Thank you Birch Living for sponsoring! Birch is offering you guys an exclusive discount this month: 27% off your mattress purchase, plus two free pillows. Visit birchliving.com/elliedashwood and use promo code BIRCHPARTNER27 to take advantage of this special offer. And act fast: this discount ends at the end of this month. If you miss my limited-time offer, you can still get 20% off using my link! Offers subject to change. #birchliving
It occurred to me, watching the 1995 movie, that Marianne at the end married the other real romantic person in the story. Rickman's Colonel is as romantic as she is, just with some years more to gain self control.
@@EllieDashwoodYeah, the scene where he’s reading to Marianne towards the end always gets me 🥰 Like the age difference bothers me (though at least Kate Winslet is an adult… I’d rather see 20-ish Marianne and 50’s-ish Brandon than 35 Brandon and 17 still-a-minor Marianne), but when he’s reading to her from that book… I could listen to him read the phone book 😂
I was 27 years old when this movie came out. Fell in love with Alan Rickman in this role. “Give me an occupation Miss Dashwood or I shall run mad“. I mean, wow!🥰
I am sorry but I completely disagree. I think the acting in the 1995 version is superb, this is the film I long to watch and rewatch. Maybe it's a generation gap thing. I am currently 47 years old, I was a student when the 1995 version came out, maybe I am emotionally attached to it.
95’ Emma Thompson was absolute genius in how she replaced the whole essential (to our hearts) scene where Willoughby comes and explains himself to one line in a conversation between Col. Brandon and Eleanor.
I disagree that a lot of the detail was cut from 1995 due to an under-estimation of audience intelligence or patience. I think again, it basically comes down to the structure of a movie as opposed to the structure of a mini-series or novel: The central focus of the movie is that between Elinor and Marianne. It's about their sometimes deliberate misunderstanding of each other, and their realization of what they mean to each other, and what they can offer each other. To a degree, in the movie, the love stories are, well, not incidental, but, in addition to being important storylines, they really serve to feed the conflict and then the union of these two very different sisters. Therefore, Brandon's backstory would only clutter things and distract from what was, in this adaptation, the most important aspect. And so, we hand the work over to the irreplaceable Alan Rickman, who, as an intelligent man and a brilliant talent, takes on that wonderful, wonderful monologue, which could have come off as an exposition dump, but which ends up as the reveal of a soul and a heart in terrible pain. I'll take it.
The 1995 version was one of my favorite films (not just adaptions) for many years. The writing, the acting and Ang Lee's direction made it a chefs kiss movie for me. Once I got older and saw many more period movies, my tastes changed. I appreciate the 2008 version is a better reflection of the novel, but 1995 still holds a place in my heart.
Col. Brandon is 35 year old. If you look at portraits of the era, 35 year old looked older than 35 years old of today or 1990's. So Alan Rickman was a good choice.
@@EllieDashwoodYeah, I think hes an actor who could shine through even poor direction, whereas maybe the other actors struggled with that more. His performance definitely outshines the others, which sticks out, since Colonol Brandon is supposed to be a subtler slow-burn character. The audience should feel a little bored with him at first, and even if you aren't attracted to Alan Rickman, its hard to be bored by him.
Hm...I don't think the guy from the 2008 version looked 35. He doesn't look remotely younger than Rickman and Rickman was a far more pleasant looking CB. The actor from the 2008 version has something a bit brutal to his looks.
@@runew9732 True. It would be quite natural for the audience, to at first get completely caught up in Marianne's passionate, romantic relationship with Willoughby. But as soon as Alan Rickman has his first scene... we're all hopelessly smitten with him, instead 😆
As a teenager watching Alan Rickman meeting Maryanne, you reacted the same way that Maryanne did - he's too old, too serious. Then as the movie progresses you realise that he is a "still waters run deep" kind of guy who is prepared for action while Willowby just talked about it. I watched it for the first time in my teens and by the end of the film I had a total crush on Alan Rick man.
Okay, here's the thing with historical accuracy of Rengency costuming. There are some extant garments from the period, but not as many as you think. People often cite the absence of certain styles as proof that they didn't exist. That's simply not true. Absence only proves that something hasn't been discovered. What we do have a lot of are original fashion plates and illustrations with dates that were taken from magazines. There's thousands of them. From those, we can tell there were lots of variations in sleeves, collars, trims, etc. The people of the early Regency were actually very creative with their clothing. Most clothing was still custom-made or homemade, so there was a lot of personalization. Fabric was ridiculously expensive. People either took fabric from old clothes that had become unfashionable and remade them into new styles - or they just wore old clothes rather than buying new. This was done by a lot of older women. If they weren't looking for husbands or going to court, they didn't need to impress people. People often wore old out-dated clothes at home to keep the fashionable stuff clean. There are some things that were consistent throughout the era, like wearing the proper undergarments, narrow skirt, and high waistline. In movies I think they usually make some attempt at accuracy. I give them a pass if some Georgian clothing is in the mix because it's likely they still would have been seen from time to time. If a younger sister has a waistline that's too low, it can be justified by saying she was wearing hand-me-downs. Mrs Dashwood can have a big black hat because it was leftover from the 1790s, and it was cheaper than buying a new mourning bonnet. If someone wears something a little ahead if it's time, well, someone had to be the one to start a trend. The only time I get critical of movies is when it's really bad, like Kiera Knightley's wardrobe from P&P. Gowns with no chemise or stays? Come on! People back then would have thought she was a low-budget strumpet. She would have been considered worse than Lydia.
Yeah, I found that rather unforgivable, too. Or the wild, unkempt, open hair when she's visiting the 'new neighbors', to look after her sister. For whose sake she would have wanted to make a good impression, even if she didn't care about their opinion otherwise. Or the fact that Bingley comes barging straight into Jane's bedroom - with her in bed and in her nightgown 😭 I just can't, with that one.
I love both. Period. Emma Thompson did the screenplay, and from what I have heard (might not be true) the studio pushed her to play Elinor because she was a known actress, but an UNknown quality as a writer.
Kate Winslet was still learning her stuff - she went up to Ang Lee in the beginning and asked him how she was doing and apparently he said "you'll get better" 😂
I always thought 90’s versions were trying to more closely emulate the norms of the books. The bonnets, the manners, felt more like a peak into the books. ❤
I am SO glad that you are discussing the nature of book-to-film adaptation! Too often, people simply go "it's different from the book so it's WRONG!", without taking the time to understand the necessities of adapting something from the page to the screen. and that sometimes, changes are not wholly bad (although you absolutely can go too far off course with adaptation, it's true)
I haven't seen the newer one yet but I also didn't know it exists 😂. I loved the 90s one but I do remember my grandma complaining about Emma Thompson was too old to play her character. I remember her from much ado about nothing which I saw first so I was like, oh but I like her so i don't care she's too old 😂. I also loved the chemistry between Maryanne and Willoughby. I also thought Alan Rickman was dreamy in this. I don't have daddy issues but he is old enough to be my dad but I was swooning 😂😂.
I'm so glad Alan Rickman has all the fans! 😂 And also, I must just be your grandma. Marianne and Willoughby definitely matched each other a lot in that version!
I watched the 95 version for the first time last year, having no idea at the time that it had won so many awards. And...I absolutely loved it! Haven't seen 2008's yet, but after this video I might give it a try someday.
I love the 2008 appreciation! Hattie Morahan is how I see Elinor, I love her groundedness. The Dashwoods are so well cast, from Mark Gatis, to Janet McTeer to Lucy Boynton. And it keeps Jane Austen's comedy of manners 💛
1995 Elinor felt perplexed by her family to me, not superior. She seemed to never know quite what to do or say to help despite trying to relate as best she could. Now that Ive heard it, I can see where there can be two readings of that performance though. I think of that scene of sipping tea on the stairs being best represented by the dog sitting in a house on fire meme more than as a person feeling shes better than her family
100% disagree with the scathing review of the 95 movie. General vibe and hats aside, I cannot believe you state that all the cast acted badly, except for Brandon who was miscast. Wow!
