Watching the new adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, I realize I have a love/hate relationship with screenwriter Andrew Davies. I love him because he wrote the scripts for several of my favorite Jane Austen film adaptations and his movies are exciting to watch. I dislike his work because he tinkers with Jane’s intent and plot. He cannot leave well enough alone, and yet his movies of Jane’s novels attract huge ratings. Take this latest film adaptation, for example. I’m amazed by how much I like it, despite Andrew’s heavy hand in making the heroes seem more real and inserting scenes that Jane never intended. In fact, Mr. Davies’ name seems to be displayed as prominently in the credits as Jane Austen’s. Food for thought.
.jpg)
So what did I like and what didn’t I like about the film that caused me to continue my love/hate relationship with Mr. Davies? I’ll vent first, and discuss …
… A Few Pesky, Bothersome Moments
1) A Very Un-Janelike Sex Scene Opens the Film
There had been such a ruckus over the movie’s sexy opening sequence, that when I finally saw it my only thought was, “Meh, is that all?” The scene starts the film off on a wrong note, however, which takes away from the dramatic tension later on. Barbara Larochelle, the Sense and Sensibility discussion moderator on The Republic of Pemberley , explains in Sensibility Crashing Against Sense how the opening sequence dilutes the impact of the viewers’ dawning awareness that Willoughby is a cad and nothing like a romantic hero.
After the turgid opening scene, we are treated to the true beginning of Sense and Sensibility: the death of Mr. Dashwood and John’s promise to take care of his stepmother and stepsisters.
2) Making Fun of a Chubby Child
.jpg)
The plot quickens when Fanny Dashwood, with husband and child in tow, hastens to Norland Park the Monday after the funeral to assume her duties as its mistress. Her strong hold over John, as Davies implies as she blows out the candle, are her talents in bed. Fanny, played with just the right amount of snaky oiliness by Claire Skinner, firmly puts the kabosh on her husband’s plans to support his step mother and half sisters. Young Henry, or Harry, is depicted as a chubby child. Morgan Overton, the young actor who portrays him is forced to wear a frightful wig (or hairstyle), spectacles, and skeleton suit with frilly collared shirt. He is seen chomping on food almost the entire time he is on screen, except in this image. This stereotypical portrayal of an overweight child was obvious and unnecessary. Sorry Andrew, fat is not funny. Ever. Besides, Jane would not have taken such cheap pot shots.
3) Where are the Palmers and Lucy Steele?
.jpg)
Fast forward to life at Barton Cottage: Mrs. Dashwood now must live on a pitiful income of 500 pounds per year. This means serious economizing and downsizing for the ladies Dashwood. Frequent meals at Barton Park help to defray some expenses. We meet Sir John Middleton and his brood, and his mother-in-law, Mrs. Jennings. The Palmers were practically non-existent, however. A new viewer would have no concept of Mr. Palmer’s rudeness, for example, or of Mrs. Palmer’s irritating gaiety. Lucy Steele, who came across as sweet and ditzy rather than manipulative, was given so little screen time that her marriage to Robert Ferrars must have come as a complete surprise to those who had not read the novel. However, to be fair to Andrew Davies, we are treated to a fine characterization of Miss Anne Steele, who as played by Daisy Haggard, nearly steals the show.
4) Marianne is Gentled Like a Horse
.jpg)
After her illness, Marianne is “gentled” by Colonel Brandon. In fact, her mother and sister look on approvingly as they watch the Colonel use a classic horse training technique of turning his back to Marianne to pique her interest. (“Nine times out of ten a wild horse would follow”, as Elinor remarked, watching the Colonel in action). In Mr. Davies quest to show Jane’s heroes in a more manly setting, we also 
see the Colonel tenderly handle a hawk. As Marianne looks on with stars in her eyes, Colonel Brandon commands softly, “Come here.” How subtle was that message? Excuse me, Mr. Davies, but women are not chattel and I was a bit put off by these scenes. As Mr. Knightley would say, “That was very badly done.”
However, I Liked this Film Adaptation Overall …
… and the aforementioned concerns did not ruin my enjoyment of the movie. Of the four new adaptations based on Jane’s novels shown this season, it is the best one. The film’s three-hour length allowed for a more leisurely exploration of Marianne’s infatuation with Willoughby (Dominic Cooper). We also see more of Colonel Brandon (David Morrissey), who is given as much screen time as Willoughby. .jpg)
We meet Mrs. Ferrars (Jean Marsh), a character as formidable and steely-eyed as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and, as mentioned before, Lucy Steele’s vulgar sister, Anne, makes an unforgettable appearance. However, other characters are hardly given the time of day, which makes me wish that all Jane Austen adaptations are required to be six hours in length, like A&E’s Pride and Prejudice.
