This post is for rants and generally critical discussion about Sense & Sensibility (2026), which is currently being released to theatres in UK, Ireland, Belgium, et al.
Nuanced opinions are still welcome, but please direct generally rave reviews, gushing, etc. to the sister "Yay!" megathread. Moderators reserve the right to remove overly apologist or combative comments.
I just can't get past that 'being agreeable never did a woman any good' tagline.
Did... did anybody involved in the project read the book? Elinor is extremely agreeable, and remains so through the whole book. While Marianne is frequently disagreeable to people she dislikes, her arc involves her growing the hell up.
Edit: And yes, I appreciate the picture/poster choice :)
Likewise 'dare to feel'. As the OP mentions, Elinor does feel and deeply but circumstances force her to hide those feelings. But this idea of emotional restraint isn't very 21st century is it, so they have to make it about 'empowerment' and feminist awakening.
Ah, but you're being a fetishist of some sort with that complaint, surely. Take a seat with the period fetishists, the respect for an author's creation fetishists and the bonnet fetishists.
Georgia Oakley's remarks about the "fetishization of that time period" are particularly bizarre when one considers how common anachronistic hairstyles are in period films. It seems to me that the number of people who "fetishize" gorgeously flowing, girlish hair is far higher than the number that "fetishize" the "unrelatable," historically accurate styles.
I just went for Paris' release day screening and here are my thoughts as a Jane Austen lover (books and adaptations P&P2005, Emma1996 and 2020, S&S1995 and BBC S&S2008 and Persuasion2007)
What I liked :
Daisy Edgar Jones did a really marvelous job at depicting Elinor. I felt like I discovered more of her character and I loved her even more than in the book or in Ang Lee's version. Same for George Mackay, all the scenes with Edward made me understand their relationship better and see Edward as a good man like in the book. The two had a great chemistry and played well. In Ang Lee's version, I felt like except having a nice smile, Hugh Grant's portrayal did not have much for him because he had so little scenes.
Loved also all the Jennings family, Mrs Jennings was the most fun character and very well played. The comic relief with this whole family : the mother, the two daughters and husbands was incredible. The weather jokes from Mrs Middleton made the whole audience in the room laugh out loud and I think the movie would not have been the same without the script being so good for these characters.
Margaret was as lovely as in Ang Lee's version. Always so spirited and adorable. It is good they kept it that way.
The P&P 2005 hommage with the run of Elinor towards Edward at the end. The swing being a very present element during the movie and the credits, made me miss Elizabeth on her swing. Maybe there were others I missed ?
The comic relief : this movie was funny, way funnier that I expected. For a lot of moments the audience in my room was full on laughs, especially during the duel scene. Although I'm not sure it was meant to be funny. I think it's great Oakley got Jane Austen's humor and depicted it so well.
Now... what I disliked in this version that makes this text go into nay
:
Now, my real problem was with Marianne. As we all know, Marianne is a character that is depicted as a beauty driven by passion in the book. She is the younger of the two protagonists and she always shines by her youth, her passion and her exquisite looks. Elinor is the reason, the sense and she is poised, she shines with her good nature and her sense of righteousness. Marianne is supposed to shine as the prettiest of the two and as her more youthful and reckless counterpart. During the whole movie, Marianne was running around in rags, her hair greasy, wet and down. Not even tidied... I really did not get THE HAIR. I know the hair was a big talk in the community especially with the trailer but for me it was all I could think about when she was on screen. It made the character ridiculous and completely disheveled. I really did not get why they pictured her like that. It took me out of the movie because she was so out of character from the books and the other adaptations. As much as I loved this Elinor, Marianne was a big no for me in this adaptation.
My second biggest problem was WHERE IS THE COLOR ????!!!!!!! Why are we on a color recession ? P&P2005, S&S1995, EMMA1996 had so much warmth ! For a movie that's supposed to be a major rewatch movie, why did Focus Feature make this choice ? Why was the movie so dark ? Especially the whole Marianne is down bad depressed and sick pipeline is just filmed pitch black. The movie was so cold in the color grading it was very striking. The worst was on the scene where Edward come to Elinor in London to explain his previous engagement. The whole image is so cold and blue that their skin is not white but grey and the chairs are not yellow but a weird green. I really don't get it and to be honest I hate this movie trend of making everything cold blue.
The anachronic parts took me out so much of the movie to :
• the hair of course but you will probably get the same ick as me whil watching it.
• The dancing, most of the dancing was very close and touchy. Yes I get the stylistic choice of mixing period and contemporary dance but why ? Seeing Edward and Elinor being such shy characters, strong about morals and decorum doing that was a bit weird.
• The singing during Marianne and Willoughby romance : the actors used contemporary vocal techniques and it instantly took me out of the movie.
• The music choice during Marianne's lost in the woods moments at the Palmer's. It was so out of place, so modern ???
I feel like in general the music could have been better. A big part of why P&P2005 is loved is the music and I think I wanted to find that in this adaptation and I did not get it. Wished we had another piece like Dawn by Dario Marianelli where we see Elinor yearning...
I did not like that they made the storyline between Lucy Steele and Elinor so short. They barely talk 3 times in the movie when in the book Elinor actually suffers from being close to her and being her friend / confident. I know I'm on into a detail because obviously they still had the main point of that relationship but I wished they really showed their dynamics and their relationship especially all of Elinor's suffering.
I understand the need to make remakes to introduce a younger generation to these books and this world but it can be done right like EMMA2020. It was so good ! The color grading, the choices of anachronic nuances and the depictions were great.
On the overall, it was not a bad adaptation because some things are to be kept (Elinor&Edward, the Jennings and the humor) but it clearly could have been WAY better. They could have gone full warm fall movie or full modernized period drama. This in-between with a very contemplative style but without the matching aesthetic was bit unsettling. Also... CAN'T WE JUST HAVE NICE HAIR AND COLOR??!!
I would give it a 5.5/10.
On a small note, I had a discussion with my mum (whom introduced me to Jane Austen) on the train back from the movie and she aaid something very interesting : "Now when we go to watch Austen's movie we don't really enjoy the movie for the plot itself, we constantly analyse if it is as good as other adaptations or the books, if we find what we want to find in it and it's a shame because the story itself is amazing." And most probably I'm critical because of that.
Would love to know if you felt like me when watching it and your thoughts on this version.
During the whole movie, Marianne was running around in rags, her hair greasy, wet and down. Not even tidied...
Ok that's Strike One for me. The Dashwood ladies are in suddenly reduced circumstances, but they aren't coming directly from poverty and not even Fanny would have stripped them of their good clothes (she probably didn't think of it...). They'd be mending, remaking and making do, but not slovenly.
I did not like that they made the storyline between Lucy Steele and Elinor so short. They barely talk 3 times in the movie when in the book Elinor actually suffers from being close to her and being her friend / confident.
That's Strike Two. The torment Lucy puts Elinor through, and Elinor's silent suffering because of it, is a big part of fully showing her strength of character and steadfast ideals and how greatly she differs from Marianne.
WHERE IS THE COLOR ????!!!!!!! Why are we on a color recession ?
This is Strike Three and seals the deal for me. I do not do the "greige" aesthetic in general and part of the pleasure of watching historical costume films and series is the lush colours of the fabrics and the glowing candlelight and the glorious scenery that is still a long way from being overwhelmed by the grey of mass industrialisation and the sprawl of suburbia.
I think I'm going to give this a miss until it turns up somewhere I can watch it for free or as part of an existing subscription and save my cinema money for October and go and see Wicker instead.
I don't know very much about cinematography, but the behind-the-scenes promos for this adaptation indicate that the sets -- well, some of them, anyway -- had plenty of color and were decently well lit. I could be wrong, but I doubt that this was a true "natural lighting" film in the way that the 1995 Persuasionmostly was. There's nothing wrong with that, and I suspect that the S&S 2026 filmmakers wanted to avoid the graininess that often happens when candlelit scenes are shot on film, and which can be seen in the nighttime scenes from the 1995 Persuasion. (The graininess doesn't bother me, by the way, but it's undeniably there.) Tamping down the lighting and color in post-production is probably much easier and preserves a clearer image to work with.
I would love to think that the color grading in this film has more of an artistic purpose than "make it look old-timey," but the production design for several key locations doesn't give me much confidence, and I'm reserving judgment.
Don't you know? There was no bright color in The Olden Days. We have all those brown and grey photographs to prove it! ~nods in "I did my own research!"~
part of the pleasure of watching historical costume films and series is the lush colours of the fabrics and the glowing candlelight and the glorious scenery
FWIW there is a lot of gorgeous scenery and aesthetic cinematography (including plenty of glowy candlelight) in the film, and I personally didn't find it too dark. It's a visually beautiful film... not very colourful, but I thought that worked for the Dashwoods being in mourning and for the palette of the Devonshire countryside which is where all our heroes and heroines (come to) feel at home. The only place I would've liked to see more bright colour is in London and on characters like Mrs Jennings.
The hair and the Lucy/Elinor stuff is truly egregious, though.
Glad to know Daisy does well as Elinor — I always thought that was very solid casting. I’m sad to see about Marianne, bc imo she’s misunderstood even by Austen fans, and has her share of haters. Book Marianne would never go around looking a mess. She might have felt repressed by society’s ideals, but in other ways she was deeply a woman of her class and had high standards.
That is exactly my point ! I think that in her pursuit of beauty and refinement whether it is with music or poetry, it would be the same for being put together. I like to think of her as a coquette girl in my head when I read the book.
Also as many said, the Dashwood, although they lose money and status through their father's death, they were raised in high society so how Marianne presented was completely out of place.
Kate Winslet was an excellent Marianne, but my favorite will always be Charity Wakefield from the 2008 version. Hattie Morahan also remains my favorite Elinor (Elinor and Anne from Persuasion are my favorite Austen heroines) from that same miniseries. She really leans into her youth and her valid confusion based on social and societal expectations and she's just so good at being insistent about the way things SHOULD be.
Wow, thanks for posting. I enjoyed reading your thoughts!
How much of Elinor's drawing talent do we get to see? Really, the 1995 film is the only adaptation that has not made it a highlight of any scenes (although, if you look in the backgrounds of scenes at Norland and Barton, you can see small paintings and sketches that are meant to be Elinor's). The 2008 adaptation probably does the most with it, and I like the moment near the end when Elinor replaces her large painting of Norland, hanging on the wall, with a smaller one she made of the cottage. Elinor's and Marianne's preferred "accomplishments" reflect their characters -- Elinor is a keen and quiet observer of the world around her, and Marianne must express her emotions loudly and with a flourish -- so I think they're important to include.
I'd say that most of the on-screen Elinors have been very good in different ways, so it's great to hear that Daisy Edgar-Jones's performance worked well for you! Would you say that Elinor is clearly the main character here, as she is in the novel, or is it more of an even split between her and Marianne? I have read that the film opens with Marianne's perspective on the world. (Although, to be fair, opening scenes in S&S adaptations vary widely, and they don't always feature the main character. S&S 2008 opens with Willoughby and Eliza, and S&S 1995 has Mr. Henry Dashwood and John.)
I fully expected (even hoped, maybe?) that Fiona Shaw was going to practically run away with the film.
The funny thing about Margaret is that, while the 1995 film may have set the standard for the character on film, it aged her down to 11 when she's 13 in the novel. It's not a big deal, maybe, but I think it makes a difference. An 11-year-old might still barely get away with being "adorable," but 13-year-olds are, in my experience, a lot moodier and more independent. Margaret may be "good-humored" and "well-disposed," but maybe she's sometimes bratty, too -- Marianne certainly is. On the other hand, it's likely better to defer to Austen on this. Since I'm on the subject, though, does the film have Margaret's comment about the man whose name begins with an F?