I was actually relieved to hear she had similar views to me on certain aspects of the ending. There were definitely scenes which I enjoyed, however unfortunately for me they are often overshadowed by scenes that I feel frustrated by and I agree with her view that some of the acting seemed more theatrical rather than for the screen. And I did struggle with the age of quite a few of the actors and actresses, however great they are. And I really like all of the actors and actresses in the film version. But that's something I struggle with in a number of period dramas where the age of the actors is often to varying degrees older than the character is meant to be.
Sense and Sensibility is my favorite Jane Austen's novel. I've read it at least 10 times, and each time I find something I didn't notice before. My favorite adaptation is the 1995 movie, mostly because the actors are iconic
I feel there’s no chemistry between Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant in the 1995. They feel more like a brother and sister. Whereas you can definitely a sweet connection between Elinor and Edward in the BBC series. You can feel that they’re attracted to each other.
When Mrs. D. pointed out that Brandon was only a little younger than her, I wanted Marianne say, "Well, Mother, if you like him that much, YOU marry him!" Also, I think of Marianne as "the girl who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain."
I think both versions are very nice and I have both, but I think there a few differences wihich stand out. The 1995 version was made for theaters and so had a more polish to it. The 2008 version is more raw and you can tell it was made for tv. The actors in the 1995 version are of a higher quality, but i really like the actors in the 2008 version. The 2008 is my favorite as it is more natural or raw in appearance and the actors, though less polished, had a very natural flow with each other. You cna't compare on content as the 2008 version is longer in length and so has more time to explain things to the audience.
That was my biggest disappointment the first time I saw the 1995 adaptation!! We hear the carriage arrive and I'm expecting Willoughby and it's...Mrs. Dashwood. Ugggh!!
Eeee!! Looking forward to this!! I don't know if I could choose, I love them both! Especially Elinor in the proposal scenes!! Such raw sobbing emotion! I do love Dan, but also Hugh!! 😭😭😭❤❤❤
I agree with you. I can't fairly review the 1995 version since I only watched it once, in 1995. But the 2008 version is one of my favorite Austen adaptations. And the things that were changed from the book I mostly liked - especially Edward's character, since in the book he was such a nonentity I didn't think Eleanor was actually going to end up with him the first time I read it. The actors and the look of 2008 were great.
I remember being so disappointed when I first saw the 1995 version 😂 Especially since it's clearly so beloved. The 2008 adaptation on the other hand is one of those comfort period dramas that I probably watched over ten times :DD
Completely agree with you! Although I think the 2008 mini series has some flaws, it's definitely the best version of S&S. Hugh Grand looks he like fell in a bucked of starch 😂 and Emma Thompson played more like a mother figure than a sister.
Emma Thompson was definitely a wrong choice there, as was Hugh Grant. And not because he looked "like he fell in a bucket of starch" but because he basically can only play himself - charming playboy - and inspite of all his trying to be akward and shy, the devil in his eyes was definitely seen. But this adaptation is still the best adaptation of S&S that was ever done and together with the 1995 P&P it will always be the best - since nowadays decline of western civilization cannot promise something even close in the future
I agree with you Ellie, my favorite Jane Austin adaptations have all been done by Andrew Davies, his P&P, S&S, and Emma. I watch all 3 of these over and over again.
I don't see what you are talking about regarding the acting? Maybe because I'm not a professional. Personally I thought the movie had great acting and I loved Marianne in it (even better than in the book honestly) and Alan Rickman has always been my favorite Brandon and always will be.
2008 Edward is fat. Why? About Willoughby: Greg Wise did actually an outstanding job. He played a real psychopath which is totally correct (seduced and left basically "to die on the streets" pregnant very young girl? Can anyone of Austen´s villains beat this?). At the same time he was in love with Marianne, it is obviously so, he just chose the money instead. And Wise showed it all in the best way, not this clownish "dark romantic" way as in 2008
I really enjoyed this analysis Ellie! I love both versions, and I loved getting to dive into the difference in the characters and how they were depicted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions! 😊
I’m a 2008 stan too. Even though I’m nearing 41, and I love the cast of 95 as actors in general, I think they were all being typecasts of themselves rather than embodying the actual characters from the book. And that soundtrack! 2008’s soundtrack is transcendent, I need a copy of it to listen to at bedtime.
I have avoided seeing the 2008 version just because I knew it would not have Alan Rickman. (May he rest in peace.) After watching this video, I've decided to give it a try. Honestly, every time I watch the 1995 version, I'm always thinking of seeing Minister Fudge as Mme Pomfrey's cousin; Mme. Pomfrey as Prof. Trelawney's mother; and Prof. Snape in love with one of his graduating students. (I do realize Kate was not in any of the HP films!) because, as you pointed out, Alan Rickman is the only main character who seems to have given it his all while everyone else just phoned in their performances, which allows my mind to wonder since nothing is really happening on screen.
I'm just going to disagree with your view of the direction and characterizations in 1995, but don't want to flood the comments with a dissertation it. But suffice to say I have never felt that the actors struggled in 1995, or that any of them, the Jennings, and Marianne included, felt flattened, uncomfortable, or misdirected.
Same here, I love the mini series and the movie of S&S. I love the mini series of P&P and watched the movie a few times but the 2005 movie is just not quite my cup of tea...
Barton Cottage seems to exist, at least according to the Exeter tourist board. It is a couple of miles north of Exeter and is just two minutes walk from a large house that's now used as residential home for old people. Both buildings date to the eighteenth century, and it seems to have always been called Barton Cottage.
I thought both versions miscast Colonel Brandon, frankly. They both look much older than 35 with Alan Rickman being 48 or 49 at the time that he played the role and David Morrissey being 43. Given, Regency society thought of age gaps very differently from us but I think casting someone the actual age of the character who looked good for his years would have gone a long way in both films to make the match more believable and less demanding of suspension of disbelief. The 07 version in particular was very "your daughter seems a lovely girl". In fact, I think Alan Rickman's playing Brandon like a hopeless romantic whose soul is younger than his sufferings and age works to bring him closer to Maryanne in sensibility, which I think is how they're made compatible in the book.
I wondered if Emma Thompson's famous screenplay adaptation almost took over the entire production? She was trying to be so true to the original that it did come across as stilted. In a visual medium where you have not only the words but the actors expressions and the scenery, etc...the dialogue has to be a little...smoother...in order to feel true and natural. I loved the presence of the wild ocean, it added to the emotional turmoil that the characters were feeling.
I love Sense and Sensibility! I have a dream to create an Austen mini series for TH-cam, set in mid century America, and I think S&S will really work for it. But I don’t know if I’ll be able to find enough people willing to do this for free.
I’m curious what your opinion will be, as I’ve just started-but I know that I had to force myself to finish 2008. I think the things that drove me nuts, was that plot points were revealed too soon. There are certain things that add to the suspense of the story, which got completely spoiled by spelling them out right off the bat. I also don’t think they did a good job of showing that main theme, that difference between intentionally letting your feelings run wild, and having self control. In the book, Marianne feeds her sorrow, whereas Elenor acknowledges her feelings, but doesn’t allow them to ruin her life, and the lives of the people around her. I think Marianne is seen as too much of a victim in the newer film.
Thank you for your review, I agree with you so much, and I too thought that Alan Rickman was surprisingly too old to play Kate Winslet's love interest.
From the novel, my memory of Elinor Dashwood is that she was the one that the Mother relied upon to, at least acquiesce to all the key decisions. Which meant that, at nineteen, she is the one making decisions for all the family. This responsibility, both seems to sit relatively comfortably on Elinor but also to depress her. For instance, when Elinor "discovers" the pre-existing engagement between Edward and Lucy Steele she is also facing both the impropriety of the relationship between Marianne and Willoughby and its ending. Marianne's inherent selfishness (a trait she does not outgrow) especially in the way she wallows in her emotions (hints of Bipolar disorder?) leaves no room for Elinor to express her feelings, so she has no option but to repress them. This is especially necessary because, in the novel, Mrs Dashwood makes it clear she shares Marianne's tendency to exaggerated emotionalism...
