Tag Archives: jane austen

Great Romances – Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy

Posted on April 26, 2012 | 4 Comments

When it comes to epic romances, no couple does it better than Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy.  Their love story has inspired generations, and you could argue that it marks the beginning of the tradition of the Romance Novel.  Not just the Romance Novel, but several generations of films as well.  Whichever your favorite casting, there is no doubt that these two personify all that is romantic.

The brilliance of Elizabeth and Darcy is that they were never meant to be.  The Bennets were decent enough folk, but they were nowhere near the level of the Pemberly set.  Jane Austen does a great job of portraying this whereas sometimes the film versions clean things up.  The fact is that Elizabeth was the daughter of a middling man and a meddling woman.  She herself was intelligent, but not exactly a classic Regency heiress.

Darcy, on the other hand, was a man of wealth, if not title.  He had a vast estate and at least one relative that could claim the moniker “Lady”.  He was clearly a catch, although Austen never goes into the details of how his family made its money or how far back it goes.  It was enough to have Lady Catherine De Bourgh maneuvering him into marrying her daughter and to have Caroline Bingley falling all over herself to nab him.

Elizabeth and Darcy were an even more unlikely pairing because of their approach to society.  Elizabeth was open and witty, almost sharp.  She had no problem socializing at balls and private gatherings.  She was bold enough to go out walking on her own for amusement.  Darcy, on the other hand, was painfully shy.  He disliked being in company and hid his discomfort by being a bit rude and aloof.

Yep, on paper there was no way these two should ever get together.

But as we all know, they did.  Why???

Well, because as we all know, a single man in possession of a great fortune must be in want of a wife.  That and because they were the perfect compliments to each other.  Elizabeth brought Darcy out of his shell and spurred him to action while Darcy tempered some of Elizabeth’s fire by making her see the truth beyond the way she imagined it must be.

But it wasn’t easy getting there.

First, there was that whole bad first impression thing.  Let’s face it, our dear Lizzy jumped to conclusions without getting her facts straight at that first ball.  She got the idea in her head that Darcy was proud and she wouldn’t let it go for the longest time.  Darcy, for his part, really didn’t know how to deal with women.  He didn’t know that he came off as a jerk or how to fix it.

Then there was that little problem of Wickham.  There’s nothing like a handsome, smooth-talking rogue walking into the picture to feed a girl’s prejudices and turn her head.  Bless her heart, but Lizzy judged the books by their covers and held fast to her ill opinion of Darcy and her good opinion of Wickham.

Fortunately, it all fell apart in spectacular fashion.  I was always impressed by the letter Darcy wrote to Elizabeth after she tore him a new one and refused his proposal.  Not only did he present the facts to make Lizzy see how mistaken she’d been, he did it in the most user-friendly way possible for her.  If he had tried to visit her again and say all that in person she would have scratched his eyes out.  Because Elizabeth Bennet is nothing if not impulsive.

But what makes this such a fantastic love story is the way Darcy came to the rescue, not just of Elizabeth but of her entire family.  And he did it after he’d been smacked down hard by the object of his affection.  Darcy knew he’d been wrong and he tried to make it right.  He owned up to Bingley and encouraged him to go after Jane and he forced Wickham to make an honest woman out of Lydia.  What makes Mr. Darcy the ultimate romantic hero is the simple fact that he is a great guy.

So in the end Lizzy wised up to the prize she’d had sitting in front of her the whole time and Darcy broke his usual introverted habits to risk proposing again.  And they lived happily ever after, or so we presume.

Now, I’ve never read any of the pseudo fan fiction continuations of the Elizabeth/Darcy relationship that are out there.  Maybe I’m too much of a purist.  I would rather imagine the continuing story of this epic romantic couple being so tranquil and satisfying that it doesn’t make for a good story.  But if you think any of the multitude of stories written about their later life are any good, let me know.

