Sense and Sensibility

"Sense and Sensibility" (1971), directed by David Giles, is one in a long list of successful BBC adaptations of novels by Jane Austen. The BBC productions are known for their high production values. I was surprised that another reviewer found the production values to be just adequate. I thought they were excellent. (Not excellent for 1971, but truly excellent.)

As always with the BBC, the ensemble acting is very good. Both Joanna David as Elinor Dashwood, and Ciaran Madden as Marianne Dashwood are beautiful in a slender, graceful way. (And they could easily be sisters.) The three male leads, Robin Ellis as Edward Ferrars, Clive Francis as John Willoughby, and Richard Owens as Colonel Brandon act well enough, but somehow they didn't stand out as vastly different from one another. This differentiation needs to happen if the adaptation is going to be fully successful. I thought Ellis was excellent as Edward Ferrars, but Francis as Willoughby wasn't dashing enough, and Owns as Brandon didn't strike me as a military hero.

Patricia Routledge, as the kindly but very talkative Mrs. Jennings, steals every scene in which she appears. Hers is a supporting role, but it's her character that you'll remember when the details of the rest of the film begin to fade.

Of course, Austen's novels can be painful to see or read in the 21st Century, because women's roles were so constricted and their options were so few. For women like the Dashwoods, their main concern had to be to make a good match. A well-bred young woman could hope to be a wife and mother, or she could be a governess, but that's where the choices ended. Although both women profess a certain indifference to marriage, the reality was that marriage was the one realistic option open to them. A bad marriage would ruin their lives, so they had to take infinite care. Gossip and intrigue swirl around all the young women, and the gossip and intrigue inevitably revolve around who is going to marry whom. The book--and the film-- reflect this reality, but it's not a pretty picture, especially from our historical perspective.

As in any other film portraying rural 19th Century England, this movie would look better in a theater. However, it was made for TV, so it doesn't lose too much on the small screen. We saw it on DVD and it worked very well. This is a very good movie that's worth finding and seeing.

Usually television adaptations of period pieces are better than films for those who like things to be faithful to the text. The classic BBC adaptations are usually steadfast in their respect to and faithfulness to the text. So I really enjoy watching them as they are educational rather than being Hollywoodised and truncated as tends to happen in movies. So I watch a lot of BBC novel adaptations. Most are from 1970 onwards because before this time not a lot of TV was recorded (actors performed live), and that which was has been deleted over the years by the BBC. So this is one of the earlier extant BBC period adaptations. So it is really low budget. At one point Marianne describes that it is raining but it is clearly a sunny day where they are. The BBC budget couldn't stretch at the time for waiting until another day when it is raining to shoot the scene. But the respect for the source material is clear. So it is enjoyable in this regard. However, at 3 hours long I think it packed in far less detail than the shorter 1995 movie. As the 1995 movie was such an unusually good movie adaptation of a period novel, it kind of renders this version useless. However, it does have charm and is perhaps worth a watch for die hard Austen fans. It was remade by the BBC again only 10 years later. Im guessing that this one has higher production values and is more pleasant to watch or I don't know why they would have justified remaking it so soon after this. I will watch that version soon and let you know.

I really enjoyed the music in this (1970s) adaptation - many newer ones have a soundtrack that's not of the era / too much that it distracts from the actors.

The writing is a pretty faithful version, and much longer than other productions. Mrs Jennings has a bigger part, which is quite surreal for those of us familiar with Patricia Routledge's iconic role as Hyacynth Bucket in 'Keeping Up Appearances' - which I now feel was at least 20 years in the making. And Mrs Palmer is a chip off the block too.

Clive Francis as Willoughby is also a precursor to his later performance as Miles in 'May To December'. With these comedy connections and the good use of original dialogue, there's much in common with Emma Thompson's (1990s) movie.

Some actors & actresses play a part which is so indelibly fixed in the public mind because their own personality is so similarly shaped like the part they assume that sometimes they receive acting awards for authenticity.Such is the case with Patricia Routledge who played Hyacinth Bucket in the 1990s sit-com "Keeping up Appearances".In the 1971 TV series of Sense & Sensibility Hyacinth (Patricia) looked 25 years younger than her most famous part when she played Mrs Jennings who takes a surrogate mother type role to the two Dashwood sisters Marianne & Elinor.

The innate characteristics of actors can never be entirely counterfeited despite the passage of years.Each of us carries a unique blueprint of our personality with us for life.So it was that I immediately spotted Joanna David as Elinor from when 24 years later she would play Mrs Gardiner in the highly acclaimed TV mini series of Pride & Prejudice.I suspect also Robin Ellis earned his laurels playing Edward Ferris for his most famous role of Poldark.

I also noticed the director, Denis Constanduros also directed another TV Jane Austen classic of "Persuasion" in the early 1970s which I can recommend and which I saw on YouTube earlier.I preferred Kate Winslet's Marianne (1995) to that of Ciara Maddern (1971), & Charity Wakefield (2008) probably because her character concentrated more on her musical ability, a time in history of romantic poets and musicians & composers which I love.I awarded this 1971 version 8/10 as it was well produced and acted and not studio bound but had some interesting location shots.

It's always intriguing to see how various adaptations stand compared to others, and Jane Austen's novels seem to of gone through periods of remakes in TV. There were a host of adaptations in the early 1970's, again in the 1980's and most notably in the mid to late 1990's. Naturally versions in the 1970's are bound to be studio set, but sadly for this version of Austen's first ever novel, that is the least of it's problems. Indeed, you could say the set designers have tried to do their best with what budget they had - it's more than can be said for the scriptwriters, performers and casting directors.