Yessss. After making this video, I was reading that the director actually tried to re-train all the actors to a different form of acting. And he made Hugh Grant do the same scene over and over again cause he couldn't adapt as easily. 😂
I think Rickman was a great casting for the role specifically because of the age thing. Him beeing "old" and boring is alot of how I understood Marianne to precieve him so with that casting they instantly captured that without having to do anything else with the character to portray how a playfull and romantic 17 year old probably wouldnt see him as a viable romantic option.
My favorite characters from Sense & Sensibility are Miss Steele (not Lucy), Mr. Palmer & Mrs. Palmer, and so I prefer the 2008 version because we get all of the comic relief from these 3 that we get in the novel. Hugh Laurie is perfection in the ‘95 version, though.
So I saw the 1995 version as a teenager before I had read the book. My older sister was in college as an English Lit major and invited me to see it and we had just started "liking" each other instead of being sworn enemies when she was a high school senior and I was a freshman. Also she loved the book and told me I was Marianne and she was Elinor. I had also recently discovered Pride and Prejudice somewhat under duress but when I had picked it up and started reading it, could not put it down. I actually snuck it home out of my school library so I could keep reading it. But when I finally read Sense and Sensibility I was very offended at how old and feeble they Mrs. Dashwood. She was so without agency and left everything to Elinor and you also get the impression their lives had always been that way...that perhaps Elinor was the one who managed the housekeeping etc when their father was alive because Mrs. Dashwood was so silly. I feel like the 95 version tried to recreate Pride and Prejudice with Elinor being the only sensible, competent woman in the house and Mrs. Dashwood being silly and frivolous as Mrs. Bennett. In general, I think a lot of film adaptations try to pick one female character and portray them as Jane Austen herself when I think Jane Austen shows up in many of her female characters in the same book and she was more trying to display the complexity and nuances of real people in direct contrast to the very black and white tropes often portrayed in novels at the time. I do have to say though, similar to Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy...twice actually. Hugh Grant will always be my version of Edward in my head...he is so good at playing adorably awkward...and, what can I say, Alan Rickman, may he rest in piece...is forever Colonel Brandon. And Imelda Staunton with Hugh Laurie as Mr. and Mrs. Palmer...My sister and I still quote Mr. Palmer's one liners today. One quick annoyance, nobody ever addresses, why are movies so loathe to cast people who actually fit the physical description of the characters in the book? Neither of these films make Marianne dark or Elinor prettier than Marianne. This drives me nuts in film adaptations of this book and Emma because they inevitably make Marianne and Emma blonde when they are clearly described as having dark hair. I do think the 2008 version is better, partially because of building on the trends of the 90's adaptations and partly because it was longer. Also, the 95 version, beyond Willoughby "saving" Marianne in a very romantic way does nothing to explain why a well educated girl with high standards like Marianne would fall for him. And it bothers me that Marianne is given all of Elinor's "accomplishments" and Elinor is appeared to have nothing but her good sense to recommend her. Ideas for future videos...Are Austen "hero's" really heroes? I've seen especially people describe Edward Ferrari and Edmund Bertram as men seen as heroes who are really just lazy and wait for stuff to fix itself. And Even Colonel Fitzwilliam, they are likable and we are supposed to like them because the heroines do, but do they really deserve it?
I literally JUST did the exact same thing I reread sense and sensibility and watched both back to back adaptations and I'm telling you that HAT!!!!! I watched the 2008 one first and I was like okay Mrs. Dashwoods still got it going on she should be getting with Brandon. And then that 1995 HAT!!!! Is that really historically accurate?
oh i loved this in depth comparison. hope you do one for emma too! i'm very set on which emma adaptation is my favourite but i like seeing other people's reasoning too haha
I've watched 3 adaptations all the way through and a 4th one that I couldn't even finish watching. The first one I saw was with Gwyneth Paltrow and Toni Collette. I loved that one for the longest time. The second one I watched was the 2020 one. I didn't like it at all, because the actress played Emma as a spoiled brat and the actress that played Harriet was so plain that Emma would not have taken notice of her, nor did I like the way she played her. Then I saw the mini series done by Andrew Davies, and that was it for me, I don't see how any other version will compare. Not too long ago, I came across the Kate Beckinsale one, and I couldn't even finish watching it.
@@vickitreadwell8654 There's some confusion here. The Andrew Davies written version of Emma is the Kate Beckinsale one. The 2009 miniseries (which I think is the one you're attributing to him) was written by Sandy Welch and starred Romola Garai (Emma), Jonny Lee Miller (Knightley), and Michael Gambon (Mr. Woodhouse). Davies' screenplays of Austen's major novels are: Pride & Prejudice (1995), Emma (1996 as mentioned earlier), Northanger Abbey (2007 starring Felicity Jones, JJ Feild, and Carey Mulligan), and Sense & Sensibility (2008, as Ellie mentioned).
2008 for me, I have put it on a loop for David Morrissey. Hattie Morahan said that when he first entered the dining room, there was a "collective swoon" among the ladies. And honestly, who can blame them.
I didn’t know about the 2008 version!!! I love Dan Stevens so now I have to watch it 😍 Also I’m glad to hear someone else admit that the 1995 version had serious flaws. I watched it after reading the book and was really disappointed, especially after all the hype with it winning an Oscar and having this stacked cast
"I try to give everyone a very fair opportunity." Except maybe EDWARD FERRARS 😡 (at least remembering how you've talked about him in the past). One of the advantages 2008 had was that it was a mini-series, so they had more time to expand on things or include things the 1995 version didn't have time for to keep the movie moving. While the value of this benefit has diminished some since in the eyes of some people, one of the things 2008 also had going for it was Andrew Davies wrote the screenplay and he wrote a number of your favorite Austen adaptations (including 1995 Pride & Prejudice). I agree that one of the things that hurt 1995 was the lack of time, because it didn't feel like Elinor spent much time with Lucy after finding out about the engagement when it seemed they were constantly getting thrown together in the book at that period of the story. The star power the 1995 version had also didn't do it any favors because audiences go in with certain expectations going in based on their past roles (Alan Rickman, who was best known for playing villains, as a romantic lead? really?). You sort of allude to why they may have simplified elements of the story in 1995 earlier in the video, but sort of danced around when talking about the length and thinking audiences wouldn't understand certain things. The 1990's Austen films were reintroducing people to Jane Austen's work as there hadn't been many Austen adaptations done in the decade or two prior, certainly not for mainstream audiences particularly in the US. "Because moms are important!" Yes they are. ❤ Edward is one of a number of leading Austen characters that are hard to adapt because of their personalities. Fanny Price is another one, which is why I don't think we've gotten a good adaptation of Mansfield Park. I looked it up, Kate Winslet was in only her second film role and hadn't done much TV at that point either, so she might not have had the confidence yet that she'd have developed later in her career to have an idea of what changes to suggest. As usual on your long-form videos I watch it and pause occasionally to add to my comment, leaving in stuff that you mention yourself later to help illustrate how great minds think alike. Keep being awesome, Ellie!
Oh YESSS! I admit I do love the movie version dearly - being a big Thompson fan and an even bigger Rickman fan -, but yes, the winner is the BBC piece.
I guess I couldn't disagree more. The 2008 version was just...okay for me. Not bad, but just "meh"...the 1995 Ang Lee version is just a masterpiece, and absolute masterpiece. Those broad, sweeping shots of the estate while Edward and Elenor ride horseback together...the piano soundtrack that's so moving as it plays throughout the sombre scenes. The scene where Brandon meets Maryanne for the first time while she is playing the piano...ahhhhh. So romantic, the way he looks at her. It's magic. I felt like the acting was amazing...very well cast. Kate was so beautiful and just perfect as Maryanne, and the more stoic Emma Thompson as Elenor was the perfect compliment to her more vivacious sister. It's no wonder it will always be a cult classic but I doubt 2008 will go down as so beloved, I just find it forgettable. Sorry!
how stupid to complain about an awkward Hugh Grant when Edward Ferrars is supposed to be an awkward character. The choice of Hugh Grant for this role can be questioned here but not the fact that he really tried to play an awkward person against all his instincts
I like every actor in the 95 version, I still don't like de 95 version. I do like Alan Rickman a Coronel Brandon, but I certainly prefer the 2008 version.