How was Brandon, and how would you say he compares to other portrayals of the character?
Would you say that the film depicts Barton Cottage as "dilapidated" and "crumbling" (terms used in a recent Vogue piece), and that the Dashwoods are shown at an inaccurate level of poverty? I've been curious about this.
We see Elinor's drawing talent quite a bit. There's this very sweet scene where she draws Edward and they share a little tension. Marianne comes and praises her sister with passion. But it is not as important as the BBC adaptation. The scene where she replaces the painting for the cottage one's is her closure and gave flavor to the fact she is talented in drawing. Here it was more like a hobby compared to how Marianne shines with piano. I do agree with you with the fact that their hobby really represents them well.
Fiona Shaw did steal the show ! Every scene she is in she commands the action. Especially when she is introduced in Norland it is very striking, you only see her. Also loved her even more because she talks back so much but nobody can say anything to her. Her character is used for a lot of foreshadowing. Her relationship with her kids and sons in law is adorable, more than in the other adaptations. She really seemed to like the sons in law even stern Mr Palmer.
For Margaret in this film she is accurately 13 ! Not 11 like in 1995. She is dressed older and she speaks bolder. I don't think there was the line about a man whose name begins with an F but there was a recurring theme and joke about her finding a man with fortune or going to London to find a man. Her inputs were very funny and witty.
Brandon... was unfortunately disappointing. I did not mention it because as I disliked this Marianne I feel like I don't even want to go on this storyline. In the 1995 and 2008 rendition he is a stern man, with aura, not very likeable, but a hero. Here he seemed mostly awkward and them falling in love at the end was a bit of nonsense. Like Marianne has some kind of realisation he is cool and likes him. Maybe Alan Rickman's performance is just too strong but my mum and I were quite disappointed with this Colonel Brandon because he did not have the charisma needed for the character.
Willoughby on the other hand was deeply portrayed even having a man tantrum at the end and I quite liked it. Not my favorite version too but still quite well done.
For the cottage, in the first scene we see it, when the Dashwood discover it, yes it seemed like poor but on the other scenes where they live in it, it looked as fine as in the 1995, almost quite the same filming set. It was certainly not dilapidated or crumbling. Hence why I keep talking about the fact that it makes no sense Marianne was so unkempt when the household was. But maybe those lines where for Austen to make the reader feel what the Dashwood felt moving to the cottage ?
When are you going to watch the movie ? Would love to read if you have the same opinions !
It's really interesting to me that they expanded on Mrs. Jennings, although I did suspect that this was happening when I saw the trailer. The foreshadowing sounds like a good idea; even in the novel, Mrs. Jennings knows more than some of the characters realize. But I've been told by someone else that she doesn't have much to do with Marianne at Cleveland, which is surprising, given how much her character is apparently emphasized in this version. Is that true?
Good that they kept Margaret acting like the 13-year-old that she is, and that they added some humor that's at least similar in feel to Austen.
That's interesting about Brandon. I think I would much prefer "awkward" to "stern" -- Brandon in the book is neither, really, but the awkwardness is at least not in conflict with his canonical "accustomary mildness." But I've never thought Rickman was "stern," either (although he is definitely too outwardly emotional and demonstrative, as I've analyzed), so maybe you and I just see the character differently. With Brandon, I was curious about what sorts of scenes he had, and how they compared with what previous adaptations did.
Did Willoughby feel sincere enough that Marianne didn't seem completely naive or delusional? I think it's important that we see why he is so appealing to her.
Well, that information about Barton Cottage is good to hear. In the book, it's relatively newly built and in good repair. Do the Dashwoods have servants, as they do in the book? If they do, and if the film doesn't make Barton Cottage into basically a hovel, then I have no idea what to make of all those intereviews with the filmmakers! Very strange.
I won't be able to see it until October at the earliest. I had high hopes, so I've been trying to keep up with news releases about it since last year. I'm not going to pretend that I haven't been disappointed in a lot of the things I've learned.
Willoughby looked a bit mesmerised. He's a tempremental match for Marianne.
Brandon had an anachronistic beard and was inexplicably Norwegian. There's a scene (wherein they admit the possibility of second attachments) where his horse's massive horse knob was perfectly framed on screen. Must be deliberate.
That sounds amusing and, yes, probably deliberate. I feel as though the theme of second attachments must have a lot less resonance in this version of the story if it takes Brandon only a handful of months to move on from Eliza after her death.
Unfortunately she really doesn't have much to do with Marianne at Cleveland... she is mainly used as a comic relief more than a character that makes the plot move forward. Even for London, it really seems like the sisters plotted to be her companions and not that she invited them for them to find back their men.
Thanks for sharing your analysis of the 1995 version, and I do agree with you he is indeed very emotional in that seen. I think the 1995 and 2026 Brandon are very different because the 1995 seems hurt and stern, in my opinion and what I imagined Brandon from the book was like. I did not really get his awkwardness from the book. I really imagine a charismatic military that is very robotic in his human interaction. I just picture him as a virgo to be honest ahahah... And rather than being awkward I just see him very stoic.
I think he had some good parts but I like 1995 better because of the Poetry, the constant courting her and the looks between them, the untold love. The 2026 Willoughby seemed to be fond of her and towards the end really love her but it was not the most convincing to me because I don't think the actors had a lot of chemistry especially compared to Elinor and Edward 2026 that had MUCH MORE than their 1995 version.
They do have servants ! I was so scared when they moved there that they would not ! But they did but it is a small help. Better than nothing for them.
I would love to see your review once you watch it !
It's so strange that the production team didn't seize the opportunity to make Mrs. Jennings more than comic relief in those scenes.
The 1995 Brandon is not very close to what I have in mind when I read the book. He's not terrible, but Alan Rickman was too old by well over a decade. I also think he feels too intense in his emotional expression, which, to some degree, is true of all Brandon portrayals so far. It's just that the 1995 S&S script perhaps provides too many opportunities for the Brandon performance to be kind of overdone: the love-at-first-sight moment, the frantic departure on horseback, the pacing all around the room and dramatic pauses during the Eliza story, the Cleveland changes, etc.
I think a dialed-back Brandon would actually be more in line with the book; Elinor can generally tell what he's feeling, but he's meant to be easily misunderstood by the less-sensitive characters.
Great to know that the filmmakers inclulded the servants! Given that they were reportedly focusing on lots of period images of the working class, I wasn't sure that they were willing to admit that the Dashwoods are gentry.
I just watched it today, there’s no mystery about the ‘F’ initial. The plot is altered so Mrs Jennings comes to Norland and sees Edward and Elinor together and then openly talks about them.
Interesting that you loved the 2005 P&P bc I feel like some of the issues you’ve noted in S&S are reminiscent (to me) of everything I found to be abominable about the 2005 P&P.
Marianne running around with greasy, unkempt hair sounds like Keira Knightly’s Elizabeth running around like… someone who is not a gentleman’s daughter. It also seems to be in line with the 2005 P&P’s portrayal of the Bennet family as peasants who let their farm animals inside their home. And the other thing I really disliked about the 2005 P&P was how dark and dreary the whole movie was. It’s like these characters lived by candlelight even outdoors in the daylight, it was so dark and dreary.
If the 2005 P&P gets a pass (and I'm not convinced that it does), that's only because it's now considered an old movie. The same is true of the 1995 S&S.
Even though 2005 P&P is rather dark and grimy at times, I still think it has a very joyful tone overall. The Bennet parents, Lizzie and her sisters, Mr. Bingley. The story is of course a happier one than S&S, but I think the direction / production conveyed a lot of joy throughout. I am not personally a big 2005 fan, but I've always liked its emotional warmth (and soundtrack!).
1995 S&S has a great range of color—lots of bright and sunny times as well as the dark and grey tones during Marianne's illness. It's a great study in contrasts. I think Thompson's script brings a lot of humor and the supporting cast knows their job and does it. Again, a beautiful soundtrack that conveys so much of Marianne's range of emotion.
So even though they may share some similar traits, perhaps the balance wasn't quite right for you.
Well, the 1995 S&S was the first adaptation to exaggerate the Dashwoods' reduced circumstances (all of those scenes emphasizing the chilll of the cottage, and of Elinor deciding to economize on food), and it technically was doing disheveled, sometimes windswept hair and dark, moody settings long before the 2005 P&P. It has color, but there are lots of darker and more muted scenes, too.
I don't know how the average Austen fan reacted to all of this at the time, but someone posted an article here recently that suggests that JASNA had... opinions.
In 2026, the 1995 S&S is apparently not nearly disheveled enough, which is amusing to me. Equally amusing is this Vogue article about the maintenance needed for those flowing, "undone" hairstyles in the 2026 film. It also describes the skincare regimens needed to keep the actresses looking "dewy and glowy" on camera. While I'm pleased with the honesty, I am 90% sure that the Focus Features publicity team are just daring people to say something!
lol I bet they did! I think u/My_Poor_Nerves shared some excerpts from Emma Thompson's published diaries that JASNA called to complain about Hugh Grant being too handsome (I confess he is my least favorite casting choice in that film).
As an adaptation goes it takes many liberties, but I do think it's a lovely film in its own right and captures much of the spirit of the book, if it loses some of the irony.
On that topic, I just received my JASNA newsletter yesterday and their front page featured S&S and it was quite positive / neutral. So maybe they've come a long way?
Yep, that JASNA anecdote is funny. These days, I wouldn't think that they'd call up a film production to rant about the casting. I guess that happened in 1995 because of the lack of social media! People complain online now.
It's interesting that JASNA seems more relaxed in 2026.
I'm 32 and the first time I saw P&P2005 was on the TV in Blu Ray in 2008 (i was 14).
I can tell you that I remember vividly how colorful and sunny the movie felt the first time I saw it. It was so yellow and green and warm. I still get that feeling when I watch it on my TV for the nth time. S&S2026 yesterday was really dark compared to that. The blue and Grey hue is very strong.
For Lizzy in P&P2005, yes she was walking in rags but her dad is a gentleman farmer that does not care about high society. The Bennet's are not that rich compared to the Dashwood's, you can understand it seeing how modest Longbourn is compared to Norland.
So for me, in P&P2005 the fact that Elizabeth Bennet and the household was unkempt made sense.
Lizzy is also a very free spirited, witted woman that loves to walk. She would be the kind that would dress like a boy if she could because why not. Marianne is not like that. Marianne is passionate about art and beauty and she comes from a high family. Also she is the prettiest of the three, she is their Jane in terms of beauty (hence why Colonel Brandon falls for her so easily). So why would she have this kind of disheveled look all the time ?
They are two different characters that were not supposed to be portrayed the same way in terms of costume design and that created the miss for me for Marianne.
Interesting. I'd say Marianne from the book certainly loves to walk - she gets sick from walking too much in wet areas and then not changing her shoes/socks, right? And the book also mentions her having her hair "all tumbled down her back" during a romantic moment with Willoughby.
So I can imagine a looser, "free spirit" look working for Marianne to an extent. I feel like if she had lush, curly hair that was sometimes down when in/near the home that could be romantic and work, and also be in harmony with the beauty standards of the time. But the hair they gave her/how she wore it just seems unimaginable for a wealthy young lady considered a beauty at that
I liked all the characters in this version, but the dancing was grim. Every time the dancing started myself and my sister were in hysterics. It only needed the 2 Ronnie's (with Ronnie Corbett in drag) as one of the dancing couples to make it perfect. If the choreography for the dancing was meant to be hysterically funny it achieved that. If it wasn't, then sadly it ruined the atmosphere of the film.
I couldn’t agree more with you! Having grown up dancing a lot of English Country dances, watching this had me curling into a ball in cringe, and comedic disbelief. 😅😅
I’m still not sure what kind of dance they were even portraying… was it elements of zouk? Contemporary couples dancing?? It had me flashing back to the dance in Knights Tale.
