In the English-speaking cinematography, 1995 was the year of Jane Austen. As if trying to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the writer, who since the 20th century became to some extent even a cult figure, the filmmakers created just three versions of her novels “Sense and Sensibility”, “Pride and Prejudice” and “Emma”. I like the Jane Austen’s creativity and read almost all her books. I saw a lot of different adaptations of the book “Pride and Prejudice”, and by and large I like all of them. After seeing the film adaptation of “Sense and Sensibility”, directed by Ang Lee ("Sense And Sensibility (1995)"), I think that it is one of the best not only in the light of the Austen’s works, but also among all the books adaptations in general. In addition, I cannot leave aside the scriptwriter. In my opinion, Emma Thompson has done an incredible job. Very rarely, you see a screen version of the novel, in which there is only a small flaw, there are different own scenes, but the idea one hundred percent displayed the whole spirit of the novel. Excellent work was done by Emma, which we will examine in details.
The famous English writer Jane Austen in due time and to this day continues delighting the readers with her love and sometimes ironic stories. Her words do have an original own style, but the originality of the plot does not shine a bright light (possibly, if you look closely at the subtle details, this view will disappear), but pleasantly makes happy with unpredictable storylines. Therefore, Austen’s creativity is so appreciated after the centuries.
As to Ang Lee, he could always fill his movies with a special atmosphere. Then, the atmosphere of past years was conveyed very smoothly and even beautifully: the past, when there were no mobile phones at hand and the computer was replaced by books and a grand piano in the living room. It is always nice to look at the time of the previous years, perfectly conveyed by the director.
This picture opens our eyes to what is really felt by women and what a men’s pattern of thoughts is. The love story of two sisters – Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, simply breathes romance, passion, the fire of desires of the human soul. All emotions and feelings are so touching that it is impossible not to love this movie. And yet, everything here is graceful, vivid and genuine. The plot intrigues with its simplicity of action and at the same time the complexity of the relationships between the characters and the society, where any manifestation of sensory impulses is condemned with merciless cruelty.
Yes, I incredibly liked the film adaptation of “Sense and Sensibility”, but especially I would like to mention the scriptwriter Emma Thompson. As a sculptor cuts unnecessary out of the stone and turns it into a work of art, so in this film the screenwriter together with the director preserved the authentic spirit of the book, somewhat departing from the book. In each scene, you feel love and respect of the creators to the original product, which definitely wins over the devoting fans of Jane Austen in general and “Sense and Sensibility” in particular. However, this is not surprising, because the scriptwriting took Emma Thompson nearly five years. The characters have been completely preserved, and the plot has not been presented with the sauce of artificial modernity, which is so often abused by many directors. They did not point at the foreign issues, which the author of the book herself did not mean to disclose. This film was very colorful and understandable to modern audiences.
Before us, there is a good emotional story, not in the sense that two hours one breaks into a smile. The main characters, two young girls of the Dashwood’s family, embody the piety and sincerity. Dropped by the wave of circumstances from their usual life, they did not follow the path of sabotage and hatred. We are immediately urged to understand that the enemies in this world are abundant, just like the powerful royal people, who treat those who cannot afford the same prosperity and gloss with contempt. In this sense, everyone quickly gets imbued with empathy to Marianne and Elinor, clearly defining them as the goodies, to whom you subconsciously wish well-being and proper attitudes of others.
Again returning to the screenwriter, it is worth noting her talent in the light of an excellent characters’ presentation. Some characters are even revealed better than in the book by Austin. For example, while reading, I got an impression about Marianne Dashwood as a few superficial girl, although the author clearly implied the opposite. Picture suffering, selfishness and arrogance of some of the characters that I imagined while reading the book could not fold too positive image in my mind. However, thanks to the wonderful Kate Winslet’s acting, my opinion has changed. It fully convinced me that Marianne deserved devotion, respect and love of her wonderful sister, and her emotions and behavior were natural and justified because of the situation.
I liked many of the secondary characters, as they created the canvas, in which the virtues and drawbacks of the main characters were reflected exactly as it was intended by Austen. Mrs. Palmer was slightly irritating. The role turned out to be too comical and deliberate, but it had no impact on the perception of the film. The image of Lucy Steele was conveyed a little bit loosely. In the book, due to her flattery and persistence, she had to be a contrast to quiet dignity of Elinor Dashwood, so that there was no doubt about who should be chosen as a wife to Edward Ferrars (Ebert). Lucy in the film has turned out less vulgar and more secular, that made us think about whether it is worth treating this character too negatively.
The role of Colonel Brandon in the book makes him a background character, which is suitable as a pair to Marianne, while Austen has never left her main characters without a pair. Actually, the character of the film appeared to be just for a background as well. He should be there, so he is, but if, for example, we were told about him from the gossip of Mrs Jennings or some letters, this film would have lost almost nothing.