How amusing that the 1995 version has all those actors who would later play Harry Potter characters. Snape, Trelawney, Madam Pompfrey, Cornelius Fudge, and Umbridge reunited. What's wild is that Emma Thompson (Elinor) met her husband Greg Wise (Willoughby) while making this film.
On two Elizas they were absolutely right that modern audiences couldn't handle it. See the Game of Thrones fandom and people freaking out because of a certain character apparently being named after his deceased older brother.
Re the acting, I think it’s probably the director trying to get them to act repressed, where Brandon is less repressed in many ways. He is quiet but not repressed. If that makes sense.
I didn't even know there was a 2008 version, so I must watch it. The first time I watched the 1995 version, I think I was anticipating a 1995 P&P moment. I felt some of the liberties taken with story were unnecessary. The two biggest that come to mind are 1. Col. Brandon did not rescue Marianne on the hill in the rain. Too far off the story for my taste. 2. An even bigger issue, the complete omission of Willoughby showing up when Marianne was at death's door to explain his behavior! When I read the book, I gasped out loud! I was so surprised that was dropped from the movie adaptation. Thank you for the analysis!
One thing I think a fair number of people forget is that this is a pre-Titanic Kate Winslet in her breakout role. So it wasn't hard for Emma Thompson to upstage her.
TBH, after seeing the 2000s Col. Brandon in TWD, I have a really hard time seeing him play a good guy anywhere without just kind of...ick. But he overcomes it pretty well.
Oh she’s back on a Friday! (Also, yay dropped my video just a few hours ago) The 1995 ‘Sense and Sensibility’ movie really was a comfort around the start of the Pandemic and has continued to be so. I wrote my Masters Thesis inspired by it (the books actually) and it was great fun. Still waiting for Ellie to savour the delights of ‘Jane Austen For Dummies’. P.S. You could try ‘Sense, Sensibility and Sea Monsters’ after this.
The thing you said about 2008 just showing more passage of time is very true. I felt like Margaret really explained the long, slow pace of S&S the book with the line she had in the 08 version (I probably won't remember this just right): "I wish I were a man. Men can go out and DO things and women just have to sit and wait for them to happen." (Come to think of it, this might also explain how Edward can come off sometimes as feminized: because he's forced to sit around and waiting for his romantic problems to be solved for him instead of getting up and doing stuff.) // I am amazed you didn't mention Edward's wet shirt scene in '08 lol Andrew Davies at it again... // My favorite Mrs. Jennings is actually from the 1971 miniseries (which you can watch all of on youtube!) where she is played by the fantastic Patricia Routledge. You really love her by the end. // I heartily dislike both Col Brandon actors. Sorry, everybody. But I don't find either of them attractive. Yuck. I also do not like the actor playing Willoughby in the '08. He looks like a hedgehog in eyeliner.
I was 15 when I first saw this film and never once though that about Alan Rickman. I think many people will disagree with you, including me. I also disagree with you about the makers dumbing down for the audience. Where is the evidence for this? If there is that's fair enough but you shouldn't assume that is what they did if there is none.
I just finished reading Mansfield Park like 10 minutes ago and what better thing do than watch another video from you talking about Sense and Sensibility? Thanks ❤
The Devonshire countryside in 1995's version is better than the Devonshire coast. Mr. Willoughby mimicking Mrs. Jennings in the earlier adaptation is hilarious, too.
I love both versions. The 2008 version of course is more accurate to the book, the actor who plays colonel Brandon was a villian on The Walking Dead and I have a hard time not seeing him as that character.
I think the word you're looking for to describe the 1995 version is: angst. If you weren't a teenager during that time, then you wouldn't understand. TV, music--this is when grunge took off in the era of "Im a loser, baby, so why do you 4ever box me", reality shows, and movies were all full of ANGST--or had that one character who had the dark rainy cloud over his head. The one guy everyone knew or could relate to. And, so, that would explain 1995's version of Elinor: a 19 going 35-year-old woman who was wise beyond her years but had to keep it inside. Heaven gorbid a woman express frustration over her lot in life. She has to be the voice of reason and common sense, and the bad cop who talks Marianne off of the ledge. She knows the window for being a wife and mother is small, and the longer she puts it off, the less likely it's going to happen. If she doesn't die in childbirth, her life expectancy is around 52--tops. She feels the need to fill the void her father left, but it clashes with how women wete expected to act back then. Scandal was something you didnt want brought upon your house. So she sits back and watches as her younger sister gets wooed and courted. And despite not being jealous, it festers inside. And these potrayals, 30 years ago, resounded with the latter Gen-X and early Gen-Y teenage girl crowd. It was Clueless, Sense & Sensibility, and The Craft released with a 9 month time frame. The newer version speaks to Gen-Z, who are 180 from the angst. Seriously, why do you think TITANIC did so well during that time? It could not be released today with that same theme. Both S&S movies are the same story interpreted for two different generations.
Thank you Birch Living for sponsoring! Birch is offering you guys an exclusive discount this month: 27% off your mattress purchase, plus two free pillows. Visit birchliving.com/elliedashwood and use promo code BIRCHPARTNER27 to take advantage of this special offer. And act fast: this discount ends at the end of this month. If you miss my limited-time offer, you can still get 20% off using my link! Offers subject to change. #birchliving
It occurred to me, watching the 1995 movie, that Marianne at the end married the other real romantic person in the story. Rickman's Colonel is as romantic as she is, just with some years more to gain self control.
Let’s be honest, Alan Rickman is the voice we want to hear reading poetry to us.
Also, he was outstanding in Galaxy Quest!
That is a good point about the poetry! And Galaxy Quest too. 😂
I would listen to Alan Rickman read a cookbook
Alan Rickman read some audiobooks like The Return of the Native; he also sings in that one. It’s worth checking out.
@@AmandaMandyMae By Grabthar's Hammer, you shal be avenged
@@EllieDashwoodYeah, the scene where he’s reading to Marianne towards the end always gets me 🥰 Like the age difference bothers me (though at least Kate Winslet is an adult… I’d rather see 20-ish Marianne and 50’s-ish Brandon than 35 Brandon and 17 still-a-minor Marianne), but when he’s reading to her from that book… I could listen to him read the phone book 😂
“The air is filled with spices”. Oh dear, Alan Rickman’s voice has me at “hello” ❤😂
How is it that People never had him on the cover as "Sexiest Man Alive?"
I was 15 when this movie came out and I was IN LOVE with Alan Rickman! Major crush, haha
I was 27 years old when this movie came out. Fell in love with Alan Rickman in this role. “Give me an occupation Miss Dashwood or I shall run mad“. I mean, wow!🥰
I am sorry but I completely disagree. I think the acting in the 1995 version is superb, this is the film I long to watch and rewatch. Maybe it's a generation gap thing. I am currently 47 years old, I was a student when the 1995 version came out, maybe I am emotionally attached to it.
95’ Emma Thompson was absolute genius in how she replaced the whole essential (to our hearts) scene where Willoughby comes and explains himself to one line in a conversation between Col. Brandon and Eleanor.
I disagree that a lot of the detail was cut from 1995 due to an under-estimation of audience intelligence or patience. I think again, it basically comes down to the structure of a movie as opposed to the structure of a mini-series or novel:
The central focus of the movie is that between Elinor and Marianne. It's about their sometimes deliberate misunderstanding of each other, and their realization of what they mean to each other, and what they can offer each other. To a degree, in the movie, the love stories are, well, not incidental, but, in addition to being important storylines, they really serve to feed the conflict and then the union of these two very different sisters.
Therefore, Brandon's backstory would only clutter things and distract from what was, in this adaptation, the most important aspect. And so, we hand the work over to the irreplaceable Alan Rickman, who, as an intelligent man and a brilliant talent, takes on that wonderful, wonderful monologue, which could have come off as an exposition dump, but which ends up as the reveal of a soul and a heart in terrible pain. I'll take it.