As for the film versions….  Well, can anything really come close to the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version?  That mini-series is one of the best things that has ever been put on film.  Not just for the leading couple.  All of the supporting cast is brilliant, from Mrs. Bennet to Mr. Collins to Lady Catherin and Mr, Bingley and Jane.  The casting is so perfect and they all shine.

But I also happen to really like the Kiera Knightly/Matthew Macfadyen version too.  I think that one captures the true status of the Bennet family and the society of Meryton a lot better than the clean and proper 1995 BBC version.  Plus Matthew Macfadyen is wonderful eye candy.  Not that Colin Firth isn’t, mind you.

Then there’s the first adaptation I saw, the Greer Garson/Lawrence Olivier 1940 version that we watched when I was in high school reading the book for the first time.  All I remember from that one is the style of acting.  Maybe it was good, who knows.  And let’s not forget the Bollywood version, Bride and Prejudice.  Believe it or not, this adaptation totally and completely works.  And it’s funny and has Bollywood dance numbers.  If you haven’t seen it you really are missing out.

So there you have it.  Elizabeth and Darcy.  One of the greatest romances in literature.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Great Romances

Tagged , , ,

The Rules of Romance

Posted on March 22, 2012 | 9 Comments

Your story has a love story.  It has characters feeling a powerful attraction.  That attraction effects the plot.  The characters may even fall into bed together at some point.  But are you writing a Romance?

courtesy of favim.com

I’ve had some interesting discussions with fellow writers recently who feel that their work could be considered a Romance.  I tend to be of the school of thought that says Romance as a genre is pretty darn specific, but that other genres can have Romantic Elements to them.

So, to avoid confusion and answer a few questions about whether you’re writing Romance or not, here are The Rules of Romance.

Rule Number One:  The story is about the Characters.

There are plot-driven stories and character-driven stories.  The Da Vinci Code is a classic example of a plot-driven story.  It’s about what happens.  The characters are relatively weak by comparison and react to the plot.  Lots of mysteries, thrillers, and crime novels are plot-driven.

courtesy of valentinesdayclipart.net

Romance is character-driven.  Sure, there’s an external plot, something is happening that is effecting the lives of the characters.  But the story is about the characters.  In fact, the story IS the characters.  More specifically, the story is about the hero and the heroine falling in love and coming together.  Everything else that happens informs that internal plot.

Rule Number Two:  From the moment the hero and heroine meet, they are exclusive.

That doesn’t mean that they are instantly a couple.  That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other influences working to tear them apart or bring them together.  It means that from the moment they meet neither one has intimate relations with anyone else.

Now before you argue with me, yes, there are exceptions.  Erotica is an exception.  Erotica is a sub-genre of Romance in which the characters can have multiple partners (among other things).  There are other exceptions on a story-to-story basis too, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

Granted, this can be a fine line.  I read a Romance novel recently, Notorious Pleasures, by Elizabeth Hoyt, where the hero is actively *cough* interacting with another woman when the heroine meets him.  It’s pretty funny, actually.  But from that point on, nope.  He’s met the heroine so all other activities are off-limits.

Actually, as I think about that I might be wrong.  The hero might actually pop off to entertain another lady at some point (it’s kind of his thing).  But Elizabeth Hoyt is a RITA Award-winning, NY Times best-selling novelist.  She can get away with it.  Chances are you can’t.  But again, I’ll get to the rule-breaking in a second.

Rule Number Three:  The hero and heroine must get together at the end and it must be a happy, emotionally satisfying ending.

One complaint that I hear a lot about Romance is that you know what’s going to happen before you even start reading.  Boy meets girl, boy and girl are kept apart, boy and girl get together in the end.  Yeah.  Duh.  It’s a Romance novel.  Of course that’s how the story goes.  The key to a good romance novel is to create characters that are compelling enough that even though you know the truth, your emotions are taken on a journey where you worry for them, you get swept along with them, and you experience relief and joy at the end when the pay-off comes.

One of my favorite examples of this is Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park.  Of course you know from page one that Fanny Price is going to end up with Edmund.  But for a while there it looks like she might actually choose Henry Crawford instead.  And personally, I happen to think he’s the better choice.  But I’m not Jane Austen.

