Emma Thompson said that she specifically wanted Alan Rickman to play the part of Brandon. She said he had played so many villains before and she wanted to showcase his real life nature of a very kind and generous person. As confirmed after his death by so many of his fellow actors.
Exactly. This role is as close to the real Rickman we’ll ever get. And the scene with Elinor & Willoughby was most likely cut because of the intense chemistry of Emma & Greg that was seen a bit in the film. Plus just film wise some things have to be cut.
@@Girl-rj3qeEmma did as Alan was one of her closest and dearest friends. Aside from his wife, Emma was the only other person to be there with him at the end.
Rickman is older than his character, true, but comes off, for me, age appropriate to this character given Brandon's history and experience. In the last scenes, when Marianne is accepting him, he relaxes and appears younger. In the novel, Brandon is 35 to Marianne's 17, so there is still a very considerable age gap - and remember too, that a similar gap comes between the eventually successful match between Jane Eyre and Rochester. This movie and "Die Hard" cemented my eternal love for Alan Rickman and his talent.
I didn’t see Die Hard until years after S&S so Colonel Brandon was my first impression of Alan Rickman. I had seen Truly Madly Deeply but he must have been just a face. The only or main reason I KNEW Snape was a double agent was that I didn’t want Colonel Brandon to be a baddie!
Age gaps: Emma and Mr Knightly? Incidentally, Colonel Brandon is very conscious of the age-gap: "A three-weeks' residence at Delaford, where, in his evening hours at least, he had little to do but to calculate the disproportion between 36 and 17...* (Ch 49, or Vol 3, Ch 13)
@@ArnellaHobler You should get a hold of it: one of the things I remember is an exercise that either she or Ang Lee encouraged for the actors: to write something about the character they were playing. Imogen Stubbs, who was Lucy, composed a hysterical letter in character. I also remember Thompson writing about a table read of the script, and that a cat jumped on the table and headed for Alan Rickman, who looked at it and intoned in his Rickman purr: "Go away."
This is not only my favorite Jane Austen adaptation, but quite possibly my all time favorite movie! Emma Thompson did such a brilliant job of not only faithfully adapting Austen, but also modernizing without diminishing the story by adding humor and drama, which is needed for a film adaption. I think the reason they had Colonel Brandon explains to Elinor Willoughby’s sincere desire to marry Marianne was because they removed the scene of Willoughby explaining his feelings himself to Elinor when visiting her at Cleveland. This often has to be done in screenwriting to improve the pacing of the movie, which might have switched the focus of the scene from Marianne’s endangered state to being all about Willoughby (boo hoo…you can see I don’t have much sympathy for him). I wasn’t disappointed in them leaving it out.
You are correct that some amendments have to be made when writing a screenplay for a book. I wouldn't have wanted the tone shift either from Marianne's illness - that scene is so emotional and intense. I guess I enjoyed the book version because Willoughby feels more human after that scene - but I agree that it doesn't belong there in the film.
For me there wasn't much confusion about the wedding: Marianne and Brandon come out to cheers, and festively dressed as bride and uniformed groom. When Elinor and Edward come out, she's much more quietly dressed, in a lavender/purple down and nice, simple bonnet, and the looks they exchange while holding hands and Edward lifting hers to his are markedly different from what's happening with Marianne and Brandon. They also aren't cheered the way the first couple is, and they move off to the side while Marianne and Brandon mount the carriage and that lovely little last moment is played out.
It astonishes me how a fine adaptation was made of this novel. Being a dedicated admirer of Austen literature, I must confess to struggling a bit with this book. The 2008 TV miniseries is similarly delightful - in some respects even more, at least for me.
Now I'm curious to know what makes you struggle with the novel but can still enjoy the adaptations? I assume it isn't the story itself then that is the issue? I'm glad to hear that about the 2008 miniseries, I will for sure watch that once I've got this one out of my system. 🙂
+ I liked all the changes Emma Thompson made in the screenplay. I didn't get the sense that Brandon and Marianne were actually in love, but that a fondness grew between them. Marianne is much more tempered by the end, and practically minded. She knows Brandon will be good to her, and could use a rest from the upheavals of losing her father, moving out of her family home, coming down in society, and falling in love for the first time. Marriages at the time were much less about romantic love, and Marianne knows it will be to her great advantage to marry Brandon. Also, the age of consent wasn't what it is today, so Brandon wouldn't be robbing the cradle as badly as he would nowadays. People's lifespans were also much shorter, so there wasn't a whole lot of time be a single grown woman. And I believe Marianne was 17 when she married Brandon in the book. I also really liked the film changes to Willoughby. He turns out to be a jerk, but for him to seduce a 14-year-old makes him a pedophile nowadays, and no one wants to spend movie time with a pedophile. Willoughby's not a pervert--just that guy we fall for when we're too young to know a player when we see one. In the end we're supposed to feel a little sorry for him, but we don't need him visiting Marianne with his 'what had happened was' speech. We don't need to hear his side because he's already shown he will do the selfish thing. I saw the movie before I read the book, and that whole scene was an unwelcome surprise. Willoughby wistfully watching Marianne from a distance was enough.
