Movie Review // Sense and Sensibility (1995)

Along with Anne of Green Gables, this was the film that first deeply introduced me to the entire world of period drama. (In fact, it was a long time before I even realized AoGG was a period drama, it was so deeply ingrained in my subconscious. ;))

Okay, rabbit trail. Let us return to S&S.

Since first seeing it, I’ve seen the 1981 and 2008 adaptations multiple times (and come to love them both dearly) so I can’t honestly say this is my tippity top favorite in the S&S department, but it is quite simply un-ignorable (that very definitely isn’t a word, but my overactive spellcheck isn’t flagging it, so I’m going to leave it ;)).

Here’s the official, excellent summary: “Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Kate Winslet and Hugh Grant star in this captivating romantic comedy that swept the Ten Best Lists and was named the Best Picture of the Year by the Golden Globes. Based on Jane Austen's classic novel, Sense and Sensibility tells of the Dashwood sisters, sensible Elinor (Thompson) and passionate Marianne (Winslet), whose chances at marriage seem doomed by their family's sudden loss of fortune. Rickman, Grant, and Greg Wise co-star as the well-intentioned suitors who are trapped by the strict rules of society and the conflicting laws of desire.”

(Doesn't this remind you of a mantilla? I love it.)

Off the top of my head, the biggest plot differences here between the book and film are: the omissions of John and Fanny’s son, Mrs. Ferrars, and also the elder Miss Steele; Edward doesn’t visit Barton Cottage, and (largest of all) Willoughby doesn’t come to Cleveland when Marianne is ill. Technically you can get along all right without the young Dashwood heir and also Mrs. Ferrars and Miss Steele, but I do think the decision to omit Willoughby’s visit is unfortunate as it really finishes his character arc and adds depth to his and Marianne’s entire story. The hilltop scene near the end does provide some resolution, and I think all in all it fits with the tenor of the film, but it’s a good discussion point.

As to the content: there’s not a single questionable scene, so that’s pretty amazing.

When it comes to the casting I’m rather conflicted. I honestly have to confess I’m not bonkers about it, particularly in a couple major instances (i.e. Edward, etc), yet still everyone fits together so incredibly well that somehow I’m always reconciled by the end of the film. It all just becomes this beautiful thing.

(Also, the soundtrack is seriously epic in the world of period drama soundtracks.)

Three points that popped out at me recently are: #1 -- *SPOILERS* With Edward's proposal: (besides being romantic and satisfying etc.), I realized afresh just how funny it is when the rest of the family gets all flustered and confused, seeing their steady, staid, self-controlled 'big sister' finally breaking down into happy tears. They don’t know what to do and it’s hilarious. ;)

#2: One thing that had always puzzled me a little at the end was how Edward and Elinor come out after Colonel Brandon and Marianne, and with Elinor in so much simpler of a dress. As I understand it, etiquette decrees the older sister would have precedence in such a situation and (as the bride’s family would be making/providing the wedding dresses) their attire would be similar. And then E&E don’t have a carriage either. As I said, this bothered me until (and thank you to my sister on this!) I realized it was indeed accurate to the book and wasn’t a double wedding as in P&P (which is book accurate). They are, in fact, sticking to the story line in S&S where the Colonel and Marianne get married about a year after E&E. (And this all might seem incredibly obvious, but personally it was a tremendous relief to figure out. ;D)

#3: The moment with Margaret up in the tree house, and Marianne and Mrs. Dashwood in each other’s arms, laughing and crying with the fresh blue and green all round them -- and then the music swelling out with intense joy – may very well be my absolute favorite moment in the entire film. :)

Those ending scenes just sweep you off your feet: the colors, the landscape, the sweetness – it’s breathtaking.

So, in conclusion, I highly recommend this as a beautiful film, an excellent introduction to period dramas in general, and definitely required viewing for all good period drama lovers. ;) Dreamy, sweeping, golden, and epic, it’s lovely and a thorough classic!

Tell me! Have you seen this version of S&S? Do you have a favorite adaptation? 

Movie Review ~ North and South: BBC ‘04 with Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe

I’ve decided! It’s high time I reviewed my favorite period drama—the ’04 North and South. I’ve actually been planning this all year and (given that about November-time I traditionally start wanting to watch it anyway and its being just over one year since my ‘72 N&S review) everything fits together quite perfectly!

The ’04 North and South and I have a long history together. I’ve seen it three times in one month and I’ve gone several years without seeing it at all. (As a note, I do not recommend the three times in one month approach. Even the very best, most excellently well told story is hard pressed to keep its mystery after three consecutive viewings in a short period. Two is perfect and delightful.) Recently it had been about two years as I had thought it would be best to let it sit. To let myself sit. And, due to various causes and what with one thing and another (seeing the ’72 N&S, the ’95 P&P, the ’09 Emma and so forth) during the sitting duration I was even beginning to wonder if it was all I’d remembered.