In my novel, The Loyal Heart, this rule is followed, but you might not realize who the hero is when you first start reading.  I did that on purpose.  But sure enough, the hero and the heroine do get together in the end and it’s an emotionally satisfying ending for the reader.  Not necessarily for some of the other characters, but that’s why it’s a trilogy.

Happy ending.  ‘Nuff said.

 

Breaking the Rules:  Yes you can.

Rules are meant to be broken … to a certain extent.  But as I have been told time and time again, and as I pass along to you, you have to know the rules of the game really, really well before you can break them.  Writers at the top of the genre can get away with breaking the rules much more than those of us just starting out.  But keep in mind, if you break the rules too much then you’re not writing a Romance anymore.  If the plot suddenly becomes more important than the relationship, you’re not writing a Romance.  If the hero and heroine don’t get together in the end, you’re not writing a Romance.

I have experience of this first-hand … and someday I’m going to infuriate a lot of people because of it.  The couple in one of my novels does not have a happy ending, ultimately.  The heroine dies in childbirth.  The hero has to move on as a single dad.  His story becomes one of grief and redemption and learning to love again.  But I’m not going to tell you which story it is until it’s good and written.

So there you have it.  The Rules of Romance.  So are you writing a Romance after all?

But don’t take my word for it.  Here is the official explanation of the genre from the Romance Writers of America (of which I am a member).

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Writing

Tagged , , , , , , ,

History on Film – Regency House Party

Posted on December 9, 2011 | 6 Comments

Ladies and gentlemen, behold!  One of the most awesome things to ever grace a TV screen!  PBS reality TV.  It’s not an oxymoron, it’s a stroke of genius.  There are several of these PBS reality TV series, but since I’m on a Jane Austen kick these days I give you…

In this series five single men and five single women (and their chaperones) from the modern world went to live on an estate in the country as if they were living in the year 1811.  They were taught all about the culture, rules, and history of the time period.  Their challenge was to live as if they were back in time … and to make the most advantageous match.

This might well be the most fabulous thing that has ever been put on TV.  This show captures so many things at the same time.

First, it is a well thought out look into what life in the Regency was like.  I’m not sure how it played out for the participants in the show as it was being filmed, but judging from the final product the participants were introduced to themes, ideas, history, and culture of the time period a little bit at a time.  It would take me all day and then some to go into the details of everything that was covered, but here are some of the highlights for me.

Regency clothing.  The show goes into great detail explaining all of the various pieces of clothing that men and women had to put on every day in 1811.  It was all about layers.  Your average person in the Regency didn’t have nearly as many choices in their wardrobes as we do now, so they had to take special care of what they did have.  Part of that was underwear.  The show has a few great segments about both men’s and women’s undergarments.  But that’s only the beginning.  About nine layers after you started you were dressed.  I think there’s one segment where one of the gentlemen talks about how tight those gorgeous men’s coats really are and how the stiffness sort of forces you to have good posture.  Well, one way or another, they all look really good in those coats!

Another segment that struck me was one in which the ladies discover just how restrictive life as a Regency gentlewoman was.  They could only go downstairs if their chaperone went with them.  The activities they were allowed to partake in were limited and usually very docile.  And they almost never had any direct contact with the men.

The men, on the other hand, had a vigorous and active lifestyle with a lot of freedoms.  They could go almost anywhere they wanted to go, behave as badly as they wanted to, drink at all hours, take snuff, stay up late, and walk around with considerably less clothing than the women.

Not that that was particularly period or acceptable.

Actually, that’s my favorite part of this series.  It’s a hoot to watch these modern people trying to adapt to a lifestyle that is far more restrictive than our own.  Guess what?  They don’t always make it.  The rules are broken, sometimes in grand style.  Both men and women appear at various points in states of shocking undress or venture where they are not supposed to go, associating with people they are not supposed to associate with.