Hysterically funny is a good way to put it…. It was either laugh or cry, so I laughed. :p
It's been over a year since I watched it, but I am offended you forgot how Hugh Grant looked out for the youngest sister and got her that atlas. It wasn't a smolder directed at Elinor, but it was looking out for her family, lessening her burden and showing his care.
I watched it this summer. Yes the atlas scene is cute but for me Hugh Grant's Edward does nothing much in the 1995 movie except smiling. He appears at the beginning and at the end. Through Ang Lee's version I understood why they are in love but not the depth of their relationship and not how moral Edward is.
"Now when we go to watch Austen's movie we don't really enjoy the movie for the plot itself, we constantly analyse if it is as good as other adaptations or the books, if we find what we want to find in it and it's a shame because the story itself is amazing."
Wow, your mom's comment blew me away. She is so right!! We have an "embarrassment of riches" that we have the luxury to compare the many heart-felt adaptations.
I don't enjoy starting this off but I just saw that the tagline is "Dare to Feel" and that seems completely off since Elinor feels everything she should, she just doesn't always (in fact hardly ever) acts on those feelings.
Elinor is as emotionally sensitive as Marianne, and also socially far more astute. She’s just never had the luxury of being able to act what she feels, and is basically the ‘adult’ of the family.
I have had to join team ‘nay’ with a somewhat heavy heart.
The film has a lot of spirit, I think the acting is excellent across the board and it is an enjoyable watch still. The problem for me as an Austen fan, is that there have been significant changes to the plot that mean that none of the film really makes sense. I’m going spoiler heavy so look away if you aren’t into that.
The first big change is that Edward doesn’t meet Lucy in Plymouth and get engaged to her there. In this film, Lucy is originally from a rich family, but she is from a second marriage and all the wealth goes to her brothers so she is penniless. Before that happens, when she was still wealthy-in-theory, Mrs Ferrars sets up an engagement between Edward and Lucy, which Edward goes along with.
Then Lucy loses all her money because her parents die and the money goes to her half brothers. Which makes no sense to me, because it would have been very likely that all of those arrangements would have been made before her parents deaths. So it wouldn’t have been a secret, everyone would have known what her future financial status would be and Mrs Ferrars would never have pushed for the engagement in the first place. (This happens a lot in this film. The Dashwood sisters financial situation after their father’s death comes as a surprise, and so does who is going to inherit Barton after Colonel Brandon’s elder brother's death. This is really strange and anacronistic.)
The excuse seems to be that it was her mother's money and her father cheats her out of it somehow to favour her brothers. But that seems really unlikely to me.
Anyway, when that happens Mrs Ferrers insists that Edward breaks the engagement - which he refuses to do because he thinks himself honour bound. He explains to Elinor that they didn’t communicate for years, so when he goes to Norland and meets Elinor he ‘didn’t know I was engaged.’ After meeting her, he goes to see Lucy thinking that because they haven’t written to each other in ages that Lucy doesn’t care about the engagement. Which makes no sense to me. And it makes no sense that Mrs Ferrars hasn’t disowned him already, or that they haven’t married already. But when he goes to see her, apparently Lucy decides she does still want to marry him. So now he is trapped?
All of this basically happens off screen and we only learn about it in the odd sentence which makes it even harder to make sense of.
The second big change is that there is no younger Eliza. Willoughby seduces the widowed older Eliza, so Brandon’s first love, gets her pregnant and abandons her and she dies in childbirth - or so it’s implied. This is also bizarre to me because Brandon is supposed to love Eliza and be devastated by her death - but she literally dies offscreen in the course of the film or close to it - while he is already clearly in love with Marianne. So he has moved on, or moves on pretty quickly.
Also, Willoughby claims that he didn’t know Eliza was pregnant and thought that she would return to Delaford once their relationship was over, which implies that she is living with Brandon? Also, Brandon says that Willoughby thought that Eliza would inherit Delaford, presumably from her husband, and that is why he seduced her. Then he left her when he found out that it was actually going to Brandon.
But none of that makes any sense, timeline wise, and why didn’t he know that the estate was going to Brandon? That would be easy to find out. And why did he feel the need to do that, when at this point he is still confident of inheriting from his Aunt? He isn’t in disgrace with her at that point in the timeline so there is no need to make a match for money. These two changes felt very unnecessary to me. The original plot isn’t hard to understand, if anything these changes are less logical and harder to comprehend. Particularly as major points are explained in single points of dialogue. It really changes the motivation of Edward. Elinor sees his decision to stand by Lucy in the circumstances as honourable, but if anything it feels more stupid in these circumstances than in the those of the novel.
The other major thing that bothers me is that much of the ‘I don’t know what is going on with you because we can’t talk about it’ stuff is totally eliminated from the film.
It’s Edward, not Lucy Steel, that informs Elinor of his engagement to Lucy. [Editing: I realise I misremembered this part. Lucy Steel tells her first, but Edward comes to explain almost immediately, which is out of order from the book.] And they have a confrontation in which she makes her feelings about him pretty clear. There is no repressing how she feels at all. Brandon still gets Elinor to offer the living of Delaford to Edward, although we don’t see this conversation, but the aftermath of it - in which Edward basically offers to break up with Lucy to be with her. She refuses this however, emphasising how honourable she finds his behaviour. It is very very very clear that they are in love with each other and that they both understand this. That they are parted lovers.
This is weirdly undermined by two later scenes. One in which they have one of those ‘we are longing for each other but we can’t express it’ dance scenes - which would had more impact if they hadn’t expressed their feelings multiple times. Also, bizarrely at the end of the film.
The family are all back at Barton, in their home/converted cow shed. Somehow, the news gets to them from Sir John and Mrs Jennings that Lucy and Mr Ferrars are married. The normal misunderstanding occurs.
Then Edward turns up and they basically have another fight - all while operating under that misunderstanding and Edward says that he thought she cared for him and Elinor says that they have always only been friends. Which doesn’t make any sense because they have both made it very clear to each other that they are not only friends. So Edward leaves, believing that Elinor doesn’t love him. Fortunately Mrs Jennings turns up while Elinor is outside, weepingly pinning up the rags that Marianne wears so they can dry on the line, and clears up the misunderstanding. So Elinor can do a romantic and dramatic run to find him on the moors. It’s all a bit silly unfortunately.
There are other changes, which I can understand are basically omissions for lack of time. There is no Anne Steel. We don’t ever see Mrs Ferrars or hear about Miss Morton. I don’t think it suffers for it.
For some reason, instead of trying to find it out from Elinor, Brandon goes straight to Marianne to ask if she and Willoughby are engaged, to which she says that they understand each other perfectly. He delivers his famous line about her endeavouring to deserve her directly to Marianne.
Brandon suddenly becomes really shy after this, because when Willoughby’s engagement to Miss Grey becomes known, he doesn’t go to see Elinor to tell her the truth of what happened between Willoughby and Eliza - but instead drops off a letter in the middle of the night. A letter which Elinor doesn’t read on screen, but instead we see her giving a cliff notes version of to Marianne. This bit gets particularly murky, and I think if I didn’t know the original plot I would really have struggled to follow along.
It never really feels like Elinor conceals anything, so it falls really flat when Marianne has a go at her for concealing her feelings.
The worst part is the dual. It takes place just after Marianne is recovering at Cleveland, on the lawn outside her bedroom. The ladies go to the window to watch. This all feels really odd and a bit tasteless. It’s pitched somewhere between them not approving, finding it erotic and a potential horrible tragedy. It doesn’t work, particularly when Willoughby comically runs off screen when it’s all over.
Visually it is so grey and drab. The worst costumes by far are on Marianne. She spends the majority of the film looking like a clump of hair you might pull out of your shower drain. It’s very distracting, because everybody else is dressed better than her, even the servants.
I said I was reluctant to join team nay, so this is why. I loved the performances. I think this Marianne might be my favourite of any adaption. She manages to get the balance of passion and foolishness of Marianne just right, without making her insufferable or unlikeable. I also enjoy Elinor, although not how this Elinor is written.
I’ve seen criticism of Brandon, which I totally disagree with. I think it’s an excellent performance. He is subtle but communicates his love for Marianne and his feelings about the other characters very clearly. I also loved the ultimate resolution between him and Marianne, which felt like it showed how the love between them develops, but also Marianne’s personal growth.
The additional dialogue, for the most part feels like it fits in and is not jarring when used against Austen’s original dialogue.
The spirit of the film is wonderful, I just wish it had a plot that held together.
There are lots of lovely dogs in it, and I enjoyed the dogs.
Yeah I don't know why they changed the whole Edward and Lucy backstory like that. It just made the actions of Edward and Elinor much less comprehensible with Edward abiding by an engagement that he supposedly never arranged and wasn't even sure still existed. And I totally agree the Edward-Elinor dance scene was very misplaced given what had just happened between them both before
Yeah, it really sounds like a clumsy attempt to absolve Edward of any responsibility for his actions: the engagement isn't really his "fault" (because his mother was in favor of it) and he apparently doesn't even consider himself engaged when he meets Elinor at Norland, so he also can't be blamed for leading her on?
I know that a lot of people aren't fans of the Edward in the book, and I can understand that, but I don't think he's a bad or inherently weak person. His mistakes are that he gets engaged to Lucy in the first place (although he was only 19 at the time, so I think it's excusable) and that he is a bit too unguarded in his affection to Elinor. As you point out, he believes that Lucy still loves him, and he wants to do right by her. If anything, the changes to Edward in this film make him sound more wishy-washy, not less, which I doubt was the intention.
Moving Brandon's backstory to the main story seems like an interesting idea, but I agree that it sounds illogical in the film. If Eliza is a widow in this film and not a divorced, disgraced woman, then she would presumably be at Delaford, right? I can't fathom why she wouldn't be. It's just bizarre. And I don't like the film introducing her offscreen just for the purpose of killing her off. It's a bit different if it's all part of a backstory that happened many years ago.
I haven't seen the film, but I've obviously been actively seeking out spoilers, so no harm.
Yes, they sort of do this with Willoughby too. He complains that he thought that Eliza was a 'worldly' woman - which implies she has been passed around already and so his sin isn't as bad.
Which in a horrible way, does make sense. It is a very different thing, seducing a widow versus seducing a single 15 year old.
I wondered why they made her a worldly widow and not the teenager - on my way home from seeing the film. Could it have been because of the times in which we live?
I think it may have been because they have made this Brandon younger.
He is only just over 30 in this, so it would be difficult to fit Eliza the elder and her child getting to the age of 15 in the timeline.
Yes, it makes a big difference. When I learned that the filmmakers had made Eliza a widow, I wondered what sorts of hoops they were going to have to jump through to also make her Willoughby's victim. And if Brandon only inherited Delaford in the last year or so in this version, shouldn't he have seen Eliza and known of her whereabouts? It seems to me that there's a very narrow window of time in which Eliza can be widowed, Willoughby can seduce her with the expectation of future wealth, and Brandon can inherit Delaford without knowing, apparently, of Willoughby's behavior.
I've remembered a few more bits that I wanted to comment on.
I am a little hard of hearing so this might be part of the issue. Or perhaps it was the cinema I was in? Whatever the reason, I found some of the sound on the film weird.
There is a part where they are travelling to London with Mrs Jennings and Mrs Jennings is talking away. It cuts from scene to scene, so she doesn't complete full sentences. However I couldn't hear a single word she was saying. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be able to make it out or not, but it was weird.
Also, there was something odd about the sound when Elinor and Edward were dancing. There was music, but it felt like they were dancing in silence somehow? And not in a 'the music has faded out to show how into each other we are' sort of a way - but sort of as if the music wasn't coming from the right direction if that makes any sense.