Yet I had this review I’d been wanting to write and I really did want to see it again. So just before Thanksgiving—gifted with an open afternoon and with Christmas knitting in hand and keeping one eye on the fire—I settled down to some reevaluation. 

And to make a long story short (and as you can already tell from the opening sentences), the mystery and thrill are entirely there again. The characters…the acting…the beauty and depth of the story! It’s all utterly amazing.

A splendiferous cover…

This version (for certain delightful reasons) always makes me want to go over and reread the book again. The story itself is weighty, but I wouldn’t call it either morbid or depressing. 

With the weightiness, though, there is a dark atmosphere that’s perfectly captured here in the very streets, mill, rooms, and lighting throughout.

The wardrobes are gorgeous…often somber, but beautiful. And (with the one exception of her dinner dress, which is entirely too low) I absolutely love all Margaret’s dresses.

Their beauty—and how they perfectly and flawlessly meld with her character—is really beyond description.

The casting is brilliant, with everyone very much in period. I think the characters most changed from the book were the Higgins family and—as I actually love what they chose to do—I’m quite happy with the adjustment.

A twinkly-eyed Higgins

(Mrs. Thornton is also particularly outstanding)

But the principal characters. The conflict! Well, let’s simply say there is a reason why this is my favorite period drama and a top favorite rendition of one of my favorite books. :)

First there’s Margaret…with her regal beauty, her gentleness, her loyalty.

And there’s Mr. Thornton. A gentleman, yes—but first, foremost, and foundationally a true man. A man strong, passionate, honorable and upright.

This adaptation captures all the themes of the story magnificently. There’s a deep beauty and a deep integrity in North & South. There are undercurrents. There is reticence. The beyond places are reached where words—weakening—fall short to the ground, growing impossible. There is intensity—small moments catapulting to enormous tension. There is rich foreshadowing. 

*And warning: from here on there will be spoilers*

Besides all the direct dialogue between Thornton and Margaret themselves, one thing I noticed this time was how often a conversation (not gossip) between two people illuminates a third person (rather than everything being internalized within that other person’s scenes).

So we see Margaret’s imperious steadfastness in Thornton’s conversation with his mother after the first proposal.

We see his incredible covering and protection of her (Margaret) after Leonards death during the few short words of her second interview with the constable.

The man to man friendship between Thornton and Higgins is another highlight of the story and beautifully developed. 

A third element I love is how they chose to focus on hands throughout: hands showing who and what each character is, what they stand for, what they choose to do or sacrifice, and also the growth and change of a relationship between two people. (And then—of course—in the ending we have a stunning culmination of the imagery.) It’s all superbly done, flowing directly and seamlessly from the tone of the story.

For me, North & South is real. It’s about real life where a man can have pride, yet isn’t too proud to accept help from his wife. (And incidentally, I love how Gaskell inverts that plot point!) 

Thornton wanted to marry her when she had nothing and he everything. In the end, (money-wise) it’s reversed, but neither even thinks of it. With the ongoing tensions of truth, honesty, loyalty, protection and change running through the story, their relationship has left any mere financial quibbles far behind.

Reading or seeing the story I’m always challenged by Margaret—a true and thorough lady in the fullest sense of the word. Yet an imperfect heroine, her shaping is painful and powerful through the story. It’s the great uncertainties of life that shape us most, and also the sufferings—which is hard.

So much of this—the themes of the entire story—are perfectly and brilliantly captured in the ending of the film so I’ll go ahead and discuss the two together.

First, the train appears throughout—beginning and ending the film, tying it completely and richly together with its portrayal of continuation and change. While the ending (with the kissing at a public place) may (or may not) be historically accurate, from a story perspective it’s dazzling. (And here a connected thought: if it wasn’t improper for Lennox to escort her north initially as a friend of the family, then I don’t think it would necessarily be improper for another thorough gentleman—and her promised husband—to do the same. Apparently it’s a fairly short trip and his mother would definitely be present to receive her in Milton.)

But back to the train… In the beginning, while hoping to remain settled, Margaret finds herself uprooted to a new and completely foreign world. And with that catalyst (even as she tries to remain fixed within herself) the ground is pulled from beneath her by the inescapable rushing forward of life. Everything she had deemed simple and immovable—her world, her entire family, even her own mind, opinions, and (at last) emotions—are caught in that great unstoppable impetus.

From the beginning there’s a ripeness and maturity about her. Yet with that softness there’s also an inflexibility—a resistant immobility—dyed into her very character and desire for a solidity of place, for the clearly delineated safety found in habitual routine and a clearly defined social world. There’s safety in stagnation…while change can involve both danger and heartache.

But real change generally comes unasked and unlooked for.

Margaret learns she cannot box herself and she cannot box others in closely defined categories. Yet one of the greatest things I love about the story is that—changing—she doesn’t lose who she is. Lovely and gracious, she’s still Margaret, but—growing in humility—she learns also an active, diligent rest.