I loved Hattie Morahan’s performance as Elinor Dashwood. Her Elinor is stoic, restrained, and vulnerable. We can feel her internal pain and struggle over Edward’s engagement to Lucy Steele, and at Marianne’s side during her illness. In fact, I will no longer be able to read S&S in the future without seeing Hattie as Elinor.
If you have seen my avatar, you must have guessed how much I admire Kate Winslet’s robust performance as Marianne. In addition, my Jane Austen character quiz profile is Marianne, so I am particularly fond of this 17-year-old heroine. While I adore Kate’s interpretation, I found Charity Wakefield’s Marianne equally compelling, though in a sweeter, quieter way. She is young enough to play the part of a teenager, and her large expressive eyes lent a piquant touch to her character’s mixture of recklessness, immaturity, and innocence. In this adaptation Marianne is so heedless of convention, she is shown visiting Allenham with Willoughby, not merely speeding through town in a phaeton as in the 1996 adaptation.
.jpg)
I also thought that Marianne’s illness in the 2008 film adaptation, while not strictly accurate, was closer to Jane’s original intent. In the 1996 movie version, Marianne walked for miles in the rain to view Willoughby’s estate, and the sickroom scenes were so overwrought with emotion, that I thought, “Enough!” In this film’s more restrained sick room scenes, Colonel Brandon’s concern over Marianne’s condition is stressed as much as Elinor’s. His visit to her sick bed sets the stage for Marriane’s developing relationship with the Colonel and her interest in him as a suitor.
David Morrissey plays the Colonel heroically, and in my mind his interpretation of the character surpasses Alan Rickman’s. One explanation for this is that the Colonel’s scenes are fleshed out in S&S 2008, and we get to know him as a man as well as a long-suffering hero. Mr. Morrissey is also much handsomer than Jane describes, which places Dominic Cooper in a difficult position. His Willoughby is not quite 
good looking enough to play the role of a man who is described as surpassingly handsome. In fact, Dominic reminds me of The Artful Dodger all grown up. I know looks aren’t everything, but I fail to understand why Marianne is so drawn to Willoughby when such a handsome Colonel has been courting her. Oh, I know she was turned off by the Colonel’s age, but David Morrissey is so yummy that any self-respecting girl in need of a husband would not quibble with the age difference if he came a’calling.
Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars is also too handsome for the part, though I liked his kind eyes and expressive face. He is well matched with Hattie Morrahan in looks and height, and they seem like a perfect couple. It is entirely believable that Dan/Edward would be happy living the simple life of a minister in a small cottage with his frugal and practical Elinor.
Except for the Marianne-in-training sequences, I rather enjoyed our glimpses of our heroes in manly scenes, cutting wood, hunting, hawking, or riding flat out. Such touches are what make Andrew Davies adaptations stand out from the rest of the field.
.jpg)
I finish this review with Mrs. Dashwood. Ever since I saw Janet McTeer in Songcatcher, I have adored her. An actress with a remarkable scope and range, she played the widow and loving mother with the right amount of grief, bewilderment, and strength. Her realization that her cushy life was over when Elinor rejected her first two choices for a rental house foreshadowed the challenges she would have to face as a poor widow. However, except for some crucial scenes, Janet was given remarkably little to do in this film except to stand still for reaction shots. This is another strong argument for shooting a mini-series.
I have seen this film three times already and intend to see it again tonight. Needless to say, I highly recommend it. Oh, dear, I just had a thought. What will I do with my Sunday nights after The Complete Jane Austen series has ended? Watch A Room With a View, of course. The movie will be aired on Masterpiece Classic, April 13th, one week after Part II of Sense and Sensibility has aired.
Click here for my 2009 review of Sense and Sensibility, which features additional images.
Jane Austen's World 
I really liked this adaptation! (Well, the first half, anyway.) I can’t compare it to the novel (next on my reading list) but everything seemed historically accurate, unlike many scenes in the other recent adaptations. The actors are all perfectly cast (I even think the actor playing Willoughby is totally hot enough for the role) and the settings are beautiful!
The love scene at the beginning didn’t bother me because I couldn’t tell it was Willoughby so it didn’t really ruin any surprise about his character. Most people probably already know he turns out to be a cad, anyway.