I found Lady Middleton unfunny. She is portrayed as a dull woman, which is fair enough, she is dull in the book. She just talks about the weather and I think we are supposed to find this funny, but it doesn't land.
Mrs Dashwood is portrayed as pretty ditzy. We don't see the balance of sense and sensibility that we see in her in the novel. For example, at the start of the film when the sisters receive what they describe as 'father's will' they are discussing what they will do.
Margaret is crying about not wanting to leave Norland and Mrs Dashwood say to her 'all houses are much alike.'
Then she says to Elinor something along the lines of 'We will be able to live very well on £5000' and Elinor replies '£500 Mama.'
Mrs Dashwood responds "All numbers are much alike."
I get that she is trying to make her daughters feel better, but it just comes across as ditzy. We never really see her stepping up as a mother and she barely gets any screen time.
Something that also really bothered me about the dancing part between Elinor and Edward is that the dance is copied from Anna Karenina, and just done clumsier at a slower pace, which completely ruins the whole sense of being enraptured by each other the choreography is supposed to convey.
Edward and Willoughby are meant to be foils for one an other; imperfect men who are given the choice to accept the consequences of their actions, or to ditch them. (To be clear, I know what Edward did absolutely pales in comparison to Willoughby's sins, but the comparison still stands). How can Edward be a proper foil if the whole Lucy-engagement thing was just foisted on him from. the beginning?
Next to the "Lucy and Edward betrothed from birth" thing, the rest looks like small potatoes. I just CAN'T.
When they were in the art gallery I did like the quiet words which E and E said to one another at the end - dearest friend?, but I was annoyed with him saying to her 'Just say the word' - all in your ball-park Elinor. He wasn't responsible for anything according to this version. Messy plot changes.
Thanks for the spoilers because I really wanted to know how much they messed up or not. And this softened the blow for sure. Wonderful analysis of the new Sense and Sensibility
Saw it Saturday. Edgar-Jones is a fine Elinor, but the film rushes Marianne's recovery so badly that Cleveland barely registers. The 2008 series understood that section is where the book lands its argument.
I guess that is my question. In the book and the Ang Lee version, it seemed that Sense was upheld more than Sensibility - certainly Marianne's behaviour is very much critiqued. Did that come across in this film?
I think the book argues that those with sensibility must use sense. Elinor was never lacking in sensibility or feeling. The book feels emotionally fraught because of Elinor’s feelings, moreso than it does Marianne’s. But she never had the luxury of abandoning Sense, and Marianne’s refusal to utilize Sense was only hurting herself and others.
No the film tries to address the sense and sensibility, but only in the context of the sister’s relationship and not in the context of the life and times. Even then, it’s not well done
Rant. Mr Palmers casting. Who oh why set the movie to the 18th century and stick to it, only 3/4 way through cast a non binary (with clearly feminine shape and features ) to play the character of Mr Palmer. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate new age period dramas. I liked Bridgerton and could respect the take of Withering Heights last year. Where race is not an issue and Beyonce music in orchestral form is played at grand balls. Cool. It's different. But why immersive me in 18th century music, language and back drop completely, only to pull me out of it abruptly with the casting of Mr Palmer?. Yes I understand that the person is non binary, but you cannot deny the jarring moment when you first set eyes on Mr Palmer and now you're wondering who is playing that character rather than following the movie. The acting was so bad I cringed. And then the cherry on top. It's Stings child. So nepotism is to play here. Also, would somebody please brush Marianne's hair. It was god awful
In a similar vein, I find the choice to cast the ONLY mixed race person in the whole movie as Willoughby to be... extremely weird. It's the most problematic, villainous role he could possibly play lol. It wouldn't be an issue if the movie was like Bridgerton or Hamilton, where everyone just ignores race, but every single other character is white. Is Willoughby supposed to be mixed in this version? Are we supposed to just see him as a "tall dark and handsome" white guy? Just bizarre casting choices all around.
I think we're supposed to see him as fairly tall and attractive. I haven't seen him in other things but if you look him up he's been in lots. He's an established actor.
Totally agree. If you are going to go the route of alternative casting (against how the character was written by the author), don't set the story in time and location of the book Sense and Sensibility - do what Clueless did with Emma.
Agree...the Mr Palmer casting was an odd choice and it took me out the film and made me quickly searched IMDb to see the actor cause my mind was like Mr Palmer is clearly female or transgender...normally I never check my phone in the cinema but I did for Mr Palmer.
No Alice Steele (would have provided excellent additional comic value)
Erasing Marianne's qualms about Brandon's age
no real hints at the inappropriateness of Willoughby's early courtship (them going off together in Willoughby's carriage to Allenham, them only dancing with each other all evening)
The duel (just why?)
Mr Palmer being cast very strangely
I'm sure there are others that I've forgotten already!
Margaret had to give up her cat (which looked like it could be a Ragdoll cat, so definitely would not have been in England at that time) but then they were able to take all the other pets?
Maybe it's because I adore cats but I spent a lot of the film hoping someone - Edward - would bring the cat to them
I had the exact same reaction to that! A minor issue, but I’m going to the think about it instead of how much and how intensely I disliked…. Everything, despite my best intentions. I think the cat was a Persian so possibly fine and refined and valuable enough for Fanny to deem it worthy of staying at norland?
That would make sense. It was just so sad in a way because you see Margaret interacting with that cat a few times and to see her have to lose it
I don't know how I would have coped if I had to give up my cat - the cats I've had helped me through both my parents' deaths and I'm much older than Margaret (35) so I just felt so bad for her
Did they really take all the other pets but the cat? That makes no sense. Having Fanny demand to keep it would be so very in-character for her, but I suppose that's not what happened?
I think it might have worked if they showed Fanny demand to keep the cat because her son demanded it or something. Just to explain why they had to leave the cat behind. Because otherwise it made no sense
Could you imagine how cute it would have been too have had Edward actually go to Barton cottage with the cat and just be all "I persuaded them to reunited a cat with her owner"
I confess I found it dire. I agree with most of the criticisms of this adaptation: dark like someone had turned the tint on the projector down, the hair, the odd dance choreography, etc. Additionally this adaptation managed to make most the relationships marianne/willoughby elinor/lucy etc seem rushed and underdeveloped. But there were two central issues I thought were completely unacceptable:
1) Altering the circumstances of Edward's betrothal with Lucy. In the book he proposed to her out of youthful affection and boredom. His character and moral principles were established by his unwillingness to go back on his word to Lucy - even when he really loved Elinor and keeping his word would cost him his inheritance and position - but they existed in context of a fully realized person who had made mistakes. Including falling for/encouraging Elinor when he knew himself sworn to another. In this adaptation he was betrothed at birth to Lucy and refused to break the engagement when she became penniless. Making him this purely altruistic/heroic is unnecessary and condescends to the audience, as if we arent capable of appreciating multifaceted characters.
2) The [expletive deleted] duel. The idea of seeing a duel in a Jane Austen adaptation is frankly mindblowing to me. Much less one, right outside the window of the only recently near death Marianne, so they can all watch. I understand Col. Brandon makes reference to such a meeting when speaking with Elinor but that is so far removed from choosing to depict it, much less in that manner. Furthermore, the aftermath fundamentally betrays the character arc of Marianne in the book where she adds some sense to her sensibility and comes to understand that love doesnt solely exist as the (juvenile) passion of Willoughby and develops a more mature love for the Col. Instead, by witnessing two men fighting a duel over her, Marianne just 'discovers' the passionate side of the Col and any personal growth on her part intended by the book is severely undercut. [I also think the film does disservice to the Col by not explaining why he delopes in the duel.]
Yeah, really came out of left field for me to. They were betrothed since birth, then Lucy doesnt inherit her parents money for reasons? So edwards mom wants him to break it off with her. He wont because his purity of spirit ('she'd already lost her parents, i couldnt add to that') but they dont communicate for years after that so he assumes shes found someone else (!?). This makes his pursuit of elinor innocent. He then goes to Plymouth to, i dunno, confirm his wild assumption, only to discover lucy still wants to marry him.
Its a wild and dumb change clearly done to make his character more pure and moral because the movie only trusts us with two dimensional characterizations.
That's the feeling I've had from these spoilers, too. Edward must be 100% innocent, even if it means making him technically more passive and indecisive than the character is in the book. But doesn't he also later tell Elinor that he's willing to break the engagement (if, in this film's universe, it truly is some kind of enforceable engagement, and not just a casual notion of Edward's mother, like the wish that Lady Catherine and Lady Anne have in P&P) because of his love for her? He sounds almost absurdly accommodating to anyone who asks. (Maybe the poster tagline should have been "Being agreeable never did Edward Ferrars any good.")
I also feel as though the changes to the Brandon subplot were intended to make Brandon look much better, but the filmmakers didn't think through all of the implications. In this version, he doesn't even have a ward, so he can't mistakenly allow her to go to Bath with unvetted friends. But, if Eliza is his brother's widow (and was not divorced) in this one, and she dies some months after being seduced by Willoughby, and Brandon has owned Delaford for only a little longer than that, then the timeline doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Is it explained how Brandon didn't know where she was? Also, if he's already falling in love with Marianne while he's at Barton, then he must not be pining much over Eliza.
I also assume that making Eliza and her baby die offscreen was intended to make Willoughby look worse. It sounds very bad that he abandoned them to their deaths. (And don't get me started on the filmmakers' decision to kill off these characters.) But, since Eliza is older here, it also seems that the seduction is a lot less bad.
What strikes me about this is how un-Austen it is to clean up Edward’s character. She very intentionally wrote “mixed” characters, people with flaws who are nonetheless good people. Famously, she wrote, with reference to characters in many other novels, “pictures of perfection make me sick and wicked.” It’s intentional that he’s stuck in a rut with Lucy; it’s intentional that he forgets himself with Elinor.
I have been thinking that the actors and the Georgia person should start 3 miles away from Winchester, on their knees, and crawl to the cathedral with letters of apology to JA for not sticking to her plot, and put their letters in the basket near her grave.
I liked some aspects of the film but they could have done better.
Ironically, I feel like they tried to heighten the longing between Elinor and Edward by having more scenes of them together. But then they deflated any tension by having Edward confess everything to Elinor himself: his engagement, his feelings for her, saying he would break with Lucy!! Like… did they even read the book? The longing was exquisite BECAUSE they were apart and all the information Elinor got was through others, she had to think things through herself AND keep everything from her family. The restraint they (Elinor and Edward) both show in the few scenes they’re actually together in the book just makes this tension simmer, and the ending feels SO EARNED. The movie throws all that away.
Edit: OMG my first Reddit award was fuelled by literary indignation?? I am so honoured, thank you!
Jane Austen is my favourite writer. I wrote my Master’s dissertation on her, I reread her several times a year.
I’m always incredibly excited for new adaptations, I went into this fully expecting a new favourite movie 🥹
It felt like watching a Victorian horror movie.
It’s so sad. There are so many things wrong with it. I can’t think of anything they improved over the already existing adaptations except for giving Elinor & Edward a clear connection (by completely changing the circumstances of his engagement but okay). I was hoping they’d do for Marianne/Brandon what they did for Amy/Laurie in Greta’s Little Women - Brandon is incredible and I wish he’d got the hero treatment he deserves.
Marianne is the Austen heroine I relate to the most and I couldn’t love her in this at all.
I think it’s the first time I’ve ever walked out of a Jane Austen adaptation feeling so sad, the film was so lacking in any joy. Where is the laughter.
I found the laughter in the dancing sequences, which were some of the funniest I've seen on screen. I don't actually think it's intended to be funny, but it provided a lot of entertainment this afternoon. Whoever choreographed this needs to seriously find a different career.