More than two hours of the picture fly imperceptibly. An interesting and thought out storyline makes us be imbued with a touching love story of two sisters, whose life was far from sweet after their father's death. Bright, emotional, direct Marianne and thoughtful, judicious and sensible Elinor complement and hold on to each other, trying to overcome the adversity and challenges and striving for happiness. Love is not an easy burden, especially if it is rejected by a lover. And in those days expressing one’s feelings was much harder than now. Any wrong move, inappropriate phrase, accidentally said out loud in the street, and the society immediately begins to judge your good manners and earnest intentions. This is one of the most important things that Austen wanted to convey, and Ang Lee together with Emma Thompson were able to perfectly do the same.
As for the cinematographic part of the movie, I undoubtedly liked acting, namely how successfully the actors convey the atmosphere of relations between the main characters. The love scenes are done without kissing, but that does not upset, because everything is so clear in their views, from the smile to the accidental contact of hands. It is dominated by self-restraint and harmony. Everything is as it should be. It is not surprising, because in the film there were involved still young but so talented British actors, who repeatedly proved their genuine acting talent. Actors, who have become real stars already, perfectly presented their characters. Hugh Grant’s role really moves deeply. Special thanks to Alan Rickman. The characters were so different, but the acting perfectly conveyed all of them.
The creators of the film “Sense and Sensibility” managed to reconcile two human tendencies – either to asses everything with rigorous mind, or to be given to the power of one’s own heart. There is some slyness in proving that the elder sister Elinor is more likely to trust the voice of reason – she gets a reward, her fiance Edward, who seemed to be lost for her already. And too impressionable Marianne, who has experienced the collapse of hasty love to narcissistic handsome named Willoughby, finds happiness, where she was not looking for – a middle-aged (by the standards of the time) Colonel Brandon offers her hand and heart. Two marriages, concluded, according to the novel, with a considerable gap, are united by Thompson’s will – only in order to demonstrate the triumph of the indissolubility of not only the holy bonds of matrimony, but also inseparable connection of common sense and sensitivity.
We should note that no matter how diligently the writers, directors and actors did their best, film adaptation would still not be satisfactory. And the smallest defects can be inflated to the size of the universe. This cannot be avoided. I will tell you about a couple of bugs and incoincidences that there were in the novel, but absent in the film, or vice versa. For example, there were cut some of the events, but they did not have the key meaning to the plot. The film did not include a too melodramatic scene of Willoughby’s arrival at the Palmer House, where at that time sick Marianne was. The audience lost absolutely nothing, but we got the scene of dating and convergence of Elinor and Edward. Unfortunately, it is absent in the novel. And the same Edward as a character in the film is worked out better. I am not going to criticize the film for a free treatment of Margaret’s image, because in the book it is one of the poorest characters. For example, in the film adaptation of the 1981 the director decided to do without it. Of course, in general, almost all the characters got a slightly different interpretation: Mrs Jennings is much more eccentric, Mr. Palmer is deeper and sarcastic, not rude, Mrs. Dashwood is completely helpless in everyday matters, and Elinor is, conversely, too economic. But all these changes on my eyes come in handy. The only thing it seems is that Lucy Steele is presented a little sketchy. In the book, she is a complete antagonist of Elinor, as she is paid a lot of space and attention to (Laity). And since the film expelled some of the characters, then their relationship with Lucy was not disclosed as well. Namely, they revealed her character, sickly deceitful, unscrupulous and even violent (we can only mention a treatment of her sister, which she fleeced at the end and threw completely alone).
There are flaws, related to the display of the manners of that time. For example, women do not wear gloves, even doing some gentle handwork: cutting cane, digging flowerbeds. Also, in the film there was a very unpleasant scene with Elinor’s hysteria, where she explains Marianne that she is just unhappy in love as she is. In the book, even in this case, Elinor does not change herself. Her own words are "Calm, with what I am saying it". However, in the film it turns out that Elinor’s self-control is something imaginary, and the image of the hysteric is out of place. But this is only a small drawback. Even though there are some discrepancies in age, as is the case with Elinor Dashwood, the actress is much older than her character. All the actors look very organically in their roles. Their acting does not call the slightest rejection. Thus, we see that, as in any film adaptation, we has something to complain about. But in this particular case, all defects are leveled to a huge number of advantages, which are clearly overlapping a few minuses.
In any case, the film has left a positive impression, and called to reveal the idea that love can be completely different, and if it is quiet and carefully concealed, it is no less powerful than the love, which one does not want to hide, and feelings of a person, who is restraining himself, are not less deep than the ones of someone, who is showing his emotional experiences around the world. Screen version reveals all the characters, the spirit of the time, keeping all the important details. Emma Thompson has done a great job. In my opinion, success of the picture depends precisely on its excellent adaptation of the novel.
Works cited
Ebert, Roger. "Sense And Sensibility Movie Review (1995) | Roger Ebert". Rogerebert.com. N.p., 1995. Web. 11 May 2016.
Laity, Paul. "My Favourite Film: Sense And Sensibility". the Guardian. N.p., 2011. Web. 11 May 2016.
"Sense And Sensibility (1995)". IMDb. Web. 11 May 2016.