The Artful Dodger was exactly who I was thinking of. Although, Davy Jones is still cuter. The Col. Brandon is a dish – but I’m not sure I would have been interested in him when I was 17. I loved Alan Rickman’s portrayal – just this side of plain, but he grew on you and he has a fantastic speaking voice. Enjoyed the show immensely. Looking forward to “A room with a view”, but it seems like an exact copy of the Helena Bohnam Carter version. But the girl playing Lucy seems so wan in comparison. And really, who will out do Dame Maggie!
Hi Eric and Linda, you both are having the same reaction to the film as most people I’ve talked to. Generally they like it, but they find aspects of the 1996 Ang Lee version that they still like better. Linda, when I was 17 I had a crush on my math teacher, who must have been Colonel Brandon’s age. It IS possible but not likely. As for Alan Rickman, yum. I thought noone could replace him, but David Morissey is giving him a good run.
I still prefer Alan Rickman’s Colonel Brandon. This first part seemed a little slow, and concentrated too much on Willoughby and Marianne. You described scenes and characters that aren’t introduced yet, which makes me think that the second part should be more exciting. So far, I like the 1996 movie more, but I am willing to withhold judgment.
I liked part 1 as well. It is definitely the best of the MPT adaptations, but I agree that they should all 1)either be 6 hours or 2) have Emma Thompson involved LOL. It was a bit disconcerting for me b/c Hattie Morahan’s voice sounds a lot like Thompson’s. There were times that if I closed my eyes, I would have sworn it was Thompson.
Your remarks and criticism of S&S are spot on.
The only slight disagreement I have with your criticism is with the mother. I too admired her performance in Songcatcher, but here I think she needed a bit more of the romantic and a bit more feeling…for example, her reaction to her daughter-in-law’s remark concerning her brother and Elinor seemed to lack appropriate force of wounded feelings.
As someone who has never read S&S (until now, post-show), I would add that, for those unfamiliar with the book, the beginning, after the seduction scene, is unhelpful in establishing the relationship between the characters.
Bibliophylia, I completely agree on Hattie´s voice! I also thought that it was Emma´s voice
Now, for me, I didn´t like Charity Wakefield. I just couldn´t see her as being so passionate. I don´t know, Kate Winslet still owns that part. She was much fresher, much more open.
Good point about Janet/Mrs. Dashwood’s reaction to Fanny’s remarks about Edward and Elinor, McRumi. I had interpreted it as wounded dignity, but Gemma Jones’s hurt and evident disgust in the 1996 movie was certainly a superior reaction.
Nat and Bibliophylia, I wonder if Hattie and Emma speak in similar accents because they were both born (and bred?) in London. Interestingly, both actresses were children of actors. It is uncanny, though, how both women sound so alike.
All in all I rather liked this adaptation, even given the problems. I liked Morrisey’s Colonel Brandon better than Alan Rickman’s rather melancholy one. It’s funny how you were noticing that Hattie Morahan sounds just like Emma Thompson. I was thinking the same thing!
Thanks for the comment! I agree about the “taming” scenes – they didn’t really work for me, though they didn’t turn me off at all, and I did appreciate the attempt to make Brandon’s courtship more present. For the most part, I’m in agreement with your review, except that I would gush more about Elinor, and I liked this much better than the 95 film (even though I do really like that one). I can’t wait for my DVD – but have to, unfortunately. Stupid release dates!
I agree entirely. My only inquiry is as to the name of the composer of the score. The music was absolutely smashing.
Lulu,
Martin Phipps scored the music for S&S 2008. He also wrote the soundtracks to North and South and Persuasion, 2007.
Thank you
I can’t agree with people’s criticism of the sex scene in the opening credits – i think that it was a great way of re-interpreting the story for screen, because you were made aware from the start that, chronologically, Willoughby had already seduced this 15-year girl.
I also think that it’s fair enough to assume that the vast majority of the audience have either read the novel or are familiar with the story (or a similar one), and so know already that Willoughby’s a jerk, or would have quickly suspected him of being one. A viewer shouldn’t have to be taken along for the ride with the character’s realisation that he is a cad because it’s first time they discover it themselves: you should be carried along for the emotional ride by the performances. That’s the kind of thing that makes a film watchable again and again.
[…] viewing. I have since added more images from the film to my collection. Click here for my review, Sense and Sensibility Makes Sense for the Most Part. The opening scene was a bit confusing. Who was making love and why? The Dashwoods lived in a grand […]
“because you were made aware from the start that, chronologically, Willoughby had already seduced this 15-year girl”
This is exactly my problem with the opening scene, the scene where Brandon asks Willoughby what his “intentions” are with Marianne, and Cooper’s slimy, smug portrayal of Willoughby altogether. We are not supposed to know that Willoughby is a rake. We are not even supposed to suspect it. I don’t care how many times you’ve read the novel. We, the reader, are supposed to fall in love with Willoughby as Marianne is falling in love with him. The incessant foreshadowing of his flawed character, which Andrew Davies seems to think is necessary, cuts the impact of Brandon’s reveal of his character to Elinor and it comes off as anti-climactic. As usual, Austen’s sense of timing is perfection, and it is lunacy and hubris to mess with it!