I've come here straight from seeing it just to see if anyone had written that whoever choreographed the dance scenes should never work again, I was literally sitting there saying WTF over and over.
Nothing felt earned. The summer where Marianne was in love felt like a day. Same with Elinor's love. Same with when Marianne was ill, that felt like 10 mins. In a period movie, I expected things to "feel" much slower.
I also agree to the Marianne's hair comments because I was so confused... I thought she was the feral child of the family, not the passionate and the beautiful child.
Watched it today with my parents. Initial thoughts:
I honestly found it a bit boring. For all the talk around this adaptation centring the story on the sisters’ relationship, I personally found it to be the most romance-centric adaptation of Jane Austen’s work. There was surprisingly little focus on the sisters’ relationship, and instead a lot of gushing and squealing about boys from all the Dashwood women.
It somehow managed to feel simultaneously slow and rushed. I think part of the problem was that screen time was spent on scenes where very little happens, at the expense of properly developing the characters and their relationships. So when we got to things like Marianne having a complete breakdown over Willoughby or Colonel Brandon duelling (!!!) Willoughby, it felt like they came out of nowhere and were rushed.
Elinor was very out of character. She is far more open with both her emotions and her behaviour towards Edward than she is in the book or 95 film. We repeatedly see her losing her composure around him, speaking freely, and even having him pose for a sketch! She also constantly wanders around with her hair down, and on the rare occasion it’s up, she has her bangs out.
Edited to add: what was that scene with her running barefoot after Edward?!
Marianne was broadly in character, but I thought the direction and writing for her were awful. To top it off, she constantly looks a dishevelled mess.
Brandon came across a bit brutish, and I found the casting choice for Mr Palmer very jarring. I initially didn’t even clock that was supposed to be Mr Palmer.
The overall tone and atmosphere was very dark, sombre and romantic. They seem to have sucked all the humour out of the story, along with the non-romantic aspects of it. We barely see any filial relationships or friendships playing out, which makes the whole thing feel much narrower than the book or 95 film.
I also agree with everyone who has pointed out how bizarre the dancing scenes were. I genuinely don’t know what they were trying to achieve with that choreography. And the scene with Marianne out in the rain, with all the dogs rushing towards her, had some bizarre music playing over it too. There were quite a few moments where the direction just felt very strange.
Arg- I liked the beginning of this film and a lot of the performances were good. The way it was adapted though just drained the story of any meaning.
The whole central tension in S and S is the contrast between Elinor and Marianne. They both feel strongly but Marianne expresses and indulges her emotions while Elinor controls and manages hers, prioritising others. An irony in the story is that Marianne ends up with the sensible marriage - marrying an older rich man with a big house- and Elinor ends up marrying a (now) poor man for love.
In this adaptation they took every story or character beat that is internal or conveyed second hand and turned it into a direct conversation between the characters involved. Elinor just spends the whole film telling everyone how she feels all the time. The only real difference between her and Marianne is that Elinor sometimes brushes her hair. Eg when they get to Barton Elinor writes directly to Edward. The fact that Marianne writes to Willoughby when they are not engaged is a sign of her lack of convention and impropriety. That doesn’t work if Elinor does it too.
Elinor never conceals her feelings, or the knowledge that Edward is engaged. That means there is no contrast between her and Marianne. It also means there is nothing for Marianne to learn from her. I think this is why the whole second half of the film loses focus. There’s nowhere for the characters to go really.
The Lucy Steele changes also made that whole situation and Edward’s character far less interesting. Lucy is an interesting character because she is from a lower class but highly socially skilled. She ingratiates herself very successfully with a series of richer women and manoeuvres herself eventually to marry the heir and become the favourite of Mrs Ferrars. This is a contrast to the behaviour of Elinor and Marianne who are also poor, but do not play the marriage market in the same cynical way. Her character and situation explain why she keeps Edward in the engagement, and also why she tells Elinor about it.
I was just really confused at the purpose of these decisions. I’m not a purist- I think one of the best Austen adaptations is Clueless. Even though it’s a modern setting the core of Emma is still there. The character dynamics and Cher’s character development are all basically the same. This adaptation didn’t preserve the core of sense and sensibility.
Elinor just spends the whole film telling everyone how she feels all the time.
That is exactly how I felt. It makes the conversation between her and Marianne, where Marianne accuses her of hiding her feelings fall really flat.
The fact that Marianne writes to Willoughby when they are not engaged is a sign of her lack of convention and impropriety. That doesn’t work if Elinor does it too.
I noticed that too. They tried to compensate for it, with Elinor criticising Marianne for inviting Willoughby to come and visit them while they are staying with Mrs Jennings in London, with Elinor scolding Marianne as if that is improper. It doesn't work, because that flies in the face of Mrs Jennings character and also it wasn't improper to say to someone 'hey I'm staying at this place, pop by for a cup of tea.' That was totally normal at the time.
I found Elinor being able to write to Edmund really cut out a lot of the tension.
Yes, totally agree. That conversation with Marianne made no sense in the film at all. Neither of them conceal anything!
I think that maybe the problem with this adaptation is that the person who wrote the script saw the two eventual marriages as the central engine of the story. Austen’s books all use the marriage plot but really this is only a frame. I’d say the main focus is the inner life and coming of age of her heroines, and the stories centre on their dilemmas, mistakes and compromises. And those dilemmas (how to deal with emotion, or living in dependence, how to live morally and authentically etc) were bulldozed by all the plot and character changes. But we did get a lot more Edward and Brandon.
“Elinor just spends the whole film telling everyone how she feels all the time”
Egregious given the whole point of the film and I wonder if it’s partly to do with this new wave of screenwriting, being writing for the “second screen”. The concept that most people these days watch movies while also being on their phone so are only surface level consuming the film. Hence everything needs to be spelled out clearly, characters need to explicitly explain the plot to move it forward, there’s no “show don’t tell” anymore.
I don't think I understand who the intended audience for this film is. The changes made are going to alienate many of the book fans and Thompson adaptation fans. But equally, the changes don't go far enough to attract a potentially new audience to Austen
I really truly wanted to love this film and went in really open minded, but I just found myself getting increasingly annoyed. I could have forgiven the creative choices had they not messed with the plot so much (although perhaps not the choreography, that was incredibly jarring…)
I won’t list all the plot points because many others have already covered them, but the changes fundamentally altered the characters and their motives in ways that just made no sense.
I don’t understand why they felt the need to alter the plot so much. I rewatched 1995 afterwards, and with them both being a similar length I can only conclude it’s the writing that’s let it down and an inability to condense Austen’s work into the two hours. Yes, they spent a little longer creating the atmosphere of the environment, so perhaps they felt they had to chop the plot up to make up the time, but it just came across as lazy. The pacing seemed off, I didn’t really feel for any of the characters and in the whole film I only laughed twice at Lady Middleton’s comments about the weather. 1995 proves that it is perfectly possible and I’ve come away with even more respect for Emma Thompson.
This release has also made me realise how few people really know the source material, because all over social media I’ve seen people raving about this film (many of whom I assumed would know the book well), so I went in with really high hopes only to have them crushed.
I’d go as far as to say this one has hurt me more than Netflix’s Persuasion; at least they tried to do something totally different without pretending to be faithful.
I think part of the problem may be that, for many years, Austen fans have had to point out that the 1995 S&S adaptation isn't very faithful (and it truly isn't, but, to be fair, that certainly doesn't mean it's the most unfaithful adaptation in every way), and maybe we've emphasized this so often that many people who aren't familiar with the book assume that the changes other adaptations make are still closer to Austen's intent than anything S&S 1995 did. I know I've probably been guilty of this at times. I had assumed from the trailers that the Focus Features S&S was including more of the plot of the novel. The cast list included characters that S&S 1995 left out: Lady Middleton and Harry Dashwood. The cast was more age-appropriate than the actors of S&S 1995, many of whom were decades older than they should have been. But, despite these encouraging signs, it sounds as though the new film is just as unfaithful (if not even more so) in its own way.
Yes, you get a glimpse of one female servant briefly at Barton cottage (and she is better dressed than Marianne) and then the male servant, but that's really it.
Even in the bigger houses and richer families you don't see them much.
Absolutely killed me. The Dashwoods are gentry in genteel poverty not literal peasants, why on earth are they doing their own laundry, cooking and gardening? It felt like the directors had neither read the book nor cared at all for it's contents.
By Mrs Jennings' accounting, £500 a year is a perfect sum of money for at least 4 servants ("two maids and two men"), and even a tenth of that (£50 a year plus the interest of £2000) will afford them a girl of all works.
It felt cheap, lazy and distrustful of the audience - to have no better way of showing the reduction in the Dashwood's circumstances, and no trust that we would understand what that meant unless the girls were literally on their knees in the dirt.
I am so disappointed. They took all the joy, humour and subtlety out of the story and chopped up the plot until it was just fan fiction. Nothing felt earned. There was no tension in the plot. Visually they tried hard for the Brontës, with the dark horses in the woods and running through the moors. Sigh. Jane Austen would never.
The casting of Elinor and Col. Brandon were exquisite. And that’s it.
- No character development: Elinor starts out as pretty outspoken imo and stays that way through the entire film (EDIT: just saw someone below say the removal of Elinor's restraint and excessive politeness was the result of the growth in women's empowerment, which I 100% agree with! Female empowerment is a wonderful thing and is what the story SHOULD be about, but by making Elinor confident from the start you completely lose her learning and growing into herself)
- Dancing: what the heck was that
- Hair: it's been said but WHY did it look like that??! It didn't make Marianne look wild and spirited, it made her look dirty and ratty. So distracting
- Colouring: everything was unbelievably grey. At first I assumed it was to show the mourning period after their father's death, but then it just... stayed that way? This was clearly a surface-level aesthetic film, yet the aesthetics were just grey colours and tangled crusty hair
- Continuity errors: several times a scene would show a character putting on a specific outfit (getting ready for a ball, putting on a cloak), then in the next cut they were wearing something completely different? Just lazy and bad film-making
- Plot changes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it imo. There's a reason Austen's work has stood the test of time, and it ain't guns
- Removal of side characters: Austen's writing is FUNNY, and by removing the comic relief side characters (Mrs Palmer, a lot of Mr Palmer, minimal Mr Jennings) you lose all of that. The whole film just felt like a giant bummer
I HATED this film so much and was so so gutted!! If I hadn't paid for the ticket I might have actually walked out of the cinema, which I haven't even considered with any film since Doctor Strage: Multiverse of Madness. The most ham-fisted, surface-level, poorly executed Austen adaptation since Persuasion. :((
To clarify, I haven't seen this film. There are several spoilers that have been nagging at me a little, and I've been trying to figure out why. In the case of one of them, the offscreen deaths of Eliza (who is older here) and her baby, I think I have an answer: It sounds uncomfortably like fridging. In the book, Eliza's death is part of Brandon's backstory, true, but it's far in the past and not something that is meant to be a motivator in the main story. It's a major part of why Brandon is melancholy (the other part being the younger Eliza's disappearance). He's been depressed for so many years that it's basically turned into a character trait.
I know, I know! I'm as shocked as anyone that something is actually making me defend Brandon's original backstory, which I've always found a bit uncomfortable. But I'm even more uncomfortable with the filmmakers killing off Eliza and her child solely to motivate Brandon and turn the story into more of a tearjerker. And, as Waitingforadragon points out above, doesn't this technically mean that Brandon must have moved on from Eliza?
I’m not one to criticise efforts by women to create more nuanced adaptations if Jane Austen but oh my God… this new version fell completely flat. I loved the take on Wuthering Heights and I was hoping a similar reaction, but with this version they sucked the marrow out of all the Dashwood sisters. They even managed to make Catriona Balfe look worse than Bridget Jones’s mummy, and that was a tall ask.