The 1995 version was one of my favorite films (not just adaptions) for many years. The writing, the acting and Ang Lee's direction made it a chefs kiss movie for me.
Once I got older and saw many more period movies, my tastes changed. I appreciate the 2008 version is a better reflection of the novel, but 1995 still holds a place in my heart.
Col. Brandon is 35 year old. If you look at portraits of the era, 35 year old looked older than 35 years old of today or 1990's. So Alan Rickman was a good choice.
😂 I don't think it was so much his age for me... it was the fact that it was Alan Rickman and he's just... next level.
@@EllieDashwoodYeah, I think hes an actor who could shine through even poor direction, whereas maybe the other actors struggled with that more. His performance definitely outshines the others, which sticks out, since Colonol Brandon is supposed to be a subtler slow-burn character. The audience should feel a little bored with him at first, and even if you aren't attracted to Alan Rickman, its hard to be bored by him.
Hm...I don't think the guy from the 2008 version looked 35. He doesn't look remotely younger than Rickman and Rickman was a far more pleasant looking CB. The actor from the 2008 version has something a bit brutal to his looks.
@@runew9732
True. It would be quite natural for the audience, to at first get completely caught up in Marianne's passionate, romantic relationship with Willoughby. But as soon as Alan Rickman has his first scene... we're all hopelessly smitten with him, instead 😆
As a teenager watching Alan Rickman meeting Maryanne, you reacted the same way that Maryanne did - he's too old, too serious. Then as the movie progresses you realise that he is a "still waters run deep" kind of guy who is prepared for action while Willowby just talked about it. I watched it for the first time in my teens and by the end of the film I had a total crush on Alan Rick man.
Alan Rickman nailed it.
Alan Rickman was sublime and will always be Col. Brandon to me.
His voice alone could melt a corset at a thousand paces!
Okay, here's the thing with historical accuracy of Rengency costuming. There are some extant garments from the period, but not as many as you think. People often cite the absence of certain styles as proof that they didn't exist. That's simply not true. Absence only proves that something hasn't been discovered.
What we do have a lot of are original fashion plates and illustrations with dates that were taken from magazines. There's thousands of them. From those, we can tell there were lots of variations in sleeves, collars, trims, etc. The people of the early Regency were actually very creative with their clothing. Most clothing was still custom-made or homemade, so there was a lot of personalization.
Fabric was ridiculously expensive. People either took fabric from old clothes that had become unfashionable and remade them into new styles - or they just wore old clothes rather than buying new. This was done by a lot of older women. If they weren't looking for husbands or going to court, they didn't need to impress people. People often wore old out-dated clothes at home to keep the fashionable stuff clean.
There are some things that were consistent throughout the era, like wearing the proper undergarments, narrow skirt, and high waistline.
In movies I think they usually make some attempt at accuracy. I give them a pass if some Georgian clothing is in the mix because it's likely they still would have been seen from time to time. If a younger sister has a waistline that's too low, it can be justified by saying she was wearing hand-me-downs. Mrs Dashwood can have a big black hat because it was leftover from the 1790s, and it was cheaper than buying a new mourning bonnet. If someone wears something a little ahead if it's time, well, someone had to be the one to start a trend.
The only time I get critical of movies is when it's really bad, like Kiera Knightley's wardrobe from P&P. Gowns with no chemise or stays? Come on! People back then would have thought she was a low-budget strumpet. She would have been considered worse than Lydia.
well, in 2005 P&P they had pigs running around in Longborn. No wonder the clothes were totally wrong
Yeah, I found that rather unforgivable, too. Or the wild, unkempt, open hair when she's visiting the 'new neighbors', to look after her sister. For whose sake she would have wanted to make a good impression, even if she didn't care about their opinion otherwise.
Or the fact that Bingley comes barging straight into Jane's bedroom - with her in bed and in her nightgown 😭
I just can't, with that one.
Totally agree. Lots of things wrong with 2005 P and P. The last scene gave me 16 Candles vibes and it just had me rolling my eyes.
Totally disagree about the acting in the 1995 version. It was great and emotionally connected.
I love both. Period.
Emma Thompson did the screenplay, and from what I have heard (might not be true) the studio pushed her to play Elinor because she was a known actress, but an UNknown quality as a writer.
Kate Winslet was still learning her stuff - she went up to Ang Lee in the beginning and asked him how she was doing and apparently he said "you'll get better" 😂
Off topic, but fun fact, the Netherfield Ball took place on a Tuesday the 26th of November
Next Tuesday it the 26th of November
Love it 🩷
I always thought 90’s versions were trying to more closely emulate the norms of the books. The bonnets, the manners, felt more like a peak into the books. ❤
I am SO glad that you are discussing the nature of book-to-film adaptation! Too often, people simply go "it's different from the book so it's WRONG!", without taking the time to understand the necessities of adapting something from the page to the screen. and that sometimes, changes are not wholly bad (although you absolutely can go too far off course with adaptation, it's true)
I haven't seen the newer one yet but I also didn't know it exists 😂. I loved the 90s one but I do remember my grandma complaining about Emma Thompson was too old to play her character. I remember her from much ado about nothing which I saw first so I was like, oh but I like her so i don't care she's too old 😂. I also loved the chemistry between Maryanne and Willoughby. I also thought Alan Rickman was dreamy in this. I don't have daddy issues but he is old enough to be my dad but I was swooning 😂😂.
Oh I love galaxy quest too! His character was hilarious
I'm so glad Alan Rickman has all the fans! 😂 And also, I must just be your grandma. Marianne and Willoughby definitely matched each other a lot in that version!
@@WomanRoaring Yess! We need more Galaxy Quest fans.
I watched the 95 version for the first time last year, having no idea at the time that it had won so many awards. And...I absolutely loved it! Haven't seen 2008's yet, but after this video I might give it a try someday.
Emma Thompson's acceptance speech at the Golden Globes for the screenplay is iconic and worth the watch if you haven't seen it.
I love the 2008 appreciation! Hattie Morahan is how I see Elinor, I love her groundedness. The Dashwoods are so well cast, from Mark Gatis, to Janet McTeer to Lucy Boynton. And it keeps Jane Austen's comedy of manners 💛
David Morrissey was 44 in 2008. Alan Rickman was 49 in 1995. So none of them a very believable 35 year old man..
TBF, 35 in the Recency Era was not what it is now. But I agree with you anyway.
1995 Elinor felt perplexed by her family to me, not superior. She seemed to never know quite what to do or say to help despite trying to relate as best she could. Now that Ive heard it, I can see where there can be two readings of that performance though.
I think of that scene of sipping tea on the stairs being best represented by the dog sitting in a house on fire meme more than as a person feeling shes better than her family
100% disagree with the scathing review of the 95 movie. General vibe and hats aside, I cannot believe you state that all the cast acted badly, except for Brandon who was miscast. Wow!
I was actually relieved to hear she had similar views to me on certain aspects of the ending. There were definitely scenes which I enjoyed, however unfortunately for me they are often overshadowed by scenes that I feel frustrated by and I agree with her view that some of the acting seemed more theatrical rather than for the screen. And I did struggle with the age of quite a few of the actors and actresses, however great they are. And I really like all of the actors and actresses in the film version. But that's something I struggle with in a number of period dramas where the age of the actors is often to varying degrees older than the character is meant to be.
Sense and Sensibility is my favorite Jane Austen's novel. I've read it at least 10 times, and each time I find something I didn't notice before. My favorite adaptation is the 1995 movie, mostly because the actors are iconic
It's amazing! There is always something new to find in a re-reading!
I feel there’s no chemistry between Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant in the 1995. They feel more like a brother and sister. Whereas you can definitely a sweet connection between Elinor and Edward in the BBC series. You can feel that they’re attracted to each other.
Oooo, that's such a good point!
