Sorry David Morrissey, but you are no Alan Rickman
So I should be working on my five page paper due at nine tomorrow morning. It's past 10:30 at night, and I'm nearly two pages into it. And watching the latest version of Sense and Sensibility. As much as I appreciate Andrew Davies' adaptations of the Jane Austen novels, it doesn't even approach the depth or beauty of Emma Thompson's screenplay or Ang Lee's direction. Or the cinematography! Or Patrick Doyle's score. Or the costuming. The list goes on and on. As good as the 2008 movie is, it still serves mostly to remind me moment by moment and scene by scene of the brilliance of the 1995 version. While the ages of actresses and actors of the later movie may be more accurate, the acting itself rings more true for me in the earlier effort. The foppish, sweet brilliance of Hugh Grant is replaced by just foppishness. The sensibility of Marianne seems merely ignorance and obstinacy. The sense of Elinor may be present, but the anguish of her rejected hopes, or the wisdom or meaning in her eyes are largely absent. The dialogue feels spoken, as if the actors are merely going through the motions to get through each scene. Just compare the scenes where Marianne regrets her behavior to Willoughby, saying she compares it to "what it ought to have been"--she compares it to Elinor's. Just in that speech alone Kate Winslet proves her superiority. Alan Rickman doesn't even need to use words to convey his worth as an actor. Just watch the scene where Marianne thanks him for his efforts in saving her from the rain, and from her resultant fever. His eyebrows soften just a fraction, altering his entire demeanor. W-O-W. And I hate how they treated Mr. Palmer's character. In the 2008 version he was a fool. At least Hugh Laurie had the good sense to be cranky, cringing at his wife's obnoxious loudness, (It kills me every time I even think of the scene where she wrinkles the corner of his newspaper in excitement. His reaction is epic.) but treating Elinor with respect and regard.
So I feel very strongly about "Sense and Sensibility," so sue me! But first, watch about the first five minutes of this scene:
...
Okay, so it's not letting me link it. Just go to Youtube and look up:
Sense And Sensibility - Part 13/14
That shot looking down at Marianne feverish on the bed could be a painting! This isn't a movie, it's a piece of art. And a movie. (And about 3:15 seconds in, it has the eyebrow thing Alan Rickman does that I mentioned earlier. W-O-W once again.) The illness is lightly touched on in the 2008 version. Like it barely affected anything. EVEN THOUGH IT CHANGED EVERYTHING. And what's with Willoughby coming back in the 2008 version? What a freaking tool. And a baby. That was ridiculous.
Now back to my freaking paper about Wuthering Heights. Sorry Rachel, but I much prefer Jane Austen over the Bronte sisters.
You forgot to mention Willoughby's faux-hawk! I usually like the adaptations written by Andrew Davies, and this one wasn't bad for the most part, but could have used the all-star cast of the earlier version. It seemed like they secretly wanted to cast Hugh Grant again, but couldn't so got some guy to try to look and act like him. And it was hard to understand what Willoughby's appeal ever was. I really missed Alan Rickman as Col. Brandon in this one too. The character was much more nondescript in the 2008 version (though not sort of creepy old), didn't have you pulling for him as much. I think the film was better than some book adaptations I've seen, and added some perspective here and there that the other film didn't have time for, but you are right that in the end the other is just better.
P.S. If you are ever looking for a good Bronte adaptation, I liked the newest (2006?) Jayne Eyre. It seems that most people who read that book are rather protective of it and can't find a satisfactory adaptation. That one wasn't perfect, but as close as I've found to living up to the book.
1 comment:
You forgot to mention Willoughby's faux-hawk! I usually like the adaptations written by Andrew Davies, and this one wasn't bad for the most part, but could have used the all-star cast of the earlier version. It seemed like they secretly wanted to cast Hugh Grant again, but couldn't so got some guy to try to look and act like him. And it was hard to understand what Willoughby's appeal ever was. I really missed Alan Rickman as Col. Brandon in this one too. The character was much more nondescript in the 2008 version (though not sort of creepy old), didn't have you pulling for him as much. I think the film was better than some book adaptations I've seen, and added some perspective here and there that the other film didn't have time for, but you are right that in the end the other is just better.
P.S. If you are ever looking for a good Bronte adaptation, I liked the newest (2006?) Jayne Eyre. It seems that most people who read that book are rather protective of it and can't find a satisfactory adaptation. That one wasn't perfect, but as close as I've found to living up to the book.
Post a Comment