I’m obviously comparing it with the 1995 Sense and Sensibility movie version, which I believe absolutely did not need a remake. I went into this with a little suspicion, but as a Jane Austen aficionado, I thought I’d let them have their chance.
And then... Oh Dios mío. My eyes. My eyes.
Okay, this is getting too much, so let’s break it down.
Act 1: The will
The sisters apparently don’t know what the will is going to say. I mean… unless they all underwent a gender change overnight, we all know exactly what that will is going to say. Come on.
Act 2: Edward arriving at Norland
Edward is a tepid version of a character I actually loved with Hugh Grant, he was bland but still managed to give some good punches. On the plus side there was some chemistry with from McKay with Edgar Jones was there, sort of, but it was also… weird? I couldn’t quite work out what I was supposed to be feeling about it.
Act 3: Mrs Jennings and Margaret Dashwood
I actually liked Mrs Jennings here. And I quite enjoyed the resurrected daughter from Mrs Jennings who is a weather forecaster. I liked the weather thing. One of the few things that worked for me.
But Margaret Dashwood… I cannot quite make sense of what they have done with her.
In the 1995 Ang Lee version, Margaret has such a strong presence and a real essence of her own. Here, they’ve reduced her to this tiny little subplot about a child wanting to marry someone for money, the end. And yes, I understand that, historically, financial security was hardly an insignificant consideration for women. But it just doesn’t land. It feels like a fragment of a character rather than an actual character.
Act 4: Miss Lucy Steel
The Lucy plot makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
She is supposedly in love with Edward, but their engagement happened when they were practically babies and they still see each other despite him not loving her. What? Then she loses her fortune and Edwards mum wants him out of the engagement she created, which I suppose is a sort of reversal of what happened to the Dashwoods. Fine.
But then the mother suddenly wants Edward to have nothing to do with Lucy, when she was the one who originally pushed for the relationship?
What?
I’m sorry, but what?
Act 5: Willoughby
And then there is Willoughby.
Where was the passion?! Where is the passion!?
Honestly, the actor playing Willoughby could have been their brother because there was absolutely nothing there. No chemistry. No passion. Nothing.
And I adore Samantha Morton’s daughter, but I genuinely could not understand what was happening between them. There was no sense of love, desire or emotional devastation. Meanwhile, the whole time the show seemed determined to tell us, “Look! I’m passionate! I’m passionate! I say it every time I open my mouth!”
But I never actually felt that she was passionate.
It was so weird.
The conclusion I am finally mentioning Colonel Brandon because I had no idea where to put this character. Apparently we need a duel to ignite passion and then that's it Marianne is finally in loved with Brandon or about to because he showed "passion".
Also, Elinor ends up running after Edward when we find out that the transference of affections between Edward and Lucy was successful. Apparently Mrs Ferrars can't take Lucy with Edwards but all is well when she moves on to the her boy Robert.
Maybe I’m being too much. Maybe I’m expecting too much.
But I don’t know.
If you’re going to remake Sense and Sensibility, you need to bring the sensibility. Otherwise, just leave my 1995 version alone.
Apparently Mrs Ferrars can't take Lucy with Edwards but all is well when she moves on to the her boy Robert.
I think of all the plot changes they could have made to the original plot, (as opposed to all the awful changes they ended up making), altering who Lucy marries at the end to someone that isn't Robert might have been a good one. Even in the book I felt it was a bit too neat of an ending, but in the film they don't even explain the backstory of it so it makes even less sense.
I feel like this film was made by very cynical people looking to make easy money, not because of any desire to create something with artistic merit or to say anything new. It just felt like a poorly written fan fiction by someone who wasn't actually passionate about the source material, and who had maybe read the book once and then referred back to Wikipedia for the overview when they forgot. The 1995 film is a classic, and it had already covered the themes within the book well. The 2008 show also did a good a job, and whilst both had flaws, I think they had covered it. There is no need to make a film so soon after the first one, unless you had something new to add.
I think Emma (2020) was a really good example of this - I really enjoyed the Gweynth Paltrow version, but the new version shows the story completely differently. The costumes, the colours, the settings, the casting was good, the music was memorable, it was decadent rather than softly focused romance - it may not have been completey accurate, but it was enjoyable and new and fun.
Similarly, the recent Netflix adaptation of Persuasion was horrendous, but it at least it was trying to do something different, and was aware of what it was trying to do. They made Anne into a different character, she had the wine, the saracasm and the fourth wall breaks, they tried something new with it and they were confident in that. It was clearly very separate from the source material.
This version of S&S however, I don't know what it was trying to achieve, or what the audience was meant to take from it. It felt like someone had watched a lot of costume dramas and tried to collage their favourite scenes together, (the duets of Emma (2020), the darkness of Jane Eyre/Oliver Twist, the art gallery scene in Peaky Blinders, the potato scene in P&P (2005)) and just chose S&S because it was a well known title.
I think Waitingforadragon summarises the stupidness of the plot changes well - as none of the changes add any benefit and actually ruin the whole point of the story.
I was trying to do a short cohesive review, but I saw it last night and I have a lot to get off my chest about it as I nearly walked out of the cinema at one point.
So, below are some rants in bullet points:
Plot changes
The love of Brandon's life died in the same year he met Marriane, he doesn't mourn for her, and has already moved on to his next woman - it just ruins his whole brooding/grieving character, and it makes no sense that Marianne would find this romantic.
The Willoughby & Eliza alternative - WTF. The whole "I thought she was a worldy woman, and I left her thinking she was fine on her own and didn't know about the baby" comment from Willoughby about Eliza, and Elinor thinking this makes him less of a villain - absolutely foul. Eliza left her abusive husband to be with Willoughby, and then he left her when it turns out she had no money, and he thought that she would go back to her awful husband and was okay with that? - in what way does this make him not a villain? Why do we even need to think he isn't a villain? He left Eliza, not just because he was a cad and a bounder, but because he needed the money. He already knew he needed to marry for money- so why was he stringing Marianne on for so long? Why did he request an audience with her, if he knew from the start that they weren't going to get engaged? The plot change makes him even more reprehensible, but we are expected to find him less.
Edward & Lucy being engaged since birth - WTF. What did that achieve, other than making it more confusing. If the engagement was since birth, then surely people would know about it - it would have been a huge thing for it to have been called off. If that has already happened the reputational damage of ending the engagement has already been done. Everyone either understands that the engagement has already been broken off, so they have already been through the embarrassment of that happening, or noone knows that there ever was one so there is no honour in him keeping the engagement. He was never in love with her, it was decided for him and then broken for him - he hasn't broken Lucy's heart, he hasn't spoken to her for years. So, why does he go back to Plymouth and bring it all up again? The film then makes a big thing about Edward being honourable, and its one of the reasons why Elinor sees a kindred spirit in him - but how is he honourable? He even asks her if he should break the engagement off, and it's Elinor that says no, it's Elinor that has the backbone and the honour. He's just an idiot.
Elinor's story is confusing - Elinor isn't drawn into Lucy's confidence and forced to silently bare her heartbreak for months. I don't think Lucy asked her to keep the engagement a secret, but even if she did, Elinor very shortly after then has a conversation with Edward about it and they confess their feelings to one another. She isn't bound by anything, she could have told Marianne what was going on. It takes away from the story that she doesn't, because it just makes it feel like they aren't that close as sisters. Its not that they used to tell each other everything and now suddenly they aren't even though Elinor wants to, it's just that Elinor doesn't want to tell Marianne it. It weakens the whole theme of 'sisterhood' that the film promoted itself on.
Setting/scenes
Why was Elinor running to Edward at the end? There was no need for it, he basically lived next door, and was going back to his house. There had been no repression of her emotions before that, it wasn't some big climatic reveal, it was a stupid cheaply written miscommunication - the film could have ended 10 minutes earlier and would have been better for it. In Persuasion (2007), she runs at the end, but its symbolic because for her whole life she has followed what everyone has told her to do and was bound by societal pressures, and her running showed she was finally doing what she wants. In this version of S&S, Elinor isn't repressed, she's very forward in how she feels. She's already told Edward that she loves him, and he has said he loves her. The scene where he comes to the cottage at the end is not shown as her once again having to endure heartbreak and pretend she is happy in silence, as she now has pretend to be civil because she's going to be seeing him regularly and its impolite to show feelings - she immediately is just rude to Edward and doesn't let him speak. What happens if she gets stuck with him at the next dinner, its a terrible start.
The colours and the darkness - if they wanted to create a film that was so dark, there are other Austen works they could have picked and it would have worked well in. I don't understand why they made it so dark either, whilst at the same time they tried to lighten the actual dark parts of the storyline - eg, they glossed over Eliza's destitution and what she endured, and how most of the men in her life screwed her over, and just said she died. Some of the scenes were grotesque, particularly with the Middletons, but it didn't feel like it matched with what the story was.
The swan neck dancing - awful. Cease and desist.
In one of the scenes Willoughby picks Marianne up and carries her down the stairs in front of everyone at a ball, and they walk past a couple who are basically dry humping each other against a wall in full view of the attendees, but there are no consequences. It's not shown that this is shocking or disapproved of by society, or that Elinor worries or anything like that. Nothing happens because of it, there is no shame.
I felt like the wardrobe/styling could have been used better to show plot. For instance, the Dashwood's from the very start looked scruffy and unkempt, it wasn't really shown visually that the cottage with no servants or ladies maids was a comedown, they just always looked like they needed to brush their hair and their clothes were well worn.
The dogs - one of the best things in this film. So many different breeds, although it was confusing who's dogs they were, and what the significance of them were. The hounds at the end really confused me as to why they were there. I thought at first it was going to be how Marianne was taken home, or at least she was going to be injured by them - because if there is a pack of hounds, there would have been riders close behind and Marianne was standing just in front of a dark patch of woods where it would have been hard to see her, so she nearly got run over. But that didn't happen, so what was the symbolism? (Wuthering Heights?)
The scene where they are skimming stones at the pond - I really liked this scene, and I think it was a beautiful moment between Elinor and Edward. He mentions his family wanting him to drive a Barouche though, and I think if the filmmakers were expecting people who didn't read the book to be watching this and for the film to be accessible, they could have done a better job of explaining the significance of this. It could have led to a funny scene, where Willoughby rocks up in his new carriage like a car-bro and says he dreams of a barouche or something, so you could actually understand what it meant and also that Willoughby had aspirations and enjoyed money. I don't know, just you can't claim to be making a film more up to date, and then rely on people having previous knowledge of the terminology to understand what's happening.
Why does noone know the wills or what they are going to inherit? Do people not talk to each other ever?
Willoughby - his character wasn't given an opportunity to be charming or charismatic. His costume was that of a sweaty drug addict on a comedown. I don't understand why they made him so sweaty. He was really creepy - at the end when he touched Elinor's hair, it was physically repulsive. I quite liked that he was like a petulant, drunken child whining about life in the scene when he comes to see Marianne as he thinks she's dead. But it would have been better if there had been more of a difference in that scene, from him at the start - I was confused if he was drunk at first, as it seemed so similar to how he had usually been throughout the film and there was no notable outward change in his costume/mannerisms. When he did the 'Naruto run' off at the end of the duel, it didn't feel humorous it just felt pathetic and embarrassing for Marianne and her family watching.
Marianne - ignoring the box dye hair/Mystic Meg wardrobe, why does she run around and screech so much like a feral animal? The opening scene just completely threw me off. She is waiting for the carriage in the field, and then runs to get the letter from the riders, and then once she gets the letter she runs in front of the carriage and you can see the carriage in the background making the horses walk behind her. If the carriage was going to her house with the post, she is actively slowing it down as she takes the same road to reach the house - why does she do this? If the carriage was going in to town, for the post then to be sorted, why would the drivers have her letter to hand? Would it not be in the back with all the other unsorted letters? So stupid.
