC dramas: it was stilted, filmed theater-esque, sketchy cheap costumes and wigs, over or under-done acting, but it was quite charming nonetheless.
While I was able to have space for Ms. EXTRA Marianne because of your thoughts on her, I was quite taken with Joanna David’s Elinor. Just the right amount of spine and pragmatism with a soft heart. Although with how EXTRA Marianne was towards Edward, you would have been hard pressed to see that it was really Elinor who was his love interest. They had hardly any scenes together to establish their attraction before the ladies were shipped off to Barton Cottage. Then it was just pining and Marianne throwing herself at him until the proposal.
One thing I thought was hilarious was all the shots of them traveling in carriages and being motion sick, attacked by dust, bored silly with their conversations, staggering exhaustedly out of the carriage at a stop. Totally hilarious reality based portrayal of how awful it probably was to travel by carriage.
So, when you said that Clive Francis (who played Willoughby), was in Poldark I did some digging and Clive Francis played Francis Poldark, the hapless cousin who married Elizabeth, and Robin Ellis (who played Edward Ferrars) actually played the super sexy Ross Poldark. So, now I want to go back and see which one (or both) did the shirtless scything! Nice range to play the stuttering shy Edward and the swashbuckling, rash Ross. And my, it’s a small world of actors on the Beeb, isn’t it!
I did think Colonel Brandon was barely there, though. He was just upright and measured and boring, although he did show a speck of life at the end when he brought Marianne all the novels. The actor who played him had a pretty undistinguished career of TV bit parts until his last role of “Pompous Bore” in 2002’s The Abduction Club, whatever that was, so yeah, Alan Rickman he wasn’t! (Can you tell I’ve been on IMDB?!)
And Patricia Routledge was quite lovely really. A bit boorish, but her good heart was quite evident and touching, especially during Marianne’s illness.
I think it’s more around 6,000/year for me, though. Thanks for giving me a good reason to get around to completing my watch of all Austenalia!
Yes, I wish I’d spared a bit more praise for Joanna David in my original blog post because she’s wonderful. I also felt her Elinor was allowed to stand up for herself slightly more than her book counterpart, which helped a bit as well, I think?
In some ways, I think it’s probably sort of fitting for this novel that so little time is spent on the romantic relationships compared to the familial ones—as I said above, the most important relationship in the novel is arguably between Elinor and Marianne, not between the sisters and their romantic counterparts. But it did make Edward hard to root for as a love interest for Elinor, especially because what he’s mainly known for is terrible decision making and social awkwardness. Okay, having written that I am feeling better disposed towards him 😉
Before you fall down a Poldark spiral of disappointment, the shirtless scything was in the Poldark remark – when the sexy Poldark is played by Aiden Turner. Here’s some scything for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o7rwuceRSo&t=28s
Hoooo mama….waving hand over eyes. Yes, Aidan Turner, that is definitely some shirtless scything! Of course the Beeb wouldn’t be allowing that kind of thing in 1975, what was I thinking?!
So, are you on to Persuasion next?