Marianne is definitely more tempered after her experience with Willoughby. Having had her heart broken like that, I think she learned to appreciate Brandon more. I get your point, even though I personally like that scene from the book! I think it adds some complexity to Willoughby's character, but I do agree that it's not necessary for the story, and as someone else mentioned it would have caused a tone shift after that intense scene with Marianne's illness.
Actually I believe in the book Eliza was 16 when she ran off with Willoughby, still not great though and I think your point stands to make it work for a modern audience
Small point: "Nancy" is a common diminutive of "Anne" - and both are used in the book, and so are correct. How old is Eliza Williams? The book is not specific, but Brandon says that he is going back 14 years when he finds Eliza's mother (also called Eliza), who has a child of three years: assuming (a) that he is remembering from the point at which he is relating the history to Elinor and (b) that the time lag and the child's age are both approximate, Eliza Williams could be as young as 14 or could be 16. Certainly she is not anything like 19, and I suspect that the change was not due to the perceived sensibilities of a 1990s audience (they might be shocked, but would not be surprised, at a 24-yr-old seducing a 14-, 15 or even 16 year-old) but rather to the film's softening of Willoughby's character.
I believe Nancy is a nickname -- albeit longer -- for Anne. I felt that someone teaching film adaptation could use the novel and the film together. While Jane had to write a great deal of description to introduce the characters to her readers, Emma Thompson as the writer of the screenplay could turn the descriptions over to Ang Lee the director, who brought the personalities out with his direction.
Haha, I wasn't that far off after all! 😅 That's such a good way of putting it, it really is a great example of how film can "complete" a story rather than just adapting it.
I can buy them all breaking down at the news about Willoughby: Mama has set great store by this catch, which is promising for economic as well as emotionally-fulfilling (for Marianne) reasons. Margaret doesn't get much interaction with Willoughby, but must like him, otherwise we would have heard from her. If Marianne and her mother are registering such despair, she's possibly now at an age to follow. I buy it.
I think Emma Thompson greatly improved the story with her script. In the book, it's supposed to be a pretty bleak match between Marianne & Brandon, because (IMO) Austen was essentially punishing her younger self in Marianne. The age difference was definitely part of it. Thompson makes the outcome less punitive by showing more depths to Brandon, esp. with the scene where he's reading her poetry about loss in the garden. You see Marianne starting appreciate him more for that. More than just gratitude for saving her life, bringing her mother, etc. I love Mrs. Jennings. I crack up every time she's meddling, even though I would totally hate it if I were the Marianne or Elinor character. Whenever she and Sir John giggle like little kids, I always giggle right along with them. As long as it's not your life they're meddling with, they're a delight! 😄
as someone who never read the actual book yet, lol, I definitely understood why all of them would cry after Willoughby announces he will be leaving for an indefinite amount of time. I think the mom had a lot of hope for Marianne finding love because it would've also improved their situation drastically, but also because they just lost their father. This reminds me of the Bennett's situation where the mom was trying to marry off all the daughters because if they weren't married off by the time the father died, they would all be extremely poor and not have much to live on to support them. I could see Margaret crying just because she is young and she's disappointed for Marianne seeing as she hangs out more with her than Elinor.
That is a good point. And I suppose it's also meant to show just how *sensible* Elinor is, as she's the only one not crying and is just calmly sipping her tea 😅
@@ArnellaHobler so true! I always wished I could be more like Elinor, but I know if I was in that time period I’d probably end up with a story more like Marianne’s 😭😭😭
We do get that Willoughby scene, though in the Brandon/Elinor scene. I have to say that I did not feel much yielding toward Willoughby in the book during his explanation, and don't feel the loss of the story being transferred from him to Brandon in the screenplay. We never do hear or see Brandon's ward, of course, so, in fact, hearing it from Brandon is as close as we'll get to hearing the story from *her* side - what he's done is despicable, honorable intentions toward Marianne or not. And since we do see regretful, slightly bitter Willoughby at the ver end, I feel all of this rounded out well in the screenplay.
