 |
| Sense and Sensibility 1995 |
Having watched both versions of Sense and Sensibility recently, I feel the time is right for a post comparing and contrasting the two versions (does that sound like an English Lit class?-sorry!).
One version I like and the other version I love. Can you already tell which is which?
 |
| Sense and Sensibility 2008 |
The 2008 BBC miniseries with screenplay by Andrew Davies and directed by John Alexander is an excellent treatment of Jane Austen's first published novel. I adore Andrew Davies and I did not envy him the task of following Emma Thompson's Oscar winning screenplay. When he took on the job, he decided to go back to the book and pull out plot points that ET had been forced to omit in her shorter version.
 |
| Willoughby and Marianne |
The dramatization of the seduction scene, the restoration of the elder Steele sister (comic gold, I tell you) and the dueling scene really do add to the meat of this version. There is also no doubt that the scene at Allenham with Willoughby and Marianne is sizzling with sexual tension and greatly adds to Marianne's story.
 |
| OK, little Henry Dashwood was hilarious |
There are lots of things about this version that I truly enjoy. The young actors are amazing and the locations gorgeous and appropriately bleak. To paraphrase Elinor, "I do not attempt to deny that I think very highly of it -- that I greatly esteem, that I like it."
However, I think you have guessed by now that the version I truly adore is the 1995 Emma Thompson/Ang Lee masterpiece. I just popped it in my DVD player and the first strains of music go straight to my heart!
 |
| Oh, the hats of Sense and Sensibility! |
 |
| Oh, the scenery and the cinematography! |
Ang Lee's direction is also heartbreakingly artistic. How a Taiwanese man was able to interpret the intentions of a 200 year old story by an English lady is a mystery, but there it is!
 |
| But the music! |
The original score of Sense and Sensibility is some of the most sublime music ever composed. Was there ever a film so enhanced and elevated by it's music? Both the background music and the piano compositions played by Marianne...sigh!
And if I start waxing poetic about the superb acting in this film by some of England's finest thespians this post will go on forever.
OK, time for my readers to weigh in. What do you like or dislike about each of these two versions? Don't hold back!
P.S. I have also recently compared TV/film adaptations of Pride and Prejudice if you would like to join that discussion too!
I prefer the latter for all the reasons you state, although the ET version still holds a treasured spot in my heart, and you're right, it does capture the essence of S&S so beautifully with music and visuals.
ReplyDeleteThe acting in both is just superb as are the scripts, and Andrew Davies did opt for the format that enabled him to go longer than 2 hours, which the story needs to be complete.
Although I have to admit that I have only seen the 2008 Andrew Davies version once (I think I borrowed your copy, didn't I?) - I'm going to have to take another look at it, because I don't actually remember the elder Steele sister (anything described as comic gold has got my attention!) or little Henry Dashwood. As you well know, the 1995 Emma Thompson/Ang Lee version is completely written on my heart and I think I know it word for word, note for note, shot for shot. Perfection (sigh)! And I love the extras on the DVD - the commentary by Emma Thompson and Lindsay Doran is too funny (the fainting sheep!) and Emma's acceptance speech at the Golden Globes (written as reportage from Jane Austen herself) is fabulous.
ReplyDeleteBut lend me your copy of 2008 S & S again (I DID give it back, didn't I?) and I'll take another look ... I'm sure I'll greatly esteem it, too.
Haven't yet been able to convince your niece to watch it with me, but one of these days I'm hoping it'll become a mother-daughter bonding moment for us!
I love both versions, but haven't watched them for a few years. On watching the 2008 version, it took top spot, because of all the "extras" of the longer format and feeling the actors were more appropriate...but I also love the 1995 version! I call it a draw...and we can all enjoy both. :) I even did fanvids for both versions. ;)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think Emma's is the superior S&S. I think Thompson and Grant clicked, and Kate Winslet was spot on in her dramatics and acceptance. I can still hear Brandon saying, "Give me something to do or I shall run mad!" And Hugh Laurie nearly stole the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe later version is OK, but I didn't buy it. That tells you something.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think what I dislike about the 1995 version is the cast looks much older than the characters they play. The 2008 cast looks more the age of the characters they play. But I love both, and you can't go wrong with either. But I think I would lean towards the 2008 version since I love David Morrisey. Even if Col. Brandon is my favorite role that Alan Rickman has done
ReplyDeleteOh well done, Jenny! I too love the music from the 1995 S&S, they need to make more soundtracks like that one! :)
ReplyDeleteHi Jenny:
ReplyDeleteI would have to say without a doubt the 1995 version. And not only because it was my first exposure to Jane Austen. Although I liked seeing the extended scenes in the newer version, I love the cast of Ang Lee's masterpiece. I think Alan Rickman could act with the back of his head!
