Sense and Sensibility

I have reviewed every adaptation of Sense and Sensibility and find that they are all good in their own way. Many have commented about each version, but I believe the 2008 version is the best version. It had the cast skills of the Emma Thompson 1995 Screenplay and the accuracy of the 1981 adaptation. Many find the 1981 version boring, but I disagree. It is ill-cast. But the screenplay is very good. (I even read that people were angry that Margaret was absent in this version. Actually, she is absent in the book as well. Why Austen even included her in name I cannot understand.) Anyway, if you take the cast of 1995 and put them into the 1981 screenplay, you come out with the 2008 adaption. Hope this is not too confusing.

I am very surprised about some of the reviews for this. Fans are spoiled with Sense and Sensibility because it is one of the few period novels that has had an excellent big budget Hollywood production (the 1995 Ang Lee film). So anyone who has seen the film and then has come across this 1981 BBC TV adaptation will in comparison find this much less exciting I am sure. However, I watch many many older TV adaptations, I have watched much of the Dickens, Hardy, Bronte, Austen etc from 1970 onwards. And I can say with certainty that this is a really good version for its time. Sense and Sensibility was adapted 10 years earlier (1971) and that version is very low in budget and quality. I gave that one a 6/10. It is unusual for the BBC to remake it so relatively soon after but you can totally see why they wanted to do so. You can tell that they took everything that didn't work in the 1971 version and improved it to create a much better version. In this version the pacing is excellent, there is no filler and each scene logically and with explanation moves on to the next. The short 25 minute episodes also assist in keeping the momentum flowing. The casting is much better in this one, each of the characters are unique and identifiable and similar in age to the characters in the novel (unlike the 1995 film for instance). All of the characters connections to each other and motivations in any given scene are clear well presented. There are no hugely enduring actors in this one which is perhaps unusual but everyone does their job well. There is no doubt in my mind that Ang Lee saw this version and held it in high regard because the 1995 film feels like a movie remake of this version in many ways.

Emma Thompson(Elinor) in the 1995 version scripts herself more time on screen compared to Kate Winslet(Marianne).This version focuses on BOTH of the sisters equally. This version is far more faithful to the novel than the movie made in 1995. The only flaw in this version is the mysterious disappearance (non-inclusion) of the youngest sister, Margaret.

The advantage this television version has over the later 1995 film version directed by Ang Lee is that due to its length it allows more important scenes to be shown. This good BBC version keeps in the visit of Edward Ferrers to Barton Cottage and of Willoughby to see Marianne when she is ill. It also deletes the third sister Margaret, which I think is to the good.

It is important when doing Jane Austen not to over act, as suppression makes for tension, and in this the actors do a fine job. The scenes between Elinor Dashwood and Lucy Steele are excellent, seething and polite at the same time. Julia Chambers as Lucy Steele is excellent and equally as good as Imogen Stubbs in the 1995 film.

The male actors are not all bland, Donald Douglas gives a jolly performance and Peter Gale is perfectly unctuous as John Dashwood, but also sympathetic, caught as he is between a domineering wife and mother in law. Bosco Hogan and Robert Swann are a bit dull however.

This is not a sumptuous Hollywood version but fine on its own terms.

An excellent adaptation of the Austen novel, though the production values can`t compare with the later film. The script is faithful to the original. The performances by the male leads are a bit bland.