Skip to main content

A Very Sensible Adaptation

It was perhaps obligation that created this movie. Jane Austen adaptations are a reliable brand and they come in generational cycles -every decade or so brings a new version of one of her classic books to television, and occasionally to film. We have seen in recent years new iterations of Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Persuasion. And with Mansfield Park being not an attractive prospect for adaptation, Northanger Abbey being obscure, and Sandington even more so -that leaves Sense and Sensibility as thus the sensible choice of source.
And it has been some time since Austen’s debut masterpiece has gotten such a treatment, the likely reason being the enormous shadow cast by the 1995 film version by Emma Thompson and Ang Lee -a very definitive adaptation that not only won Thompson a screenwriting Oscar but that set a standard for most Austen adaptations and romantic period dramas alike that have come since. Its influence is clear and unavoidable on this new film thirty-one years later written by Diana Reid and directed by Georgia Oakley, who perhaps gamble on enough time having passed that we won’t notice or care. They may be somewhat right on that mark.
Adaptation-wise, the film is a very accurate re-telling -beginning with the death of Henry Dashwood and the awkward circumstance of his estate passing to his eldest son from his first marriage while leaving his wife and three daughters on the brink of poverty. Eventually relocating from Sussex to the Devonshire countryside, the sole prospect available to the Dashwood women is the hope of marriage for the two elder daughters who have differing criteria for what they want in a suitor -Elinor (Daisy Edgar-Jones) preferring ‘Sense’ in the stability and dignity of Edward Ferrars (George MacKay), a composed but awkward gentleman notably flustered around her; while Marianne (Esmé Creed-Miles) is explicitly attracted to Sensibility, or passion and spontaneity as exemplified in the figure who literally sweeps her off her feet -the exciting and enigmatic John Willoughby (Frank Dillane), even if the more Sense-oriented Colonel Brandon (Herbert Nordrum) has more of her best interests at heart.
While some efforts are made at modernizing the characters in terms of their disposition and relatability, the core of their personalities and of the story remain intact. And apart from a couple cosmetic alterations to sets and plot beats -Marianne’s fall takes place on a beach rather than the hills)- there are no significant departures from the novel and its themes. On some level that makes the movie rather dry and uninspired, not helped by a few aesthetic choices in the production design, cinematography, or lighting which emphasize dank environments and de-emphasize life and colour.  Even though the film is from the same producers as the much-loved 2005 Pride and Prejudice, it is a far cry from the kind of visual splendour of that and other truly cinematic Austen movies.
However it should be said that the movie is not a dreary experience for this -and the drama of Austen's story is on display and articulated well via the script and the actors, who are for the most part all quite good for their roles. Edgar-Jones and Creed-Miles have a palpable sisterly bond and speak very naturally in the rhythms of Austen's romantic dialogue. Yet there is something real and contemporary in the tenor of their performances within this, their attitudes feel rather distinct to how women of their age today would respond to their circumstances. Edgar-Jones does especially well too with the guarded sentiments of her character, playing several scenes with a poise and disposition suggesting she might burst at any time in the repression of her true feelings. It may be a conscious choice in lieu of how this film takes its story's themes -articulating value for sensibility even as the narrative comes down hard on sense. You see a little of that also in MacKay's performance of Edward at the end of the story, his passions spilling out beneath his veneer of bland competency. That said, his performance is notably more accurate than some of his predecessors in the role, who can't resist giving the character at least a modicum of charisma.
By contrast, Dillane's take on Willoughby casts the character in less the deceptively dashing romantic role and as more of an obvious fuckboy, for lack of a better term. He gives off an air of blatant irresponsibility from the start, his critiques towards the stiff attitudes of Colonel Brandon and Elinor are peppered with snide mocking overtones, his respectability much more of an open play to the viewers. And yet his attractiveness to Marianne is entirely believable -there is a roguish charm to him that sets him apart from every other man around and certainly the Colonel, whom Nordrum plays stoically with that necessary touch of melancholic longing -even if his is the least engaging performance here.
Caitriona Balfe and Fiona Shaw are sturdy pillars of the secondary cast, as the doting Mrs. Dashwood and the eccentric Mrs. Jennings respectively. Generally the movie earns its air of sophistication and while Reid is no Emma Thompson, her script often hits well that balance of flourish and efficiency needed in an adaptation such as this. There are a couple unfortunate tonal liberties, like a somewhat inappropriately dramatic duel between Brandon and Willoughby and a very formulaic rom-com ending beat that plays earnestly what Greta Gerwig cleverly subverted in Little Women. But largely the film resists such manufactured moves and the kind of Bridgerton sensationalism that may be expected of an Austen movie in the 2020s. That it does this while still being resonant in subtle but important ways for a new audience is commendable.
Yet the movie isn't much more than commendable. It doesn't do anything aesthetically, stylistically distinctive or substantially new with the material. It doesn't stand out especially strongly in the pantheon of Austen movie adaptations -certainly not in the way its predecessor did. All that it really has going for it is the story. But fortunately it is a very good one. Sense and Sensibility is my personal favourite Austen book, and the pleasures of that novel are on screen her in a perfectly satisfying way. It has been a while since this work in particular has been showcased and I'm glad that this movie did so well. And it does indeed have a handful of inspired and lovely moments very true to the spirit of the book. The 1995 movie bathes in the lushness and passion of Sensibility, and it is wonderful for that. But there is nothing wrong with a little Sense as well.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
1 comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
14 comments
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more