Sinn und Sinnlichkeit

If it wasn't for Jane Austen's novels and their screen-adaptation, we wouldn't be much familiar with the English gallantry and the bourgeois manners of the early 19th century. Her oeuvre encapsulated a time where women didn't have a way to go through life without landing on the "marriage" square, hardly an issue to please feminists but who would call Austen traditional or submissive for all that? She respected the conventions but made powerful social commentaries in the indirect sense that her female protagonists never married someone they didn't love. Marriage was the end, but love was the means to achieve it, while marriage of convenience was the privilege of the mediocre ones.

Now, there is an interesting point of comparison between her two most celebrated novels: "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice". "Sense" was Austen's first success, written at a very young age, yet it deals with characters evolving in the realm of adulthood, while in "Pride", written by an older Austen, the heroines are the Bennett Sisters who aren't older than twenty. It is just like Austen was a painter who had to go to the top of the mountain to have a clear view on a plain after having painted the mountain from the plain. With enough experience and wisdom, she was able to make a brighter portrait of a young generation who get the man through their actions. In "Sense", the Dashwood sisters are fully-dimensional characters, Elinor (Emma Thompson) is reserved and introverted while Marianne (Kate Winslet) is romantic and flamboyant, they're more mature than the Bennetts sisters, but at the expense of their reactivity.

In "Pride", luck and men's valiance were not elements to count on, and many round trips allowed the heroine to confront her suitor. It is possible that "Pride" was a bit too modern while "Sense" was more obedient to the perception of women's role at the time (rather static), but the directing by Ang Lee and the screenplay worked in such a way that the quest for marriage isn't actually the most interesting part of the film. And while I don't think I give away the ending by saying that each one will find the true love, it's obviously not the point of suspense; the real question is how these people interact. And just like your typical Austen's stories, there's a good deal of passions and deception, or romantic studs popping up at the right moment and forcing the women to all align in the house to promptly welcome their host. Some are dark and brooding (Alan Rickman) other shy and amiable (Hugh Grant) and a few too perfect to be true (Greg Wise) but they all have one thing in common, they're conveniently called to office in London whenever marriage seems too close, a snobby bitch or karma playing the same game postponing the overdue rendezvous with destiny.

But as predictable as these films are, their quality is elsewhere, starting with the acting. Literary movies have this quality that the abundance of words and plots can sometimes distract from simpler moments that actually elevate them more than any monologue or speech. This moment occurs when Edward (Grant), is ready to confess something to Elinor. They have spent enough time together to grow a deep feeling. He's about to say something about his… you expect the word "feeling", he says "education", and you can see something click in the blink of an eye in Thompson's face, 'devastation' as it would really show in a woman who learned to hide her feelings. There's no doubt that Emma Thompson is one of the greatest actress of her generation. On the other hand, Marianne will also face abandon and the reaction will fit her passionate personality. While, the plot in itself can be summed up by women waiting for the right men to come, so (God forbid), they don't end up as bitter spinster, there is more to enjoy, the text and more importantly, the subtext.

And on that level, Jane Austen's stories are exhilarating hymns for eloquence and literacy, whether when the characters write intimate correspondences, share their personal thoughts with their friends or relatives or try to convey a strong message by still respecting the conveniences, I just can't resist by the way Shakespeare's language is being honored. You finish the film and you just want to express your feelings with the same economy of obviousness or flamed passion when called for, and a similar urge generally invade me when I finish the Ivory and Merchant movies. There is something just irresistible in these British heritage films, they make you realize how close we still are to these times by the scale of history, but light-years ahead as far as mediocrity and plainness is concerned.And it's a credit to Austen's writing and Thompsons's rewriting (earning her an Oscar) to have translated the story in a tone that wouldn't make feminists' neck hair stand up and wouldn't portray men as misogynistic pigs.

The film says something important: the strength of your character doesn't depend on what he or she accomplishes but how it can strongly affect your own feeling or how can they resist the cruelties of life without necessarily triumphing over them. All through the film, I was totally rooting for Marianne, Elinor, their mother (Gemma Jones) and the way they endorsed or rebelled against conventions at crucial times where simpler things were complicatedly expressed. Indeed, everything that happened is due to something said, a promise or a misunderstanding. It's all in the way words are used, misused or distorted and that's one of the many delights in this lavish movie.

Whoever says they just don't make the quality of pictures today that they used to hasn't seen or is ignoring this film.

That Emma Thompson is one of the greatest actresses working is no secret. But who would have expected such a miracle from her in the screenwriting department? Some of the most dramatic moments in 'Sense and Sensibility' come from her pen, not Jane Austen's, difficult as that may be to believe. For instance, the scene in which Col. Brandon (Alan Rickman) carries in the ill Marianne Dashwood (Kate Winslet), echoing the earlier scene where Willoughby (Greg Wise) brought the injured young woman home was Thompson's doing. Marianne's illness also is responsible for much more drama in the movie than in the book. And I'm an Austen fan! I can't recall another writer bringing so much good of his or her own to a classic like this.

I suppose the director, cinematographer, production designer, etc. deserve to share the credit when a movie is this outstanding, but with such a super group of actors on the screen (from top to bottom) it's easy to heap all the praise on them. I had unconsciously (and unfairly) pigeonholed Alan Rickman based on the other role I'd seen him in, the villain in 'Die Hard,' so he was quite a surprise to me. The real bombshell, however, was my first exposure to Kate Winslet. After seeing this movie and Kenneth Branagh's 'Hamlet' I can say I can't remember another young actress who has impressed me so much. And she played these difficult roles by the time she was 20! Many of the other cast members are a part of an excellent group that Thompson and Branagh have often worked with in the past.

I realized that 'S&S' had become one of my all-time favorite movies when I found myself watching it every chance I got when it came on TV. I think it's bumped 'Raging Bull' off my personal top 10 list.

It's not easy to get seniors to do anything, even watch a movie and when you mention Jane Austen, they zone out. Yet each year when we do this film in class, about 80 percent end up loving it and that includes the guys. It's wonderful to watch them respond to the characters and get into a film that is so "talky" when they have been used to high action. To hear the girls call Willoughby a jerk and applaud Brandon at the end is great, but to listen to the boys comment on the behavior of the various characters is even better. How they respond to a society so filled with strict manners and codes of behavior also makes this film worthwhile and it generates much discussion about the importance of money in life; well, even Thompson in the commentary said the film is about money, who has it and who does not. I love showing this film to my students; after the groans when I start it on the first day, it's wonderful to hear their comments on day five when we finish. As one senior male said this year, "I wouldn't have rented this or wanted to see it, but now that I have, I admit it was pretty good, so I'm glad you showed it." This is why they are classics, kiddies.

Normally period adaptations need at least a few hours to do proper justice. And so it is usually the television versions that are better for those who like things faithful to text. Film versions usually truncate and romanticise/Hollywoodise which can be frustrating. However, films have bigger budgets and better production values so are easier on the eye. However, this is a shining example of 2.5 hour film which packed so much detail in for a real complete sense of the novel, but also with great faithful performances, at the same time as being great to watch with all the production values and cinematography or a big budget movie. One of the better film adaptations of period pieces ever.

What an excellent film! Superb performances, spellbinding dialogue, and beautiful sets and props led to an enchanting 2 hours of lost love and hope. I loved the stiffly formal, wonderfully polite, yet stifling mores these English were forced to endure. In many cases their lives were not their own to live; in many, their lives were lived under the gun of the almighty buck. They carried right on, however, with their characteristically stiff English upper lip, come what may. Great film with a knockout ending.