So comes the train station at the end. The station—that stopping place in the forward push of life and progress—the stopping place with the dizzying potential for a full face, 180-degree turn. The stopping place encapsulating those few, tangible, epic—fully historic—moments in life that completely reorient us, changing everything. Yet again.

And arriving at such a stopping place, Margaret reaches forward to the future—finding tried and tested strength to lean on, finding again a field of fulfillment and labor…

So… yes. North & South: one of my favorite stories—romantic, powerful, beautiful, and entirely magnificent!!

Movie Review: Emma ‘09 with Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller – BBC

Where, oh where to begin??? I actually heard about this movie shortly after it first came out (and read some subsequent reviews), but it wasn’t until this year that I allowed myself to be persuaded to watch it. The first time I viewed it (notice I said first) I wasn’t too struck during the opening episodes—but now (after something like three complete viewings and numerous excerpts!) I feel in a much better position to give my settled opinion.

Which is? That in short, I love it! The music, the handling of the story… It’s alive.

The casting is brilliant. Miss Bates (pictured above),

Mr. Weston… the entire neighborhood is very well done.

My one (of two) exceptions here was probably Mrs. Weston… (It took me two viewings to start “getting” her expressions, but the more I’ve watched it the more I’ve truly come to like her.)

The Eltons are arrogant and underhandedly cutting—very anti-charitable.

And the John Knightley’s are absolutely perfect!

They seem to fit so well together, and it’s simply fun and delightful to see so much of them! 

Frank is very good—with high spirits and puzzlingly moody swings.

And... Jane Fairfax is my other “exception” (she doesn’t exactly have the tall elegance or mystery of the book)—but she is sweet and quiet, and I think overall fits well with everyone else.

I particularly liked how they developed Mr. Woodhouse—why he might have been so nervous and fearful.

Harriet is about exactly as described in the book—both in looks and manners—and as she grows in conceit, I completely identify with Emma’s shocked reactions.

Robert Martin is very good:

an honest, upstanding, wholehearted, serious-minded young man—thoroughly looking up to Mr. Knightley!

And Mr. Knightley. Oh my… Mr. Knightley is… absolutely… positively… (and in all other ways) a-m-a-z-i-n-g!!!

His mannerisms, his wry twists of humor, his wonderful, down-to-earth forthrightness! (Did I already use the word amazing??? :)) Ahem! I know I’ve said this before… ;), but words really do quite fail me.

One thing I noticed (and thoroughly enjoyed) is that we get a bit more of his side throughout the story (particularly as he’s figuring out and deducing the various games and complexities going on).

About Emma herself, I initially had very mixed feelings. Again (as I started my first viewing), I wasn’t at all sure about her, but I was firmly floored by the end. She does carry on a bit (regarding the Bates, Eltons, etc.), but I think it comes across as immaturity.

She simply is not ready at the beginning. Mature in stature, she’s yet a growing young woman—and she has to be softened. And I think Romola Garai does a quite literally incredible job showing Emma’s growth in maturity and womanly tenderness.

Running through the entire story as filmed, is also the challenge of what it means to be rooted in a place—in one locality—while at the same time there is an emphasis on moving and motion, tying in with Emma’s growth. Sharp-tongued (she says some sharper things than Lizzy ever did)—set in her own opinions—often scrambling for rational arguments—Emma’s need for a guide is very apparent. And thankfully, he’s right there the entire time!

This version particularly highlights the brother-sister aspect of their relationship, and through it all Mr. Knightley’s concern for her (for her character development and protection) shines out radiantly. There’s a wonderful, wonderful emphasis on her coming to a fullness and ripeness of womanhood as their relationship subtly changes (or as each becomes aware of what it really is). He wins her to gentleness: through it all underlining what a man really is and should be.

(This part is amazing....)

And also, as my brother says, “Emma’s great because it’s all about ordinary people screwing up.” Ordinary, everyday people messing up in ways we often like to deem trivial in our own case, but which are in fact hugely important—such as uncharitable thoughts and slips of the tongue. In this particular version, there is an emphasis on truth—and also on the charity necessary among family members: brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters and sons (in-law)—and charity between multiple families.

All in all, I’m very impressed by their careful accuracy to the book—with often an attention to even the minutest of details (where someone was sitting, gestures, etc.) while yet worlds away from approaching it woodenly! Also, I particularly liked how they brought together the three threads of Emma, Frank Churchill, and Jane Fairfax right near the beginning as it really helped cement all the connections.

As a note, I’m generally pretty careful about what “extras” I watch, but the ones on here are well worth viewing (I didn’t find they took you out of the story at all). It was delightful to see how thoughtfully oriented the entire production was (on everyone’s part!) and what a community effort it was—very much in keeping with the spirit of Emma!

So—with a perfectly marvelous casting, thrilling musical score, and beautiful locations and filming—this is an absolutely gorgeous production I’m now utterly thrilled to number among my particular favorites!!