One of these naughty dalliances really made me think, actually.  The show contains a May-December romance – a younger man with an older woman.  The point is made at one point that with the young ladies kept away from the young men so strictly, it was no wonder inappropriate relationships sprung up between younger men and older women.  To me it sounds like a case of society’s rule shooting itself in its own foot.  Really interesting stuff.

Masked Ball by candlelight? Yes please!

And yes, ultimately it’s all about the romances.  Even though these are real, modern day people, they do have a mission to make the most advantageous matches.  The participants took this seriously … as characters.  There are enough romantic intrigues in this unreal reality to write a slew of romance novels.

If I had been a participant and/or living in this fantasy where the people were real, I would absolutely, positively gone after Captain Jeremy Glover.

Captain Glover with Miss Braund

He is so completely my type!  Well, my type on screen.  I wonder if I might have wanted to smack him in person.  He’s an impish little trouble-maker at times … and a hopeless, kind-hearted romantic at others.  And yes, I did create a hero in a Regency-set story based on him.

I could say so much more, but you should really see for yourself.  I went on YouTube to see if maybe they have a trailer for the show, but voila!  They have the entire series on YouTube!  Here is Part One, which does a very good job of teasing the entire show within the first two minutes, so think of that as a trailer.

Yes, I would live here for 9 weeks pretending I was in 1811.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in History on Film

Tagged , , , , , ,

History on Film – Becoming Jane

Posted on December 2, 2011 | 9 Comments

I saw this film the first time with a group of friends.  Opinions were split.  One of my friends thinks it’s the worst movie she’s ever seen.  Personally, I love it!  And I’ll tell you why I love it ….

First things first.  Is this an accurate portrayal of the life of Jane Austen?  No.  It isn’t.  But it isn’t as far off as I assumed it was when I sat in the theater enjoying it.  Being the Jane Austen nerd that I am, I immediately started researching as soon as the film was over.  And thanks to a few wonderful books I managed to find* I discovered that some of it is surprisingly close to the way things really happened.

Yes, there was a man named Tom Lefroy with whom Jane had a brief, intense relationship.  Apparently they really were in love but couldn’t take it any further because neither of them had any money and he knew he needed to marry someone with money.  Now, the exact details of that relationship are sketchy and while it is true that Lefroy later named his first daughter Jane, Jane is a fairly common name and we have no way of knowing whether Lefroy carried a torch for our Jane Austen for the rest of his life and vice versa as the film implies.  He did go on record as an old man, in real life, mind you, as stating that he had been very much in love with Jane.  So basically the filmmakers took one teensy shred of a hint of a story and blew it into an epic romance.

Fine by me!  Because whether it’s true or not, Becoming Jane’s tale of tragic romance and love that could not be requited because of money and duty is a really good story.  I don’t care that it’s barely true.  It’s entertaining.  And I’m not gonna lie to you, I cry when I watch it.

Of course half the reason I’m crying is over Anne Hathaway’s accent.  Sorry, but that’s the worst part of the entire movie.  Anne Hathaway shouldn’t be playing Jane Austen.  In my opinion she doesn’t have the right presence for it.  Although, if what my research tells me is true, Jane had her moments.  Apparently she could be cranky and sharp and downright nasty at times.  Partially because of the chronic illness that eventually killed her (possibly Addison’s disease).  Anne Hathaway can pull off that kind of peevishness but I don’t think she does wit so well.

However, what the film loses with Anne Hathaway it regains with Anna Maxwell Martin in the role of Cassandra Austen, Jane’s beloved sister.  I think I have loved everything Anna has ever done, but this may be one of my favorite roles for her.  The film uses the tragedy of the untimely death of Cassandra’s fiancé very well.  Honestly, those bits are the ones that make me cry genuinely.  She does such an amazing job of portraying grief and strength.  More Anna Maxwell Martin movies please!

I love Becoming Jane because in spite of the inaccuracies of Jane Austen’s life, I consider it to be a fantastic portrayal of the time.  Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Regency!  Not just the Regency of London society full of dukes and duchesses as so many romance novels are.  This is the Regency of ordinary people.