I really enjoyed listening to this video! S and S is one of my favorite movies and Emma Thompson is such a gifted actress and writer. I’m sure someone else mentioned it but she’s also in HP as Professor Trelawney. I thought Dawn French was the Fat Lady? Are there two actresses? Anyway, I’m happy I found your channel!
I very much agree with that! And yes, Dawn French was the Fat Lady in Prisoner of Azkaban, whereas Elizabeth Spriggs did the role for Philosopher's Stone. I should probably have mentioned that :) I'm glad you enjoyed it though!
This is my favorite adaptation of Sense and Sensibility! I agree that they made Edward way more likable and personable in this (hard not to with Hugh Grant playing him); when I picture Edward, Hugh Grant's portrayal is the first to come to mind; he seemed rather dour in the book (there's an unofficial sequel named Eliza's Daughter that I read with my mom that portrayed him as being puritanical and hard in the years following the end of Sense and Sensibility that was 180 degrees from how I'd come to see him due to Hugh Grant, but I digress). Didn't know that Emma Thompson and Greg Wise ended up together. For some reason, I thought she was still with Kenneth Branagh, even though I do recall hearing they'd divorced years ago. Oh well. Anyway, thanks for another excellent video!!
Always happy to hear your input! And I'm glad you agree, this really is such a charming adaptation. Somehow I'm not surprised that whoever wrote that unofficial sequel saw Edward as such. I do prefer Hugh Grant's version as my head canon though, if only because Elinor deserves a happy and kind man! :)
Maybe I am a little too late to be commenting on this video but just wanted to add that I think the scene of the movie where Mrs. Dashwood and Margaret go upstairs to cry after Marianne does was a nice touch because they were clearly very fond of Willoughby, he spent a lot of time in their home, Mrs. Dashwood seemed to be quite hopeful that her daughter would be part of a love match so she was most likely concerned and sad while Margaret was quite clueless of the whole situation of witnessing a friend (Willoughby) leaving without even saying goodbye and her sister rejecting her without explanation, she's a child that within one year had just lost her father, her other friend (Edward) hasn't visited yet and she was simply kicked out of her home recently so I have this idea that in her eyes there's so much disappointing situations around her. I think it was an interesting detail since the screenplay of the movie was set from Elinor's point of view and how crushing it was for her to endure her own heart while her family is also completely submerged in their own (justified) dramas, reaffirming her loneliness. Of course this is only my personal interpretation but as someone who grew up in an all-women household I perceived those details as a very common behavior of women from different ages facing such situations. I hope this makes any sense? Your comparison was very interesting, thank you!
I think your interpretation does make a lot of sense when explained through the lens of an all-women household. As that isn't my own experience, it didn't occur to me at all that this could be seen as relatable behaviour. I certainly see it a bit differently now! Thank you for your input!
What I want to know is why is Col Brandon's interest in Marianne creepy but Willoughby's not? She's still 17 when she both meets them and they are of legal age and one being older. Aside of this double standard, I fully enjoyed the comparison between the book and the movie.
I think it has a lot to do with Marianne's wishes, in this case she openly preferred Willoughby and disliked any attention from Col Brandon, which I guess made his continued affection feel a bit creepy. Also, I believe Willoughby is supposed to be in his early twenties, about 24 at the most. So the age gap wasn't as big there.
I believe Willoughby is 25. While an older man and a young woman with a large age gap is acceptable, a young man and a young woman within a 10 year age gap (I believe) was the norm and considered the same age. Usually, a man is encouraged to marry after he finished his studies (about mid 20s) while a young woman is encouraged to marry as soon as she reaches adulthood (16-18 years old).
I like the overall atmosphere of the movie and it is funny, that while reading the book I never really adored Colonel Brandon in his scenes and conversations. to me he was likeable mostly because he was respected by everyone and I enjoyed Elinore's defending him from Willoughby's and Marianne's "abuse", although I sort of did share their opinion on him being liked when there and forgotten once he left. However, in the movie he was my favourite character because of Alan Rickman's portrayal. It's just that when Rickman plays villain I always enjoy hating him and when he plays the righteous guy I am absolutely biased towards him getting anything he wishes for. So I kind of am satisfied with him getting Marianne in the movie, however, when I read the novel and remove Rickman's face from this character, I do not think them really good together. When reading, I always liked him more with Elinore (also because I kind of find book Edward somehow annoying when he is in the scene and there is so little of him, that there's no opportunity to explore his good, endearing qualities, which could like "overweight" the annoying ones). I have not yet seen your review of the book, and some hints here that Edward is not the favourite character of yours as well, so I guess the next video on my playlist will be just that. Thanks for the video🤗
I agree about book-Brandon and book-Elinor being a better match! They have a lot more positive interactions than he does with Marianne. And that is a correct assumption, haha, I did find Edward lackluster in the book. 😅 Like you said, we just don't see enough of him to make a good impression. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoyed reading them! 😊
@@ArnellaHobler absolutely! I know that Brandon spends his time with Elinore BECAUSE of her sister at first. However, through this connection they do share a lot of time and thoughts. I believe she is the first person he told the whole story of his "tragic love" ever, so there is just so intimacy between them. From his point of view, I just do not get how he could fall for Marianne so deep, since she made point of it to show him only her selfish and annoying side. I do get how Willoughby could fall for her and I would actually like to see a situation of the good girl (like Marianne) "finishing" her mistake with the bad guy (Willoughby) and marrying him. I do not remember this ever happening in Austen novels. To me it seems like all the good girls (among the important characters) are saved in time and only those beyond repair (Lydia, Maria) end up married to or destroyed by the scoundrels. I would really like such a story written from Austen's point of view...😁
I think Lucy knew from the start about Edward and Elinor. She heard from Mrs. Jennings about Mr. F., I'm sure. This was the reason she let Elinor in on the secret engagement. Back off- he's mine.