For some reason, that dress looks way different on Marianne than it did on Lizzie! 😁
It may have something to do with Kiera Knightly’s bosom (or lack there of)
Thank you for revisiting this. I'm a 2008 version all the way. I was never a fan of the Emma Thompson version. Andrew Davies all the way!
Awww! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the brilliance! 😄
When Mrs. D. pointed out that Brandon was only a little younger than her, I wanted Marianne say, "Well, Mother, if you like him that much, YOU marry him!"
Also, I think of Marianne as "the girl who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain."
I think both versions are very nice and I have both, but I think there a few differences wihich stand out. The 1995 version was made for theaters and so had a more polish to it. The 2008 version is more raw and you can tell it was made for tv. The actors in the 1995 version are of a higher quality, but i really like the actors in the 2008 version. The 2008 is my favorite as it is more natural or raw in appearance and the actors, though less polished, had a very natural flow with each other. You cna't compare on content as the 2008 version is longer in length and so has more time to explain things to the audience.
I love the 1995 adaptation but I wish they also included the dual and Willoughbys final meeting with Elinor:)
That was my biggest disappointment the first time I saw the 1995 adaptation!! We hear the carriage arrive and I'm expecting Willoughby and it's...Mrs. Dashwood. Ugggh!!
It would be great if when they make Jane Austin adaptation, they would take you as an expert to help in filming ❤❤❤
Awwwww! Thank you!!! 😭
Eeee!! Looking forward to this!! I don't know if I could choose, I love them both! Especially Elinor in the proposal scenes!! Such raw sobbing emotion! I do love Dan, but also Hugh!! 😭😭😭❤❤❤
The proposal scenes are both super intense!!!
I noticed that dress more on Marianne, so when I re-watched P&P 2005 recently, I shouted at my sister 'That's Marianne's dress!' 😄
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm intrigued!! Who wore Marianne's dress in P&P?
@@megan2176Keira Knightly's Lizzy Bennet in that version of P&P
@jlfields88 thanks! I still need to watch the video! And both movies to see the dress!! 😊😊😊
I agree with you. I can't fairly review the 1995 version since I only watched it once, in 1995. But the 2008 version is one of my favorite Austen adaptations. And the things that were changed from the book I mostly liked - especially Edward's character, since in the book he was such a nonentity I didn't think Eleanor was actually going to end up with him the first time I read it. The actors and the look of 2008 were great.
I remember being so disappointed when I first saw the 1995 version 😂 Especially since it's clearly so beloved. The 2008 adaptation on the other hand is one of those comfort period dramas that I probably watched over ten times :DD
Completely agree with you! Although I think the 2008 mini series has some flaws, it's definitely the best version of S&S. Hugh Grand looks he like fell in a bucked of starch 😂 and Emma Thompson played more like a mother figure than a sister.
Emma Thompson was definitely a wrong choice there, as was Hugh Grant. And not because he looked "like he fell in a bucket of starch" but because he basically can only play himself - charming playboy - and inspite of all his trying to be akward and shy, the devil in his eyes was definitely seen.
But this adaptation is still the best adaptation of S&S that was ever done and together with the 1995 P&P it will always be the best - since nowadays decline of western civilization cannot promise something even close in the future
I agree with you Ellie, my favorite Jane Austin adaptations have all been done by Andrew Davies, his P&P, S&S, and Emma. I watch all 3 of these over and over again.
I don't see what you are talking about regarding the acting? Maybe because I'm not a professional. Personally I thought the movie had great acting and I loved Marianne in it (even better than in the book honestly) and Alan Rickman has always been my favorite Brandon and always will be.
2008 Edward is fat. Why?
About Willoughby: Greg Wise did actually an outstanding job. He played a real psychopath which is totally correct (seduced and left basically "to die on the streets" pregnant very young girl? Can anyone of Austen´s villains beat this?). At the same time he was in love with Marianne, it is obviously so, he just chose the money instead. And Wise showed it all in the best way, not this clownish "dark romantic" way as in 2008
I didn’t think Dan Steven’s was fat!
2008 has always been my favorite since it first aired on PBS. I got my mom to buy the dvd of it right away 😊
I really enjoyed this analysis Ellie! I love both versions, and I loved getting to dive into the difference in the characters and how they were depicted. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions! 😊
I completely agree with you on the 2008-version, I really love it and clearly prefer it to the 1995-movie!
I’m a 2008 stan too. Even though I’m nearing 41, and I love the cast of 95 as actors in general, I think they were all being typecasts of themselves rather than embodying the actual characters from the book. And that soundtrack! 2008’s soundtrack is transcendent, I need a copy of it to listen to at bedtime.
I have avoided seeing the 2008 version just because I knew it would not have Alan Rickman. (May he rest in peace.) After watching this video, I've decided to give it a try. Honestly, every time I watch the 1995 version, I'm always thinking of seeing Minister Fudge as Mme Pomfrey's cousin; Mme. Pomfrey as Prof. Trelawney's mother; and Prof. Snape in love with one of his graduating students. (I do realize Kate was not in any of the HP films!) because, as you pointed out, Alan Rickman is the only main character who seems to have given it his all while everyone else just phoned in their performances, which allows my mind to wonder since nothing is really happening on screen.
I love the 2008 version ❤
I'm just going to disagree with your view of the direction and characterizations in 1995, but don't want to flood the comments with a dissertation it. But suffice to say I have never felt that the actors struggled in 1995, or that any of them, the Jennings, and Marianne included, felt flattened, uncomfortable, or misdirected.
I think the only defects of ‘95 is the time constraints.
Where are my Hugh Laurie fans 😂
👋
My favourite Mr Palmer line from the 1995 version is "If only you would stop!"😎
I loved them both! And I’m usually very particular. (There’s only one Pride and Prejudice I approve of.)
Same here, I love the mini series and the movie of S&S. I love the mini series of P&P and watched the movie a few times but the 2005 movie is just not quite my cup of tea...
Barton Cottage seems to exist, at least according to the Exeter tourist board. It is a couple of miles north of Exeter and is just two minutes walk from a large house that's now used as residential home for old people.
Both buildings date to the eighteenth century, and it seems to have always been called Barton Cottage.
I thought both versions miscast Colonel Brandon, frankly. They both look much older than 35 with Alan Rickman being 48 or 49 at the time that he played the role and David Morrissey being 43. Given, Regency society thought of age gaps very differently from us but I think casting someone the actual age of the character who looked good for his years would have gone a long way in both films to make the match more believable and less demanding of suspension of disbelief. The 07 version in particular was very "your daughter seems a lovely girl". In fact, I think Alan Rickman's playing Brandon like a hopeless romantic whose soul is younger than his sufferings and age works to bring him closer to Maryanne in sensibility, which I think is how they're made compatible in the book.
I wondered if Emma Thompson's famous screenplay adaptation almost took over the entire production? She was trying to be so true to the original that it did come across as stilted. In a visual medium where you have not only the words but the actors expressions and the scenery, etc...the dialogue has to be a little...smoother...in order to feel true and natural.
I loved the presence of the wild ocean, it added to the emotional turmoil that the characters were feeling.
I love Sense and Sensibility! I have a dream to create an Austen mini series for TH-cam, set in mid century America, and I think S&S will really work for it. But I don’t know if I’ll be able to find enough people willing to do this for free.
I’m curious what your opinion will be, as I’ve just started-but I know that I had to force myself to finish 2008. I think the things that drove me nuts, was that plot points were revealed too soon. There are certain things that add to the suspense of the story, which got completely spoiled by spelling them out right off the bat. I also don’t think they did a good job of showing that main theme, that difference between intentionally letting your feelings run wild, and having self control. In the book, Marianne feeds her sorrow, whereas Elenor acknowledges her feelings, but doesn’t allow them to ruin her life, and the lives of the people around her. I think Marianne is seen as too much of a victim in the newer film.
2008 Love the fabrics!
Thank you for your review, I agree with you so much, and I too thought that Alan Rickman was surprisingly too old to play Kate Winslet's love interest.