I think a movie version of Sense and Sensibility hangs on casting the right Colonel Brandon and Edward. They are gone for such long passages of the story that they have to be memorable and make an impact. Edward was great, but I thought Col. Brandon was lacking. For me he was too reserved. Perhaps it was the directing. I would have chosen Willobey as well.
Dare I say it...I am torn however, between Emma Thompson and Hattie Morahan as Elinor. They both captured the role perfectly.
Hello Sense and Sensibility lovers! I am so glad there is no consensus on this one. Yay for both versions! And apparently I will have to lend my 2008 version to my sister again so she can appreciate the comic genius of Jane Austen in the form of the elder Miss Steele and her many beaux!
ReplyDeleteyou know, i thought that this would've been an easy going, stressfree blog... but now i have to choose the better between two perfectly excellent movies?!:)...sigh
ReplyDelete"I think Alan Rickman could act with the back of his head!" - soo funny but soo true. (i even liked him in Robinhood)
i really loved the cast for both but with a preference for 1995's Elinor's 'paroxysmal' reaction at the end(kinda like a 3D effect of her emotions), Colonel Brandon and Mr Palmer and his wife. for 2008 the heavyweight is Edward and the chemistry between himself and Elinor and the rest of Elinor's family. but both stories - excellent.
I definitely prefer the 2008 version. Personnaly I find Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant too modern for the movie. Also the music from the new series is so beautiful... I don't know about you guys but the music from the 1998s didn't stay in my mind.
ReplyDeleteCan someone please explain to me why Marianne called Fanny, "Aunt Fanny" or "Aunt" during the first 9 minutes of the 2008 version?
ReplyDeleteHello Jaunita. Andrew Davies made a mistake! You are so right. I never noticed that Marianne calls her Aunt Fanny in the 2008 version, although all the references to her husband call him their brother or half-brother. Rare mistake for the brilliant Andrew Davies! Shall we let him know or do you think he caught it but too late?
DeleteActually, Collins English Dictionary lists a third definition of "aunt" as: "a term of address used by children for any woman, especially a friend of the parents." It was a less formal address than "Mrs. Dashwood," but not so intimate as calling Fanny by her first name, which would have been considered disrespectful. So no worries about Andrew Davies' brilliance! ;) He's just a little too brilliant for modern society. It took quite a bit of research for me to find the explanation!
DeleteIt is the 2008 version all the way for me. Very true to the book but with just the right amount of embellishment. Hattie Morahan is not only more believable as Eleanor, but also made the part her own. She was superb. Dan Stevens also made Edward far more sympathetic than the very stilted performance by Hugh Grant. The settings, the music and the casting were all spot on. There really is no comparison. One is a stand alone film, the other is a brilliant representation of the novel.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous. For fave version of Sense and Sensibility, there seems to be a split down the middle. I think maybe the younger crowd tends to prefer the newer version. Goes to show that both are wonderful and deserve to be appreciated!
DeleteI, like many of you, am really torn. There are many qualities of the 95 version, most notably the performances of Alan Rickman, Kate Winslet, and yes, Hugh Laurie, that are indelibly etched in my catalog of fondness. But I agree with many posters that Hattie Morahan was sublime in her subdued suffering. I also felt that many of those cast in the 1995 version were older than they ought to have been in order to be true to the story. Just think on it...it did seem absurd for Colonel Brandon (AR) to be considering Marianne for a wife, but Elinor (ET) would not have seemed a stretch at all. I even recall thinking after the production was over and it became public knowledge that ET and Greg Wise (Willoughby) were an item that he is awfully young for her, when in fact he is only 7 years younger than her but was 9 years older than Kate Winslet, making Emma and Kate 16 years apart in age.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I just don't dig Hugh Grant. He did too many movies in that era like Notting Hill and 4 Weddings and a Funeral where he plays kind of a foppish absent minded pushover. I think of Edward Ferrars as being a dutiful, honorable man who would foresake his own feelings and hopes of personal happiness to uphold a vow he made as a younger man. Daniel Stevens seems tortured by his obligation to Lucy Steele, whereas Hugh Grant just comes off as confused.
Ang Lee is Taiwanese. Also a little offensive that you said that it was a mystery to you that he was able to interpret Austen's intentions based solely on his race...