Sense and Sensibility sees Mrs Dashwood (Isobel Dean) and her two daughters Elinor and Marianne (no third child Margaret here) forced to find accommodation elsewhere after her husband dies and her stepson John is persuaded not to settle half his inheritance on them by his manipulative wife Fanny. Now in "poverty", they are forced to downsize and move to Devon to live in Barton Cottage (complete with an old maid when they get there), where Mrs Dashwood's cousin Sir John Middleton lives nearby. Soon both daughters have their heads turned, Elinor's (Joanna David) by Edward Ferrars, her sister in law Fanny's brother, while Marianne (Ciaran Madden) falls for the charms (such as they are) of John Willoughby when she injures her ankle when on a walk out in the country. However, life and true love is never that simple, and both girls have to go through a trial of emotions and tribulations before we get to the end of the story.

Sadly, I felt I'd gone through a trial myself sitting through this lazily made production. Out of the 1970's adaptations of Jane Austen's works, from Persuasion (1971) to Emma (1972), this was the disappointment of the lot. The other two, especially Persuasion, had their merits and were at least treated with the time and respect the material deserved. This adaptation, by comparison, seems to of been rushed out, with the acting lacking any nuances or depth and the screenwriting seemingly jettisoning the subtleties of Austen's wordplay that make her works a joy at times to watch. Indeed, this seems to have no feel for the Regency era in which it is set, with characters being blunt and as sometimes downright rude (yes, I mean you, Marianne), which is something no lady of that era would of spoken or even dared to. But what cripples this adaptation the most is it's lazy - and frankly ludicrous - casting. Most of the main "young" cast are so old if they had been 10 years older they would of had to of used the cast from Last of the Summer Wine. And so many are just unsuitable for the roles.

For example, straight from the off you are meant to feel sorry for the Dashwoods, but Isabel Dean is such a miserable ratbag as Mrs Dashwood that you cannot blame stepson John from kicking them out as soon as possible without a penny, so unbearable is she and Marianne (I'll get to her later). If I'd of been him, I'd of moved them to the Outer Hebrides and then emigrated. Then there is the casting of Clive Francis as Willoughby, who looks and sounds like an ageing East End gangster rather than a young, good looking cad. Peter Woodward was far better in the 1981 version at capturing his youthful appeal, but with Francis you feel sure any self respecting mother would of locked the doors and sent their daughter off to the nearest convent than allow a Willoughby that looked like Clive Francis near their child. Then there is the casting of Robin Ellis and Richard Owens in the important roles of Edward Ferrars and Colonel Brandon. Looking at them, it would of made more sense to reverse the roles, as Ellis (Poldark himself) is far too good looking for the part of the reserved Edward. As it is, he plays Edward as a stuttering, slightly bumbling and somewhat guilty character. With Bosco Hogan as Edward in the 1981 version, he always maintained a sense of decency, even when he is confronted with Lucy Steele when he goes to visit Elinor. When the same scene is played here, Ellis' Edward looks horrified and decidedly shifty when confronted with the sight of Lucy - though that may be because he's seen her in daylight.

Then there is Richard Owens as Colonel Brandon. With a hairstyle that makes him look like an overfluffed Dandie Dinmont, he unfortunately has all the charisma of a Speak Your Weight machine and as such is deathly dull as the decent colonel (though how decent when he is interested in a girl under half his age is debatable). And how was Frances Cuka cast as Lucy Steele? She is supposed to be young and attractive enough to entrap a wealthy young man into an engagement, but if so Edward must of met her in a blackout. Cuka is far too old for the part and too openly cunning and spiteful, and isn't helped by being lumped in costumes that resemble a galleon in full sail - though at least she moves well, like a dalek on valium. If only they had given valium to Ciaran Madden as Marianne. At 29, she is far too old to play the part of the 16 year old Marianne - indeed, in real life she was a good 5 years older than her 'elder' screen sister Joanna David! I know Marianne's character is supposed to be young and impetuous, but with Madden playing her she comes across as a rude, whiny, neurotic, spoiled drama queen overdosed on prozac. Her manners are so blatantly rude at times, whether to her hosts or to guests that it makes you wonder how the family ever managed to get invited to events ever again. And her constant complaining proves so wearisome you begin to wish for her to be kidnapped or befall an illness - as it is, when she does (fall ill, not get kidnapped, no such luck), even then there is no escape, as she still talks even during her 'comatose' fever!

The few positives come from two sitcom stars of the future in Patricia Routledge as Mrs Jennings and Michael Aldridge as Sir John Middleton. Aldridge is full of joie de vivre and enthusiasm as Middleton, and a welcome distraction from the mainly dull or miserable playing of most of the other cast and it's a shame that he only features in half the episodes. But it's Routledge who is the star of this adaptation, a tour de force of a performance that lifts this production off it's feet whenever she is on screen, sparking everything into life. Goodness knows where this adaptation would of been without her, but she is a joy to see whenever she appears. The only other one of any note, and the only one who seems to have any feel for Austen's etiquette and manners is Joanna David as Elinor. Although this adaptation doesn't give her much leeway when it comes to developing emotional depth in the character, she at least looks and feels the part and as such is a dependable and likable lead. But despite their efforts they cannot prevent this from being a disappointing and frankly poorly constructed adaptation. Inexplicably they change a number of things in this version, including the nature of a key storyline involving Colonel Brandon and a young girl who in this is described as his niece - missing the whole point of the plotline and the indelicacies Brandon found himself having to deal with. It has no real feel for it's era or it's language and proprieties, and coupled with it's poor casting and little emotional depth from most of it's performers it remains a poor effort compared to other versions. The BBC would do a far better job ten years later with the charming museum piece adaptation of 1981, while Emma Thompson would have great success with the truncated film version in 1995. This can only really be viewed as a curio for how NOT to adapt a Jane Austen novel - not unless you have no respect for the subject whatsoever, that is.