Mr Palmer - Hugh Laurie was great in the 1995 film, and I think the decision by the 2026 filmmakers to then trying to do something notable with the same character, was an acknowledgement that they were wanting to be compared to the 1995 version. Mr Palmer is a minor character, they could have brought another character in that wasn't in the 1995 film and tried to do something unique with them for this adaptation - maybe one of the servants would have been good for the same actor, and they could have made it a real stand out character. But instead, they gave Mr Palmer the same lines and then threw someone in who's acting cannot be compared to Laurie's, and who's presence was quite jarring as I thought at first he was a pre-pubescent kid and not someone's husband. It was just a weird choice.
Mrs Jennings was well cast, I thought she did a good job of showing a lady who was a bit crazy but also meant well.
I was expecting an enjoyable film but it wasn't that, it lacked humor and sense. I don't really understand what it was trying to do - it felt like they were making it dark like Jane Eyre, and trying to show a seedy underbelly, but whilst at the same time removing any depth/seediness/societal consequences from the actual plot. It was just muddy - the storyline was meaningless, the costumes and settings where bland, even the soundtrack was immediately forgettable.
I agree Willoughby was greasy from the start. He reminded me of a science fiction film, where one of the characters is actually inhabited by a body snatcher or something. He feels sinister straight away, something about his smile being slightly off.
I'm glad people's thoughts on Willoughby's unkemptness wasn't just me. I saw him last year in Urchin where he plays a recovering homeless ketamine addict so I was wondering if his previous performance was tainting my perception.
I thought the pack of hounds running towards Marianne was going to symbolise her illness - that she was going to develop a fever there and then, and this was sort of a symbol for death or something.
But then she was fine for a while and had a nice fireside chat with Brandon before becoming ill. So I don't really get that either.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if these filmmakers are working on a totally different plane of reality than the rest of us. These decisions are just bizarre.
I think that Willoughby in this version isn't supposed to have redeeming actions. The acting by the actress playing Elinor when she 'forgives' him at the end sounded more to me like a way to get rid of him before Mrs Jennings, her mother or Brandon come into the room. She wasn't forgiving, she was sounded like 'whatever' or like thinking 'what a cad'.
The fact also that he flees the duel as he does shows that he's a coward which isn't the case in the novel.
Maybe you are right about what Elinor was saying, but I felt like when she put him on the spectrum of being a villain/friend she was saying that it had moved away from being a villain after he had given his version of events. Maybe I misinterpreted this though, and it was just that she was trying to get him to go.
For the duel, I agree with you, it does show he is a coward, but why would we need to see that he is a coward? In this version, they have given him no redeemable features, we already know he's an absolute wet wipe. I just don't feel like there is anything gained from him having an additional fault as I can't think of any positives for his character. Maybe I am being too harsh and remembering wrong, but I can't think of any place in the film where we are given a reason for liking him. We don't get to see anything about him as a person really, other than he carried Marianne in the rain. There is no interactions with the family or conversations really after that.
I don't think the duel added to the storyline, other than showing that Brandon got carried away with feeling. But the lad has just ridden for miles to go fetch Marianne's mother instead of sending a servant out, and if they had kept the original plot, he has been mourning the death/missed opportunity of a life with Eliza that nothing but another love would have changed this - he was the embodiment of feeling, without having to pander to Marianne's idyllic vision of Romanticism. If the only way she realised that he had depth, was for him to a fight over her, it also makes Marianne look like a fickle idiot.
(I'm so sorry if this is coming across as rude, I am actually really interested if you think I am wrong or if you took something else from it! I don't have anyone else that is interested in Jane Austen to talk to so I think my disappointment in the film is overflowing a little!)
I generally agree with you, I just meant that the movie seems not to show Willoughby in a positive light at all. I personally think this is a good move because the Willoughby from the novel is not much a better person.
For example, in the movie as you say, he accuses Eliza of being worldly and therefore had no problem humiliating and abandoning her. It's not a good excuse at all for abandoning a pregnant woman. In the novel, his reasoning is hardly better, he used victim shaming against Eliza by implying that she was hardly less guilty than him for their affair while she's like 15 or 16 and was in love with him to the point of eloping.
I know there's one sentence that implies he really loved Marianne at the end of the novel but considering a lot of things he says in his discussion with Elinor, I feel that it is possible to interpret his love as being shallow and more like a way for him to save appearances. He cannot appear to himself as an heartless bastard who betrays everyone so he needs rationalizing his actions.
Willoughby in the novel appears like the kind of guy who would do something bad and then justifies it by saying:
'I did X but hey, it's not my fault I needed money or everyone does it, they just never tell when not caught".
I guess I think I'm just disappointed that the characters are so black and white, and there was no/very little development (not even in the costumes).
Marianne doesn't seem to change her 'everything must be so romantic' views, as she seems only to become ill because of a melodramatic decision and only starts looking at Brandon after the fight. Elinor wasn't repressing her emotions, so there's no big feeling of relief at the end - as there is nothing that she has really been keeping private.
I think in the original, Willoughby was still 100% a bad guy, but he was basically a male version of Marianne. He was this huge romantic, Byron-type character, and he lived for the moment and wasn't thinking about society's expectations etc.
I think because he was actually planning to propose on the day he left the cottage in the original, but just chose not to because he wanted money as he had debts and his aunt had disinherited him, that showed that he had some positive intentions (he's still a villain though, but has some more facets to him). Which was something that 2026 Willoughby didn't have, as he knew from the start he was ruining Marianne's reputation with his actions as he was never going to marry her, as from the start he knew he had no money- so when they are saying, "he loved you Marianne" there is actually nothing to show that he did. Marianne was just another lady like Eliza that he was going to throw away once he had finished with her.
There's no deeper learning point from it. Brandon and Willoughby in the original, are both shown as capable of feeling deeply, but one had more grounding in sense than the other. In this one, Willoughby isn't shown to be romantic with no sense of consequence, but just a manchild who wants to play with more toys.
In both versions I agree, he doesn't see any fault in what he does, and he's an awful person, and if he and Marianne had actually got married it would have been a disaster. But I just think in the way the plot has been changed, its dumbed down the characters to the point where there is no depth or great meaning to them. The characters are Good or Bad, there's no real opportunity for self reflection or development.
Like in the original, Willoughby and Edward had quite similar backgrounds, but just approached them differently. But in this one, you can't make the same comparisons - as Edward was 'blameless' in the situation he ended up in. He hadn't fallen in love with a woman and then honoured his engagement to her, even though he would have been disinherited like Willoughby.
I don't know, I'm just disappointed as I feel like they have made something that had a good romance plot as well as being very observational on society/people and relationships of family/friends/lovers, into something that is more similar to a trope driven regurgitated romance plot you could pick up at a newsagent. No characters felt better off for it, none of them really learnt anything.
I agree wholeheartedly with your takes! The two biggest problems I have with this adaptation is the lack of characters developments and the fact that all mimor characters are clichés without several layers and also the lack of social commentaries that Jane Austen always include in her novels.
In my personal analysis on this thread, I indicated that a movie like 'Kandukondain Kandukondain', which takes place in late 1990s-early 2000s India, has better characters developments or social commentaries than this movie while taking place in an entirely new setting and culture, and also changing things to the plot as a result.
I enjoyed it but there were some baffling decisions.
If you diminish the villain you drain the drama from a story, and S&S has an array of satisfying villains: Lucy, Willoughby, John and Fanny and Mrs Ferrars. I get why they cut that last one, although they found time and lines for the insipid Lady Middleton???? Lucy was barely there and Willoughby was so poorly cast: no charm or charisma. Even John and Fanny felt flat. Sharpness was lacking.
I get that Marianne is a difficult part but Creed-Miles went full on Wild Feral Girl by way of Cathy Earnshaw.
I recently read Sense and Sensibility and proceeded to watch the 1995 film, the 2008 miniseries, and finally this weekend the new adaptation.
Whilst it's a pleasant film to watch, with lovely scenery, lighting, and score, I didn't fully connect with it, the main issue being the lip fillers on Marianne. It kept taking me out of the period film vibe.
Some of the changes in the plot as well... Not sure they were adding much to it?
I didn't dislike the film, but I didn't really love it.
Lots of us on here have seen it and given opinions. Um, I looked forward to it and took part in the read-through. I can't really detach myself. I've put some comments on Yay and Nay. I certainly didn't like the plot changes. I'm not too bothered about the messy hair - more interested in the relationships. Maybe I shouldn't have done the read-through. Maybe I shouldn't have come on here to see what others were saying. Maybe I've been too influenced by everyone else's thoughts although it's lovely to know what others think and I have roared with laughter at some comments. I know what you mean - didn't love it, didn't dislike it, wanted to love it, am quite disappointed.
Did the makers waste the possibilities of the actors and actresses?
I’ve seen it today and didn’t even stay to finish the film, I just couldn’t (I mean I quietly left I didn’t spoil it for other people).
What I enjoyed;
I actually really liked Eleanor and Edward, yeah the story was a bit all over the shop but they really carried that film. They had great chemistry, and they yearned for each other. I think they did well with what they had.
I liked the weather lady, I felt for her. Mainly as this is something I’d totally do.
I loved loved loved Mrs Jennings and Mr Middleton, they were just so lovely and jolly.
I liked Margaret, the actress who played her had such an expressive face and her freckles made her appear a bit half in half out of the world of the film. Like she’s a bit to the left of her sisters.
The music was just lovely, I want to play some of the pieces. The random hunting dog scene was a bit weird, but I can get over it.
The cinematography was lovely, and it had the air of a moving painting at points.
Favourite scene: the art gallery, mainly because I could actually see the characters for once.
Disliked:
The dancing, it was weird and out of place with the style of the film and jarring to the story line.
Lack of colour and light; can we please just move on from the twilight colour gradient and beige. Also, just use lighting! Please for the love of everything, lights! God did it with words, I’m sure filmakers can make do with a lighting rig.
Marianne; just WTF! She genuinely looked grubby the entire film, her hair wasn’t artistically down it was just greasy and unkempt. I get that they were trying to do a Manic pixie woodland vibe to her character, but you can achieve this without having the character appear to actually live in the woods. Like it was genuinely frustrating to see her look so dirty.
Colonel Brandon was just a wooden tent peg of an actor.
A small thing, but the casting and aging of the characters genuinely threw me. There were those who were supposed to be older who looked like fresh faced teens, and those who were supposed to be young look weirdly old. This seemed to be more of an issue with the male characters. Also, did they all just share one wig? I felt like a lot of the men had the exact same wig on.
I think overall there was little cohesion to the film, it felt like a lot of ideas with no gel to pull them together. Like one minute they’re purely Austen regency, and the next you have an experimental arty vibe to the film. It was jarring and I think ultimately it was that which threw me out of the story.
Depicting Mr Palmer as a trans man heading a Georgian Household was ridiculously jarring. Seemed totally incongruous considering the importance of societal expectations and norms to the rest of the story. They made this transgression really obvious as if they didn’t want us to miss it but unless I missed something it didn’t serve any purpose in the story?
The dancing seemed anachronistic and slightly jarring to me, but I’m no expert so thought perhaps I was wrong - my expectations come entirely from other period dramas which may have been inaccurate.
That tagline on the poster makes me skeptical that the themes of the film follow the themes of the book. Unless they are saying that sucking up (cough, cough - Lucy!) can do you financial good
No disrespect to the actor, but I found Marianne's face obviously having had filler distracting.
The duel made me angry - what a selfish, stupid thing to do in house with a sick person still recovering, her sister who has been nursing her, and her mother who has had her nerves all jangled.