I like the way the Austens are portrayed in this film.  They have a modest house.  They worry about money.  Jane has to feed the pigs.  Mrs. Austen has to grow her own potatoes.  Everyone does domestic work in the middle of everything else they’re doing.  Their lifestyle is neither too glamorous nor too pitiful.  The family is together, complete with a few guests.  They visit their neighbors and go to parties.

Oh yeah, and they play cricket!  The cricket scene is very possibly my favorite part of this movie (of course! This is me, the cricket nut, we’re talking about).  But what I can’t figure out is if they bowled differently in the Regency or if James McAvoy just can’t bowl overhand for some reason.

Again, that’s exactly why I love this film.  It’s full of the things that people did all day to entertain themselves in the Regency.  Jane (and Lefroy) goes for walks.  She reads books and plays the piano.  And, of course, she writes.  She also gives readings at special occasions.  This was back in the day before television.  It’s only natural that people would socialize and entertain themselves with live performances of readings, music, and good old fashioned conversation.  All of these things are depicted so well in the film.

And I can’t resist a good ballroom scene.

Oh my gosh, I love all Regency ballroom scenes!  And I really want to learn to dance like that.  This film does a very good job of depicting a conversation on the dance floor.  In the Regency that was one of the few times that men and women could actually interact and have a conversation without a chaperone breathing down their neck.  I imagine a web of mass confusion as men and women tried to remember intricate steps and keep the thread of a conversation at the same time.  Otherwise it was a very separate world.

I think the early scenes with Tom and Jane’s brother Henry out drinking and whoring are fantastic in the way they portray the other side of the Regency.

Life was rough and fast and reserved only for men and women of low virtue.  But that life was definitely there.  And if you notice, Henry never gets into an ounce of trouble for all his indiscretions, even though Tom’s uncle frowns at him over it.  Men could get away with a lot back in the day.  You don’t generally see that in a straight-up Jane Austen adaptation (with the exception of Mansfield Park (1999)).

One of the biggest and best surprises for me in this film was the character of Wisley, the dull “booby” who wants to marry Jane in the middle of the film.

Not only is Laurence Fox pretty awesome the way he plays the character with such awkward stiltedness, by the end of the movie you can’t help but think that, actually, he might just be the perfect husband.  He’s got everything you would want in a Regency buck.  He has money and the promise of more, since he’s set to inherit his aunt’s estate.  He apparently doesn’t get up to all the crazy stuff that Tom and Henry get up to, so no chance of accidentally giving his wife a venereal disease.  And by the end you realize that in spite of being socially awkward he is a caring, sensitive guy who does actually have the balls to stand up to his aunt when he needs to.  I like the character (find me a man like that please!) and I like the way the film portrays his relationship with his aunt and his navigation of the social responsibilities of a gentleman at the time.

(Interesting side note: I remember reading when this film first came out that Laurence Fox was actually an outstanding dancer even though Wisley is supposed to be a clutz, whereas James McAvoy couldn’t get the dances right to save his life and they ended up having to do take after take after take because he kept screwing up.)

In fact, the film in its essence is about the social responsibilities people in different positions had at the time.  Wisley and his aunt, Tom and his family back in Ireland and his uncle, Jane and her family, complete strangers who think it’s okay to meddle in other people’s business by sending letters to Lefroy’s uncle in London, etc.  Plus it’s fun to watch the movie and guess which of Jane Austen’s characters the writers of the film were trying to pin on the characters in her life.

So that’s what I think of Becoming Jane.  And now, for those who haven’t seen it yet or just want to remember it fondly, I leave you with the official trailer:

Oh yeah, and James McAvoy is really easy on the eyes!

*Hannon, Patrice. 101 Things You Didn’t Know about Jane Austen: the Truth about the World’s Most Intriguing Romantic Literary Heroine. Avon, MA: Adams Media, 2007. Print.

Pool, Daniel. What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: from Fox Hunting to Whist : the Facts of Daily Life in Nineteenth-century England. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. Print.