ReplyDeleteI am very sorry if any offence was taken to my perhaps flippant remark. I have corrected his nationality (thanks for pointing that out). I actually think it is rather wonderful that the filmmakers were able to see past his nationality and sex to see that he could really express Jane Austen in film. Again, apologies.
DeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteCould you tell me, what is the second piece Marianne had played at the beginning of the 1995 version - aprox. at 4:30.
Thank you very much in advance.
Regards,
Ildikó
Hello Ildiko. I don't know what that piece of music is. You mean the one where Elinor says "I meant something less mournful dear" don't you? I looked online and there doesn't seem to be a name for it. Anyone else know? Wiki answers?
DeleteHello Jenny,
DeleteYes, exactly. I have spent myself days on the internet searching for it, but it seems, nobody likes these kind of sad songs :)
Btw. the piece's mood I looking for is recall op. 28 no. 4 by Chopin for me, but unfortunately I am not familar with his oeuvre.
I saw the ET version first and loved it, then I read the book and thought, "Wait a minute, where's all these characters?" The ET version cut out so many people which added depth and sorry to say it but ET was way too old to play Eleanor, she just didn't look 19. I listened to her commentary and she noted that which I believe she took offense but sorry ET it's the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC version casts actors/actresses that look the part age wise. It included so many characters that were left out and added to important scene of Willoughby coming to see about Marianne when she was sick.
So because I like versions that stick to the book I like the BBC better but will say that the ET one is beautiful and the music is awesome. I personally love Alan Rickman so of course I loved him in the ET one.
Hi Anonymous. We are lucky to have both versions aren't we? And the book of course. I hope they do another version of each book every decade. Never too much Austen on film for me!
DeleteI love the '95 Ang Lee-Emma Thompson version and have always thought it excelled in every way. However, I find that I have had to revise my oppinion slightly, as I favor Dan Stevens' Edward to Hugh Grant's. I think his (DS') Edward more present and believable, and I suppose more real. Not that I had a problem with Grant's version before, it's just now that I have seen Stevens', I find his interpretation is better.
ReplyDelete/SHS
Hi SHS. I am really fond of both versions at this point. I hope we get a new version of each Austen novel at least every 10 years. Each generation has to have their own version right?
DeleteI love the 1995 version...just watched it again today for the umpteenth time and still teared up at the end and sighed "what a great movie". Beautiful!
ReplyDeleteHi LilyGarden. I love the quote by Ang Lee. He wanted to "break people's hearts so badly that they'll still be recovering from it two months later"
DeleteWell, it is coming up to 20 years and we are still reeling!
You really made me think...and now, I conclude that for me it's undecided! I really love them both...I like 1995 for beauty, and 2008 for depth. Just one thing...David Morrisey made me fall in love with on screen Colonel Brandon for the first time. Alan Rickman never did... ;-)
ReplyDeleteHi LifeAsMom. I think it is Alan Rickman's voice that gets me more than anything. Especially in that scene near the end where he is reading a poem to Marianne in front of the cottage. Mmmm. However, I will pay extra attention to David Morrisey next time I watch the 2008 version. You have now made me want to see it again!
Delete1995 is a masterpiece. The music fits perfectly, whereas 2008's music is too harsh. 1995 version reminds me of the music in "A Room With A View". The acting is just superior by everyone in 1995....they portray all the peculiarities of each character to perfection. I must have seen 1995 version at least 50 times. I prefer the High Grant Edward because he is soooo awkward and stiff mannered, LOL. Also 1995 Willoughby is perfectly cast....
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget Alan Rickman. He has such a small part in the movie but made such a huge impression. He will always be Colonel Brandon to me.
DeleteYes, I prefer Alan Rickman. I wish all the actors from 1995 were in the 2008 movie :-).
DeleteIn my opinion 1995 is the better movie and I very much love it - but 2008 tells the Austen story better. The very core of this novel is the relationship between Marianne and Eleanor, of two sisters. In the 1995 version the age difference between the actors is obviously so big (ET is more than 15 years KWs senior) and Eleanor so much more mature than Marianne that they seem more like mother/daughter or rather aunt/nice than sisters. In the 2008 version they are two sisters - one more earnest, the other more emotional - but still both are on the same level. Having close sisters myself I love this about the new version.
ReplyDeleteHello Anon! It is great that we have two wonderful choices for adaptations of this amazing book. Emma Thompson and Andrew Davies gave us their best in each case. Bravo!
Delete