And when Lucy sent the break-up letter to Edward-after she'd married his brother- she stated she couldn't give him her hand when he had given his heart to another.
I watched the movie first, then read the book and was so surprised Marianne was 16. I knew she was young but SIXTEEN?! Then I watched the series and I was like alright, I enjoy movie Marianne and Brandon more bc Kate Winslet looks like she’s atleast 18 while the series was more book accurate so every time Brandon was around Marianne I was just screaming at my tv, “LEAVE THE CHILD ALONE!!” lol
I know right!? While Kate Winslet does look very young it is a little more ambiguous there, which makes it somewhat more OK. The actress in the series definitely looks younger so I can understand that sentiment! 😅
I will treat it as a Jane Austen fan fiction when I do get to see it. But they could’ve found another modern regency as there are loads out there. I liked what shonda did with bridgerton coz it’s by a modern author.
I watched the film not knowing the story - and assumed through the entire movie Brandon would end up with Emma Thompson. I was BAFFLED at how the story ended!
That's true, well spotted! It was one of the details that didn't make the cut in my book summary (unless my memory fails me), which is most likely why I didn't include it here.
I realised Elinor and Edward were already married by looking at her head. She's wearing a bonet, same style as her mother and Mrs. Jennings, not a single maid bonet. All that just last year LOL.
I do like the movie ok, but there are some flaws. I really dislike how the movie aged Elinor, and even had her referred to as a spinster. In the book she’s a girl of nineteen. The movie also makes it seem like Elinor is untalented because she doesn’t play music. In the book she’s a talented painter.
There’s no question that Emma Thompson is a monumental talent, but she was way too long in the tooth to play 19 year old Elinor. Honestly, the egos of celebrities know no bounds. She really had to be delusional to take on the part of a woman who was twenty years younger.
Why do you do this to yourself? Why bother? No movie, television or stage adaptation of a novel is going to accurately follow it, page by page. That is not how filmmaking and creating a stage play works. One has to consider the time limits of the production in question. Brandon's interest in Marianne made you creepy? I don't understand that criticism. But I guess you're entitled to it.
Emma Thompson said that she specifically wanted Alan Rickman to play the part of Brandon. She said he had played so many villains before and she wanted to showcase his real life nature of a very kind and generous person. As confirmed after his death by so many of his fellow actors.
I think it was Lindsay Doran (producer) who wanted Rickman in the part.
Exactly. This role is as close to the real Rickman we’ll ever get. And the scene with Elinor & Willoughby was most likely cut because of the intense chemistry of Emma & Greg that was seen a bit in the film. Plus just film wise some things have to be cut.
@@Girl-rj3qeEmma did as Alan was one of her closest and dearest friends. Aside from his wife, Emma was the only other person to be there with him at the end.
Rickman is older than his character, true, but comes off, for me, age appropriate to this character given Brandon's history and experience. In the last scenes, when Marianne is accepting him, he relaxes and appears younger. In the novel, Brandon is 35 to Marianne's 17, so there is still a very considerable age gap - and remember too, that a similar gap comes between the eventually successful match between Jane Eyre and Rochester.
This movie and "Die Hard" cemented my eternal love for Alan Rickman and his talent.
I didn’t see Die Hard until years after S&S so Colonel Brandon was my first impression of Alan Rickman. I had seen Truly Madly Deeply but he must have been just a face.
The only or main reason I KNEW Snape was a double agent was that I didn’t want Colonel Brandon to be a baddie!
Alan Rickman was the sexiest man alive.
⁰
Age gaps: Emma and Mr Knightly?