I may be slow, but I did not recognise Dominic Cooper as the one having sex in the beginning of the film.
I have read the book, but dear not say what I think of it. I loved this adaption, and do not mind the horse-taming. I thought it was sexy, and after all, women were not equals back then.
Some valid criticisms and praises!
Re criticisms, I fully agree that it was unnecessary to show such an explicit romance scene at the start. Part of the beauty of Jane Austen’s books is the lack of explicitness in this area; this enables readers who want to maintain purity of thought in this area to do so, and I think film adaptations should respect that.
Re praises, I thought the relationships between both pairs of hero and heroine were lovely. Particularly, some footage really demonstrated the consistent concern felt for Marianne by Colonel Brandon. I also really liked the casting of the Dashwood sisters – the ages seemed more in line with those in the book, and the family moments seemed more realistic.
I don’t think that David Morrissey’s portrayal of Colonel Brandon surpassed Alan Rickman’s. I thought it was just as good. I had hopes that Dan Stevens’ interpretation of Edward Ferrars would surpass Hugh Grant’s. Stevens almost did it. Almost. But in the end . . . eh. Well, I guess he failed to do so.
I was relieved that Marianne’s sickness wasn’t as overwrought as it was in the 1995 film.. Many have stated relief that the Dashwood sisters seemed closer in age than they did in the 1995 movie. I didn’t see this. Hattie Morahan seemed at least a good 5-7 years older than Chastity Wakefield (is that her name). Frankly, I don’t see the point in trying to make Elinor 19 years old. She has always come off as a lot older to me.
I don’t know if you are still reading comments about this, but having just seen this adaptation a few days ago I thought I’d weigh in.
The beginning didn’t bother me because I’d already read the book so I knew it was Willoughby. However, I agree that if a viewer hadn’t read it already it might have been a bit of a spoiler. Perhaps it would have been better being inserted later when Colonel Brandon was telling Elinor about it. As for the raciness, I really don’t understand what people were getting upset about, as you see nothing. I’ve seen worse at 7 pm on regular television.
Speaking of Willoughby, I guess it’s all opinion, but I did find Dominic Cooper appropriately attractive, but even more, he seemed fun and romantic, the kind of guy Marianne would go for at that time. The scene at the dance was very well done to show the differences between him and Brandon. Willoughby was having a great time, while Brandon had on a stoneface (yes, I do know why!) when he was dancing with Elinor. While I do think David Morrissey is very good-looking, and made a great Brandon, I also spend a lot of time around teenage girls and there’s no question who they’d pick – Willoughby, in a heartbeat.
As for the others, I did like that all the actors were closer to the ages of the characters than in the 1995 version, and they were all terrific, especially Hattie Morahan, who I liked even better than Emma Thompson, and I didn’t think that would be possible. I also liked Dan Stevens more than Hugh Grant, except frankly both actors are much better-looking than Edward is supposed to be, but I’m not going to complain about that. And, of course, the longer running time ensured that more of the novel could be included, such as Willoughby’s speech to Elinor at the end, which I missed from the 1995 version.
[…] Ann Nattress of Austenprose and Vic Sanborn of Jane Austen’s World reviewed Davies’s adaptation of Sense and Sensibility in 2008, […]
The scene between Marianne and Col. Brandon with the raptor was, I think, supposed to be Marianne daydreaming while she played the piano.
As for Col. Brandon’s gentling scene, I think Andrew Davies might have used it before. In P&P 1995, after Elizabeth meets Mr Darcy at Pemberley, they and the Gardiners walk through the courtyard at Pemberley to look at the lake and Elizabeth turns her back on them all. I had wondered if this was done to give Elizabeth and Darcy space in the walk back to the carriage to talk without them being overheard by the Gardiners but I now wonder if Elizabeth was “gentling” Mr Darcy.
BTW, I thought Mark Williams and Linda Bassett as Sir John Middleton and Mrs Jennings far outshone Robert Hardy and Elizabeth Spriggs as did Mark Gatiss as John Dashwood in comparison to James Fleet.
When Mrs. Dashwood asks Edward about the new ring, what does he answer.