→ 9 Comments

Posted in History on Film

Tagged , , , , , ,

Sense and Sensibility vs. Sense and Sensibility

Posted on November 18, 2011 | 9 Comments

Every once in a while a film adaptation of a classic comes along and is so outstandingly good, so mind-blowingly awesome, so Academy Award-winningly superb that all other adaptations had better hang up their hat and call it a day.  And every once in a while, say, 14 years later, another adaptation comes along that makes you stop and blink and think “Wait a second, this is pretty darn awesome too!”

Ladies and … who am I kidding, ladies, I give you:

My experience of seeing the 1995 Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility is one of the three best movie-watching experiences of my life.  I went with two dear, dear friends and my Mom.  Each of us, me, my friend Adriane, and my friend Shawnne, fell hopelessly in love with a different man in the cast.  I of course fell in love with Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon.  The ride home from the theater when we each stood by our man and fought for their virtues is one of my favorite memories of the entire 90s.  I cheered super loud when the movie won all those awards.

Last weekend I watched the 2008 Andrew Davies version of Sense and Sensibility while hanging out by myself, enjoying some peace after a busy week.  Okay, I’ll confess that I got this version from Netflix because I’m currently super obsessed with Dan Stevens (also of Downton Abbey fame).  I wasn’t expecting more than eye-candy.  Wow!  Yay for exceeding my expectations!  This three-part mini-series, shown on Masterpiece Theater in America, was really, really good.

But which one is better?

Let’s break this down….

The Ladies:

In the 1995 version Emma Thompson plays Eleanor and Kate Winslet plays Marianne.

In the 2008 version Hattie Morahan plays Eleanor and Charity Wakefield plays Marianne.

At the time, Winslet was an unknown (to me at least) but I knew exactly who Emma Thompson was.  That made her more accessible to me.  Watching the 2008 version I had to get used to both actresses in the lead roles.  I kept thinking “are they right for the parts?” “does this work?”.  I did get used to them eventually and I really came to like Morahan’s performance.  But who is better?  Well, it all comes down to age.  I remember thinking in 1995 that Emma Thompson seemed a little old to be playing Eleanor, try as they did to make her look younger.  Hattie Morahan, on the other hand, looks exactly the right age to me.  Eleanor is supposed to be in her early 20s.  Marianne is 17.  Both Mariannes look to be about the right age.

That said, I have to give this one to the 1995 cast.  Thompson is way too old for the part, but she’s a brilliant actress.  The way she comes apart when she finds out Edward is not married is classic.  Kate Winslet is fresh and charming and a little mad as Marianne, which is exactly as things should be.  She also gets points for singing.  And for making me believe that she actually could love Colonel Brandon.  Not so for Charity Wakefield.  I bought Wakefield’s crazy teenager persona, but I didn’t think for one second that she would ever love Morrissey’s Brandon.

That being said, let’s tackle the easy ones for the men first.

In 1995 Colonel Brandon was played by Alan Rickman.

In 2008 Colonel Brandon was played by David Morrissey.

Alan Rickman wins this one hands down.  HANDS DOWN!  His Brandon had depth and passion.  His eyes spoke volumes.  He smoldered, he pined, and when he asked Eleanor to give him something to do or he would go mad you truly believed it.  Rickman’s Brandon personified all the things Marianne was truly longing for in a man.  When she realized it at the end it was only natural that a genuinely passionate love would develop.

David Morrissey, on the other hand, bless his heart, was just a big, brooding guy.  I’ve liked him in other things, but here he was a pale comparison to Willoughby.  His facial expression never seemed to change and his eyes did nothing.  When Marianne agreed to marry him at the end I finally agreed with the assessment of one Jane Austen essayist who postulated that Marianne knew she would never be happy after Willoughby’s betrayal so she settled.  Alan Rickman never made me feel that way.

Another no-brainer contest (at least for me – I expect to get arguments on this one)

In 1995 Edward Ferrars was played by Hugh Grant.

In 2008 Edward Ferrars was played by Dan Stevens.