Incidentally, Colonel Brandon is very conscious of the age-gap: "A three-weeks' residence at Delaford, where, in his evening hours at least, he had little to do but to calculate the disproportion between 36 and 17...* (Ch 49, or Vol 3, Ch 13)
Emma Thompson wrote a diary about the filming of S&S. Great reading.
Really! I didn't know, thanks for the tip 😊
@@ArnellaHobler You should get a hold of it: one of the things I remember is an exercise that either she or Ang Lee encouraged for the actors: to write something about the character they were playing. Imogen Stubbs, who was Lucy, composed a hysterical letter in character. I also remember Thompson writing about a table read of the script, and that a cat jumped on the table and headed for Alan Rickman, who looked at it and intoned in his Rickman purr: "Go away."
Wow, thank you!
This is not only my favorite Jane Austen adaptation, but quite possibly my all time favorite movie! Emma Thompson did such a brilliant job of not only faithfully adapting Austen, but also modernizing without diminishing the story by adding humor and drama, which is needed for a film adaption. I think the reason they had Colonel Brandon explains to Elinor Willoughby’s sincere desire to marry Marianne was because they removed the scene of Willoughby explaining his feelings himself to Elinor when visiting her at Cleveland. This often has to be done in screenwriting to improve the pacing of the movie, which might have switched the focus of the scene from Marianne’s endangered state to being all about Willoughby (boo hoo…you can see I don’t have much sympathy for him). I wasn’t disappointed in them leaving it out.
You are correct that some amendments have to be made when writing a screenplay for a book. I wouldn't have wanted the tone shift either from Marianne's illness - that scene is so emotional and intense. I guess I enjoyed the book version because Willoughby feels more human after that scene - but I agree that it doesn't belong there in the film.
For me there wasn't much confusion about the wedding: Marianne and Brandon come out to cheers, and festively dressed as bride and uniformed groom. When Elinor and Edward come out, she's much more quietly dressed, in a lavender/purple down and nice, simple bonnet, and the looks they exchange while holding hands and Edward lifting hers to his are markedly different from what's happening with Marianne and Brandon. They also aren't cheered the way the first couple is, and they move off to the side while Marianne and Brandon mount the carriage and that lovely little last moment is played out.
It astonishes me how a fine adaptation was made of this novel. Being a dedicated admirer of Austen literature, I must confess to struggling a bit with this book. The 2008 TV miniseries is similarly delightful - in some respects even more, at least for me.
Now I'm curious to know what makes you struggle with the novel but can still enjoy the adaptations? I assume it isn't the story itself then that is the issue? I'm glad to hear that about the 2008 miniseries, I will for sure watch that once I've got this one out of my system. 🙂
+
I liked all the changes Emma Thompson made in the screenplay. I didn't get the sense that Brandon and Marianne were actually in love, but that a fondness grew between them. Marianne is much more tempered by the end, and practically minded. She knows Brandon will be good to her, and could use a rest from the upheavals of losing her father, moving out of her family home, coming down in society, and falling in love for the first time. Marriages at the time were much less about romantic love, and Marianne knows it will be to her great advantage to marry Brandon. Also, the age of consent wasn't what it is today, so Brandon wouldn't be robbing the cradle as badly as he would nowadays. People's lifespans were also much shorter, so there wasn't a whole lot of time be a single grown woman. And I believe Marianne was 17 when she married Brandon in the book.
I also really liked the film changes to Willoughby. He turns out to be a jerk, but for him to seduce a 14-year-old makes him a pedophile nowadays, and no one wants to spend movie time with a pedophile. Willoughby's not a pervert--just that guy we fall for when we're too young to know a player when we see one. In the end we're supposed to feel a little sorry for him, but we don't need him visiting Marianne with his 'what had happened was' speech. We don't need to hear his side because he's already shown he will do the selfish thing. I saw the movie before I read the book, and that whole scene was an unwelcome surprise. Willoughby wistfully watching Marianne from a distance was enough.
Marianne is definitely more tempered after her experience with Willoughby. Having had her heart broken like that, I think she learned to appreciate Brandon more.
I get your point, even though I personally like that scene from the book! I think it adds some complexity to Willoughby's character, but I do agree that it's not necessary for the story, and as someone else mentioned it would have caused a tone shift after that intense scene with Marianne's illness.
Actually I believe in the book Eliza was 16 when she ran off with Willoughby, still not great though and I think your point stands to make it work for a modern audience
Small point: "Nancy" is a common diminutive of "Anne" - and both are used in the book, and so are correct.