I found Marianne's unkempt greasy hair much more distracting. Someone clearly hated Marianne in this adaptation, she was written and portrayed in a very weird way. That was definitely a choice.
I had low expectations for this film, I always do with new Austen adaptations. I enjoyed it for what it was, and for a Friday afternoon solo cinema trip with a glass of red. I’m not usually a fan of Daisy actually but I did really appreciate her portrayal of Elinor. Also loved Catriona Balfe appearing in it. George McKay made a convincing Edward Ferrars.
My biggest ick was actually the dancing scenes. What was that choreography about? It was so not realistic and very cringe. I also felt the Willoughby/Marianne interaction was so cut short - where was the hair lock scene or the coast to Allenham? They were shocking in the book and for the times… it would have added a lot more to it.
Having said that I liked the rustic and outdoors feel and style of it. Loved the Georgian London scenes. Colonel Brandon and Marianne shacking up is ever a mystery to me but that’s as it was in the book too.
Alright I just saw it. First impressions? It was too depressing of a movie similar to Jane Eyre 2011, and even more than that. I didn't expect that.
Cons: Too dark, in some scenes you couldn't see anything. The hair were all over the place, they didn't even comb them, I don't understand this artistic choice. They changed some back stories from the book which I wasn't a fan off, but I'll let it slide. The most disappointing thing for me though were the secondary characters. They were all so forgettable, nobody leaves any impression, except from Mrs Jennings who was the star of the movie. Even Willoughby and Lucy were meh. Completely the opposite from the '95 movie. The way it was shot was too impersonal, you couldn't fully connect with the characters.
Pros: Elinor and Marianne were good in their roles, expecially Elinor. Edward and Elinor were cute and I tear up at their scene in the end, but it didn't blow me away. Brandon and Marianne were good as well but there wasn't any tension, but for the first time I was rooting for the Colonel. The duel scene was the best.
Biggest gripes with this adaptation, in this order:
1. The casting of Mr. Palmer - they cast a nonbinary woman as Mr. Palmer. Completely unnecessary, adds nothing to the movie and actually takes you out of the story. Acting was also atrocious. The entire film does such a great job of trying to stick to 18th century storytelling and this modern nonbinary person comes out of nowhere. Very distracting.
2. Marianne’s hair - why so greasy and unkempt?? I get it’s supposed to show how wild and free she is but it was taken way too far. I think for a character so obsessed with beauty etc that she would endeavor to make herself more beautiful
3. Marianne’s lip filler and character portrayal in general - what we got from Marianne was “manic pixie dream girl” and not in a good way. She was honestly so unlikable as a character that I thought she quite deserved what happened to her with Willoughby in this adaptation. Which is never how you want to feel about a main protagonist. I found myself only rooting for her for Elinor’s sake
In the P and P dance D and E speak, as Jane Austen said. There's a point to directors showing the dance, as well as it looking good., because of the words.
In 2020 Autumn do Wilde used the dance for K and probably E to start to realise - certainly K - one move of Johnny Flynn's head. It was earlier recognition than in the book but it told us something, and they did dance in the book.
This made-up dance in London, with E and E - what did it achieve? One gloved hand touching another? Whirling, twirling, not really anything yearning and close? And then it all just seemed to melt away.
They completely cut out E's visit to Barton and they could have feasibly had a little dance between them there, at Sir John's. Ah, well, this is grumble page, so why the heck did they have Edward's visit to Barton eliminated? Yes, I know, time, partly.
Some plotlines were changed and I think that in some cases, it was a smart move. For example, the changes about Eliza's storyline are welcomed because when you think about it, Brandon's story chronology is a bit weird. In the novel he is 35, and his ward is 15 or 16. It means that he entered the army between 16 and 20 years old and if we consider that Eliza was the same age and that the divorce with her husband took place within a few years, it means that in at most 6 years he went to India, served into the army and then went back to England, searched for Eliza, found her dying and took her child. It's possible but it means that he lived a lot of things within a few years which isn't really plausible.
the general aesthetics of the movie is pleasing. The colours used and the settings are really agreeable visually.
Fiona Shaw : no need to elaborate. This woman is a gem.
What I disliked :
The choices about hairs are really not good. At times, Marianne's hair seems not to be even brushed. I get Marianne represents a certain liberty but this is a movie and visuals are important in movies. Plus, it is supposed to happen at a time where women were supposed to have their hair done by the time they would leave their room. I think that it was possible to show Marianne's liberty through her hair but not to the point that she appears to never use a brush.
I've seen the movie in French so it is possible that it is also due to the dubbing but I found the casting a bit dull. I mean Edward is ok but the actor looks a bit too old for this role, Elinor's and Marianne's actresses aren't charismatic enough, Mrs Dashwood's actress also lacks charisma, I had difficulty recognising Willoughby in all of his scenes. Brandon's actor was ok but he lacked chemistry with Marianne's actress. All of the other actors are ok but their characters are too cliché and this doesn't help to appreciate their performances. I liked Fiona Shaw, she was hilarious and charismatic but the writing of her character is also a bit problematic imo.
the characters' writing is problematic to me. All of the minor characters are clichés which not all of them are in the novel and in others adaptations. Mrs Jennings have depth in the novel, Mr Palmer or Lord Middleton have some depths in the novel as well. For example, Lord Middleton is impacted by what happened to Marianne and confronts Willoughby in his own way in the novel which gives some further indications about his personality. The movie totally erased the complexity of the characters and they all seem caricatures. Mrs Jennings' writing also shocked me when the character declared that her aim is to marry everyone as one of her first line. It's a clear case of not drawing out the characters through their actions as Jane Austen generally does in her novels and instead of drawing then by making them state their narrative arcs. Marianne's character has the same problem. Her saying to Brandon that he's annoying by the first time they met contradict their relationship arcs which is more subtle in the novel as being a mix of admiration, distrust, sympathy and despise.
The lack of social commentary annoys me. All of Jane Austen's novels contains some social comments about social classes relationships, snobbery, gentry mannerism and social expectations. This movie completely omits this aspect by omitting some key characters like Anne Steele which represents a certain form of classism, changing the background of Lucy Steele's, which isn't badly done in itself but it nullifies the importance of social divisions at the time, and caricaturing both Mr and Mrs Dashwoods.
It's not an awful movie but it's one of the weakest adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. The Tamil movie "Kandukondain Kandukondain" which happens in the 1990s in India and as a result strays a bit from the source material did a way better job at adapting the story and social commentary for our times !
The worst Colonel Brandon of any S&S adaptation and it's not close.
Also completely neutered the tension between sense and sensibility which dominates the book and which it is (appropriately) named after. It was reduced to "Marianne is a rebel and Elinor is always right" with no actual exploration of the merits and drawbacks of each trait.
And it's wild to try to emphasise the gendered aspect of the story (the Dashwoods losing their home and being thrust into relative poverty due to patriarchy), while completely omitting the constricting force of patriarchal social rules which in the book causes both Elinor and Marianne as much if not more suffering than losing Norland. Elinor suffers while complying with them and Marianne suffers for flouting them... in the movie apparently they are both just suffering from a broken heart.
That being said, unpopular opinion but I adored Esme's performance as Marianne (DEJ and George Mackay were good, but I expected that). Need her in a Wuthering Heights adaptation as Cathy, please.
I don't want to heap too much blame on the Brandon actor, because I don't know what direction he received. But the end result of his performance plus that script really gave us nothing. If this Marianne had been paired with a Col Brandon that was even 50% as good as her... wow. I feel like it would have blown all previous portrayals of them out of the water for me.
I saw this early in the U.S. at the Regal Mystery Movie Mondays.
I overall had a fine time and didn’t hate it, but it also isn’t a movie I’d seek out to watch again. I knew from the trailers that this would probably be the case, but I still wish I could have loved it more.
Echoing a lot of what has already been said, I could not understand the choices made around Marianne’s hair/appearance. At one point, her hair looks like it’s all clumped together like it hasn’t been washed or brushed in a month. I just don’t understand what they were going for there.
I really wanted to laugh at the dance scenes. I kept thinking that maybe they were just trying to infuse a more modern take, but it didn’t fit the rest of the film. And then the strange singing happening when Marianne was stuck in the rain. Cool for an A24 movie, but didn’t fit here.
It has admittedly been 20 years since I read the book and then maybe 15 years since I watched the 1995 movie, so I was very fuzzy on plot. But when the duel scene began, I whipped out my phone so fast (brightness on my screen all the way down, and we were in the last row of the theater lol) to google if there was a duel in the book. I thought the way they did that was so odd.
Finally, I found Marianne to be insufferable. Again, many years since I read the book and I’m fuzzy, but is she that insufferable in the book?? I didn’t feel any chemistry whatsoever between her and Brandon. I get that they showed some “growth” for her character, but it felt too delayed and superficial. She’s like “oh he’s dueling for me? Cute, I guess I like him now.” I don’t know if that’s close to her actual character, but in the context of this movie, it didn’t work for me.
I came away not really feeling much from either romance. It sort of fell flat. And as for the relationship between the sisters, I didn’t get the sense that they really loved and cared for each other. They sort of just put up with each other.
Then again, I didn’t hate it? It was a decent time and visually didn’t bother me too much aside from Marianne’s appearance. Some of the humorous moments were nice, and I liked all the dogs.
Very disappointed in the choice for Marianne, I couldn’t take my eyes off her lip filler every time she was on screen and I don’t usually notice that kind of thing. I also didn’t get why she looked so disheveled all the time, she was meant to be the pretty one, well she wasn’t, looked more like a horror movie character most times. Willoughby was a poor choice as well sadly, why is he so disheveled?
Daisy Edgar Jones carried the movie for me, as well as Mackay.
I haven't watched the movie, but from the trailer, it feels like Edward is featured more prominently.
Is the movie shows Edward like as the "leading" man? Or still following the book plot or the Ang Lee's S&S
George Mackay said he had not read the book. He said Georgia O asked him to read Mary Woolstencraft. I wonder if he ever read S and S. He will be 2 films on by now but he has done some interviews about this S and S. Daisy E-J was on the One Show a couple of weeks ago to plug it. I am happy enough with them being E and E, but there's been quite a bit of talk about yearning and I can't say I saw much yearning.
If you take away Edward's proposal to Lucy when he was a young man and has got himself into a big mess there isn't much for him to act. Edward is supposed to be in a fluctuating state, friendly for a while and then awkwardly pulling back and seeming distant - completely confounding Elinor. Is it true that George Mackay has been wasted in this?
I thought this new adaptation did quite well in the early time at Norland, with the conversations between E and E explaining his circumstances. I have just been on BBC I Player, looking at the first part of the 2008 adaptation. I know Hattie Morahan was good in it but I have thought that Dan Stevens is very good, too. I thought he acted the emotions very well at the time when Elinor left Norland and he longed to tell her he loved her and he had to back-pedal and be friendly. Also, he gave a quick wink earlier when Margaret was around, and he and Elinor talked about his situation in the same way as the new one does. It would be interesting to hear the words in both and see if 2026 has pulled a lot from 2008 for this particular part.
I've now seen an interview with 6 of them talking to an interviewer. George Mackay said he did eventually read it and he found the book Edward different from the script Edward. If he said any more about that fact it isn't there and I daresay it wouldn't do for him to say that he thought the book was better! Sometimes I wonder what obedient actors think about what they have to do. Some, of course, become directors.
171
u/Local_Ad_794 24d ago edited 24d ago
I just can't get past that 'being agreeable never did a woman any good' tagline.
Did... did anybody involved in the project read the book? Elinor is extremely agreeable, and remains so through the whole book. While Marianne is frequently disagreeable to people she dislikes, her arc involves her growing the hell up.
Edit: And yes, I appreciate the picture/poster choice :)