I personally think Dan Stevens walks away with this one.  He played Edward with an easy, honest charm that Hugh Grant just didn’t have.  Even in 1995 I felt as though Hugh Grant was walking around in a waistcoat that was too tight with a stick up his butt.  I just don’t buy him as a straight-laced, vicar-wannabe.  To me his performance seemed stilted.  I don’t think Grant understood how to play a man trapped by a foolish mistake and his own sense of duty and morality.  He seemed lost in the clothes, lost in the sets, just lost.

Dan Stevens, on the other hand, was remarkable as a tortured soul who just wanted to do the right thing.  He made you like him from the moment he walked on screen.  You could totally understand how Eleanor was so attracted to him and how much he longed to be with her.  I think part of the credit goes to Andrew Davies for giving Dan Stevens and Hattie Morahan an emotionally (and in a brilliantly stifled way sexually) charged scene while Edward is chopping wood for the Dashwoods.

He is in agony because no one is there to help the family.  He is torn by his technical sense of duty to Lucy Steele and his visceral sense of duty towards the woman he truly loves and her family.  It’s pure magic!

So yes, in the end Dan Stevens is the MUCH better Edward.

Now it gets a bit trickier.

In 1995 Willoughby was played by Greg Wise.

In 2008 Willoughby was played by Dominic Cooper.

I think I’ll call this one a draw.  True, Dominic Cooper is a better age for Willoughby.  But Greg Wise is equally as charming.  I personally prefer Dominic Cooper (again with the eyes – he has delicious eyes).  But the chemistry between Wise’s Willoughby and Winslet’s Marianne is great.  And Wise feels a little more redeemable in the end to me.  But his killer sideburns are annoying.  Cooper gives me the feeling of being disreputable up until the end, but I also believed him when he said he genuinely loved Marianne.  So this one is up to you.  Take your pick.

Other players.

Okay, there’s no beating around the bush.  Hugh Laurie has the best cameo appearance ever in his turn as Mr. Palmer in the 1995 version.  For such a small, curmudgeonly character he has some of the best lines of the entire film.  And I’m talking one-word lines.  The scene where he responds to his wife, who states that she is so excited she can’t contain herself with a sharply drawled “try” had me in tears of laughter.  His facial expressions are amazing.

On the 2008 production’s side, one of the most outstanding minor characters is a character that isn’t even in the 1995 version.

Daisy Haggard played the self-absorbed, obnoxious, mile-a-minute talker, can’t keep a secret to save her life, hysterical Miss Ann Steele, Lucy’s sister, so brilliantly that I looked forward to seeing her on screen.  And I looked her up in imdb as I was watching to see what else she’s been in.  She was so fantastic that she made the 2008 Lucy Steele look drab and stupid.

Which brings me to 1995’s Lucy, Imogen Stubbs.  Stubbs made Lucy dumb as a post but conniving enough to convince you that she would throw Edward over for his brother the second he’d lost the money.  She has a way of batting her eyes in such a way that makes you think there’s nothing in her head but the daggers she’s about to stick in your back.  So understated, so brilliant.

As for the story, well, it’s the same story.  In fact, I thought some of the lines were exactly the same.  They probably were, considering they were Jane’s words.  But even the staging felt the same in many places.  I did like the cottage by the sea in the 2008 version much better as a way to show the level that the Dashwood women had sunk to.  I liked the way the director used the incessant sound of the waves in the background to help drive home the point that that kind of exile was driving them crazy.  Everything else was pretty much the same in terms of quality from one version to the other, costumes, music, scenery.  To me it was the acting and casting that sets these two adaptations apart.

So which one do I think is better?  Now you know I’m not going to answer that.  I liked them both.  They each have their strengths and weaknesses.  But what do you think?

Here are the trailers for each to help you make up your mind:

Oh, and since, like I said, I’m currently obsessed with Dan Stevens (who is the template for the hero in my NaNoWriMo story), here’s another mouth-watering picture of him.

→ 9 Comments

Posted in History on Film

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,