How old is Eliza Williams? The book is not specific, but Brandon says that he is going back 14 years when he finds Eliza's mother (also called Eliza), who has a child of three years: assuming (a) that he is remembering from the point at which he is relating the history to Elinor and (b) that the time lag and the child's age are both approximate, Eliza Williams could be as young as 14 or could be 16. Certainly she is not anything like 19, and I suspect that the change was not due to the perceived sensibilities of a 1990s audience (they might be shocked, but would not be surprised, at a 24-yr-old seducing a 14-, 15 or even 16 year-old) but rather to the film's softening of Willoughby's character.
I believe Nancy is a nickname -- albeit longer -- for Anne.
I felt that someone teaching film adaptation could use the novel and the film together. While Jane had to write a great deal of description to introduce the characters to her readers, Emma Thompson as the writer of the screenplay could turn the descriptions over to Ang Lee the director, who brought the personalities out with his direction.
Haha, I wasn't that far off after all! 😅
That's such a good way of putting it, it really is a great example of how film can "complete" a story rather than just adapting it.
Sir John Middleton was in fact some sort of relation (“cousin”) to Mrs Dashwood in the book as well as the film.
Ah I didn't think they presented him as a relation of hers in the film! Must have missed it then, thanks for clarifying 🙂
I love your insightful analysis! You mentioned all my favorite things about the book and film.
Oh I'm glad! Thank you so much :)
I can buy them all breaking down at the news about Willoughby: Mama has set great store by this catch, which is promising for economic as well as emotionally-fulfilling (for Marianne) reasons. Margaret doesn't get much interaction with Willoughby, but must like him, otherwise we would have heard from her. If Marianne and her mother are registering such despair, she's possibly now at an age to follow. I buy it.
If you haven't seen Emma Thompson accepting the Golden Globe by giving a speech in Jane Austen's style......look that up!
Oh, really! I will certainly have to look that up!
I love her speech!
I think Emma Thompson greatly improved the story with her script. In the book, it's supposed to be a pretty bleak match between Marianne & Brandon, because (IMO) Austen was essentially punishing her younger self in Marianne. The age difference was definitely part of it. Thompson makes the outcome less punitive by showing more depths to Brandon, esp. with the scene where he's reading her poetry about loss in the garden. You see Marianne starting appreciate him more for that. More than just gratitude for saving her life, bringing her mother, etc.
I love Mrs. Jennings. I crack up every time she's meddling, even though I would totally hate it if I were the Marianne or Elinor character. Whenever she and Sir John giggle like little kids, I always giggle right along with them. As long as it's not your life they're meddling with, they're a delight! 😄
Lovely as always!
Thanks! 😊
i find you funnier and funnier the more I watch. this is a genuine compliment.
Oh! Why thank you 😅
as someone who never read the actual book yet, lol, I definitely understood why all of them would cry after Willoughby announces he will be leaving for an indefinite amount of time. I think the mom had a lot of hope for Marianne finding love because it would've also improved their situation drastically, but also because they just lost their father. This reminds me of the Bennett's situation where the mom was trying to marry off all the daughters because if they weren't married off by the time the father died, they would all be extremely poor and not have much to live on to support them. I could see Margaret crying just because she is young and she's disappointed for Marianne seeing as she hangs out more with her than Elinor.
That is a good point. And I suppose it's also meant to show just how *sensible* Elinor is, as she's the only one not crying and is just calmly sipping her tea 😅
@@ArnellaHobler so true! I always wished I could be more like Elinor, but I know if I was in that time period I’d probably end up with a story more like Marianne’s 😭😭😭
Sense and Sensibility is the ONLY film that I prefer to the book.
We do get that Willoughby scene, though in the Brandon/Elinor scene. I have to say that I did not feel much yielding toward Willoughby in the book during his explanation, and don't feel the loss of the story being transferred from him to Brandon in the screenplay.
We never do hear or see Brandon's ward, of course, so, in fact, hearing it from Brandon is as close as we'll get to hearing the story from *her* side - what he's done is despicable, honorable intentions toward Marianne or not. And since we do see regretful, slightly bitter Willoughby at the ver end, I feel all of this rounded out well in the screenplay.
I really enjoyed listening to this video! S and S is one of my favorite movies and Emma Thompson is such a gifted actress and writer. I’m sure someone else mentioned it but she’s also in HP as Professor Trelawney. I thought Dawn French was the Fat Lady? Are there two actresses? Anyway, I’m happy I found your channel!
I very much agree with that! And yes, Dawn French was the Fat Lady in Prisoner of Azkaban, whereas Elizabeth Spriggs did the role for Philosopher's Stone. I should probably have mentioned that :) I'm glad you enjoyed it though!
