Raison et sentiments

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.

This is one of the best of the recent Jane Austen films, from one of her weaker books. Emma Thompson has done a fine job of the script, not slavishly remaining faithful to the book but not abandoning it either.

The cast are uniformally excellent. I especially liked Kate Winslet's Marianne and Alan Rickman's Brandon. Emma Thompson's performance is almost good enough to make you forget that she is far to old for the part. The supporting cast are all excellent.

Ang Lee's direction shows the same skill that it did in the excellent Eat Drink Man Woman and the scenery and costumes are beautiful (perhaps too beautiful).

This is more romantic and less comic than say Emma, and Thompson's script wisely stays away from the kind of set-piece gags seen in the recent film of Emma. All in all, this is excellent.

A wonderful enactment of Jane Austen's first novel from 1811, in which two sisters at the marrying age suffer from affairs of the heart. One has an inclination towards common sense and decorum (Emma Thompson), and the other, an emotional side, with great sensitivity to passion and romance (Kate Winslet). In addition to the heartbreak that comes from unrequited love and bad behavior from men, the film also makes clear the limited options women had in 19th century England, with paternalistic inheritance laws and limited employment options, something I liked about it.

The production quality is very high here, with cinematographer Michael Coulter and director Ang Lee putting beautifully composed images on the screen, the costume and set designs truly taking us back in time, and an all-star cast delivering excellent performances. Winslet and Thompson each have several fantastic moments, and the supporting players are all rock solid as well, e.g. Alan Rickman, Hugh Grant, and on down the line. (Although Hugh Grant, much as I love him, always seems to be playing Hugh Grant, hair included here).

A period drama is not one I would ordinarily leap to watching and this one certainly has its share of melodrama, but it's true to the period and the original work, so if you're looking for a great adaptation of classic literature, look no further (and oh, how I wish there were more such productions of the classics of Russian literature!). Just as importantly, though, the film drew me in from the beginning and kept up a good pace, managing to not feel overly stuffy or antiquated. Emma Thompson did a great job with the screenplay, and was worthy of the Oscar she won for it.

Wow, here's an emotional story that gets you involved and wears you out by the end. I wears you out not from action, but from watching two good ladies suffer heartbreaks one after the other. This is not my normal viewing fare but I am big fan of two things this movie has to offer: (1) Emma Thompson and (2) incredible visuals.

Few people were better in the 1990s at playing the sensible-sweet-wholesome and pretty and-always unfairly ignored woman than Thompson (see The Remains Of The Day and Howards End). Your heart aches for this woman whose characters always deserve better than what they receive.. Her facial expressions alone convey pain better than anyone I've ever seen on film. This is perhaps her best work and it was justice she was honored for it.

It was refreshing to see Alan Rickman actually place a nice guy and Kate Winslet was appealing, too - a far cry from spoiled brat role in the film that gave her stardom, Titantic.

One tip that I found useful in watching this movie. If you are not British, you might switch on the English subtitles to better understand the dialog and the phraseology of early 19th century England, in which this story takes place.

The only problem with using the subtitles is that it detracts from marveling at these visuals. This is one of the prettiest films I have ever seen, on both the inside and outside scenes. It's just gorgeous cinematography frame after frame with beautiful colors. Nice music score, too.

This kind of story is a bit too soap opera-like for my normal tastes but to watch Thompson and to ogle the colors, sets and scenery makes it all a rewarding experience. For women who like these kind of Jane Austen stories, this must really be a special film. For the rest of us, it's still very much worth seeing, and adding to one's DVD collection. It''s great film-making.

After seeing Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth I wouldn't expect myself to like another JA adaptation so much, but I confess I did. P&P stays my favourite but S&S is very close.

I can't agree with some of the comments that Hugh Grant wasn't proper for Edward Ferrars. Yes, maybe his age didn't match Emma Thompson's exactly but I think he acted wonderfully. His speech especially and stiff walk. I loved the scenes at the beginning where he made friends with Margaret Dashwood and played with her. It was so sweet.

My favourite, however, was definitely Colonel Brandon! I think Alan Rickman was just perfect for that role. I've seen him only as professor Snape in the first Harry Potter film, so I can't compare very much but I would say he is a great actor. I love his voice (especially when he says "What can I do? Give me some occupation, Miss Dashwood, or I shall run mad.), love his intonation and how he cares for Marianne so tenderly and patiently even though she turns her back on him. You can see the suffering in his eyes!

I first read the book and didn't like it much but after seeing the film I'll reread it. I highly recommend JAusten's books to anyone who hasn't read them yet and likes JA's adaptations.