Aristocrats

It's some time ago I saw this mini-series, adapted by Tillyard herself and based on her marvellous biography about the Lennox sisters. The biography is one of the best I've ever read, so my expectations were pretty high. Fortunately I was not disappointed. Like in most English literary adaptations all the details, settings and costumes were perfect, and the story about the Lennox sisters have everything you could wish for: love, court intrigue, tragedies etc. It's so absorbing that you almost forget that it isn't fiction, but real people with real and dramatic lives! All the actors were great, especially Jodhi May as the unfortunate Sarah Lennox. If you didn't get enough of the series, then read the biography!

As another reviewer noted, there are so many children that it is very difficult to keep up with who is who, and this problem increases as the series moves on... Also, although every series that purports to show time passing has to deal with making the actors age, in this one, the oldest daughter looks exactly the same after about 20 years!

The costumes and settings are certainly BBC-worthy, although as a Yank I could not tell if they are accurate or not.

The plots are also confusing, but that is party because the English history of that era was pretty complicated, with the factions, and uprisings, etc.

Based on a true story, Aristocrats follows an English aristocratic family, who claims royal blood and status via Charles II bastard lineage. The convoluted time-line in fits and starts, takes place prior to the American Revolution on through to the Irish uprising in 1798.

The story starts out interestingly enough, but at about part 3 of 6 you begin to wonder if there is a point to the story. The last 3 parts are simply depressing. More than anything, the time-line begins to rapidly fly by without any specific storyline accountability nor historical grounding. The casting is odd in general. In particular, as the characters age, the casting changes are really horrible choices that offer no consistency or context of character and plot.

If you've nothing else, you may find this a mild diversion. But all in all, this doesn't measure up to the BBC's standards.

The first episode of this is somewhat similar to a Jane Austen style story, though it is set in the mid-late 1700s rather than early 1800s. After the first episode or two, it becomes generally more serious and more broad. The costumes are very different from Austen films (being set in the preceding era), but they are very beautiful and very accurate to the time period. The dresses are much more glamorous, even though the men look rather sillier in my opinion.

I'm not sure how close this telling matches to the actual history of this family--I'm assuming there are at least some discrepancies--but even thinking it is at least based on real people and real stories makes it much more interesting to watch. To think that this wasn't simply invented by an author (no offense to Austen!) makes me much more tolerant of any lags or disagreeableness in "plot", since it's not supposed to be a contrived one. There are many, many characters, which may be hard for some people to keep track of who's who, and many decades are covered, so time sometimes passes in large chunks.

The film is a drama and deals with some very serious issues, to a greater extent than Austen ever delved into. Much of it is somber, but not really depressing. The movie is less of a source of "entertainment" than Austen films, but it is a great look at another era and the story is intriguing enough to keep you wondering what will happen next. It does not leave you so much with the blissful smile of contentment and happily ever after that an Austen story provides, but I felt like I had gotten to know and feel for the main characters, and learned some things about history in the process. It's a great choice if you're interested in venturing into another time period, rather than the Regency (Austen) or the far more common Victorian (Dickens, etc) eras.

This movie would be especially good for passing a lazy, rainy afternoon, when you'll feel more content with this milder sort of entertainment than what your expectations might be for a Friday night. Just get a cup of tea or cocoa and let yourself drift back to another time and world for a while.

This was fabulous. It gets 9 out of 10. What keeps it out of the 10 category is the fact that two big questions are raised in part 2 that part 3 (the conclusion) fails to answer.

First of all, what happens to the fifth sister, Cecilia? She first appears in part one as the late-in-life child of the second Duke of Richmond and his duchess. Still a baby when they die, she is sent to Ireland with Louisa and Sarah to be reared by Emily and her husband.

In part 2, the reappears as a teenager. When the family learns that Sarah, now married and back in England, is pregnant, she wants to go and help with the new baby. Emily is afraid that she is too weak to travel, having just recovered from an unspecified illness, but she lets her go anyway.

The next time we see her she looks very ill indeed, but nobody pays any attention. Emily has come to England to argue with Caroline about who should be blamed for Sarah's bad situation, with Louisa along to mediate. As they quarrel, Cecilia leaves the room, and we see what they miss: she's coughing up blood. When come into the hall, still shouting, they fail to notice that she has collapsed in a corridor.

So what happened??? That's the last we see or hear of Cecilia? Did she die? If so, didn't the sisters get back together at least for the funeral?

Maybe I need to read the book.

The other question is: since Sarah, at least as played by Jodhi May, seems to have lacked something in the personality department, how did she manage to inflame the passions of so many men?