From the novel, my memory of Elinor Dashwood is that she was the one that the Mother relied upon to, at least acquiesce to all the key decisions. Which meant that, at nineteen, she is the one making decisions for all the family. This responsibility, both seems to sit relatively comfortably on Elinor but also to depress her. For instance, when Elinor "discovers" the pre-existing engagement between Edward and Lucy Steele she is also facing both the impropriety of the relationship between Marianne and Willoughby and its ending. Marianne's inherent selfishness (a trait she does not outgrow) especially in the way she wallows in her emotions (hints of Bipolar disorder?) leaves no room for Elinor to express her feelings, so she has no option but to repress them. This is especially necessary because, in the novel, Mrs Dashwood makes it clear she shares Marianne's tendency to exaggerated emotionalism...
I agree with you about Elinor. She repressed her emotions because in her family, she was the one who had to function.
Pride and Prejudice 1995
Wuthering Heights 2009
Sense & Sensibility 2008
Jane Eyre 2006
Persuasion 2007
Northanger Abbey 2007
Emma 1996
2008 is my favorite by far as well ❤
Maybe it was Ang Lee’s direction for 1995 on his notes to the cast? I mean, if one would look at his works before and after… Maybe a pattern?
Yessss. After making this video, I was reading that the director actually tried to re-train all the actors to a different form of acting. And he made Hugh Grant do the same scene over and over again cause he couldn't adapt as easily. 😂
I didn’t even know the 2008 version existed. I never could get on board with Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant. I can’t wait to watch the 2008 😊
I think Rickman was a great casting for the role specifically because of the age thing. Him beeing "old" and boring is alot of how I understood Marianne to precieve him so with that casting they instantly captured that without having to do anything else with the character to portray how a playfull and romantic 17 year old probably wouldnt see him as a viable romantic option.
My favorite characters from Sense & Sensibility are Miss Steele (not Lucy), Mr. Palmer & Mrs. Palmer, and so I prefer the 2008 version because we get all of the comic relief from these 3 that we get in the novel. Hugh Laurie is perfection in the ‘95 version, though.
So I saw the 1995 version as a teenager before I had read the book. My older sister was in college as an English Lit major and invited me to see it and we had just started "liking" each other instead of being sworn enemies when she was a high school senior and I was a freshman. Also she loved the book and told me I was Marianne and she was Elinor. I had also recently discovered Pride and Prejudice somewhat under duress but when I had picked it up and started reading it, could not put it down. I actually snuck it home out of my school library so I could keep reading it. But when I finally read Sense and Sensibility I was very offended at how old and feeble they Mrs. Dashwood. She was so without agency and left everything to Elinor and you also get the impression their lives had always been that way...that perhaps Elinor was the one who managed the housekeeping etc when their father was alive because Mrs. Dashwood was so silly. I feel like the 95 version tried to recreate Pride and Prejudice with Elinor being the only sensible, competent woman in the house and Mrs. Dashwood being silly and frivolous as Mrs. Bennett. In general, I think a lot of film adaptations try to pick one female character and portray them as Jane Austen herself when I think Jane Austen shows up in many of her female characters in the same book and she was more trying to display the complexity and nuances of real people in direct contrast to the very black and white tropes often portrayed in novels at the time. I do have to say though, similar to Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy...twice actually. Hugh Grant will always be my version of Edward in my head...he is so good at playing adorably awkward...and, what can I say, Alan Rickman, may he rest in piece...is forever Colonel Brandon. And Imelda Staunton with Hugh Laurie as Mr. and Mrs. Palmer...My sister and I still quote Mr. Palmer's one liners today. One quick annoyance, nobody ever addresses, why are movies so loathe to cast people who actually fit the physical description of the characters in the book? Neither of these films make Marianne dark or Elinor prettier than Marianne. This drives me nuts in film adaptations of this book and Emma because they inevitably make Marianne and Emma blonde when they are clearly described as having dark hair. I do think the 2008 version is better, partially because of building on the trends of the 90's adaptations and partly because it was longer. Also, the 95 version, beyond Willoughby "saving" Marianne in a very romantic way does nothing to explain why a well educated girl with high standards like Marianne would fall for him. And it bothers me that Marianne is given all of Elinor's "accomplishments" and Elinor is appeared to have nothing but her good sense to recommend her. Ideas for future videos...Are Austen "hero's" really heroes? I've seen especially people describe Edward Ferrari and Edmund Bertram as men seen as heroes who are really just lazy and wait for stuff to fix itself. And Even Colonel Fitzwilliam, they are likable and we are supposed to like them because the heroines do, but do they really deserve it?
I literally JUST did the exact same thing I reread sense and sensibility and watched both back to back adaptations and I'm telling you that HAT!!!!! I watched the 2008 one first and I was like okay Mrs. Dashwoods still got it going on she should be getting with Brandon. And then that 1995 HAT!!!! Is that really historically accurate?
oh i loved this in depth comparison. hope you do one for emma too! i'm very set on which emma adaptation is my favourite but i like seeing other people's reasoning too haha
Oooo! I have so many thoughts on Emma!
@@EllieDashwood oh yesss can't wait for you to share them with the class
Which versions of Emma would you want to compare? There were two versions in the 1990's, the 2009 mini-series, and the 2020 version.
I've watched 3 adaptations all the way through and a 4th one that I couldn't even finish watching. The first one I saw was with Gwyneth Paltrow and Toni Collette. I loved that one for the longest time. The second one I watched was the 2020 one. I didn't like it at all, because the actress played Emma as a spoiled brat and the actress that played Harriet was so plain that Emma would not have taken notice of her, nor did I like the way she played her. Then I saw the mini series done by Andrew Davies, and that was it for me, I don't see how any other version will compare. Not too long ago, I came across the Kate Beckinsale one, and I couldn't even finish watching it.
@@vickitreadwell8654 There's some confusion here. The Andrew Davies written version of Emma is the Kate Beckinsale one. The 2009 miniseries (which I think is the one you're attributing to him) was written by Sandy Welch and starred Romola Garai (Emma), Jonny Lee Miller (Knightley), and Michael Gambon (Mr. Woodhouse).
Davies' screenplays of Austen's major novels are: Pride & Prejudice (1995), Emma (1996 as mentioned earlier), Northanger Abbey (2007 starring Felicity Jones, JJ Feild, and Carey Mulligan), and Sense & Sensibility (2008, as Ellie mentioned).
I much prefer 2008 to 1995. I love the slower pacing and Hattie Morahan's Elinor is perfect. Exactly as I imagined her.
2008 for me, I have put it on a loop for David Morrissey. Hattie Morahan said that when he first entered the dining room, there was a "collective swoon" among the ladies.
And honestly, who can blame them.
I didn’t know about the 2008 version!!! I love Dan Stevens so now I have to watch it 😍 Also I’m glad to hear someone else admit that the 1995 version had serious flaws. I watched it after reading the book and was really disappointed, especially after all the hype with it winning an Oscar and having this stacked cast
"I try to give everyone a very fair opportunity." Except maybe EDWARD FERRARS 😡 (at least remembering how you've talked about him in the past).
One of the advantages 2008 had was that it was a mini-series, so they had more time to expand on things or include things the 1995 version didn't have time for to keep the movie moving. While the value of this benefit has diminished some since in the eyes of some people, one of the things 2008 also had going for it was Andrew Davies wrote the screenplay and he wrote a number of your favorite Austen adaptations (including 1995 Pride & Prejudice). I agree that one of the things that hurt 1995 was the lack of time, because it didn't feel like Elinor spent much time with Lucy after finding out about the engagement when it seemed they were constantly getting thrown together in the book at that period of the story. The star power the 1995 version had also didn't do it any favors because audiences go in with certain expectations going in based on their past roles (Alan Rickman, who was best known for playing villains, as a romantic lead? really?).
You sort of allude to why they may have simplified elements of the story in 1995 earlier in the video, but sort of danced around when talking about the length and thinking audiences wouldn't understand certain things. The 1990's Austen films were reintroducing people to Jane Austen's work as there hadn't been many Austen adaptations done in the decade or two prior, certainly not for mainstream audiences particularly in the US.