@@ArnellaHoblerOh I see! ❤
This is my favorite adaptation of Sense and Sensibility! I agree that they made Edward way more likable and personable in this (hard not to with Hugh Grant playing him); when I picture Edward, Hugh Grant's portrayal is the first to come to mind; he seemed rather dour in the book (there's an unofficial sequel named Eliza's Daughter that I read with my mom that portrayed him as being puritanical and hard in the years following the end of Sense and Sensibility that was 180 degrees from how I'd come to see him due to Hugh Grant, but I digress). Didn't know that Emma Thompson and Greg Wise ended up together. For some reason, I thought she was still with Kenneth Branagh, even though I do recall hearing they'd divorced years ago. Oh well. Anyway, thanks for another excellent video!!
Always happy to hear your input! And I'm glad you agree, this really is such a charming adaptation. Somehow I'm not surprised that whoever wrote that unofficial sequel saw Edward as such. I do prefer Hugh Grant's version as my head canon though, if only because Elinor deserves a happy and kind man! :)
Maybe I am a little too late to be commenting on this video but just wanted to add that I think the scene of the movie where Mrs. Dashwood and Margaret go upstairs to cry after Marianne does was a nice touch because they were clearly very fond of Willoughby, he spent a lot of time in their home, Mrs. Dashwood seemed to be quite hopeful that her daughter would be part of a love match so she was most likely concerned and sad while Margaret was quite clueless of the whole situation of witnessing a friend (Willoughby) leaving without even saying goodbye and her sister rejecting her without explanation, she's a child that within one year had just lost her father, her other friend (Edward) hasn't visited yet and she was simply kicked out of her home recently so I have this idea that in her eyes there's so much disappointing situations around her. I think it was an interesting detail since the screenplay of the movie was set from Elinor's point of view and how crushing it was for her to endure her own heart while her family is also completely submerged in their own (justified) dramas, reaffirming her loneliness. Of course this is only my personal interpretation but as someone who grew up in an all-women household I perceived those details as a very common behavior of women from different ages facing such situations. I hope this makes any sense? Your comparison was very interesting, thank you!
I think your interpretation does make a lot of sense when explained through the lens of an all-women household. As that isn't my own experience, it didn't occur to me at all that this could be seen as relatable behaviour. I certainly see it a bit differently now! Thank you for your input!
What I want to know is why is Col Brandon's interest in Marianne creepy but Willoughby's not? She's still 17 when she both meets them and they are of legal age and one being older. Aside of this double standard, I fully enjoyed the comparison between the book and the movie.
I think it has a lot to do with Marianne's wishes, in this case she openly preferred Willoughby and disliked any attention from Col Brandon, which I guess made his continued affection feel a bit creepy. Also, I believe Willoughby is supposed to be in his early twenties, about 24 at the most. So the age gap wasn't as big there.
I believe Willoughby is 25. While an older man and a young woman with a large age gap is acceptable, a young man and a young woman within a 10 year age gap (I believe) was the norm and considered the same age. Usually, a man is encouraged to marry after he finished his studies (about mid 20s) while a young woman is encouraged to marry as soon as she reaches adulthood (16-18 years old).
I loved this movie and your comparison ❤
I like the overall atmosphere of the movie and it is funny, that while reading the book I never really adored Colonel Brandon in his scenes and conversations. to me he was likeable mostly because he was respected by everyone and I enjoyed Elinore's defending him from Willoughby's and Marianne's "abuse", although I sort of did share their opinion on him being liked when there and forgotten once he left. However, in the movie he was my favourite character because of Alan Rickman's portrayal. It's just that when Rickman plays villain I always enjoy hating him and when he plays the righteous guy I am absolutely biased towards him getting anything he wishes for. So I kind of am satisfied with him getting Marianne in the movie, however, when I read the novel and remove Rickman's face from this character, I do not think them really good together. When reading, I always liked him more with Elinore (also because I kind of find book Edward somehow annoying when he is in the scene and there is so little of him, that there's no opportunity to explore his good, endearing qualities, which could like "overweight" the annoying ones). I have not yet seen your review of the book, and some hints here that Edward is not the favourite character of yours as well, so I guess the next video on my playlist will be just that. Thanks for the video🤗
I agree about book-Brandon and book-Elinor being a better match! They have a lot more positive interactions than he does with Marianne. And that is a correct assumption, haha, I did find Edward lackluster in the book. 😅 Like you said, we just don't see enough of him to make a good impression. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoyed reading them! 😊
@@ArnellaHobler absolutely! I know that Brandon spends his time with Elinore BECAUSE of her sister at first. However, through this connection they do share a lot of time and thoughts. I believe she is the first person he told the whole story of his "tragic love" ever, so there is just so intimacy between them. From his point of view, I just do not get how he could fall for Marianne so deep, since she made point of it to show him only her selfish and annoying side. I do get how Willoughby could fall for her and I would actually like to see a situation of the good girl (like Marianne) "finishing" her mistake with the bad guy (Willoughby) and marrying him. I do not remember this ever happening in Austen novels. To me it seems like all the good girls (among the important characters) are saved in time and only those beyond repair (Lydia, Maria) end up married to or destroyed by the scoundrels. I would really like such a story written from Austen's point of view...😁
I think Lucy knew from the start about Edward and Elinor. She heard from Mrs. Jennings about Mr. F., I'm sure. This was the reason she let Elinor in on the secret engagement. Back off- he's mine.