"Because moms are important!" Yes they are. ❤
Edward is one of a number of leading Austen characters that are hard to adapt because of their personalities. Fanny Price is another one, which is why I don't think we've gotten a good adaptation of Mansfield Park.
I looked it up, Kate Winslet was in only her second film role and hadn't done much TV at that point either, so she might not have had the confidence yet that she'd have developed later in her career to have an idea of what changes to suggest.
As usual on your long-form videos I watch it and pause occasionally to add to my comment, leaving in stuff that you mention yourself later to help illustrate how great minds think alike. Keep being awesome, Ellie!
Oh YESSS! I admit I do love the movie version dearly - being a big Thompson fan and an even bigger Rickman fan -, but yes, the winner is the BBC piece.
I'm so team 2008!
I guess I couldn't disagree more. The 2008 version was just...okay for me. Not bad, but just "meh"...the 1995 Ang Lee version is just a masterpiece, and absolute masterpiece. Those broad, sweeping shots of the estate while Edward and Elenor ride horseback together...the piano soundtrack that's so moving as it plays throughout the sombre scenes. The scene where Brandon meets Maryanne for the first time while she is playing the piano...ahhhhh. So romantic, the way he looks at her. It's magic. I felt like the acting was amazing...very well cast. Kate was so beautiful and just perfect as Maryanne, and the more stoic Emma Thompson as Elenor was the perfect compliment to her more vivacious sister. It's no wonder it will always be a cult classic but I doubt 2008 will go down as so beloved, I just find it forgettable. Sorry!
The actor who played Robert in the Thompson version has features similar enough to Hugh Grant's that you can believe him as his homely brother.
how stupid to complain about an awkward Hugh Grant when Edward Ferrars is supposed to be an awkward character. The choice of Hugh Grant for this role can be questioned here but not the fact that he really tried to play an awkward person against all his instincts
I like every actor in the 95 version, I still don't like de 95 version. I do like Alan Rickman a Coronel Brandon, but I certainly prefer the 2008 version.
How amusing that the 1995 version has all those actors who would later play Harry Potter characters. Snape, Trelawney, Madam Pompfrey, Cornelius Fudge, and Umbridge reunited. What's wild is that Emma Thompson (Elinor) met her husband Greg Wise (Willoughby) while making this film.
On two Elizas they were absolutely right that modern audiences couldn't handle it. See the Game of Thrones fandom and people freaking out because of a certain character apparently being named after his deceased older brother.
Re the acting, I think it’s probably the director trying to get them to act repressed, where Brandon is less repressed in many ways. He is quiet but not repressed. If that makes sense.
how stupid to cpmplain about the hat if that was a historically accurate hat
I didn't even know there was a 2008 version, so I must watch it. The first time I watched the 1995 version, I think I was anticipating a 1995 P&P moment. I felt some of the liberties taken with story were unnecessary. The two biggest that come to mind are 1. Col. Brandon did not rescue Marianne on the hill in the rain. Too far off the story for my taste. 2. An even bigger issue, the complete omission of Willoughby showing up when Marianne was at death's door to explain his behavior! When I read the book, I gasped out loud! I was so surprised that was dropped from the movie adaptation. Thank you for the analysis!
I think Col. Brandon in 2008 looks like he could have been a soldier but not so much in 1995...even though I do like Alan Rickman.
I didn't think Norlands was entailed. Mr Henry Dashwood's uncle chose to leave it to Henry for life, with remainder to John Dashwood.
I explain Regency entails in depth in the video I mentioned! It's quite a confusing topic.
I used to LOVE the 1995 S&S movie until I watched the 2008 mini series. Think 2008 is better.
Can anyone resist Emma Thompson in this film? She upstairs Kate Winslet, as if that's not an immense feat.
One thing I think a fair number of people forget is that this is a pre-Titanic Kate Winslet in her breakout role. So it wasn't hard for Emma Thompson to upstage her.
Rickmans greatest role was in Truly Madly Deeply. IMHO
TBH, after seeing the 2000s Col. Brandon in TWD, I have a really hard time seeing him play a good guy anywhere without just kind of...ick. But he overcomes it pretty well.
He’s a great period psycho in Our Mutual Friend as well.
@danielrobinson7350 I haven't seen that - I'll have to try to find it.
Oh she’s back on a Friday! (Also, yay dropped my video just a few hours ago)
The 1995 ‘Sense and Sensibility’ movie really was a comfort around the start of the Pandemic and has continued to be so. I wrote my Masters Thesis inspired by it (the books actually) and it was great fun. Still waiting for Ellie to savour the delights of ‘Jane Austen For Dummies’.
P.S. You could try ‘Sense, Sensibility and Sea Monsters’ after this.
11:03 he's just so handsome and cute 😍😂
😂😂😂
The thing you said about 2008 just showing more passage of time is very true. I felt like Margaret really explained the long, slow pace of S&S the book with the line she had in the 08 version (I probably won't remember this just right): "I wish I were a man. Men can go out and DO things and women just have to sit and wait for them to happen." (Come to think of it, this might also explain how Edward can come off sometimes as feminized: because he's forced to sit around and waiting for his romantic problems to be solved for him instead of getting up and doing stuff.) // I am amazed you didn't mention Edward's wet shirt scene in '08 lol Andrew Davies at it again... // My favorite Mrs. Jennings is actually from the 1971 miniseries (which you can watch all of on youtube!) where she is played by the fantastic Patricia Routledge. You really love her by the end. // I heartily dislike both Col Brandon actors. Sorry, everybody. But I don't find either of them attractive. Yuck. I also do not like the actor playing Willoughby in the '08. He looks like a hedgehog in eyeliner.
Andrew Davies seems positively obsessed with wet shirt scenes. I don't see the appeal myself. 🤷♀️
I was 15 when I first saw this film and never once though that about Alan Rickman. I think many people will disagree with you, including me.
I also disagree with you about the makers dumbing down for the audience. Where is the evidence for this? If there is that's fair enough but you shouldn't assume that is what they did if there is none.
I love ❤️ the 1995 movie. Love Alan Rick man!
He has epic acting skills!
@EllieDashwood Too true!!
You’ve convinced me! Also, Andrw Davies ftw
I just finished reading Mansfield Park like 10 minutes ago and what better thing do than watch another video from you talking about Sense and Sensibility? Thanks ❤
The Devonshire countryside in 1995's version is better than the Devonshire coast. Mr. Willoughby mimicking Mrs. Jennings in the earlier adaptation is hilarious, too.
I love both versions. The 2008 version of course is more accurate to the book, the actor who plays colonel Brandon was a villian on The Walking Dead and I have a hard time not seeing him as that character.
I think the word you're looking for to describe the 1995 version is: angst.
If you weren't a teenager during that time, then you wouldn't understand. TV, music--this is when grunge took off in the era of "Im a loser, baby, so why do you 4ever box me", reality shows, and movies were all full of ANGST--or had that one character who had the dark rainy cloud over his head. The one guy everyone knew or could relate to.
And, so, that would explain 1995's version of Elinor: a 19 going 35-year-old woman who was wise beyond her years but had to keep it inside. Heaven gorbid a woman express frustration over her lot in life. She has to be the voice of reason and common sense, and the bad cop who talks Marianne off of the ledge. She knows the window for being a wife and mother is small, and the longer she puts it off, the less likely it's going to happen. If she doesn't die in childbirth, her life expectancy is around 52--tops. She feels the need to fill the void her father left, but it clashes with how women wete expected to act back then. Scandal was something you didnt want brought upon your house. So she sits back and watches as her younger sister gets wooed and courted. And despite not being jealous, it festers inside. And these potrayals, 30 years ago, resounded with the latter Gen-X and early Gen-Y teenage girl crowd. It was Clueless, Sense & Sensibility, and The Craft released with a 9 month time frame. The newer version speaks to Gen-Z, who are 180 from the angst.
Seriously, why do you think TITANIC did so well during that time? It could not be released today with that same theme. Both S&S movies are the same story interpreted for two different generations.