Oh that's a valid theory! Would be sneaky enough as well to pretend she didn't know about Elinor's attachment.
And when Lucy sent the break-up letter to Edward-after she'd married his brother- she stated she couldn't give him her hand when he had given his heart to another.
I always thought she knew & was staking her claim very strongly but subtly.
you can see Emma and Hugh are already married from the wedding scene where he kisses her hand. They look obviously happy, relaxed and satisfied
I watched the movie first, then read the book and was so surprised Marianne was 16. I knew she was young but SIXTEEN?! Then I watched the series and I was like alright, I enjoy movie Marianne and Brandon more bc Kate Winslet looks like she’s atleast 18 while the series was more book accurate so every time Brandon was around Marianne I was just screaming at my tv, “LEAVE THE CHILD ALONE!!” lol
I know right!? While Kate Winslet does look very young it is a little more ambiguous there, which makes it somewhat more OK. The actress in the series definitely looks younger so I can understand that sentiment! 😅
Same. I was shocked. Also, when I was 16, somebody at 35 would look like an ancient grandpa. I'd run away screaming.
Please, why don't you scream about Willoughby leaving the child alone, she;s still 17, even if he's 20-something.
I have never read the book but the 1995 movie makes me want to. There is nothing about it I don't like.
And biscuits are not dry and boring.
I might be biased but I definitely think you should! 😊
I probably will when I'm doing done with my hp Lovecraft set
I will treat it as a Jane Austen fan fiction when I do get to see it. But they could’ve found another modern regency as there are loads out there. I liked what shonda did with bridgerton coz it’s by a modern author.
I love this film💞
Me too!! 🥰
I watched the film not knowing the story - and assumed through the entire movie Brandon would end up with Emma Thompson. I was BAFFLED at how the story ended!
Can't blame you for that - it honestly is a valid prediction in that circumstance!
You don't mention one important omission in the movie: Willougby's taking Marianne to his aunt''s mansion.
That's true, well spotted! It was one of the details that didn't make the cut in my book summary (unless my memory fails me), which is most likely why I didn't include it here.
❤
I realised Elinor and Edward were already married by looking at her head. She's wearing a bonet, same style as her mother and Mrs. Jennings, not a single maid bonet.
All that just last year LOL.
The book is not an easy read, Both adaptations have their merits.
The 2008 version with Dan Stevens, Hattie Morahan, Charity Wakefield, and David Morrisey is far superior in my opinion.
Hugh Grant best casting choice ever!
I do like the movie ok, but there are some flaws. I really dislike how the movie aged Elinor, and even had her referred to as a spinster. In the book she’s a girl of nineteen. The movie also makes it seem like Elinor is untalented because she doesn’t play music. In the book she’s a talented painter.
Those are valid points for sure. If Emma Thompson had been younger then maybe the character had been more book accurate. I still love it though!
@ thank you for taking the time to respond! I really enjoyed your recap of Sense and Sensibility!
Slightly Susan is right. Nan was a very common nickname for Anne/Ann, and Nancy is a nickname related to Anne/Ann, Annis, and Agnes.
Maybe my subconscious mind picked it up somewhere and decided to use it 😅
funny with all those loud sharp sounds (you drinking tea) and quiet classical music ;))shouldn´t have done it
There’s no question that Emma Thompson is a monumental talent, but she was way too long in the tooth to play 19 year old Elinor. Honestly, the egos of celebrities know no bounds. She really had to be delusional to take on the part of a woman who was twenty years younger.
No dear. She wasn't delusional. Ang Lee wanted her to portray Eleanor . . . but an older Eleanor.
Why do you do this to yourself? Why bother? No movie, television or stage adaptation of a novel is going to accurately follow it, page by page. That is not how filmmaking and creating a stage play works. One has to consider the time limits of the production in question. Brandon's interest in Marianne made you creepy? I don't understand that criticism. But I guess you're entitled to it.